digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall today!
Check out the Digg Townhall live from the Digg stage at the DNC at 1:30PST/4:30EST

Signatures on Draft Gore petition accelerating dramatically on Eve of Nobel

draftgore.com — Signatures on the on-line petition to draft Al Gore to run for the Presidency have picked up dramatically in the run up to this weeks announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize. Does this mean an announcement may be imminent?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Railer, on 10/13/2007, -48/+20I agree good news, if he runs, he might have to defend himself and the lies will be exposed.
    • tzon, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2Well said.
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Care to provide some uncontroversial sources to back up your claims?
      • Railer, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Are you nuts or just completely uninformed? A UK court just ruled it was a biased propaganda piece.
        Here's a good start though:
        http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/de ...
        • bugsy187, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Am I nuts because I ask you to back up your opinion with facts? I'm familiar with the UK court story, though the article didn't provide specifics on what is inaccurate.

          This article you link to makes many claims, but more citations would be helpful and necessary to take them beyond opinion. The quoted author's career as a software and electronics engineer at Boeing doesn't prove his argument. One could argue that a climatologist is a more relevant expert on the subject.



          1. He claims, but doesn't know that point 1 was fabricated. He doesn't have information specific to the teacher or situation.

          2. The author has an argument about the use of the word trapped. I think most people viewing the movie interpret that more heat is being absorbed by C02, and is not trapped indefinitely.

          3. He makes claims that he needs to substantiate with citations.

          4. I don't remember if Gore claims that his teacher was the first to measure C02 in the atmosphere, but Revelle is one of the first scientists to study global warming according to wikipedia.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle

          5. There is a study that suggests global warming is not the cause of ice melting on Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, but it came out AFTER An inconvenient Truth was released. The story actually just came out this summer.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/07061 ...

          If this is indeed the generally accepted theory, a citation would be nice.

          The first few articles I came across cited a study from Ohio State University.

          "Many glaciers and ice caps atop mountains in Africa and South America will probably have melted within the next 15 years because of global warming and little can be done to save them, an Ohio State University researcher explained today.

          Lonnie Thompson, professor of geological sciences

          http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/glacgone.htm

          6. Again, a citation would be nice. I searched briefly but was unable to substantiate the claims of the author. I found an article from the Sierra Club talking about global warning's melting effect on the park's glaciers and another from Wikipedia describing how "Glacier National Park has a highly regarded global climate change research program. Based in West Glacier, with its main headquarters in Bozeman, Montana, the U.S. Geological Survey has performed scientific research on specific climate change studies since 1992."

          http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/articles/g ...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park ...

          ---

          At any rate, that's the amount of checking I'm interested in doing for now. I may read the blog entry again later, but specific, strong arguments would be helpful. Feel free to post again.
  • EmperorAnton, on 10/12/2007, -29/+28How many petitions do we need to get him to run? An environmental president, not one that does not believe in global warming, is what the world needs now.
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16Someone who actually looks to to the future beyond cleaning up Bush's mess is what the world needs. A Nobel Peace Prize is a good thing for a president to have too.
      • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10A Nobel prize that is entirely undeserved isn't any better than not having one. Gore hasn't done ***** to deserve a Nobel. If he gets it, it devalues all prior winners. It's not like the science awards where people who actually deserve it can win. The non-science awards are insanely political. There are many people in the world who are far more deserving. The Nobel prizes have become like the Grammy and Academy awards. It's really sad.
        • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I don't think it's quite as bad as you say....

          And honestly I don't think Gore has "done nothing" worthy of that kind of recognition. He has raised a lot of awareness of something enough people think is a critical issue to get a nomination, if he wins it's because the judges think his efforts are worthy of it.
          • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Please explain how he deserves a Peace Prize? Please explain what Yassir Arafat did to deserve one? Or Jimmy Carter? They've become absolutely worseless, and the Goracle getting one will just validate that judgement even more.
          • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Al Gore has been speaking about global warming for almost 30 years. Just because it's being called his "new thing" in the media doesn't mean he hasn't been a proponent on the Congressional floor for decades. Likewise, Jimmy Carter is credited with the Nobel Prize for a peace agreement issued in the 90's, but he has been an advocate for global reform more than any other president this century starting in the 60's.
          • luciferin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So what if he talks about global warming? We're at a period in time when there are more importaint issues. The falling value of the dollar, to rising antiamerican sentiment, the disillusioned citizens who occupy this country. Housing, hunger.

