I just had a realization.....THIS is why I don't want Al Gore to run:

[Harper_is_Bush]

If he decides to run now, he will be portrayed by his enemies as only using global warming for political purpose.

That will greatly diminish the acceptance of global warming and the need for action in the minds of many people worldwide.

So to those (you know who you are) who jump on me and characterize me as being anti-Democrat over my opinion that Gore should not run, answer that possibility (tragedy) please.

[Horse with no Name]

1. So is this the 33rd reason you don't want him to run?

Every week it's something else...

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Uh, no.

This, and my belief he can be more effective fighting global warming, are pretty much the only reasons I don't want him to run.

33? You sir, are a major BS'er.

[Horse with no Name]

6. No, I just read you allll the time

saying you don't want Gore to run because we need him to deal with global warming, we don't need John Edwards because his house is too big and besides, Elizabeth uses the wrong lightbulbs, and hey, did you know that Gore can't multi-task--we need him on global warming, ad nauseum.
Some of us would like a progressive candidate but you sit in Canada and diss them all.

[Bonobo]

13. And I you.

I read DU all the time too and I don't always get the greatest opinion of you from reading YOUR stuff either. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But that doesn't mean I would ignore the content of your posts in favor of a cheap personal attack.

Harper_is_Bush is A-OK in my book, I don't think a personal attack is warranted.

An apology is owed for your oh-so-low blow.

[Horse with no Name]

14. pfftt..who are you?

Feel free to put me on ignore since I could care less what you think of me or my posts. Newsflash...I've never even heard of you.
What I said is true--100% and it isn't a personal attack.
Does the truth hurt? It must.

[Bonobo]

18. Doesn't hurt, but your comment about "not hearing of me" is telling indeed.

Some people like to post on these kinds of sites to build up "internet avatars" that give them an image and ego they never had in their real lives...

So pfft right back.

You unintenionally revealed a lot more about yourself than you wanted, I think.

Sad, small person, behind a computer screen.

Get a life. Look in the mirror. Figure it out. It's called emotional health. You should try it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. For Someone Preaching About Personal Attacks, You Certainly Don't Hesistate To Engage In Them.

Just an observation.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. ur full of $#%t.

I have never critisized John Edwards.

Nor have I said E.Edwards uses the wrong lightbulbs, only that she is advertising the wrong policy on changing lightbulbs.

Extract yourself from the political BS and get yerself grounded.

[Horse with no Name]

17. lol

Ground yourself dude. You are in desperate need of it. And yes...there was a thread that lived forever about your criticism of Elizabeth Edwards light bulbs.
Do you not remember it? You kicked it every single day.
But just for good measure, say all you want..you and your sockpuppet.
I'm not going to kick anymore of your threads.

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. u r misrepresenting things

that thread was about the decision to wait until incandescents burn out before replacing or not.

Quite simple.

What is a "sockpuppet"? If that's what I think it is, you better shut up right about now.

[Madspirit]

68. I totally agree

*post moved down*

[salin]

22. a critical thread

kicked for DAYS after the discussion was over to get a few more comments each day - did catch the attention of some DUers. Most of us, after the discussion dies down on one of our threads - do not keep trying to revive for days and days and days. Intentional or not, that behavior sends the message to some readers taht "is there an agenda I should start paying attenton to from x or y poster?"

I can't help it - as a Duer you came to my attention when for days on end (a week or more - or so it seemed) a thread continued that read as an attack on Mrs. Edwards per her not changing out the lightbulbs immediately. Intentional or not, how we present ourselves to a community is how we become to be perceived. That is the awkward thing about online communities - we only see what is typed; we don't have full conversations so if the poster doesn't give us context to read a series of threads or posts differently - we are left with a specific impression. In this case it includes the idea that the Edwards suck because they live in a big, wasteful house and haven't yet changed out their lightbulbs and that Gore shouldn't run (and folks who would like to see a run should shut up) for the raison de etre of the day. Today because the idea of climate change would become more denegrated - as if the rightwingtlakingheads hadn't already been doing that consistently, and for years.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Maybe global warming is important, huh?

Too important to let something pass when it's incorrect, like the idea that you should wait until your incadescents burn out before replacing them.

Sorry if Edwards is your man. I don't discriminate.

[Alexander]

33. That thread was ridiculous, and you should've let it die.

I distinctly remember deliberately avoiding GD for a week because of that nonsense about Edwards' house.

I'm sure when we all die from heatstroke on a sizzling planet, it will all be because Edwards didn't change his light bulbs and Gore had an energy bill of over 2 cents.

:eyes:

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. It was ridiculous because so many people chose to assume

that I was attacking Elizabeth or being critical of the Edwards house in general.

The simple fact is it is preferable that everyone change their light bulbs now. Not later, now.

And btw, Gore offsets. You should know that.

[salin]

42. if so many people read it that way...

even if it wasn't the intention... perhaps a little reflection might be due unless one wants to continuously be "misread" by so many.

[Harper_is_Bush]

48. Many were smart enough to read it correctly....and very few read it

the way I described.

Instead of trying to assume you are part of a consensus represent yourself. What exactly is your beef with me?

[salin]

52. Ah, I am an idiot

thanks for that. I am sure that my grad degree from the top program in the country (world?) would be ashamed to have such an idiot as a graduate. I chose never to suggest the intelligence or lack there of of other DUers based on agreement or disagreement on a topic. But sure, lets say you are right... I am just not "smart enough" to "understand" that thread.

Given that many others have expressed the same opinion -guess that DU is full of idiots. :shrug:

What is my issue? I already expressed it. There is a point when a thread 'dies' on its own. Generally within a few hours - sometimes spanning more than a day. Rarely for more than a week - unless the original poster continues to "self kick". For a long time this was considered a taboo on DU (self kicking for the sake of keeping a thread alive long after it was a real interactive/active discussion thread.) After a period of time - (days) the thread and attempts to keep it going - read to many as intentionally antagonistic. If that was not the intent - but was the reception, perhaps trying to figure out why it was received as antagonisitc might be helpful, as one could avoid losing one's message to the tone - as once one is read as antagonistic, that "screen" (antagonisitc) is used to read future posts.

