# Liberal conservation vs. conservative conservation



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I love to point out hypocrisy . This is an email I received today:

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 ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the 
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for 
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural 
gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property 
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. 
This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. 
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 contains only 4,000 square feet (4 
bedrooms) and is nestled on 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 winter and cools it in 
summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, 
and it consumes 25% of the 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. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the 
property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and 
filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, 
Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private 
residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.


----------



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

Interesting.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Dumb!! This is evidence that Global Warming does not exist as a man made event. Is this what you are saying? Illogic logic!



> The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas,
> and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional
> heating/cooling system.


and where do you think the electricity comes from??? Solar or wind power?

If President Bush built his home to be evironmentally friendly, I commend him. Does Gore's house make him a hypocrit? You will have a hard time convincing me because I think he believes in Global Warming and that man can make a difference. You discredit the man not for what he believes but you discredit him because of his party affiliation. Your logic is illogic because you then are saying that if you are a republican and believe in global warming as a man influenced event that you are also a bad republican and I know that there a lot of republicans who believe in global warming as a man influenced event. Of course they do not exist in this forum. Hear we only walk the party line, lest we be accused of being hypocrits. Is Al Gore a hypocrit? No more than the rest of the republicans who believe in global warming being a man influenced event. Hypocracy is not for Democrats only but also affects the party of self righteous republicans.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Dumb!!


Dumb???????? Not if you got the point Rooster.



> and where do you think the electricity comes from??? Solar or wind power?


There shouldn't be anyone who can read that would not understand that of course his electricity comes from somewhere. That isn't the point. The point is he is only using 25 percent what an average home would use.

The other point is that Gore who advocates conservation is an energy glutton.

Please tell me you understand and were just being partisan.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Hey Plainsman ...

But Algore buys "Carbon Credits" ... (from a company he has close financial ties with)

As I understand it.

And that makes it all GOOD


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, just like they beak even every time the cheat our soldiers but tie a yellow ribbon around a tree somewhere. Symbolism over substance. Ask a sodier if he would rather send another $100 home to his family or have a yellow ribbon around their mailbox.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Dumb!! This is evidence that Global Warming does not exist as a man made event. Is this what you are saying? Illogic logic!


Wow, How on earth could anyone have possibly come away with that conclusion from the OPs post. There just has to be some kind of award somewhere for that kind of thinking.....


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

No Gohon this is your whole basis for your anti sentiment towards Al 
Gore. You do not believe that Global Warming is a man made event. It is so simple. Have you forgot what you believe in? Where do you guys get all your paranoia when it comes to Al Gore? Looks like the supreme court is also in agreement with the premise of global warming being a man made event but oh well only republicans build environmentally friendly homes. Just look at this topic. It's all black and white and Al Gore is a big hypocrit! I said it once and I will say it again this is dumb, dumb, dumb!!! Sorry, for the 3 peat!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Anyone know what kind of house Dick Cheney lives in, not that I care or anything? Actually if George W doesn't believe that global warming is a man made event then he would be a hypocrit for buidling an environmentally friendly house according to Gohon and Plainsman. Why support something you don't believe in? Such is the illogic of their logic!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> You do not believe that Global Warming is a man made event


And if you do then you are a fool just like Gore except Gore makes the claim just to line his pocket. You on the other hand simply don't know what the you are talking about on this subject. Man is a contributing factor to global warming, everyone has said many, many, many times and mostly just for you, but global warming is not strictly man made. There are other contributing factors. As much as it would be a strain on brain power, try to understand the difference.

The Supreme court ruling, if it is the one I assume you are talking about was about legal authority of the EPA's issuing authority. The two questions facing the court which came about because the EPA was not sure of it's authority to regulate green house gasses under the Clean Air Act were derived from two questions the EPA was uncertain about.

(1) Are greenhouse gases covered as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and does EPA thus have the authority to regulate global warming pollution?
(2) If EPA does have that authority, does it have the right to refuse to regulate such emissions based on political or other considerations unrelated to the endangerment to human health and welfare?

The courts answer was that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and EPA has the authority to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. The court also said that EPA can decide not to regulate "only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change, or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.

