Did he get bite between the first and second hole?

Hmmm, another thing I agree with him on. He seems like a reasonable enough guy, with a healthy respect for science.

I was hoping he'd run, but maybe he'll get appointed to head the EPA or something and actually make it mean something again.

One can dream.

I'm amazed that people seem to care so much about his opinions. I get the feeling this thread will be filled with folks trying to discredit everything he's ever done arguing against folks who would defend anything he says to the death.

He's Al Gore. Possibly the most boring human being on the planet. Why does everyone care so much when he speaks? (And don't say it's because he's a former VP. People seem much more passionate regarding his opinions than they are with Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, and Dan Quayle)

Ugh. I agree with Al Gore on something. I feel so dirty I'm almost suicidal.

I Said: Why does everyone care so much when he speaks?

Because he's right, and this makes people uncomfortable. They then lash out angrily.

Just watch this thread.

I Said: Why does everyone care so much when he speaks?

Hatred of Gore was once much more socially acceptable than hatred of Bush.

That's changed. And Gore-haters don't like that.

Keep out of the airport toilets, Al

Now the people who hate the environment can join up with the people who hate homosexuals and attack Al Gore.

Maybe they could even form their own political party. But what would we call it?

I don't hate him, I just think he is an idiot.

An idiot and an attention whore. Who really cares what he thinks about gay marriage now? He was against it when his opinion mattered.

MorningBreath: I don't hate him, I just think he is an idiot.

An idiot and an attention whore. Who really cares what he thinks about gay marriage now? He was against it when his opinion mattered.

A lot of Democrats in office and running for office are really for gay marriage rights. However, it is political suicide to declare so in elections outside of major urban areas in this country at this time. It would be about like a candidate in 1950's Georgia stating that he didn't support laws against blacks marrying whites. Political suicide.

"gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women - to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage." "Shouldn't we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to ones partner regardless of sexual orientation?"

That monster!!! I get very scared when he speaks. It's the kind of fear that happens when you run into a black man in the men's room and you become so stricken with fright that you have to offer him $20 to suck his cock in order to ensure you safely escape. It's that bad.

A bit late, Al, but well done.

Gore now thinks gays can marry as long as they put their genitals in a lockbox.

I take this as definitive proof that Gore is never intending on running for elective office again, not that I blame him. I think he likes being an prominent envirocrusader -- and God knows America, and the world, needs one of those.

Good for him, though, late as it is. I have to say he's the presidential vote I cast for which I had to hold my nose the least.

See the problem with Gore is, he uses to much of that "logic" thing when he speaks. That's why he'd never be a successful President of the US.

kavoelker: See the problem with Gore is, he uses to much of that "logic" thing when he speaks. That's why he'd never be a successful President of the US.

He'd probably be a very successful president. What he's not very successful at becoming president.

SusanIvanova:
He'd probably be a very successful president. What he's not very successful at becoming president.

Came darn close, though.

Mr. Xhin: Civil Unions provide all the legal equivalent that's needed. Using the word "marriage" only causes unnecessary problem.

Yeah, Christian churches who recognize gay unions should not be able to recognize marriages. The government should tell churches what they can and cannot believe!

Mr. Xhin: Civil Unions provide all the legal equivalent that's needed. Using the word "marriage" only causes unnecessary problem.

What do you mean by "unnecessary problem?"

Actually, I believe in freedom of religion through separation of church and state. Keep church out of state, and keep state out of church. For this reason, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage as that is a personal and/or religious recognition. The government should provide civil unions for both straight and gay couples equally to ensure equal legal rights.

Let individuals and religious institutions then determine if they do or do not recognize those unions as marriages. This would be just like divorce and the Catholic Church. Catholics can end their civil marriage even though the Catholic Church may not recognize the divorce. To the government, the couple is divorced. The the Church, they are still married. It should work the same way with marriage/legal unions. The government should grant the rights and responsibilities that come along with such unions without discrimination. If your church doesn't recognize that as marriage, that's their right.

Mr. Xhin: Civil Unions provide all the legal equivalent that's needed.

... except that they don't - see federal taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin inheritance rights, etc.

We tried "separate but equal" once before, you know.

WorldCitizen: MorningBreath: I don't hate him, I just think he is an idiot.

An idiot and an attention whore. Who really cares what he thinks about gay marriage now? He was against it when his opinion mattered.