            So what if he speaks, what has he done?

            When he speaks out about overpopulation I will respect his ideas on global warming.
        • duzytata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Open up a magazine, watch tv, take a look at a billboard. What do all the ads in these mediums have in common? They're about a greener earth, whether it be about fuel efficient cars or green power supplies for your computer. Before his film came out and garnered all this attention I never saw anything like this. He raised awareness about climate change and now everyone world wide is talking about this problem. Seems pretty deserving to me.
      • xike, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6You do realize Gore's movie was basically a commercial for his carbon offset company, right? I mean, all other issues aside, he profits from the global warming "solutions" that he expects everyone to buy into.
        • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Everything is profit driven. If the outcome is good and someone got paid, who cares, the outcome was good.
          • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Sheep.
          • kag9000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not everything is profit driven fkr3, just think about what you type first and you won't come out with such idiotic statements like that.
      • cnot3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bono has one and he's still a douche.
      • EmoSLWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How can you make such positive statements about Gore and yet you support Bush? I don't understand. I've been watching your posts for the past year or so and you seem like a red stater to me. Pro-corporation. Pro-capitalism. Pro-Republican. Why the change of heart?
    • MonkeyFarts, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11What the world needs right now is a president that will fix all the screw-ups the Bush has subjected it to. Iraq, soon-to-be Iran, Patriot Act, domestic spying programs, policies mimicking those of a police state. Will Gore be the man to do that? Probably not, so I'd rather elect somebody else who's up to the task. Sorry, but I like my freedoms, and I'm sure the entire planet would appreciate the US having a competent president that minds his own business instead of charging into battle with any country he pleases for little to no reason.
      • EmoSLWarrior, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1So who do you propose? Ron Paul is a joke, so that's a non-starter right there. Clinton? Well, I may have liked her husband, but I don't trust her at all. Ghouliani is out of the question. Kucinich would be awesome because he has some great ideas. But he is about as electable as Adolph HItler in our vastly damaged nation at this point in time.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18there IS more to think about than just environmental issues. Besides, what has he done so solve the problem of Global Warming? Made a movie? no wait, he didn't actually... ok, so he 'produced' a movie that some other guy made and that he narrated and took credit for. Since making it he's been doing nothing but criss-crossing the globe on his not-very-environmentally-friendly private jet, speaking at huge events full of state of the art power-sucking special effects, and he owns a home that is well documented as to exactly how much more power it drains than the average home. yes, he's done a lot of TALKING about global warming, because he's a politician, and he just wants to drum up support for his career. He cares less about the environment and more about his own future.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You know nothing about Al Gore's career, do you? Until you do a little reading on his background, stay out of the discussion.
        • luciferin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Is that what you're doing, staying out of the discussion? You certainly don't seem to be contributing to it.
      • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Zen, you didn't rebut him. All you did was say -- 'You know nothing, you havent read anything, don't say anything'.
    • bradcrc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"An environmental president, not one that does not believe in global warming, is what the world needs now"

      I thought what the world needs now is "love... sweet love."
      ('cause it's the only thing that there's just too little of. )