No probem with the initial thread. We all have our perspectives that differ. But on day three, five or much more - it kept reviving as if it was a vital issue (and thus the sense that it grew from criticism to outright condemnation of Ms. Edwards) - but closer read was that it was being self-gratuitiously being kicked by the OP poster. After several days hits on bad nettiquette. Anyone can be guilty of bad nettiquette - but should expect that said behavior, over time, has an effect on how that poster is viewed by others. Of course if one doesn't care whether or not one's message is heard, this isn't a problem - it is all good flame argument thread. But if one wants a message to be heard, the behavior is counter productive.

But you really don't need to respond. You already suggested I am just not "smart enough" to understand that thread. And if you belive dismissal is more productive than discussion, than all the power to you.

[Harper_is_Bush]

56. I didn't say you were an idiot, and that extrapolation by you is dishonest.

And I honestly don't know what your opinion is, but pretending that it's shared by "many others" on DU (and further extrapolating that I'm calling them idiots also) is just silly.

If you want to comment on that previous thread then tell me if you believe people should change thier bulbs now or not.

Have the courage to weigh in on that, instead of this other nonsense, which is similar to the rightwingers yapping about Gore's house rather than talking about the real issue - global warming.

[salin]

59. still an idiot, I guess.

I have long been an observer of group dynamics - even online dynamics. If one is trying to get a message out - dynamics is very important. Working in a way that works to make oneself dismissed by others - when a message may be important - is important.

If you haven't yet caught that my issues are per dynamics of discussion (and things like calling folks who don't agree as not "smart" or a pattern of behavior that turns folks who otherwise would be interested in discussions (which is the beginning point of changing behaviors), than there is no point to further discussion.

The only thing I ask is that you recognize that what I am talking about is discussion dynamics and how that effects the tenor of current and future discussions. To that point, if a lot of folks have come to view an agenda from a poster (correctly or incorrectly) that future posts will be read through the lens of the earlier established perception. Is that important? If one believes "right wins out in the end regardless of how one represents it" - than sure, go ahead and continue. If one instead believes that through discussion one can educate others and create a broader community of understanding (and thus behaviors) - than how one is perceived - and if one's message becomes dimiished because of bad or insulting (per the "smart" folks got my message" - and implication of that statement that if you don't agree you must not be smart) - than the message gets lost on anyone but the choir (those that already agree.)

[Harper_is_Bush]

62. You either read something correctly or you don't.

Stupid is as stupid does, mamma always said.

Should I assume you agree with me that the correct thing to do in the fight against global warming is to switch to fluorescents now? I understand that "online group dynamics" might be preventing you from conceding that, so no worries.

[11 Bravo]

96. Forrest, is that you?

[Alexander]

44. .

:eyes:

[Alexander]

45. It is ridiculous because you have invented a silly litmus test

For Democratic presidential candidates, and there isn't even one you've suggested you like. Not one.

For all your blustering, I doubt you've done anything to improve the global warming situation. Instead you throw bombs from behind your computer screen, imagining how powerful you think you really are.

You literally come up with a new excuse for why Candidate X shouldn't run, or Candidate Y isn't good enough, every week. DUers are getting tired of it, and calling you on this crap.

Plus, you're a Canadian. You don't have any say in who we pick for president. Which is probably a good thing, given your posting history here.

Maybe your sarcasm detector doesn't work, but I know perfectly well Gore offsets - and I don't need some self-righteous Canadian who trashes our candidates with nearly every post to tell me.

[Harper_is_Bush]

47. What "litmus test"? Put up or shut up, please.

You are not free to make accusations against me without support.

Explain what you base your attack on me on or step off it.

[Alexander]

72. I can cite just about all of your posts as evidence.

And I am free to do whatever I want, thank you. I don't need some overly negative Canadian to tell me what my rights are.

Would you like it if an obnoxious American kept posting garbage about how Stephane Dion shouldn't run? Of course you wouldn't. If you use your head for just one minute and imagine a role reversal, the ridiculousness of your position becomes clear.

I don't give a fuck about what light bulbs John Edwards uses. You'd do well to realize that most DUers - and indeed most people - don't care either, and view your attempts to make them care as just plain silly.

Let me ask you - did you change out all your lightbulbs yet? To borrow from your quote, "put up or shut up". Do you drive a hybrid? Are you leaving a zero carbon footprint? I have a hunch you wouldn't even pass your own litmus test. Why you think you should have a say in what OUR candidates do is beyond me.

It is also painfully obvious that in order to do something about the environment one has to be in a position of power. So when you say "Gore can do more if he doesn't run", most of us call bullshit, because had he won that fateful 2000 SCOTUS decision and been inaugurated, you can get your bottom dollar we wouldn't have had federal subsidies for gas guzzlers.

If you can't handle a little bit of criticism, the ignore button is pretty handy. Telling me to "shut up" is unnecessarily rude and makes you seem childish, but perhaps I should have expected such "debate" tactics from you.

[Harper_is_Bush]

75. Your comparison is faulty, since Dion is already the Liberal candidate.

And no, you are not free to make false accusations against me on DU, thank you.

And yes, I have changed all of my lightbulbs. And I'm doing many other things, including carbon offsets. I'm buying a hybrid or smart car shortly, and have offset my existing car, which is only a 4cyl. in any event.

You seem to be missing the point, and lying about me in the process.

There's no "litmus test", there is the important truth about global warming and the important message about the best way to deal with it...so I don't care if it's Elizabeth Edwards or Obama or Stephane Dion or the Queen of England saying it's OK to wait until incandescents burn out before changing them, it's wrong and I'll call them on it.

And I don't find telling you to "put up or shut up" any more rude or childish than smearing me with false accusations, as you have.

[Alexander]

85. You're funny.

"And no, you are not free to make false accusations against me on DU, thank you.

And yes, I have changed all of my lightbulbs. And I'm doing many other things, including carbon offsets. I'm buying a hybrid or smart car shortly, and have offset my existing car, which is only a 4cyl. in any event.

You seem to be missing the point, and lying about me in the process."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I get your "logic". Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar. What's next, accusations of treason? :eyes:

Here's a nice dose of reality:

Your Edwards thread was all the evidence anyone here needs of your silly criticisms and warped ideas. Look at the responses you are getting and see if you can determine how many agree with you and how many think you are being ridiculous.

