(Don't even TRY to back off from that one. Gore and Kerry's post-election actions - both political and otherwise - PROVE my point.)
*throws down gauntlet*
I challenge you to demonstrate that either Gore or Kerry would have taken actions that would have been worse than the Iraq war.
You need to demonstrate things like:
--A waste of resources on the order of $2 trillion dollars --A waste of American lives on the order of 5000, with over 20,000 severe injuries --Directly resulting in the deaths of on the order of 100,000 non-Americans --Squandering the most international goodwill the USA has had in decades and in its stead making the USA one of the most unpopular nations in the world
This is not to mention, of course, of all of the useful he didn't do that he should have done, and all of the damage he has done to the fundamental integrity of the American political and judicial system.
You really think Gore or Kerry would have topped that? You really think either of them could have done this much damage, and done basically nothing
( ... )
What's your reference for the $43 trillion figure? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (done a month ago, so I don't have the figures still; sorry) says that we could mothball every coal plant in the USA, India, and China (which is most of them in the world) and replace them with clean nuclear for ~2 trillion with the current price of fission plants from GE. The long-term cost will be lower than that, because the problem with nuclear is the up-front cost; fission plants cost less than coal to operate over time. This also ignores economies of scale from building that much nuclear (ask the French about that), the fact that it would be far more cost-efficient to gradually switch over as existing equipment fails, and the fact that in many areas wind/solar thermal/tidal power is a cheaper alternative
( ... )
Hey, please don't bite my head off about the $43 trillion figure. I just heard it on the news the other day. It was some sort of report sent to Congress either by Al Gore or someone who works for him. However, one thing I forgot to mention was the fact that this was, I believe, a world-wide bottom-line dollar amount for their plan to "save the environment." Unfortunately, as the media usually goes, they didn't really go into the specifics of it.
Comments 26
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
*throws down gauntlet*
I challenge you to demonstrate that either Gore or Kerry would have taken actions that would have been worse than the Iraq war.
You need to demonstrate things like:
--A waste of resources on the order of $2 trillion dollars
--A waste of American lives on the order of 5000, with over 20,000 severe injuries
--Directly resulting in the deaths of on the order of 100,000 non-Americans
--Squandering the most international goodwill the USA has had in decades and in its stead making the USA one of the most unpopular nations in the world
This is not to mention, of course, of all of the useful he didn't do that he should have done, and all of the damage he has done to the fundamental integrity of the American political and judicial system.
You really think Gore or Kerry would have topped that? You really think either of them could have done this much damage, and done basically nothing ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
*grabs buttered popcorn*
*reads tennis match*
This shit's better than cable!
*rolls dice*
Next initiative, please?
Reply
(So, what in Spiderfeet has a Dex of -1?)
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment