Only the most urgent global warming mission

[Fash]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfg ... y_id=21062

Sen. Barbara Boxer's office just contacted us to say former Vice President Al Gore has been called "overseas" for a trip related to his work on global warming and has canceled his scheduled appearance Thursday in San Francisco at a fundraiser for Boxer's re-election effort. So the Boxer fundraiser -- which was to include Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne -- is off until Nov. 9.

Here's a note Boxer sent supporters about the change:

I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.

Unfortunately, this means that we must postpone our Thursday, October 11th event with him until Friday, November 9th. I wanted to be sure to e-mail you tonight in case you were planning on attending.

While I am really disappointed that we won't see Al Gore until next month, I am thrilled that he is continuing to provide critical leadership to address one of the most pressing issues of our time. You should know that only the most urgent global warming mission has called him out of the country.

I look forward to seeing you on November 9th so we can all hear first-hand about Al Gore's latest exciting initiatives. We will be back in touch in the coming days with more details about the rescheduled event.

Thank you so much for your continued friendship and support!

Barbara Boxer

I must have missed the flame signal in the sky that has called our most amazing superhero, GLOBAL WARMING MAN, out of the country for an URGENT mission... What could it be?... A little boy in thailand is about to fart poisonous methane gas and what tool around his belt area might he choose to plug it up with?

and I thought John Edwards was a phony two-bit crook... Al Gore makes me sick.

[Nick]

He would still have been a better president than the fucking monkey you idiots opted for in the end.

Maybe he found manbearpig?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Maybe he found manbearpig?

ROFL.....serial?

[Nick]

super serial

[Funkmasterr]

Al gore is a moron, thanks for the laugh fash, and thanks to nick even moreso for the laugh (the him being a better choice for pres thing, not the manbearpig thing.)

Democrats are sure gonna need to pull something out of there ass here, because no one I've seen from them has a chance in hell at winning the election. Hell, democrats don't even like a lot of the candidates for their party so far.. The only one I would say would get a even fair number of votes (but probably not win) would be Obama, ignorant minorities that have absolutely no clue what he even thinks will go and vote just because he is black.

[Sylvus]

Democrats are sure gonna need to pull something out of there ass here

By "here", do you mean on this global warming mission, or on Barbara Boxer's re-election campaign?

[Nick]

Democrats are sure gonna need to pull something out of there ass here, because no one I've seen from them has a chance in hell at winning the election.

So I take it you think the Republicans have a stronger set of nominees? Care to explain why? That should be worth a chuckle or two for everyone.

[Funkmasterr]

Democrats are sure gonna need to pull something out of there ass here, because no one I've seen from them has a chance in hell at winning the election.

So I take it you think the Republicans have a stronger set of nominees? Care to explain why? That should be worth a chuckle or two for everyone.

I think that both of them have relatively weak nominees so far. I just know that after the joke of a candidate the democrats put up last time, they are going to need a very strong candidate this time, regardless of public opinion of Bush and the republican party.

What I do think, is that the democrats have a considerably weaker pool of candidates. Furthermore, two of their candidates (hilary and obama) are two of the last people that fit that "very strong" category I put up. In a time where the democratic party should be trying their hardest to make sure there isn't a third straight term of republican leadership (since it's so terrible), you don't put up a woman and a black dude. I would love to see a person from either of those categories be elected as much as the next person, however this election is not the time for it, and even if it was - I don't think either one of them is anywhere near a strong enough candidate to be the first in their respective categories.

That a good enough explanation for you? I'm guessing not, cause it never is.

[Nick]

I think that both of them have relatively weak nominees so far. I just know that after the joke of a candidate the democrats put up last time, they are going to need a very strong candidate this time, regardless of public opinion of Bush and the republican party.

Why are you disregarding the public opinion of Bush and the Republican party? What logical relevence does your assertion have when you do this?

What I do think, is that the democrats have a considerably weaker pool of candidates.

