Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">Is there any question in anyone's mind that Obama will be the next President of the United States? If so, let me tell you why I feel differently.

First (and most importantly), Americans - in general - cast their votes based on emotion rather than logic or careful research and evaluation. This is a proven fact. Despite having nearly unlimited access to histories and bios of the candidates via the internet, most Americans will still base their opinion on the ads and media coverage they see. And Barak Obama has an extremely high Charisma.

Second, most Americans want a change from the current Administration. Even many conservatives are not completely happy with Bush's policies and actions and several absolutely hate the man and (by proxy) the Republican Party. So any Republican candidate is fairly well doomed from the start unless they can prove they offer a significant change from Bush.

Finally, Obama appears to be a very intelligent man who knows his strengths and weaknesses. I think his personality and Charisma will appeal to foreign leaders and increase US relationships with other countries, which has been all but destroyed under President Bush.

For those that don't know me, I'm a pretty solid, hardcore conservative. For those that do know me, I can imagine your lower jaws hanging to the floor after reading these comments from me. LOL. But I'm also a realist. There hasn't been any doubt in my mind for 6 months that Obama will be the next President. I've also predicted he will win by the largest landslide since Reagen beat Mondale in 1984.

And the biggest shock (to those that know me) is that I don't necessarily consider this to be a "bad thing". :D</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

All depends on the who is selected for VP> ;)

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">Not this time. I've also suggested from the very start of the process that the Obama/Clinton "superticket" would be a surefire win, and that still holds true. The question is whether Hillary would be willing to accept the role of VP, if it were offered, or if she will decide to stay in the Senate and exert her influence from there. Ted Kennedy is the perfect example of how powerful an individual can become in the Senate.

If Hillary did take the role of VP, there is no doubt we would see the role of that office expanded like never before. She will not be the type to simply stand in the background and golf-clap at Obama's speeches. She will want to be as active in the policies, procedures and decisions of the Administration as possible. Again, that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

And let's be real, while some hardcore Hillary supporters may be disappointed she didn't get the nomination, there is no way in Hell they are gonna shift their votes to McCain, so Obama will still come out ahead. But it would be a wise move on his part to at least offer Hillary the VP office. His election as President will make history, but the impact of his Administration could be even more historical by having the first female in one of the two top offices of the nation.</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

I'm all for Obama, not sure about Hilary though. Still, her saving grace is what she attempted to do with healthcare in the 90's, I would have loved if she got a chance to do it right in conjunction with Barack (as his VP). I am pretty sure she is off his VP list now though...

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Excellent points, however;

I smell political assassination if she is on the ticket, and I know who will be the vocalist!

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

I'm definitely a business-loving Republican, but I also want a change in world position for the US. I think Obama will create that (actually, almost any Democrat could), but if Hillary ends on his ticket, my vote will go elsewhere.

She is too "leaf in the wind" for me, changing what she needs to change in order to win the next battle. There's no substance behind her that I see.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

The same could be said for Obama.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

From what I've seen, he didn't move to a new state after 25+ years just for the sole purpose of running for senator, and that just for the sole purpose of carrying that state in a future presidential election. The whole "Hey, I just moved in... vote for me for Senator" thing irks me.

Not that I'm against making changes to get to your future plans, but I consider that a wee bit brazen.

Still gotta get that book, though... just to read it.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

I heard a few weeks ago when it was announced that she would be his VP, that he was really doing it under force or threat or duress or whatever the word is, from the Clintons. They made it sound like he had no choice.

Can anyone explain that?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Yes- you were misinformed; no such announcement was made in any official capacity.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Misinformed how? Is Hillary not his VP now?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

So how about in an 'unofficial' capacity, which is where all actual deals are done?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

No, there's a few hoax/rumors going on but as of yet no word. I would LOVE if Al Gore was his VP. Imagine if America had a scientific mind like his in office. A nobel prize winner at that! One who thinks global warming is more than a fairytale.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

It's Biden... That's who I figured it'd be...

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

I think it's *one of* the right vp choices he could have made. I'm sorry to say that not too long ago, I thought John Edwards would help the ticket...but now he's a political leper.

...As far as Al Gore is concerned...well, he's smart, and he's right about global warming (right enough, anyway), but he's just too crazy to come back to the political theater. As far as Hillary is concerned...ugh. I just can't trust her to hold a position long enough to say it.

Biden nicely adds experience to the ticket, and is the smart choice to bolster it...