"There's no "litmus test", there is the important truth about global warming and the important message about the best way to deal with it...so I don't care if it's Elizabeth Edwards or Obama or Stephane Dion or the Queen of England saying it's OK to wait until incandescents burn out before changing them, it's wrong and I'll call them on it."

And if Elizabeth Edwards had changed them earlier, you'd accuse her of being wasteful. You guys are so predictable. Regular as clockwork. :eyes:

And at the end of the day, Edwards is a candidate WE get to vote for. NOT you. That must burn you up, the fact that you can't have any say in the USA's elections. But all your self-righteous bloviating does nothing but make you a laughingstock to the very community you are trying to persuade.

I suppose I should ask, is there any Democrat "pure" enough to garner your support (as if they should care what you think)? I have a hunch that if Gore runs, there will be nothing but endless criticism coming from you, and very little of it constructive. Prove me wrong. Show me someone you'd support. Put up or shut up.

"And I don't find telling you to "put up or shut up" any more rude or childish than smearing me with false accusations, as you have."

Okay, then. Put up or shut up. You know damned well I didn't lie about anything. You just keep repeating "liar" in the hopes that someone out there will believe you and type "I agree!".

And you still haven't addressed my point about White House occupants having a tremendous impact on climate change. Most people learn this sort of thing in elementary school. A pity you haven't.

[Harper_is_Bush]

93. Nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me. Saying I support/issued a litmus test

for the Edwards is a lie. That's plain and simple.

Disagree with me all you want, it doesn't send me over the edge like it does to some.

"And if Elizabeth Edwards had changed them earlier, you'd accuse her of being wasteful. You guys are so predictable. Regular as clockwork. :eyes:"

Actually, no. That is actually the entire point, change lightbulbs immediately. And what "guys" are you referring to? If you want to attack me just be brave and come right out and say what you're trying to say! :thumbsup:

[Alexander]

94. Try taking Logic 101 before you post more of these rantings.

There are a million reasons to not like or support John Edwards.

But as far as most rational people go, changing the lightbulbs in his house is not very high on the list of priorities.

Maybe you didn't understand why most DUers either ignored or laughed at your thread, and continue to do so.

I see you have a great deal of learning to do before you'll debate anyone in a rational, sane manner.

So I'll just say "You're right, 99% of the world is crazy, not you" in the hopes that you will let the issue die, although I suspect my attempts will be in vain with the likes of you.

And you STILL have not said one word about exactly how Gore can do more to fight climate change from outside the White House instead of within.

In the end, it doesn't matter. I'm just grateful you can't vote on our candidates. I doubt you have our best interests at heart.

[Harper_is_Bush]

95. Good grief. It has nothing to do with supporting Edwards. I don't give a rats ass

if Edwards wins or loses. Get off it man.

[Alexander]

98. You obviously do, or you wouldn't repeatedly kick threads criticizing...

his family just because they wouldn't immediately change their lightbulbs.

Quit while you are behind. Nobody is agreeing with anything you say, and you can blame your "debate" tactics for a large part of it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

116. Another lie about me. You're a piece of work.

Show me where I've criticized Edwards family, please.

To the contrary, I've praised Elizabeth profusely for everything she's doing.

If you want to attack & flame me endlessly fine, but at least get your facts straight and keep it honest.

[Alexander]

122. You criticized their lightbulb usage. Now you're denying it?

"Another lie about me. You're a piece of work."

"Show me where I've criticized Edwards family, please."

I guess such debate tactics aren't used only by the right wing. The very thread you kept kicked - which nearly everyone here is chastising you for - is proof enough of criticism.

If you're really going to say one thing, and then later you deny ever saying it, then there is really no point in conversing. I can't be bothered to waste my time with people who invent fictions on a whim and attempt to pretend their past posting history doesn't exist for all to plainly see.

[Harper_is_Bush]

123. I disagreed with one item in a blog entry, I didn't criticize their "family"

I think you should just stop now.

[salin]

35. no where did I denegrate Global Warming - and I am not a backer

of any particular candidate, Edwards or otherwise. Just commenting on an observation and giving an explanation why some posts on this thread are a wee bit dismissive.

Probably would have been different if in the time that the forementioned thread was being kicked on day five or seven - that if instead other GW stories and items were being posted that more would have been done to further the conversation here in GD of GW and how serious the problems are. Just saying...

[Harper_is_Bush]

39. Well thanks for your comments and observations, but I'm not really worried about

any posts that are a "wee bit dismissive".

There were many posts on my previous thread you refer to which were a bit beyond that, to the point of accusing me of having an anti-Edwards agenda, and some of those same folks are now on this topic.

And I make no apologies for kicking that thread for a week or so. I pledged to do it at the coaxing of a poster to ask Elizabeth myself if she agreed that it was wise to change to cfl's immediately. I just kicked it, it was others who chose to keep it at the top of GD for hours on end with their "wee bit dismissive" posts at the time. If someone's a "wee bit dismissive" it'd perhaps be better if they just dismissed it altogether.

[Kurovski]

77. Global warming is important enough to have a president versed in it

and who will do something about it.

Gore's work would be magnified many times were he to become president. Why specifically do you believe his work will suffer if he is POTUS?

Specifics.

He'll do whatever he wants, but I don't understand this meme of "He can do more as a private citizen". What is it about holding perhaps the most powerful position in the world that will nullify his work on Global Warming? I don't get it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

90. I'm sure Edwards or Obama or Clinton or ....

are all versed on it and would do something about it. They might even just invite Gore for a couple of policy setting summits. Whatever, but the point is any Dem Prez will look to make action on Global Warming part of their legacy, I'm sure.

And I did not say being POTUS would "nullify" Gore's work on Global Warming, did I? He would not be able to focus as much time on it. Things like make movies and work his "climate project" and put on multi-national concerts...these things would obviously be taking a back seat (or at least share the seat) to non-GW foreign and domestic policy.

[Kurovski]

112. I'm not so sure of that. There is no proof of that.

Aside from Kucinich, I'm not hearing much at all about global warming from the recent crop of hopefuls, so I don't know where you'd get an idea such as that.

Clinton? Clinton who voted for a power company in NY over the welfare of NY's citizens? No, she won't be enacting shit. She will do whatever is most profitable for established companies and the powers that be.