Yes, we gathered that from your first post, would you care to explain why? Why being the important word here, not partisan hackery as is your usual game.

Furthermore, two of their candidates (hilary and obama) are two of the last people that fit that "very strong" category I put up.

According to who? You? The nation? Julio Inglesias?

The nation appears to disagree! Although I'm not sure about Julio Inglesias.

In a time where the democratic party should be trying their hardest to make sure there isn't a third straight term of republican leadership (since it's so terrible), you don't put up a woman and a black dude.

It's a very sad state of affairs when your country is so sexist and racist (in the 21st Century) as to ignore policy in favour of the above "negatives".

however this election is not the time for it

If not now, then when?

That a good enough explanation for you? I'm guessing not, cause it never is.

That's mainly because you are usually retarded, but for the sake of discussion, you failed to mention the plus points of the Republican nominees (I assume because you are incapable of finding anyway and taking the racist/sexist route to victory).

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think Hillary or Obama will win the Presidency. I don't see how a Republican can possibly win in '08. There is way too much negative press against Bush and republicans for them to win. Too many young angry voters out there thinking they can make a difference. It's cyclical. We'll go through a period of Dems rule and then there will be a surge against their policies and Reps will win it back. And over and over and over.

I'm looking forward to watching it all unfold though.

[Nick]

We'll go through a period of Dems rule and then there will be a surge against their policies and Reps will win it back. And over and over and over.

Yep. (Cue retarded insult r.e - not being 40 and married with kids).

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

We'll go through a period of Dems rule and then there will be a surge against their policies and Reps will win it back. And over and over and over.

Yep. (Cue retarded insult r.e - not being 40 and married with kids).

Nah man. Completely unnecessary. What's wrong with what I said? It's true. No big deal.

[Funkmasterr]

I think that both of them have relatively weak nominees so far. I just know that after the joke of a candidate the democrats put up last time, they are going to need a very strong candidate this time, regardless of public opinion of Bush and the republican party.

Why are you disregarding the public opinion of Bush and the Republican party? What logical relevence does your assertion have when you do this?

What I do think, is that the democrats have a considerably weaker pool of candidates.

Yes, we gathered that from your first post, would you care to explain why? Why being the important word here, not partisan hackery as is your usual game.

Furthermore, two of their candidates (hilary and obama) are two of the last people that fit that "very strong" category I put up.

According to who? You? The nation? Julio Inglesias?

The nation appears to disagree! Although I'm not sure about Julio Inglesias.

In a time where the democratic party should be trying their hardest to make sure there isn't a third straight term of republican leadership (since it's so terrible), you don't put up a woman and a black dude.

It's a very sad state of affairs when your country is so sexist and racist (in the 21st Century) as to ignore policy in favour of the above "negatives".

however this election is not the time for it

If not now, then when?

That a good enough explanation for you? I'm guessing not, cause it never is.

That's mainly because you are usually retarded, but for the sake of discussion, you failed to mention the plus points of the Republican nominees (I assume because you are incapable of finding anyway and taking the racist/sexist route to victory).

Do you get a kick out of annoying me and obviously not reading what I post before you make a response saying I didn't explain why? I answered each of the questions you posed you fucking tool.

1 -I'm not disregarding public opinion, but what I am saying is that the publics opinion of Bush is not going to outweigh the downsides I listed to the democratic nominees (IMO.)

2 - I explained why the democratic candidates are weaker, you might not agree with the reasoning, but my point is still valid.

3 - The nation seems to disagree? That's funny because most of the democratic people I have spoken to about the nominees in person have said they would never vote for hilary, and would probably not vote for obama (including a handful of people on VV.)

4 - Call it sad, or whatever else you want, but it's a fact. I'm not even saying I think that is the way it should be, but it is.

5 - If not now then when, well let me elaborate a bit, in case my point was not clear previously. The democratic/liberal community in the U.S. is up in arms about the war, amongst many other things, and have serious issues with the way republicans have been running things. This is a time where they need someone who will SMASH the republican candidates by getting all the liberal votes, as well as the majority of the fence votes.. This is not the time to try and get the first woman or the first minority elected, or to do anything else that could have shaky response.

