NationStates Jolt Archive

What is good for the gander should be good for the goose.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm


Story USA today

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

I'm not really suprised about this to be honest.

Global warming =/= river pollution.

No hypocracy with that bit.

Though, obviously, neither are much good.

Global warming =/= river pollution.

No hypocracy with that bit.

Though, obviously, neither are much good.

Still doesn't explain his private jet, and his choice of power source. I am a Private Pilot myself, and yes I do fly a small airplane, but I'm not the one on a soap box telling other people to change their lives or we're doomed.

Global Warming? Who cares? So the planet will get a little hotter, and the oceans will rise. Tough shit, build walls around the coastal cities and get an air conditioner. Think of all the immigrants to the USA who could be given jobs building a barrier around New York City. Who says Global Warming is bad?

With no ice, and warmer temperatures, maybe we can populate Greenland and Antartica. Plus ships could make it through the Northwest Passage.

Embrace global climate change!

Global Warming? Who cares? So the planet will get a little hotter, and the oceans will rise. Tough shit, build walls around the coastal cities and get an air conditioner. Think of all the immigrants to the USA who could be given jobs building a barrier around New York City. Who says Global Warming is bad?

With no ice, and warmer temperatures, maybe we can populate Greenland and Antartica. Plus ships could make it through the Northwest Passage.

Embrace global climate change!
Hah. No.

I am not going to profess true understanding of how a raise in temperature can affect the climate.(See, unlike most idiots who believe global warming isn't real, I recognize that I'm far less equipped to determine it. I leave that to the actual scientists, and most scientists are in agreement.) But from what I DO understand, it won't exactly be all that good for anything. Shorter winters and longer summers could have drastic reprecussions for any plants that depend on pollen. Plants might bloom too early, or the insects they need to spread the pollen may populate too late. The temperatures could easily damage or destroy most of our agricultural plants, and as for animals, it could similarly affect them as well. As I said, I don't understand much about it, so I'm not going to lecture about it. But global warming is not good by any stretch of the imagination.

WITH THAT SAID

Al Gore IS A hypocrite and his timeline is thoroughly accelerated to boost his political career. That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything: the sooner we work, the faster we can slow down global warming and the less severe the effects will be. We can't stop what its already done, and we can't stop it completely. But Al Gore should not be listened to. I actually met him, you see. He was doing a book signing in Denver recently, and my entire family met him. Out of all of us, only I saw that he was being a pandering fool. He was, to be quite honest, disgusting.

WITH THAT SAID

Al Gore IS A hypocrite and his timeline is thoroughly accelerated to boost his political career. That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything: the sooner we work, the faster we can slow down global warming and the less severe the effects will be. We can't stop what its already done, and we can't stop it completely. But Al Gore should not be listened to. I actually met him, you see. He was doing a book signing in Denver recently, and my entire family met him. Out of all of us, only I saw that he was being a pandering fool. He was, to be quite honest, disgusting.

What did he do exactly that made him disgusting?

okay so i will accept at face value that Gore is a hypocrite. However this doesn't decrease the value fo what he says. Global warming is no less true or important simply because the man preaching about it is a hypocrite. Just because he is an asshole, doesn't mean he isn't correct.

What did he do exactly that made him disgusting?
It was just...the attitude, the way he held himself, the way he looked at people straight in the eyed and lied in their face about caring about whatever they had to say. It's not something one can explain all to well with words. I get this same feeling from any politician I've ever met, I should point out.

Hah. No.

I am not going to profess true understanding of how a raise in temperature can affect the climate.(See, unlike most idiots who believe global warming isn't real, I recognize that I'm far less equipped to determine it. I leave that to the actual scientists, and most scientists are in agreement.) But from what I DO understand, it won't exactly be all that good for anything. Shorter winters and longer summers could have drastic reprecussions for any plants that depend on pollen. Plants might bloom too early, or the insects they need to spread the pollen may populate too late. The temperatures could easily damage or destroy most of our agricultural plants, and as for animals, it could similarly affect them as well. As I said, I don't understand much about it, so I'm not going to lecture about it. But global warming is not good by any stretch of the imagination.
So? Environments change, extinctions happen, yet we're still here. Also, if the ice melts and flows into the ocean, the ocean temperature will drop, allowing plankton to flourish, which will in turn increase marine food sources.

It was just...the attitude, the way he held himself, the way he looked at people straight in the eyed and lied in their face about caring about whatever they had to say. It's not something one can explain all to well with words. I get this same feeling from any politician I've ever met, I should point out.

I wish he would come to NC, then I would ask him about his private jet and how he's able to look at me with a straight face about the dangers of pollution and still fly a private jet around.

So? Environments change, extinctions happen, yet we're still here. Also, if the ice melts and flows into the ocean, the ocean temperature will drop, allowing plankton to flourish, which will in turn increase marine food sources.
I'd love to debate this further. But, as I said before, I don't have the facts. I suggest you do some research. You propose interesting questions, questions that probably have good answers.