A lot of Democrats in office and running for office are really for gay marriage rights. However, it is political suicide to declare so in elections outside of major urban areas in this country at this time. It would be about like a candidate in 1950's Georgia stating that he didn't support laws against blacks marrying whites. Political suicide.

I'd rather vote for someone who stands up for what they believe in, then someone who won't. I guess that is too much to ask for though.

WorldCitizen: The government should provide civil unions for both straight and gay couples equally to ensure equal legal rights.

Absolutely.

Let individuals and religious institutions then determine if they do or do not recognize those unions as marriages.

... and find me someone who's trying to force religious institutions to marry gays if they don't want to.
There aren't any. It's just fear-mongering.

MorningBreath: I'd rather vote for someone who stands up for what they believe in, then someone who won't. I guess that is too much to ask for though.

Out of curiosity, should people be allowed to change their minds on an issue after examining it, or would you call them flip-floppers and waffles?

Gregory F. Stuart: If you want to get "married," go to a farking church, have your worn-out scriptures read, and perform your arcane, bizarre rituals. Your church is free to decide whether or not they want to marry gay people or not, but they don't have any legal authority whatsofarkingever.

If you want to enter a legally binding contract with another person, then you can go to the courthouse and get a civil union, whether you are gay or straight.

You know who else does this? The French.
Ooooooooh!

I don't want none of your froggy beliefs in my Freedom Marriage!

This is probably the clearest evidence to date that Al Gore has absolutely no desire to ever run for President again.

That being said, I'm glad he came out and said it. Better late than never. The argument in favor of promoting faithfulness is something the fundies have never been able to answer (it's like they deliberately promote promiscuity so they can point to the evil homosexuals).

Personally, as a gay man, I don't need the word "marriage" so long as all of the legal rights are there, but I'm more the type of guy who's interested in practical results.

You can call my partner and I "butt buddies" for all I care, so long as I get to write his health insurance off on my taxes or contribute to his FSA (neither of which I can do right now).

Theaetatus: Out of curiosity, should people be allowed to change their minds on an issue after examining it, or would you call them flip-floppers and waffles?

Man, I wish people would grow up and understand this point. Personally, I think anyone who still believes in his 40s what he believed as a teenager is showing evidence of a pretty morally and intellectually bankrupt life.

Of course, Mitt Romney shows just how you can take this to an extreme and turn into an opportunist...

I Said: I'm amazed that people seem to care so much about his opinions. I get the feeling this thread will be filled with folks trying to discredit everything he's ever done arguing against folks who would defend anything he says to the death.

He's Al Gore. Possibly the most boring human being on the planet. Why does everyone care so much when he speaks? (And don't say it's because he's a former VP. People seem much more passionate regarding his opinions than they are with Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, and Dan Quayle)

you racist

Better late than never, but better never to be late.

Can we expect apologies for the Parents Music Resource Center testimony now?

Corydon Quote 2008-01-24 08:58:23 PM
Theaetatus: Out of curiosity, should people be allowed to change their minds on an issue after examining it, or would you call them flip-floppers and waffles?

Man, I wish people would grow up and understand this point. Personally, I think anyone who still believes in his 40s what he believed as a teenager is showing evidence of a pretty morally and intellectually bankrupt life.

Of course, Mitt Romney shows just how you can take this to an extreme and turn into an opportunist...

true enough, I'm in my late 40s and have always been a rock ribbed republican, but now am seeing the fruits, or weeds, of the neocon agenda. I'm voting for Obama....

The thing that bothers me about Gore is not his fight to stop Global Warming, I applaud him on it, but his support during the Clinton years of NAFTA. NAFTA basically allowed multinational corporations to move their production from the US to Mexico where they could pollute the earth unfettered by pesky enviromental regulations in the US. I wonder how he reconciles those two seeming opposing positions?

Looks like the time Al spent out in the political wildneress allowed him to have an epiphany or two.

Kudos to Gore fer finally getting it right.

Equal rights mean fer everybody or it ceases to mean anything.

"We are all born equal except some are more equal than others"?

Fark that!

Ever notice how it's the folks who claim to hold the high moral ground who are really the folks who need to evolve their morality out of a previous century?

Anti science, anti equal rights for gays and women, pro forced birth, pro theocracy, pro neo-crusades etc, etc ad nauseum.

/There's no hate like Talibaptis/evDEVILical hate

Mr. Xhin: Civil Unions will be whatever the law says they are. If the law is written to include all the legal rights and connections of marriage, but without the word, "marriage," it'll be the same.

