Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed

Jeff - an Independent wrote:

<quoted text>
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.
Sounds like you are just jealous of high wage earners and those that succeed in life.

Do you think high wage earners are liars? Do you think none of them used statistics to get where they are? Lots of people use statistics to obfuscate and misdirect (look at our current administration). No one side of the argument has exclusive access to the truth and frankly I am tired of people who can only think in absolutes. Its time for some nuance. However, please answer the question - why should the top 1%(based on wealth)of the U.S. not be required to pay 90% of the cost to run and protect the U.S.?

Boca Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought that leading was setting an example to follow. We would be in a world full of hurt if everyone claimed to be experts (without the proper education in the field) and toured the world in private jets, and large motorcades, while living an energy wasting lifestyle like Al Gore.
I would rather follow an honorable man who tried to practice what he preaches, like Jimmy Carter, than a hypocrite like Al Gore.

Then ignore Gore and listen to what the scientists say about the matter. Gore's detractors think that his alleged hypocritical lifestyle invalidates the energy issues and climate change that he preaches on about. That is a purely emotional reaction that disregards critical thinking about those issues.

modotx wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think high wage earners are liars? Do you think none of them used statistics to get where they are? Lots of people use statistics to obfuscate and misdirect (look at our current administration). No one side of the argument has exclusive access to the truth and frankly I am tired of people who can only think in absolutes. Its time for some nuance. However, please answer the question - why should the top 1%(based on wealth)of the U.S. not be required to pay 90% of the cost to run and protect the U.S.?

I know, I know — you're not talking to me. But I just had to throw in my 2 cents.

The answer to your question is simple... it's called equality under the law and is part of our Constitution. You may try to change it, but at the present time that is what our society is supposed to be based upon.

Oh, and, just an aside, there is something called objective truth. Nuance all you want, but truth will always remain.

sure thing wrote:

<quoted text>
Then ignore Gore and listen to what the scientists say about the matter. Gore's detractors think that his alleged hypocritical lifestyle invalidates the energy issues and climate change that he preaches on about. That is a purely emotional reaction that disregards critical thinking about those issues.

Wouldn't "critical thinking" necessitate that you DISBELIEVE before something is proven? And since, at the present time, even AGW proponents will not say they are 100% certain that they know AGW is happening, isn't it the "deniers" that actually are the "critical thinkers"?

Go to http://nozzleRage.com/
(;)LOL

I repeat and await a specific reply:

ENLIGHTENMENT is produced by vague buzz-concept talking points?

Cite real facts, by real recognized and accredited scientists, that show unequivically that there is an emminent and alarming threat of global warming.
No throwing out the buzz-phrases like "Brazilian Rain Forests", "over-population", "Ice cap melting", "depleting drinking water", and my favorite, "the strained planet". Any one of these could be an issue of some sort, but that has nothing to do with the unsupportable supposition of "Global Warming".
Oh, and by the way, a week ago we, here in Chicago, enjoyed "above average temperatures". What a break it was from a couple of years of below average temperatures. Before you jump back up on your high horse, I'll repeat the fact that I have acquaintenances in Australia and England who relate that it's been much the same for them! So it isn't a localized aberration that "warmers" love to throw out whenever someone quotes the reality of personal experience.
I was looking forward to the very remote possibility that Saint Al would deliver on his threat and I would have a nice HOT summer. Of course NOT!

"Class ... anyone .... anyone ..."

The Truth Matters wrote:

<quoted text>
The only slick one is you and the way you purposely mangle the facts.
The facts:
The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income in 2006, yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
The top 10% earned 47.32%, yet they paid 70.79% of all federal income taxes.
The top 25% earned 68.16%, yet they paid 86.27% of all federal income taxes.
The top 50% earned 87.49%, yet they paid 97.01% of all federal income taxes.
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% earned 12.51%, yet they only paid 2.99% of all federal income taxes.
Now, who is not paying their fair share of income taxes?

