Via Americans For Prosperity, which had this to say:
Gore’s Hypocrisy Exposed in New Video: His Entourage’s Lincoln Town Car Outside Global Warming Speech Idles w/ AC Cranking for 20 Minutes!
Ed FrankWe’re back from Al Gore’s big global warming speech, and boy did we have a great time! We had a dedicated band of taxpayer advocates out in force, pointing out the high economic cost of global warming alarmism – starting with $8 a gallon gasoline.
Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy — especially the fact that Gore didn’t ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn’t even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore’s wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!
Check it out in our video from the scene:
Here’s that video hosted on Youtube:
Some highlights from the short video expose:
What the audience who will see Gore speak are advised to do:
Gore supporters ignore the advice to take very-very-nearby public transport or bicycle to the event, instead relying on gas-guzzling, carbon-spewing taxis (with only one passenger per taxi!):
As for Gore himself…
And his chaffeur keeps his luxury car idling with air conditioning blasting for 20 minutes, spewing out vast amounts of carbon!
Just so Wife of Gore and Daughter of Gore can enjoy a cool respite from all that horrid global warming – caused by the selfish and uncaring attitudes of you and me, of course! We’re so hateful towards Gaia!
Al Gore’s renown carbon/consumption hypocrisy also covered at Moonbattery, This Goes to 11, Michelle Malkin and The Jawa Report.
Tags: al gore carbon emit, al gore consume, Al Gore hypocrite, al gore pollute, al gore speech, al gore suv, al gore town car
THE SCOTTTCAST 
July 21, 08 at 10:31 pm
His fat white ass is way too tender for a hot dry weather called global warming, so he has all his travel done by electric and coal power engine transportation now to lessen adverse effect of fossile fuel burning carbon emmission.
July 22, 08 at 8:24 am
Don’t take USA politician n supporters words too seriously, they are just playing politic most of the time, expecting them to do something constructive to reduce “global warming” effect, that will need “hell” of a long time to achieve, especially among “fatso” community.
July 22, 08 at 9:25 am
A convenience truth has just being uncovered by you – scot’s blog. the hypocrisy of a WHITE PORKY! politician dirty little secret….in USA.
July 23, 08 at 10:28 am
Teaching us how to reduce carbon emmission is not the same as practising it himself ,do what i say, but not what i do !!! everyone got that?
April 16, 09 at 4:25 am
How AL GORE can stop GLOBAL WARMING by keeping his piehole closed and cutting off all that HOT AIR he is producing with his piehole always open HYUK,HYUK,HYUK SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
July 16, 09 at 3:10 am
Yes, your footage of cars and a guy in a car is unequivocal proof that gore was in those cars and condones their behavior. Footage can be so powerful, but you fail and really only *state* that the AC is running, that the car is idling and that is has been so for 20 minutes. You proved that 4 people attending his talk were idiots…so what? You reveal absolutely no categorizations of how many rode bikes there, how many took transit or walked. You should work for a tabloid my friend.
Man, it must feel so good to export your hard earned money to terrorist, socialist and totalitarian regimes (Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia). If only everyone was as patriotic as you! Tariffs on gas create revenue for the U.S. so we can effectively ween ourselves from such dependency while simultaneously incentivizing alternate means of transport.
By the way, I love your ad hominem approach, because defaming Al Gore is the surest way to make resources unlimited, or at least the perception thereof.
Last, I am startled at the general grammatical deficiencies of your audience.
July 16, 09 at 3:21 pm
If the latter is true, then why have the Democrats consistently stopped Americans from drilling for American oil and gas on American territory? While simultaneously allowing China to drill off American shores?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/despite-energy-crisis-dems-vow-no-new.html
Hey, it worked when Dems did it to Palin.
And if Gore really believes that CO2 is killing us all, then why is he 20 times the polluter as we are?
July 17, 09 at 12:34 am
“And if Gore really believes that CO2 is killing us all, then why is he 20 times the polluter as we are?”
gore purchased his home in 07, it has since been remodeled and retrofitted. I have been unable to find updated numbers. I don’t “buy in to Gore” as much as I reject the null hypothesis (as they have as well) presented by the scientific community that “nothing is happening” and accept (until substantial empirical evidence can be presented to the counter) that AGW is a legitimate threat. How Gore represents himself is of little concern to me or my personal behavior, despite your overwhelming video evidence depicting nothing in particular.
