Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Oct 13th 2007, 4:18 am
#76
@matthewb76
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Missouri
Posts: 21,886
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
if you read his books too, it all comes together.
The best person I listen too for financial advice has been Dave Ramsey.... The USA would be in far better shape if we all took his advice.
Oct 13th 2007, 6:38 pm
#77
I approved this message
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,425
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Presidents can't sign international treaties in the US, only the Senate can. In an exploratory vote in 1997, the Senate shot the Kyoto treaty down by a unanimous 95-0 vote. Gore then signed the treaty, but it was purely a symbolic gesture as he had no power to ratify it. He then indicated that the Clinton administration would not seek ratification in the Senate until it was signed by all developed nations:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/
If anything Bush has simply carried on the Clinton approach of simply not asking the Senate to ratify it.
Oct 13th 2007, 7:12 pm
#78
The Unmod
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Glen Mills, PA
Posts: 8,870
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
When I was working, I didn't have time to do all the research I wanted so I bought a couple of the advisory services from Motley Fool, let them do the drudge work, then researched their lists and picked those I thought best.
Oct 13th 2007, 9:11 pm
#79
Thinking about it
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 9,435
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
That's not what happened at all.
Presidents can't sign international treaties in the US, only the Senate can. In an exploratory vote in 1997, the Senate shot the Kyoto treaty down by a unanimous 95-0 vote. Gore then signed the treaty, but it was purely a symbolic gesture as he had no power to ratify it. He then indicated that the Clinton administration would not seek ratification in the Senate until it was signed by all developed nations:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/
If anything Bush has simply carried on the Clinton approach of simply not asking the Senate to ratify it.
Presidents can't sign international treaties in the US, only the Senate can. In an exploratory vote in 1997, the Senate shot the Kyoto treaty down by a unanimous 95-0 vote. Gore then signed the treaty, but it was purely a symbolic gesture as he had no power to ratify it. He then indicated that the Clinton administration would not seek ratification in the Senate until it was signed by all developed nations:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/
If anything Bush has simply carried on the Clinton approach of simply not asking the Senate to ratify it.
Pride before a fall and all that....
Oct 13th 2007, 10:09 pm
#80
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Exactly which Vice Presidential powers could he have used to take action while in office? As an elected official his very job was to represent the will of the people. At that point in history there was little or no interest in the environment. Would you suggest that a president or vice president should work toward changing the will of their constituency? He's always spoken on behalf of the environment and has been ridiculed and vilified for it. The only people that have ever effectively changed the will or raised the consciousness of the population in this country have been activists. Activists are the only ones with the freedom to speak out in such a way to change the will of the people. Once the will of the people is set then and only then can politicians do anything about implementing change. So, by withdrawing from political life and becoming and activist he has done the most he possibly could for the cause that he cares about.
Oct 13th 2007, 10:17 pm
#81
Thinking about it
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 9,435
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Exactly which Vice Presidential powers could he have used to take action while in office? As an elected official his very job was to represent the will of the people. At that point in history there was little or no interest in the environment. Would you suggest that a president or vice president should work toward changing the will of their constituency? He's always spoken on behalf of the environment and has been ridiculed and vilified for it. The only people that have ever effectively changed the will or raised the consciousness of the population in this country have been activists. Activists are the only ones with the freedom to speak out in such a way to change the will of the people. Once the will of the people is set then and only then can politicians do anything about implementing change. So, by withdrawing from political life and becoming and activist he has done the most he possibly could for the cause that he cares about.
On one hand you will post that Bush went to war in Iraq against the will of the US people, on the other you say that Gore couldn't call people driving Hummers morons as that would be against the will of the people - make up your mind Leslie dear.
Oct 13th 2007, 10:36 pm
#82
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
That's not what happened at all.
Presidents can't sign international treaties in the US, only the Senate can. In an exploratory vote in 1997, the Senate shot the Kyoto treaty down by a unanimous 95-0 vote. Gore then signed the treaty, but it was purely a symbolic gesture as he had no power to ratify it. He then indicated that the Clinton administration would not seek ratification in the Senate until it was signed by all developed nations:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/
If anything Bush has simply carried on the Clinton approach of simply not asking the Senate to ratify it.
Presidents can't sign international treaties in the US, only the Senate can. In an exploratory vote in 1997, the Senate shot the Kyoto treaty down by a unanimous 95-0 vote. Gore then signed the treaty, but it was purely a symbolic gesture as he had no power to ratify it. He then indicated that the Clinton administration would not seek ratification in the Senate until it was signed by all developed nations:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/
If anything Bush has simply carried on the Clinton approach of simply not asking the Senate to ratify it.
Oct 13th 2007, 10:39 pm
#83
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Ok then - just ignore Hiro's post if it makes you feel better
On one hand you will post that Bush went to war in Iraq against the will of the US people, on the other you say that Gore couldn't call people driving Hummers morons as that would be against the will of the people - make up your mind Leslie dear.
On one hand you will post that Bush went to war in Iraq against the will of the US people, on the other you say that Gore couldn't call people driving Hummers morons as that would be against the will of the people - make up your mind Leslie dear.
Oct 14th 2007, 3:17 am
#84
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Ok then - just ignore Hiro's post if it makes you feel better
On one hand you will post that Bush went to war in Iraq against the will of the US people, on the other you say that Gore couldn't call people driving Hummers morons as that would be against the will of the people - make up your mind Leslie dear.
On one hand you will post that Bush went to war in Iraq against the will of the US people, on the other you say that Gore couldn't call people driving Hummers morons as that would be against the will of the people - make up your mind Leslie dear.
You're confusing your own recent experiences with what actually happened during the Clinton administration.
Oct 14th 2007, 3:34 am
#85
Thinking about it
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 9,435
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
The mentality of your average Hummer driver is obviously the kind of thing that any self-proclaimed saviour of the planet would want to challenge I would have thought.
Plenty of worthy targets during the Clinton years I'm sure - feel free to post examples of Al tackling such evil do'ers head-on during his time in office.
If the best that he could manage was to place a meaningless signature on the Kyoto agreement then I think that speaks for itself.
Oct 14th 2007, 4:09 am
#86
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Democrats prefer Al Gore!
Just trying to make a point - didn't realise you take everything posted on here so literally.
The mentality of your average Hummer driver is obviously the kind of thing that any self-proclaimed saviour of the planet would want to challenge I would have thought.
Plenty of worthy targets during the Clinton years I'm sure - feel free to post examples of Al tackling such evil do'ers head-on during his time in office.
If the best that he could manage was to place a meaningless signature on the Kyoto agreement then I think that speaks for itself.
The mentality of your average Hummer driver is obviously the kind of thing that any self-proclaimed saviour of the planet would want to challenge I would have thought.
Plenty of worthy targets during the Clinton years I'm sure - feel free to post examples of Al tackling such evil do'ers head-on during his time in office.
If the best that he could manage was to place a meaningless signature on the Kyoto agreement then I think that speaks for itself.
If you can possibly put your prejudice against Gore aside and indulge me for just a moment ....
Gore published environmental articles well before becoming the VP under Clinton. He was (as now) in the late 80's well known as an environmentalist.
It seems apparent that Gore was the pressure valve behind the (somewhat lackluster) Clinton administration's support of Kyoto. So, as soon as the Senate rejected the treaty - the Clinton administration washed their hands of the whole thing. What else could Gore have possibly done? Effectively Clinton had fulfilled his "promise" to Gore yet managed to come off as not looking like a tree-hugger.
IMO it was experiences like this (as well as being robbed of the 2000 election) that led Gore to leave the political arena and finally become an activist - a position where he could actually make a difference.