It's funny, you get on me about not explaining why I think certain ways about things, then when I do you say I'm wrong and I shouldn't have bothered.. Tell me why in this situation I should continue to explain myself instead of just finding ways to piss everyone off, again?

[Nick]

Hey man it's your prerogative to try and piss everyone off if you want, but its also everyone elses prerogative to think you're a moron.

I was throwing you a logic lifeline, so to speak.

So ultimately, you still failed to explain why the Republicans have it won by default? Apart from essentially claiming that the South will proclaim Obama a nigger and Hillary one of dem der women who should be in the kitchen making me a pie.

It says a lot when Americans see eachother as little more than adult Cartman's. God knows why, but I have to hope to christ that they aren't that fucking retarded (this election really is going to determine that one either way).

[Fash]

Please don't confuse the opinion that the country as a whole isn't ready (or jumping at the chance) to elect the first woman or first black man to such a high office as a personal opinion of racism or sexism.

I would have no problem with a woman president or a black president, however I don't think the country will go that route. (unless the republican candidate is exposed as a kid touching black market abortion doctor in the final stretch of the election cycle) There are a lot of really old and traditional people who aren't vocal when it comes to the media, but very vocal in the voting booth... I find it hard to believe the country would elect either hillary or obama president in the current situation that we're in. It's an opinion based on my experiences, extrapolated out to the whole country. Can I be wrong? certainly, but it's my opinion until I'm proven wrong... I just don't see it happening, and I view the media circus as just that... a circus. As I said in another thread I think they're going to shove hillary down our throats until she wins the democrat nomination, and then they're going to slaughter her. It's not going to be pretty.

I'll agree with you, Nick, that Gore would've made a better president... It would be hard for anyone to portray a worse image than bush.

[Nick]

That's cool, except it is of course, undeniably, an indictment on the United States of America that it is so incredibly sexist as to avoid voting in a female President after even ridiculous 3rd world countries already did so long ago (even Britain did it nearly a half century ago for christs sake).

Not much of a selling point in the whole "We are truly the most advanced righteous nation" spiel the US has going on.

All the same, I really would dare anyone to come up with a valid reason how Clinton or Obama are in any way as horrifically bad as the motley crue of fuckheads vying for the Republican ticket at the moment.

[Boogahz]

Voting for a female president just to have a female president would not be a good thing.

[Nick]

Way to spin.

The policy issue hasn't even been covered by anyone, the whole issue so far being the fact that she has a vagina rather than a penis. (I'm not saying she's awesome or anything, far fucking from it, but her vagina has fuck all to do with it, unless you live in the stone age).

As for whether it wouldn't be a good thing? Have you actually seen the last 8 years? Hypothetically, how much worse could it even be?

[Boogahz]

Way to spin.

The policy issue hasn't even been covered by anyone, the whole issue so far being the fact that she has a vagina rather than a penis. (I'm not saying she's awesome or anything, far fucking from it, but her vagina has fuck all to do with it, unless you live in the stone age).

As for whether it wouldn't be a good thing? Have you actually seen the last 8 years? Hypothetically, how much worse could it even be?

Who made her vagina the issue? That's worse than Jesse Jackson's Race Card.

[Nick]

Don't be a fucking idiot, it's the central issue regarding Hilary Clinton's nomination.

[Boogahz]

Don't be a fucking idiot, it's the central issue regarding Hilary Clinton's nomination.

No, it's not. And that is the point I was trying to make. Voting for a woman just because she is a woman is stupid. I would have no problem voting for a woman for president, but I would never give a vote to her.

[Nick]

No one's saying you should vote for a woman just because she is a woman Boogahz and you know it. You're spinning. It's obvious and boring.

Also, denying Hilary's femininity as the central reason most of middle America won't vote for her? What planet are you on mate.

