OT: Live Earth

[Jared]

Actually, he doesn't use 20 times the electricity of the average Nashville home...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2910445

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

That's about 12 times the normal home, not 20. So I guess those numbers do lie. And again, this is an electric bill for a residence for a major political figure that includes a guest house and multiple offices. It's an unfair comparison to compare it to the average home. A fair comparison would be to see if his bill is much more/less than a similar sized house and guest house in Nashville. And no one is making that comparison...and that's likely because that would make Gore look reasonable. Instead, it's more sensational to throw out exaggerated figures (20 times versus 12 times) and unfair comparisons, while ignoring that most of the energy bought is from renewable resources, for which he pays a premium.

And as for Generation Investment Management, again, Gore makes no money off of this. GIM doesn't invest in carbon offsets. GIM purchases carbon offsets from another company (CarbonNeutral) to offset the home and travel emissions of their employees, including Gore. There is no evidence that he is making any money of this (though if you can find evidence to support this claim, I will stand corrected). Instead, this is one of the many myths that people that don't like Gore will jump on, without evaluating it and seeing if it's actually true. It's fine to not agree with his politics, or approach, or whatever. But many of the criticisms of Gore are based on mistruths like this or twisted gotcha moments...and it's not right to evaluate any public figure (Bush, Gore, Clinton, Reagan, whoever) in this manner.

[RobVarak]

Jared,

Not to repeat myself, but quibbling about the details with people who hate Gore is not going to change anything. He's a polarizing figure because of his personality, not because of his policies. He comes off at virtually every turn as a pompous gasbag. It took a herculean effort for him to shed this guise for the 2000 election, and he was pretty successful. But there were cracks in the facade (particularly during the debates) where it became clear that he was subjugating his naturally off-putting personality.

I have seen him occassionally be warm and funny, but those times are few and far between when compared with the countless times I've seen him behave like a preening know-it-all. I think much of his current popularity stems from his status as the great lost hope of the left. That's particularly ironic given his history as a DLC centrist and the attacks that engendered from some of these same people when Clinton picked him in '92.

Anyway, it's your classic message v. messenger problem. Environmentalists would be better served by a more savvy and likeable standard-bearer, but really have no choice given the extent to which the big money has coalesced around Gore.

Anyway, given his image it's only natural that people are going to take every opportunity to brand him as a self-serving hypocrite...accurately or not.

[itsmebdpartdeux]

First off I would like to say that yes, I would like my bdoughty account unbanned, if the rest of the community has no issue. If they do then I understand. Now as for e-mailing you to do so that is pretty impossible when.



You see I was going to go that road but I do not know how your e-mail would be routed if I used a generic@digitalsportspage.com.

Oh and regarding that list little part

But many of the criticisms of Gore are based on mistruths like this or twisted gotcha moments...and it's not right to evaluate any public figure (Bush, Gore, Clinton, Reagan, whoever) in this manner.

I was always raised to believe that you held your leaders to a higher standard. Many of the criticisms are valid.

P.S. I am kinda shocked at the lack of praise from you and JackB for President Bush and his environmentally friendly homestead.

[pk500]

And as for Generation Investment Management, again, Gore makes no money off of this. GIM doesn't invest in carbon offsets. GIM purchases carbon offsets from another company (CarbonNeutral) to offset the home and travel emissions of their employees, including Gore. There is no evidence that he is making any money of this (though if you can find evidence to support this claim, I will stand corrected). Instead, this is one of the many myths that people that don't like Gore will jump on, without evaluating it and seeing if it's actually true.

Gore can hide behind "carbon credits" all he wants because he has the wealth -- his net worth is estimated at $100 million, much earned since he lost the 2000 election -- to purchase the "carbon credits" crutch to justify his excess use of carbon-based energy.

But how does John Q. Public, who doesn't have anywhere near the wealth of Gore, save the planet? By cutting back on energy use, which Gore should do.

For example: Did Al really have to launch his motorcade, including security vehicles, to escort him to the voting booth in Carthage, Tenn., on Election Day the past few years to cast his vote all in the name of a photo op? Wouldn't it have been more sensible and environmentally friendly to cast his ballot via mail, therefore not using all of those fossil fuels?

But hey, when you're loaded and can buy carbon credits to mask your conspicuous consumption, all is well. Throw a couple of solar panels on your roof for posterity's sake, and you're a golden child of Mother Earth.

