Nobel Prize-winner Al Gore practices what he preached

[spudcon]

But Al Gore is still a dork and an attention whore.

[SteveBsjb]

I like Al Gore. Inconvenient Truth was good. It was interesting to learn about his son, dad, and sister.

[tw]

Originally Posted by spudcon

But Al Gore is still a dork and an attention whore.

Anyone who innovates or who tries to create change or who runs for political office to actually advance mankind is (by your definition) an attention whore. Therefore attention whores are very desireable. Therefore the world need more attention whores.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by tw

Anyone who innovates or who tries to create change or who runs for political office to actually advance mankind is (by your definition) an attention whore. Therefore attention whores are very desireable. Therefore the world need more attention whores.

No, that's your definition. But Al Gore is not trying to advance mankind, he's trying to advance Al Gore. He's been successful at it, not because of the academy award, but because he hoodwinked the Nobel Prize Committee into believing junk science.

[tw]

Originally Posted by spudcon

No, that's your definition. But Al Gore is not trying to advance mankind, he's trying to advance Al Gore. He's been successful at it, not because of the academy award, but because he hoodwinked the Nobel Prize Committee into believing junk science.

You proof? I don't see any supporting facts or reasons in any of your posts? I hear Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Is your knowledge only from Rush? Where is that long post with five supporting reasons why? There is a difference between us. I don't post emotions, then declare that as proof.

Conclusions justified by political agendas need no supporting facts. Posted is nothing but a political agenda - obviously - because the post is so pathetically short. A post that short is either a political lie or a good joke. Oh. A belated April Fool's joke. Sorry, Al. I did not realize it was you.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by tw

You proof? I don't see any supporting facts or reasons in any of your posts? I hear Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Is your knowledge only from Rush? Where is that long post with five supporting reasons why? There is a difference between us. I don't post emotions, then declare that as proof.

Conclusions justified by political agendas need no supporting facts. Posted is nothing but a political agenda - obviously - because the post is so pathetically short. A post that short is either a political lie or a good joke. Oh. A belated April Fool's joke. Sorry, Al. I did not realize it was you.

I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Al gore to mold my opinions. I do know enough about science to know a charlatan when I see one, and I've seen Al Gore say enough ignorant things in his bumbling career to know George W Bush is a genius compared to Gore.