House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas.
In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year.
The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.
This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.
House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide.
The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on an arid, high prairie in the American southwest.
A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water ( usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.
The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.
Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern.
Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.
Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. Good post. Will be interesting to see the reaction to this one...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow what a load of bull that is. I don't care what he uses his house for, the facts are the facts and the evil George Bush is a great example of an enviromentally safe house and Gore is nothing but a hypocrite. Big surprise here.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Something needs to be said to you about the insulting and dishonest post you insist on, but I'll avoid specificity, as it seems you aren't honorable or honest enough to do otherwise.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
urnso... i understand what youre saying about gore,although i dont know the particulars of his situation, ... listening to olbermans comments, there seems to be some underlaying factors involved, which people dont talk about,..but ..does that make anyones concern about the environment any less valid?..understand this,,,we are not destroying the earth(we are changing it)..we are destroying ourselves. maybe not me and you, but unless something is done to change this ever-increasing problem, our children and theirs will suffer. can you deny that????
-------------------- jordan Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see my posts as being malicious or insulting in any way. I have my beliefs and others have theirs. As far as the environment goes, I think we have already done great things to help the world such as recycling for example. I don't see the global warming threat nearly as bad as what Al Gore wants everyone to believe.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not concerned for my children at all. Soon global warming will be proven to be not as dangerous as Gore says it is. Also, global warming will be the downfall of the democrats in future elections.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I know we disagree on these issues but I'd like to thank you for being civilized during this discussion. Others in here would just call me a puppet of the RNC and find it necessary to insult me.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do find the choice for the Bush retreat very interesting.
For a man who basically discounts environmental factors in his political life he did not stint on greening up his personal place. Could it be that he also is a closet "environmentalist" but like other repulicans don't accept it in politics for party reasons?
Much like the gay issue. How many repulicans have homosexual men in their offices whom they get along with and rely on...and yet will denounce homosexuality in front of the cameras?
There is a very interesting disconnect in many of these issues that deserves scrutiny. Could it be that the need for the two main parties to distingushing themselves from each other has completely overridden what the individuals of each party feel to be right?
hmmm...
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush does this to his house to avoid scrutiny from the left im sure. Might as well lead by example.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
These guys are not trying to present any logical reason to make any judgments or even comparisons about the abodes of Gore and dubya. They are just a different version of "swift boaters", fostering misinformation and lies to smear the name and repute of someone they fear politically.
In the case of Gores home, it was not a new structere, but one that already had existed for years before he bought it and renovated it, renovations that, by law, had to comply with the municipal and county codes. He has reported and I know it to be a fact that those codes refused to allow him to install the sorts of green energy devices that dubyas newly constructed was able to encorporate.
Even so, how many of you believe dubya does or would pay a far higher rate for electricity service than the minimum in order to guarantee that he was using only electricity made by non-poluting and renewable sources?
People with the vast wealth of a dubya or a Gore are able to make decisions like that. We need to require that similar options are available to each and everyone of us, whatever the financial status.
Do you actually believe dubya would choose to pay a higher rate in oder to not polute and destroy the environment? if you do you are lying to yourself and you are a complete fool.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"swift boaters"....I remember them as the honorable group of people that spoke out to inform the public of Kerry's disgraceful cowardly acts in vietnam. They weren't lying, they were blowing the whistle on a phony trying to win the presidency of the United States.
Posts: 361 | From: CT | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Olbermann is the lefts dumbed down version of Oreilly...(sex-scand included) Gores lap dog, if you may.
The best is Al Gore has been lying to the ameriacn public before hes even joined the race, by saying "im not planning to run for president
LMAO!!!!! what a joke!!!
No, the joke is your kind trying to act like you are capable being objective and logical in matters of political or moral concern.
and it ain't ever gonna happen, is it?
Yes, Oberman contrast O'Reily, but in postition, not in being a constant and consistant liar and instigating rumor of personal scanal to attack persons not rigiudy on the far rightwing of life.
What is this vulgar and insulting insinuation, "(sex-scand included)"? O'Reily has a string of legal problems in that area, as is very well known. I don't know of any with respect to Olberman......and if there is one, how could it match O'Reily's proven record or repeated and habitual sexual predation....and in any case, what has that accusation, true or false (and I have every reason to believe it is a lie) got to do with Gore or with the political realities of who is or isn't ruinning for office?
You sir are spewing out hate and lies again.
Have you stopped beating yoyr wife, rimasco?
There are a lot of people that want Gore to run and a lot that want him not to run (most republican want him not to run very badly because they fear the results). If he runs it is his decision, not yours and not O'Reily's or Limbaugh's..
Moreover, there is no rule in these matters declaring you and the RNC or any of the collection of far rightwing hate mongers to have the right to either help him decide or set a deadline by which he must decide, or you get the freedom to declare him a liar.
If it is the case that Gore may later decide to run and your idiotic declaration that that makes him a liar is even rational, let alone logical, then each of those that will or have announced that they are running, then later, for whatever reason, decide to drop out, are lying now.
I doubt that any of those individuals are deserving of being branded liars for offering their lives to the service of this country and I think it is worse that some simple minded and un-American loudmouth would suggest it of any of them. I am proud of the contribution of all of them, whether or not they win.
Will you ever learn to speak of the qualification for an office of potential candidates instead of concockting, out of the blue, some imagined character flaw that has no basis in truth or in relavence to the office?
Let's talk about Romney and Giuliani and Gringrich as "flip floppers" because of there "alteration" of their positions on morality and messing around with congressional underlings and birth control and guns and abortion and on and on, in stark contrast to their previous stated positions and call hypocracy what it is. Or let's stop that sort of thing when it is a democrat. Otherwise it is proof of you own hypocracy amd bigotry.