What Gore is doing is essentially a push. Gobble up carbon-based energy while buying credits to fund eco-friendly projects. Take from the Earth, give back to the Earth an equal amount.

Someone who truly gave a sh*t about the environment would give back to the Earth more than he took.

Finally, the effectiveness of carbon credits are very much up for debate. Only one body, the Chicago Climate Exchange, sets standards for projects funded by carbon credits in North America. So how can we be sure that the money generated by the credits that Birkenstock Al is buying are really being rolled into eco-friendly projects?

And guess who is one of the major investors into the CCX? Goldman Sachs, the same company from which Gore's GIM partner, David Blood, came.

But again, there's no profit-generating scheme behind this. None at all. They're just trying to save the salamanders.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

After reading more about Gore,thanks PK. The guy comes across like a bigger fake than I thought. But he gets a pass from some. I don't get it.

He is no different than a TV evangelist that just got caught sucking cock. Guy is on TV talking God and smokes a log. Hypocrite? Hell yes! Get a pass like Gore? Naw.
No difference in my mind at all. If you go international and start preching like Gore has done. The first thing you should do is have your s*** in order as an example for those you want to listen. Unless you have a HUGE ego and think people will follow because I am Al Gore. Anyhow I guess it's all good,Al offset his bad habits with the golden "Carbon Credits".

[pk500]

He is no different than a TV evangelist that just got caught sucking cock.

That is the single funniest line I have read on this forum in 2007. True, too!



Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Brent,

No offense, but that's bull. First, when you don't have an account, it doesn't show an e-mail address, but once you sign up for a new one it does show up. You could have seen it then, before posting, and asked. Also, you can Google me...it's pretty easy to find some of my other non-DSP e-mail addresses. Other banned users have done this, and I'm sure you have the internet skills to figure that out. I'll think about reinstating you (if anyone has opinions on this, feel free to PM me)...though starting off with a bull excuse like this doesn't start you on the right foot.

And btw, I think that it's great that Bush has an environmentally friendly house. And I think leaders should be held to an honest standard...criticizing leaders for things that are untrue doesn't cover that.

PK,

Gore can hide behind "carbon credits" all he wants because he has the wealth -- his net worth is estimated at $100 million, much earned since he lost the 2000 election -- to purchase the "carbon credits" crutch to justify his excess use of carbon-based energy.

Again, all of his electricity usage in his home is bought from renewable resources. There is no gobbling up of carbon-based resources here. When he has to use carbon-based resources (flights, some gas power), he uses carbon offsets.

For example: Did Al really have to launch his motorcade, including security vehicles, to escort him to the voting booth in Carthage, Tenn., on Election Day the past few years to cast his vote all in the name of a photo op? Wouldn't it have been more sensible and environmentally friendly to cast his ballot via mail, therefore not using all of those fossil fuels?

But hey, when you're loaded and can buy carbon credits to mask your conspicuous consumption, all is well. Throw a couple of solar panels on your roof for posterity's sake, and you're a golden child of Mother Earth.

Sigh. Dude. He's a politician. Voting photo-ops are what politicians do. Just like travel. Just like having guests at his house. Yes, you can nitpick every single little thing the man does and say "maybe he should telecommute" or "maybe he shouldn't fly" or "maybe he should live in a one-bedroom apartment". His point isn't that we should go back to the stone age, never travel, etc. Instead, it is to (if possible) reduce our usage of carbon fuels, which he has clearly done.

And again, his consumption is not conspicuous. Someone actually looked up the numbers for average electric consumption per square foot in the Southeast and found that his consumption per square foot (a much more fair comparison), is within the average range for a house of his size in his region of the country. When you make an apples to apples comparison, Gore uses the expected amount of energy, and gets it from renewable resources.

What Gore is doing is essentially a push. Gobble up carbon-based energy while buying credits to fund eco-friendly projects. Take from the Earth, give back to the Earth an equal amount.

Someone who truly gave a sh*t about the environment would give back to the Earth more than he took.

The guy has minimized his carbon impact, pays a premium himself to use renewable energy, invests in companies that develop renewable energy technologies, was an advocate for the environment as both a Senator and VP, and has dedicated his current career to advocacy of environmental concerns. But according to you, it's clear that he doesn't care about the environment because of...some dishonest reporting (the GIM story)? Because of some unfair energy comparison (his house)? No...it must be because he drove to vote instead of mailed in his vote. Clearly, the man hates the environment.