Movies? Concerts? THAT'S more important than being POTUS? Is that really the extent of your argument as to why you think Gore should not be president? I think you're holding out on us.

Your think tank of "energy activists" has to come up with better material than that which you bring back here if you wish to be convincing.

Serious, and possibly painful changes must be made. I'm sure you realize that fact even more than the average citizen.

RE: "nullify". I should have written "negate". My mistake.

[Harper_is_Bush]

115. Well, the "recent crop of hopefuls" are just getting started, and regardless of past behaviour a Dem

knows what global warming means to the party now.

No, there's no "proof" that any Dem candidate would fall over themselves to follow Gore's advice on the matter, but there's evidence to that effect. Gore is a rock star, so it's not so hard to imagine him having great influence on a Dem WH.

[Rockholm]

46. Just check this dude out.

All anti-Gore all day long! Do an advanced search on his/her postings. Pathetic.

[Harper_is_Bush]

61. Show me one "anti-Gore" thing I've ever posted.

Put up or shut up.

[Kurovski]

78. If anyone posted threads "showing you up", all you'd have to do

is alert on the thread and have it removed.

It happens repeatedly. All anyone has to do is do a search. So you may also do a search. Bringing a case against another DUer with their past posts is against the rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

74. President Carter doesn't agree with you. He thinks that Gore would

be more effective as President regarding fighting Global Warming. I think I'll take his opinion over yours.

[JackRiddler]

19. No actually.

Every week it's the same.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I don't think he should run because: HE Does Not Want To.

[Harper_is_Bush]

41. good one. n/t

[Erika]

3. Global warming IS a political issue

I'm thrilled he has done what he has. As president, with a Dem Congress, we could turn the corporations around.

That aside, the world is now recognizing global warming and our need to resolve it for future generations.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. u don't explain why.... n/t

[Kurovski]

80. Nor do you, as regards your position.

(unless you've answered my post upthread by now.)

You use fear as a reason not to desire Gore as president. Fear wasn't a good reason to go to war, and it's not a good reason here, either.

Global warming is as evident as the weather. Who gives a shit what crazy crapola right-wingers come up with to counter Gore? You, for one.

The president is not a mere figurehead. There are many things one can move, promote, fight for and enact as president. Is this news to you?

[Deja Q]

106. An inconvenient truth

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=al+gore+heating+electric&btnG=Google+Search

I'm not so thrilled anymore.

We need politicians who walk their talk. Not the usual assortment of "Do as we say, not as we do" lot. THAT is why folks in power are not well liked; they're hypocrites.

When the news (click the link above) broke out about Gore's costs (and the outrageous attempt to "justify" it), I was disheartened - to say the very least. I already had some suspicions based on tangential issues, but what's left to say? Apart from "I hope he gets those solar panels in quickly", I suppose. :shrug:

It's also up to the corporations to do something on their own initiative. They aren't THAT thick... Yet all they can do is ask Bush to do something, the last I heard and assuming I read it right...? That's like an 8 year old going up to his daddy and asking for a spanking. :wtf:

[Kurovski]

120. Check out this post downthread

#114

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x313380#333741

[salin]

4. ya... thats the ticket...

yes the only attempts to demean the issue have arisen because there is speculation that Gore might run. There hasn't been years of corporate funding of false studies, there has been no silencing of scientists in the EPA via the bush admin.... to buy this, one would have to believe that the attempts to discount climate change have just begun and are all focued on Gore and would escalate only because of a Gore candidacy.

Were this the case, there would have been no opposition per bushco per Kyoto (as Al wasn't running in that time frame), AEI wouldn't be offering $$ to any "scientist" to publish an article against global climate change in an upcoming book to push their propoganda, and rw talk media wouldn't have been dismissing global climate change for the past six years (or more) because Al Gore wasn't yet running.

The attempts of the right to denegrate Gore and any issue of envirommentalism goes back *years* to when Bush Sr tagged Gore with the term "Ozone Boy" (was that 88 or 92?) - and that didn't end the discussion or concern or - in any real way - change the evolving discussion over the years. Most folks don't want to think about it because it is to "inconvenient". Had nothing to do with Gore running or not running for office.

Good try, though...

[wtmusic]

7. So lame

:eyes:

[UTUSN]

8. Since when are we ruled by what our enemies portray??!!1 n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. If you're smart you deal with reality. Not saying anyone should be "ruled" by enemies here.

[UTUSN]

24. Kay

[salin]

53. another "you are dumb if you don't agree with me"

post. Nice debating point. Not.

[Harper_is_Bush]

63. Not sure how you got that from that. Can't I preface anything with "if you're smart..."

without it being extrapolated by you into "you are dumb if you don't agree with me"?

What if I said "if you're smart you don't smoke around gasoline"? Is that me telling others they're dumb if they don't agree with me on that? No, actually, it's not commenting on those who might agree or not with the statement, it's just me expressing my opinion of what smart behaviour is (ie. don't smoke around gasoline).

[salin]

121. indeed - your "example" sorta makes my point.

because of course it would be dumb to smoke around gasoline.

It appears that we agree that you are calling people - in your opinion - dumb because they don't agree with you.

Again I suggest that this is perhaps not an effective debate point as it shuts down conversation.

But since I must be 'dumb' ... why worry that we disagree.

Of course to skip responding to this post, would of course skip an opportunity to kick the thread into next week. Oh, but I should be too dumb to recognize that repetitive pattern of behavior... not.

[Kurovski]

82. HIB, you sure are concerned about letting us know what is "smart" and what is not smart.

Are you aware that that is one of the manipulative basics of psy-ops? It's seemingly beneath an activist for the earth, or whatever your position is.

Please reconsider it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

126. Well, if telling you it's "smart" to change your bulbs now is "psy-ops"

then for that I make no apologies, nor will I reconsider that position.

Global Warming is here, yes?
We are causing it due to our energy use, yes?
Therefore it is smart to cut down on our energy use immediately, ergo change our light bulbs (among other things) now.

[Swamp Rat]

9. "he will be portrayed by his enemies" ... as such, no matter what he does.

