digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Obama: I'd Hire Gore

huffingtonpost.com — At a town-hall meeting, Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president for his Cabinet to handle global warming. "I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 04/03/2008, -155/+44Now that's the kind of a job Gore could handle.
    He can claim victory because there really is no global warming and he can waste all kinds of taxpayer money chasing a problem that does not exist.
    The only way those compouter models show global warming is by omitting all data from volcanic activity.
    Yeah, bring on Gore. Look how successful he was when he spent eight years reinventing government!!
    • Raphae1, on 04/03/2008, -16/+59You must be pretty stupid to think, that only you thought about volcanic activity but thousands of climate scientists around the world forgot about it.
      • petrodollar, on 04/03/2008, -8/+13Volcanic activity is only responsible for a tiny fraction of atmospheric CO2 and pales in comparison to the amounts produced by the burning of fossil fuels. HTH
        • Railz, on 04/03/2008, -6/+11While I believe we're producing a lot of CO2, the sentence isn't entirely true. Recently it is yes, but there have been single basalt floods in the past that made the entire human history production of CO2 look like a joke.
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -12/+7Petro,
          Humanity is responsible for about 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The bulk of the stuff comes from geologic sources - volcanoes among that - and the rest comes from biologic sources. You really gotta get your facts straight here before you start damning folk for theirs.
          • petrodollar, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You're an idiot.
          • frazw, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3Even if that were true there is this thing on this planet called an ecosystem. We are tampering with it, not only producing more CO2 (2% is a lot extra for the ecosystem to deal with) we are producing far worse (e.g. NOx, SOx, Volatile organics, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, particulate all directly harmful to us) and on top of that we are responsible for considerable deforestation etc which reduces the capacity of the ecosystem to deal with the extra.
            I would assume that if the planet does indeed have cycles of high CO2 to low CO2 the consequence during high CO2 levels would be favourable conditions for plant life to grow, e.g. hotter, damper more CO2 for photosynthesis etc. When these plants grow in they would then reduce the CO2 levels again. A fine balance is needed and if that is the case in the past there was likely no problem. These days we interfere with and control plant growth so the balance could not be redressed.
            That is merely a hypothesis I don't intend it as gospel truth or anything just one of many possible theories but to my mind a very plausible one.
            Regardless we are playing russian roulette by ignoring the possibility we are responsible. Is it not just better to put the gun away instead of pulling the trigger? If nothing else the quality of air we breath would considerably improve.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/03/2008, -2/+12Madoc, you might want to check YOUR information: http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?request ...
          I'll summarize for you- volcanic emissions are currently only .22% of human-generated CO2.
          You really should make sure of YOUR sources before you accuse others of intellectual laziness.
      • FaceCage, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1While It's obvious global warming is happening. It is true that Krakatoa emitted more C02 than we (humans) have.
    • Petron10, on 04/03/2008, -10/+4kyle?
    • eliot2000, on 04/03/2008, -17/+53I agree! Global warming is fake!
      Also: AM radio also told me the light in light bulbs is Jesus! I'll fight you to the death to prove it, because I know my conclusions before I have to think about them.
      No proof that disagrees with what I have decided to believe, no matter how undeniable, will ever dissuade me!
      I am indestructible!
      Huzzah!
      • noahhoward, on 04/03/2008, -11/+16You know you're doing the exact same thing you accuse him of. Gore ignores or slanders the scientists who disagrees with him and labels them as 'fringe'.The IPCC hasn't got a 'consensus', we've actually shown signs of cooling, ALL of the weather pattern changes predicted to date have been wrong and a load of data was found to be from flawed sources. Gores behaviour alone shows why that cabinet position should be filled by a scientist not a politician.
        • ThugThrasher, on 04/03/2008, -5/+8Trust me. Do your research. Find the funding of scientists who research this. Find out which scientists have said afterwards their findings were influenced by political pressures.

          You'll notice a trend.
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -10/+5Thug,
          Who cares what the funding source is if the info is accurate! "It's a Big Oil Stooge!" is a perfect example of ideological closed mindedness. Look at the facts - bear the source in mind - but look at the facts.
          The Earth's climate has not warmed for a decade now. That's a fact from NASA's own climate measuring satellites. NO GLOBAL WARMING since 1998. None of the IPCC models - and certainly not Al Gore - predicted that one. The southern hemisphere has been experiencing record cold winters for years now. The Antarctic ice mass is _GROWING_ not shrinking. The oceans are not warming either. And the Sun's latest solar cycle is late - and that means it's gonna run cooler. Look at the facts here guys. Man caused "global warming" is and has always been a lie.
          • ncairns, on 04/03/2008, -1/+8"The Earth's climate has not warmed for a decade now. That's a fact from NASA's own climate measuring satellites. NO GLOBAL WARMING since 1998. None of the IPCC models - and certainly not Al Gore - predicted that one."

            Eh, not so much. An unusually strong La Nina trend in 2000/2001 did result in a cold winter, but 2001 was the second-warmest year on record until 2002, 2003 was the third warmest, 2004 the fourth, 2005 the first, and 2007 tied 1998 and 2002 for second warmest.

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2001/

            (Just edit the URL for the applicable year - 2006 is missing for some reason.)

            "The southern hemisphere has been experiencing record cold winters for years now."

            You know that means absolutely nothing about the planet as a whole.

            "The Antarctic ice mass is _GROWING_ not shrinking."

            Antarctica isn't actually a particularly good index of global climate change, despite the attention paid to it by both sides. Areas of it are growing, and others are shrinking, but on the whole its size actually fluctuates very little. What we would see in Antarctica would be much less gradual than what we'd see everywhere else, but by the time we got to that point it would almost certainly be too late to do anything about it - recent studies suggest it may be already.

            "The oceans are not warming either"

            Not true. Prominent studies published by NCAR and NOAA in 2000 and UCSD's Scripps in 2005, and various less-prominent studies by various agencies and institutions throughout the past five years, have shown that the oceans are indeed warming. The NASA report you're no doubt citing is interesting, but far from conclusive, and also far from supportive for your position. The oceans do not warm or cool uniformly. In fact, oceanic heating and cooling trends are some of the most poorly understood dynamics on the planet. Over the next few years the new Argo buoy system should give us a better picture of how the oceans have or haven't been impacted by global warming. The guy most often quoted on the NASA survey, Josh Willis from JPL, also stated that "[t]he lack of warming over a period of a few years isn't really that surprising, because of all the natural variability," he said. "It's a bit of a mystery what's going on with sea level." From what I understand (I sorta, kinda know the guy through a few channels) he's not happy he's being quoted by opponents of global warming research as lending credence to their cause.

            "And the Sun's latest solar cycle is late - and that means it's gonna run cooler."

            The Sun really doesn't much factor into this. In a geological context, solar flux has been quite stable for at least the last 10,000 years. There was a slight upward trend in energy output until the mid-80s, but since then it's been stable or decreasing, and the warming has, if anything, accelerated.
          • eliot2000, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2These are all good points, all difficult to dispute.
            But you've completely overlooked one important fact:
            Global warming is fake!
            Check and mate.
          • orangefly, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1global warming is just a conspiracy to get us all to switch to cleaner forms of energy....wait...i guess that wouldn't be so bad....
        • ncairns, on 04/03/2008, -0/+6Your facts are completely wrong, but I *do* agree that any high-level position in climate change should be filled by a climatologist.