Finally, the effectiveness of carbon credits are very much up for debate. Only one body, the Chicago Climate Exchange, sets standards for projects funded by carbon credits in North America. So how can we be sure that the money generated by the credits that Birkenstock Al is buying are really being rolled into eco-friendly projects?

You can research it and find out. If you find out that the money isn't being rolled into eco-friendly projects, then you've got a point. Otherwise, it's just conjecture w/o evidence.

And guess who is one of the major investors into the CCX? Goldman Sachs, the same company from which Gore's GIM partner, David Blood, came.

But again, there's no profit-generating scheme behind this. None at all. They're just trying to save the salamanders.

PK...have you suddenly gone communist on me? Are you against profit? Where is that wild-eyed libertarian I knew and loved? Investing in companies that support renewable energy so that they can reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuel while being profitable is a great thing. And the more profitable it is, the more people will invest in renewable energy, and we'll be better off. What's wrong with that?

***

And btw, even though we totally disagree on Gore, there is one thing we can all agree upon.

You need to get an Xbox 360.

[pk500]

Sigh. Dude. He's a politician. Voting photo-ops are what politicians do. Just like travel. Just like having guests at his house. Yes, you can nitpick every single little thing the man does and say "maybe he should telecommute" or "maybe he shouldn't fly" or "maybe he should live in a one-bedroom apartment". His point isn't that we should go back to the stone age, never travel, etc. Instead, it is to (if possible) reduce our usage of carbon fuels, which he has clearly done.

How? Through carbon credits, which is a loophole that the rich can enjoy? I just find it odd that the left wing, which supposedly represents the "little man" in America, is willing to turn a blind eye to Al Gore's usage of "carbon credits" to justify his energy consumption.

But according to you, it's clear that he doesn't care about the environment because of...some dishonest reporting (the GIM story)? Because of some unfair energy comparison (his house)? No...it must be because he drove to vote instead of mailed in his vote. Clearly, the man hates the environment.

I never said the man hates the environment. But I did say that "carbon credits" are a complete cop-out if he's trying to set an example for conservation for everyday Americans.

My point, which you are conveniently missing, is that the "carbon credits" that Gore purchases to offset his energy use -- and those credits are dubious in their post-purchase usage -- are out of the reach of everyday Americans. So I find it pretty phony for Gore's spokesperson to continually recite the "carbon credits" line whenever Gore's energy consumption is questioned.

Bottom line: Al can use carbon credits because he is rich. Ordinary folk can't.

You can research it and find out. If you find out that the money isn't being rolled into eco-friendly projects, then you've got a point. Otherwise, it's just conjecture w/o evidence.

No question. That's why I asked it as a question. And conversely, do you have hard, credible proof that the money IS being rolled into eco-friendly projects, or is that just another blind leap of faith with Al? In Al We Trust?

PK...have you suddenly gone communist on me? Are you against profit? Where is that wild-eyed libertarian I knew and loved? Investing in companies that support renewable energy so that they can reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuel while being profitable is a great thing. And the more profitable it is, the more people will invest in renewable energy, and we'll be better off. What's wrong with that?

Not at all. But you insisted in a prior post that Gore isn't getting rich through the carbon credits scheme. Yes, it may be indirect. But if the carbon credits that Gore is buying are being invested into companies, eco-friendly or not, that are making GIM money, then isn't the purchasing carbon credits a little less altrustic than balancing the scales of energy usage in Chez Gore?

Again, I don't doubt that the environment is a cause of Gore's. But as Brando said, his zealous idealism is blunted by the realities of his personal energy consumption and by the backdoor money-making potential of the carbon credits that his talking heads so eagerly trot out as an example that Gore is paying back Mother Earth for everything he pulls from her.

The guy has been as believable as a carnival barker since the moment he landed on the national political stage.

As you said, sigh, he's a politician. Lying well and twisting reality to suit his purposes is what he does well.

And btw, even though we totally disagree on Gore, there is one thing we can all agree upon.

You need to get an Xbox 360.

Can I use carbon credits to buy one?

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

And btw, even though we totally disagree on Gore, there is one thing we can all agree upon.

