Spot The Enviro-Felon!!
Everyone's playing!
A certain someone exiting an inconvenient airplane 
A certain someone getting into an inconvenient limousine 
A certain someone's inconvenient 20 bedroom mansion 
A certain someone aboard yet another an inconvenient airplane 
A certain someone's inconvenient speeding ticket 
Everyone's playing!
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
12:08 AM
16 Comments:
I don't see how we can blame a "certain someone" for a speeding ticket that was given to his son. Also, what's wrong with encouraging people to be stewards of the environment? While I'm no fan of this "certain someone", it seems that his message is wholesome. I've met a lot worse hypocrites.
John,
I don't see how we can blame a "certain someone" for a speeding ticket that was given to his son.
Albert Gore, Jr is the former Vice-President, not the son of.
Also, what's wrong with encouraging people to be stewards of the environment?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just so long as they don't throw a lot of propeganda and fraud at us, and try to call it the truth. Wouldn't you agree?
While I'm no fan of this "certain someone", it seems that his message is wholesome.
Yes, John... it "seems" so, doesn't it? Nothing good can ever become of something built upon lies.
I've met a lot worse hypocrites.
And how many of them fraudently won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Salvage,
Your comment has been deleted. You had your chance. I went as far as going to your blog and inviting you back here under a few pre-conditions;
1. That you don't jump to conclusions.
2. If you don't understand something... ask.
Well, I spoke to you like a man, and you responded like a snotty child.
I don't know what the problem is with you. Maybe mommy didn't breast feed you, possibly daddy didn't pay enough attention to you... whatever.
One thing I'm absolutely sure of, you understand about 10% of what's in front of you, but you pop off like you know it all.
You're a pathetic little wretch who can only feel good about himself if people are paying attention to you, even if that means that you have to throw a temper tantrum. I'll bet your eyes dart left and right and you think to yourself "how many people are watching me?"
You had your chance to be treated like a man, you pissed it away. So I'll treat you like a child.
You can't come here and play anymore.
It always amazes me how liberals constantly strive to offend and be offended.
In Al Gore's case he says one thing yet does another. He isn't the first fraud to win that "prize" either: Yassar Arafat, Rigoberta Menchu etc
Sorry, I was thinking about Al Gore III, who was going 97 in a Prius a few years back.
Propaganda and fraud?? I though you were talking about Al Gore, not Fox News. There was nothing that was propaganda nor fraud in his movie/presentations/peace prize. A bit alarmist - yes, but there's nothing untrue about saying that things "may happen" if we continue without change, expecially if there is a concensus among (non-Exxon) scientists that agree on the probability of it happening.
He doesn't say one thing and do another. Are you seriously saying that in order to question the environment, you have to live in a commune and not contribute to the problem one bit? Al Gore hasn't said we have to give up luxuries in order to reduce pollution. I'd be one of the first to support a 50 mpg Hummer. So he has a high electric bill and a mansion where he has his offices, and where I think I heard he finally got his homeowner's association to allow him to install Solar panels on said mansion.
And to imagine, horrid of horrid, he flies...on a plane! And rides in cars! Somebody call the cops! How the heck is a former Vice President expected to get himself (and his crew) to his speaking events / emmy awards / etc? Ride a bike?
John,
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals constantly bring up Fox News. Why is that? Favorite whipping boy? Could be.
But anyhow, yes, Gore's movie is both propaganda and a fraud.
Initially, propaganda is when one only give one perspective. That's exactly what Gore did. Hence, it most certainly does qualify as propaganda.
Secondly, as I've already stated, that movie has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. Remember the "9 scientific errors" that were recently ruled upon in the UK? How about the hundreds upon hundreds of scientists who have laughed at gore's claims? Yep, it's a fraud, and everyone knows it.
And as far as Gore wagging his finger at the world while he tools around in Lincoln Continentals and flies about in his private jets, and not to mention his rather large mansion, c'mon, John... if he's going to talk the talk, he damn better walk the walk. But he won't. And that makes him a hypocrite.
BTW, did you notice that Gore didn't win the Nobel Prize for Science? Gee.... I wonder why?
ANd the "Nobel Peace Prize" slips another knotch towards hell. It has been losing respect since it's Halls of Fame include the likes of Carter and Arrafat. But now Gore joins those hollowed halls of fickle finger awards. Opps, that was laugh-in. My mistake.
I'm getting quite tired of being called a liberal just because I disagree with one or two things that the current group of Republicans dictate that we must support. I'm someone who would have fit in nicely with the party of Goldwater and maybe even Reagan, but the current crowd is neither fiscally responsible, for personal libery, for states rights, or for a smaller government. So I'm a liberal because I want a balanced budget... for the government to stay out of my personal life? Maybe, if the party of my parents have left me that far behind. At least I've learned from my mistake of voting for Bush Jr. the first time. I'm just sorry that Kerry was the best that was put up against him.
But enough of that digression...