Wilgrove: Well, pollution IS dangerous, as has been proven. Al Gore simply refuses to stop being hypocritical about the positions he holds. That doesn't make them any less accurate--in some respects, anyway--as stated earlier. If science backs up what he says, I accept it. Not because he said it, but because science said it.

I wish he would come to NC, then I would ask him about his private jet and how he's able to look at me with a straight face about the dangers of pollution and still fly a private jet around.

Quite simple actually. People polute, you want them to stop polluting. Best way to do that is to show them:

a) how they pollute

b) how to stop polluting

c) what their pollution is doing to the planet.

Best way to do that...is to talk to them. How do you travel around in a country as large as ours? you use a freaking jet. Does the jet pollute? Sure. However by using the jet to travel the country, talk to people, and show them the overall danger of pollution, is there a chance these people will pollute less than had you NOT used the jet to get to them? Possibly.

Would the use of the jet in this case ultimitly have an overall benefit to the world? Yes. Sure the jet polluted, but by using it maybe you can convince people to cut pollution overall, and thus create a net impact that is positive, rather than just sit at home and not use the jet because it pollutes, and change nothing.

Ever hear "you have to spend to make"? Well maybe you have to pollute a bit to cut pollution a lot.

This may or may not be true in the end, but it's still a valid argument, and one that took no more than 30 seconds and two functioning braincells to come up with.

Quite simple actually. People polute, you want them to stop polluting. Best way to do that is to show them:

a) how they pollute

b) how to stop polluting

c) what their pollution is doing to the planet.

Best way to do that...is to talk to them. How do you travel around in a country as large as ours? you use a freaking jet. Does the jet pollute? Sure. However by using the jet to travel the country, talk to people, and show them the overall danger of pollution, is there a chance these people will pollute less than had you NOT used the jet to get to them? Possibly.

Would the use of the jet in this case ultimitly have an overall benefit to the world? Yes. Sure the jet polluted, but by using it maybe you can convince people to cut pollution overall, and thus create a net impact that is positive, rather than just sit at home and not use the jet because it pollutes, and change nothing.

Ever hear "you have to spend to make"? Well maybe you have to pollute a bit to cut pollution a lot.

This may or may not be true in the end, but it's still a valid argument, and one that took no more than 30 seconds and two functioning braincells to come up with.


1. It's a private jet.

2. If he wasn't a hypocrite, then he could've traveled by airlines. Airlines are mass transportation, which he seems to be an advocate for.

1. It's a private jet.

2. If he wasn't a hypocrite, then he could've traveled by airlines. Airlines are mass transportation, which he seems to be an advocate for.
Nah, helium or hydrogen-filled airships powered by solar cells are the way to go.

Nah, helium or hydrogen-filled airships powered by solar cells are the way to go.

yea, but wouldn't the equipment and the solar panel weight it down?

yea, but wouldn't the equipment and the solar panel weight it down?
Not more than giant diesel engines and fuel that they used in the early 20th Century.

Not more than giant diesel engines and fuel that they used in the early 20th Century.

true.

Nah, helium or hydrogen-filled airships powered by solar cells are the way to go.
I'd fly it. Not hydrogen though. One word: Hindenburg.

I'd fly it. Not hydrogen though. One word: Hindenburg.
The Hindenburg accident was due to something easily avoidable and would hardly be repeatable. There were a good number of survivors (more would have survived if they hadn't jumped). Planes are inherently more dangerous, they can stall, run out of fuel, etc.

The Hindenburg accident was due to something easily avoidable and would hardly be repeatable. There were a good number of survivors (more would have survived if they hadn't jumped). Planes are inherently more dangerous, they can stall, run out of fuel, etc.

I do hope you know that in aviation stalling is when the wings lost lift under them. It's not stalling like in a car. Plus airplanes got wings so even with the engine gone it can still glide down.

So? Environments change, extinctions happen, yet we're still here. Also, if the ice melts and flows into the ocean, the ocean temperature will drop, allowing plankton to flourish, which will in turn increase marine food sources.Plankton won't flourish in an acidic environment, which is what will happen if we continue to pump such large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The sea absorbs half of that and the oceans acidify. Who cares. It's not like plankton is the basis of most of the oceans' food webs... :rolleyes:

*snip*

So? Is he thus wrong?

So? Is he thus wrong?

Depends on what he means by stall.

Depends on what he means by stall.

I was referring to the article you posted, not to your post about stalling.

I was unclear; my apologies.

I do hope you know that in aviation stalling is when the wings lost lift under them. It's not stalling like in a car. Plus airplanes got wings so even with the engine gone it can still glide down.
Of course I know that. And it happens more often during landings, when you're turning base, for example, already close to stalling speed and then you turn more sharply than you should. You can also lose engine power during take-off and keep pulling on the stick to see if the plane will magically fly higher.

How well the airplane glides down depends on each plane, and then you have the problem of looking for a suitable landing place, and hope that the plane will glide well enough to have a choice. Unless you're in a Cirrus, then you deploy the chute.

I was referring to the article you posted, not to your post about stalling.