You need to get an Xbox 360.

Can I use carbon credits to buy one?

LOL. There can be no response to that.

[Leebo33]

Again, all of his electricity usage in his home is bought from renewable resources.

I'm assuming that there is a not an endless supply of energy provided by the TVA's Green Power Switch. The amount they can produce is limited by the amount of their equipment and goes right into the TVA's total power mix. If he is using more than his share of electricity isn't he taking energy that could be used by someone else? Isn't his use of electricity increasing the need for non-renewable energy? If he used less then wouldn't the amount of non-renewable energy be less overall because they could use some of Gore's excess Green Power Switch energy to reduce the total needed?

If the total demand is X and the supply is A (renewable) + B (non-renewable) then if Al Gore uses more A wouldn't it cause a need for more B?

[Smurfy]

4 pages and still not getting anywhere. Ah the quality of debate on the Internet...

Perhaps people can all agree that everyone and their mom is a hypocrite and this thread can maybe turn into an intelligent discussion on global warming?

The two first questions in my mind are:

1) Is global warming a serious problem?
2) If it is a serious problem, what are best ways to address the problem?

Whether any person on the planet is a hypocrite has absolutely no logical bearing on the answer to question 1).

But feel free to waste forum space...

[Leebo33]

Whether any person on the planet is a hypocrite has absolutely no logical bearing on the answer to question 1).

How can you possibly assess the reliability of information you gather to answer #1 if you don't care about the motives of the messengers?

I think the fact that there are so many hypocrites *is* the problem with 1). It's almost impossible to get reliable information.

[JackB1]

4 pages and still not getting anywhere. Ah the quality of debate on the Internet...

Perhaps people can all agree that everyone and their mom is a hypocrite and this thread can maybe turn into an intelligent discussion on global warming?

The two first questions in my mind are:

1) Is global warming a serious problem?
2) If it is a serious problem, what are best ways to address the problem?

Whether any person on the planet is a hypocrite has absolutely no logical bearing on the answer to question 1).

But feel free to waste forum space...

Smurfy...I agree with you completely and that is the reason why most people here stick to posts that aren't too opinionated. People would rather shoot down and criticise something or someone, than acknowledge that there is a problem. It's much easier to find one small issue that they can discredit and then they they feel justified in dismissing the whole topic completely. They do the same thing with Michael Moore. There are people that will pick apart all the "facts" in his films, rather than looking at the overall big picture message he is trying to get accross.
People that don't like Al Gore will point out how he flies jets all over the world and call him a hipocrit and therefore this whole global warming thing must be false. That's why the title to his movie is so appropriate..."An Inconvenient Truth". It's much more convenient to dismiss something rather than comtemplate for a minute that even if 10% of what he says is true, it's still way too much.

There is very little real, useful discussion that takes place here on social issues and I guess that's because it is a "sports gaming forum". The smarter folks stay out of it because they see how these discussions never turn into anything worthwhile. I keep thinking maybe things will change, but when you get replies like these, you realize that most of these folks want to ignore confronting these issues.....

"f*** off jack!!!! geez."

"I only flush the toilet once a week,whether it needs it or not."

"Hope you're walking your 360 back to wherever you bought it."

"Good show, but Gore can take it up the ass."

"I agree with George Carlin when it comes to the environment."

[BigAl]

There is very little real, useful discussion that takes place here on social issues and I guess that's because it is a "sports gaming forum".

This isn't Political Sportspage.

[pk500]

Smurfy...I agree with you completely and that is the reason why most people here stick to posts that aren't too opinionated. People would rather shoot down and criticise something or someone, than acknowledge that there is a problem. It's much easier to find one small issue that they can discredit and then they they feel justified in dismissing the whole topic completely. They do the same thing with Michael Moore. There are people that will pick apart all the "facts" in his films, rather than looking at the overall big picture message he is trying to get accross.
People that don't like Al Gore will point out how he flies jets all over the world and call him a hipocrit and therefore this whole global warming thing must be false. That's why the title to his movie is so appropriate..."An Inconvenient Truth". It's much more convenient to dismiss something rather than comtemplate for a minute that even if 10% of what he says is true, it's still way too much.

There is very little real, useful discussion that takes place here on social issues and I guess that's because it is a "sports gaming forum". The smarter folks stay out of it because they see how these discussions never turn into anything worthwhile. I keep thinking maybe things will change, but when you get replies like these, you realize that most of these folks want to ignore confronting these issues.....

