Pushing for Gore
December 2nd, 2007 at 09:40am Mark Noonan
I’m still betting on a late arriving Gore campaign (keeping in mind that I always have said that he’d announce late - even as late as the first week of January, 2008) - but, be that as it may, Seth Swirsky lays out a rational case for a Gore campaign:
When you really think about the crop of Democratic candidates for president, it’s clear that their best hope to win in 2008, is not even on the playing field. That current, non-candidate is Al Gore. He’s the only one who can match the experience, accomplishments and gravitas of Rudy Giuliani and yet, the left ignores him.
Do Democrats think that nostalgia for the Clinton years will propel Hillary to the presidency? More likely, when voters remember the scandal-plagued, triangulating double-talk of both Clintons, they will be less likely to want to return to those years.
Barack Obama? In a world that has become more difficult to navigate, does the left think that a not-even-one term senator is the right person for the job? Against a person with Giuliani’s credentials, it wouldn’t even be close.
John Edwards? The one-term senator known more for the price of his haircuts, couldn’t even carry his home state of North Carolina as the Vice Presidential nominee in 2004. But, somehow, in ‘08, he’s going to beat Giuliani? I don’t think so.
And then, there’s Al Gore.
He served in the House of Representatives for eight years, followed by eight years as a U.S. senator, followed by eight years as Vice President of the United States. In 2000, as the Democratic nominee for president, he won the popular vote by a plurality. Oh yeah, in 2007, his movie won an Academy Award and he also won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Seems to me, his resume is more formidable than the top three current democratic candidates combined.
Swirsky is not just a little bit right, he’s dead on. Keeping in mind that I think Gore’s political positions contemptible and his lust for fame and public affirmation disturbing, the plain fact of the matter is that the top three Democratic contenders are complete political zeros when it compared to somone like Al Gore. They are even moreso when compared with the top five GOP contenders - heck, even Ron Paul is miles ahead of the three Democrat in terms of experience and intellectual weight. If by some chance any one of the three were to get elected, then the immediate task of the GOP would be to calculate how many House and Senate seats we’d win in 2010. It is really rather sad that the Democrats are reduced - thus far - to a man with less than three years in the Senate, a man who had six years in the Senate, and a woman who is just finishing up her 7th year in the Senate; and none of these Senators has to their credit even one minor bit of national legislation. At least when Bob Dole ran in 1996, there were some accomplishments in the legislative field for him to point to.
Now, will Gore do it? Depends on how much of a slave to his own ambition he is. He would, after all, get beaten if he ran for President and secured the Democratic nomination (its my view that getting a Democrat to 270 electoral votes is a nearly impossible task unless the GOP vote is split, and there’s no sign at this point such a thing will happen) - anyone with a bit of political knowledge knows this, and that means that Gore knows it, too…but as Lincoln observed, once the Presidential grub gets in a man, its hard to get out. I’m still betting he’ll get in - as a late-entrant, “come to save the day” candidate who will wow the kook left which is actually in control of the early part of the nominating process for the Democrats.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
35 Comments
1. The Political News You Ne&hellip | December 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
2. Dittohead4Life | December 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Watch Fat Al’s weight–some say this could be an indication of his intentions.
What are these “..&hellip” posts that are appearing in the threads? Any way to get rid of them?
3. hermie | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Gore has far more wealth and influence in his new unelected role as head of the Church of Climate Change (Formerly known as the Church of Global Warming),
He’d have to forgoe the billions of dollars he stands to make from his carbon-trading scam; and he sure wasn’t principled enough about his ‘environmentalism’ to get rid of his Zinc Mine or his Occidental Petroleum stock.
4. Aaron | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Sen Obama will mop the floor with Giuliani.
Anyone care to take a bet?
5. Dittohead4Life | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Sen Obama will mop the floor with Giuliani.
Maybe so, Airhead; it all depends on how many more of you he can dumb down, prior to the election.
It’s astonishing that the national polls are so close, when it comes to (D)vs.(R) presidential candidates, given that NONE of the Donkaroach first-tier candidates have ANY qualifications or experience to be president. The only Donkaroach hopeful with any is Bill Richardson, and he’s not even in the running at the moment.