The decision of the Supreme court was about legal authority, not whether global warming exists or not. Your constant inability to comprehend what you are reading or listening to and often out of context remarks are amusing most of the time but at other times it really is tiring.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> Anyone know what kind of house Dick Cheney lives in, not that I care or anything? Actually if George W doesn't believe that global warming is a man made event then he would be a hypocrit for buidling an environmentally friendly house according to Gohon and Plainsman. Why support something you don't believe in? Such is the illogic of their logic!


Now how did you get to having an environmentally friendly house would be hypocritical according to me???? How about the savings when you use only 25% as much electricity? I do however think Bush knows there is some human contribution, and has taken steps to be socially responsible.
Also Rooster, I have never said there is not global warming. I have said that no one, and I mean no one, knows what portion of the phenomenon is contributed by man. That would be an extremely difficult if not impossible and expensive task. 
Moreover, I have often advocated steps such as wetland preservation as a means of mitigating mans contribution. This would also provide fringe benefits such as habitat enhancement which alone would justify the expense. Mitigation is a very good alternative until technology for cleaner power sources are available. 
With all that said I think Al Gore has a chicken little complex and is going about this all wrong. There are ways to be environmentally responsible that will not drive the American economy into the crapper. Most conservatives are willing to start doing something now to minimize the human aspect of global warming. Liberals however are not satisfied unless it hurts companies, and the larger the company the better. You can't hurt companies, they pass expense along to the customer. It will hurt the poor most. Just like you liberals like to say, "minorities and women will be hurt most". Global warming "minorities and women will be hurt most". Drought in Europe, "minorities and women will be hurt most". Floods in Louisiana, "minorities and women will be hurt most:. Punish large companies, "minorities and women will be hurt most.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Seems to me like a perfect example ...

Conservatives ... *DO* things.

Liberals (in particular Liberal Politians) *TALK* about things.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

> Liberals however are not satisfied unless it hurts companies, and the larger the company the better. You can't hurt companies, they pass expense along to the customer. It will hurt the poor most. Just like you liberals like to say, "minorities and women will be hurt most". Global warming "minorities and women will be hurt most". Drought in Europe, "minorities and women will be hurt most". Floods in Louisiana, "minorities and women will be hurt most:. Punish large companies, "minorities and women will be hurt most.


Liberals want to punish large companies????? Where did you "read" this one??? As Gohon would say, "Where is the Beef?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, come on Rooster listen to the liberal commentators on any of the news networks. They always make big oil companies look like villains. Remember how they jumped all over Microsoft. From a liberal point of view you would think profit was a sin. I didn't look for references, because I considered it common knowledge. Isn't this something everyone knows? These are things I hear on radio and TV so it's hard to quote, so lets just say I'm the source. Now listen and see if I am not right. 
Profits are up, someone is being scammed. Profits are up, they aren't paying their fair share in taxes. Profits are up, head corporate CEO's are scamming their stockholders etc. They think every company is an Enron clone. 
As far as the statement "it's going to hurt minorities and women most". I have heard that quote nearly every time something bad is happening, like the hurricane in New Orleans.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Exxon profits are all made by honest business decisions. I'm all for free enterprise. Is this what your are talking about??


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

WOW - This piece of internet hand-me-down passed the SNOPES test!

That really makes me think. Thanks guys!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> Exxon profits are all made by honest business decisions. I'm all for free enterprise. Is this what your are talking about??


How did I know you would bring up Exxon, and I am real surprised you didn't bring up Enron. 
I think Exxon manipulates the market. I would bet money on it, and even though I am for some type of control or they would rob us, I am reluctant to interfere with free enterprise. The problem leaves me scratching my head. I don't want this country to be socialist, but I don't want every company out there trying to take away every penny we have. I would rather see companies compete than finding ways to rob us. But what is a good option?

Yes, within the law they are honest business men, but jerks. Big, big jerks, that don't deserve half of what they are honestly earning. Jerks!!!!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

NJS,
I have asked this before. What makes snopes the gospel? :eyeroll: Do they have an agenda? :eyeroll: Do they have their own spin? :eyeroll: 
Just asking. I don't trust anyone except Plainsman :lol:


----------