[Boogahz]

No one's saying you should vote for a woman just because she is a woman Boogahz and you know it. You're spinning. It's obvious and boring.

Also, denying Hilary's femininity as the central reason most of middle America won't vote for her? What planet are you on mate.

I said that nobody should vote for her just because she was a woman. You're the one that decided to turn that around O-Mighty-Master-of-Spin. Do you ever read what you post? Do you just post to argue pointless shit? My opinion on the candidates available from both parties are that we're going to be fucked for the next four years no matter who gets in. That's not saying that the last eight have been grand, and that's the point you seem to be missing.

[Nick]

Whilst posting that "nobody should vote for her just because she was a woman" you also decided to state that her sex was not a central issue. Which is fucking moronic.

Maybe if decided to discuss anything of value for any length of time instead of being Funkmasterr's cheer leader this could go somewhere, until then, there will be no sexual loving from me.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Don't be a fucking idiot, it's the central issue regarding Hilary Clinton's nomination.

Not at all. She doesn't stand for anything. She's done nothing. She's part of the same scum bag elitist fuck organization that the rest of them are part of. When Vincent Foster was perceived to be a possible weak-link, she had him killed and set it up as a suicide....or guilted him into killing himself. She's a piece of shit. I could care less what sex she is.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No one's saying you should vote for a woman just because she is a woman Boogahz and you know it. You're spinning. It's obvious and boring.

Also, denying Hilary's femininity as the central reason most of middle America won't vote for her? What planet are you on mate.

There are plenty of people....women....who will be voting for het just because she is a woman. Saying that doesn't make someone sexist. It is an acknowledgement of what is happening. What they are doing is sexist. Not the person seeing it and acknowledging it.

[Lynks]

For every person that votes for her because she is a woman, there is a vote against her because she is a woman. It's going to balance out in the end but it will happen.

[Boogahz]

Whilst posting that "nobody should vote for her just because she was a woman" you also decided to state that her sex was not a central issue. Which is fucking moronic.

Maybe if decided to discuss anything of value for any length of time instead of being Funkmasterr's cheer leader this could go somewhere, until then, there will be no sexual loving from me.

Oh please, I am far from being Funk's cheerleader on anything.

You seem to assume that anyone that isn't spouting hate about Bush is for him. You're wrong.

[Boogahz]

Don't be a fucking idiot, it's the central issue regarding Hilary Clinton's nomination.

Not at all. She doesn't stand for anything. She's done nothing. She's part of the same scum bag elitist fuck organization that the rest of them are part of. When Vincent Foster was perceived to be a possible weak-link, she had him killed and set it up as a suicide....or guilted him into killing himself. She's a piece of shit. I could care less what sex she is.

but people will vote for her becuase she is a woman...and JUST because she is a woman. That is the point I was trying to make. Doing that is not a good thing.

It's the same thing with Obama being black. I have heard co-workers state that they think they will actually get to be off work for George Washington Carver's birthday and Juneteenth (even though that is a Texas holiday) if he gets elected. It's like the color of skin was the only thing they knew about him!

[Zaelath]

No one's saying you should vote for a woman just because she is a woman Boogahz and you know it. You're spinning. It's obvious and boring.

Also, denying Hilary's femininity as the central reason most of middle America won't vote for her? What planet are you on mate.

There are plenty of people....women....who will be voting for het just because she is a woman. Saying that doesn't make someone sexist. It is an acknowledgement of what is happening. What they are doing is sexist. Not the person seeing it and acknowledging it.

I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one is weak as far as they go.

[Spang]

You don't think there will be people voting for or against Hillary Clinton based on her gender?

[Zaelath]

You don't think there will be people voting for or against Hillary Clinton based on her gender?

Oops, there was 2 one after the other from Mid and I meant to quote the other, about Hillary being a murderous criminal mastermind.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You don't think there will be people voting for or against Hillary Clinton based on her gender?

Oops, there was 2 one after the other from Mid and I meant to quote the other, about Hillary being a murderous criminal mastermind.