That BDS is a powerful affliction…
6. Almiranta | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I can’t say that I have predicted a Gore candidacy, but I have kind of expected it.
Unlike a rabid Lefty who is driven solely by emotion, I have been able to stand back and look objectively at the Democrat field, and am seriously amazed at the lack of depth and quality they have managed to put together.
I don’t say this from dislike or partisanship, but based on simple analysis of their credentials.
Hillary seems to be qualified till you stand back and look at Just Hillary. Not Billary, not the Co-President, but just plain Hillary. And on her own she has done nothing. If she were not Mrs. Bill Clinton, she would probably be an Arkansas state representative.
As Co-Governor she got herself involved in so many scandals and scams she proved her poor judgment and lack of ethics. Bill got a pass on Whitewater because of the successful diversion of the Left in convincing people the Whitewater investigation was a “witch hunt” and “just about sex”. But a calm, rational, objective look at the reality of Whitewater shows so much finagaling, so much corruption, that if it comes to light again —and it will, with a Hillary candidacy—-without Bill’s charm to deflect it and Bill’s womanizing to confuse the issue Hillary is going to have a really hard time of it.
(And please spare us the detail that she was never indicted. You need to actually read the Starr Report, and also factor in that others took the fall for her, and that she and Bill are the only ones NOT indicted.)
She was a hardcore dedicated Socialist, and her recent efforts to hide that will probably not succeed.
Barack is a nice enough guy, but politically dumb as a stump. He may have scored points with the Hate America crowd by refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag, by showing such disrespect, but the radical Left can’t elect him, and he has gone so far in his pursuit of that subset of the Democrat Party that I doubt he can get the moderates to warm up to him.
And he is totally inexperienced, and would fall apart on a debate with any of the Republican field.
Edwards is a joke. He is, for one thing, just as mean as a snake, and although he has had his termimally ill wife run interference for him, riding point and making the vicious comments because no one can attack her, he is as bad as she is. His true colors will come out if he is ever separated from the pack and he has to stand on his own.
In addition, his legal career is hardly one to brag about. Last time, the dirt came too late to have much effect, and Kerry stole the limelight with his own ethical issues.
Richardson is probably the most qualified but he has the charisma of a haddock. And being the most qualified of that field is faint praise.
So I have been wondering if Gore would step up to fill the vacuum. But I think he fears another defeat, and is very happy and comfortable with the threat-free adulation he has generated in his role as Climate Guru. It is making him rich, he is famous, he is adored by many, and he doesn’t have the work load or responsibility or the constant criticism a President has to shoulder.
7. phnx | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Erron,
Double your ADD medication, three posts and you try to change the subject. This thread is about Gore. Any comments on him?
The Dem nomination is Gore’s for the asking for all of the reasons stated in Almiranta’s post.
Almiranta, I must disagree with you on one point. You say Hillary WAS a committed hardcore socialist. I disagree, she IS a committed hardcore socialist.
8. Ricorun | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Personally, I think the only way Gore will become a factor is in the event of a deadlocked convention. The possibility of that happening is probably slim, but it does exist. In the mean time, I don’t think Gore will campaign against the Clinton machine during the primaries.
9. lenny | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
mark-’al’-icious
what should truly disturb you…
i mean really blow the ‘do not disturb’ sign off the love tryst hotel room door
is rudy’s “lust for fame and public affirmation”
totally over the top compared to big al’s lust
10. extramedium | December 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Who cares what Gore is or isn’t doing? He’s not gonna get a chance at bat this time around. No way.
By the way, did you see Mike Huckabee on “This Week” today? The full 22 minute clip is on the This Week site if you haven’t. I found the man to be very impressive - knowledgeable, well spoken, extremely confident and comfortable in his own skin - qualities I’d not seen in GOP candidates for quite a while.
This guy is a force to reckoned with. I sincerely doubt the lisping serial adulterer, the pretty boy flip-flopper or the half-hearted actor can go the distance against him. I predict he’ll be leading the ticket next year, with running mate who’s not currently in the race.
