Al Gore on SNL

he did pretty good.

i have heard form more than one “source” that Al is actually very funny in person, and charming. why he came off so stiff at times is beyond me, i think they person who mentioned “pressure getting to them” was probably right.

i think politicians are very different animals once they are “retired” and not trying to get re-elected.

two perfect examples, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. i could not stand either one of them while in office, but i have enjoyed Newts books(he is very smart and a very learned historian, regardless of what you think of his political ideology) and Bill C. has made ALOT of sense in some of his post presidency speeches.

wonder why that is? perhaps some of the more politically savvy members of the board can enlighten me.

[quote]hspder wrote:
I agree – I’d much rather see Gore as a candidate than Hillary, which I maintain is un-electable.[/quote]

The Gore I seen on SNL is, I believe, electable. If he presents himself to the american people as more of a relaxed, poised individual with a clear cut plan to support his vision for america, I believe that he could stand a decent chance.

And yes, I agree with you on hillary vs gore. If I had to choose between the two, I would vote for gore. Then I would go home, drink myself into a stuper, and cry myself to sleep, only to wake up and wonder if it was all a dream.

I will agree with you on the idea that americans as a whole are starting to become more environmentaly concious. There is a difference though, I believe, between environmental stewardship, and extreme environmentalism.

Now, I haven’t heard him personally so I can’t speak for his eloquence in the presentation of his ideas. I just think there’s really an environmentalist wacko hiding deep within him desperately wanting to expose himself.

I will say this though, I wold like to see from our government, a firm commitment to a viable bio-diesal. A commitment which is on par with JFK’s promise to put a man on the moon.

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think their best hope is Hillary.

bigflamer wrote:
I really don’t think so based on the fact that half of the country already thinks Algore was the “true” winner in 2000.

I agree – I’d much rather see Gore as a candidate than Hillary, which I maintain is un-electable.

bigflamer wrote:
His crazy environmentalism is a huge liability though.

With that, I disagree. More and more Americans are starting to “buy” environmentalism, and Gore is able to provide some very convincing arguments. When Gore was here at Stanford back in December doing his environmentalist spiel, he was extremely good and convincing with his presentation – he managed to actually impress a lot of the Hoover Institute guys, who are as conservative as it gets around these parts.

Everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY, left and right – was very impressed with him, and if he is able to pull off the same panache he showed over here in December and over there on SNL, I’m pretty sure he’d be VERY electable.
[/quote]

i would vote for gore before Hillary too, and unless the pubs put up somebody who blows me away, i plan on voting democrat if a reasonably moderate candidate gets a shot. Bidden, Lieberman, they would be decent. But the “bearded-AL” who went on a guttural screaming tour a while back(THEY BETRAYED US!!! THEY PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!! UUURRRGGGH!!!) still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
But the “bearded-AL” who went on a guttural screaming tour a while back(THEY BETRAYED US!!! THEY PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!! UUURRRGGGH!!!) still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. [/quote]

Yea, crazy beard guy doesn’t suite him. Fun as hell to watch though :-]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I will agree with you on the idea that americans as a whole are starting to become more environmentaly concious. There is a difference though, I believe, between environmental stewardship, and extreme environmentalism. [/quote]

I see him being more on the stewardship side, but he’d definitely look extreme in contrast to the current administration.

[quote]
Now, I haven’t heard him personally so I can’t speak for his eloquence in the presentation of his ideas. I just think there’s really an environmentalist wacko hiding deep within him desperately wanting to expose himself.[/quote]

That is how he’ll be painted both by Dem opponents in the primary and the GOP, it will be up to him to overcome that perception.

[quote]
I will say this though, I wold like to see from our government, a firm commitment to a viable bio-diesal. A commitment which is on par with JFK’s promise to put a man on the moon.[/quote]

It’s long overdue, but I think we’ll still have to wait another few years. I was thinking that the obscene profits of the oil companies this year might force Bush’s hand, make him do something like this to show the public that he’s not just a friend of Big Oil, but I’m not really expecting anything to happen.

[quote]tme wrote:
It’s long overdue, but I think we’ll still have to wait another few years. I was thinking that the obscene profits of the oil companies this year might force Bush’s hand, make him do something like this to show the public that he’s not just a friend of Big Oil, but I’m not really expecting anything to happen.[/quote]

The pertinent fact that often gets overlooked when discussing the obscene oil company profits, is a discussion on the obscene amount of taxes taken in by the government through taxation on gasoline sales.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The pertinent fact that often gets overlooked when discussing the obscene oil company profits, is a discussion on the obscene amount of taxes taken in by the government through taxation on gasoline sales. [/quote]

It’s fun to watch Congressional hearings over the oil company profits, while you can almost see them all salivating over all the excise tax rolling in. Most of it has probably already been earmarked for pet pork projects.

“All in favor of reducing gas prices, cutting taxes and limiting big oil profits, raise your right foot.”

[quote]tme wrote:
It’s fun to watch Congressional hearings over the oil company profits, while you can almost see them all salivating over all the excise tax rolling in. Most of it has probably already been earmarked for pet pork projects.

“All in favor of reducing gas prices, cutting taxes and limiting big oil profits, raise your right foot.”[/quote]

Absolutely.

It’s the epitome of politicians pissing down our legs, then telling us it’s raining. Oh well, until I’m elected to the senate there’s not much I can do.

Senator Bigflamer sounds good I think ;-]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
tme wrote:
It’s fun to watch Congressional hearings over the oil company profits, while you can almost see them all salivating over all the excise tax rolling in. Most of it has probably already been earmarked for pet pork projects.

“All in favor of reducing gas prices, cutting taxes and limiting big oil profits, raise your right foot.”

Absolutely.