"That will greatly diminish the acceptance of global warming and the need for action in the minds of many people worldwide." - What will greatly diminish the acceptance of global warming, the possibility that Al Gore may be attacked by his enemies? :rofl: C'mon! ... and "people worldwide" ... I can see Bantu pigmies playing water drums, warning others about what may happen to Al Gore. HAHAHA!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[johnaries]

10. Nope, won't stick. Energy Companies are even starting to see the "light"

excuse the pun.

His enemies can and will say it, but the public won't believe it. Gore has already won on the world-wide stage of public opinion. His Nobel Peace Prize will be the icing on the cake.

[MADem]

11. Oooooh, be VERY afraid!!! Allow the opposition to frame the debate!!!

Come on, that's the worst possible "reason" I have heard yet.

How's this? If they say that's why he's running, say "FUCK YOU, that's a LIE. He's prescient, he has eons of experience, and he's CREDIBLE because he's RIGHT."

And then kick their asses down the street.

[walldude]

12. I agree, this is our biggest hill to overcome

even though we have the majority in Congress they act like they are afraid they might be called names or something. Get on the damn offensive.

As far as Gore is concerned I like him better as a civilian. While I'd vote for him in a heartbeat and I think he'd easily win, he just seems like a happier guy out of the loop.. Now head of the EPA as someone suggested last night... yeah.

[Harper_is_Bush]

43. He's concerned about Global Warming #1, so if he thought that running would diminish that cause...

he won't do it.

You're counsel is geared towards winning the Presidency...which surely he would. But getting people to act is his #1.

[salin]

55. and as a private citizen, with no bully pulpit and no power to

enact changes (treaties, laws) is so much greater power to change things for the cause (climate change) compared to being president, exactly how???

[Harper_is_Bush]

64. The premise of your question is wrong, since he now has and will always have a bully pulpit..

in case you haven't noticed, when Mr. Gore speaks the world is listening.

If he pushes for treaties and laws then they get pushed, significanlty.

He has demonstrated his power to change things for the cause already. Have you not seen it?

[Kurovski]

84. No, that's simply untrue. The press MUST follow what the president says and does

every day. THAT's a bully pulpit.

They can spin the crap out of whatever he says, but they will have to report it. And that's EVERY single outlet.

Even Gore's most powerful speeches in the recent past have been completely ignored by the corporate media. he is avoided whenever at all possible.

Those days would be over with Gore in the White House.

Do you seriously mean to say that you don't realise that? Why the blind spot on that? Why? We're all curious.

[Harper_is_Bush]

91. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

My belief is Gore can focus much more on the issue in his current state of freedom, and any Dem POTUS will look to implement pretty much whatever Gore advocates for.

[Kurovski]

113. As president, Gore would be in a position to place people

in the highest positions of government who are going to do something actually based on science.

He can form a government that will actually be doing something about GW rather than merely talking about it.

That's what a president can do. What's to disagree with on that count?

As for the other candidates, I don't see that any of them have the guts to take this all on. I wonder sometimes if Gore has the guts. We're up against some very powerful groups that play for keeps, as you well know.

[MADem]

60. Quite frankly, there is NO BETTER bully pulpit than the Presidency of the United States

A President with half a brain can lead the entire world anywhere he or she want it to go.

Even with our diminished respect in the world thanks to the last six years of hellish stupidity, a smart, articulate individual with a vision and a plan to benefit the entire globe CAN lead the world horse to water AND make it drink.

If PRESIDENT Gore wanted to put global warming at the top of the world's agenda, that's where it would go. And everyone in the UN would line up, salute smartly, and say "Aye, aye, Sir."

[longship]

20. Your reason is precisely why many of us want Gore to run.

Unlike Kerry, the previous Gore campaign, and so many Democratic presidential campaigns of the past, if Al runs in 2008 he's not going to run the same ol' Democratic presidential campaign. (Sorry Ms. Brazille. You're outta here.)

The candidate for 2008 has to be a leader. Not Senator Clinton who equivocates on Iraq almost as much as ChimpCo. Not Obama who thinks the way to win is to work with the Republicans, or (horrors!) to be holier than the Republicans. Not Biden, not Kucinich (who I really like but realistically...), etc.

Okay. I admit that Edwards is another who could break out of the mold. However, I really think that Albert Gore Jr. could be our country's best chance for saving what little of the founding father's vision remains.

I like all the candidates. But I have no faith that Senator Clinton will end the utter madness in Iraq. I have no faith that Obama could deal effectively with the opposition and feel strongly that his overt, public pronouncements of religiosity might get in his way. All the rest of them have one or more objections, except for Albert Gore Jr.

Now here's the best part of the whole deal. If Al Gore runs, he's going to have to make the decision that he's going to do it differently, not only from 2000, but from 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, etc.

I think he's seriously toying with this. Mainly because the issue just plain isn't going away. It's his time and I think he realizes that he is being called into service once again. I firmly believe that events are going to decide things for him. We're looking at some very serious bullshit this next two years. By autumn, I don't think that Al Gore is going to be able to *not* run.

Watch for him in Sept/Oct to decide. We all hope it's going to be, "Yes."

[alittlelark]

21. He was elected president once....

more than we can say for the WH squatter.


HIS enemies are MY enemies.... Polluting multi-national corporations, Apathetic lawmakers afraid to do what is RIGHT for our children and grandchildren, a system that only sees 'profit' as short term monetary gain.


HE is what makes the entrenched business interests shake in their shorts.


GORE will rock our world, and hopefully SAVE IT...Gore - :yourock:

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. What does that have to do with the topic?

[alittlelark]

31. Listening to your talking points.

I know not why you put them forth. It's the velvet hammer attempting to smash the one hope we really have.

[Harper_is_Bush]

66. You consider Gore the "one hope we really have" for the Presidency?

No other candidate has any hope of winning it?

And you critisized my "talking points"!

[Atman]

23. If Gore farts the right will attack him for it. It's pointless to worry about it.

You gotta learn, the right does not care about truth, only about smears. Al can't win with the right wing nutbags, but he'll win big with America. Fuck the righty losers.

Vote for the best man for the job, not for whom the right dictates.

.

[B Calm]

36. It's not just Gore, it's anybody on the Democratic ticket. All they have

is smear. With the help of their corporate owned press they are damn good at it!

[salin]

37. infuriating state of media affairs.