      ok, so I'm the only one who thinks that was funny, but as long as one of us is laughing. :D
    • snapcase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What the world needs now is *not* Al Gore.
  • histgyro, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4good news
  • fadeout, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14I don't think he will but he may just be the only thing that can stop Hillary. Too bad he probably has too much integrity to backstab his old boss. :(
    • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Imaginary carbon credit scheme? He is the worlds leading proponent of climate change, yet he uses more energy than 99% of the worlds population, or 6.35 billion parasites, I mean people
      • zombies187, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7And I guess you would listen to him if he lived in a tree only eating fruits that fall out. Environmentalists can't win.
        • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Definitely not over-polluting, lear jet flying, SUV caravaning ones.
        • zombies187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1and the other kind?
        • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1There's another kind?
          • zombies187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If he lived in a tree only eating fruits that fall out, would that count as a over-polluting, lear jet flying, SUV caravaning one?
      • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You can't win on lies and spin. Why do you think the war on terror fell out from under Bush's feet? He took a good cause, that was already justifiable, and spun it every which way, creating a massive backlash. The Goreacle has done more harm than good to your cause, we don;t even know the extent of it yet.
        • luciferin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2While I agree with your sentiment, your points are wrong. The war on terror is ongoing.
        • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What points are wrong? Did I imply the war on terror was not ongoing? I'm not being arrogant, I really want to know...
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/14/2007, -2/+54If the guy doesn't want to run, he's not going to run.
  • notthemama, on 10/12/2007, -32/+42Dang. I was hoping it was a draft Gore for the army petition.
    Sure, he'd probably get killed by friendly fire, but couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Unlike you, Gore actually volunteered to serve in in the military, which he did for nearly two years, including the last five months in Vietnam. No, he wasn't a combat warrior, but he didn't wait to be drafted, either.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dugg the first sentence for humor. The second sentence went too far though.
      • bcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep, "Dang." is a very humorous sentence. :)
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -21/+15Who the ***** cares?

    If he runs, he WILL NOT WIN.
    • polymath22, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7what do you mean he will not win? he already won once. if he was in the white house, things would sure be different...
      • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2something things would be different, we would be at war with iran by now. lieberman was teamed up with gore because he wasn't seen as pro-israel enough (noone wins without AIPAC approval). foreign policy was not his strength back then, so they teamed him up with a hawk, who probably would have dictated foreign policy to gore the way cheney does to bush. then again, gore might have not have gone down the same path, he was just untested. but it's all speculation anyway.
      • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, he didnt win. Just because you are unhappy with the outcome does not mean the outcome is invalid.
        • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He won by number of wotes
          • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad for you that you don't understand the basic concepts of the US Electoral College.
  • dslhell, on 10/12/2007, -26/+8We don't need him when we have Ron Paul....
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12That's like saying, "we don't need Bill Clinton, we have Pat Robertson".

      Could you find two politicians who are less alike? Dennis Kucinich and Sam Brownback have more in common than Al Gore and Ron Paul.

      You Paulettes scare me.
      • dslhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I'll be the first to admit that Al Gore would be a good president but not as good as Ron.
        Gore is a quitter in my opinion. I remember when I was in the 3rd grade I met the man, shook his hand and he said he wanted to be president then.
        I,m 41 now so if he don't want to run let him be. I,m not gonna beg, and plead for him to run.
        And I,m no Paulette
        • ryecatcher22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is the apostrophe key broken so you figured, hey i'll just use a comma instead?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Al Gore and Ron Paul both have about the same chance of winning the Republican Primary.
  • searob1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2This is sad. I like Gore, but the race is too crowded as it is. This cartoon says it all:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbyperson. ...
  • TheDHC, on 10/13/2007, -13/+11Mike Gravel
  • fr0mundacheese, on 10/14/2007, -27/+11BURIED! Because Al Gore is a: Hypocritical, Chicken Little Douche bag.
    • rationalist, on 10/14/2007, -6/+8What have you done for your country, besides keeping La-Z-Boy profitable?
      • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I bet hasn't hopped coast to coast on lear jets trying to save the planet from people who fly too much in lear jets.
  • HerrEisenheim, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8We need both Ron Paul and Al Gore to run as independents. Then Hillary and someone else can run as party nominees. Then we can have a 4-way race, and the winner will have like 30% of the vote. That would actually be kind of interesting. I wonder how the country would respond.
  • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10I would bet money Gore will not run. You think he's willing to go under the presidential microscope? He won't even debate anyone who disagrees with him!
  • leontes, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21I signed it. He's an incredible person, I'd vote for him again. If he doesn't run, he should be hillary's VP, at least.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 10/14/2007, -1/+18Excellent idea, they could dust off all those Clinton-Gore political buttons and stickers and reuse them.
    • larthallor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17He will not be VP again. If he stays out of the race though, there may be some other role for him in a Clinton cabinet. Wouldn't it be great to see the look on the collective face of Big Oil when Al Gore is sworn in as the Secretary of Energy?
      • Pake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yeah, it would be fun to see the face of Big Oil as their making their way back to the bank to deposit a bigger check.
        • blackcloud333, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What the ***** are you talking about? That made no sense.
          • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Big Oil and Big Energy makes massive profits on Al Gore's mansions and jet setting alone. They would love him in the cabinet. He's an excellent consumer.
      • mike17032, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ya, its gonna be so awsome to pay even more for gas!

