or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should Al Gore Run again ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should Al Gore Run again ? - Page 2

post #41 of 255
Add some USEFUL commentary or ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #42 of 255
Looks like Al and Tipper are going to donate the proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Assholes.

They, like, burn jet fuel and stuff.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #43 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Just out of curiosity, how does jetting around on private planes to lecture others about buying carbon offsets contribute to world peace?


Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #44 of 255
Isn't the concept of "carbon offsets" kinda like sinning all you want during the week, then going to confession on Sunday?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #45 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Isn't the concept of "carbon offsets" kinda like sinning all you want during the week, then going to confession on Sunday?

It all depends if you're playing the game of holier-than-thou, of using it against someone when they don't play holier-than-thou, or focus on practical benefits and end results.

This is not like a preacher who rails against homosexuality while having a gay affair on the side. The preacher says that all homosexuality is wrong, not that there's, say, a maximum safe limit for gay sex, and that we have to be careful not to exceed it. There's no escaping the blatant hypocrisy there.

Gore is "preaching" about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as "sinful" each and every C02-generating act. Of course, if you're eager to tar someone with the label "hypocrite", it's easier to simplify everything down to matters of symbolic piety.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #46 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #47 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Looks like Al and Tipper are going to donate the proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Assholes.

They, like, burn jet fuel and stuff.

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

This is especially in good taste to do if you happen to declare that you want to take back the night and "stuff" like that.

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

This is especially in good taste to do if you happen to declare that you want to take back the night and "stuff" like that.

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.

I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Nick

Great post.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #49 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

a maximum safe limit for gay sex

Richard Simmons has been researching this in a double-blind study with Sen. Craig recently and has not yet discovered a "maximum safe level." The research continues. Fabulous!

Carbon credits are a scam. The carbon indulgence industry and associated buzz are the best racket since Social Security and income tax withholding. What exactly are poor people, who cannot afford to have their guilt absolved, supposed to do? Oh, wait a minute, we can create a government program to address that "inequality." A carbon credit in every pot.

Gore must be sitting around with Tipper in shocked amazement at how well the whole racket is going. I mean, this is MUCH more profitable than that whole PMRC thing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #50 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Isn't the concept of "carbon offsets" kinda like sinning all you want during the week, then going to confession on Sunday?

It works for 1.2 Billion christians... why not me...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #51 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


Woah! Was that the Winnebago from Spaceballs?

Introducting Spaceballs, the Carbon Credit! Moooy-chen-dizing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #52 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

This is especially in good taste to do if you happen to declare that you want to take back the night and "stuff" like that.

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.



I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Nick

It's much better to eat freshly aborted fetuses and newborn babies, no meat tenderizers needed! Eat them before they breed or bleed! Try the baby or fetus backstraps, Mmmm..., Mmmm..., Good!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #53 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

It's much better to eat freshly aborted fetuses and newborn babies, no meat tenderizers needed! Eat them before they breed or bleed! Try the baby or fetus backstraps, Mmmm..., Mmmm..., Good!



post #54 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

Al Gore is not in any way analogous to a rapist who afterwards compensates his victims.

That analogy is disturbing and inappropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Carbon offsets are not in any way analogous to murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.

Can you be more specific?

Al Gore is not a "good person" because he follows up his "good intentions" with "terrible actions?" That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. We're not considering whether Al Gore is a "good person." Maybe he's a total jerk for all we know. Maybe he kicks his dog, berates his wife, and ignores his kids. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his lifelong advocacy in bringing awareness to global warming and climate change issues. How the substance of his advocacy is undermined by "terrible actions" is baffling in how far it misconstrues Al Gore's message.

Al Gore's critics completely misconstrue his message as pertaining to criticizing personal energy use. As Shetline points out, "Gore is 'preaching' about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as 'sinful' each and every C02-generating act." The problems he addresses and the solutions he advances are primarily systemic in nature, not individual. If we're scrutinizing Al Gore, the relevant question is whether he supports other policies systemic in nature that conflict with his global warming and climate change advocacy. For instance, does he support subsidies for energy companies for uses other than clean or renewable energy? Does he support trade subsidies for companies known to engage in rain forest deforestation? Does he support the interests of auto companies instead of environmental groups in not supporting raising CAFE standards? If global warming is a planetary emergency, what interests could possibly trump the earth's on the policy level?