I agree they will smear any dem candidate - and that all they have left is smear.

[Beausoir]

29. No sale. Turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and then get back to us.

Yawn, too.

[Harper_is_Bush]

40. Excuse me?

:wtf:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. You just had this exact same realization before, too, also, as well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5136

"Your enemies would pump the idea that all of your important work in the all-important fight against Global Warming was just some cynical ploy to win back the Presidency."

And if the "new" part is this:

"That will greatly diminish the acceptance of global warming and the need for action in the minds of many people worldwide."

then you really may be drifting away from a grounded view of reality, I fear. First, you say Gore will lose his power to fight Global Warming if he runs for and/or becomes President, and now you say he will actually minimize Global Warming as a cause if he runs. Do you see signs of extremism in such views? At this point, your campaign against Gore running is beginning to appear almost frantic.

[Harper_is_Bush]

67. So what?

What is your point? Are you under the misguided impression that I'm not entitled to my opinion and entitled to give it more than once? Apparently so.

Keep up the "gotcha" stalking-like behavior if you must, but I think you're on thin ice with it.

And I'm hardly engaged in a "campaign against Gore running", so I'll thankyou to quit with that smear. After every 50 or so "please run Al!" or "RUN AL, RUN!!" topics I throw out one expressing what I believe. Total has been maybe 4, perhaps 5 in the last 2 months? You got a problem with that hit alert, but don't presume to stifle my opinion just becuase you don't share it.

[nam78_two]

32. Ok...

>>That will greatly diminish the acceptance of global warming and the >>need for action in the minds of many people worldwide.

:eyes:

[Liberal In Texas]

34. My son. Is a Space Shuttle engineer. He works at Mission Control.

In Houston. Propulsion Systems.

When he emails me, he sends this as his sig line:

"A ship is safe in harbor, but then, that's not what ships are for"
- William Shedd


Al Gore is is the perfect position to not only further his goals for the environment, but to perhaps save this country. Is it going to be difficult? You bet. I have his back. I hope DU has his back.

And, BTW, have some backBONE.

[crispini]

49. He is already being portrayed by his enemies as using GW for political purposes.

So his running would change WHAT, exactly?

[Harper_is_Bush]

51. Uh...it would appear to the masses to validate that accusation...

this shouldn't need an explanation.

[Kurovski]

119. So we should run candidates based on what the self-destructive, nutty,

and greedy Repubelickins say?

You're correct, it needs no explanation at all.

Every politician runs on their strengths, what they've achieved, and their connections. That's not exploitation.

[blonndee]

50. If he chooses to run, he will win.

That's obviously just my feeling, but I saw STRONG, enthusiastic support for the man today at his presentation at OU. He's intelligent, strong, charismatic, and there's nothing more the righties and fundies can say about him that hasn't become cliched and petulant. He won before, and the consistent enthuiastic turnout for him seems to indicate even more widespread popular support. I honestly don't think he COULD lose if he ran again.

As for using global warming for political purposes? PLEASE. He's been working on this for decades. And those who still fail to "accept global warming" are, as he stated himself, diminishing more quickly than the glaciers. There is no more real debate on global warming, and even the corpmedia is having a hard time hiding that fact.

I would love to see Al Gore run--because he truly is the people's president. That's why the righties are so very scared of him.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blonndee]

57. And troubled, maybe. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

65. Troubled how?

[BlooInBloo]

69. Definitely concerned.

[Kurovski]

87. Obsessed.

A compulsion.

Almost workman-like concern.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

58. If he decides to run now,

he will be portrayed by his enemies as having fought for the Viet Cong. Accusations that he has plotted with Chavez and Castro to overthrow the US government will be echoed from every basement blog in the known universe and trumpeted on MSM.

We'll hear it ALL - He wears women's undergarments, He eats French food His dad was a closet Commie.

Give it a rest, H_i_B.

[Madspirit]

70. I agree with Horse wn Name

....with Horse with No Name. That god damned light bulb thread went on ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad absurdum.

AT LEAST THE GOD DAMNED LADY IS CHANGING THEM SOMETIME. With all the important news and stuff to discuss.... That gorram thread....grrrr. It makes me grumpy just thinking about that absurd thread. ...and every damned day it was there. Jeez. You could have just said:

"Note...people...it's best to go ahead and change those lightbulbs before the old ones burn out."

Also, if Gore decides to run I will be Snoopy dancing down the street. That would make me so happy and there would finally be a candidate I could support without reservation. I love that man. I really hope he runs. HE will win.
Lee

[Harper_is_Bush]

71. "AT LEAST THE GOD DAMNED LADY IS CHANGING THEM SOMETIME"

Which is better than never changing, sure.

But the point is her blog entry got a lot of attention, and so it became important to establish that changing to CFL's immediately is the preferred method for fighting global warming. That was the point of the thread.

The only reason the thread lasted so long was because so many people were perhaps still sore over the critisisms made about the size of the Edwards house (that was what had just cycled through DU at the time) and so the flaming carried over. And of course I always endevour to give an answer to all posts, which is only polite.

[Alexander]

73. Oh sure, YOU'RE the polite one. ROFL

:eyes:

If this is "polite" I'd hate to see your definition of "rude".

[Harper_is_Bush]

76. Rude would be lying about another poster, as you did in post #45

"you have invented a silly litmus test for Democratic presidential candidates"

That's rude.

[Alexander]

86. That's no lie - you actually did that. Quit your whining.

How can I make this clear to you?

I don't care what lightbulbs the goddamned Edwards family uses.

Therefore, in my opinion, your litmus test - the idea that every candidate has to change out their bulbs, and immediately - is silly.

I thought you'd figure out that this is just my opinion (and the opinion of about 80-90% of DU), and therefore cannot be a "lie" as you keep repeating, but I guess that concept is too difficult for you.

I feel like I'm arguing with a child. Which may not be far from the truth.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

97. LOL - your ENTIRE THREAD is what you 'd call a "lie" from me.

You don't like that DUers go back and use your words against you, as if you should be exempt or something. Boo-hoo. Obviously Edwards is not getting your support, and the lightbulb bullshit is one reason.

You deny you ever had a "litmus test" in one sentence, and proclaim every liberal candidate needs to change their bulbs immediately in the next. So what if they don't? Do they not get your support? This is a pretty clear definition of a "litmus test".