I wonder how the McCain camp will counter this?

McCain has tons of experience (as far as the public is concerned)...but is so stale that he needs a more exciting running mate.

If he picks Joe Lieberman, he's dead in the water. That's a forfeit, as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Yeah one of the good choices. I still think Gore would have been great. Crazy though? You sure you aren't mixing him up with Howard Dean?

I did indeed like Biden alot during the debates, he seems an honest, grounded guy.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

As a Canadian, I'm really ignorant to the basic differences of the two parties. Is it too big a question to ask? I know I always here left and right wing, but I don't really know what that means. Things get blurrier all the time.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Well, as it currently stands, the Republicans (tend to, but not universally) support a free-market response to most issues, like energy and health care, while the Democrats support actions by the government.

The Republicans tend toward staying in Iraq until the job is done, while the Democrats tend toward a gradual withdrawal.

Both parties support continued action in Afghanistan.

Basically, the left say that the government is supposed to answer the big problems, while the right say it's better left to the people and corporations to fix.

As far as considering Al Gore to be crazy goes...he strikes me as championing the cause of solving climate change mostly for personal recognition...he may not be crazy per se, as I pretty much agree with him on climate change issues, but that doesn't mean I absolve him for using six times the amount of energy in his household as a standard house, or for flying around the world in a private jet. He could have accepted the Nobel Prize via Telecommuting, and had them mail it all to him, right? Wouldn't that have sent a better message?

His main element of craziness is that he seems to expect to be let back into the general fold of politics after becoming what amounts to a lobbyist. There is simply too much bias, now.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Have you been watching Fox? ;)

I always thought that argument to be ridiculous. When I first heard it I thought about it. In using that jet he is travelling from place to place to give lectures about global warming. If there was a renewable energy plane i'm sure he'd be using it, but there isn't, which is why he is spreading awareness of how there needs to be. I don't think cycling around the USA would get the message spread as fast and as boldly as he has done. I understand this point but I mean, wouldn't you rather people use private jets to save the environment than to shuttle them to their resort in the Gran Canaria and back every week?

I am very aware of global warming myself, but I still drive a car because it's the only viable means of personal transport in my area. I guess I am happy with someone doing anything for the cause, as I recycle and save energy when I can, but does the fact that I drive a car nullify any other work i've done? His movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is a masterpiece IMO, there is very little about him in it, it is'nt self-serving in any way, just factual, with the evidence presented in an articulate and comprehensive manner. I'd recommend it to everyone.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Faux News?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

No commmercial airlines? How hard would it be to secure most of the first class section of an airliner going where he needs to go? Do as I say, not as I do kinda thing, so far as I can tell, including the energy consumption at his home. To me, this would have made him "a forfeit", as I'm sure I'm not alone in considering Al a bit hypocritical.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Well, this was a smear plan spread by Fox according to Gore's people. I recall hearing it and dismissed it immediately as inconsequential - even if it was true (which it isn't) for the reasons cited above.

His overall message does not lose importance or credibility, if not for him, then for us and our children, and our children's children. This was originally on his movie website message boards.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">Here are a few other facts to consider about Al Gore, his energy consumption and his "Inconvenient Truth".

Al Gore has had plans to upgrade his home to green power and energy efficiency for a long time, but couldn't until now. Riiiiiiiiight! The translation is that Gore wasn't smart enough to anticipate critics researching his own energy consumption and had to come up with a backpedal explanation to cover his obvious hypocrisy (Do what I say, not what I do). Gore has been "passionate" about global warming since college, so why did he not build an energy efficient mansion to begin with? Why didn't he set the trend waaaay back when he became Governer of TN?

BTW, GWB's mansion back in TX was using green energy, water capture systems and all the other measures Al Gore is implementing now - only he was doing it before Gore made his "shockumentary" film.

As for the purchasing of carbon offsets, that is the biggest frikken scam I've heard of recently. Why? Because the owner of the company that sells these "carbon offsets" is....dum da da duummm...Al Gore! (at least a controlling interest). In other words, Al says "Everyone must start using less energy. But if you don't use less energy (like me), you should at least buy carbon offsets (which happen to be sold by a company I helped found)." Talk about your double-dipping.