That would partially undermine his advocacy unless otherwise explainable.

I'm trying here.
post #55 of 255
I can't read what he said but you guys must be on to something to get Jubelum to post so many times in a row. Probably struck a nerve.

Unfortunately he's not going to run. I think he knows himself that he got a lot farther for his cause not being in office. When you're president you have to compromise somewhat. Otherwise you end up like Bush.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

It all depends if you're playing the game of holier-than-thou, of using it against someone when they don't play holier-than-thou, or focus on practical benefits and end results.

This is not like a preacher who rails against homosexuality while having a gay affair on the side. The preacher says that all homosexuality is wrong, not that there's, say, a maximum safe limit for gay sex, and that we have to be careful not to exceed it. There's no escaping the blatant hypocrisy there.

Gore is "preaching" about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as "sinful" each and every C02-generating act. Of course, if you're eager to tar someone with the label "hypocrite", it's easier to simplify everything down to matters of symbolic piety.

Great post. Factual. Non emotional. Too bad Trumptman or Jubelum didn't read before typing their latest drive-by post.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #57 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Al Gore is not in any way analogous to a rapist who afterwards compensates his victims.

That analogy is disturbing and inappropriate.



Carbon offsets are not in any way analogous to murder.



Can you be more specific?

Al Gore is not a "good person" because he follows up his "good intentions" with "terrible actions?" That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. We're not considering whether Al Gore is a "good person." Maybe he's a total jerk for all we know. Maybe he kicks his dog, berates his wife, and ignores his kids. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his lifelong advocacy in bringing awareness to global warming and climate change issues. How the substance of his advocacy is undermined by "terrible actions" is baffling in how far it misconstrues Al Gore's message.

Al Gore's critics completely misconstrue his message as pertaining to criticizing personal energy use. As Shetline points out, "Gore is 'preaching' about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as 'sinful' each and every C02-generating act." The problems he addresses and the solutions he advances are primarily systemic in nature, not individual. If we're scrutinizing Al Gore, the relevant question is whether he supports other policies systemic in nature that conflict with his global warming and climate change advocacy. For instance, does he support subsidies for energy companies for uses other than clean or renewable energy? Does he support trade subsidies for companies known to engage in rain forest deforestation? Does he support the interests of auto companies instead of environmental groups in not supporting raising CAFE standards? If global warming is a planetary emergency, what interests could possibly trump the earth's on the policy level?

That would partially undermine his advocacy unless otherwise explainable.

I'm trying here.

... rational, logical, objective, and using your critical and analytical thinking skills, because I know you're just trying to warp my fragile little mind. I'd much prefer the ad hominem MO, the personal attack POV, the simplistic lack of thought needed for the one line/word zingers.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #58 of 255
[QUOTE=jimmac;1156640]I can't read what he said



I love how we keep hearing about what you can't read. By choice. You have an ignore list, we're all extremely proud of you. So hey, here's a cookie.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #59 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #60 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.

I doesn't relate to peace at all.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #61 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.

Exactly.

While I am a Global Warming Skeptic, I just don't understand why both he and the IPCC should be given the "Peace Prize" .

Maybe the Nobel committee have lost their marbles.

Perhaps in similar vein, President Mugabe will being given the Nobel Prize for Science.

Aquafire.
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #62 of 255
... read?

Quote:
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #63 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... read?


Actually the GW scaremongerers are already creating the conditions for exactly those sorts of scenarios.

Nothing like creating an environment of fear and anxiety to cause to masses to flee.

We are already seeing so called 'enviromental refugees' leaving Pacific islands such as the Carterets; and all because of scare mongeringly phoney IPCC data.

So don't be surprised to see millions banging down the doors to get into Europe, Australia and continental USA.

And don't be surprised when the UN gives us a new status for 'refugee'...aka..."Enviromental refugee'

Aquafire
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #64 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

Actually the GW scaremongerers are already creating the conditions for exactly those sorts of scenarios.

Nothing like creating an environment of fear and anxiety to cause to masses to flee.

We are already seeing so called 'enviromental refugees' leaving Pacific islands such as the Carterets; and all becuase of scare mongeringly phoney data.

So don't be surprised to see millions banging down the doors to get into Europe, Australia and continental USA...

But we're building a fence to stop them!

And eventually we'll build 400 foot high levees along our ENTIRE coastlines to keep the oceans from flooding the ENTIRE United States!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #65 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

But we're building a fence to stop them!

