More democrat hypocrisy, whilst spewing carbon into the atmosphere, and all to the tune of more than $140,000.
When it comes to global warming, don't ask the president to care.
Like Al Gore, John Edwards, Robert Kennedy Jr. and so many other leftists, who clearly don't give a rip when it comes to walking their 'earth friendly' walk...that's for the little people. What a crock.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012789-503544.html
I'm not sure what in inaccurate Marie Antoinette quote has to do with the story.
But here's a real example of the sentiment:
Do you really have a problem with the FLOTUS visiting other countries of the world? I'll bet the people of Spain are really honored that she visited their country.
Seek therapy.
Herb, when I see evidence that you stand in strong, solid support of addressing global warming, then I'll start to listen to your diatribes against those who are actually trying to do something about it.
And as long as you continue to rally for Republican governance, you are NOT really interested in addressing global warming.
In the meantime, I like frogs.
Herb, considering how much carbon dioxide you, yourself, seem to generate on a daily basis (think of all the electricity you've wasted just on your computer terminal alone during your tenure here) you are the last hu--er, "entity" I'd ever expect to give a rat's ass about the whold "global warming" thing.
Just more proof that you're not actually human......
'...your diatribes against those who are actually trying to do something about it.'
Actually trying to do something about it?
I thought you were smarter than that. Seriously.
Al Gore and company are in it for themselves, and I'm not just talking about his weakness for massage therapists, either.
These guys fly on big, carbon-spewing jets. They spend millions on their own luxuries, then stick it to those who make a tiny fraction of their incomes, whilst evading every dime in taxes themselves, then enjoy fantastic pensions and medical care that you and I will never see.
Kerry marries a multi-millionaire, Soros made his money betting against our American dollar, John Edwards makes his dough with questionable lawsuits against doctors as a 'slip and fall' lawyer, and Robert Kennedy Jr. is born on third base into a bootlegging family and thinks he hit a triple.
All of them are hardly living the pro-environmental lifestyle you wish to portray. You may recycle, but to them recycling is wearing the same pair of pants more than once.
That's hypocrisy, my friend and if you can't see it, you're simply not being honest with yourself.
Don't you grasp that it's a game for leftists like Al Gore and his cronies who tout their so-called 'green' credentials, then reap big profits by gaming their laughable, contrived system of 'carbon credits?'
What's with the silence from the left on that?
Plus, their opulent lifestyles alone ought to make you re-evaluate leftist slobbering:
'...Al Gore and his wife spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.'
And he's a 'man of the people?' Right. Like John Edwards, George Soros, John 'evade taxes until caught' Kerry, Robert Kennedy Jr. and all the other usual leftist suspects.
You're quick to call out the hypocrites on the right, of which there are plenty, but stick your head in the sand when it comes to hypocrites of your own ilk.
I thought you were smarter than that, but I was wrong. At least I'm honest enough to call my own party out when they're ridiculous.
Programmes are only as smart as whomever wrote them. Or so, computers are only as smart as whomever is operating them.
In any case, Herb, whomever coded you, or is operating you (take your pick) apparently has yet to make it out of Junior High!
Bill Sizemore
Herb: "Al Gore and company are in it for themselves,", blah blah blah.
You know what, Herb? I have no problem with Al Gore using his insight and his knowledge about our energy/climate future to invest and make money from the upcoming changes. He even has a right to propose national policy, while investing in (and reaping dividends from) a revolutionary new energy future. I don't believe (as you seem to) that being a visionary and being a capitalist are mutually exclusive.
Thomas Edison was a visionary that laid the technical foundation for many of the 20th century's most important innovations. Edison was also a businessman, and slavishly defended his inventions and his patents, making sure he got every royalty penny due him. I would imagine that most of Edison's inventions were hatched with more of an eye for profit than for altruism.
Henry Ford I believe did more to shape the culture of the 20th century (and beyond) than any man, by launching the American car culture with the affordable Model T. Sure it was simple, reliable, and affordable - but it was also simple and affordable to build (especially on the assembly line), reaping maximum profits for Ford. Ford cut the 10 hour workday down to eight, to the cheers of workers in his factories (without mentioning that now he could now run nonstop 8-hour shifts 24/7). Everything Ford did to make America more mobile was designed with profit in mind.
Steve Jobs is shaping personal computing as we speak, first with the iPod and now the iPad, among other devices. His vision of the kind of devices that people need is confirmed by huge sales figures - profit for Apple and Jobs. If people keep buying Apple products, and those products make their lives better and easier, should not Apple make the kind of money they are making?
