| Next: Hey! It's Zeus's Birthday Today! |
| Author |
Message |
Gary66
Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 8353
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
LINK
| Quote: |
Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on the most boring of all subjects - global warming. It is more than 80 minutes long and the first two or three go by slowly enough so that you can notice that Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems out of sync.
But a moment later, you will be captivated, then riveted and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going to hell in a handbasket. |
Maybe the title should be Sour Grapes :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gcarlson
Joined: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 4197
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Just another in a long list of disaster movies that did not come true.
MOvies that are a disaster, not movies of disasters. :w00t:
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thread started out with just enough text to make it look like a Gore bash. Wrong.
| Quote: |
You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the man who beat Gore in 2000. Bush has been studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control would be laughable were it not so reckless. It is similar to Bush's initial approach to global warming. It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by winning in 2000.
Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. He won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in Iraq, but he supported the previous Gulf War - right both times. He is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other potential candidates. Gore could be a great President. First, he has to be a good candidate.
In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes, he finds time and an audience to deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave no doubt of the peril we face and neither do they leave any doubt that Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed and, having tried for and failed to gain the presidency, has raised his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore to lose again.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary66
Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 8353
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The thread started out with just enough text to make it look like a Gore bash. Wrong.
|
That is an unfair statement. I only used about 1/3 of the test as instructed by the keeper of the rules. 
Here is the trailer if anyone is interested. LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seaeagle
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 5748
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The thread started out with just enough text to make it look like a Gore bash. Wrong.
| Quote: |
You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the man who beat Gore in 2000. Bush has been studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control would be laughable were it not so reckless. It is similar to Bush's initial approach to global warming. It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by winning in 2000.
Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. He won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in Iraq, but he supported the previous Gulf War - right both times. He is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other potential candidates. Gore could be a great President. First, he has to be a good candidate.
In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes, he finds time and an audience to deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave no doubt of the peril we face and neither do they leave any doubt that Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed and, having tried for and failed to gain the presidency, has raised his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore to lose again.
|
|
It sounds like a film worth seeing. Regarding running for the President, I've never worked out why so many of your candidates fail to run again after losing an election. Al Gore lost 2000 by a whisker, I thought that what have put him in good stead for 2004 as he would have known which areas he needed to improve on to win office. Many Prime Ministers in our Westminster System (and the UK's) have lost elections before going on to finally win government. John Howard lost one as opposition leader, lost another when he wasn't leader, lost another when he wasn't leader, and then finally won. Now he holds the record as our second longest serving Prime Minister.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary66
Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 8353
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Al Gore being the sitting VP at the time, should have faired better. He probably would have if he wasn't so boring. George Bush is no great orator, but Al Gore could put a room full of speed freaks to sleep.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silmaril8n
Joined: Jan 29, 2004
Posts: 1743
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The thread started out with just enough text to make it look like a Gore bash. Wrong. |
While that may be true (especially considering that most of us know where the others stand on many issues), I don't know what everyones hangup is on a thread to bash a politician. That's what they're there for!
The issue (at least the way I see it) is when someone pulls another off-topic politician into a thread so they can get their digs in. That can be irritating and muddle the entire discussion.
With that said, I don't think I'll put this on my rental list. Nothing against Gore really, I just don't want to sacrifice 80 minutes to hear about ramblings that I can read about in 20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3871
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The thread started out with just enough text to make it look like a Gore bash. Wrong.
...
|
The Bush bash that the author put in the middle of an article about Gore's movie tells me everything I need to know. The author is obviously rabidly pro-Gore and anti-Bush, and seems to be using this movie as another excuse to bash one and praise the other. Sad. It would have been better if he'd have focused on the movie instead of his personal agendas. Then maybe I could have learned something and maybe, just maybe, I'd have watched the movie - which is what I thought the point of such an article would be! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6185
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Al Gore being the sitting VP at the time, should have faired better. He probably would have if he wasn't so boring. George Bush is no great orator, but Al Gore could put a room full of speed freaks to sleep.
|
I would venture a guess that you haven't been able to get past your dislike for Gore to listen to one of his speeches. He is an accomplished orator. Perhaps we've grown too comfortable with the mundane. Pity. We should demand more for ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary66
Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 8353
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Al Gore being the sitting VP at the time, should have faired better. He probably would have if he wasn't so boring. George Bush is no great orator, but Al Gore could put a room full of speed freaks to sleep.
|
I would venture a guess that you haven't been able to get past your dislike for Gore to listen to one of his speeches. He is an accomplished orator. Perhaps we've grown too comfortable with the mundane. Pity. We should demand more for ourselves.
|
I listened to many of his speeches, they are very relaxing. Now he is not the great orator that Clinton was but my God so interesting. I especially enjoyed his concession speech. My God William F Buckley is a better speaker and at least he knows what he is talking about. :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gcarlson
Joined: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 4197
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
The thread started out with just enough text to make it look like a Gore bash. Wrong.
|
That is an unfair statement. I only used about 1/3 of the test as instructed by the keeper of the rules.
Here is the trailer if anyone is interested. LINK
|
Unfair? For the Queen of irrelevancy? :w00t:
She is the master of hyperbowl, the master of nothing, and the perpertrator of the Bush bash! :w00t: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silmaril8n
Joined: Jan 29, 2004
Posts: 1743
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It sounds like a film worth seeing. Regarding running for the President, I've never worked out why so many of your candidates fail to run again after losing an election. Al Gore lost 2000 by a whisker, I thought that what have put him in good stead for 2004 as he would have known which areas he needed to improve on to win office. Many Prime Ministers in our Westminster System (and the UK's) have lost elections before going on to finally win government. John Howard lost one as opposition leader, lost another when he wasn't leader, lost another when he wasn't leader, and then finally won. Now he holds the record as our second longest serving Prime Minister.
|
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty...src=rss/topNews
| Quote: |
| Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday he was seriously thinking about another White House bid in 2008 and will decide before the year is out. |
Looks like Kerry might be thinking about it. I agree though, we don't see it enough and I don't really understand why. Politics I imagine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary66
Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 8353
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe the ticket should be Gore/Kerry. They both have experience losing. :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gcarlson
Joined: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 4197
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday he was seriously thinking about another White House bid in 2008 and will decide before the year is out. |
Looks like Kerry might be thinking about it. I agree though, we don't see it enough and I don't really understand why. Politics I imagine.
|
To run for something like president, you have to first have a huge ego. And that ego does not usually get along too well with losing. When first running, you feel invincible! Look at all your adoring fans!
But when you lose? Then you know you are not invincible, and that knowledge will nag at you. Hence why so few re-run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Debora
Joined: Mar 28, 2004
Posts: 1764
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd personally think that the money part, or lack thereof would be a huge contributing factor. It takes alot of real cash to run for president these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clhenry
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 9049
Location: West by god Virginia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary66
Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 8353
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you need to take a nap it would be worth it. :whistling: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silmaril8n
Joined: Jan 29, 2004
Posts: 1743
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'd personally think that the money part, or lack thereof would be a huge contributing factor. It takes alot of real cash to run for president these days.
|
I agree with this and I find it very sad too. It's too bad that we have to limit our candidate pool to those who can get up the dollars quicker. I myself hope to be involved in public affairs someday, but I dread having to campaign for thousands of even millions of dollars to promote myself for a short period of time. That money could better spent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
General