Actually, in the general sense propaganda is just something that promotes an idea or cause, so almost everything 'technically' qualifies as propaganda, including your posts and my comments.
I had to look up the scientific "errors" you mentioned, not that I'm going to trust a judge to rule on science, I'll leave that to the people who can actually know what they're talking about. I also don't know much about the New Scientist magazine, but they have an interesting rebuttal to most of the "errors". And how about the thousands upon thousands of scientists that have agreed with Gore's claims? As a rational human being, I'm going to have to say that Gore's claims at least seem more likely - expecially if those errors were the best ones that his critics could come up with.
I guess you do actually think that in order to talk about the environment you have to live in a shack, and walk across country to your speaking arrangements (carrying your equipment on your back). Wouldn't that mean that you must not believe a word that the Pope says about avoiding sin, since even he has sinned? I prefer not to cast stones, and believe they both might be right despite their flaws (which are small compared to my own).
"Ecological irresponsibility is at heart a moral problem - founded upon an anthropological error - which arises when man forgets that his ability to transform the world must always respect God's design of creation," - The Pope (JPII)
BTW, maybe because Gore isn't a scientist... you think?? No, it's probably because there isn't a Nobel prize for science (physics and Chemistry, yes - general and weather sciences, no). He's a politician trying to promote his beliefs. That he's done such a good job in doing so is probably why he won.
P.S. You have to be wearing rose colored glasses to think that Fox News is not at least greatly biased towards the conservative (and I mean the current GW Bush / Tom Delay kind) movement. Fox News is to actual news as MTV is to actual music videos...you may find them somewhere, but you have to look hard, and definately not during prime time.
It was probably a good balance to the other news networks at one time, but it's obviously not balanced or unbiased itself. There's room for conservative news like Fox, but don't try to claim they're fair to political issues. Of course now all news stations seem to have gone the way of shoddy reporting and infotainment - which unfortunately seems to sell well.
I mean Fox's CEO used to be the media consultant for most of the recent Republican presidents and Rudy Guiliani in one of his mayor runs. Imagine if Bill Clinton's media consultant was now CEO of CNN. (And I love that Fox gets away with criticizing the "Main Stream Media" while being one of the top Media outlets)
You know John, for someone who claims not to be a liberal, you're spending an awful lot of time defending one and his liberal propaganda. I'm simply amazed that you allude to how you are a Goldwater/Reagan Republican, but in the same breath bemoan the fact that... how did you put it?... "I'm just sorry that Kerry was the best that was put up against him [GW Bush]."
Gee, rooting for the Democrats, 'eh? Some Goldwater/Reagan Republican!
As far as "living in a shack" if one so desires to "talk about the environment", as you say. John, when did I ever say that? Know what? I didn't.
What I DID say was that if one is going to wag his finger at the world, it might be a good idea not to tool around in a Lincoln Continetal, jet around the world, and live in a 20 bedroom mansion. Ring a bell?
But I will admit that you right that Gore is no scientist. Too bad that his junk science won his a Nobel Peace Prize.
In closing, your comments about Fox News. John, you are participating in the usual tactic of liberals; when in an indefensable position, change the topic.
But seeing you brought up Fox, I'll close with my thoughts'
As far as their NEWS coverage is concerned, I most certainly have seen Charlie Rangle, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, etc, interviewed, as well as Duncan Hunter, Toma Tancredo, Fred Thompson. That's called "fair and balanced".
When it comes to their EDITORIAL staff, I'll be the first to admit they have a conservative slant.
But that's the difference betqween me and you liberals... I can tell the difference between NEWS reporting and EDITORIALIZING.
I was just pointing out that you were basically discounting someone's scientifically based arguments just because they had a big house and rode on planes. I am sorry that George Bush won, because as you can now tell, he's the worst thing that has ever happened to our party. He's been pulling the rest of the republican party down ever since the 2004 campaigns. Thank's to him and all the other Republicans that let him get away with going against everything we stand for, we're now likely to remain in the minority for the next 10-15 years. Yes, it would have been better if anyone else had won - even Kerry. Then we could have had a better chance to beat them again in 4 years, without having to ruin our party.
Thanks to people like you, who claim anyone who disagrees with you (even on just one topic) must be some kind of flaming liberal, almost all of the normal conservatives are leaving the party, or just giving up on it like me.
As a Catholic, I have to try to bring about the Kingdom of God, which (at least according to the Pope) involves caring for the non-rich, and even the environment. The Republican party has apparently given up on both. And I can no longer support a party just because of one moral issue that they have right, while ignoring the rest (and apparently not even that issue this time around).
Yes, Fox news interviews people from both sides, but it is almost always their conservative opinion show hosts that are doing the interviews - with the exception of a few Sunday shows.
And you seem to participate in the usual tactic of uninformed people, namely when in an indefensable position, attack the messanger, not their arguments. Be that me for being a 'liberal' or Al Gore for riding in a plane. So fine, if you insist on calling me a liberal, that at least puts me with about 70% of the American population, who are too 'liberal' for the Republican party and this site.