        Bitch and cry about big oil if you want, but it just makes you look like a retard. The US has the cheapest gas in the world.
      • cnot3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Same as the look on every sane person in this country's face when hilary is sworn in as president.
      • galanz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do know that Gore made a fortune off Occidental Petroleum right? Gore is as big oil as it gets.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2GAH
      Don't say that... It scares my Kucinich-oriented mind. :/
      I...I just don't like her as a person, y'know?
      • brycelb, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1If you have a Kucinich-oriented mind that scares me!
    • Neiby, on 10/14/2007, -8/+6Gore is an incredible person? You have very low standards.
    • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is one way he can make a lot of money to help his crusade
      http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
  • metric7, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10If Gore wins I predict a massive smug storm over Oslo.
    • zeromancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2they should ban all SUVs to help the storm
      • metric7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll agree when all those concerned celebrities and politicians give up their private jets.
  • jschaef5, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Gore might be more useful as VP, he can be more focused on the environment and let president deal with everything else?
  • URnotheonly1, on 10/12/2007, -18/+11Lost all respect fr the Nobel Prize. Thought it meant some thing, but it turned out to be a political ploy.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Yes, it is painful to learn that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
      • Pake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Except that liberal world != liberal party. Liberal world = moderate party. The Nobel Prize lost all meaning the moment Kofi Annan received it.
    • purdueAl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2No it doesn't, Henry Kissenger won it!
    • Terr01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Nah, it's not a political ploy UNLESS HE GETS IT. Anyone can make a random internet petition.

      IMO, as much as I'd vote for Gore were he to run for Pres, you shouldn't get a Nobel until at least ten years after whatever you did to earn it. Isn't that how it works? :P :P
    • metric7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I lost respect when arafat won
    • cnot3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1***** Bono got one, they are worthless.
  • tierpinho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6gore won't run------> bush, clinton, bush, clinton, come on people!
    • bingobongony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hillary has NO shot at winning in 2008.
      • polymath22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4dude, the democrats could run a corpse and beat the republicans. if hillary gets the democratic nod, guess what.... be pragmatic, look at Obama...
        • RobotBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When it comes to politics, I've learned to never underestimate the democrats ability to throw away a sure thing.
        • brycelb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They said similar ***** about Bush 7 YEARS AGO. The republicans hope all dems. maintain that mentality.
    • tierpinho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0of course she has no shot, but the powers that be will make her win, just the same way that bush "won" twice, you'll see, they want to continue the legacy
  • Fragowell, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14I ***** hate Al Gore, by all superficial accounts. I really do. His "documentary" (however valid or invalid the issue actually is) presents cherry picked facts and deliberate distortions or the truth. I'm not saying global warming is or isn't as bad as he says it is. It could even be worse than we think it is. But when you choose to present your case with evidence that is clearly biased and one sided, you discredit yourself and anyone who agrees with you. Please, Mr. Gore, do me, my fellow intelligent citizens, my fellow diggers, and everyone on this planet the service of seeking change by means of the truth, and the truth knows no party lines.