“hey it worked when the dems did it to Palin”
thanks for the straw man…what are we talking about now?
“If the latter is true, then why have the Democrats consistently stopped Americans from drilling for American oil and gas on American territory? While simultaneously allowing China to drill off American shores?”
consider this…”start from where you are”
avoidance of drilling in America has been for a few reasons:
1) why spoil our nature when we can import gas for cheap from a hellhole like the middle east
2) the time between “alright start drilling” and the impact to the American consumer would be no less than 10 years.
So, we lived in relative ignorance of the connection between importing petro and supporting dictatorships until 9/11. now, we need to cut the funding. I am open to any ideas. Cutting demand is the cheapest thing to do.
I believe using the “price at the pump” argument in general is short sighted and fails to acknowledge a host of issues revolving around petroleum consumption. Eventually gas prices will increase, and no government subsidy can make driving an SUV attractive. the population has tripled in the last 50 years, 200 million have come out poverty in China and India in the last 2 decades (and they all want cars too!) and oil is unequivocally finite. you will see $10 a gallon for gas in your lifetime unless we find an alternative. Sure, the market will correct and people will divert their resources elsewhere. however, in the mean time, we fund the doings of Iran, Venezuela, Russia and Saudi Arabia. I am all ears as to how you might suggest to alleviate these concerns WHILE simultaneously ensuring that every American can drive Hummers if they want.
And by the by, i appreciate the conversation and cool tones. All too often blogs/comments/topics of this nature get out of hand and people starting virtual screaming at each other. I am happy to engage in discussion as long as you would like and appreciate having my views challenged. Thanks
Eric
July 17, 09 at 2:54 pm
Updated numbers on Gore: His mansion’s green upgrades failed to stop his energy use from increasing: http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
His ‘buy carbon credits’ stance works great when he owns the company that sells them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management
And buys them from himself: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Earning him at least 35 million out of the people flocking to offset their evil exhalations: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7li9Nhmhvg0&refer=home
——————————-
This argument is countered by several facts:
a) Like I mentioned, China and other foreign nations are drilling around America anyway. So it’s lose-lose for Americans who get all the risk of pollution and none of the oil.
b) How about that ANWR? If drilling were to be carried out there, it would be like a postage stamp on the tennis court of the ANWR: http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/index.php/2008/06/27/postal-crazy/
Not that the ANWR is much of a pristine paradise in the first place: http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/2008/06/my-anwr-photo-gallery.html
c) Last year’s $4 gas anyone? If American companies drilled for American oil, OPEC wouldn’t be able to exercise such a stranglehold.
———————————-
The thing about this argument is that it was already being thrown around ten years ago. So we’ll wait another ten years and suggest drilling now, and have it shot down as taking ten years to get results.
———————————-
Wait, didn’t you just say America should import gas from these hellholes?
Cutting demand is cheap and easy, but without cost-and-productivity efficient energy alternatives suitable countermeasures would result in a recession – both in economy and in civilizational advancement.
———————————-
Actually, contrary to my carefully cultivated and cherished ultra-neocon image, my views on energy are pretty middle ground.
There needs to be a switch away from fossil fuels – not because of CO2 production killing Gaia (which as you know I think is bunk), but because of eventual depletion, non-CO2 pollutants (lookit Beijing’s skies, CO2 is soooo far down the list of priorities) and your aforementioned point about hellhole terrorist sponsors.
However, forcing a rush into premature green technology is not the way to go. As I have blogged and written to the papers before, I support a gradual weaning away from fossil fuels, using carrots (economic incentives) rather than sticks (carbon laws and taxes) to make clean energy economically attractive. Hey, when oil hits $200 a barrel, hybrids and solar arrays become relatively cheap! (I want a hybrid myself, but the down payment…)
I also support investment in new technologies – such as clean, no-radiation nuclear fusion (polywell reactor), which was last year given a 200 million USD research boost by the US Navy.