          Gore is great as a public advocate, but he's not a scientist.
        • BastionKane, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3No consensus huh? Well what do you call the fact that from 1993 to 2003 out of hundreds of scientific papers published about global warming not a single one disagreed disagreed with global climate change theory. Since then global warming has only gotten worse.
          If you feel like checking my source it's the article "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" In the 306th issue of the highly respected, simply named journal "Science."
          • noahhoward, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2The IPCC didn't disagree that there was a warming trend either, they didn't agree that it was man made and they didn't agree that it was going to be a huge catastrophe.
      • PropCulture, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1I logged in just to tell you your comment KILLED me. Huzzah!
      • Beto0707, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1In the 70's there was "consenus" that the world was cooling and we were all headed into an Ice Age. It's clear that the climate is a big tool for politiacians to use to scare people.
    • RepubOperative, on 04/03/2008, -18/+16Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism and states of Sadams attempt to obtain nuclear weapons.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64


      "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
      Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

      "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
      Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
      • Di0genes, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4Yes, Gore is (or was) a closet neo-liberal hawk. His running mate was Lieberman, remember.
      • timbellomo, on 04/03/2008, -2/+13Way to quote out of context, Repub! That speech was *against* a hasty invasion.
        http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09go ...
        "I believe this proposed foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of exactly what may lie before us."
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 04/03/2008, -7/+3Don't turn this into a "Repub/Demo" thing. They're both inseperably tied. Remember Cheney said the same thing years ago? lol. Both of you are using peoples words out of context. But the message is clear, no politicians words should be taken as absolute truth. We can not escape our own bias for our chosen favorites. I am biased for Ron Paul, you are biased for Democrats, and Repuboperative for Repubs, of course. Let's just go where the truth is and stay on topic. Which is global warming and the fact that not only is there no conclusive proof FOR global warming, but that scientists are banning together and fighting against the popularization of faulty science. Was it, or was it not the coldest winter on record? Did the sun melt the polar ice caps on mars and pluto, or did it not? Let's examine key issues that could spell the death or exposition of the topics we are interested in.
          • timbellomo, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4I was just calling *****... is that not ok? that makes me biased?
            my use of the word "Repub" was due to the posters name...
          • ncairns, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4"Was it, or was it not the coldest winter on record?"

            No.

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ ...

            "Did the sun melt the polar ice caps on mars and pluto, or did it not?"

            The evidence that Mars is experiencing warming is far from conclusive, and Pluto is so poorly understood that it's ridiculous to try to extrapolate anything of terrestrial implication from the limited observations we have on it. It is logically obvious, however, that if the cause of global warming on Earth were the Sun we would be observing definitive analogous warming on a majority of bodies in the solar system. Not just 'maybe' on Mars and Pluto.

            The reality, speaking as someone with some experience in climatology (I'm in CS, but I've consulted on a few climatological computer models) is that while there is no definitive proof of global warming, there is without a doubt sufficient empirical evidence supporting its existence to sway the opinion of anyone not in the pocket of Big Oil. That sounds unfair, but my honest experience has been that when you find someone who dissents from the consensus on global warming they are generally funded by people with a direct monetary stake in 'disproving' global warming. Simply, the evidence against global warming is anecdotal and cherry-picked.
      • fletcherrr, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Thanks for citing the same speaker and date two times. My attention span equates to roughly a half-line of text, so you're a godsend.
      • justincoombs21, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1and what is the relevancy to global warming? you are simply attacking the person- you could also say that in 6th grade he threw a rock at a fellow student... thereby his global warming tirades are dis-credited...

        this is a blatant non-sequitor
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 04/03/2008, -17/+10*sighs* I thought "I" was going to have to go on a rant about why global warming has not been conclusively proven, but not only that, but Gore's "documentary" was wrong on many fundamental levels and he is actually being sued for fraud about it.

      But no no, ignore me, listen to the lobbyists and Washington politicians who can't wait to profit from a "Global Warming Craze". I know as a venture capitalist, I was. You can bet your bottom dollar all my former colleagues were in the same boat, "Profit from dumb American consumers". Sorry,t hat's just the way it is. Now, I don't think like that, and I want to help. but you don't want me to. Oh well... Back to square one.
      • cwgannon, on 04/03/2008, -3/+9Right, right. It's just us stupid bitch-ass Americans that believe in this global warming mumbo-jumbo.

        Kyoto? What's that? ICPC? What's that?
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/03/2008, -6/+10i can't believe how naive you are. Stop watching fox news. You're officially stupid.
    • jm4847, on 04/03/2008, -7/+210/10
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2in the Olympic belly flop competition.
    • pprovo1, on 04/03/2008, -12/+5Global warming is another sham...just on the other side of the spectrum. There are MANY notable inconsistencies with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"...just look it up. There have been other movies made challenging his allegations and his data.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Riiiight. even hard core conservatives don't believe that anymore, the only remaining argument is whether humans are 100% responsible for the phenomena or a little less then 50%. conservation of energy and whatnot... please, please employ the facilities offered to you at birth.
    • gencha, on 04/03/2008, -1/+7Let him use the money you would otherwise spend on raging war. Taxpayers wont pay more than they are now, there would be peace and possibly catastrophes could be avoided. Basically a win-win situation.
    • deanimate, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4i really hope im still around if global warming starts screwing up this planet to the extent that its blatantly obvious that it is indeed real. Oh to see the faces of all those disbelievers.
      idiots.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2i'd rather not have that kind of damage to the planet.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You are.
      • madoc62, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1You want more global warming? Okay, just wait around another fifty, sixty years or so. By then the coming _cooling_ cycle will have about run its course and we'll be back to a warming cycle. In the meantime, be sure to save up all the "man caused global warming" rants so you can reuse them in the future. Save on paper and ink that way, dontchaknow.
        If them boys back in the 70's who were screaming "GLOBAL FREEZING!" had been smart they'd have saved their screeds from then so as to bring back out now.
    • minorthreat, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4The earth is still flat to right? When you look up at night and see all those lights, You can get a glimpse of heaven shining through all those little holes in the darkness.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2wow, I thought people were claiming there was no missing link! and he can type!
    • Ebonsteel, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2My god, Repukes are idiots.
    • iainc, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Cashman, you really are a dumbass.
    • foofighter828, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Cite a peer reviewed study that discredits global warming and everyone will agree with you.

      Disliking Al Gore has nothing to do with science; the only thing a scientist should have emotional attachment to is the process, not the result.

      Science is not Fox News with talking heads shouting it out.

      I invite you to end the "controversy" once and for all by meeting the above challenge.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/03/2008, -96/+26I'd hire Gore to be my toilet, then I'd eat a bunch of fish tacos and fiber tablets.
    • buhbyebot, on 04/03/2008, -23/+7Hey, I had the same thought about your mom, but she's already a -working girl-.
      • Jovensdesciple, on 04/03/2008, -20/+5Stick to the topic sir. Like balls stick to your chin.
        • buhbyebot, on 04/03/2008, -13/+2You would know all about that.
          • Jovensdesciple, on 04/03/2008, -20/+3Stickin my balls to bitches chins? I do, and you would know about how they taste and how to best nestle them in your mouth.
          • cerealjynx, on 04/03/2008, -5/+32God you two, get a room.
          • Nobiting, on 04/03/2008, -6/+6I just happened to bury all of you and accidentally hit the 'report' button. Sorry!
      • StepCousin, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4Try harder.
    • StepCousin, on 04/03/2008, -8/+5I wouldn't even piss on the guy.

      * In my part of the world, urinating or defecating on someone is a display of great honor and respect.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Germany?
      • msergeant, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Moooooom, you'd tell me if you were in a German Scheiser video, right?
    • jm4847, on 04/03/2008, -2/+19/10
    • sucks, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4Jovensdesciple, your comment made me laugh out mouth
    • Encablossa, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3Why was this great man dug down? I wouldn't hire Al Gore to be my plummer.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2You'd need to learn how to spell first, before you entered into a business contract, I would think...
      • iainc, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Classic self-ownage.
  • fr0ng, on 04/03/2008, -43/+21Al Gore. Always a good choice.
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 04/03/2008, -6/+8except in '92 apparently.
    • shinigami052, on 04/03/2008, -12/+5Replace always with never and I'd agree 100%
    • StepCousin, on 04/03/2008, -14/+8....for making an ass of himself. The guy is a ***** idiot.