Jack:

Honestly, now, stop coming off as the patron saint of bipartisanship.

You damn well know that if Charlton Heston funded an anti-gun control documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth" or if George W. Bush starred in a documentary called "Liberation Middle East," you would be just as vitriolic in your criticism as many of us have been toward Gore.

Which only reinforces Leebo's point: How can you take Al Gore's stance on the environment as non-biased fact when he is a politician, the very definition of a partisan, spin-laden animal?

You simply can't expect everyone to take Gore's word as unvarnished gospel truth just because his politician's jacket was stripped from his back after the 2000 election.

Something about a leopard and its spots ...

There is a lot of useful discussion here on social and climate issues -- I have no f*cking clue where you're getting off saying there isn't. Compare the amount of social, political and environmental discussion at DSP with any other sports gaming forum on the Web, and the output here dwarfs the combined output of nearly every other board.

Unfortunately, you disagree with a lot of the discussion about those issues here because you're in the DSP minority as a steadfast liberal where most guys here are centrist or right-leaning, so that apparently makes the discussion less valid in your eyes.

And therein lies the problem: There is NO such thing in this country as rational discussion about issues anymore because America has suffered blunt force trauma to its collective reason by partisan politics -- FROM BOTH SIDES.

So it's impossible to debate the simple facts and fallacies of global warming without partisan politics seeping in because that's a mirror of our current political and oratorial process.

The days of Tip O'Neill having drinks behind closed doors with Republicans are gone. You can thank the incredibly caustic, partisan politics of the last 19 years and the screaming talking heads on talk radio and cable news networks for that.

It's all part of the dumbing down of America: Reality TV, partisan politics and spin control, and much, much more. It's amazing that we live in the Information Age, yet Americans are less knowledgeable about issues and generally more stupid than ever.

Take care,
PK

[Leebo33]

People that don't like Al Gore will point out how he flies jets all over the world and call him a hipocrit and therefore this whole global warming thing must be false.

Wow, I finally agree with something! It would be like the Surgeon General telling us smoking kills while puffing on a Marlboro.

[Smurfy]

Whether any person on the planet is a hypocrite has absolutely no logical bearing on the answer to question 1).

How can you possibly assess the reliability of information you gather to answer #1 if you don't care about the motives of the messengers?

I think the fact that there are so many hypocrites *is* the problem with 1). It's almost impossible to get reliable information.

You have good point. But I think when someone broadcasts a message saying "X is happening so we must all do Y", the issue of personal hypocracy has much less to do with the truth of X and much more to do with the credibility of doing Y. Besides, unless Gore happens to be a credible scientist I'd consider it a waste of time including him in the debate. There are many better places to find information. The biggest problem is none of us is likely to be an expert on the subject. So if we're honest with ourselves we'd be generating more questions than answers in these forums.

Hypocracy Warning: I once claimed that I'd stay away from these OT threads.

[bdunn13]

4 pages and still not getting anywhere. Ah the quality of debate on the Internet...

Perhaps people can all agree that everyone and their mom is a hypocrite and this thread can maybe turn into an intelligent discussion on global warming?

The two first questions in my mind are:

1) Is global warming a serious problem?
2) If it is a serious problem, what are best ways to address the problem?

Whether any person on the planet is a hypocrite has absolutely no logical bearing on the answer to question 1).

But feel free to waste forum space...

I would add a 3rd question...

If global warming is a serious problem, are humans the cause?

[pk500]

You have good point. But I think when someone broadcasts a message saying "X is happening so we must all do Y", the issue of personal hypocracy has much less to do with the truth of X and much more to do with the credibility of doing Y. Besides, unless Gore happens to be a credible scientist I'd consider it a waste of time including him in the debate. There are many better places to find information. The biggest problem is none of us is likely to be an expert on the subject. So if we're honest with ourselves we'd be generating more questions than answers in these forums.

But again, Smurf, therein lies the rub: Al Gore IS seen as an expert on climate change because of his fame as a politician and his Oscar-winning documentary.

How many expert climatologists have been VP of the United States and won an Oscar and enjoyed the accompanying visibility, publicity and ego inflation?