It’s the epitome of politicians pissing down our legs, then telling us it’s raining. Oh well, until I’m elected to the senate there’s not much I can do.

Senator Bigflamer sounds good I think ;-]

[/quote]

BIGFLAMER FOR SENATOR!

(Marching band plays in the background)

:slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
BIGFLAMER FOR SENATOR!

(Marching band plays in the background)

:)[/quote]

Thank you Zeb, it’s good to have your support! :wink:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
BIGFLAMER FOR SENATOR!

(Marching band plays in the background)

:slight_smile:

Thank you Zeb, it’s good to have your support! :wink:

[/quote]

Well, I will always support an athlete for pubic office.

You might say that I’m an “athletic supporter.”

:slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You might say that I’m an “athletic supporter.”

:)[/quote]

Hmm, I would have described you more as a vaginal lavage syringe.

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You might say that I’m an “athletic supporter.”

:slight_smile:

Hmm, I would have described you more as a vaginal lavage syringe.[/quote]

YUCK.

[/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hmm, I would have described you more as a vaginal lavage syringe.

YUCK.
[/quote]

All the time I spent coming up with the correct alternate terminology for “douchebag” and all I get is “YUCK”. Gee, thanks for nothin.

[quote]
bigflamer wrote:
His crazy environmentalism is a huge liability though.

hspder wrote:
With that, I disagree. More and more Americans are starting to “buy” environmentalism, and Gore is able to provide some very convincing arguments. When Gore was here at Stanford back in December doing his environmentalist spiel, he was extremely good and convincing with his presentation – he managed to actually impress a lot of the Hoover Institute guys, who are as conservative as it gets around these parts.

Everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY, left and right – was very impressed with him, and if he is able to pull off the same panache he showed over here in December and over there on SNL, I’m pretty sure he’d be VERY electable.

bigflamer wrote:
I will agree with you on the idea that americans as a whole are starting to become more environmentaly concious. There is a difference though, I believe, between environmental stewardship, and extreme environmentalism.

Now, I haven’t heard him personally so I can’t speak for his eloquence in the presentation of his ideas. I just think there’s really an environmentalist wacko hiding deep within him desperately wanting to expose himself.

I will say this though, I wold like to see from our government, a firm commitment to a viable bio-diesal. A commitment which is on par with JFK’s promise to put a man on the moon.[/quote]

Americans are buying into “environmentalism” writ large, meaning conservation, pollution, etc. – Al’s mistake is focusing intently on the global warming issue, which people are not buying into as much.

To quote from a recent article by Steven Hayward:

Underlying this effort is a sense of panic over two things: the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol, and frequent polls showing that Americans aren’t buying into global-warming alarmism. The latest Gallup poll on environmental issues found that only 36 percent of Americans say they “worry a great deal about global warming” ? a number that has hardly budged in years. Global warming, Gallup’s environmental-opinion analyst Riley Dunlap wrote, puts people to sleep. Even among those who tell pollsters that the environment is their main public-policy concern (who are usually less than 5 percent of all Americans), global warming ranks lower than air and water quality, toxic waste, and land conservation.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

…Even among those who tell pollsters that the environment is their main public-policy concern (who are usually less than 5 percent of all Americans), global warming ranks lower than air and water quality, toxic waste, and land conservation. [/i][/quote]

These are extremely important issues and there is much work to be done.

Mixing in the debatable human caused global warming fucks up the entire effort.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
tme wrote:
It’s long overdue, but I think we’ll still have to wait another few years. I was thinking that the obscene profits of the oil companies this year might force Bush’s hand, make him do something like this to show the public that he’s not just a friend of Big Oil, but I’m not really expecting anything to happen.

The pertinent fact that often gets overlooked when discussing the obscene oil company profits, is a discussion on the obscene amount of taxes taken in by the government through taxation on gasoline sales.

[/quote]

But strangely enough, no one was ever mad about that until The right-wing pundits started blathering about it as a way to distract from the ridiculous prices the oil companies have agreed upon.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
tme wrote:
It’s long overdue, but I think we’ll still have to wait another few years. I was thinking that the obscene profits of the oil companies this year might force Bush’s hand, make him do something like this to show the public that he’s not just a friend of Big Oil, but I’m not really expecting anything to happen.

The pertinent fact that often gets overlooked when discussing the obscene oil company profits, is a discussion on the obscene amount of taxes taken in by the government through taxation on gasoline sales.

But strangely enough, no one was ever mad about that until The right-wing pundits started blathering about it as a way to distract from the ridiculous prices the oil companies have agreed upon.[/quote]

I think, also strangely enough, folks are mad about the oil company profits due the exorbiant coverage of them. I believe that they (oil companies) are painted to be evil due to their high profits, as if they were in business for some other reason.

What bothers me about govt. is their parasitic nature. They venture nothing and risk nothing, yet gain much; all the while holding hearings in order to “get to the bottom of these extreme profits” and painting “big oil” as evil. This, IMHO, is politics at it’s worst and highly misrepresentitive.

But to shore up my original point, both the govt. and “big oil” are profiting from gasoline sales and do not have the proper incentive to make the switch to alternative fuels. It needs to be profitable for them first.

-Bigflamer

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I say:

[b]

Thank God for President George W. Bush! [/b]

Gore = Bore![/quote]

I agree. The occupation of Iraq for instance is quite exciting.

Think about all the great fun you guys would have missed with Gore.

Come on, wise up, Gore is going to have a movie now.

This makes him an “actor” and imminently qualified for political office.

What more could you want?

On a different note, I would suggest that as long as other countries are playing on a level field, that environmentalism or combatting pollution (even that which may or may not cause global warming) is a good thing.

Why some people run in fear from the concept of respecting the environment I don’t understand.