      MR. HEAT SAID, "..............

      "When my sister and I were growing up," Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, "there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."
      (Source: NY Times, 08/12/00)
      ------------------------------
      "A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.
      (Sources: The Toronto Sun, 11/19/95)
      ------------------------------
      "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin . I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin . If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."
      (Sources: Sunday, June 18, Atlanta Journal Constitution)
      ------------------------------
      "Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child in a manger because the inn was full."
      Hello! Mary and Joseph were not homeless!
      (Sources: Press Conference at HUD, 12/22/97; George Will column, Sunday May 17 1998)
      ------------------------------
      "I certainly learned a great deal from 3,000 town hall meetings across my home state of Tennessee over a 16-year period", the vice president told NPR’s Bob Edwards.
      Do the math. That’s 187 town hall meetings per year, or a meeting in Tennessee every other day for 16 years, including weekends, holidays, vacations, and time spent running for president in 1988 and for vice president in 1992.
      ------------------------------
      Maybe Michael Jordan hasn't made an indelible impression on everyone outside Chicago . Speaking at a D.C. function, Vice President Al Gore, wowed by the Bulls, said: "I tell you that Michael Jackson is unbelievable, isn't he. He's just unbelievable."
      (Source: The Chicago Tribune June 17, 1998)
      ------------------------------
      "I seek this office to restore the rule of law and respect for common sense to the White House." ...
      Ummmmm....did you really mean that?
      ------------------------------
      Finding himself talking to the controversial rock star Courtney Love at a Hollywood party, Mr. Gore attempted to charm her by telling her he was a fan. Rather than just accepting the easy compliment, Love cross-examined him.
      "He goes 'I'm a really big fan'," said Love. "And I was like 'Yeah, right. Name a song, Al'." The answer came limply back: "I can't name a song. I'm just a really big fan."
      ------------------------------
      Back in 1994, Al Gore called Oliver North "the colonel of untruth" and said Mr. North was counting on political contributions from "the extra-chromosome right wing."
      * Most fetuses with trisomy are miscarried during the first trimester. Most of those who survive have Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21 because it's caused by an extra chromosome 21.
      ------------------------------
      "Gore smiled and admitted that he, too, has trouble turning on a computer - let alone using one."
      (Source: "Gore Touts Job-Training Programs at Pittsburgh Factory" Associated Press September 4, 1998)
      ----- 6 MONTHS LATER -----
      "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey , during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.
      ------------------------------
      In the spring 1998 - Gore called The Washington Post's executive editor to tip him off on an ''error'' in the paper. ''I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down on the front page of the paper,'' Gore said.
      (Source: Florida Times Union 4/3/98 )
      ------------------------------
      Al Gore, when asked about his illegal fundraising activities that took place in a Buddhist temple: "I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist temple."
      But Mr. Gore said he was sometimes inattentive and missed parts of fund-raising meetings. He told the F.B.I., according to notes of a 1998 interview, that "he drank a lot of iced tea during meetings, which could have necessitated a restroom break."
      ( New York Times, 3/11/00)
      ------------------------------
      In a letter, an elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo explained to Al Gore how much they rely on the government-owned Amtrak trains to visit their children and grandchildren in Chicago and on each coast. The couple reminded the vice president that President Clinton relied on train travel to reach the Democratic National Convention in Chicago . "The train has been our main-stay," the couple states. "Yet your administration is killing our Texas Eagle. This makes us sick."

      The Texas Eagle is the Amtrak train that for years has operated between Chicago , St. Louis , Little Rock , Dallas , Fort Worth and San Antonio . But facing a $243 million shortfall in 1997, Amtrak President Thomas Downs recently targeted four Amtrak routes for elimination, including the Texas Eagle service between St. Louis and San Antonio . "What can you do to save our Eagle?" the couple pleaded to the vice president.

      Gore responded with: "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo, Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of the Texas eagle. I appreciate hearing from you. I share your view that the urgent problem of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our environment. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I look forward to working with you for the future of our planet."

      It's strange he should talk about the ecosystem and extinction since the Texas Eagle is a TRAIN!
      (Sources: reported on Fox News Sunday on December 3, 1996, as well as quoted in the National Review and reported in the 12/6/96 Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" by John McCaslin)
      • phunlee, on 04/03/2008, -2/+6I know someone with a much much longer list of misquote/mischaracterizations....
      • Diderotten, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3""I seek this office to restore the rule of law and respect for common sense to the White House." ... Ummmmm....did you really mean that?" There's nothing wrong with his statement.

        "Back in 1994, Al Gore called Oliver North "the colonel of untruth" and said Mr. North was counting on political contributions from "the extra-chromosome right wing." * Most fetuses with trisomy are miscarried during the first trimester. Most of those who survive have Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21 because it's caused by an extra chromosome 21." I hear much worse from more respectable men.

        The rest I completely agree with, though.
    • darylyounge, on 04/03/2008, -3/+3How is hypocrisy , Always a good choice?
  • BuckyDent, on 04/03/2008, -88/+279He should have been president
    • Persian5Life, on 04/03/2008, -14/+5it's bush! a fuUken pack of gum would be a better president. at least it would leave the economy alone....
      • RepubOperative, on 04/03/2008, -16/+11So Bush is responsible for a bunch of low class pieces of ***** taking out loans they couldn't repay but were given because they would complain that they weren't given the loans?

        @140Suffolk wisely said:

        If I hear one more Democrat talk about the “sub-prime mortgage crisis” my head will explode. Here’s why. What every Democrat politician knows is that Presidents Carter and Clinton gave us sub-prime mortgages!

        In 1977 Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act. This required banks to give more mortgages to minorities. And gave the Feds the power to judge banks on how well they were doing that. Not enough minority mortgages this quarter? The Feds punish the bank, by disallowing mergers and acquisitions. That’s when they started allowing mortgages with NO PROOF OF INCOME! And allowing attendance at “credit counseling” to make up for bad credit.

        How would YOU like it if the government forced you to lend money to your unemployed brother-in law?

        It gets worse. In 1995, under President Clinton, all this was strengthened. In fact, “community activists” were allowed to get involved in the bank review process. Which side do you think they were on?

        Of course, there was no law that said sub-primes could ONLY go to minorities. So the banks and the mortgage salesmen started using them more and more.