But what I cannot stand is the combination of careless agenda-laden shoddily-executed ‘science’, playing to emotions fearmongering, smearing of all skeptics as kooks, and self-enriching while preaching that is found in the whole global warming non-debate.
I was a believer. I studied the data, found that it contradicted the claims of global warming, and became a skeptic. I’m treated like a moron and a shill for big oil because of it – because I used my brain instead of sucking up the daily news like a sponge. How do you think I feel?
There is a reason skeptics often call global warming the new religion, complete carbon indulgences, apocalyptic scenarios and excommunications of the unbelieving ‘heretics’.
———————————-
Likewise. I tend to take on the tone of the commentor.
———————————-
PS.
Here’s my compilation of quick facts that refute global warming: http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/
Short excerpts:
– Temperatures have dropped 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit (0.41 degrees Celcius) since Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth
– Historical data shows that temperature always rises first, followed 800 years LATER by carbon dioxide levels
– The amount of CO2 being released by humans is only 3.4% of all CO2 emissions; humans contribute only 0.28% of the greenhouse effect
– The wavelength of radiation carbon dioxide has been shown to absorb is actually so narrow, it is already mostly absorbed by other gases such as water vapor; more CO2 won’t increase the effect once all the radiation is being absorbed
– The oceans have been cooling since 2003
– Sea ice is growing at the fastest rate ever recorded
– Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels, meaning no net melting has occurred in 30 years
– Antarctic ice is at highest levels ever recorded and still expanding
– The year 2008 saw colder temperatures or record cold in the USA, China, Pakistan, Mumbai, Vietnam in decades; and snow in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and UAE for the first time in a century.
Every fact is sourced from reputable news or science sites like BBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, Agence France Presse and NASA. http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/ has direct links to these sites at each fact.
July 17, 09 at 3:58 pm
thats a bunch. ill get back to you
July 17, 09 at 5:36 pm
Scott-
The link (http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764) appears to be broken. I am still interested in updated figures.
As for his involvement with Carbon Credits; I will not defend his actions. In any event, I give little weight to the matters of people (Bush family ties w/Saudis, Sarah Palin whatever, Michael Jackson and kids…).
I personally favor a straight forward pollution tax (not strictly grounded in CO2 emissions) as I feel that pollution as an externality is BS and should be a cost of doing business. More discussion on this topic can be found here (http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1997/TaxWaste_sum.pdf)
I don’t think carbon credits are transparent enough, though perhaps a step in the right direction ideologically, to be effective.
While the area of exploration in ANWR may be small, the DOE suggests that the reward is not great (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm)
I am not fully up to speed on China’s drilling procedures, but I assume you reference this (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html)
I would say, namely, that the reason we are not there is because, according to this article, it is cooperation with Fidel Castro.
The relative beauty of the area (ANWR) is assumedly irrelevant because it is a wildlife refuge and not a national park.
American drilling couldn’t possibly compete with the importing of almost 2 billion barrels of crude yearly (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_IMPCUS_D_NUS_ME0_MBBL_A.htm). This is compared with the estimated with the TOTAL yield from ANWR of 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels. That is enough to last, obviously, between 3 and 8 years…starting 10 years from today.
If, on the contrary, after 9/11 Bush had implemented a $1 tariff on gas (raising it to 3 something a gallon) it would have a sent a strong message to OPEC (we understand your operation…don’t support it), provided revenue for change and would have been wholly backed by the people. Military enrollment skyrocketed, im sure they would have bought into $1 increase. Since we still went to $4+ anyway, that would have been a secure way to divert funds from export. However, hindsight is 20/20. I merely raise the point to show that drilling is not the only solution.
Drilling and nuclear face similar problems. Every day that passes makes the investment become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the demand outweighs the potential supply when increasing demand and not supply over time. As well, inaction makes a case for continued inaction (well…this is how we have always done it…). The take home, however, is that there is insufficient oil to make an impact RIGHT NOW and carry us much into the future. The cost of exploration, rig construction, drilling, pipelining and refining could easily be spent to improve the grid, improve MPG technology and electrify a portion of the auto fleet (theoretically the new cars rolled in the 10 years until end user can use oil from ANWR).