I was unclear; my apologies.

Eh, I think there is global warming, but is it cause by man? I don't know.

1. It's a private jet.

2. If he wasn't a hypocrite, then he could've traveled by airlines. Airlines are mass transportation, which he seems to be an advocate for.

Because there are absolutly no security concerns for the former vice president and nearly president of the united states to travel in mass transportation.

Especially airplanes.

That's a REALLY smart idea.

Because there are absolutly no security concerns for the former vice president and nearly president of the united states to travel in mass transportation.

Especially airplanes.

That's a REALLY smart idea.

Hey, if he wants to stop looking like a hypocritical asshole, then he should fly mass transit. until then, he is hypocritial.

Hey, if he wants to stop looking like a hypocritical asshole, then he should fly mass transit. until then, he is hypocritial.

He is a POLITICAL FIGURE. I'm unsure if the secret service would even allow him to do that.

Stop thinking so one dimentionally. Flying may have more of a ong term benefit than harm, and he was, after all, the bloody vice president. There are safety and security concerns that go far beyond the fact that you're a close minded partisan.

Because there are absolutly no security concerns for the former vice president and nearly president of the united states to travel in mass transportation.

Especially airplanes.

That's a REALLY smart idea.

Hey, The Queen does it. So does the PM.

Hey, The Queen does it. So does the PM.

When was the last time Tony Blair or the Queen of England used public transportation?

I'm quite sure the royal family has their own airplane, as I am likely sure that Blair has the british equivilant of air force one.

When was the last time Tony Blair or the Queen of England used public transportation?

I'm quite sure the royal family has their own airplane, as I am likely sure that Blair has the british equivilant of air force one.

Nope, they both travel British Airways.

(And she's not the Queen of England, that's nowhere in her title. She's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Sorry, just a personal gripe. England =/= UK. UK =/= England.))

I vaguely remember reading that it's going to be changed sometime in the future, though.

Nope, they both travel British Airways.

Are those regular planes with regular, normal passengers on them as well, or are they chartered exclusivly for the Queen/PM and crew/staff?

(And she's not the Queen of England, that's nowhere in her title. She's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Sorry, just a personal gripe. England =/= UK. UK =/= England.))

I vaguely remember reading that it's going to be changed sometime in the future, though.

Fair enough, retracted.

Are those regular planes with regular, normal passengers on them as well, or are they chartered exclusivly for the Queen/PM and crew/staff?

As far as I know they just take over a section and up the security. Of course, there are times when they charter planes, but I know of occassions when they've been on 'regular' flights.

As far as I know they just take over a section and up the security. Of course, there are times when they charter planes, but I know of occassions when they've been on 'regular' flights.

Here's what I found (from wiki so take it as you will):

Both the Queen and Tony Blair have increasingly used chartered British Airways jets

On 1 April 1995 the Queen's Flight was merged into No. 32 Squadron to become No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron. No. 32 Squadron's aircraft have served as transports in several recent conflicts including Operation Granby (Gulf War), Operation Veritas (Afghanistan) and Operation Telic (Iraq 2003). The merged squadron continues to be referred to in the press and by the public inaccurately as the Royal Flight or the Queen's Flight.

This ended the RAF's provision of dedicated VIP transport aircraft, the aircraft of 32 Squadron are only available to VIP passengers if not needed for military operations. This was declared officially in 1999, with the MOD stating "the principal purpose of 32 Squadron [is] to provide communications and logistical support to military operations; the Squadron's capacity should be based on military needs only; and any royal or other non-military use of.. spare capacity is secondary to its military purpose."

In 2004 the squadron's jets lost their distinctive red, white and blue livery due to the concern over the aircraft's vulnerability to terrorist attack. While they do carry missile countermeasures it is felt that applying a civilian scheme lowered the profile of the squadron's planes.

So it appears that Blair and the Queen have access to special military vehicles under the RAF's 32nd squadron, when those vehicles are not being used for military purposes.

Additionally, in the event that RAF 32 is unavailable, they charter british airways planes. I haven't been able to find anything about either the PM or the Queen flying "with the rabble" as it were.

Then of course let's consider this, even if this were true, Al Gore is not a governmental employee, and these security costs would have to come from SOMEWHERE, is him flying on a public plane, with all this added security cost, actually more, or less efficient then a smaller private jet?

Here's what I found (from wiki so take it as you will):





So it appears that Blair and the Queen have access to special military vehicles under the RAF's 32nd squadron, when those vehicles are not being used for military purposes.

Additionally, in the event that RAF 32 is unavailable, they charter british airways planes. I haven't been able to find anything about either the PM or the Queen flying "with the rabble" as it were.

I know from Aunt being on a plane with the Queen that she has done. Whether she still does or not is a different matter, I suppose.

I'm quite sure the royal family has their own airplane, as I am likely sure that Blair has the british equivilant of air force one.

They don't have their own plane, but the RAF operates this thing called the royal flight or something for them. It's not exclusively used for the royal family tho.

Tony uses that, or charters if it is not available.