        To repeat, the banks gave out sub-prime mortgages because the Federal government forced them to.(...for blacks!)
        • Persian5Life, on 04/03/2008, -7/+6oh that makes so much sense now! blacks are responsible for our economic failure not government incompetence! wow you are a think tank. by "economy" i meant he should have allowed the economy to fall in a recession back in 2001, recessions (The contracting phase of the business cycle, when output declines and unemployment increases.) recessions are normal and are part of the economy. the administration should have left it alone, just like they should leave the economy alone. by interfering they are disturbing the "invisible hand".
        • kinseyincanada, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4im sorry but what does that have to do with anything, why is it in American that it always is Democrats versus Republicans, so what if Clinton may have cause the morgage cris, does that mean that all democrats should be punished?
        • kevinwiz, on 04/03/2008, -1/+6stopped reading at "low class pieces of *****." get the ***** out of here with that.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1I consider Bush to be a "high class piece of *****"... and to me, that's a lot worse.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1what about the idiots giving them out? ps stop thinking that adam smith was your god... invisible hands are hallucinations.
    • Alegoo92, on 04/03/2008, -16/+10Yeah.. and now a person who just knows how to spin words and with a biased agenda (a politician) is going to handle this like he's a scientist.
      Ugh.
      • ajb2015, on 04/03/2008, -5/+16...at least he listens to scientists rather than trying to suppress them.
        • Encablossa, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2HE exaggerated global warming and turned it into a religion. Remember carbon Tax?
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2"Suppress" scientists? Really? Like who, per say? Oh, right, the "suppressed" Dr. Hansen. Right... he's the guy who's been ranting for decades now that climatological doom is upon us. Back in the 70's it was gonna be Global FREEZING! But now he's switched his tune to join the Warming! bandwagon. You know, he doesn't seem all that "suppressed" to me. Bad at math, yes. But "suppressed?" No. Or perhaps that's cuz he's so deep in the pockets of George Soros that he'll say whatever George pays him to.
      • Strongo, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2AL Gore might be the country's only actual 'Statesman'
        This country has had politicians for so long we forget that there also used to be Statesman.
        Thats one of the reasons he refuses to run for President again, because he knows being considered a statesman is better then politician.
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Strongo,
          No, Gore is a loser. A hypocritical, lying, ineffective, sanctimonious loser. He knows that if he sticks even so much as a toe tip back into political waters that all the popularity and ass-kissing he currently enjoys will be gone in a heartbeat. He's no statesman. He's damn lucky he's not in jail for his Chinese bribes and campaign finance "irregularities."
          Better for him to remain in Hollywood where he can keep getting all the foot kissing and ass-licking he needs.
    • badenglishihave, on 04/03/2008, -18/+11I dunno about that. If I had to pick between Bush and Gore again I'd choose... someone else.
    • Herolint, on 04/03/2008, -17/+8Why should Gore have been president? He didn't win the election.
      • foofightrs777, on 04/03/2008, -7/+13He won the popular vote and if the recount had been allowed to continue in Florida; prior to the USSC's intervention and decision which was entirely unprecedented an partisan, he would have won FL too.
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -10/+6Foo,
          Actually, when they examined the ballots in Florida - after the Supremes had weighed in - they found that Bush won. Not by much, but he did, in fact, win Florida. So much for the conspiracy theories.
          • badenglishihave, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4lol people hate facts even more than they hate Bush.
        • Herolint, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Doesn't matter. The popular vote isn't what wins an election. The +192 on the parent post and the +6 on yours prove that Digg members are completely ignorant of how the US works.
      • Tehngion, on 04/03/2008, -7/+5Fun fact: he *did* win the election, or at least, in my eyes, the one that counts. Y'know, the one where everybody gets one vote and then the votes are tallied and the candidate with more votes wins? And votes aren't skewed towards any group of people? And every vote counts? Call me old-fashioned, but I find that kind of election to be far more important than any other.

        But hey, what do I know. I'm probably just a vocal minority, right?
        • Bamont, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3Not to cut into your little piece of reality, my friend - but Gore didn't win the election. The President of the United States was also never intended to be a singular person of power representing the people. See, that's what Congress is for. The President represents the United States, its foreign and domestic policies, as a legal representative only. The founding fathers (including Adams) believed strongly that the entire government should not be elected in some form or fashion by the citizens. That's why the electoral college was instituted. You can go back in history and read up on where it all started going wrong - but the turning point in terms of power came when FDR began The New Deal and started micromanaging the government. It's escalated out of control since then. You can love it or hate it as much as you'd like - but your vote doesn't count for a damn thing in the end. The Electoral College is going to vote how they see fit, and while its customary for them to cast their votes based on the popular vote, it's not always the case. And under many circumstances, aren't required to do so.

          Sounds to me like you need a civics class and a wake up call. This isn't a strict Democracy.
        • tobias1482, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2But our country is compromised of many different regions/states with their own economies, values, and traditions. If we went with just popular vote, instead of electoral weighting, then it would just be California, Texas, and New York deciding anything. Do you want that?
          • badenglishihave, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2That right there is a large part of why we have the electoral system. Unfortunately most people don't know or care.
      • Sinns, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2He did win. Bush was appointed by the supreme court.
        • Herolint, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1No, he won the popular vote, but not the electoral vote. The popular vote doesn't win you a presidency. Also, the supreme court acted a) as it should, and b) at Gore's request. All things were done according to the law, whether you personally like it or not.
    • Pwelborn1, on 04/03/2008, -10/+4What a mess that would have been. Every time Al Gore says anything it seems like he's telling the rest of the world (i.e. the middle class) how they are allowed to live their lives. I just don't buy it. Flying around on corporate jet's telling the rest of us to reduce our "Carbon Footprints".
      • peestandingup, on 04/03/2008, -3/+12Yeah, what a mess Gore would have been. Much worse than what we have now, huh?? GTF outta here.

        And how else is he gonna get to these places? ***** teleport??
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -4/+3He could "telecommute." He could take the train - which is less polluting than jets. Hell, he could turn off some - not all, just some - of the lights in his mega-mansions and that'd save lots right there.
      • foofightrs777, on 04/03/2008, -3/+6And if he walked/biked/etc you'd be calling him a dirty hippie. Grow up, logistics need to be practical.
        • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -5/+3Foo,
          Especially for the special people like Reverend Al. Yeah, so he can lecture us all on what eco-sinners we all are whilst he lives larger than a hundred average folk combined. Yeah, let's have more of that!
      • gypsi, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1yeah, which party voted for their least favorite politician because some radio gasbag told them to?
    • gypsi, on 04/03/2008, -1/+18he was for a short time in 2000
    • Pittance, on 04/03/2008, -11/+3If you think Bush ***** up 9/11, can you image what a pansy like Gore would have done? Probably would have called a UN meeting to discuss how bad it was and how sad everyone is.
      • Sean42, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5we tried it your way, now notice how bush is currently begging 'old' europe to help us out again in afghanistan.
      • Ebonsteel, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3Or he would have paid attention to the Presidential Daily Briefings and actually stopped the attack from happening in the first place, rather than looking the other way and playing cowboy on his fake ranch thus providing his NeoCon masters with the false-flag operation they were so desperately in need of to start an illegal war in Iraq and funnel our billions of dollars in surplus into the coffers of war profiteers.
    • triskele, on 04/03/2008, -4/+1Then he would've had to actually do something. I'd rather travel the world giving presentations and collecting money than have to actually do something about all the jibba jabba in my presentation.
      • kaplanfx, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1yeah it's better for him, but it sure does suck for us. He's a bright guy and has actually had some success with getting things done, something I can't say about our current pres.
        • triskele, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1What'd he accomplish that's relevant to Global Warming while in office? He signed Kyoto knowing full well it wasn't going to be ratified. Come on. Name some more.
    • sk11, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Don't be silly, Americans hate him because he's "so boring." Anything's better than that, surely?
      /sarcasm
  • dinsy, on 04/03/2008, -48/+27Yeah good idea get a professional liar in there that will come in handy.
    • fuzzmeister, on 04/03/2008, -1/+8You're thinking Attorney General ("I don't recall"), this would be for a global-warming related position.
  • RcHer, on 04/03/2008, -31/+5Obama - Gore '08: A Convenient Truth.
  • Bacontastic, on 04/03/2008, -31/+242Maybe then ManBearPig will finally be defeated.
    • Minishark, on 04/03/2008, -4/+23He's super serial.
      • tatltat, on 04/03/2008, -4/+4*cereal
        • vaxguru, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Remember folks, be on the lookout for a creature that's half man, half bear and half pig.
    • ludar, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2u've seen him to?
    • NSResponder, on 04/03/2008, -3/+7No, once there's a government ManBearPig department, they'll declare it an endangered species and spend ten billion dollars a year to protect it.

      -jcr
      • jordn, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4dugg down for signing your own comments.