As for having an office in his home to "save energy", that's bullocks. This is a BS explanation to justify his own exorbitant energy usage. It was originally intended as a justification for his higher energy bills, but we can assume he would still be running the air conditioning and other appliances whether staff was there or not, so the office staff usage was just a smokescreen. The same applies to the energy that is being "saved" by NOT having them in a separate office building. Since that office space is likely being used by some other company, not having his staff there is not "saving" ANY energy consumption. It just prevents the consumption from being traced back to him. However, since his home is out in the suburbs, what should be factored in is the effect of gasoline used by all those staff members to drive out to his mansion rather than to an office downtown. And I doubt all the staff members drive a hybrid vehicle.

And as for his "shockumentary", an English judge last year ruled the film contained at least 9 serious flaws and/or outright lies regarding the danger and effect of global warming. This was done in response to schools wishing to show the film in classrooms across England. The veracity of the information was called into question and the matter was taken to England court system. After hearing expert testimony from different sources, the judge concluded the film contained a minimum of 9 flaws and/or outright lies regarding the urgency and effect of global warming. He ruled the film could be shown in English classrooms only if it was prefaced with a disclaimer listing these refuted assertions made by the film.

Al Gore is brilliant, in a sense. He is a brilliant salesman. He created a film containing half-truths and exaggerated claims of global disaster and received a Nobel Prize for his work of fiction. If nothing else, you gotta tip your hat to the shell game he pulled off.</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Well, let's see some evidence concerning the above statements/opinions. Links, photos etc. (preferably not from bloggers or pundents but rather, hard proof). I am hardly biased, I didn't like Gore until I saw his impressionable film. I always thought of him as boring before this.

Some quick points...

I don't think he's that braindead as to make a movie about global warming but never once think that anyone would look at his house. I'm not talking media even, just for example a person visiting him who liked his movie and possibly wanted to discuss it.

In the film, he is flying commerical alot, I don't know if it's an act for the movie which some may then suggest (?), but why even show him flying from airport to airport if it was something he wanted to hide?

100% profits from the film were put into an educational program for schools about environmental issues. If he wanted to hit big, why make a film then give the profits away?

I know nothing about the ownership of the carbon offset companies, and if he owns it. This is another instance where we need proof. I could rant on about how Bush is in bed with the oil companies and is steered by special interests all day every day but y'know...

Just to clarify, the judge in that case came to the conclusion that the film is basically accurate, save for 9 errors/exaggerations, but emphasized that the overall message was true and valid. Thousands of those copies were offered to schools absloutely free. Also thousands were offered to American schools for free, they were refused most likely due to the smear tactics run by Fox and friends on Gore.

I don't understand it, what does it matter if all the smears are true? Isn't the overall message noble, selfless? Would it hurt to make people, our kids and our grandkids aware? Do we suddenly stop listening to that song we love if the artist says something we don't agree with?

To end with a quote, "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Well...it's this debate exactly why he was never considered for VP again...the nation feels just like we do. Completely waffled over a millionaire who uses more energy than we do to tell us to use less energy because it's the right thing to do, since even a small event, if copied 300 million times has a huge impact.

So, I was thinking today...are the conservatives going to string McCain out to dry, come November?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">"Just to clarify", the judge in that case determined that teachers who chose to show the film to their students must inform the students beforehand that the film is a "political work and only tells one side of the story". He further determined any teacher who did not preface the movie with this disclaimer would be in violation of the British Education Code and would be guitly of political indoctrination. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the film.

The judge also determined there were 11 "material inaccuracies" contained within the film. In non-legalese, that means there were 11 outright lies in the film. There were also other misleading statistics in the film, but they weren't considered serious enough to be labeled "material inaccuracies". In other words, they were only little lies or partial lies that didn't meet the full definition of "material inaccuracy".

The article is too long to post so I've provided a link.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...nvenient-truth

Of course, I'm certain that source will be "attacked" as biased with the "logical conclusion" being that any information there should be discounted. Wrong. The site does admittedly put a bias spin on some of the information, but it does NOT and CAN not, put a "spin" on the judges' decision about the the existence of the material inaccuracies. No matter how a source "spins" the fact that the film contains at least 11 "material inaccuracies", that does not change the fact that those inaccuracies actually exist within the film. Now, you can choose to ignore those inaccuracies if you wish, but that doesn't eliminate their existence.

As for Al Gore's carbon offsets, here is a link exposing his personally vested interest in convincing consumers to buy from (t)his company.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54528

As the article correctly points out, Al Gore not only is essentially paying himself for his carbon offsets, he also has a significant personal interest in convincing others to purchase offsets from his company as well.