None. But Al Gore has, and through spin control, great PR and Hollywood's blessing, Gore has become a poster boy for global warming. And the increasingly stupid American population is buying his spiel without any serious investigation or without any questioning.

The American public are little more than bobblehead dolls in front of a fan when it comes to political issues. When one side turns up the wind velocity high enough with spin and lies, America's little bobblehead nods in that direction. Once the other side cranks up the fan higher, America's bobblehead nods in that direction.

In 2002-03, the right wing turned up the fan so high on Iraq that America nodded its little bobblehead in agreement with Bush and Cheney's idiotic "plan."

In 2006, Al Gore came out with a documentary, and the left wing turned up the fan REALLY high with global warming hysteria. So America's little bobblehead nodded in that direction, wondering if a glacier from the Ross Sea was going to float north and flood their lives.

Sooner or later, the Republicans will find a wedge issue that cranks up the fan in their direction, and the breeze will blow America's bobblehead in that direction because it's too busy watching "Wife Swap" and checking out Nancy Grace's latest inane rant to really care about probing the issues.

Take care,
PK

[greggsand]

I don't get how saving polar bears has anything to do with politics. U telling me Bush hates polar bears AND black people?

Kayne was right!

[Leebo33]

Besides, unless Gore happens to be a credible scientist I'd consider it a waste of time including him in the debate.

I agree, but if you tried to exclude Gore from the debate people like Jack would immediately paint you as narrow minded.

Gore has done exactly what he intended. He made himself the focal point of the debate and it's increased his wealth and importance. How many people in the world can be linked like that to a cause? Bono's got debt relief, but Gore's going to save the f*cking planet!

The bottom line is BigAl is right. It's much more fun on a sports gaming site to rag on Gore than to debate real issues. Plus, it just really bugs me on a personal level that people don't see Al "there's trouble right here in River City" Gore for who he is. And I'm a guy who voted for Clinton twice and Kerry so it's not like I'm a right wing nutjob.

[Jackdog]

Jack:

Honestly, now, stop coming off as the patron saint of bipartisanship.

You damn well know that if Charlton Heston funded an anti-gun control documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth" or if George W. Bush starred in a documentary called "Liberation Middle East," you would be just as vitriolic in your criticism as many of us have been toward Gore.

Which only reinforces Leebo's point: How can you take Al Gore's stance on the environment as non-biased fact when he is a politician, the very definition of a partisan, spin-laden animal?

You simply can't expect everyone to take Gore's word as unvarnished gospel truth just because his politician's jacket was stripped from his back after the 2000 election.

Something about a leopard and its spots ...

There is a lot of useful discussion here on social and climate issues -- I have no f*cking clue where you're getting off saying there isn't. Compare the amount of social, political and environmental discussion at DSP with any other sports gaming forum on the Web, and the output here dwarfs the combined output of nearly every other board.

Unfortunately, you disagree with a lot of the discussion about those issues here because you're in the DSP minority as a steadfast liberal where most guys here are centrist or right-leaning, so that apparently makes the discussion less valid in your eyes.

And therein lies the problem: There is NO such thing in this country as rational discussion about issues anymore because America has suffered blunt force trauma to its collective reason by partisan politics -- FROM BOTH SIDES.

So it's impossible to debate the simple facts and fallacies of global warming without partisan politics seeping in because that's a mirror of our current political and oratorial process.

The days of Tip O'Neill having drinks behind closed doors with Republicans are gone. You can thank the incredibly caustic, partisan politics of the last 19 years and the screaming talking heads on talk radio and cable news networks for that.

It's all part of the dumbing down of America: Reality TV, partisan politics and spin control, and much, much more. It's amazing that we live in the Information Age, yet Americans are less knowledgeable about issues and generally more stupid than ever.

Take care,
PK

Damn good post PK.

Now that's coming from a a person with no logic or brain matter because I choose to post on a "Sports Gaming Forum". Also I wasted a bit of forum space to give you kudos on your thoughts. I hope I am forgiven.

PS. You know who I spent last summer working for? You know his party and you understand it was an eye opening experience for me. So your post rings very true to me.

As far as this debate goes,I don't know if Global Warming is a problem. I haven't read anything that hasen't been politicaly driven to form an honest opinion. I am not going to act like a self-righteous prick and tell people they need to do this or do that if I don't know all the unbiased facts.