Also OT - Hillary loses to all 5 of the top Republican candidates in this week’s Zogby poll and Sean Hannity declares his sincere hope for her nomination. Like I said before, you guys should be praying for her nomination too.
11. extramedium | December 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Ditto - those comments with the little broadcast icon next to them are trackback links, which point to other blogs posts which link to this post. I’m not sure if Mark and Matt have them listed in the comments intentionally or not. I’m pretty sure they could be shut off.
12. Linda | December 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
We have so many issues that need to be addressed, from Congress’s inability to be effective, to so many issues not being fixed. Over reaching powers, Health Care Crisis, trampling of our rights and the OBVIOUS Climate Crisis.
These candidates, with what they are ( and are not) saying AND DOING, can’t even show up for votes they claim are important, are not going to be the change we NEED TO SEE.
I sure hope MR. Gore will rise to the occasion and pleas for his being President. He can really attract the young and not involved, the true Consevatives that believe in responsiblity and the environment and can be the fantastic change to put us on our right course.
Latest news out really hit’s home with that.
“With cracks and holes in the Greenland ice sheet, we may well have to ‘geo-engineer’ the climate
THOMAS HOMER-DIXON
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
December 1, 2007 at 12:00 AM EST
Next week, policy makers, scientists and activists from around the world will gather in Bali, Indonesia, to try to produce a climate-change agreement that will take us beyond the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Accord. This meeting will take place in an atmosphere of sharply heightened unease among leading climate scientists.
A few years ago, these scientists regarded global warming as a matter of serious concern; now many appear to think that it’s a matter of grave urgency — that we may be running out of time. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are increasingly viewed as out of date.
Because the IPCC reports incorporate only scientific findings published up to about mid-2005, they don’t reflect almost two years of extraordinarily important results from multiple streams of research. Immediately after the Working Group 1 report was released (last February), many scientists said it significantly underestimated sea-level rise this century.
Since then, we’ve seen sharply higher global carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC expected (2006 emissions were almost half a billion tonnes above the worst-case IPCC prediction), while the absorptive capacity of ocean and land-based carbon sinks appears to be decreasing more rapidly than predicted.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071130.wcoessayclimate1201/BNStory/specialComment/home
HELP…..and Who are you going to call? THE GORACLE!
Time for
a COOL
change,
GORE
2008
13. winnowhead | December 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Mark,
The &hellip in your trackback is missing a semicolon. should be:
…
As for Gore, I’d put money on him not entering (seriously, you’re from Vegas, right Mark? Want to put $50 on the line?). And am I not in the slightest bit afraid of the leading Dem’s chances in ‘08. The Zogby poll you (poll hating?) righties keep quoting was an online, opt-in poll. Every possible match-up in other polling has the Democrat in the lead or at a slight advantage. Poll averages can be seen here. Other match-ups are listed on the right panel of that page.
14. Diana Powe | December 2nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Mark,
I would unhesitatingly vote for Al Gore, but I also am convinced that he means it when he says that he won’t run. If the little pinch-faced mentalities that think that flinging around words like “Donkaroach”, “hardcore dedicated Socialist”, “lisping serial adulterer”, “pretty boy flip-flopper” constitute sober analysis decided to loosen their steely mental grip on their vacuum-packed hate for the man, they might consider…just consider, even if only for a slight moment, that Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr. isn’t actually the loathsome enemy that the authoritarian mindset requires at all costs but might actually be sincere (”No…no…must not allow political opponents…to be viewed as having…any…positive qualities…or achievements…must…hate…must…hate” ) then it opens the possibility that he believes that the potential worldwide threat of human-caused global climate change is so great that he needs to focus his efforts exclusively on that. My belief, perhaps to be shown as wrong, is that is, in fact, the case and he won’t be a candidate for the Presidency.
P.S. “[L]isping serial adulterer“? Geez, some of you are really willing to eat your own, aren’t you?