        -jordn
    • nlight, on 04/03/2008, -8/+7No, no, no, it's BearManPig.
    • BinaryDelt, on 04/03/2008, -3/+12EXCELSIOR!!!
    • Clearmedium, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2this made my morning thank you :_)
    • diggimator, on 04/04/2008, -0/+2ManBearPig is going to attack our religion with Iranian terrorism!
  • DaDrake, on 04/03/2008, -22/+15Is this a reason to vote for Obama or against him?
  • makowb, on 04/03/2008, -14/+70I wonder now if Hillary will see the inconvenient truth of her defeat...
    • ocharry, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1Inconvenient truth? You're giving her too much credit. Her whole existence is inconvenient.
    • sathias, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2As opposed to an inconvenient snuke?
  • mets91, on 04/03/2008, -15/+7Maybe this will get Obama his endorsement.
    • jm4847, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Well he's been sucking up to Edwards, praising him at debates, and nothing. I wonder what is his and Gore's price...
  • j4nj1m3n3z, on 04/03/2008, -15/+79It would be stupid not to say this because Al Gore is still one the most popular people in the Democratic Party.
    • Zera, on 04/03/2008, -3/+10Even if he doesn't have a science degree............ To hell with popularity, can't we get some educated people in politics? I mean, educated in things OTHER than politics?
      • moush, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2Why would you want smart people in politics? That spells Armageddon. You have the smart people behind the people who know how to talk well.
        • Pittance, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4There are no smart people behind politicians. They just hinder their agendas. Its all ego and idiocy.
    • Pittance, on 04/03/2008, -7/+5Remember, he invented the internet. All by himself. He must be a genius. Must be...
  • Persian5Life, on 04/03/2008, -25/+30Al Gore did some stupid stuff in his movie but all in all he is not a bad man.i would prefer him over any bush appointed cabinet member any day.
    • tas08, on 04/03/2008, -15/+8Based on his movie and the fact that what he presented in it as truths have been proven false I am forced to conclude either:
      1) He doesn't know what he's talking about (even though he talks about it like he does ALL the time)
      2) He's a liar
      I like neither of these choices and so could not support him.
    • phybere, on 04/03/2008, -9/+26Stupid stuff in his movie, like....
      I constantly hear people bashing his movie, but I still haven't heard anybody point out anything wrong with it.
      I'm sick and tired of people rejecting ideas because they fail to understand them.
      • tas08, on 04/03/2008, -10/+5The stuff that's wrong with his movie is that almost all the info presented in it is untrue. It's not lack of understanding, it's understanding enough to realize that they're wrong.
        • def1234, on 04/03/2008, -0/+10why don't you give us a run-through then?
        • tehjarvis, on 04/03/2008, -0/+11Yeah. What in the movie is untrue? Cite sources also please.
      • DifferentAngle, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3***** - there's no way you could have been on the internets this long w/o seeing dozens of articles picking apart Al's movie. Some of the best are by "the internet skeptic". here's one (i havent watched this one in particular) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78705J6fvUc

      • Morality, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2To invoke the power of chan4,

        sauce?
    • Steven8890, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1I didn't like the movie when he got all dramatic about his life and family. Pretty gay.
  • elfs1der, on 04/03/2008, -16/+2Go for it, we will have a new world order.... mmmhmmm, i umm ping tam gibit
  • elint6, on 04/03/2008, -29/+22I sincerely believe that Al Gore was the best presidential nominee we've had in 40 years and when the American electorate system betrayed him, our nation kind of deserved the Bush pillage. If Gore does end up playing a substantial role in influencing energy policy in a future Democratic administration, perhaps we'll finally become less dependent on oil from volatile states (or oil in general, for that matter).
    • DustyStarbucks, on 04/03/2008, -3/+5I would not bet on that. But I would bet that the US will be paying China and Russia dearly for carbon credits, not because they produce less CO2, but purely because they are in a lower economic class (a.k.a. Kyoto Treaty). In other words a feel good worldwide economic welfare system. Gore, Kyoto and global warming are all BS and those that buy into this total farce need to understand that this has nothing to do with finding alternative energy but purely a ploy to make you feel guilty and ultimately pay for your sin.
    • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -4/+4Did Al Gore carry his home state? Did Al Gore win the popular vote? The answer to both is no, yet you seem to think this, "Do what I say, not what I do", person is the best nominee in 40 years? My god, you are a prime example of what is wrong with the government run schools.
      • MixMastaKooz, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3You're right on the first one, but Gore *did* win the popular vote. I guess you're what's wrong with people who neither listen in school or had parents who knew ***** about proper homeschooling.
        • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1He didn't win the popular vote. Didn't even carry a majority of the popular vote. It was 48.xx%. That's not winning when a majority of voters didn't pick you to be President. Can you win the election without a majority of electoral votes? No. So why do you feel winning the popular vote is at 48%? It's not just Al Gore, its been forever and a day since a President won over 50% of the popular vote. Even Slick Willy couldn't do it either election.

          I did listen in school when we went over WHAT THE ***** A MAJORITY IS...

          Try google next time, before you assume someone won something fool....
    • K4ot1K, on 04/03/2008, -1/+0Yes, because Canada is such a volatile state.
      • elint6, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Canadian oil extraction methods are polluting the atmosphere even more than burning the oil itself.
        • K4ot1K, on 04/03/2008, -1/+0What does that have to do with them not being volatile? Elint6 was obviously referring to the common misconception that we get the majority of our oil from places like Iraq. I was only stating that Canada, who we get over 50% of our oil from, is not volatile. And I was saying it in a sarcastic manner. A comedy style typically used in making a point with a joke. So I guess the real question here is, what the hell are you talking about? But, what ever, I will give you a digg for trying.
          • elint6, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1The common misconception hardly matters because Canada piggy-back's its oil prices on OPEC prices which are affected by the volatility of the region....
  • Secret7000, on 04/03/2008, -8/+142For some reason I read this as "Obama: I'd Hit Gore". Great mental picture.
    • Enasni1212, on 04/03/2008, -1/+14I did the same thing... Freud would have a field day.
    • Puppetfunk, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4As Did I.
    • benclark007, on 04/03/2008, -1/+26"At a town-hall meeting, Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president..."
    • dtfinch, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3Didn't we all?
    • Balath, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Freud can ***** my mother's pet manbearpig as far as I'm concerned.
    • TheSpook, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1It's okay, I think that's allowed in the Democrat party. Now if McCain said he'd hit Huckabee, that would be scandal!
    • cwcentral, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Tipper should be jealous.
  • moonguidex, on 04/03/2008, -3/+11hmmm, deja vu?
  • Dbeneath, on 04/03/2008, -17/+14D-U-P-E
  • daxsymbiont, on 04/03/2008, -15/+2gore lost votes for being called "gore" yet bush made more gore.
  • hugeposuer, on 04/03/2008, -25/+36This decision might actually make a lot of people NOT vote for him. :/
    • EtanHodge, on 04/03/2008, -7/+2i agree... many of the hilary supporters might go with mccain.
      • angrynorwegian, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2nah, a lot of people dont even know why they are voting for him in the first place.
        (in response to hugeposer, i hit the wrong reply button.)
    • mwildhacker, on 04/03/2008, -9/+4He would end up losing a lot of votes because Gore has lost a lot of credibility on his theory of global warming. Plus, if he did join the cabinet it would open him up to the questions about his theories and facts, which he has avoided. He won a Nobel prize for peace, not science.
      • belfastbiker, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3"Gore has lost a lot of credibility on his theory of global warming"? Whu? On my planet? Are we reading the same news?
    • moush, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Why? Most people don't give a damn about the environment. Al Gore isn't a bad guy either.
      • 4pple5auce, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3He's not a bad guy if you like pyramid schemes.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2[[Most people don't give a damn about the environment.]]