He wasn't talking about income he was talking about accumulated wealth.

Dick Cheney wrote:

<quoted text>You may want to skim through that article again, because you certainly didn't read it. The top 1% "control" only 19% of the income, not 90%. According to your link, this same group pays 37% of the income taxes.

Do you not understand the government's definition of income? By the time the wealthy write off all of their duductions of course their income is going to look less. Also, many of of the wealthy claim no income at all - that's because they had no income as defined by the IRS. However, this does not mean that they didn't make any money they just just didn't work for someone to do so.

Heather wrote:

So how can they say one day how they know we are paying to much at the gas pump then vote to raise the tax on gasoline, making it cost even more!
They seem to have short term memory loss!

Just like the crack addict who thinks her problem is that the price of crack is too high, your problem is that you think that the price of gasoline is too high, when the real problem is your addiction to it. We have an addiction, individually and as a nation, and we need to break that addiction.

modotx wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think high wage earners are liars? Do you think none of them used statistics to get where they are? Lots of people use statistics to obfuscate and misdirect (look at our current administration). No one side of the argument has exclusive access to the truth and frankly I am tired of people who can only think in absolutes. Its time for some nuance. However, please answer the question - why should the top 1%(based on wealth)of the U.S. not be required to pay 90% of the cost to run and protect the U.S.?

Keep reading my posts, later I posted a comment about scrapping the current tax system, repealing the 16th amendment in favor of either FairTax.org , another type of national sales tax, or flat tax...

The current system is way broken.

Boca Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought that leading was setting an example to follow. We would be in a world full of hurt if everyone claimed to be experts (without the proper education in the field) and toured the world in private jets, and large motorcades, while living an energy wasting lifestyle like Al Gore.
I would rather follow an honorable man who tried to practice what he preaches, like Jimmy Carter, than a hypocrite like Al Gore.

Someone has to articulate the vision first, then and only then can we start to put it into practice. Without a clear goal, we'll just continue to flounder around, arguing about side issues, and doing nothing about curbing our addiction to fossil fuels. Until one day the petro-dictators turn off the spigots.

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>Just like the crack addict who thinks her problem is that the price of crack is too high, your problem is that you think that the price of gasoline is too high, when the real problem is your addiction to it. We have an addiction, individually and as a nation, and we need to break that addiction.

A rather interesting, and completely fallacious, analogy. Unlike crack which has, as far as I can determine, no redeeming value, oil and the economical energy and products it produces has created the high standard of living we have today. Please do tell... what can, right now, replace oil?

pps wrote:

If we really want to reduce energy usage and preserve this planet, let's stop making babies-- that's the only solution to all these dilemna-- less population, less energy, less resources
http://overpopulation.org/
Human beings are like dogs and cats, they populated exponentially and we should promote "spay and neuter" for all human beings especially the stupid useless human beings like al gore!

Thats the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that everyone ignores. Overpopulation is really the problem and only the Chinese are trying to solve it, brutally I might add.

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
A rather interesting, and completely fallacious, analogy. Unlike crack which has, as far as I can determine, no redeeming value, oil and the economical energy and products it produces has created the high standard of living we have today. Please do tell... what can, right now, replace oil?

Please do tell...what do you propose to do when we run out of it?

modotx wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think high wage earners are liars? Do you think none of them used statistics to get where they are? Lots of people use statistics to obfuscate and misdirect (look at our current administration). No one side of the argument has exclusive access to the truth and frankly I am tired of people who can only think in absolutes. Its time for some nuance. However, please answer the question - why should the top 1%(based on wealth)of the U.S. not be required to pay 90% of the cost to run and protect the U.S.?

I do not think that the government is the best spender of our money. so I believe that each of us regardless of income should pay less.

In my perfect world. We would not pay any federal income taxes. Each state would tax their residents and provide any services not specifically detailed in the constitution. the federal would tax the state for membership in the federation. And the government would be responsible only for those services specifically detailed in the constitution.