P.P.S. I tried to be laser-like in my topic-focus to save Dittohead4Life from the necessity of calling me some variety of “cow” again. Moo-ooo
15. Moderate Voter | December 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
First of all, the deadline to register for the NH primary passed over a month ago. If Gore “jumped in” he couldn’t run in that primary. I suspect the same is true of SC & many others.
Secondly, although I am rooting for Obama I find it hilarious how many people here mock Hillary for having the good fortune to have married Bill. Dare I point out that if it weren’t for GWBush’s family connections, he would have never been elected dogcatcher, let alone president.
Also, Mark, it was my understanding that Clinton secured more than 270 electoral votes in ‘96, and that Gore and Kerry came very close to doing so. I guess I was mistaken. /snark
16. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Diana,
Thing is, if Gore really believes the nonsense he talks about the environment then he just lowers himself further in my estimation…
Gore is miles ahead of the lightweights currently seeking the Democratic nomination, but he can’t hold a candle to McCain, Romney, Giuliani, etc. Gore’s fame is proof positive that the people on the left simply will not think about what they believe - he really hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s talking about, he has no science training to speak of, and yet he’s the guy who’s gonna save us from climate change? If a scientist told him something, how would he know if its true or not? ‘Cause there’s a consensus about it? That is the unthinking acceptance all too prevalent on the left.
17. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Moderate Voter,
And in 1992 and 1996 the GOP vote was split - Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote for President (something I consider a feather in America’s cap). Kerry and Gore came close in 2004 and 2000, but not quite, and that is why I’m convinced that without a split GOP vote, it is nearly impossible (not entirely impossible, but nearly impossible) for a Democrat to get to 270 electoral votes.
Keep in mind, for any Democrat to win, he or she is going to have to win at least one or two States President Bush wonTWICE, as well as not losing a single State Kerry or Gore won, including those States won by very tiny, if-it-rained-on-election-day it might have been different, margins.
18. Casper | December 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Keep in mind, for any Democrat to win, he or she is going to have to win at least one or two States President Bush wonTWICE”
But Mark, don’t you know? Bush isn’t running. Isn’t that what you are always telling us?
As for Gore, it seems like the right is a lot more interested in him running than the left. I’m just not sure why.
19. Dittohead4Life | December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Latest news out really hit’s home with that.
Learn to write, kook kow–you don’t use an apostrophe just because a word ends in “s.”
Diana, I’m so sorry you’re offended by my calling you a cow. Okay, I’m not sorry. And you’re still a cow. A stupid cow. Nobody here cares about your leftist views, Elsie. You’re a stupid, silly cow.
Just like Linda. Elsie and Bossie–the Moo Twins…
20. Diana Powe | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Mark,
I don’t hold any notion that anything that I could write would cause to you change your view that the evidence for global climate change and the role of human beings in it is “nonsense”. So, premise accepted, Mark thinks efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, from human activities in order to avoid changes to the earth’s climate which point towards bad outcomes for human beings (because the planet will go on, regardless) is a big intellectual scam. Check.
Now, simply by way of illustrating one point of view versus another, I’ll tell you how most people who share your viewpoint come across to me. The attitude one might expect could be something like, “I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m aware through news accounts in both the general and science media that lots and lots of climate scientists are concerned about this question. I’m also aware that a much, much smaller number of climate scientists, many of them employed by corporations who have a vested short-term economic interest in the status-quo, think this is not a problem. However, if the former are correct, we need to start taking action because the risk is so large. If the latter are correct and we take action then we’ve changed our industrial practices and consumer habits without gaining the desired result. However, using the principle of simplicity (sometimes referred to as Occam’s Razor) I reject the more complex notion of a sinister cabal wanting us to change our industrial practices and consumer habits and elect to support efforts to prevent the dangerous possible outcomes.” It’s something like Paschal’s Wager.