People said that about the segregationist laws in the 1960s, too.

ceejayoz: People said that about the segregationist laws in the 1960s, too.

Hey! Loving v. Virginia was never meant to apply to gay people loving each other.

Gregory F. Stuart: The "unnecessary problem" is the inherent religious aspect of the condition of being married, since marriage is a religious ceremony which, in my opinion, ought not to be given legal standing.

No. It's an inherent legal activity which religions co-opted in order to give themselves more power.

People who defend the "sanctity of marriage" are morons. Marriage has spent most of history as a form of slavery. Thinking it is somehow sacred is laughable.

Funny how these guys grow a pair as soon as they aren't running for office...

And I like Gore, but thats pretty universal, you never know what they really think until they get out of the dog and pony show...

maybe I fail..
but i don't get it
what does Al Gore, the portal from Timecop and a bearpig have to do with one another?

or is that a Stargate?

Gore was a right wing Democrat in 2000.
Bill Bradley and Ralph Nader ran their campaigns on the concept that he wasn't liberal enough.

He's saying a few liberal things, but he's the same hack as always. He is a Democrat I would never ever EVAR vote for.

The Bestest: or is that a Stargate?

Well, Al Gore was in Final Days with Kevin Spacey, who was in Shipping News with Deborah Grover, who was in Where the Truth Lies, with Kevin Bacon, who is a bearpig.

The Bestest: or is that a Stargate?

Stargate is an old-school badass nerd movie, so freepers just think the image is more 'cool' this way.

I was never a big fan of Mr. Gore when he was VP, but damn I have come to admire him more and more since he left office.

Approves...

Can't subby get some love on the headline? I lol'd all over myself.

+1

Theaetetus: MorningBreath: I'd rather vote for someone who stands up for what they believe in, then someone who won't. I guess that is too much to ask for though.

Out of curiosity, should people be allowed to change their minds on an issue after examining it, or would you call them flip-floppers and waffles?

that wasn't the point of WorldCitizen's post, I was responding to his point about poloticians being afraid to say or do what they think is right.

Gregory F. Stuart:

The "unnecessary problem" is the inherent religious aspect of the condition of being married, since marriage is a religious ceremony which, in my opinion, ought not to be given legal standing.

In other words: if the legal types of marriage discriminate against gay people getting married solely due to religious belief, then the state has violated the Constitution by establishing a religion, by saying that you can't enter into this legal contract because it's against their religious beliefs.

If you want to get "married," go to a farking church, have your worn-out scriptures read, and perform your arcane, bizarre rituals. Your church is free to decide whether or not they want to marry gay people or not, but they don't have any legal authority whatsofarkingever.

If you want to enter a legally binding contract with another person, then you can go to the courthouse and get a civil union, whether you are gay or straight.

THIS

Mr. Xhin: Theaetetus: Mr. Xhin: Civil Unions provide all the legal equivalent that's needed.

... except that they don't - see federal taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin inheritance rights, etc.

We tried "separate but equal" once before, you know.

Civil Unions will be whatever the law says they are. If the law is written to include all the legal rights and connections of marriage, but without the word, "marriage," it'll be the same.

No... not really. From a religious standpoint, the a civil union at the courthouse could (and should) impart all of the rights and responsibilities of a religious marriouge unto a couple, save one. You don't have God's blessing. That should be the part the religious folks are focused on but most miss the point. They are too preoccupied yelling, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" to realize that it is a union between a man, a woman, and God, not a man, a woman and their Congressman.

That being said, take what is a legally recognized marriage, rename it to "civil union" and let anyone that wants to get a civil union get one. Gay people can get the rights that they have been wanting, The Church can still decide who they will and won't let get married.

Everyone wins, except the politicians who won't have that wedge issue to argue over anymore. Sadly that will never happen, because the politicans will never allow their wedge issue to be taken away.

So we're stuck with the church, intruding upon politics by sticking marriage where it doesn't belong and politics intruding upon the church by its continued seizure of the religious institution known as marriage.

He deserves a Hero Tag.

This issue is black and white. Whatever you think of this man elsewhere, he just proved himself a better human being than most Christians.

MorningBreath:
I'd rather vote for someone who stands up for what they believe in, then someone who won't. I guess that is too much to ask for though.

It's easy for him to stand up for what he believes now that it doesn't mean shiat. Like a another poster said, he didn't do it when it counted. I doubt he changed his mind on the issue. He probably supported it in the past but didn't have the balls to say so. He went with the most politically favorite postion. He's just like all the rest.