Al Gore to be Time's "Person of the Year"?

Gore is the beneficiary of the anti-Bush backlash, and a lot of the accolades he's getting now are the world's way of giving Bush the finger.
 
Al Gore cost thousands more lives than Bush did when he banned the sale of organs in the 80's.

He also got drubbed by both the New York Times and the IPCC (2 hard left leaning outlets) for his gross overexxageration or lie of how much the sea level would rise, along with pointing out many other inaccuracies in his science fiction work.
 
TheDanold said:
Al Gore cost thousands more lives than Bush did when he banned the sale of organs in the 80's.

He also got drubbed by both the New York Times and the IPCC (2 hard left leaning outlets) for his gross overexxageration or lie of how much the sea level would rise, along with pointing out many other inaccuracies in his science fiction work.
Click to expand...

I agree. In 20 years when I still stand on dry land, I'm sure Al Gore will rise out of his wheelchair just to let me know he saved the world.
 
No, he didn't say he invented "Global Warming" only that he was instrumental in its spread as a theory...

:D
 
Gore should run.
All the people hatin on Hillary would most certainly vote for Al.
And the moron cons have been prove asses on the GW issue.
 
TheDanold said:
Al Gore cost thousands more lives than Bush did when he banned the sale of organs in the 80's.
Click to expand...

An incredible reach of logic sir, which I'm sure you have no possible way of validating.

He also got drubbed by both the New York Times and the IPCC (2 hard left leaning outlets) for his gross overexxageration or lie of how much the sea level would rise, along with pointing out many other inaccuracies in his science fiction work.
Click to expand...

Because some points in the volumes and masses of information, studies, and analysis, which covered uncharted data and information, may have been overstated .. or even using your term "overexaggerated", you believe that it somehow discounts or diminshes his effort to bring a critical issue of human life-threatening importance to the world stage?

I implore you to take a moment and think that over.
 
Topspin said:
Gore should run.
All the people hatin on Hillary would most certainly vote for Al.
And the moron cons have been prove asses on the GW issue.
Click to expand...

He cannot run as a Dem now. It is too late. He would have to run as a third party and there is no way I can see him doing that.
 
There was a great article in Vanity Fair recently on the 2000 campaign & how Gore was still smarting from being shredded by the media in such an inaccurate way.

I don't see why he would want to put himself through that again, and think he is genuinely sincere when he says he won't run again. I think he's enjoying life too much right now, and feels like he's making a difference in what he's doing outside of politics.
 
TheDanold said:
Al Gore cost thousands more lives than Bush did when he banned the sale of organs in the 80's.

He also got drubbed by both the New York Times and the IPCC (2 hard left leaning outlets) for his gross overexxageration or lie of how much the sea level would rise, along with pointing out many other inaccuracies in his science fiction work.
Click to expand...

Link please on your first part about Gore costing lives....
 
The "costing lives" portion is a logical extension from the "selling organs" portion. If people were allowed to sell their organs there likely would be more donors.

I can see his point, however I agree with Gore on this one, one should not be allowed to make profit on poor people's organs. It is the ultimate in taking advantage of a situation.
 
Damocles said:
The "costing lives" portion is a logical extension from the "selling organs" portion. If people were allowed to sell their organs there likely would be more donors.
Click to expand...

That's not logical at all. It's like saying anyone who is against global warming is costing thousands of lives. How do you quantify that?

And, he said Gore has cost more lives than Bush .. who at last count is way into the hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of our own dead and wounded.

Are you suggesting that you agree that Gore has cost more lives than Bush?
 
Just more ramblings from bush voters, trying to justify the consequences of their vote:

"Hey! Bush might be bad! But, Gore was just as bad!"

:cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top