    There is no chance of convincing anyone of anything if you base your position on biased information. This includes information from openly biased sources (left and right side). Come on, folks, let's engage in intelligent and open discussion!
    • SquigglyP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4sorry, bro... but most of the time using "intelligent citizens" and "diggers" to describe the same people... kind of an oxymoron.
      • Fragowell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess I assumed that at some point, the groups would overlap. Perhaps not, though.
  • alphaone, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14Gore was the only candidate to have more votes AND LOSE THE PRESIDENCY. Way to go chief.
    • mutroniii, on 10/15/2007, -1/+26No he wasn't.... Andrew Jackson(1824), Grover Cleveland (1868), & Samuel Tilden (1876) all won a plurality of the popular vote, but lost the presidency.
  • ericthegreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Yeah, another announcement by him stating he has no interest in running.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what should he say when people demand he run? "I like ice cream. Bye now."
  • mediaspree, on 10/16/2007, -7/+17If he won the presidency i'd feel like Marty Mcfly had something to do with it.
  • ccdw, on 10/16/2007, -18/+9Gore is a hypocritical moron!!!!!!!!!!
  • zombies187, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27Gore is a bigger man than me. If I won an election and the supreme court gave away my office, there would be blood on the ground. I respect him so much for not overthrowing the government. That took real steel.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2he would have had to kill a lot of people to overthrow the government. But, see... he won the popular vote, not the electoral vote. There's a difference.
      • zombies187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Some peoples first impulse would have been to die trying. Bush for instance. And HE might have succeeded!
    • cnot3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Al Gore trying to overthrow the government. LOL! I'm being thuper therial, come awn!
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5The GOP will not win!
  • MastaB, on 10/13/2007, -19/+45Al Gore > Ron Paul

    I am so going to get dugg down by the army of libertarians...
    • M0b1u5, on 10/16/2007, -26/+2Your wish is my command.
    • M0b1u5, on 10/16/2007, -26/+2Your wish is my command.
    • alphaone, on 10/16/2007, -2/+19The double post will get dugg down faster.
    • arunforce, on 10/16/2007, -10/+2Well, I think Global Warming is a bigger issue than how ***** up America is.

      We will die any other way, but at least we don't have to take other countries with us.
    • gak001, on 10/16/2007, -3/+9...and dugg up by all of the people who are sick of the sycophant, Ron Paul zombie-fanboys.
  • M0b1u5, on 10/16/2007, -22/+13We can only hope NOT. Gore would be a disastrous president.
    • AeonTorpor, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2Explain how he would have been worse than Emperor *****?!
  • polymath22, on 10/16/2007, -17/+10Climate change happens naturally; It had been going on a long before we got here, and will continue long after we are gone. I will not dispute that....

    However, every action has an equal and opposite re-action, and industrialization has created a situation where there are millions of *additional*, cumulative, NON-natural, chemical reactions every second, caused by us.....

    At the same time, we are cutting the forests that work to undo our effluent....

    These two new factors are creating a situation that gets worse in geometric progression, and it cannot continue indefinitely ...think "dirty fish tank"

    We have lots of new *stuff* in the air, the water, the soil, our food supply, that was NOT there 500 years ago, or at least not there in the concentration levels we see today.

    here is a summary of the current debate;

    1) it's natural.
    agreed. check.
    2) it's "environmentalist wackos" pushing this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    3) lefties hate business.
    no, i need my income, so my company better do well. and my neighbors' companies had better do well, if i am to do well. i like prosperity, but i want responsible prosperity.
    4) it would stifle economic growth.
    i disagree. consumers often pay extra and get more, be it the UL label, or the "Energy Star" label, or the Apple Computer label... we pay for "bells and whistles" all the time . thats how we earn our nick-name "the American Consumer". we'll buy anything.

    If there are mandates passed that force industries to "clean up it's act", it would *create* the demand for labor and materials to upgrade infrastructure into compliance, much like government initiated public works projects put people to work during hard times. This generates economic activity, not stifle it...

    The argument against this would be that extra *unnecessary* expenses are depriving companies of investment cash that could be "put to better use."
    I disagree.
    A companies physical assets depreciate on a schedule, which means that if these assets are over a certain age, it makes more business sense to tear it all down and start over with the state-of-the-art technology than to try and upgrade their old infrastructure.... like upgrading an old computer verses buying new...

    "carrot and stick" tax polices could be crafted to help businesses along with the transitions.
    http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article ...