So let's pause to look at a few facts for a moment.
Al Gore created a political film predicting catastrophic disasters due to man-made global warming. At least 11 of his "catastrophic claims" were proven in court to be "materially inaccurate".
Al Gore claims to be passionate about halting global warming, yet did nothing to actually affect global warming during the 8 years he was VP and had the perfect opportunity to DO something about his supposed life, long passion. The only global warming measure put into effect during the Clinton/Gore administration was the Kyoto Treaty. This measures agreed upon in that treaty will reduce global warming by a grand total of .07% overall, and Clinton/Gore tried to get more exemptions for placed into the treaty than are already there.

Regarding Al Gore's personal energy use, here is a link from a source everyone should be able to agree is unbiased...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

The snopes article concludes that Gore's energy use is closer to 12 times the national average rather than the exaggerated claim of 20 times the average. It is also higher than other homes in the area, but snopes does take into consideration mitigating factors (like the home office) and concludes that Gore's usage is relatively the same as other homes in the area. Of course, what snopes does not factor is the energy consumption of the staffers who have to drive the extra distance to Gore's home instead of a centrally located office. It also doesn't consider the fact that none of Gore's neighbors fly around the globe warning about the catastrophic effects of global warming and telling everyone else to use less energy. As the quoted article on the snopes site says, Al Gore needs to walk the walk, which he has only recently taken steps to do.

Finally, here is the comparison between Al Gore's house and GWB's ranch. Again, the source is snopes and there is no denying that GWB was actually "walking the walk" better than Al Gore.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

You're right, it certainly is biased. It's a blog afterall - someones online opinion. I could make a blog saying the opposite and then link that here. A blog has no real context screening standard and cannot be contested if the writer doesn't listen to feedback or care to be accurate.
Our sources differ. According to wikipidea on "The Dimmock Case" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconve...e_Dimmock_case), the judge concluded that "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine 'errors', i.e. statements that he found to depart from the mainstream.
See, they added more errors in that blog. I did take a look at it and some of them are questionable at best. Just with a very brief glance of my non-expert eye, I immediately spotted two suspicious "errors", which coincidentally happens to bring the number back to nine. While some are accurate, many seem to be creative interpretations of the truth, that really could not be decided either way. Yet, alot of the time in these cases they'd dismiss claims that are unproven, as 100% untrue. Hardly open-minded or nuetral. Like this, for example:

I have seen numerous documentaries on National Geographic about how global warming is threatening Polar Bears. This drowning situation is always cited, and footage is shown of them half dead as crewman try to help them. To me, this is a sure inaccuracy. Some Polar Bears may die in storms, maybe those ones did, but this situation with increased mortality rate due to them being forced to dive longer as a result of sea ice shrinkage has and is happening. If they discovered that it is totally untrue then I think they forgot to inform the rest of the woirld and the National Geographic channel.

Then there's this. I don't know if the claim is true or not but when a court is unable to substantiate something it is unable to substantiate it. Why does it suddenly become false simply because no-one knows for sure? Usually it is determined that not enough evidence is present and so they can't press charges on a criminal for example. Odd that it was different here. Spin? I don't know, but something is up with that.

I have an issue with this one too, even though for the most part it's true. That's the problem, the movie "suggests" that this could have caused the hurricane. I never once took that as him having evidence, because we all know there can only be expert speculation in this case and nobody knows for sure. What the movie did point out is the hurricanes and other natural disasters are becoming more frequent, which they are.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

I amn't sure about the Snopes articles. I did a review search on the site and alot of reviewers seem to think it is less than nuetral. But, I will go with it for now and see how it pans out. The info. I pasted from his site's message boards did say that he indeed had a massive "green" project in the works for his house at the time, and has since completed that project. So I don't get how that energy consumption makes sense unless it was before that date.

Let's not even talk about Bush and Kyoto protocol, lol. I remember him saying he opposed it because of the "strain it would put on the economy". I guess he opted to use the economy for cheaper things like the Iraq War. Clinton/Gore left the US treasury with a surplus when they left. Look at the economy now.

I am interested in seeing more about GWB's ranch. Any photos etc.? I am actually pleasantly surprised about his "green" home if this is the case. If it is indeed true, then he is almost the reverse of what you claim Al Gore is: A person who practices it in his home, but not in his office or presidency at all. Food for thought.