Hey, if he wants to stop looking like a hypocritical asshole, then he should fly mass transit. until then, he is hypocritial.
No where in the presentation does he lay the blame on small private aircraft. No where in the presentation or film does he tell people not to use chartered or small aircraft. In fact, no where in the presentation or film does he tell people to use exclussively public transportation. In fact, in the presentation and the film he does not even call for the all out end of CO2 emmissions, rather a fractional decrease. He does advocate offsetting emmissions when you can, which he in fact did for the tour-something you partisan hacks ignore while smuggly going, "But-but, he traveled, ohnoess!!!!111!1one!1!" So, he actually did exactly what he advocated-offset emmissions.

No where in the presentation does he lay the blame on small private aircraft. No where in the presentation or film does he tell people not to use chartered or small aircraft. In fact, no where in the presentation or film does he tell people to use exclussively public transportation. In fact, in the presentation and the film he does not even call for the all out end of CO2 emmissions, rather a fractional decrease. He does advocate offsetting emmissions when you can, which he in fact did for the tour-something you partisan hacks ignore while smuggly going, "But-but, he traveled, ohnoess!!!!111!1one!1!" So, he actually did exactly what he advocated-offset emmissions.

All he did was pay someone else to not pollute so much so he can have his private jet and his smudge-ness.

All he did was pay someone else to not pollute so much so he can have his private jet and his smudge-ness.
Well then, resulting in a net offset. Anything else is left to your hackery then.

Well then, resulting in a net offset. Anything else is left to your hackery then.

You would think that someone who is screaming and yelling about how the world is ending due to pollution would 1. try alternative power source like wind powers. 2. Sale some of his property for tree. 3. Actually use public transportation instead of private transportation. 4. Not pay someone else to pollute as much, instead actually try to reduce his own pollution.

But I guess people like Gore are the "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of people.

You would think that someone who is screaming and yelling about how the world is ending due to pollution would 1. try alternative power source like wind powers. 2. Sale some of his property for tree. 3. Actually use public transportation instead of private transportation. 4. Not pay someone else to pollute as much, instead actually try to reduce his own pollution.

But I guess people like Gore are the "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of people.
Well, since he said, "Do what you can to offset pollution" and create a fractional decrease in CO2 output, he actually did as he said. Only "all or nothing" hacks don't seem to understand that.

Basically the premise here is that we shouldn't listen to someone if you think they're a hypocrite?

So, for example, if Mel Gibson was to come on TV and tell us about the dangers of drinking and alcoholism, we should ignore him because he's a hypocrite?

everyone's a hypocrite at something

He's in politics. They're all hypocrites. Come to think of it so is everybody. Except me. I'm infalible. Except for my lack of spellingness.

He's in politics. They're all hypocrites. Come to think of it so is everybody. Except me. I'm infalible. Except for my lack of spellingness.

was way ahead of you on that one

Well, since he said, "Do what you can to offset pollution" and create a fractional decrease in CO2 output, he actually did as he said. Only "all or nothing" hacks don't seem to understand that.

He didn't offset pollution, he didn't even do anything! All he did was paid someone else not to pollute as much, so he can keep his level of pollution right where they are. So, whoever he's paying, we should be congradulating them for reducing their pollutions.

I think Maddox put the stupidity of paying someone else to pollute less best here.

The way they try to avoid this nagging ideological contradiction is by stating: "Trippin' has offset all the pollution created from energy use in making the show, to ensure that it would not contribute to global warming." They supposedly do this by buying "clean air credits." Great idea assholes, so instead of owning up to your shitty ideals and not polluting, you pay someone else not to pollute. Maybe we should all try to pay someone off every time we want to do something that might inconvenience us. I was going to go on a diet, but it's too hard, so I'm going to pay someone else to diet for me. I was going to do a show about community service, but doing the actual work was too inconvenient, so I'm going to pay someone to do it for me.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=trippin

Yea, that pretty much covers the idiocy that is "clean air credits" and "offsetting" pollution.

He didn't offset pollution, he didn't even do anything! All he did was paid someone else not to pollute as much, so he can keep his level of pollution right where they are. So, whoever he's paying, we should be congradulating them for reducing their pollutions.

I think Maddox put the stupidity of paying someone else to pollute less best here.



http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=trippin

Yea, that pretty much covers the idiocy that is "clean air credits" and "offsetting" pollution.
Like most Maddox fans and Maddox himself, you have only enough of an understanding to justify your hackery. Tell ya what, champ-why don't you actually make an attempt to understand Gore's argument and then get back to us, because it's clear you don't.

Like most Maddox fans and Maddox himself, you have only enough of an understanding to justify your hackery. Tell ya what, champ-why don't you actually make an attempt to understand Gore's argument and then get back to us, because it's clear you don't.

I understand it perfectly.

1. Global warming is a problem, that is caused by CO2 in the air, which is caused by man, which is caused by machines of man (fossil fuels etc.)

2. We need to cut down on our pollution (or pay someone else to do it because hey, when you got money you can pay someone else to do the hard work).