“Wait, didn’t you just say America should import gas from these hellholes?”
*did* not *should* – if I said should, I meant did. I am unequivocally opposed to continued support of such regimes.
“Cutting demand is cheap and easy, but without cost-and-productivity efficient energy alternatives suitable countermeasures would result in a recession – both in economy and in civilizational advancement.”
It is cheap and easy…in a free market. The troublesome headache of our faux free market is that no one will admit they are taking handouts. Every industry is guilty. Period. I am not suggesting we go in that direction, but simply offer that if we are going to subsidize anything, it might as well be something that will alleviate a host of socio, political, environmental, energy and foreign policy problems. However, since such subsidy is rarely based on logic, reason or evidence for the good of the country, this is a useless exercise.
I suppose what I am getting at is, take every source of energy, create a hierarchy of costs, benefits, perceived risks, shovelreadiness, time to scale and so on and provide reasonable incentive to complete them in such order. I know, in a perfect world.
I wholly reject your notion of failure to advance the civilization. Read “Hot, Flat and Crowded” by Thomas Friedman for a more in depth look at that. Essentially, green tech has the potential to address such a multitude of problems (up to and including one of the most important…selling the tech to polluted-to-shit China) that we cannot afford to wait. The alternative is they develop it through their own market factors and sell it to the laggards in the U.S. I am for exports.
“There needs to be a switch away from fossil fuels – not because of CO2 production killing Gaia (which as you know I think is bunk), but because of eventual depletion, non-CO2 pollutants (lookit Beijing’s skies, CO2 is soooo far down the list of priorities) and your aforementioned point about hellhole terrorist sponsors.”
I agree. I could, but won’t – im sure you are aware, list 10 global factors EXCLUDING AGW that make such advancement important.
Carbon tax is an incentive. Carbon laws are not. Consider this: Corp A produces widgets. As such, they get taxed on each widget produced. They also produce pollution, of which none is taxed. Switch a portion of the tax from work to waste (see tax waste not work article) and you create an incentive to produce more (less tax on increased production) and pollute less. Overall, taxation is reduced because of the ability to lower pollution. I can assure you, these are mutually attainable goals with the right mindset.
Not all advancement comes in terms of purchase and energy. It is highly touted that efficiency is a part of the trifecta (technology, efficiency and conservation…possibly among other minor players) that will “save us,” if you will. Efficiency will not ruin the economy.
Efficiency saves money. Efficiency automatically engineers competition into consumption in terms of reduction. I would maintain that gradual weaning (absent AGW topics) is not fast enough to address the booming population, rise of the 3rd world, empowerment of petro dictators and diminishing resources.
“I also support investment in new technologies – such as clean, no-radiation nuclear fusion (polywell reactor), which was last year given a 200 million USD research boost by the US Navy.”
Nukes get a bad rap. As mentioned, they get more expensive each day NOT explored and that is used to justify the argument. They are astronomically expensive (to the tune of $4000 kWh in overnight costs – roughly $4T to meet our 2050 demand) but do offer substantial potential. Only time will tell for nuclear of any variety. (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf) – source for costs.
“But what I cannot stand is the combination of careless agenda-laden shoddily-executed ’science’, playing to emotions fearmongering, smearing of all skeptics as kooks, and self-enriching while preaching that is found in the whole global warming non-debate.”
That appears to be primarily addressed at Al Gore and the Hockey Stick. As mentioned, I don’t pretend to be aware of his intentions. Otherwise, that is primarily an emotional outcry towards the situation…I got nothing for you there.
“I studied the data, found that it contradicted the claims of global warming, and became a skeptic.”
I honestly find that hard to believe. The farther I dig into the argument, that more complicated the information becomes. In such a light, this is where I take my side. I find that the skeptic side breaks down when we start talking about Milankovitch cycles, cosmic rays and so on. We could swap sources all day and say that one is not this or that. I rely, among other sources, mostly on Climate Progress, the blog edited by Joseph Romm of MIT and the work that comes from the IPCC. Since neither of us are scientists, I feel that the exercise in debating climate change is more one of masochism. As such, here is a link to address climate skeptics. In case you want to explore. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
I see you have a list of things describing your argument on AGW. I would contend many of your assumptions are false. You can see what myths (as I might describe you of perpetuating) are rebutted within the site. I really have no intention of debating it with you, we’ve drawn our lines.