I am still awaiting an answer to my most important question which I posted previously.
This discussion also leads to me ask two more of you.

1) Have you seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?

2) Do you believe Global Warming is an issue?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">I didn't claim Bush was a champion of global warming and the environment. Then again, neither has he. What is important about the Kyoto Protocol in relation to Al Gore (who does promote himself as a champion of global warming) is that this is the ONLY measure he and/or Clinton even attempted during their 8 years in office with respect to cleaning up the environment - and they tried to get more exemptions put into the Protocol so it wouldn't have as much of an impact on American corporations.

The point being that - while Gore was in the position do really DO something great and effective about global warming - he did practically nothing. And he tried to lessen the impact of the one measure he and President Clinton did sign off on.</font>

<font color="plum">If all the smears are true, then the message is tainted. And in Al Gore's case, it has been shown that his motives are hardly "noble" and "selfless". He owns a major share of the company he wants everyone to buy carbon offsets from. Since this business focuses on investments in "green technology", it is very self-serving for Gore to fly around the globe raising the alarm of global warming as loudly and as often as possible. Even if consumers don't buy the carbon offsets, there will be a push for the "green technology" the company invests in. Either way, Al Gore's stock in the company goes way up. So, no, that doesn't sound "selfless" to me.

All the proceeds from Inconvenient Truth went to environmental causes? Whoop-De-freekin-Do. How much money did the film actually make? Several thousand dollars, maybe? Only a portion of that would have gone to Gore in any case. For a multi-millionaire like Gore, this income is hardly missed. So, again, it's a win-win for Gore. He gains the appearance of donating to a worthy cause in support of his own global warming efforts while "sacrificing" an income that would amount to little more than a pittance to him.</font>

<font color="plum">No. I have not seen it and I have no plans to see it. I place Al Gore firmly in the same category as Michael Moore - a person who makes politically motivated films showing one side of the story and twisting the facts to exaggerate the "EEEEEVIL" of those that disagree with the message. If these films were presented as political op ed pieces, that would be more honost. Instead, they are listed as "documentaries", implying an [i]impartial[/b] presentation of the facts. Any google for lies and misleading content in their films will yield a plethora of results. Bowling for Columbine is a perfect example. Moore used creative editing (splicing different speeches made at different times and presenting them as one speech), half truths (regarding the NRA meeting in Denver shortly after the Columbine shooting) and outright lies (demanding an apology from Charlten Heston for an event he had absolutely no connection with or responsibility for). His beratement of Heston is even more heinous since it was known by then that Heston was suffering Alzheimer's. Moore sadistically tried to use that to his advantage by demanding an apology for an event he knew Heston would not remember (since he never did what Moore accused him of).

Back to Al Gore, he has admitted that global warming scientists in general DO exaggerate the dangers and effects of global warming to deliberately raise "alarm" over the issue. He has also admitted to exaggerating the facts himself. And now a judge has ruled there are 9 "material innaccuracies" in
Gore's mockumentary film. You claim that "unsubstantiated" doesn't necessarily mean a claim was false. However, that also doesn't mean it is necessarily true. What it means is that particular fact did not meet the required standard to be deemed a "material inaccuracy". Again, many of Moore's own antics would not meet that criteria (Moore is very, very careful about that), but that doesn't change the fact that they ARE intentionally misleading. Given the fact that at least 9 errors WERE found in a film that should contain NONE, it is reasonable to assume that many other inaccuracies occurred, but didn't meet the strict standards of the court's definition.</font>

<font color="plum">Honostly? No, I don't. All of the alarmist exaggerations over the last 30 years have left me more than a little skeptical of any current claims. Al Gore claims CO2 levels are higher than ever and this is the fault of man-made industries. Data has been provided which proves CO2 levels have been this high in centuries past and occurred long before mankind ever came close to the Industrial Revolution. If man IS responsible for the CO2 levels, then these levels should NEVER have occurred before. Since they DID occur when there was literally NO INDUSTRY at all, the claim that man is causing the current crises simply cannot be believed.
In the 1970's, temperatures were cooler than normal. Back then, the environmental alarm was that we were headed for another Ice Age. Then temperatures warmed up. Rather than be embarassed by their reverse occurance of their alarmist predictions, environmentalists just flipped the record over and now started claiming the ozone depletion was going to lead to the sun burning Earth to a crisp. When evidence was presented to counter that alarmist claim, environmentalist switched to a more generalized alarm call of global warming.

