Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sure, depending on the show.
That's the problem with you, you made assumptions about people you who you don't know well (unless your a shade, then your just not paying attention)and really look silly.
I seem to be the only Democrat in the hornet's nest. I chose to disagree about Gore and Fonda, and I was labelled. A limosine liberal. All kinds of ****. Immediately. Read the threads.
Now, you want to put away the labels and have a debate - then I will stop baiting.
Here is Gore's problem:
He's not chicken little. He's chicken *****. He wrote Earth in the Balance in the 90's, and then wouldn't touch environmental issues with a 10 foot poll in 2000 when they weren't tracking well with his handlers.
Even with Clinton getting hummers, he was running on 5 years of boom and no war, no terror. That he lost, even with Florida irregularities, is ridiculous. Now, with nothing on the line he comes back for this film. So he has something, so he wont be forgotten.
He does more harm than good. All the wingnuts immediately see he is the host and write the film off, and go looking for counterspin.
It's the same with Jane Fonda. She is the butt of every vietnam invective in the last ten years of CK/WB/AH. You know what? She's an idiot, she was used. She was used by the French director who made her do Barbarella, she was used by Tom Hayden who got her to become anti-war, and she was used by Ted Turner as a trophy wife. Go after Hayden, he actually benefitted from his stance on Vietnam.
So really, when there is very little room for listening and debate - don't accuse me of being arrogant. THe height of arrogance is refusing to even look at what a large group of scientists is saying is an issue and instead bashing the messenger.