        First of all, I would say that most people do, actually. Secondly, even if they didn't, then fawning over Gore wouldn't earn Obama any points.

        [[Al Gore isn't a bad guy either.]]

        "Not bad" is not necessarily equivalent to "good". I know a lot of "not bad" people that I wouldn't want to have working in any level of government.
    • 4pple5auce, on 04/03/2008, -5/+4You're right, I won't vote for Obama if Gore is a potential cabinet member. Al Gore mislead the public in "An Inconvenient Truth" by stating that carbon dioxide levels CAUSED a rise in global temperature. The data actually shows that carbon peaks almost 80 years after temperature. The fact is we don't know what causes changes in our climate. How do so many people decry corporate scandals and record oil profits, yet consider Al Gore's carbon credit business to be altruistic? Carbon credits are about as real as that US Dollar in your wallet or purse. He's your typical politician; no different from Bush. Bush claims that if we don't continue fighting "terrorism" all over the world, then we'll be attacked again. Gore claims if we don't buy into his global warming religion then we'll all die from catastrophic climate change. Fear and uncertainty have been used by politicians to control public thought for years. Ron Paul.
      • WiIlyWonka, on 04/03/2008, -2/+0I don't see why less people would vote for Obama, Al Gore won popular vote in the 2000 election against our current president George Dubya. Seems to me like it should get him more votes.
        • 4pple5auce, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2I think Obama is a great politician and has the potential to make some good changes in this country. I don't agree with everything he stands for, especially health care, but I think he has the ability to unify people across party lines. Gore, since he left the White House and lost the election, has dedicated his time to a controversial topic that is divisive by nature. I think this may make people view him differently now than they did in 2000. I know there are a lot of "I thinks" in this comment, but as a voter thats all you have to go on.
  • matthughes, on 04/03/2008, -19/+4gore's got a boner
  • motivatedmama, on 04/03/2008, -17/+12No brainer. Obama will put together one hell of a Cabinet no doubt.
    • czeman, on 04/03/2008, -7/+5Yep, it'll be a no brainer cabinet alright.
    • Sean42, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4that was very clever how you rearranged the words to say something witty.
      /sarcasm
  • TheGooseyOne, on 04/03/2008, -11/+3This will surely lock up Manbearpig's endorsement.
  • OSuX, on 04/03/2008, -12/+2No no no no no, when Obama said "I'd tap that" he was referring to Gores daughter, what do you folks think Obama is gay or something? (not that there's anything wrong with that)
  • 11b1p, on 04/03/2008, -13/+3BURIED DUPLICATE
  • visionaryIX, on 04/03/2008, -5/+82"Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president"

    Would you tap that?
    • john2kx, on 04/03/2008, -3/+7When it comes to the environment, there's no one I'd rather tap than Al Gore.
      • thanakar, on 04/03/2008, -5/+5I'd rather tap someone who used actual facts and knew what they were doing.
    • Spoomeister, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Al Gore invented tapping.
    • xmokshax, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1i'd have sex with that tree.
  • dopecheese, on 04/03/2008, -16/+3If you take the first letters of each word in Man Bear Pig you get M B P which is also short for MacBook Pro ! MANBEARPIG!!!! im Therious!!!
    • sullyz0r, on 04/03/2008, -2/+5Lamest. Comment. Ever.
    • Daz3, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2It actually stands for 'mass balance potential', it is a geological term.
  • CynicSight, on 04/03/2008, -10/+1Duplicate. lrn2check.
  • dtaylor379, on 04/03/2008, -20/+12maybe they can reinvent the internet
  • noahhoward, on 04/03/2008, -28/+21Well that is the first strike against Obama I have seen in a long time. Like hell I'm letting Gore use my tax dollars to combat nature. If he wants to fight pollution or fight for clean energy, fine but the second the 'Fight Global Warming' banner goes up that's it.
    • petrodollar, on 04/03/2008, -8/+12Why are you retarded?
      • noahhoward, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2Why are you ignorant? There is no consensus that climate change is man made, and anyone who brings that up is attacked on a personal level by Gore. He told the press a top IPCC scientist was a fringe scientist simply becaus ehe didn't agree with Gore's 'science'. The man is running a campaign to profit off of fear mongering. The climate will change and not because of us.
        • petrodollar, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1" There is no consensus that climate change is man made"

          Yes there is.

          "anyone who brings that up is attacked on a personal level by Gore"

          No they're not.

          "He told the press a top IPCC scientist was a fringe scientist simply becaus ehe didn't agree with Gore's 'science'."

          It's not Gore's science. It's scientists' science. And in any case that's not a personal attack.

          "The man is running a campaign to profit off of fear mongering."

          Convenient how you retards make this out to be all about Al Gore. The New Scientist reviewed over 900 peer reviewed studies on this topic and couldn't find a single one that refutes the consensus view that humans are causing global warming. You won't address that finding though because you'd rather turn this into a personal attack on Al Gore. Poor.
    • Railz, on 04/03/2008, -2/+5I like how people say, "use my tax dollars" when the last time the government actually used our tax dollars rather then Fed Credit was the 30s.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2huh? are you one of those idiots who thinks you should use a semi truck as a commuter vehicle?
      • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2Cad,
        Have you read something other than DailyKos of late? You know, something with _facts_ to it and not just the party line? Yeah, something like that. Let's see now, NASA satellite measurements show no global warming since 1998. According to the climate models of the IPCC that's flat out impossible. But, there it is, no warming for a decade. The Antarctic is _growing_ in ice mass, not melting. The oceans are not warming and the Sun's latest solar cycle is late which means it's gonna be cooler. Those are facts, "man caused global warming" was never more than a theory that is now looking increasingly more like a lie. And Al Gore has made millions off of it. Yeah, like I want that clown trying to run the global warming scam on us for another few years.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2How can you not see all the crap we (as a human race) are doing to this planet and sit back and say that we have no effect on it? How resilient do you think nature is? We can't just dump metric tons of garbage into the ocean, spew toxins 24/7 for centuries, bulldoze eccosystems and suck every natural resource dry and expect the planet to be unharmed?

          Show me credible links (not some guys blog, or neocon propaganda sites) that backs up what you're saying and i'll take a look.
          p.s. i don't read dailykos either...infact i'm not even sure i know what it is.
          • tobias1482, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1But why should some countries (who are doing less damage) overcompensate for countries who are doing more damage to the environment?
          • noahhoward, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Like I said, want to clean up our act fine. But climate change is a natural occurance and exploiting it for profit isn't something I want the government involved in.
          • cadmiumpaint, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2@ tobias. Because thats what leadership is. America has the means monetarily and scientifically to lead the world in this area. We have a responsibility to use our rescources for something worthwhile. Right now all we're contributing to the world is a Multi Trillion dollar BS war, fast food and some crappy movies. With our resources we could actually do something to benefit mankind.

            That is Gore's whole point. If the U.S. can take a stand and become a world leader in fixing the problem, others will follow suit and help out. When everyone sits on their asses and does nothing, not much happens.

            You also need to understand the symbiotic nature of the environment. Whats happening environmentally in China and India effects America directly.
          • petrodollar, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1"climate change is a natural occurance"

            That's dumb. Climate change on a scale of decades is not a "natural occurance [sic]." That's like saying that death is a natural occurence, therefore the holocaust was not a man-made event.
        • petrodollar, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1"Let's see now, NASA satellite measurements show no global warming since 1998"

          Haha, WRONG!!!

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

          "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis."
          • madoc62, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Petro,

            Okay, try these:
            "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years." - Jennifer Marohasy

            http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ...

            And this:
            http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo ...

            Sorry chum, global warming is over said and done. Just ask about anyone in the southern hemisphere these days.