    While I'm on the subject of business investment and infrastructure, I would like to point out the fact that *both* ends of the Mississippi River are in dire need of an *upgrade*, NOT a band-aid.

    When the bridge collapsed, it cut off not only car and truck traffic on I-35, but barge traffic in the MIssissippi River below, and train traffic on the river bottom tracks. this was a *serious* snarl, not only for ordinary people, but for businesses that had heavy new transportation expenses....businesses have deep pockets, but the are not bottomless.

    At the other end is New Orleans. The Mouth of the Mississippi River, the single most important link between the "bread-basket of the world" and "the rest of the world"...
    and it lies in shambles.

    The US Constitution was specifically structured to deal with this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
    this is the clause that the SCOTUS has determined is relevant in making the war on drugs a federal issue.

    Our interstate transportation infrastructure is built upon the automobile...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_Sy ...

    Americans have had a love affair with the automobile for many years, but it may be over. Driving is a hassle. Driving is expensive. Driving is obviously not as glamorous as it once was, when kids want the iPhone more than they want a car...

    What would an upgraded system look like?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_transport ...

    Upgrading American transportation infrastructure to a modern, world class system would keep America competitive, reduce waste, reduce effluent, and move us beyond the "glorified chariot" era.

    i think it makes good environmental sense, and good business sense.