Herb, I could clearly find many, many similar examples of people that had a vision for a change in America, and then went about selling that change to them - and I mean quite literally selling it to them. If Gore sees a real problem in global warming - and I believe he does - and chooses to be part of the vanguard in those technologies, so what? He's just treading in the footsteps of every other major American mover-and-shaker in the last 200 years. It's called American Capitalism, and God Bless it.
Some people just don't like Democrats profiting from American Capitalism.
How's how's life life in in the the echo echo chamber chamber Herb Herb??
The real subtext here is not that money is being spent on a vacation.
It's the money being spent to protect someone he'd like to see dead.
Ouch...that was harsh.
Notice that the piece has a phony byline and could have been written by the same Fox News contributor that wrote the Daily News piece.
This is definately the Republican Echo chamber at work - Drudge, etc.
Fact: The Bush's spent nearly $10 million in taxpayer money flying back and forth to their estate in Crawford, Texas, and the Bush, Sr.'s seaside compound in Kennebunkport, ME., where the Fist Family retreated for vacations. The Obama trip to Spain reportedly cost $73,000. But CBS forgot to report that contrast.
Good ole Media Matters has the stories:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050054
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008060006
Go ahead and defend the spewers of carbon.
The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
You are a fucking loon.
Spewers? 
"Ouch...that was harsh. "
Yes. And deliberately specious.
Just like the entire premise of this thread.
Tasty!!
Herb, please go big. Tell everybody you know, and tell them I said, "Hi!"
You can't buy that kind of marginalization.
I like spewers. Especially you Herb, the biggest spewer of them all.
Your failure to address the thread, whilst attempting to change the subject, is clear for all to see.
If you had an argument, you'd make it.
You do not.
Spew on.
It's a non-issue. Presidential families take vacations (see Bush, George W.). The First Lady and daughter are entitled to secret service protection. The cost to the taxpayer is reasonable and justified. The only people who are taking offense are the rabid right-wing media (the 'echo chamber) and the suckers that hang on their every word.
Thread addressed.
Now Herb, tell me - how do you feel about frogs?
Herbert continues to entertain me, I laugh out loud whenever I read his posts.
BTW Herbert, Al Gore was born rich, his family was heavily into tobacco farming. He doesn't need the money, he donates his GW money.
I had third row for The Spewers of Carbon in 1989. Killer show.
Herb, what would you like to hear/read exactly? Name it. How would you like this addressed? Do you want someone to admit something? Do you want future posts to only have supporting opinions and no dissensions or disagreements? What is it that you want to have happen around here? Vote differently? What?
Good post, ChickenJuggler.
It's simple.
I freely admit my disagreement and disgust with the hypocrisy from some on the right.
It would be refreshing to see the left share this same willingness to point out flaws among their own.
What we see here is a continual stream of '...yeah, it's not so good, but they're on MY side.'
Wrong is wrong.
You oughta address your own hypocrisy first before worrying about others, Mr anti-aborion pro-life whilst supporting so-called christians who kill their babies with lack of medical care.
"I had third row for The Spewers of Carbon in 1989. Killer show."
"It would be refreshing to see the left share this same willingness to point out flaws among their own."
Have you missed the posts bashing John Edwards for his infidelity?
Hypocrisy is a human condition that shared by almost everyone. We are all hypocrites at some level, don't forget that.
CJ, you *don't* want to be in the third row when the Spewers are performing...trust me.
In a sense, "Herb" and like minded people have scored a victory for opportunistic politicians by turning the subject of climate change from a scientific question into a political question. I believe that unfortunately, the only people who really have the opportunity to exploit this "debate" (the word debate in this context meaning deliberately generated confusion) are the politicians, who can use this issue to attack opponents, get re-elected, and possibly even build careers out of it. Citizens, such as Herb, don't stand to win anything here. They might get to pat themselves on the back and say, "doesn't it feel good to know that I'm right," but that's about it.
As an aside, I will state that I believe that skepticism is a good thing, and I used to consider myself a skeptic of climate change until recently. What made me distance myself from that label is that I started to notice that there are a number of climate change "skeptics" who are really ideologues who are already convinced that human-induced climate change is impossible and that all efforts to detect whether there is climate change must be flawed. These people's mission is to do what they can to discredit climate change research, not to discover the truth. They have an unscientific mindset of which I want no part.