3. Everyone in America (because America is the evil empire that is destorying the world) should alter their lifestyle to reduce pollution.

4. Global Warming will kill us by the end of the decade unless we act now and buy his latest book and watch his crappy movie!

5. 10 years later, Gore will still be laughing at us from his private jet.

Now I admit earlier that I am a Private Pilot, and I do fly myself, but I do not go around telling other people that they should cut down on pollution.

So the point of this thread is, Gore need to put his money where his mouth is, and change his own lifestyle before asking the rest of us to change ours.

Plankton won't flourish in an acidic environment, which is what will happen if we continue to pump such large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The sea absorbs half of that and the oceans acidify. Who cares. It's not like plankton is the basis of most of the oceans' food webs... :rolleyes:
Who says pollution's all bad for the plankton? (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pollution-05b.html)

I understand it perfectly.

1. Global warming is a problem, that is caused by CO2 in the air, which is caused by man, which is caused by machines of man (fossil fuels etc.)

2. We need to cut down on our pollution (or pay someone else to do it because hey, when you got money you can pay someone else to do the hard work).

3. Everyone in America (because America is the evil empire that is destorying the world) should alter their lifestyle to reduce pollution.

4. Global Warming will kill us by the end of the decade unless we act now and buy his latest book and watch his crappy movie!

5. 10 years later, Gore will still be laughing at us from his private jet.

Now I admit earlier that I am a Private Pilot, and I do fly myself, but I do not go around telling other people that they should cut down on pollution.

So the point of this thread is, Gore need to put his money where his mouth is, and change his own lifestyle before asking the rest of us to change ours.You were doing okay until you got to numbers 4 and 5--is that when your meds stopped working and you went back to being stupid?

I respect Gore for his work on environmental issues and his efforts to raise awareness about climate change, but I do think he's acting rather hypocritical when it comes to his own personal decisions. I can excuse the private jet because his trips might end up raising awareness enough to result in laws cutting CO2 emissions, but the three houses, the 14,000 square feet, and the utter lack of spending on green energy for them is disappointing.

Al Gore is a hypocrite.
Unless you're making a tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) argument, Al Gore's hypocrisy is irrelevant (and if you are making a tu quoque argument, it's fallacious).

I understand it perfectly.

1. Global warming is a problem, that is caused by CO2 in the air, which is caused by man, which is caused by machines of man (fossil fuels etc.)

2. We need to cut down on our pollution (or pay someone else to do it because hey, when you got money you can pay someone else to do the hard work).

.
.
.

5. 10 years later, Gore will still be laughing at us from his private jet.

Whew! And here I thought I was going to have to complete that advanced degree in atmospheric sciences. Thanks, Wilgrove, you've saved me thousands in tuition! :rolleyes:

You were doing okay until you got to numbers 4 and 5--is that when your meds stopped working and you went back to being stupid?

Yea, unless you can not be rude, I'm not going to have a debate with you. and 4. and 5. are what known as jokes which I think points out Gore real purpose for the whole Global Warming chaos. It's not to say Global Warming isn't real, it's saying that when Gore hears or sees Global Warming, dollar signs pops into his head.

Unless you're making a tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) argument, Al Gore's hypocrisy is irrelevant (and if you are making a tu quoque argument, it's fallacious).

How is it irrelevant that a man is going around the country telling people that we better changed our way of life or else we're DOOMED! and yet he won't change his own way of life!

All he did was pay someone else to not pollute so much so he can have his private jet and his smudge-ness.
That's how you offset emissions. What do you want him to do? Plant a forest somewhere?

That's how you offset emissions. What do you want him to do? Plant a forest somewhere?

Either that, or oh, I don't know cut down his OWN pollution?

I don't know what is so hard about people understanding that if you preach that a large group of people that they should change their way of life, then you must take the first step and change your own life. When you're in that position, you can't be a "Do as I say, not as I do." kind of perso and not come off as a big fat frickin hypocrite!

Either that, or oh, I don't know cut down his OWN pollution?
I'd suggest that as well. But there is no way you can offset the emissions on a cross country flight merely by cutting down on your own pollution.

I'd suggest that as well. But there is no way you can offset the emissions on a cross country flight merely by cutting down on your own pollution.

Actually you can, and I've already suggested it. Mass transit, either that or take the train.

Either that, or oh, I don't know cut down his OWN pollution?

I don't know what is so hard about people understanding that if you preach that a large group of people that they should change their way of life, then you must take the first step and change your own life. When you're in that position, you can't be a "Do as I say, not as I do." kind of perso and not come off as a big fat frickin hypocrite!
So you'd follow his every word if he were not a hypocrite? This seems doubtful. Maybe you should listen more to what he says instead of trying to out him as polluter. He drives hybrid vehicles and he offsets emissions on flights. If everyone of us did only that, we'd be in much better shape than we are now.

So you'd follow his every word if he were not a hypocrite? This seems doubtful. Maybe you should listen more to what he says instead of trying to out him as polluter. He drives hybrid vehicles and he offsets emissions on flights. If everyone of us did only that, we'd be in much better shape than we are now.