The Amazon forest has been "burning down" for at least 25 years that I can recall, and probably longer than that. Thunderous bells of alarm were rang in the 80's that global disasters were inevitable in the next 20 years if the burning of the forest was stopped immediately. Twenty five years later, environmentalist STILL make the same claims, ignoring the fact that their initial timeline for disaster expired. They simply keep regurgitating the message figuring the new generation won't remember that the same alarms were being raised before they were born.

So, do I think global warming is an issue on the scale Al Gore and others would have us believe? No, I don't.</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

I know you didn't claim Bush as a champion for global warming, I was simply comparing. I amn't sure what Al Gore did while in office (like I said I paid little attention to him until I saw this movie), and unless we have actual proof that he did "practically nothing", then we cannot come a real conclusion. Opinion is one thing. I'm sure there are logs of everything he was involved in pertaining to the environment (bills, protocols, speeches) but this would require quite a bit of digging and time, alongside a fair and unbiased eye so as to avoid cherry-picking results. Kyoto itself is monumental. It is sad to say it, but the miniscule amounts of emissions it aims for are something rather than nothing. In this day and age, and as far as the environmental awareness goes, that is a giant step. It's just a pity GW didn't get on board...

It was a little more than a few thousand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth
"Earning $49 million at the box office worldwide, An Inconvenient Truth is the fourth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States (in nominal dollars, from 1982 to the present)"

Well, you didn't see the movie and don't intend to. In effect, all you have is second-hand info. to argue with. We don't know where the info. and opinions you are going with came from and how this information could have possibly been "tainted" also. The movie is hardly about marketing and preaching the virtues of buying carbon offsets, it is mentioned I think once, maybe? In my view like I said, I felt it wasn't self-promoting and was quite selfless. There are easier ways for the former VP to make cash, come on.

But here we get to the root issue. If the movie was flawless you still could not get behind it, and would always disagree with the overall message because you don't believe in it to begin with.

I do understand to some degree, per the points you made, as to why you don't believe, but look at it this way; we don't have another planet to run the experiment on. Therefore, can we afford to take the risk of it not being true? Let's think awhile on our answers here and understand that they will have to be written down and passed on to our children for their kids to read, explaining the reasoning as to why we didn't bother to do anything because we thought it was all one big hoax.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">That's where you are wrong.

My disdain for Michael Moore has been well documented on <font color="yellow">IW</font> over the years. I honostly cannot think of enough deragotory comments to describe my feelings for him and the crap-films he touts as "documentaries". However, despite my absolute disgust for Moore and his work, I accepted the challenge years ago to actually watch Bowling for Columbine. I discovered two things when I did. One was that ALL the criticisms I had read about the film were TRUE. He used half-truths, misleading dialogue and spliced film in a deliberate attempt to FORCE the viewer to accept HIS vision of the issue. You chastise me for not watching Al Gore's film? I don't have to. Despite any spin added to the smears, the fact remains that his film DOES contain at least 9 documented material innaccuracies. Add to that the fact that Al Gore has admitted it is common and accepted practice for environmentalist to exaggerate the data and it's impact in order to create "alarm" about environmental issues. He also admitted he, himself, had exaggerated claims of the global warming impact in order to "heighten awareness" of the situation. I watched Moore's film and found out all the flaws he denied actually DID exist in his films. So why do I need to watch Al Gore's film when it has been proven to contain inaccuracies and is narrated by a man who has admitted he has exaggerated data in the past to create extra alarm. The answer is, I don't.

Now then, the second discovery I made while watching BfC surprised me. Despite my personal feelings towards Michael Moore and his mockumentary style of filming, I had to admit he did raise a few valid points in his movie. The sad thing is, the movie would have had a much larger impact if Moore would simply have let the data speak for itself instead of intentionally manipulating it in order to make his viewpoint appear stronger. In fact, his tampering had the opposite effect. A decent message was tainted because the data was very obviously manipulated, so the overall message is denigrated by his actions. The same applies to Al Gore's film and the global warmers consistent cries of "Doom and Gloom! The sky is falling." By routinely exaggerating the data, they impair the message. It's a real life version of the boy who cried "Wolf". Is the danger real? Perhaps. But how can we know the true extent and impact the danger may have when we are constantly fed "alarmingly exaggerated" data? The answer is, we can't.