    • SeraphNox, on 04/03/2008, -5/+3Why the insults? You guys do realize that global warming, in regards to being a radical occurrence that mankind has created, is false? The earth is constantly warming and cooling; that's how it has always been. Our impact on the world in general is nominal at best when it comes to pollution and such. In fact, it's not global warming we need to worry about, it's our own well being and the well being of the plants and animals around us. All this pollution, whilst having little effect on the earth itself, is literally killing us as human beings. That's why I totally agree with Noah about fighting for cleaner energy and to reduce pollution. However, as I've stated, it would be frivolous to spend money we don't have on combating nature.
      • SeraphNox, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1God editing on digg is a nightmare...
        The line, "Our impact on the world in general is nominal at best when it comes to pollution and such." should read "Our contribution to global warming is nominal at best."

        That's what happens when you don't proofread yourself...
    • mwildhacker, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2The earth has been cooling since 1998, not warming. That's a fact. I guarantee you the earth will warm...and cool in the future - that's normal. The oceans haven't warmed at all either according to the NPR website which posted a story about NASA's 3,000 underwater robots that have been reporting this fact for the past four to five years. Somebody needs to ask Al Gore who has contributed the 300 million for these new advertisements he's created. Then again, he would never allow an interview that would ask that.
  • 0biKwiet, on 04/03/2008, -26/+17Gore is an idiot. I don't mind having people research global warming, but I don't like the idea that it's a self-righteous hypocrite who's more interested make himself look better, than instating effective policies. We might as well hire an oil company to oversee global warming research. They're probably less monetarily involved.
    • crimsonalucard, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Don't you see? We're all hypocrites. I know driving cars is bad for the environment, I still drive them. I know microsoft does unfair business practices, I still use windows. I think Walmart is bad for the economy in terms of promoting divercity and competition, I still shop there. Alot of people know that getting drunk and smoking is bad for their health, they still do it.

      We are a nation of hypocrites. A nation who hates corporations but still works for them and buys stuff from them, a nation who believes our government is corrupt but still follows its laws and still goes to war for it... The whole human race is a race of hypocrites, Al Gore is not an exception. Thus when you judge Al Gore you have to see why he is promoting Global Warming.

      Al Gore has nothing to gain from promoting global warming. No one is giving him money for promoting the concept. The only thing Al Gore gains from this is political attack. Every minute and minor detail or public relations mistake like how he once claimed to have "invented the internet," or what food he served in a party is magnified and used as ammunition to shoot him down. Thus, In the end, Al gore doesn't get any money or gain from promoting something that will only make a lot of people hate him. Think about it... For what other reason would he do such thing? My only other conclusion is that Al Gore is promoting global warming because he cares about the future of mankind and is willing to risk political backlash to do good for the world. What kind of rich politician will put himself on the line for this kind of *****? If the average person was in his position, including me, we'd be corrupt as hell.

      Next, take a look at the otherside of the game: every proponent of anti-global warming has a political and business interest to go along with it. Whether its an institution funded by corporations or a scientist doing research for an oil company, if you do the research you will find that an oil company/business interest is connected to every researcher or institution that claims global warming doesn't exist. Hell just last week some anti global warming proponent got to the front page on digg and no one even realized that she was part of a think tank funded by oil corporations.
      • Morality, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Thank you for the wall of text. ***** you would have been sufficient to own the idiot above you.

        srlsy
    • EtanHodge, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Al Gore DOES benefit from global warming. 1) he makes money from speaking about global warming 2) he found a way to remain relevant 3) he has a big fat head. don't you see? global warming is a cash cow. we have an abundance of cheap energy, yet we are going to be forced to pay extra for "green energy." this global warming crap is going to make some people rich, and the rest of us very poor.
      • mwildhacker, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Al Gore has become incredibly wealthy since starting his global warming campaign. He was not wealthy after his failed run for president and if he ever did become president it would be a huge drop in pay for him now.
    • moush, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Did he rape your family or something?
  • darylyounge, on 04/03/2008, -19/+10In one day - he's pro union, and now Al Gores going to be at his table. Give me a break! I new he'd ***** up.
    • laserblazer, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5What do you have against unions, comrade?
      • darylyounge, on 04/03/2008, -4/+0Can't stand dog *****. Especially the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers.
  • Alexnb, on 04/03/2008, -27/+20Gore. Well, we're *****.
  • shinigami052, on 04/03/2008, -18/+10Then Obama can wear the I'm with stupid shirts and it'll actually be true!
  • tas08, on 04/03/2008, -17/+11Great, he promises to hire someone to the cabinet that has made a movie on the topic he'll be hired for, every main point of which has been systematically proven to be false numerous times. Sounds like a great judgment call from Obama. I've never disliked him but I did just lose some respect.
    • exomni, on 04/03/2008, -5/+6Why the ***** are you being dugg up?

      "Every main point of which has been systematically proven to be false numerous times."

      Um. No. You fail.


      Seriously, I'm not pro-Gore at all, and even I realize you're an ignorant *****. "Systematically proven false", lulz, what a douche.
      • tas08, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2There are movies and books you can get that walk you through the entire movie showing how all his main points are wrong.... I'm not sure how else I should have phrased my statement.
        • exomni, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1Give me ONE source that "systematically discredits" "all of the films major claims". Cut the "multiple times" ***** as if pulling statements out of your ass backs up your ignorant posts.

          Give us the source you claim, so we can decide for ourselves if it's just *****. Without giving the source, you don't even have a ***** source, all you have is ***** claims of a ***** source.
          • madoc62, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerr ...

            Dude, look around a bit before you spout some line like that. Al Gore's propaganda piece has been well and truly discredited. This, even by a number of folk who otherwise support the global warming premise! Gore lied. He's even admitted that he lied - because he thinks we're all so stupid that we need to be scared into doing what he wants. Yeah, that's exactly the guy I want in politics.
          • exomni, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1IPPI is a conservative think-tank funded by ExxonMobil.

            But I'll just respond to the work of Christpher Monckton: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/0 ...

            And it's not my job to look around for evidence, it's his job to provide evidence. He made the claim that Inconvenient Truth had been debunked, not me.
    • ThugThrasher, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3Show me this systematic proof.

      Please?
    • Morality, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Ahaha! I got to digg him down to 5! I win teh internetz!
      Digg me up for making him a ghost post
    • pedropt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0Proven to be false numerous times? Unfortunately for you live in a country where your media feed you with bull***** and where people that really want to be informed and to possess knowledge about a certain issue have to research a bit for it. Seems like you're like the majority of your fellow Americans, that watch Fox News and believe what they say it's true.
      No credible scientists says that global warming isn't real and that isn't caused by men. Of course your government feeds you with information that better serves them and their interests and you're stupid enough to buy everything they say. I truly pity you for wanting to stay in total and complete ignorance...
  • phybere, on 04/03/2008, -20/+30Good, Gore's done more good for the world than most presidents are able to do when elected.

    Imagine having someone working in Washington that understands science, wouldn't that be a novel idea?
    • Codeblew, on 04/03/2008, -10/+2Joke Post?
    • mmd643, on 04/03/2008, -10/+4He doesn't seem to understand all the science that leads one to believe that Global Warming is a scam.
      • MixMastaKooz, on 04/03/2008, -4/+5Looks like you have a conclusion looking for evidence...that's not science, dumbass.
    • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -7/+8Scientists don't understand science. From Physics to Global Warming there are "experts" that don't see eye to eye. You expect Al Gore to understand something as complex as the Earth's temperature cycle? How blind are you people. It's like you think this man is Jesus...
      • moush, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2It's pretty easy to believe in someone on one point when they look at the science community and speak on overall assumptions. I don't recall Gore saying he found it all out and isn't listening to anyone. He represents a majority of the scientists in the world.
        • thanakar, on 04/03/2008, -2/+5He did not represent a majority of scientist and he misrepesented many of his 'facts'.
        • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1Way back when, the popular belief was that the world was flat. The popular belief was that the planets revolved around Earth. Science is not exact and assumptions are too easy to pass off as evidence. Is the Earth warming? Sure, it has temperature cycles, so it must at some point. What's causing it? Well it must be humans since out population growth and energy consumption! Yet 30 years ago, we were being warned about a coming ice age. The point is, just because a majority of scientists, who are mostly government workers (professors and grant recipients), want governments to fund more research on global warming, doesn't mean you should blindly agree with it.