Yea, given that he seems to not bother actually reducing his own pollution in his house, his airplane, and so on. I doubt he's driving a Hybrid.

Yea, given that he seems to not bother actually reducing his own pollution in his house, his airplane, and so on. I doubt he's driving a Hybrid.
"SPIEGEL: Mr. Gore, what kind of car do you drive?

Gore: About a year ago we bought a hybrid, but I don't drive very much. We've changed our entire lifestyle. We made the decision to be carbon-neutral and eliminate any net CO2 contribution to the environment. Even "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in part using carbon-neutral, alternative energies. Paramount also made the decision to ensure that the tour and the promotional activities would be done in a carbon-neutral way."
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,427522,00.html

"Gore Takes Personal Responsibility in Fight to Ease Global Warming Crisis

(ABC News) - Former Vice President Al Gore said his conscience is regularly challenged by a consumerism that contributes to the global warming he has made it his mission to reverse.

"It is so hard for those of us who want to live according to our values," Gore said Monday at the Chautauqua Institution, during the latest in a series of lectures he has given on global warming.

"We're embedded in a culture that makes it so easy to just go with the flow and support a pattern that's horribly destructive," he said. "And so we need to address this personally."

Gore first lectured on global warming at the western New York think tank in 1990. Since then, the consensus that the planet is in crisis has grown stronger, he said, and the ability to make the point is not cluttered by campaign issues like the economy and health care.

"This is by far the most serious challenge that we face or have ever faced," he said during the 90-minute appearance. "None of the other ones will matter if we don't get this right."

Later, Gore planned to sign copies of his book, "An Inconvenient Truth." The related documentary film was being shown on campus.

Dressed in a navy suit and tie and occasionally wandering from his podium, Gore showed the packed house dozens of slides to make his point that human behavior, if not changed, would destroy the planet.

He pointed to the melting of glaciers and mountain ice caps, bleaching of coral reefs, strengthening of hurricanes and record numbers of tornadoes.

"We're playing with fire here and we have to act quickly," he said. "The good news is we can."

Flyers distributed to attendees urged them to use fluorescent light bulbs, drive less, plant a tree, recycle and avoid products with a lot of packaging to reduce carbon dioxide. Besides the 5,500 people in the auditorium, at least 200 people waited outside during his address.

Gore said he and his wife, Tipper, who was in the audience, had adopted a "carbon neutral lifestyle."

"We've fallen into this pattern of consuming more and more and more and I'm part of it, I understand," he said.

By Carolyn Thompson"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2229913

Al Gore should have hired an actor for this film or been less involved. The debate has become about him and not Climate Change.

Still doesn't explain his private jet, and his choice of power source. I am a Private Pilot myself, and yes I do fly a small airplane, but I'm not the one on a soap box telling other people to change their lives or we're doomed.

He has to get around and his work demands a lot of travel very quickly. If someone were to invent a leerjet that ran on grass clippings and dirt I'm sure he'd use it.

Al Gore lives in the modern world. He has to make use of the accoutrements of the modern world. He's just arguing for the modern world to provide more environmentally friendly options.

This whole "Al Gore is a Hypocrite" line of bullshit is like saying that you have no right to complain about poor quality air if you're still breathing it. "It must be ok if you're not holding your breath."

Honestly! Is there a single conservative position left that isn't based completly on bullshit? "Environmentalism is bad because the people who support it drive." If you think like this you're both an idiot and a fucking asshole, and the only reason you think living with your head up your ass is a bad thing is because all that shit is very biodegradable, which is good for the environment.

Yea, unless you can not be rude, I'm not going to have a debate with you. and 4. and 5. are what known as jokes which I think points out Gore real purpose for the whole Global Warming chaos. It's not to say Global Warming isn't real, it's saying that when Gore hears or sees Global Warming, dollar signs pops into his head.
Since when have you ever debated? You say something stupid, I'll call it stupid. Simple as that.

Oh, and jokes are supposed to be funny. You might want to remember that.

al gore is fat.

Since when have you ever debated? You say something stupid, I'll call it stupid. Simple as that.

Oh, and jokes are supposed to be funny. You might want to remember that.

I don't debate with you because your people skills suck.

I don't debate with you because your people skills suck.
Oh, my people skills are just fine--but I can be a bit of a pain on the internet, especially to those who say dumb things after they've been shown repeatedly just how dumb those things they're saying are.

Honestly! Is there a single conservative position left that isn't based completly on bullshit?

left!? they had some previously?

Oh, my people skills are just fine--but I can be a bit of a pain on the internet, especially to those who say dumb things after they've been shown repeatedly just how dumb those things they're saying are.

People who say they are "bad" on the internet gets own in real life.

Oh, my people skills are just fine--but I can be a bit of a pain on the internet, especially to those who say dumb things after they've been shown repeatedly just how dumb those things they're saying are.

could be worse - he could be claiming that conservativism was invented in response to the new deal

could be worse - he could be claiming that conservativism was invented in response to the new deal

God... I've shown you supporting evidence, what do you want? Do you want me to build a time machine and take you to meet Barry Goldwater? Jeez do your own reasearch if you're not going to look at mine.

