Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by ripsrips, Jan 22, 2009.
The Wealth Report - WSJ.com : Obama Inauguration Sets Record for Private Jets
ahem ... that's hypocrisy :shhh::wink:
Yep - to be expected
1) Thank you ManlyBanisters
2) Barack's not paying for it with tax money or anything, so what does it matter? The people who own the planes can do what they want.
The government did pay for four people to fly to Texas in a 747.
actually, I understood the poster to be making a statement, not a typing error
Looks like both to me.
What's the statement, if the error was indeed intentional that is?
Could it be that the article crying about overuse of corporate jets was published in the Wall Street Journal of all places?
My understanding is that viewership of his swearing in also set record numbers. Perhaps we had better alert the media to that as well. Unless you are linking the number of private jets to global warming or other ecology related matters, I can't see why you'd be so bent out of shape on this. The term private jets means they are privately owned and not a burden on the U.S. finances.
In fact, the inauguration set several records. What's Hippocratic about this particular one, doc?
Celebrities, politicians, and bigwigs using 600 private jets will produce 25,320,000 POUNDS of CO2
Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 POUNDS of CO2
In the parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 POUNDS of CO2
The total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 575 million POUNDS of CO2
It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new president’s housewarming party.
...all from a party who preaches "green"
Can't imagine the carbon footprint.:biggrin1:
And if Obama had canceled the public show and the parade you'd be bitching about that too. Get a life.
The 44th president of these here United States also happens to be black, a first in our country.
Maybe for that reason, extra folks showed up? More private jets than usual? The government may have paid for some of them to show up, in any case it was a one time deal and a history making one at that.
Are these people to be punished for the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of all these trips?
Maybe with the freeze on government salaries over 100K, those trips will wind up paying for themselves one way or another? LOL
I'm not buying those numbers, ripsrips. You're including personal vehicles in the total, but it's likely that had the attenders not been at the inauguration, they would have been driving their vehicles to work/school/daycare/etc.
You've included horses, and the CO₂ they produce. Would these horses have not produced CO₂ had they remained in their stables on January 20?
A fairer figure would have been to cite not the total amount of CO₂ produced, but the differential -- the amount that would not have been produced under normal circumstances. Fairer still would have been to find the CO₂ differential per person and establish whether that differential is greener or less green than other inaugurations (I suspect it's actually greener: I'd expect more Priuses and fewer Hummers among the Obama attendees than among the Bush attendees.)
But then again, fairness isn't what you were going for, was it?
Has it really come to this? Have the majority of our conservative trolls become so desperate to find flaws in our new administration that they want to start a thread about THIS? Unbelieveable.
When you're done focusing on this frivolous topic and want to talk real issues, such as the conservative base and their RELIGIOUS HYPOCRACY, give me a shout.
Well now I have a defense when I'm gunning down the Obama's energy police when they try and seize my gas guzzler V10.
"Hey, hands off! This is a private vehicle. No tax money was used! <blast> <blast>."
That will come in handy for men like me who don't worship at the alter of the Church of Global Warming.
So, let me see if I understand this.
If a person accepts that global climate change is real, and advocates for the political and social changes necessary to protect our future, then that person can no longer do anything that produces CO2 without being called a hypocrite? So all the artifacts of modern US life, whether we think it is good for the long term or not, have to end immediately?
Ripsrips, I had no idea you were such an environmental extremist.
This is a pretty tough standard.
Now that's a straw man argument if I ever saw one. Why don't you talk about what the man actually said and stop misrepresenting what he said?