“I’m treated like a moron and a shill for big oil because of it – because I used my brain instead of sucking up the daily news like a sponge. How do you think I feel?”
Well, that all depends on where you live. In the coastal states, yea, that’s the story. In the Midwest, you might be right at home…who knows. I don’t watch the news, its garbage.
“There is a reason skeptics often call global warming the new religion, complete carbon indulgences, apocalyptic scenarios and excommunications of the unbelieving ‘heretics’.”
Perhaps at some point irrefutable evidence will be presented for either side and we can put it to bed. Unlikely…but here’s hoping. I feel that there is a lot of misdirected hate at Al Gore. In my own blog posts, I link them to my facebook, people will reply with Al Gore bashing…
The man isn’t a scientist, nor pretends to be. But, Americans like to get worked up, so worked up they have become. It really doesn’t matter who it was or what the topic…a life altering change has been presented…im not surprised.
I really have to restrain from getting into the AGW stuff. I see a bunch of fairly egregious errors…but…man, it’s just punishment to discuss this stuff. If you want to take a completely separate offshoot, I might be willing to engage. In the mean time, let’s stick to the content aforementioned, if of course, that’s cool with you.
Eric
July 17, 09 at 6:08 pm
It seems that we have a lot in common despite our different conclusions regarding how to go about things.
To put it briefly, I favour an approach that carries us further up the tech tree and further away from finite, polluting and politically self-defeating ‘old tech’ such as fossil fuels. However, it must not substantially detract from the progress of human living standards.
As such, I feel that arbitrary penalties such as carbon caps are undesirable. All that achieves is the enrichment of government, increase in prices that reach consumers, and the usual side-stepping by businesses. Europe has proven this, with massive losses to carbon fines, increased energy costs and NO decrease in CO2 emissions since Kyoto Treaty was implemented there.
I have read in Newsweek calculations for what is required to fulfill the predicted world energy demands in 2050 without breaking the CO2 limit suggested by the Climate Bill. Relying on current energy tech with their current inefficiencies, solar would require something like paneling a few hundreds roofs every day until 2050. Nuclear would require two new plants finished every day until 2050. And so on.
AGW is a contentious issue for me because it has basically overtaken and overshadowed every other environmental and humanitarian concern on the table. Rainforest preservation? Who cares, cut them down and plant those biofuels… Unless it uncovers peat bogs which release CO2! Choking smog in Beijing? Who cares, get them to reduce their CO2 emissions first! Clean water for Africa? Who cares, we’ll all die from the worldwide drought anyway!
And all based on what I see as quite flimsy evidence and methodology.
I’ll be honest, if AGW is better proven (which I am not sure they’ll bother with since, in their mind, the ‘science is settled’), I will accept those parts of its claims which are proven. This would be similar to my stance of evolution – from automatic believer, to doubter, to warming up to it again (fyi because of the DNA link between dinos and birds).
Oh, and we hate Al Gore because he hated us first :p
July 18, 09 at 2:28 am
I can leave this as settled, I essentially come to the same conclusion as you. with one big but….
Rainforest deforestation poses an exceptionally large threat.
1) rainforests contain 1000’s of species that hold keys to solving many human illness issues.
2) deforestation creates desertification. As in, when there are fewer trees there to absorb the rainfall, buffer the heat and provide shelter to other plants and organinisms the desert encroaches. This impacts out ability to feed ourselves as well as have access to future resources..as they will not grow back once a desert is present.
3) David Suzuki a zoologist speaking in “The 11th Hour” suggests that we, as humans, oft understate the ecosystem as it is as an economic driver. Consider the simple role of photo synthesis and pollination, both integral in creating oxygen and furthering plant life for our consumption/animal – our consumption. A rough estimate is that in order to replicate the role of forests and bees with technology to provide a habitable planet for people, it would cost $35 Trillion. The world economies combined tipped the scales at somewhere around $25 Trillion (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf). That would be an exceptional world challenge.