If you can't see the difference between a fact and an opinion, then it's not my job to be your kindergarten teacher. If this sort of thing trips you up often, then you will have a very difficult road ahead of you.


"And realize this: I don't care that you don't care what kind of lightbulbs the Edwards family uses."

Ooh, you don't care about my opinion! How hard-ass of you. Except if you *really* didn't care, you wouldn't debate me ad nauseum over this crap - obviously you are trying to change some minds.

My point, since you missed it, is not whether I care - it's about whether DU (your intended audience) cares, and whether the world in general cares.

If you haven't figured it out already from the responses you've been getting, nobody cares what lightbulbs the Edwards family uses in their home. Not here at DU, and not anywhere else. You don't like it? Tough shit.

"The point is that if you care about global warming then changing incandescents NOW is the action you want to take. And that's the message that we should give on the subject."

Not everyone can afford to - there are poor people in this country, you know. And on the grand scale of things that effect global warming, changing one's light bulbs is pretty far down the list.

"You can disagree with that, which would make you a fool,"

Oh-ho! So if I disagree with you, I am a "fool". Since I already made it clear that I do disagree with you, then I'm a fool, right?

Name-calling is against DU rules, and not very mature of you. I had a gut feeling it was only a matter of time before you took the conversation down this route, and here we are. Maybe if you wrote your thoughts out in crayon first, your responses will amount to more than hysterics and name-calling.

"or you can concede it and admit that my question to Elizabeth Edwards was legitimate, not some anti-Edwards attack like and others are "whining" about."

Right, like I'm ever going to agree with you after you just personally attacked me. :eyes:

[Madspirit]

100. I care about the environment

I am even old enough that I was at the very first Earth Day...and I haven't changed ANY of my light bulbs. I'm a poor person. I buy a four-pack for 99 cents. I also care about eating.

WHEN I have a little money, I buy full spectrum because I like them. Fluorescent depress me and give me headaches.

This requirement of yours..."if you care about the environment blah blah" IS a litmus test. That's what that means.

Lee

[Harper_is_Bush]

117. I don't know what it's like where you live....

but here I can get good quality CFL's for $2 each Canadian, which is $1.70 USD. WalMart is a good source, and they get a kudos from me on their response to the climate crisis.

The electricity savings is about $30 over the life of the bulb, so the question should be how can you not affort to switch? Introduce an efficiency that costs a little more up front and start realizing profitable savings soon after, it's the same in all things.

As for your depression and headaches, you should save your pennies and buy some more. They've come a long way and have a soft/incandescent light now. No more depression, and perhaps no more headaches.

And I'm not sure what you think I've said that represents a litmus test. Edwards can run for POTUS, I don't care. No test. I simply used the opportunity of Elizabeths blog entry to highlight an important point about switching bulbs.

[sellitman]

79. Gore can address Global Warming better from the Bully Pulpit.

Period.

If you are clearly are concerned this would obviate all other arguments.

[RestoreGore]

83. How? n/t

[sellitman]

88. As President he has more "gravitas" than a civilian.

He can pass laws and do things for Global Warming than he can from the sidelines.

[RestoreGore]

89. Again, how?

And it is not HE ALONE that can do it.This is about US, but I suppose some still refuse to see that. I think the process is much more involved than that as well, especially in this toxic military/industrial complex environment where your crony's interests precede the interests of your constituents, and your constituents won't demand change unless you enlighten and inform them first. He was already there as well and nothing was done. He held the first hearing in Congress in the 70s thinking it would appeal to some moral conscience, but soon discovered that Congress has no moral conscience. For thirty years NOTHING significant has been done even by Democrats, and though he was VP for eight years not even Democrats would sign onto Kyoto. He could only get one Senator, Paul Wellstone, and we all know what happened to that great man. So again, how, and how would it compare to all he has done to raise awareness from out here already in a shorter time frame. And I would dare say that he most certainly has gravitas now as a statesman, environmental advocate, businessman, teacher, and global advisor. It's a shame to see so many think citizens are so insignificant in a country that is supposed to be a democracy, not an aristocracy.

[Uncle Joe]

81. Does this mean Lincoln shouldn't have run on the slavery issue? n/t

[Raskolnik]

99. Lincoln ran on the slavery issue? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

101. Lincoln and Douglas had many debates on this issue,

This was the central issue of the time. I believe the nation was aware of it.

[Raskolnik]

103. So you're referring to Lincoln's senate campaign, and not his presidential campaign? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

109. You are correct,

however after the Senate Campaign, there was little doubt as to where the candidates stood on this issue.

[upi402]

102. He is the champion of life's survival

politics is now beneath him. good, he was for NAFTA after all. And that little Telecommunications Act thingy too.


oopsie doopsie!

[Uncle Joe]

104. And empowering you and the rest of us by championing the internet,

for which the mass corporate media trashed and slandered him, to me the Telecommunications Act, as badly as I want it revised pales in comparison.

[upi402]

107. Yep, the urban legend, "I invented the internet" sickens me. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

110. Yes, here is my take on it.

Remember the Titans

Bill Moyers had a series of excellent interviews with the late Joseph Campbell regarding his book "The Power Of Myth". In it Joseph speaks of the commonality of all the world's religions and mythologies, even when they are separated by time and distance. He goes on to state that there are many lessons and much wisdom to be learned from myth. Here in Nashville (The Athens of the South), the home of the only full scale replica of The Parthenon of the Acropolis, mythology is never too far away.

What does this have to do with Al Gore? The lesson of what happened to Al Gore has repeated it self throughout history and myth. A hero or leader comes to the aid of the people and the ones in power trash him for it.

When I think of Al Gore, I think of Prometheus. Prometheus, the son of the Titan Iapetus who took pity on the misery of mankind, huddling in the cold and dark, so Prometheus stole fire from heaven for their benefit. Zeus (Jupiter), enraged at this loss of power caused Prometheus to be chained to a rock on Mount Caucasus, where a vulture each day devoured his liver, which was made whole again each night, this was supposed to go on for all eternity.