Instead, the way it comes across is something like this, “I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m aware through news accounts in both the general and science media that lots and lots of climate scientists are concerned about this question. I’m also aware that a much, much smaller of climate scientists think this is not a problem. However, taking action in response to the consensus of scientific opinion would do two things. One, I would have to accept the views of one of my political enemies, which is inherently unacceptable. Two, I might have to change my personal habits as a consumer, such as drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle than my Dodge Durango with its 8-cylinder engine to haul me around by myself, and I really don’t want that, especially if it makes me feel like I’m knuckling under to any Democrat. So, I vote for the conspiracy theory.”
Now, I am most decisively not saying that is your thought process. However, I can say that it is the thought process I can imagine carried out by those who agree with you that the issue is “nonsense”.
21. Diana Powe | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Oh. My. Goodness.
Dittohead4Life,
I had to stop munching my clover for a moment when I read that. You actually typed that out and posted it. That may well inspire Mark to create some kind of Blogs For Victory Hall of Fame to permanently recognize your keen, razor-like wit in putting me in my proper place. Good work, I’m sure all your fellow “conservatives” are just so proud of you. How about it, readers! Ready to get Dittohead4Life up on your metaphorical shoulders and cheer as you carry her or him around the metaphorical room?
P.S. I had to be vague about the gender because…uh…well…Dittohead4Life is…um…well…hiding behind a pseudonym.
22. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Diana,
Not exactly - I’m of the view that even if the most alarming predictions of global warming are correct, its not that bad a thing. A few degrees warmer will alter things, and life on earth - including human life - will adapt to it. The nonsense of Gore is the concept that we can destroy the world. Life exists on this world in the blazing heat of the driest desert, and in the frigid cold of central Antarctica. Life will carry on, as long as God wills it so.
In the consenus so much talked of over global warming (or “climate change” more recently preferred as a more nebulous term able to adapt to, say, a ten year period of no warming…such as we’re in now), the consensus of the consensus is that we won’t have the high rise in temperature the more alarmist predictions assert - and that means that there’s even less for me to worry about.
Fundamentally, what ticks me off most about the global warming debate is something I read just before it became the hot issue - an environmentalist (can’t remember his name off hand, but he was with one of the major enviro groups) asserting that the movement had to greatly exaggerate the possible risks in order to motivate people to agree with the most extreme enviromentalist agenda. In other words, right before the we’re-all-gonna-die song and dance over global warming, I heard it from the horse’s mouth that BS will be used in the servivce of environmentalism. And what chaps my hide most about that is the presumption that people are stupid and won’t do the right thing unless they’re scared into it - if you want us to cut pollution, just ask us and explain the benefit, we don’t need end of the world scare stories…but that is all we get, from Gore on down the line.
23. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Casper,
Just pointing out the practical problems in getting someone who voted for GW to vote for, say, Hillary…its not that it can’t be done, but it is that it will be a very hard thing to do…but it must be done, if any Democrat is to win the White House.
24. Diana Powe | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Mark,
Thanks for the response. I’m be very interested if you could actually track down a citation to the statement you alluded to, if you get the chance. In the meantime, I’ll keep the bell around my neck.
25. Male Dittohead4Life | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:59 am
Diana Cowe,
Just so you know, I’m the designated attack dog here at B4V. I have limited poetic license when it comes to dealing with you puke lemming trolls, so don’t take it so udderly personal when I udder these insults. And don’t bother trying to demean me; it doesn’t work, so it’s an udder waste of your time. This is a cathartic(sp?) experience for me, whether or not you respond. Once I post my udder nonsense, I feel a great weight–the weight of a cow–lifted off my mind.
Now, back to your clover, Elsie. btw, have you ever been tipped in your sleep?
26. Male Dittohead4Life | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:03 am
btw, can someone tell me where to find truth that conservatives are leaning towards FatAlGore? I’m udderly confused by this revelation; in fact, I believe it’s udder nonsense…
27. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Male Dittohead4Life,
Ahh, the mask you hide behind now has a gender. How nice for you. The “designated attack dog”, eh? What was your warrant of commission from the site owners to sally forth and gum your loathed and despised subhuman opponents or are you self-anointed in your quest to preserve the conservative echo chamber from being sullied by anyone who doesn’t toe the Party line? I agree, it’s important to ensure that the purity of one’s thoughts is not threatened by any non-Party ideas. After all, too much thinking about your beliefs is dangerous. That’s why the zampolit were invented. If you don’t know what they were, I’m sure Mark can fill you in. Just remember. Don’t think, just believe.