4) Humans, I feel, continually seperate themselves philosophically from the environment…as if they are not part of it. We are inextricably tied to the planet; this notion is false.
so aside from that caveat…yea, im with you.
July 18, 09 at 2:32 am
i just read your bit on evolution…not to excessively open other cans of worms, but evolution is undeniably true. Do not confuse the “origin of all life” with “how we got to where we are.” You may, i suppose, reject the big bang theory but accept that of evolution at the same time. Genetic variation, mutation, niche filling and natural selection are supported to the point where you would have to adopt a fairly rigorous religious position to look at the evidence and still come to a false conclusion.
July 18, 09 at 10:54 am
I totally support the protection and conservation of rainforests. However, I am pragmatic/cynical regarding human nature. If locals can make big or quick bucks from chopping down the hardwood, and then even more bucks every year by planting cash crops, why would they stop ‘for the sake of humanity as a whole’? It’s not like the First World, which long ago strip mined their own natural resources for cash, is lending them much of a hand.
I actually subscribe to big bang theory, as the evidence matches the predictions (red shift etc). Whereas for evolution, actual transition to a new species has yet to be demonstrated, and there remains the question of irreducible complexity.
For myself, ‘evidence’ such as fossils of mammals with whale-like bones and stubby legs felt very circumstantial – who’s to say it isn’t a fossil of a creature that resembles a whale, but is not actually an ancestor? Recently, the DNA link between therapod dinosaurs and modern birds has helped win me over somewhat, as I find DNA similarities to be far less likely to be coincidental.
July 18, 09 at 11:39 am
Part of discussed “carbon schemes” is to pay poor rural 3rd worlders to NOT chop em down. Such practice yields other problems, but its an idea for the moment.
For a debunking of irreducible complexity, see this video:
There are mosquitoes in London that have evolved into a new species (key word…separate distinction of another species) within the subway system:
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
the fact that we witness one species do it, right in front of our eyes is demonstration of possibility. Given a 4 billion year time period (which you acknowledge via big bang) anything is possible. paired with the removal of irreducible complexity from the argument, evolution is the most plausible of all explanations by a long shot.
“For myself, ‘evidence’ such as fossils of mammals with whale-like bones and stubby legs felt very circumstantial – who’s to say it isn’t a fossil of a creature that resembles a whale, but is not actually an ancestor? Recently, the DNA link between therapod dinosaurs and modern birds has helped win me over somewhat, as I find DNA similarities to be far less likely to be coincidental.”
There are viruses that make imprints on DNA, as such, a genetic marker can be tracked throughout time because common ancestry will have the same uniquely mutated trait. There are lineages of species demonstrated to have this. Unless an exact replica of that virus (nearly impossible considering mutation rates of viruses) impacted the exact genetic marker of an animal (1 in a billion odds or more…) then this is exceptional evidence for the decent of species from common ancestry. I cannot find the article at the article at the moment; if my assertion is insufficient, I will work on that.
chimps, bonobos and humans (the “3rd chimpanzee” – richard Diamond) are 98% genetically similar. For a thorough briefing on why there is such a gap between humans and their next common ancestor, read 3rd chimpanzee. Basically, as we got smarter, competition became oriented towards total extinction as opposed to establishing boundaries. As such, the “2nd smartest” human population was always wiped out as we started farming..making tools etc.
October 15, 09 at 2:18 pm
Al Gore is aannoying liberal why dont he keep his piehole closed so he,ll cut back on all that HOT AIR he is producing with his open piehole
October 15, 09 at 2:27 pm
mad blue bird-
exceptional contribution. i am glad that with all of the content available on this comment section you found such a critical and intriguing thought to leave us with…or, you’re joking, no one is THAT illiterate, right?
January 27, 10 at 3:27 pm
reduce carbon emition with this The hybrid sports utility vehicles (SUVs) are high performance vehicles that are compatible to using two distinct sources of power- the gasoline engine and the electric motor. The ‘milder’ hybrids are dependent primarily on the gas engine. They use a small electric motor/ generator to supplement this.