When you taint the data, you DO taint your overall message.</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Well, it's odd that you mention this movie because I just watched BFC there a few days ago for the first time and, despite my bad feelings toward guns and arms readily available in America (which we discussed before in another thread) I do in fact, agree with you on this.

Again, I will come forward and say what I feel no matter who made the movie, or if I like what it preaches, rather than back it blindly regardless of content. And note, I am a fan of Michael Moore for his reputation of tackling the issues that many won't. But yes, in this movie all I kept thinking was he went the wrong way about doing it all. There were some pointless arguments made, I totally agree about the last scene blaming the NRA guy for the girl's death...it was a ridiculous play on audience emotion which in his mind may have been the noble thing, but was in reality, totally misguided. I remember watching that part and thinking "Wtf? Audience manipulation isn't how you solve this issue!". Because I did feel like I was being manipulated when watching it. Not one of my favourites at all.

Now, "Sicko" for example, was a great movie. Maybe it's because I know so intricately the gaping flaws in the US healthcare system, or that I know all the things that are said by the smear campaigns about the European or other Free world systems is inaccurate. Why? because I grew up with them. So I could at once see both sides of the coin and dismiss the lies almost immediately due to personal experience. All the while I watched other people succumb to the notion that "the waiting lists are months long in the UK" or "you have a 30% chance of surviving cancer in the UK". I LOL'ed alot at this BS. But it was odd and somewhat frightening, because I kept thinking to myself that if I hadn't seen the truth with my own eyes I may be buying into this stuff.

Anyways, my point is, do not be discouraged by one movie which I already agree has missed the mark entirely. Moore for example did some good stuff later on, keep an open mind, approach with a level of nuetrality rather than nab all of them with the same brush. Even if you force yourself through a sitting of a movie being discussed it will serve to, at the very least, help give your own personal insights, impressions and criticisms alongside the other ones.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Just to point out, as somebody else already did, I believe, all this debate about Gore could have backfired on Obama had he chosen Gore for VP. A seed of doubt would probably be enough.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">Well Michael Moore has an established reputation for manipulating the audience, or at least trying to, with every film he makes. BfC may have been the most blatant example, but all the others contain the same elements. Even his supporters agree up to a point. Farenheit 911 is another example. Having Senators admit on camera they voted for the Patriot Act even though they never actually read it was a powerful condemnation of the bill. But Moore had to go one step further and drive around in a truck reading the bill over the vehicle's PA system. Theatrics like that actually cheapen the message. One critic summed it up very well in a review of the film - Michael Moore is at his best when he let's the camera do the talking and keeps his own mouth shut. He does tackle important issues, but he just can NOT resist adding his own twist to the message he is presenting. As you said yourself, the audience eventually recognizes this and his manipulations tend to make his whole message suspect.

As for Sicko, I am also intimately aware of the health care system in the U.S. I worked in the healthcare system for 13 years. I also have a chronic illness that has put me in the hospital on numerous occasions and resulted in 7 major surgeries so far. I am limited in the jobs I can pursue because I HAVE to have group insurance. Why? Because my chronic illness makes me automatically INELIGIBLE for individual insurance. Unless I can get on group policy, I simply will NOT be offered insurance at all because of my condition.

As for Universal Healthcare, there are models that work quite well. A former member here lived in France and gave glowing reviews of the universal healthcare available to all members in her country. Canada, on the other hand, falls into the category cited by critics of the universal healthcare. I've spoken directly to citizens there via forums who confirm that they do face waiting periods of up to 18 months for some medical procedures, such as surgery and even routine medical exams. My own personal physician moved here from Canada while I was working in the hospital purchasing department. When we provided him with a list of equipment the hospital would purchase for his office, his reaction was "This is for my office? Here in Canada, I could open my own HOSPITAL with this much equipment." That is straight from the horses' mouth, so to speak. So the actual "truth" about universal healthcare is far from "universal" itself. Some systems are good and some are bad, just like anything else done by the government. I personally would LOVE to see universal healthcare available in the US, IF we can do it the way France and other European countries have. But my fear is that we will end up with a system more like Canada's.

