Clinton and Gore drive MMH!
Longer than that actually. And he was also writing articles in Byte magazine and other publications back in 1991 about the importance of the Internet. He was one of the few people in congress who provided the legislative impetus to get government agencies online which the gave the Internet a big boost when it needed it.
Who vouches for this? The famous Al Gore suckup Newt Gingrich.
I'm sick of constantly reading posts that amount to "Al Gore doesn't live in a cave and ride a donkey so he's obviously phony." What crap. Turn off Fox News and Limbaugh and do some reading.
Who vouches for this? The famous Al Gore suckup Newt Gingrich.
I'm sick of constantly reading posts that amount to "Al Gore doesn't live in a cave and ride a donkey so he's obviously phony." What crap. Turn off Fox News and Limbaugh and do some reading.
I agree with you. If you want the news, TURN OFF FOX!!! Definitely stay far away from from Limbaugh!!!
Last edited by Pravus Prime; Dec 3, 2007 at 09:22 AM. Reason: Fixed Quote
I worked for the USDA in 1975 and I had Internet access then! (we called it ARPA-net then and it was mostly some PDP-8s hooked together with serial links.) So what you said makes as much sense as me saying because of that obviously Al Gore is a sainted visionary!
The truth is he is an above-average progressive politician who has become wealthy through his political contacts. He does not deserve sole credit -- nor has he ever claimed it no matter how much Fox News would have it otherwise -- for progressive technology and environmental advances. Nonetheless he deserves much credit for helping these causes and it is endlessly tiresome to read right-wing claptrap on the subject that is far more phony and hypocritical than Al Gore could ever be.
Maybe I over-reacted, but it is just the sort of irrelevant factoid tidbit that is so often used by the right-wing (I suppose some lefties do it too but I don't see it very often) to bamboozle people into taking positions when they should know better.
I have absolutely no problem with someone not liking Al Gore. There's a lot of people going around saying he's "sold out" (whatever that means) and I have no position on that. What I am tired of is people making decisions based on rhetoric and personality rather than any sort of objective reasoning based on facts.
I have absolutely no problem with someone not liking Al Gore. There's a lot of people going around saying he's "sold out" (whatever that means) and I have no position on that. What I am tired of is people making decisions based on rhetoric and personality rather than any sort of objective reasoning based on facts.
So we should all aspire to have his house?
I don't work for the Gov, so I finally justified my personal access 2 weeks ago. Productivity has plummetted. :O

I don't work for the Gov, so I finally justified my personal access 2 weeks ago. Productivity has plummetted. :O
Last edited by worthywads; Dec 3, 2007 at 11:49 AM.
In part:
Now why would you want to do that?!?
Reminds me of part of a DEVO song:
"Freedom of thought is what you got"
"Freedom from thought is what you want"
(or something like that)
Reminds me of part of a DEVO song:
"Freedom of thought is what you got"
"Freedom from thought is what you want"
(or something like that)
I'm sorry, but saying that Al Gore must not be very environmentally-minded just because he didn't buy a Prius in 1997 is a bit like saying that George Lucas doesn't know anything about movies just because he didn't buy Wedding Crashers the day it was released on DVD. Not only are there an endless variety of environmental *things* out there you could or could not buy to make a particular environmental statement, but the *things* that you buy and the policies that you push for, or the things that you know about and work on, are not necessarily related. Leadership is a bigger-picture idea.
Would I have been surprised to see Gore buy a Prius in 1997? No. Would it have made a statement? Possibly. Might be hard to make a bulletproof one or to fit a bunch of Secret Service people in it, but that isn't the point. The *actions* Gore was taking in 1997 (can we say- Kyoto Protocol?) spoke a lot louder than anything YOU did in 1997 to try to stop climate change, even if you bought a Prius. Maybe Kyoto wasn't a huge success (at least not here) and maybe the US could have done a lot more, but it was something- better than nothing, an acknowledgement of the problem, at least- and he was a big part of it. So let's try to take a bigger picture view, please.
Would I have been surprised to see Gore buy a Prius in 1997? No. Would it have made a statement? Possibly. Might be hard to make a bulletproof one or to fit a bunch of Secret Service people in it, but that isn't the point. The *actions* Gore was taking in 1997 (can we say- Kyoto Protocol?) spoke a lot louder than anything YOU did in 1997 to try to stop climate change, even if you bought a Prius. Maybe Kyoto wasn't a huge success (at least not here) and maybe the US could have done a lot more, but it was something- better than nothing, an acknowledgement of the problem, at least- and he was a big part of it. So let's try to take a bigger picture view, please.
I'm sorry, but saying that Al Gore must not be very environmentally-minded just because he didn't buy a Prius in 1997 is a bit like saying that George Lucas doesn't know anything about movies just because he didn't buy Wedding Crashers the day it was released on DVD. Not only are there an endless variety of environmental *things* out there you could or could not buy to make a particular environmental statement, but the *things* that you buy and the policies that you push for, or the things that you know about and work on, are not necessarily related. Leadership is a bigger-picture idea.
Would I have been surprised to see Gore buy a Prius in 1997? No. Would it have made a statement? Possibly. Might be hard to make a bulletproof one or to fit a bunch of Secret Service people in it, but that isn't the point. The *actions* Gore was taking in 1997 (can we say- Kyoto Protocol?) spoke a lot louder than anything YOU did in 1997 to try to stop climate change, even if you bought a Prius. Maybe Kyoto wasn't a huge success (at least not here) and maybe the US could have done a lot more, but it was something- better than nothing, an acknowledgement of the problem, at least- and he was a big part of it. So let's try to take a bigger picture view, please.
Would I have been surprised to see Gore buy a Prius in 1997? No. Would it have made a statement? Possibly. Might be hard to make a bulletproof one or to fit a bunch of Secret Service people in it, but that isn't the point. The *actions* Gore was taking in 1997 (can we say- Kyoto Protocol?) spoke a lot louder than anything YOU did in 1997 to try to stop climate change, even if you bought a Prius. Maybe Kyoto wasn't a huge success (at least not here) and maybe the US could have done a lot more, but it was something- better than nothing, an acknowledgement of the problem, at least- and he was a big part of it. So let's try to take a bigger picture view, please.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jason
Hybrid & Related News
0
Feb 11, 2008 06:58 PM





