Thursday, October 4, 2007

Gore and Thompson together

I think the truth about Gore's movie is finally coming out:

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

And Fred Thompson is not the white Knight we Republicans hoped for.

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.

Thompson spoke about the issue after touring an ethanol plant, one of dozens in Iowa, which leads the nation in ethanol production. The actor and former Tennessee senator was finishing a five-day trip to the state, where precinct caucuses begin the presidential nominating process

Fred needs only to tour an ethanol plant to reverse his position. Hmmm - not bad. It might help him if he did a little research on the subject. I wonder how Fred Thompson does when he needs to buy a new car? Does he actually believe what the salesmen tell him without checking out the car himself. Maybe he does. Corn ethanol is subsidized by the government, is corrosive, and economically not feasible. Remember the MTBE fiasco. Ethanol is not the answer.

Maybe, he only needs to visit planned parenthood to see a crying teenager to reverse his position on abortion.

I think Rudy Guliani is our last great hope - don't blow it


Rybu said...

I'm interested in hearing more from Thompson, I'm glad its official now. Hard to imagine voting for an actor, what is this 1980?

Also, how did this "anti-environmentalism" come to be? Rush says its shoddy science and then the right cries foul? I don't understand why its so terrible to be pro-environment.

Statistics can show anything but I feel like the recent attack on environmentalist causes is like an OJ defense. The glove doesn't fit you must acquit- so a few scientists and a few studies contradict others, that means we should all leave our trucks running all night?

As long as we're not teaching creationism in school I guess I'll be ok.

Thoughts of a genius mind said...


I am going to comment on the debate in a bit, but I thought I would just answer some of your observations. I am not as enamored of Thompson as some conservatives tend to be. I don't see him as awe inspiring as I had hoped. He is definitely not Reagan. Although, I think he would be infinitely better than Hillary, I think Hillary would have him for lunch in a debate. He didn't make any egregious mistake in the debate, but he was not exciting. When Reagan ran, you listened. Reagan was a great orator. Thompson is not.

I am not anti-environmentalist, and I don't think Rush is. When we talk about the environmentalist wackos, we are talking about the extremist environmentalists who have no rational in their agenda.

Environmentalists like the Sierra club have prevented us from cleaning the forests. This has resulted in needless forest fires.

So-called environmentalists have prevented us from becoming energy independant by preventing us from building safe nuclear power plants, and drilling for oil where we know there is oil.

There needs to be a balance between capitalism and protecting the environment. We can do both. I am pro-environment, and I am pro-capitalist, and you can have both.

Dr Wattenburg, a nuclear scientist has written and posted a lot about the agenda of the Sierra club and their ilk here Check it out.

Thanks for your coment

Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member