If we had continued on the path created by the founders of this nation, that is how we would look. Your elected federal representatives would lose a whole lot of power they were never intended to have. They were never intended to get a salary for serving, insurance and a pension. They were to be citizen legislators who whould do the country's business and then return to their own homes and their own jobs.

NEWS AS OF THIS AM. BILL IN CONGRESS TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL 10 CENT TAX PER GALLON OF GASOLINE.

Why, congress makes more money off gasoline and oil than the oil companies do. When consumption goes down so does the congressional disposable income. Gasoline taxes go to the highway fund, the place where most earmarks come from. 18 billion earmarks last year.

This system is broke and broken.

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>Please do tell...what do you propose to do when we run out of it?

Interesting that you would move the discussion in this direction since you haven't answered my (first) question. However, I will answer yours.

Starting yesteryear, we should be pursuing every possible source of energy. As our research matures, so will we be able to make a reasoned and logical decision on which energy sources (solar, wind, tide, nuclear, etc., etc.) will be the most viable on a national and worldwide scale. My bet is that several energy sources will be necessary, just as they are today (oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, NG, etc.). So, as we "run out" of oil, if indeed that happens, we will have the alternative energy sources available.

Now, please answer my question. What can, at this moment, replace oil?

Masterblaster wrote:

<quoted text>
First off your information IS shipwrecked as you have NOT researched enough about nuclear: The fact of the matter you (out at sea and seen nothing for far to long) individual! Through information I am not at liberty to get into, this nation already TAKES IN FROM other nations there nuclear waste!!! Thats right all you liberal morons!!! Your liberal counterparts in washington years ago you idiots agreed to take as part of an agreement to send purified enriched uranium for foreign nuke plants and we take the waste back and container it! Oh so you don't beleive ME!!? Look into the pact that is going on in the middle east right now!! Ya Dubai is in the process of being another cotributor to OUR problem of a place to store it after your liberalist idiots say "anything to keep the peace even if we have to pay for it"!!!WAKE UP YOU FOOLS! If your going to write it know what your writing about!! I can't tell you how I know this but if you have truly researched it as you stated you could figure this out!! And with all the "facts" you have so called "posted" I couldn't take it anymore and had to respond!! GO look it up before you write something so stupid again!!

Well there you go..

Because I don't align myself with predetermined talking points designed specifically for narrow minded boors like you, I'm instantly labelled a liberal.

I don't know if you ever watch C-Span (probably not, since watching actually debate on the floor might prove to be too factual for your cognitive abilities ), but this has been a heated issue for several years. It's your illustrious president Bush and other republicans, you idiot, who are pandering to lobbyists on behalf of companies that include the likes of Haliburton and others who favor importing nuclear waste and rewriting legislation PUT IN PLACE BY DEMOCRATS who are opposing it as we speak.
http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/03/14/bi...

modotx wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think high wage earners are liars? Do you think none of them used statistics to get where they are? Lots of people use statistics to obfuscate and misdirect (look at our current administration). No one side of the argument has exclusive access to the truth and frankly I am tired of people who can only think in absolutes. Its time for some nuance. However, please answer the question - why should the top 1%(based on wealth)of the U.S. not be required to pay 90% of the cost to run and protect the U.S.?

I believe we, the 1% richest, should pay for all the government programs. If I pay for it then I get to say where the money goes not you. And I would sharply curtail all spending tomorrow. After all its my money.

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>Please do tell...what do you propose to do when we run out of it?

We're not running out of oil. There's more oil in earth's crust than there is water.

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>Just like the crack addict who thinks her problem is that the price of crack is too high, your problem is that you think that the price of gasoline is too high, when the real problem is your addiction to it. We have an addiction, individually and as a nation, and we need to break that addiction.

should I put kerosene in your koolaid?