8 1 min 13 yrs

algorehusky.jpgCampaigning in Oregon last Saturday, Barack Obama said:  

 
"We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK…"

Obama doesn’t  mention Al Gore by name,  but it’s pretty obvious……..isn’t it?   🙂

HT: Daily Pundit

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “Obama Attacks Al Gore Because Gore is Overweight and Drives a SUV

  1. Patty,

    "Obama doesn’t mention Al Gore by name, but it’s pretty obvious……..isn’t it? :)"

    You mean Mr Gore is the only SUV-driving fatty in America? Congratulations, you guys. Well done. All those health and ecology warnings must have worked.

  2. Obama’s got it right this time. Gore is a fat white bastard. Which is what he REALLY wanted to say.

  3. Dawkins: "All those health and ecology warnings must have worked."

    Yes, remarkable…isn’t it?

    No more fat people, and we all drive little Mini Coopers!

    During the freezing winters, we sit in front of the large fires where we burn old copies of the "The Road to Serfdom," and "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Solzhenitsyn. On our mantles, we all have hanging a likeness of Obama as Savior. And next to that is a picture of a really fat and really rich Al Gore.

  4. Patty,

    "really rich Al Gore"

    Ah so he’s not a socialist then. I thought you all said he was.

    So now the problem is that he makes money? You lefties are all alike.

  5. To Patty and the other lefties attacking Gore, here’s Mark Kleiman delivering the smackdown so I don’t have to:

    Rich people use more goods and services than poor people. That’s what "rich" means. Of course multi-millionaires have larger gross GHG footprints than you and I do. So what? If Tierney wants to work on decreasing income gradients, I’m all for it. But of course he’s not. He just hates the idea that some rich people use their wealth to promote ideas he dislikes.

    A large gross carbon footprint doesn’t imply a large net carbon footprint. That’s what offsets are about. Once GHG contributions are priced appropriately, there won’t be any need for private offset purchases. But in the meantime someone who wants to be personally GHG-neutral can get there by writing checks for the activities necessary to offset his or her footprint.

    Tierney’s admirer and fellow faux-populist glibertarian Glenn Reynolds thinks that this is no better than "buying indulgences." The difference, of course, is that the purchase of an indulgence didn’t offset the damage done by the underlying sin (and certainly didn’t make reparation to the other people injured by it), while GHG offsets actually undo the original damage. If Al Gore is prepared to pay for enough carbon sequestration or tree-planting or whatever to offset the GHG costs of his house and his air travel, it’s no skin off my nose, and given the nature of market transactions it’s a benefit to whomever he’s buying the offsets from; otherwise those people wouldn’t be willing to sell at the price.

    Isn’t it astonishing how many devotees of "the free market" know jack sh*t about how market processes actually work?

    Enjoy the whole thing here.

  6. I LIKE rich…no problem with that.

    The point of fat, rich Al Gore is that he makes his money off a hoax called Global Warming. Lining his pockets on the backs of the gullible and those who have no choice due to increased regulations thanks to his chicken little campaign.

    You don’t think he’s scared the pants off of you for free, did you?

  7. Patty,

    The problems with your short thesis are manifold but the main one is that is fact-free.

    For a start I don’t get my information from Al Gore (neither does Al Gore) and he doesn’t scare me.

    People like you scare me, when you call other people gullible and claim they have fallen for a hoax, while you yourself urge that global warming be dealt with by having more faith in a special ghost (as if there are several to choose from).

    Indeed one of the most convincing arguments for global warming is that the ‘sceptics’ arguments against it are so vacuous. After all I assume you started with your best arguments.

Comments are closed.