One other point I thought about last night after going to bed. I thought it was interesting that you questioned the article on Snopes, yet held the information on wikipedia up as your source regarding the British trial of Inconvenient Truth. The reason that is interesting is because Snopes exhaustively researches every article they address on their website. Wikipedia, on the other hand, accepts input from readers regarding their topics. Any reader of wikipedia can add to the information on their site. I don't know how thoroughly wiki researches the information they receive. Hopefully, they check it out for themselves before posting it. The point is that the information on wiki could be akin to the information found on any forum where readers submit thier own information. The wiki article on the trial says the judge approved the overall message of the film, but I have to ask if wiki also mentions the ruling of the judge that the film is a political effort that tells only one side of the story and showing the film without adding that disclaimer would be a violation of the Education Code. I left out the part about the judge saying it would be akin to political indoctrination, because that may be part of the spin added by the source I used. But if the judge ruled the disclaimer must be made and that information isn't included on wikipedia, then wiki is also not providing the whole story. I haven't had time to check it myself. It's waay too early in the morning to start googling stuff like that. I'll check it later today as time permits.</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">How dare you try to bring this thread back on topic, RTB. (brings out the wet noodle). lol.

I had said all along I expected Obama to go for the "superticket" and offer the VP job to Hillary. But I agree she also brings too much baggage with her as well. And despite McCain's ads to the contrary, I don't think there is a snowball's chance that Hillary's "18 million" supporters will give their vote to McCain over Obama. I understand they wanted Hillary, but she LOST the nomination fair and square. They need to accept that and move on.

Anyway, I think Obama made an excellent choice with Biden. He brings experience to the office that Obama admittedly lacks. Barak also said he wanted a VP that will challenge his thinking instead of being a "Yes Man". I sincerely hope this is true. Even though I was Bush supporter, we've seen all too well what happens when a President doesn't want to hear an opposing viewpoint from his Cabinet. It behooves ANY world leader to have a strong second-in-command that will say "I'm not certain this is the BEST answer to the situation. Let's look at some other alternatives."

Barak says he stands for change - which is exactly what America wants right now. I still think he is a lock to win the election. I just hope he truly means what he says and will follow the course he has promised when he gets in office.</font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Being a Canadian, I'm quite satisfied with our health care system. As with Moore, you probably hear the worst case scenario and think, "I don't want that"! Moore did put is in a positive light of course. This is the only film of his that I have seen.
Can you really blame a health-care system for not working at maximum efficiency because people eat the crap that's out there, smoke and whatever else that causes them sickness and injury? There's a wait for MRI's because too many people don't need the thing.
When a baby comes into the family, would it be good to know that both spouses can take up to a year off, or a paltry six weeks?

My mom and Step-dad moved back from Florida to Ottawa because they couldn't afford to live there anymore for health reasons.

With respect to the environment: I think you're in idiot if you don't think there's a problem and it's really not a bad thing to be "Environmentally friendly".

I'll take Canada over any other country in the world to live in.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">Wow. I have to admit you are one of the last people I would have expected to call me an idiot. At least I know where I stand with you now. :disgust: </font>

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

C'mon, you really don't think that we are affective our environment, even a little?

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

Well, the thing is with wiki all info. can be contested by anyone who thinks it isn't accurate. Accuracy isn't the only thing tested, haven't you ever seen the notifications on top of some wiki articles, warning people that some believe this info. is slanted or that this point is under investigation? I like it because they put the warning there and then let you decide for yourself. If I ever see a header like this in any article I quote, I then either don't quote it, or let someone know the info. is in conflict at least on wikipedia.

This is their general policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._point_of_view

Then, they specify something which has it's own page dedicated to it's definition called "Weasel words". I like it because it brings awareness that even citations and quotes can be used in a misleading manner.
Here is one header that sometimes appears of conflicted articles. It appears above the text with an orange exclamation mark so it is seen immediately
Then there is also something called "peacock words", which I just discovered existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_words

I am also aware of an incident where someone claiming to be an expert edited something falsely in wiki a year or so back, and then forced them to do some kind of "check" when allowing info. to be added in controversial articles. For example, you will see that GWB's wiki page is locked from editing (indicated by the little lock icon in the top right-hand corner), probably because flaming and trolling or general abuse. The same goes for Michael Moore's page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

Snopes, in my quick search came up as liberally biased believe it or not. But I went with it because I searched some controversial issues on the site, and concluded that they were pretty much on par with what I thought was accurate. I mentioned it just because I felt obligated to mention there was speculation.

Best thing I do when checking any site, is look up something I know 100% about and see their take on it.

Re: Barak Obama - Heir Apparant
 

<font color="plum">I rarely use wiki myself (unless I'm looking NWN related stuff), so I wasn't aware of the controls they had in place regarding the information they solicit from readers.</font>