Being Green
 

http://www.cbsnews.com/track/rss/blo...tsheet_4962384

Guy has a hell of a carbon footprint. He's setting the bar pretty high as most don't have access to a private 747. Unfair to the poor. We can only do our best to try and achieve a fraction of his numbers.

Your "Carbon Footprint" is also your Freedom Footprint. You can't make one smaller without the other.

Keep it nice and big. Feed CO2 to as many plants as you can. They in turn will give us more oxygen -- everybody wins. God is quite the Engineer.

What a scam. Global Warming Hysteria is a state sponsored religion. In direct violation of the 1st amendment.

Did he have to travel? Was there some ugrency in getting him to Iowa? This was just one, big, expensive photo op. And it was stupid to do in the name of being green. As Brian would say, text book hypocrisy.

He didn't take enough vacation days ... that was the problem.

Isn't that what President's do? Push an agenda and visit towns that are hard hit?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...893033,00.html

I fart quite a bit...what should I do?

I know he needs to travel and when he does needs AF1 and all its security etc. The problem with this trip was its purpose was to promote Green Energy and Obama burned 9,000 gallons to get there. Not the best PR move IMO. Wonder how many windy days it will take to recoup all the 'carbon credits' (LOL) burned in one trip?

And you are right about Bush but considering how bad the left felt he f'd things up while at the office were not those vacation days respites from all that was W?

You can bash Gore all you want for his insistence that we all be green while creating a large carbon footprint, and though I completely believe his cause is noble, I wouldn't waste breath trying to disagree with you on it.

But I can't quite sign on board with the idea that it's "textbook hypocrisy" for a President of the United States to travel like....the President of the United States, no matter what he is going to be talking about. Unless all business for his term will be conducted directly out of the White House with no travel...it's not really realistic to expect the President of the entire United States to not be out travelling the entire United States.

Though as others have said, expecting the President of the United States to show up for work? That's reasonable (though while typing...not quite sure how we ended up there in this thread).

It has nothing to do with the trip, the hypocrisy lies in the purpose of the trip. I know the President must travel but he doesn't have to go joy riding especially when trying to preach Green.

Al Gore is just a buffoon who's essence is hypocrisy and lies. But I feel a little sorry for him as a child must 'make believe' if he/she is raised in a hotel. At least we know he's generous with charity. LOL

He went to an energy specific locale.

It's like some jerk who has ruined an economy and cost millions of jobs going to give a speech on jobs and the economy in Detroit in front of a bunch of people who have lost their jobs thanks to him and his buddies.

Just saying...it's how things work, and it's how things have always worked. Wouldn't we be bordering on speaking of hypocrisy if we, say, got into a coversation about how perfectly comparable actions by other presidents didn't bother you one iota until just about exactly 100 days ago? Just saying....let's be careful abou the fights we're picking.

It's not hypocrisy so to speak. If you want to change the entire system of the Presidency, that's a good starting point to an intellectually honest conversation we could have, and I'm sure Obama will anxiously await your plans for overhaul.

I like you Dell, so you'd be really well-served to save your outrage for when it matters. You're turning into a total boy who cried wolf type. By the time anything that's actually important comes around, nobody will care because they're so used to your fake outrage over airplanes and the like.

I'm not trying to change opinions just venting. Your Bush comparison would have been better if you talked about him putting on a flight jacket and heading for the nearest air craft carrier in the Gulf to 'lend his support' to the troops.

At least he's in with royal company

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ivate-jet.html

Arrogance or Ignorance?





Someone tell this fool the goal is to lesson the carbon footprint. Far over his skis on this one. Burn more fuel for a photo op? LMAO

I could care LESS about the fuel burned on that but that was a cruel thing to do to New Yorkers.... absolutely crazy and ignorant.

I dont blame Obama because he didnt know about it... but the person who signed off on it should lose their job no if ands or buts.

If Katrina was Bush's fault this surely is Obama's. Who is guiding this guy, his daughters? The fuel doesn't particularily bother me but the 'do as I say not as I do' BS surely does.

While I think the guy who authorized this photo op should lose his job.

This situation and Katrina are not comparable. not even a little bit like to use in an analogy.

Especially when you start off black

What a A-hole!!!!!!

Turns out it had nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with arrogance. Obama is so far over his skis he better tuck and roll and hope he can do a summersault or better yet face plant.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.for....2.996457.html

I'm surprised it took you this long to post this story....I was just waiting..

and yeah..pretty stupid and arrogant by whoever made that call..and I'm sure he is a former Govt official very soon

FTFY


You forgot about the Peter Principal

Can't understand why EVERYTHING bad that happened in the previous 8 years including natural disasters was Bush's fault while EVERYTHING bad now is either a staffer's fault or even better still Bush's fault? :zz: :zz:

I don't fault this position entirely, and could understand why you're defensive about it -- but they're apples and oranges and I think you know that.

Nobody is saying Katrina is Bush's fault, like he went down south and whipped up a good ol' home cooked hurricane. The response to it was Bush's fault because he didn't care to have any oversight of it while it was failing miserably and leaving people to drown and die.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't appear culpable for this having happened in the first place either, so the only thing you can be upset about is his response. I know you, like Malkin in her column today, want to link the two, but it doesn't work that way just because you want it to. I think the person who ordered it should be fired. Plain and simple, but to either blame Obama personally for it having happened in the first place, or to try to compare his response to this with Bush's response to Katrina is outlandish.

Republican leaders must be accountable

Democrats not so much

I'm sorry but was Bush supposed to put on his trunks and dive in to save people? Katrina was mother nature's fault and the disaster that resulted was the city planners who decided to build a city at the bottom of an empty swimming pool's fault.

And to the many who blamed Bush for 911 now defending Obama's ignorance of the $300 thousand plus flyover with the excuse 'it was a staffers fault' just doesn't float. Is he accountable for anything not read off a telepromter or is it the speech writers at fault? This was AF 1 and I'm fairly sure one guy can't decide to joyride over Manhattan for a couple photos.

While I dont think that Obama should be blamed for this

I COMPLETELY agree that if it was a Bush staffer Bush would be chewed up and spit out by now..