God... I've shown you supporting evidence, what do you want? Do you want me to build a time machine and take you to meet Barry Goldwater? Jeez do your own reasearch if you're not going to look at mine.

what would barry goldwater have to do with the origins of conservativism? as i said before, your research and analytical skills need a bit of work.

what would barry goldwater have to do with the origins of conservativism? as i said before, your research and analytical skills need a bit of work.

God you are so fucking stupid....

*puts on sock puppet*

Barry Goldwater was the father of Modern Conservatism. Even pre-schoolers know this.

*takes off sock puppet*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

God you are so fucking stupid....

*puts on sock puppet*

Barry Goldwater was the father of Modern Conservatism. Even pre-schoolers know this.

*takes off sock puppet*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
In the biz we call that an "Oh Snap". Your rebuttal, Free Soviets? (Free Soviets is an oxymoron)

In the biz we call that an "Oh Snap". Your rebuttal, free soviets? (free soviets is an oxymoron)

He's waiting for the government to tell him what to do.

Wilgrove, calm down.

Nazz, throwing insults around doesn't help your case.

Free Soviets, you can't just call someone an idiot without evidence.

Everyone, when someone says something and does the opposite it is hypocrisy. Al Gore has told people to reduce air travel and telecommute when possible in his book. He could have been interviewed on TV from his home by setting up a camera. He chose to fly across the country several times and in doing so released a far greater amount of air pollution than the average person did over the same period of time.

No one is disputing that Gore talks the talk but the linked and quoted USA Today story along with many others showed that he is not walking the walk. That is hypocrisy.

Barry Goldwater was the father of Modern Conservatism. Even pre-schoolers know this.

firstly, modern conservativism /= conservativism in general. it's got a modifier out front.

secondly, barry goldwater is no such thing. or have you stopped claiming that conservativism arose in response to the new deal now and moved it up to 1964 instead?

In the biz we call that an "Oh Snap".

though being even remotely true would probably help

(Free Soviets is an oxymoron)

look it up

firstly, modern conservativism /= conservativism in general. it's got a modifier out front.

Firstly, modern conservatism can be linked to Old Conservatism, the writer William F. Buckely Jr. who was an advocate for Modern Conservatism called himself classical liberal. Which was what old Conservatism was considered to be.


secondly, barry goldwater is no such thing. or have you stopped claiming that conservativism arose in response to the new deal now and moved it up to 1964 now instead?

No, I still say Modern Conservatism was in response to the New Deal. I have shown supporting evidence while you haven't produced any evidence saying otherwise.

No, I still say Modern Conservatism was in response to the New Deal.

go check your old thread - that isn't what you said, even when pressed.

and, of course, modern conservativism didn't take shape in response to the new deal - that'd be more the 'old right' and the old 'conservative coalition'

go check your old thread - that isn't what you said, even when pressed.

and, of course, modern conservativism didn't take shape in response to the new deal - that'd be more the 'old right' and the old 'conservative coalition'

Ok, if you're so smart, why don't you tell me what Modern Conservatism was in response to or why it got started.

I'm not really suprised about this to be honest.

Well, he is not the only hypocrite. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have millions of $$$. How much of that wealth have they given to the poor? Not much, but they want to give your tax money to the poor.:mad:

Well, he is not the only hypocrite. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have millions of $$$. How much of that wealth have they given to the poor? Not much, but they want to give your tax money to the poor.:mad:

Yep.

Well, he is not the only hypocrite. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have millions of $$$. How much of that wealth have they given to the poor? Not much, but they want to give your tax money to the poor.:mad:

i don't doubt that they get out of paying taxes in at least as many ways as anyone else can, but do you have any evidence that they actively break the law while paying their taxes? cause otherwise i don't see the hypocrisy there.

Ok, if you're so smart, why don't you tell me what Modern Conservatism was in response to or why it got started.

modern conservativism meaning the 'new right' or modern conservativism meaning the neoconservative authoritarian death cult?

modern conservativism meaning the 'new right' or modern conservativism meaning the neoconservative authoritarian death cult?

You know what, nevermind, I can see that you're biased to the left, and that you like to lump people together, so forget it.

i don't doubt that they get out of paying taxes in at least as many ways as anyone else can, but do you have any evidence that they actively break the law while paying their taxes? cause otherwise i don't see the hypocrisy there.

He never did claim that they broke laws...

He never did claim that they broke laws...

then the argument is that they, while being rich, want to tax rich people - such as themselves! - at a relatively higher rate in order to pay for various social programs. and then they pay too!

anyone care to explain again where the hypocrisy is in that case?

Well, he is not the only hypocrite. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have millions of $$$. How much of that wealth have they given to the poor? Not much, but they want to give your tax money to the poor.:mad:
You've got a really fucked up definition of hypocrisy, dude.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet that Kennedy and Kerry donate a big chunk of money to charities every year. Kerry's wife, who has the real money in that family, has a number of foundations devoted solely to charitable work, as do various members of the Kennedy family.