Al Gore, the son of Tennessee Titan Al Gore Sr. took pity on the American People as they were fed scraps of information on the vital issues of the day. Al, while he was in congress thought that the people should have equal access to the same information as the rich and the powerful. Al Gore recognized ahead of the curve (as he usually does) that for democracy to flourish, the people should have control over the flow of information that will ultimately control their lives. Information is power, so Al decided to become the primary champion of the relatively new technology (now known as the internet) controlled by the defense dept. and some universities and to open it up for everyone.

CNN recently held a poll as to the most revolutionary creation of the 20th century and the internet won hands down. So one might expect praise for such vision, service and dedication to the people, however that would be forgetting the lessons of Prometheus.

The mass corporate media were enraged at this loss of power, how dare he! They wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth so that they could regale us with great stories of runaway brides, missing pretty white women, shark attacks and various other lurid tales, etc. they could continue do this for all perpetuity. The mass corporate media wanted to create a fictitious bubble or Matrix for the American People to live in and Al Gore had endangered their project.

Why would "American Journalism" want to do this to the American People? Because if you are ignorant, you are more easily controlled, and this is all about power and money. So Al had to be punished for empowering the American People. The mass corporate media not having a taste for liver with the possible exception of pate de fois gras (goose liver), decided to slander, trash, ignore and demean him in every way possible. It still goes on to this day to some degree.

The trashing of Al started in earnest in 1998, although I believe that the witch hunt against Clinton was in truth a back door way for them to hurt Al's chances of coming to power. The War Against Gore began in 1998 with a Wolf Blitzer interview; in it Blitzer asks Al what separates him from Bill Bradley? Blitzer asking Al of and Al is talking about his record in congress. As anyone would do in a job interview, Al speaks of his achievements, primarily in helping to bring about the creation of the internet as we know it today, which in fact is the truth; nothing is said by Blitzer at the time because he knows this is the truth.

One or two days later Dick Armey begins spouting his Republican Talking Points slamming Al for his hubris, and the mass corporate media begin goose stepping in unison and take up where Dick left off. The MCM says "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" which of course is a lie, and it does not end there. "Al Gore claims to have discovered Love Canal" another lie, although he held hearings on toxic waste in Toone, Tennessee which expanded to include Love Canal. The MCM said Al Gore was wearing earth tones, so he must be a fake, besides being stiff and boring, etc. etc.

Al Gore has led a remarkable life and sometimes it reads like fiction such as being an inspiration (along with Tommy Lee Jones; his college roommate) for a lead character in the book "Love Story" but it’s the truth. The MCM even did a 180 after the 2000 debates overruling their own focus groups and changing their reporting as to who won those debates overnight, someone had apparently heard him sigh (I did not). As long as Bush did not drool on his podium, he was given a standing O. The only time terrorism was ever brought up during those debates was when Al mentioned it. With the MCM, the vital issue of the day (and keep in mind this was after Osama had declared war against us) was who would you rather have in your home for a beer? The nation has been drunk ever since.

The result of all this slander, demeaning and trashing of our best and brightest is the Pottersville, we are currently living in today. But think how much more difficult it would have been for us to get the truth out regarding Global Warming, the Iraq War, the Downing Street Memos, Gannon/Guckert, supporting Cindy Sheehan, Bush's corruption and incompetence etc. without the internet. Think how much more difficult it would be for you to put your opinions out for the masses or praise your favorite leader’s virtues if we did not have the internet. Even the freepers and Bush owe Al; they are just too clueless to know it. It’s for these reasons and many more that I will never abandon Al Gore for President.

P.S. For a historical refresher, click on link below and google “War against Gore” or 2000 debates.

http://dailyhowler.com /

[Deja Q]

105. Didn't some news org come out recently telling us his heating and electric bills?

I hope Mr. Gore gets all that solar paneling in before he decides to run. Right now he's an open target, like it or not. :( And you are right; he will be portrayed as such.

Another DU, some time ago, claimed he met Al and it was not a pleasant experience. I was highly skeptical... but when I read the article with the cost of those bills, and the excuses in a petty attempt to justify them... let's just say I lost faith. I think the best politicians walk their talk. That way all that mud slung at them drips like oil on teflon. (that's a little hint to politicians everywhere... get some inestimable ones for once, m'kay?)


I think you've got a valid point. Nor do I think you're anti-Democrat, anti-Democratic, whatever the nomenclature. But then, some people have called me a 'freeper' and the like as well. :shrug:

[Madspirit]

108. I would never

...call you a Freeper HypnoToad. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't but I see that you are sincere and thoughtful.
Lee

[Kurovski]

114. Hypno, you're not a freeper, but did you check out the threads here recently

about Gore's carbon-nuetral lifestyle based on purchasing carbon offsets?

There was also a thread on Olbermann's defense against the attacks on Gore. Did you maybe just disagree with, of not believe them, or perhaps not even see them at all?

Here's one...be sure to go to the article the op links to.:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=311958

[Harper_is_Bush]

118. Why are you judging him if you don't know all the facts?

Someone at DU said they met Gore and it was not a pleasent experience, and you were skeptical of it but now you're not because you read an article about his electricity bills? That doesn't even make sense.

Gore is being swiftboated over his house, so I suggest to you that you find out all the facts before judging him and lending support to some unknown DU'er who says meeting Gore is unpleasent.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

124. Recommend (0 votes)

Can't HIB get a witness?

[Harper_is_Bush]

125. She's a

whole lota wonderful.

[Kelly Rupert]

127. Your stance is idiotic for several reasons.

1. Al Gore is not the same as global warming. Even if Al Gore were using AGW as a political issue, that does not change its validity either way. Most people realize this. The only people who try to conflate Al Gore and AGW are the freep brigade, who would sooner tear out their own eyeballs than vote for him. Most people do not believe that the state of the environment is dependant on Al Gore's level of hypocrisy. The only ones who give a damn about Al Gore's level of hypocrisy are those who are so into party politics that their minds regarding '08 were made up in '04.

2. Most "people worldwide" do not turn to a former Vice President of the United States for their scientific policy.

3. The notion that an issue is best served by avoiding electing anyone who talks about it is not only responsible for the triangulating, pandering Hillary Clintons and John McCains of the world, but is downright retarded to boot.

[Guaranteed]

128. He's been following the issue for 30 years.

He's not using it to GET to the presidency. He's using the presidency to get to it- among other things.