          If this was George Bush telling you about global warming and starting to tell you how to live your life, you'd throw a fit...
      • RadiatedAnt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2So he isn't Jesus :(
      • justice7, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2so if he's right that global warming is an issue, but isnt' 100% on every little fact, you'll discredit the man who's won a nobel prize? You know, they don't just throw those around.

        He's done more for this world than i bet you have.
        • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2He's done more for this world in "harming" it then I have. I don't take private jets all around the world. I don't have a mansion to cool and heat year round. He only recently "greened" it up.

          He didn't win a scientific nobel prize. He's won a nobel peace prize. They give those out like candy. http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

          Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and countless "prizes" to the UN. Yeah, winning this doesn't mean jack *****.
    • paullyvenne, on 04/03/2008, -4/+1Of course! Didn't he invent the internet?
    • angrynorwegian, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2there still wouldnt be anyone in washington that understood science even with gore working there.
    • hoovcluck, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1too bad gore's background/education is in government and not science
      next time do research before you post plz..
  • turbodigg, on 04/03/2008, -3/+8all i read was "At a town-hall meeting, Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president"


    • moush, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Do you know what tap means moron?
      • thanakar, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1That depends, tap as in use, tap as in touch, tap as in screw, tap as in shove a bung into? Tap has many connotations.
  • ZephyrNinety, on 04/03/2008, -8/+2Great. Just great. *****.
  • patpl22391, on 04/03/2008, -17/+10Why would he hire someone to combat a problem that doesn't exist?
  • soundman7718, on 04/03/2008, -12/+75I would hire Gore too. Anyone that has a resume that says "Nobel Prize...invented Internet...vice president experience" A sure hire.
    • cnot3, on 04/03/2008, -4/+7he also invented beanie babies and global warming
    • angrynorwegian, on 04/03/2008, -6/+5Looking for corrupt politician. Must have experience with lying and BS. Nobel prize for lying and BS a plus.
    • gsadamb, on 04/03/2008, -1/+9Not to mention "Winner of 2000 Presidential Election"
    • TheSpook, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2I'd hire Britney Spears. At least then there might be better coverage of what is going on behind closed doors in the White House.
    • BaseballGuyCAA, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1You forgot "Single-handedly killed Manbearpig." Excelsior!!!
  • exomni, on 04/03/2008, -13/+5This doesn't sound like a good move on Obama's part. Doesn't he realize Gore is hated so much he lost to BUSH?

    To GEORGE W. BUSH, people. If you lose to GEORGE ***** W. BUSH you better ***** know you're not very well liked.
    • daliminator, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1I think you underestimate the stupidity and gullibility of many, many Americans.

      We...uh... actually re-elected him, too - remember?
      • Mothrog, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2"We...uh... actually re-elected him, too - remember?"

        What does that tell you about the people the DNC put up against him? Sighing like an ***** during debates and being a wishy washy idiot don't get you elected. And if Americans are so stupid and gullible, and the Democrats can't sway them, what the ***** does that say about the Democrats?
    • laserblazer, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Diebold, Inc.
    • ThugThrasher, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2Except Gore won the popular vote, so the people liked him...it's just that, being a republic, that doesn't matter so much in an election in our country.

      So having him as a cabinet member would help him gan more votes, which is usually a good thing, as long as it's in the right states.
      • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2You can't win the popular vote with out a majority of the popular vote you ignorant fool. Go do some research to see the last time a President won the popular vote, i.e. MAJORITY, that's over 50%. FYI, I'll help you out, Slick Willy didn't get it twice either....
        • crimsonalucard, on 04/03/2008, -2/+0Hey dumbass. Al Gore won the popular vote and the "MAJORITY" vote. But he still didn't become president. Why? Go back to elementary school to find out why.
          • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

            Google is helpful. 48% is not a majority where I'm from.
            I know all about the electoral college. Just trying to show you morons you know nothing when spewing about the popular vote and what a majority is.

            Thanks for proving my point!
        • ThugThrasher, on 04/03/2008, -0/+0You can win the popular vote without a majority, because the popular vote doesn't count for much. All you need to win the popular vote is more than anyone else has.
          If we had run-off elections or something like that, then we would probably make people get a majority of the popular vote to win, but as soon as you have 3 candidates and no run-off or second-vote system, then you CANT require someone to get 51% to WIN, because otherwise you might not have a winner.
    • czeman, on 04/03/2008, -3/+6Ummm....I think people hate Gore simple because he's a ***** IDIOT!
    • crimsonalucard, on 04/03/2008, -2/+0Also the whole Fox news fiasco and Florida makes the whole thing about who actually won, highly questionable.
    • cobbwobbles, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Bush stole at least one election.
  • solidcube, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2I misread the title as "Obama: I'd Hit Gore." I wish I could unsee that mental image... guess I've been on the internets too long.
  • Jamihabs, on 04/03/2008, -12/+5Change? Hope? Gore? ... Sorry, Gore is an idiot, and Obama already had that constituency in the bag.
  • Chainsaw, on 04/03/2008, -3/+10isn't this the same story as the one directly below this one?
  • goffy59, on 04/03/2008, -17/+12There are many ***** morons posting comments today. I seem to have a problem finding someone to digg up. ***** tools. Bahahahaha *sheep*
    • iamnobody8614, on 04/03/2008, -1/+5You follow a long line of people who comment on digg that have started to call Obama supporters "sheep". Therefore following a trend, a sheep-like trend one might say. You sir are a hippocrate.
      • angrynorwegian, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2i like how you completely fabricated 99% of your comment to try and make it look like you werent a complete idiot.
      • goffy59, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1I wasn't calling Obama supporters sheep.
  • eminiguy, on 04/03/2008, -15/+19Gore understands science? Now, that's quite a novelty.
    • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Gore commands you, "to do as I say, not as I do".
  • coffee200am, on 04/03/2008, -7/+8Right now I can use as much power as I can afford from private companies...Can't wait for the Government and the "UN" to tell me when, where how I can use electricity...Along with telling me what I can and can't eat when they take over Health Care...
    • TJATL, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4Welcome to neo-liberalism, aka socialism heading towards communism. Isn't great?
      • Brutusfly, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Yah, I hate it when my neighbors try and stop me from dumping used motor oil in my own fraggin' yard! Communists!
  • greenriver572, on 04/03/2008, -4/+8i'd hire edwards
  • Railz, on 04/03/2008, -8/+3There is dirt on everyone. Take your pick. Gore's biggest problem is he wants to go after alternative fuel like Nuclear, OH NOES.
    • mmd643, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1It you believe in the global warming scam and are against nuclear power... you are the ultimate idiot.
  • BobaFettTDG, on 04/03/2008, -5/+12Did anyone else read this as Obama: I'd hit Gore.
    o_O
  • COINTELPRO, on 04/03/2008, -3/+5Publicly offering a position like this to a person of Gore stature isn't the right move. It would be like offering a vice-president position to a former president. He will probably want to advocate for global warming on his own, without having to get involved in the political process or having to tie his identity with another polictical figure like he did with Bill Clinton.

    Is Obama trying to get a Gore endoresement?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.