Bush is one, right? Why is so hard to believe Hillary is also? They both belong to the same club.

[Zaelath]

You don't think there will be people voting for or against Hillary Clinton based on her gender?

Oops, there was 2 one after the other from Mid and I meant to quote the other, about Hillary being a murderous criminal mastermind.

Bush is one, right? Why is so hard to believe Hillary is also? They both belong to the same club.

Nah, Bush is a puppet.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You don't think there will be people voting for or against Hillary Clinton based on her gender?

Oops, there was 2 one after the other from Mid and I meant to quote the other, about Hillary being a murderous criminal mastermind.

Bush is one, right? Why is so hard to believe Hillary is also? They both belong to the same club.

Nah, Bush is a puppet.

Okay. To whom is he a puppet?

[Gzette]

not to derail the derail, but some are saying that Gore's urgent mission or whatever is actually an imminent awarding of the Nobel Prize. I'm not guaranteeing anything, but someone I trust told me that.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

not to derail the derail, but some are saying that Gore's urgent mission or whatever is actually an imminent awarding of the Nobel Prize. I'm not guaranteeing anything, but someone I trust told me that.

Announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize
The names of the year's Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are announced during a press conference at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo.

The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced on Friday, October 12, 11:00 a.m. CET.

[Aabidano]

Nah, Bush is a puppet.

No argument, Hilary is as well, just of a different sort. She's also pure evil.

With Hilary running, the republicans could run Pat Robertson and have a decent chance of winning. Nothing at all to do with her sex, just who she is and what she represents. I don't know anyone, including the rabid treehugging democrats up the street that will vote for her.

She'd likely take NYC, LA, SF and maybe SE FL (NYC), nothing outside of that. Oh, and the European vote. Wait, they don't count.

Obama won't get the nomination, I don't think it has anything (or not a lot) to do with his race.

The Dems will not nominate anyone electable, they have an absolute inability to take advantage of any bone thrown to them.

Right now I'm betting Romney vs. Clinton with Romney for the win by a large margin. Outside chance of Ron Paul vs Clinton and Paul for the win by a decent margin.

[Kaldaur]

I think we've had this conversation before...oh, that's right, in the previous 30000000 threads. Jesus kids, you're all saying the exact same thing over and over and over. Give it a rest.
Back on the post's subject, was Gore up for a Nobel? Do they have a list of candidates or nominees, or does the Nobel committee just pull a name out?
I wish he really was on an urgent mission, instead of accepting a Prize. We need some solutions, and soon, because no one else seems to be doing anything about it. They'd rather blare white noise (in the world and on VV) rather than discuss the actual issue.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Ok. Back on topic...Boxers comments are laughable and the way Gore is praised for fighting something no one can prove exists is even more laughable.

[Zaelath]

You don't think there will be people voting for or against Hillary Clinton based on her gender?

Oops, there was 2 one after the other from Mid and I meant to quote the other, about Hillary being a murderous criminal mastermind.

Bush is one, right? Why is so hard to believe Hillary is also? They both belong to the same club.

Nah, Bush is a puppet.

Okay. To whom is he a puppet?

Sorry, I see how you thought I was up for debate on that point.

[Breagen]

...fighting something no one can prove exists is even more laughable.

Uh, are you serious?

[Animale]

Well, in a sense Mid is right. Since we have only one experiment (our home the planet earth) we cannot do the null experiment to "prove" that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are and will continue to raise global temperatures further than they would otherwise due to so-called natural causes.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it's NOT happening, just that we cannot prove it. Of course, doing an experiment on our home where the consequences are quite dire doesn't seem like a very good idea to me...
"Let's see if irreversibly raising the carbon dioxide levels far above anything seen in the last hundred thousand + years does anything!!!!"
vs.
"Let's see if we can keep carbon dioxide levels at the current levels so we can avoid possible negative outcomes!!!"

I know where my vote is.

Animale

A chemist actually WORKING on solving this fucking issue.