It won't work. Rabbits can dig tunnels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And eventually we'll build 400 foot high levees along our ENTIRE coastlines to keep the oceans from flooding the ENTIRE United States!


Well Frank, if everyone in the USA drank a gallon of saltwater a day, you'd have the problem licked..

Then again, you might turn saltwater into fuel..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo


Aquafire
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #66 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

It won't work. Rabbits can dig tunnels.




Well Frank, if everyone in the USA drank a gallon of saltwater a day, you'd have the problem licked..

Then again, you might turn saltwater into fuel..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo


Aquafire

Burning water and other myths

Quote:
Can you get more energy out than you put in?

I can answer that right now: no. You start with water, you break it apart into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen), and then you recombine them by burning. Yes you can do that. Hydrogen, indeed, is the promised fuel of the new clean energy economy. But making hydrogen from water takes more energy than you can ever recover from burning it. Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, you have the basis of a perpetual-motion machine.

But 'energy for free' enthusiasts don't want to know about thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a killjoy. Thermodynamics is like big government or big industry, always out to squash innovation. Thermodynamics is the enemy of the Edisonian spirit of the backyard inventor.

Thermodynamics? Check, been there, done that.

Coastal Engineering? Double check, been there, done that.

Environmental Fluid Mechanics? Triple check, been there, done that.

You really ARE out of your league here sonny boy! \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #67 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Al Gore is not in any way analogous to a rapist who afterwards compensates his victims.

That analogy is disturbing and inappropriate.

Listen Mr. Law School, you above anyone should know that there are monetary remedies. We cannot try people who live outside their carbon footprints as criminals. (yet) What has been proposed instead is a remedy whereby those who cannot limit or take carbon from others, must compensate them.

Many criticisms of carbon credits have noted that it does not end polluting as a harmful practice, rather it simply requires some wealth transfer to allow the continuation of such practices.

I noted a harmful action that was where the harm was compensated with a monetary transfer. The two are analogous.

Quote:
Carbon offsets are not in any way analogous to murder.

It wasn't murder. It was reducing the carbon footprint of my community. I was advocating for reducing current energy use, limiting future population growth and finally taking human byproducts and returning them to nature in a productive and non-polluting state. Gore has framed global warming as a moral issue. If we pay people to not advance technologically, to remain in a state where famine and death are commonplace, it is no different than what I have stated. I simply applied it in the suburbs.

Within the climate change mindset the means of determining right and wrong is carbon footprint, sustainability and nothing more. Gore for example called for boycott of new coal burning power plants. If that means people go without power, or are harmed, that is of no consequence. You can call for anything as along as it meets those two criteria. The human cost in the mean time is of no consequence.

Quote:
Can you be more specific?

I believe I already have been.

Quote:
Al Gore is not a "good person" because he follows up his "good intentions" with "terrible actions?" That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. We're not considering whether Al Gore is a "good person." Maybe he's a total jerk for all we know. Maybe he kicks his dog, berates his wife, and ignores his kids. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his lifelong advocacy in bringing awareness to global warming and climate change issues. How the substance of his advocacy is undermined by "terrible actions" is baffling in how far it misconstrues Al Gore's message.

Actually, Mr. Editor, the thread topic has to do with Gore running for president. Gore was given the peace prize for very strange reasons, preemptive peace. The belief by the committee was that global warming would cause such massive war, that advocation to stop it amounted to stopping future wars.

Quote:
Al Gore's critics completely misconstrue his message as pertaining to criticizing personal energy use. As Shetline points out, "Gore is 'preaching' about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as 'sinful' each and every C02-generating act." The problems he addresses and the solutions he advances are primarily systemic in nature, not individual. If we're scrutinizing Al Gore, the relevant question is whether he supports other policies systemic in nature that conflict with his global warming and climate change advocacy. For instance, does he support subsidies for energy companies for uses other than clean or renewable energy? Does he support trade subsidies for companies known to engage in rain forest deforestation? Does he support the interests of auto companies instead of environmental groups in not supporting raising CAFE standards? If global warming is a planetary emergency, what interests could possibly trump the earth's on the policy level?

That would partially undermine his advocacy unless otherwise explainable.

I'm trying here.