I'll give you my unbiased truth on this thread so far. Leebo has a great sense of humor and his posts are damn funny. BD is still as sharp as a tack,Jared nver uses profanity and you still are a Libertarian.

Now, Jack's feelings are hurt again and he needs a hug. PSST....by the way Jack,you come across kinda Al Goreish when people don't fall in line with your thinking. Your comment about Michael Moore was a perfect example what PK's post was about. You wrote.

There are people that will pick apart all the "facts" in his films, rather than looking at the overall big picture message he is trying to get accross.

That holds true for Bush as well concerning the war in Iraq don't you think?

Facts are what's supposed to be in documentaries,not opinions,facts. Moore has stretched the truth in all of his films. He discredits himself. But he leans your way politically so it's all good. You made PK's point.

Moore is what 400 lbs. Truth is he the type of person that make health care costly for people that can drive by Buger King and McDonalds. He's rich and he's trying to get richer with his film. Like Gore,if he really cared about the issue of his film,he would have pushed his ass away from the table and hit the treadmill a bit.

I don't look at any of these guys films as groundbreaking info. I look at it as entertaiment and fodder for these debates. To me,that's not a bad thing.

I've known some of these guys for 5 years or more. I could careless if they go off topic and rant. I damn sure don't care if they call me an ass or school me up on a thing or two. That's what makes this place hard to stay away from when I go online. In short Jack. Get thicker skin,and turn out the lights on your pity party.

[Jackdog]

I don't get how saving polar bears has anything to do with politics. U telling me Bush hates polar bears AND black people?

Kayne was right!

Damn right!!

PS. Bush is really bummed out. The NAACP buried the "N" word today. One less word in his already brilliant vocabulary.

[ScoopBrady]

There is very little real, useful discussion that takes place here on social issues and I guess that's because it is a "sports gaming forum". The smarter folks stay out of it because they see how these discussions never turn into anything worthwhile. I keep thinking maybe things will change, but when you get replies like these, you realize that most of these folks want to ignore confronting these issues.....

"I agree with George Carlin when it comes to the environment."

And what exactly is wrong with that? Do you know how George Carlin feels about this whole Global Warming/whateveryouwannacallit bullshit? Do you honestly think that we are capable of destroying this planet? A planet that has been around a hell of a lot longer than any of us and will be around much longer after we've gone.

The only thing we'll end up doing is making it a little more difficult for future humans but I guarantee we won't screw it up beyond self repair. The planet can withstand earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the atom bomb and you think turning your water off while you're brushing your teeth is going to make any kind of difference? I call that naive and arrogant as a race. The bottom line is, in my opinion the only ones we're impacting is ourselves, not the planet.

As a society we are so firmly entrenched in technology that we're better off trying to adapt to the changes it has brought on rather than ask everybody to go back to living in a cave.

I fully and truly believe that the environment should be last in a long line of things to give a s*** about and even further down the line of things that need to be addressed. Let's work on curing disease, ending poverty, living in peacetime, ending child abuse, lowering crime, stopping rape, stopping sexual molestation, murder, you name it.

[Jared]

There is very little real, useful discussion that takes place here on social issues and I guess that's because it is a "sports gaming forum". The smarter folks stay out of it because they see how these discussions never turn into anything worthwhile. I keep thinking maybe things will change, but when you get replies like these, you realize that most of these folks want to ignore confronting these issues.....

I was backing out of this thread...but I've gotten pulled back in.

Jack,

If you think this is a place where "very little real, useful discussion" takes place, then a) stop starting these "useless" discussions or b) go post somewhere else, where your hard-hitting issue-confronting posts will be appreciated. I'm sure you can pop over to the Mensa forums in the meantime, where the smarter folks post.

In the meantime, let me tell you what I think. On many political/off-topic forums, the views tend to be homogenous. Liberals talk to liberals, conservatives talk to conservatives, etc. Here, on the off-topic posts, people from all views can spout there opinions. There will be disagreements, there will be sarcasm, and there will be people that express their opinion in one sentence. This is all a good thing. No, it's not a bunch of PhDs discussing theory...but again, you can find that somewhere else if you want.

Regardless, just because it's a sports gaming forum doesn't mean that there are a bunch of idiots posting on other stuff here. As long as people are somewhat respectful of one another, all opinions are fine by me, all across the spectrum.