[Aabidano]

There's your environmental emergency:
Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize

OSLO, Norway (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it.

[Breagen]

Acknowledging the existence of global warming does not necessarily require the concurrent belief that it is an entirely man made problem. It is a well established fact through years of scientific tests and research that the planet is in fact warming compared to previous centuries/millennia. It apparently has always been the case that the planet goes through various warming and cooling phases (such as the last ice age) and the current trend would have happened had humans evolved to the technological level we are at or not. The contention is over the degree that humans have exacerbated the problem through fossil fuel emissions, greenhouse gasses etc. Making a blanket statement that no one can prove global warming exists is incredibly idiotic and shows a significant lack of scientific knowledge or intentional disregard for said evidence.

[Aabidano]

I respect Gore for the effort, I think he needs to find out how to expand his message though. Preaching to the choir isn't the way to move this forward and for that he needs Govt support. He needs to lay out the argument to people like Mid and Funk who've fallen into the "you can't prove it" trap. Do you need to get hit by a bus to believe that sleeping in the road is a bad idea?

To me it really doesn't matter, our current path is a dead end. We can lead the way in a new direction or be left behind in the future. With the resources and motivation we can put ourselves on a new energy footing without having to crash first. Where would you rather be, in a service based economy living off other's scraps or in one that's creating value and leading things forward? We're falling towards that point now, I don't think we've quite reached it yet.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Acknowledging the existence of global warming does not necessarily require the concurrent belief that it is an entirely man made problem. It is a well established fact through years of scientific tests and research that the planet is in fact warming compared to previous centuries/millennia. It apparently has always been the case that the planet goes through various warming and cooling phases (such as the last ice age) and the current trend would have happened had humans evolved to the technological level we are at or not. The contention is over the degree that humans have exacerbated the problem through fossil fuel emissions, greenhouse gasses etc. Making a blanket statement that no one can prove global warming exists is incredibly idiotic and shows a significant lack of scientific knowledge or intentional disregard for said evidence.

Show me said evidence.

How many centuries have we even had the technology to record the temperature? How many millions of years do we think the earth has been here?

[Funkmasterr]

Don't be a fucking idiot, it's the central issue regarding Hilary Clinton's nomination.

Not at all. She doesn't stand for anything. She's done nothing. She's part of the same scum bag elitist fuck organization that the rest of them are part of. When Vincent Foster was perceived to be a possible weak-link, she had him killed and set it up as a suicide....or guilted him into killing himself. She's a piece of shit. I could care less what sex she is.

but people will vote for her becuase she is a woman...and JUST because she is a woman. That is the point I was trying to make. Doing that is not a good thing.

It's the same thing with Obama being black. I have heard co-workers state that they think they will actually get to be off work for George Washington Carver's birthday and Juneteenth (even though that is a Texas holiday) if he gets elected. It's like the color of skin was the only thing they knew about him!

Funny, but I've heard the juneteenth thing here too (in regard to Obama.)

I have heard no proof that we have considerably sped up the cycles the earth goes through. I will further say that I am confident there is no possible way we could ever do anything to stop the next ice age from coming about, so why allocate all these resources to fighting the inevitable?

IMO, we should be allocating that much more time and research to the space program so that we can start to see space colonies in ours or our children's lifetimes. If people weren't so near sighted, we would be damn close to this, or would have done it already.

[Fash]

Yup... Global warming and global cooling are just buzzwords... Do you have a word for how it gets warm during the day and cool at night? Spending billions upon billions of dollars only to reduce our small part in the ecosystem is not worth it. It is inevitable, the earth will not always be habitable, we need to expand.

His urgent mission was stroking his own ego... Don't Boxers comments seem even more retarded now? I'm also pretty disgusted at the nobel people for turning their 'peace' prize into a political mockery as global warming has about as much to do with peace right now as my cock has to do with brittanys anal pains.

[Nick]

Good news day today!

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for spreading awareness of man-made climate change and laying the foundations for counteracting it.