28. Male Zampolit | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Ms. Cowe,
I am fully capable of using Google. Thanks for the new moniker. However, tootsie, it’s your side that wants to quell free speech and political dissent. And I think about my beliefs all the time; they’re valid, unlike yours on the left. Even your dear leaders hide their beliefs, so you are the one “toeing” the party line.
Don’t turn around, uh-oh.
Der Kommisar’s in town, uh-oh.
29. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
testing…
30. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Mark,
You say that if the predictions of warming are correct that it’s not a bad thing because a “few degrees warmer” will alter things but that humans and other animals will simply adapt and survive.
Are you ok with this? Are you happily and willingly going to be part of the generation of humans that will force animals to die and many animals to go extinct? Are you willing to adapt?
You are flawed in that you say that this is all simple. That we will adapt. This is flawed logic because we have already failed to act and therefore we have failed to adapt.
Are you willing to not use air conditioning? Then you have failed to adapt.
Are you willing to adapt? What happens when things get serious and we are forced to adapt? There will be those who will survive and those who will not.
Who will you be?
I’m sorry but in my mind God is not going to save you. God is in my life the entire world. The entire universe. The entire planet and all of it’s life and elements. The atmosphere, the plants, animals, the water, and the carbon that rests in the ground as oil along with the carbon that has now been shifted from the ground to the atmospher. This shift, caused by humans, has changed our atmosphere enough (however hard this may be to grasp) to hold in enough heat to alter drastically the climate.
My guess is that we have laughed in God’s face and spit on all that he is. It will not be his choice when most of our species dies among with many others. It will have been our own choice.
From my background as a former born-again Southern Baptist I can tell you that when God’s children desicrate Him and do not Love him then we are doing Satan’s work. Whether we are aware of it or not.
What say you? Do you love your fellow man, the animals of God’s kingdom, the plants and the trees in God’s garden? All of God’s creation?
Or not?
(oh and Diana, you rock)
31. Xango Annie | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
First of all, I do not think that the Gorebot is emotionally able to run..and friends have indicated such..and second..he ain’t gonna take the pay cut!
And if you all don’t think that a lot of that weight gain is from his meds..I have swamp land in Arizona I need to unload.
32. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Xango,
Weight gain from drugs and emotional problems? I think somehow you have Al Gore confused with Rush Limbaugh.
But seriously… your accusations and comments are purely idiotic. Just sayin…
But I support your right to state your opinion based on free speech but would it hurt to at least try to have something intelligent to say once in a while?
33. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
SteaM,
Thank you for the kind words. It would seem that I’ve inspired The Poster Formerly Known As Dittohead4Life to new heights of creativity. This was especially droll:
Somehow I couldn’t avoid the image of a group of shouting Chinese dressed in green Mao jackets holding aloft their Little Red Books popping into my head when I read that. I’m quite sure they thought about their beliefs all the time as well.
34. Mark Noonan | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
SteaM,
I don’t buy the mass extinction bit of alarmism on global warming…as if anyone actually knows what a temperature change will have on animals and plants.
And at all events, if you are “saving” the planet, then you are saving it today so that it may die tomorrow…believer or unbeliever, the one commonality is the complete and absolute understanding that this world will, one day, die…
35. SteaM | December 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Mark,
When God threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden he gave them free will.
This is where we are tested right now. We have free will. Free to choose one of two options:
1. Leave our environment, God’s creation (if you will), as we found it. Learn to be one with God’s creation. Live off the land and give back to it. Dust to Dust.
2. Or. Irresponsibly and willingly (however ignorant the choice may be) destroy God’s creation. Including the animals, plants, water, and atmosphere.
I find your willingness to take choice 2 to be very unchristian. A sin of the highest moral importance.
And, on top of that, some people simply hate Al Gore. I don’t find that to be very christian either.