The reality is that once you get past the platitudes, if the planet has a maximum total carbon allowance, it would have to be divided up by each person and living outside or beyond that footprint amounts to a harmful act. He vacillates between alarmist rhetoric, and actions that show no true personal concern. He can argue for a system whereby everyone is coerced or has made available the means to remain within that footprint. However in the meantime he still should have a personal responsibility to demonstrate such an act is possible. If it is not possible on a personal level, how can we advocate for it on a societal level?

This is clearly understood outside of the debate with Gore and climate. Those who excuse him now are part of the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

It all depends if you're playing the game of holier-than-thou, of using it against someone when they don't play holier-than-thou, or focus on practical benefits and end results.

This is not like a preacher who rails against homosexuality while having a gay affair on the side. The preacher says that all homosexuality is wrong, not that there's, say, a maximum safe limit for gay sex, and that we have to be careful not to exceed it. There's no escaping the blatant hypocrisy there.

Gore is "preaching" about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as "sinful" each and every C02-generating act. Of course, if you're eager to tar someone with the label "hypocrite", it's easier to simplify everything down to matters of symbolic piety.


So what do you do then when Gore or someone like him exceeds their own recommended safe limits and ignore the cumulative effects of their actions? Would you call them a hypocrite then?

I'll tell you what shetline... you tell me what actions Gore would have to undertake to be considered hypocritical. If you don't like the criteria of myself or others, post yours.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #68 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are aware that all those "international relationships" have been repaired by having the leaders attempting to Bush-bash for votes gone from office right?

Dude, are you serious? America is HATED, seriously HATED in all countries around the world, even your touted Iraq War allies. It has nothing to do with the leaders of those countries.

I issue you a challenge. Next time you leave the US, in ANY country, ask 10 people on the street, "what do you think about Bush and Clinton?" See what kind of response you get. That's the difference between someone who is respected internationally and someone who is not.

The problem is, that the world's disgust for GWB does seep in to their overall feelings about America.

International relationships definitely still need to be healed. A lot.
post #69 of 255
Double Post
post #70 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So what do you do then when Gore or someone like him exceeds their own recommended safe limits and ignore the cumulative effects of their actions? Would you call them a hypocrite then?

I'll tell you what shetline... you tell me what actions Gore would have to undertake to be considered hypocritical. If you don't like the criteria of myself or others, post yours.

1. Doing SOMETHING about the environment is better than doing NOTHING. What have YOUR candidates done lately?
2. Have you ever considered that the detrimental effect of Gore's air travel is offset by the benefit of the education Gore is spreading to the international community?
3. If Gore had just one home he would have to do a lot MORE travelling.
4. If Gore drove a Hummer I would crucify him.
post #71 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Listen Mr. Law School, you above anyone should know that there are monetary remedies. We cannot try people who live outside their carbon footprints as criminals. (yet) What has been proposed instead is a remedy whereby those who cannot limit or take carbon from others, must compensate them.

Many criticisms of carbon credits have noted that it does not end polluting as a harmful practice, rather it simply requires some wealth transfer to allow the continuation of such practices.

I noted a harmful action that was allowed to continue because of a monetary transfer. The two are analogous.



It wasn't murder. It was reducing the carbon footprint of my community. I was advocating for reducing current energy use, limiting future population growth and finally taking human byproducts and returning them to nature in a productive and non-polluting state. Gore has framed global warming as a moral issue. If we pay people to not advance technologically, to remain in a state where famine and death are commonplace, it is no different than what I have stated. I simply applied it in the suburbs.

Within the climate change mindset the means of determining right and wrong is carbon footprint, sustainability and nothing more. Gore for example called for boycott of new coal burning power plants. If that means people go without power, or are harmed, that is of no consequence. You can call for anything as along as it meets those two criteria. The human cost in the mean time is of no consequence.



I believe I already have been.



Actually, Mr. Editor, the thread topic has to do with Gore running for president. Gore was given the peace prize for very strange reasons, preemptive peace. The belief by the committee was that global warming would cause such massive war, that advocation to stop it amounted to stopping future wars.



The reality is that once you get past the platitudes, if the planet has a maximum total carbon allowance, it would have to be divided up by each person and living outside or beyond that footprint amounts to a harmful act. He vacillates between alarmist rhetoric, and actions that show no true personal concern. He can argue for a system whereby everyone is coerced or has made available the means to remain within that footprint. However in the meantime he still should have a personal responsibility to demonstrate such an act is possible. If it is not possible on a personal level, how can we advocate for it on a societal level?