    • zombies187, on 10/16/2007, -1/+6Can you elaborate?
    • polymath22, on 10/16/2007, -4/+2why is this getting dugg down? did you even read it?
      • brycelb, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2I read the entire, winded, thesis. Since I have ***** to do and can't spend 6 hours on a comment I will just address one area. This fall back to the Ad hominem defense is tired and in this case completely inaccurate. The groups and individuals spreading the massage have zero credibility in the eyes of sane people. Saying that the agenda is pushed by "environMENTAL wacko's" is both accurate and appropriate. You lose your privilege to be taken seriously when everything you say is *****.
        • masterm1nd, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Not to mention the "ad homien" point is a strawman fallacy, which is the exact spot I stopped reading at. I can't even believe I attempted to read it, I just knew...
      • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you have to ask, explaining it would be pointless...
    • gak001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of the 150 or so academically published, peer-reviewed (read legitimate) studies, only 2 of them concluded that climate change or "global warming" does not exist, and one of them was by a sociologist.
  • batshitcrazy, on 10/16/2007, -14/+5Gore's solutions to global warming essentially call for genocide in africa and asia
    • blackcloud333, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Awesome call, and way to back it up. Not that I would read it anyway.
    • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2We have a limited amount of resources here on earth. Combating climate change will be the largest human endeavor ever, dwarfing everything else. The resources used will have to be taken from something else.
    • gak001, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1Did you name yourself ***** because you're a troll?
  • torched, on 10/16/2007, -8/+3Gore has a good shot at making Clinton's VP, that way she can appeal to moderate democrats,independents, and republicans still worried about Iraq and appeal to the democratic base. Then in 2016 it can be Gore vs. Jeb Bush ;) and the vicious cycle continues from there.
    • cnot3, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1no election in 2016, worlds ending in 2012 smartass!
  • grungemunky, on 10/16/2007, -5/+10I wonder what a Gore/Gravel combo would be like....
    • mediaspree, on 10/16/2007, -0/+6it would be ,like ,enlightenment for stoners.
  • kevin.gc, on 10/16/2007, -12/+2Hmm, would it be possible to have Al Gore + Ron Paul?
    • polymath22, on 10/16/2007, -5/+3is al gore a 911 truther?
    • mediaspree, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3If Al Gore were a republican actually running for president or if Ron Paul was a liberatarian running for..oh wait.. what did I just do there.
    • mike17032, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2If you were a ***** moron, sure. The two couldnt be more reverse of each others views if they tried.
  • MattCairns, on 10/16/2007, -17/+6GORE IS A ***** ASSGHOLE.
    • nblsavage, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2caps lock stuck douchebag?
    • Rhodamine, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1However, I'd be willing to bet that he is capable of using a keyboard properly.
  • xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Anyone thought that perhaps he doesnt want to run?
  • ingoldsby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8As much as I would like him to run, I don't think he wants to deal with the politics anymore, and highly doubt he will run.
  • drpleau, on 10/16/2007, -6/+3I wouldn't mind seeing him as the president for 4 years. As long as he changes the demand from car companies to build 25% + cars that run hybrid. Unlike Bush who cut that demand (obviously different % and terms) back in I think it was 2001. I still can't believe Bush cut that project. I believe it was 10% of cars would be electrical. Time to go look it up :D
    • Bardak, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3My God think of the batteries
    • cnot3, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3Many gas powered cars are more efficient than hybrids. Go smell your own farts, hippie.
  • Elderon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Why is he so popular? I mean global warming is an important issue no doubt but if thats the only reason people are creaming their pants to get him to run for president theres something seriously wrong.
    • obxjdt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3He's not, there are a handful of people out there that are alarmist, that also think Algore can do no wrong.
      Man can not destroy the Earth, we are nothing to the Earth. We might be able to destroy ourselves, but not the planet, or life as we know it. What you need to realize, is that 500-600 years ago, it was warmer than it is now. Warming and cooling is a natural thing. Truth be told, we're over dew for an Ice Age by about 10,000 years.
  • obxjdt, on 10/16/2007, -14/+8Al Gore.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...........
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......
    ROFL!!!!
    Ok, really....Al gore is.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
  • Almadiel, on 10/16/2007, -11/+7Yeah right, lets make that moron president because Sweden likes him. Great reason.
  • spoonz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7No way Gore is going to run. Everything he has done after leaving office has moved him to the left (Probably to his true political views). You don't setup a run for president by moving to the left or right. You move to the center to appeal to more people. (See Hillary in the past 8 years). Like it or not that's how politics works.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And that's how you keep people who are disgusted at how we have no choice in government from turning out....
      • spoonz, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
        ~ Winston Churchill
  • tacklebox, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4All we need is another moron thinking he should be president.
  • vermax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4is there a ***** GORE petition? dead weight appeaser rollover too late whitebread hoser. go do lectures and power point and quit asking for do-over, you blew that chance on whatever they blackmailed you over so you'd go away and whimper. you should have stayed fat and bearded, only time you were human.
  • rjn17960, on 10/16/2007, -3/+7Gore's a damn sight better than all of the candidates running right now
  • locitman, on 10/16/2007, -6/+3didnt he invent the nobel prize?
    • cnot3, on 10/16/2007, -3/+3Yes, right after he invented the internet, beanie babies, and global warming.
  • ScottoGato, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3Do we really need Al Gore for this presidency? I would say he is better candidate than Hillary and Obama, but we have Kucinich, Paul, and Gravel which are all very good candidates. If we had better media to give these candidates better airtime, America would find that out as well. Of course, Gore has his supporters, but "drafting" him for running is horrible.
  • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Al Gore is very perceptive man. Read his book, "the assault on reason." It describes how the coporate controlled media has taken over the flow of knowledge and why this is such a dangerous thing for a democracy.
  • RobotBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I've heard Al Gore has been known to drive a car!!!!!!
  • numlok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Man, after reading "Assault on Reason", I REALLY wish he were our president, however, at the same time I can't envision how such a thing could ever come to fruition (primarily given the current political/media/corporate climate outlined in that same book). Hmm...
    • scottknick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1After reading "Assault on Reason" I thought, "No way is this guy ever going to seek elective office ever again." He is obviously sick of the utter nonsense that American politics has become. He doesn't want it, and he doesn't need it.
  • ZenFountain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I'd rather see Dean run again than endure another Gore campaign. Dean was the first time I was excited about politics and I'm still very bitter about the last two elections. It isn't going to happen anyway, at the rate Gore is going he won't make it to 08' if he keeps stuffing his face with cake while zipping around the world in his Gulfstream G550.
  • p0tent1al, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wow, the Anti-Ron Paul Brigade is out in full force tonight. Don't worry though, come morning, all of our Ron Paul comments will be in the positive. Bury all you want, you can not keep the movement down.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.