Posted on 02/25/2007 11:17:17 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
Well, well...Hollywood says Al Gore is a winner and awards him an Oscar.
I seem to remember not so long along, the American people decided otherwise!
Let's see now, which would Al the Loser have preferred...his Academy Award or the White House?
What do you think, folks?????
"I seem to remember not so long along, the American people decided otherwise!"
well actually more voted for him than for bush, though the media calling florida for gore before central time polls closed might have made a difference there and certainly in other states as far as turnout. the electoral college is where bush won, eventually.
I was hopin the director would say,
"Al is asking that we all ride to the party in the same limo."
Eh, instead of one lieing liberal phony in the White House we get another. Either way, as usual in Presidential politics, we lose.
Once the libs (and others who support this theory) can answer why the other planets are heating up at a similar or in some cases greater rate, then I'll buy a compact that runs on water and plant some trees. Until then, it's more hackneyed science and propoganda. Next thing you know, we'll have to pay an "Earth Tax" for driving non-hybrid cars.
During the 8 Clinton years, I don't remember a word about global warming from either Clinton or Gore or during Gore's awful campaign.
Typical democrat, assume no responsibility yourself, whine and blame others as soon as you are out of office.
Hollywood had to give him an award to legitimatize the BS that makes up his documentary. They needed to validate their own beliefs as represented by the film, so the best, most in-the-face way they could do it was with an Oscar.
It was really as much as for themselves as it was for him.
Al Bore's award is no different than any of the other awards. The same standard was used in the judging!
and as a Tennessean...THANK GOD we were smart enough to know the real AlGore.The rest of the country should thank us for sparing them.
Don't bother. The sun has increased 0.1% over 200 years, not nothing, but translates to less than 0.2 degrees C increase here. I would instead ask them why the hurry. If they answer with their tipping point twaddle, then ask them why sea levels have steady but tiny increases (not accelerating), why negative feedbacks must already be occuring (therefore we can't be at a tipping point), etc. The real reason they want to hurry is they will (again) be proven wrong in 10 years so they have to put it all on the line this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.