This is clearly understood outside of the debate with Gore and climate. Those who excuse him now are part of the problem.




So what do you do then when Gore or someone like him exceeds their own recommended safe limits and ignore the cumulative effects of their actions? Would you call them a hypocrite then?

I'll tell you what shetline... you tell me what actions Gore would have to undertake to be considered hypocritical. If you don't like the criteria of myself or others, post yours.

Nick

When are you going to release your greatest hits on CD? You know, I'm getting really tired of listening to that same broken record of yours!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #72 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

In the meantime, there are active and violent conflicts going on in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq and Sudan, just to name a few.

Simmering disputes include Taiwan vs. China, India vs. Pakistan, Arabs vs Israel and North Korea vs just about everybody. 50,000 American troops sit on the Korean border. In the meantime, Russia's Putin is sending bombers to go face to face with Canada's Air Force, for absolutely no good reason.

If there was no one who stood out as a 2007 peacemaker, no prize should have been given. That would have made a stronger statement and possibly prodded the world into noticing the lack of progress.

I understand that the Nobel Prize by necessity has to have a political component to it. But to "preemptively" give it to Al Gore in 2007 simply reduces it to irrelevance.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #73 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

Perhaps in similar vein, President Mugabe will being given the Nobel Prize for Science.

Aquafire.

For science?

This is what I hate about people on this board. They begin to spout off and while doing so reveal their deep ignorance of the world around them. If you are ignorant, go back to your box. Shut up. I don't think your contributions are worth the bandwidth I pay to download them.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #74 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

For science?

This is what I hate about people on this board. They begin to spout off and while doing so reveal their deep ignorance of the world around them. If you are ignorant, go back to your box. Shut up. I don't think your contributions are worth the bandwidth I pay to download them.



OK, drink the GW kool-aid or you are "deeply ignorant." Got it. Cool.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #75 of 255
Jubelum.... seriously, how did you get past high school, your reading comprehension is atrocious?

Re-read my post in it's entirety including the part quoted...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #76 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Jubelum.... seriously, how did you get past high school, your reading comprehension is atrocious?

Re-read my post in it's entirety including the part quoted...

More amazingly, how did I get a post-graduate education and then get a bunch of people to pay me for my opinions and knowledge! Innnn-credible!

Perhaps I misunderstood you... what was your intent regarding Mugabe and Aqua...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #77 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


Thermodynamics? Check, been there, done that.

Coastal Engineering? Double check, been there, done that.

Environmental Fluid Mechanics? Triple check, been there, done that.

You really ARE out of your league here sonny boy! \

Tsk tsk tsk...

So tell me Frank, does being a PEDANTIC TWIT come naturally to you ?

Or have you been working on it, over the years ?

In the meantime., (whenever your ready sunshine)...drop by the Physics Forums.

You'll find I've been a member for quite some time....

Cheers

Aquafire
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #78 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

For science?

This is what I hate about people on this board. They begin to spout off and while doing so reveal their deep ignorance of the world around them. If you are ignorant, go back to your box. Shut up. I don't think your contributions are worth the bandwidth I pay to download them.

Yet another numbskull who doesn't appreciate or understand humour....

What is it with GW advocates...?

They're all so PC and so hysterically earnest and pedantic.

Anyway ... Hardeeharhar ...

Given your own misplaced histrionics, I can only assume you need a soothing cup of tea..

Go ahead, take a good long swig...

Cheers


Aquafire...
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #79 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

More amazingly, how did I get a post-graduate education and then get a bunch of people to pay me for my opinions and knowledge! Innnn-credible!

Perhaps I misunderstood you... what was your intent regarding Mugabe and Aqua...

There is no Nobel Prize for science, never has been never will be... There are nobel prizes for fields of science, as in Medicine, Chemistry and Physics, but no nobel for science. It is ignorant not to understand that. It is willful ignorance considering that this week they announced three science related nobel prizes that weren't the nobel prize for science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

Yet another idiot savante who doesn't appreciate sarcasm'....

Oh I got the sarcasm. You just moved further into the illiterate ignorant fool category, congrats!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #80 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

It is ignorant not to understand that. It is willful ignorance considering that this week they announced three science related nobel prizes that weren't the nobel prize for science.

Obee Kaybee.

<maybe we need a category for... oh, never mind>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should Al Gore Run again ?