But you won't, because they claim to be republican and you have no semblance to objectivity or integrity in these matters, just dedication to goose stepping to rightwing republican cadence and talking points.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
"If it is the case that Gore may later decide to run and your idiotic declaration that that makes him a liar is even rational, let alone logical, then each of those that will or have announced that they are running, then later, for whatever reason, decide to drop out, are lying now."
Thats my point you dope, he is running hes just trying a different angle. His guerilla tactics aint foolin me. You can play the babe in the woods all you want.
Have you stopped beating your meat, bdgee?
Gorey had his 8yrs in orafice...and during that time there were 5 unanswered terrorist attacks on americans.....that and a new high in greenhouse gas emmission....oh and how can we forget the internet bubble and the iron chef book cooking phase that allowed Artur Anderersen and the likes of Enron and Worldcom and a SLEW of others to run rampant.
Please save your far left-out rants for the college campuses. Maybe you'll get a few dopers ears.
Dont come here playing Paul-Puma saying "oh if he ran YIPPY" and "If he gets tapped YAY" and make like hes not lying about running...
HE IS RUNNING!!! IF ONLY YOU COULD SEE PAST THE ERECTION YOU HAVE FOR HIM!!
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one needs any more of the idiocy that your brand of hatred and disgusting character assasination, in place of honest evaluation, of political figures has forced on us over the last 6+ years.
No, your point is to trash the man's reputation because you can't discredit him honestly and honorably and because doing so is the pablum fed to repulicans of late.
There were NOT five unanswered terrorist attacks on the United States during the Clinton presidency, as you claim. That is a blatant lie. Clintion responed in every case, but after January 2000, Bush refused even to consider terrorist or attacks by terrorist, declaring that the only danger we faced was from ICBMs and "star wars" funding was the only protection we needed or he that he would would allow. Probably you don't want to be reminded that it was Bush that halted all efforts by the Government to hamper terrorist activities, since you want to blame that on others.
It was Bush, not Clinton (and certainly not Gore, who had no power to even make a choice in the matter) not Clinton who refused to recognize the danger of terrorist and Al Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden.
In the Clinton years the Congress passed and the president signed several bills aimed toward lessening the outragious abuses of the environment that the Reagan/Bush corporate presidency had allowed to run amok. Then, upon assuming the presidency, Bush stopped them all with executive orders and by twisting and molding of the resources so there was no funding to empliment them. As a result of our wonderful republican dictator, our greenhouse gas emissions are many times over what they were in 2000. Moreover, the rest of the world isn't at all pleased about it.
As to "the dot com bubble", it was the result of a failure to provide adequate governmental oversight in the financial world (don't forget the housing and loan mess either), a condition resulting from the rightwing efforts through the Reagan/Bush years, to stiffle any governmental oversight of anything.
"Artur Anderersen and the likes of Enron and Worldcom and a SLEW of others" were the bedrock of the republican party financial machine. .....the biggest contributers of all, both legally and illegally. They clearly are not cronies of Glinton or Gore and clearly are of the group of fascist now in the Adminmistration, in particular, recall that they are "close" friends of dubya. Blaming the woes they brought on the world on Clinton or Gore is like when you were blaming the guy that Chaney shot for being in the way. He, the shootee, was where he was supposed to be, behind the gun; Chaney was the one and only party at fault. Now you want to place Gore in the position of the shootee. You really do like to stretch the truth, it seems!
It isn't important to me whether or not Gore runs, I am not talking about that. I am talking about regurgitating the RNC talking points that are designed to smear the reputation and character of anyone that isn't republican rather than offering any honest information that has anything to do with how the person might or might not perform in office.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It was Bush, not Clinton (and certainly not Gore, who had no power to even make a choice in the matter) not Clinton who refused to recognize the danger of terrorist and Al Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden. - Bdgee"
Hey Bdgee, here is an an inconvient truth for you...
Clinton turn down a chance to take Bin-Laden into custody long before 9/11/01....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not true that "Clinton turn(ed) down a chance to take Bin-Laden into custody long before 9/11/01...."
That is another rightwing radio talk show lie that circulates among that set.
Here is an inconvienient truth for you:
Bush did turn down opportunities to get Ben Laden, both before and after the invasion of Afganistan. He admits to the former....bragged about it before 9/11, saying Clinton was wasting money in the effort, indeed in any effort to stiffle terrorist, that Bush declared to not be a danger to the U.S. He bragged about giving orders stopping all such efforts so as to fund "star wars", The latter, that he took troops out of Afganistan when they had Ben Laden surrounded, thereby allowing his excape, is a matter of record.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose this audio of Clinton admitting he turned down a chance to take Osama into custody is faked? Better watch your step Bdgee, or you will lose what little credibility you have left here....
Also, using your logic, if Clinton had taken Osama into custody, then Bush wouldn't have had to turn him down too, so therefore the blame lies with Clinton.. Right? LOL
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, dufus, listen closely to the audio and you discover he didn't turn it down, but decided, based on the evidence, it was dangerous to do so at that particular instant.
Sort of like a cop not shooting at an escaping bank rober in order not to endanger innocent bystanders. He didn't ignore the chance of capturing the thief, he rationally choose not to chance killing a pregnant 18 year old and her fetus.
You need to get some ballance in your hatred.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were trying to claim that the chance never existed, as if it were some fantasy dreamed up by "Fat Rush the Doper"....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL.. In all fairness Rimasco, ole Billy boy threw her "under the bus" when he cheated with ugly-ass Monica and then looked into the cameras and lied about it, so frankly I don't blame her for throwing him to the wolves.....Even though I can't stand the socialist *****....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