My mother-in-law is an extremely devout Catholic, and she once made a very revealing comment:
"Why should we work so hard to save endangered species? They were put here by God for man to do with as he pleases. We have every right to do what we want with God's creatures."
I think this lies at the heart of the religious right's beliefs about so many global/environmental issues today. I believe their thinking is such: if God gave Man the ability to develop technologies such as the automobile, then the resulting CO2 emissions were also part of God's plan for us. By denying ourselves the convenience and pleasure of our own inventions, we are denying a gift that God gave us. If global warming is a result of our carbon-spewing lifestyle, then God will correct it (because he loves us) or it will have a positive effect that we cannot see, or haven't seen yet.
I believe the hard-core religious right believe the world is the stage that God gave us to play on, and it exists for our benefit and pleasure. That's why they'll only go so far as to acknowledge global warming; they will not accede to any plan to address it.
It makes you wonder.
Are they so selective in their reading?
Isaiah 24:4-6. The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt.
Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.
Luke 16:2,10,13. And He called him and said to him, "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward. He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous in much. You cannot serve both God and mammon.
Mark 4:19. ...and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and it becomes unfruitful.
Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.
http://www.christianecology.org/Stewardship.html
Amen, Amus. Good post, too.
Stewardship is indeed important, but you also left out Genesis 1:26.
However my disregard for global warming has little to do with theology.
What I find hilarious and sad at the same time are the folks that believe in religion yet deny scientific facts like climate change. I mean, seriously, when it comes to credibility, who are you going to believe? The thousands of scientists who study this stuff, or the preachers at church who have their own agenda?
Herb would be dangerous save the fact he's taken seriously be no-one.
"I freely admit my disagreement and disgust with the hypocrisy from some on the right."
Okay, show us an example. I can't recall one.
Debating with the insane. Interesting passtime.
Re: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
I don't see what you're getting at.
By "rule over" does that mean we are free to exploit to the point of extiction?
"However my disregard for global warming has little to do with theology. "
So what is it?
I can fairly succinctly lay out why I believe global climate change is a real concern.
Can you say why you don't without bringing personalities that you don't like into the mix?
Give me a difficult question, Amus.
The so-called climate change experts cooked the books.
In addition, there is enormous profit in climate change hype.
Follow the money by those who push hard for laughable 'carbon credit' systems.
Climategate is phony and has been discredited, Herbert. It was nothing more than lies from the right.
I think there's way more profit in denying climate change if you ask me.
'...The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.
While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.
The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.
It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”
There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.'
'For many who find their holiday time diminished due to the recession, Michelle Obama’s vacation to southern Spain has seemed inappropriate, and on last night’s Geraldo at Large, Democratic Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers condemned the trip as “absolutely tone-deaf,” and noted that she couldn’t “believe that she has done it.”
Opening the segment, Geraldo Rivera gave some stats on the kind of money the First Lady is dropping in Andalucía and noted that, while he was a fan of the Michelle Obama’s, he was uncomfortable with the trip. Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour weighed in, noting that, while she is a Republican and, thus, expected to take the position, she still wondered what Obama’s “carbon footprint going over there” was and criticized her for not visiting the Gulf of Mexico, instead. But it was Powers who gave the more surprising comment, noting that, while she doesn’t “think it’s anybody’s business whether they spend his birthday together or not,” the Spain trip was just all-around bad optics:
“Most Americans are just not going to relate to going to Spain with however many friends she has with her… staying at this exclusive hotel, spending all this money, and it is extremely tone-deaf. Politically, it is absolutely tone-deaf. I can’t even believe that she has done it, frankly. It is not what people do in their first term.”'
Seriously--which US President other than (perhaps) Jimmy Carter maintained a frugal lifestyle while in the White House? Unless Ralph Nader wins the Presidency someday, one can count on Presidents taking expensive vacations and flying on planes that burn lots of fuel. Showing shock and disbelief at this "discovery" is like being shocked to know that almost all dogs die before they reach 20 years of age.
Alfredo_T-
That is precisely the point.
Like him or not, Jimmy Carter may have railed about energy use, but he turned the heat down and wore a sweater. That's something such arrogant, laughably 'green' poseurs like Al Gore, Robert Kennedy Jr. and the president wouldn't conceive of doing.
Hypocrisy is why the electorate is outraged and the timing couldn't be worse for the left.
You must log in to post.