John,
You really do need to make up your mind.
1. You claim to be a Goldwater/Reagan Republican, yet you've spend quite a bit of time and energy not only defending, but advocating for a flaming liberal.
2. You've stated (when I asked why Gore didn't win a NP for science, "maybe because Gore isn't a scientist... you think?? No, it's probably because there isn't a Nobel prize for science (physics and Chemistry, yes - general and weather sciences, no). He's a politician trying to promote his beliefs. That he's done such a good job in doing so is probably why he won.
", but then you turn around and say "you were basically discounting someone's scientifically based arguments". Which one is it?
3. You also stated "Propaganda and fraud?? I though you were talking about Al Gore, not Fox News". Then you back-peddal with "Yes, Fox news interviews people from both sides, but it is almost always their conservative opinion show hosts that are doing the interviews - with the exception of a few Sunday shows.
". You need to make up your mind, is Fox News propaganda or not? Your position mutates every time you post.
4. Lastly, you state, "And you seem to participate in the usual tactic of uninformed people, namely when in an indefensable position, attack the messanger, not their arguments". In case you missed it, I went after BOTH the junk science of Gore and the unbelievable hypocracy of Gore. Surely, you were able to differentiate... weren't you? Probably not. You haven't made a bit of sense since you first posted here.
BTW, loved you accusation that 70% of the American population are too liberal for this site. Golly gee, you spoke to all 70%? Amazing.
John, you're rapidly losing credibility. I strongly suggest you just walk away before I embarrass you further.
1. Just because I'm a conservative, doesn't mean I have to blindly support Republicans, nor that I have to blindly hate every non-Republican. And (like I said previously) I voted against him politically, but that doesn't mean I have to think everything he believes in is BS.
2. Are you so dense to not realize that someone who isn't a scientist can use science to form a rational argument?
3. Do you also not realize that if only conservatives are asking the questions, editing the stories, and intrepreting the news - it doesn't matter what they are covering or who they're interviewing, it will still be highly biased and misleading...
4. No, you never went after the science behind Gore's arguments. You just mentioned that one judge ruled on a case involving his movie. I already pointed out a link that shows that many of those "errors" were just instances of Gore using actual facts and scientific conclusions in a scare-tactic fashion.
Heard of polls? Look up how you are standing up on issues like SCHIP, healthcare, Iraq, the environment, finances, the way Bush has handled things, etc. So if I'm too 'liberal' to be a conservative, so are the other 74% of the nation that don't like what Bush has done to our nation.
I'm not walking away because you're embarrassing me, I'm walking away because you are embarrassing. Thanks for such a "deep and thoughtful" conversation.
I'm not walking away because you're embarrassing me, I'm walking away because you are embarrassing.
The important thing is; just so long as you walk away. Is that what the voices in your head tell you that this is your position now?
By the way, I noticed your numbers jumped from 70% to 74% in just 24 short hours. You sure are influential!
Hmmmm.... I wonder what your numbers will be tomorrow????
Ok, this is BUNK!!! Al Gore has totally cheapened the Nobel Peace Prize and I hope Mother Teresa throws her own NPP at Al's head!!! Who cares about those who toil away feeding opharns and lepers - let's give the Nobel Peace Prize to the rich oil barons who fly in huge jets, drive huge cars and live in huge homes and know nothing about going hungry. Meanwhile how many are starving in "environmentally friendly" mud huts?!?!
I have to agree that Gore winning the Peace Prize is disturbing and lowers the prize in my regard. The award is given to those who have sought continue the cause of "preservation of peace" but I am not sure that Gore's documentary did that. Having had to watch the film for a course, it was interesting but his science is not universally regarded as factual and I am sure there are more deserving individuals, people who could use the prize money (what amounts to about $777,000, if my math is right) to a better purpose.
I will say, that I can't complain about him using a plane, especially to fly to Oslo, where the award is given, but maybe he could have taken a commercial plane, instead of what looks to be a private jet.
Further, I admit that I find it ironic that Gore lives in an energy sucking mansion and Bush's ranch is one of the most environmentally friendly houses I have ever heard of. Gore would be more deserving of accolades if he "walked the walk," instead of just "talking the talk."
On the counter argument, as Catholics, we are called to be stewards of the earth, caring for this one planet that God has created. All things created by Him, are wonderous and good and holds some part of His message to the world. G.K. Chesterton is said to have found great delight in flowers and rocks and trees, in nature because he saw them as a gift and message from the Creator. Thus, it does deserve to be protected. The earth, like the Church, "is not something we inherit from generations past... [They are] on loan to us from future generations."
As for the idea of the Republican party being damaged by Bush, he isn't the best of all possible leaders but I am not sure that people are going to instantly vote Democrat just because of their annoyance and poor approval ratings of the current president.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home