But more importantly, simply because they feel that providing for the general welfare--which is a requirement of the government according to the Constitution--with tax dollars is just fine, there's also the fact that they are taxpayers, so it's not like they're asking for other taxpayers to bear the whole burden. Hypocrisy would be if they exempted themselves from the payment of taxes, and then socked it to everyone else.

You know what, nevermind, I can see that you're biased to the left, and that you like to lump people together, so forget it.

making finer distinctions between things = lumping? what the fuck is this, bizarro world?

making finer distinctions between things = lumping? what the fuck is this, bizarro world?
Welcome to the world of internet conservatism.

Welcome to the world of internet conservatism.

if the fucked up bizarroness didn't go all the way to the top, it might be slightly more amusing. as is, it scares the crap out of me.

You've got a really fucked up definition of hypocrisy, dude.

First of all, I'd be willing to bet that Kennedy and Kerry donate a big chunk of money to charities every year. Kerry's wife, who has the real money in that family, has a number of foundations devoted solely to charitable work, as do various members of the Kennedy family.

But more importantly, simply because they feel that providing for the general welfare--which is a requirement of the government according to the Constitution--with tax dollars is just fine, there's also the fact that they are taxpayers, so it's not like they're asking for other taxpayers to bear the whole burden. Hypocrisy would be if they exempted themselves from the payment of taxes, and then socked it to everyone else.

Kerry reported giving $43,735, or about 11 percent of his total income, to charity. That significant level of giving stands in contrast to his record in the 1990s, in which the issue of the senator's charitable contributions was a source of controversy. In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200404140841.asp

Enough said.

making finer distinctions between things = lumping? what the fuck is this, bizarro world?

There's a diffrence between Neo-Cons and regular Conservatism. Reagan was the regular Conservatism, he is not Neo. Neither is Nixon or Goldwater or F. Buckely. Neo-Cons are people like Bush and Cheney. You fail to distinct between the two. You also linked Modern Conservatism to Neo-Con. Modern Conservatism goes back to the New Deal.

Kerry reported giving $43,735, or about 11 percent of his total income, to charity. That significant level of giving stands in contrast to his record in the 1990s, in which the issue of the senator's charitable contributions was a source of controversy. In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200404140841.asp

Enough said.
And it's still not hypocrisy, because he's a taxpayer too. God, how difficult is it to grasp that concept? US Senators are not exempt from paying income taxes, so the money they pay that gets "redirected" to poor people comes from them as much as from everyone else. Again, hypocrisy would be if the Congress passed a law exempting them from having to pay taxes whatsoever.

And it's still not hypocrisy, because he's a taxpayer too. God, how difficult is it to grasp that concept? US Senators are not exempt from paying income taxes, so the money they pay that gets "redirected" to poor people comes from them as much as from everyone else. Again, hypocrisy would be if the Congress passed a law exempting them from having to pay taxes whatsoever.

Taxes=/=chartiable donations.

Taxes=/=chartiable donations.
Tell you what--you follow this little mini-convo between me and Celtlund back a few posts, read it, make sure you understand where it started and how we ended up here, and then explain why your little comment has any impact whatsoever on what we've been discussing.

Tell you what--you follow this little mini-convo between me and Celtlund back a few posts, read it, make sure you understand where it started and how we ended up here, and then explain why your little comment has any impact whatsoever on what we've been discussing.

I thought you were passing off taxes as charitable donations, my bad. I withdraw that comment.

And it's still not hypocrisy, because he's a taxpayer too. God, how difficult is it to grasp that concept? US Senators are not exempt from paying income taxes, so the money they pay that gets "redirected" to poor people comes from them as much as from everyone else. Again, hypocrisy would be if the Congress passed a law exempting them from having to pay taxes whatsoever.

Well, to spout one thing and do another is....

hy·poc·ri·sy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

And it looks like Mr. Kerry has done that.

Well, to spout one thing and do another is....

hy·poc·ri·sy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

And it looks like Mr. Kerry has done that.
No he hasn't. He pays taxes and he casts votes on what to do with those taxes. What he does with his personal funds has exactly jack shit to do with what he or others do with their private funds. Kerry would be hypocritical if he were voting to exempt himself from having to pay income taxes, and then voted to send income tax money to the poor, but he's doing nothing of the sort.

No he hasn't. He pays taxes and he casts votes on what to do with those taxes. What he does with his personal funds has exactly jack shit to do with what he or others do with their private funds. Kerry would be hypocritical if he were voting to exempt himself from having to pay income taxes, and then voted to send income tax money to the poor, but he's doing nothing of the sort.

When a man wants to take taxpayers money and give it to social welfare programs but does not give his own money to social welfare programs, he is a hypocrite. He professes the need for social welfare but refuses to contribute to it other than through the government. Come on Nazz, he could do a hell of a lot for social welfare by giving 10% of his income to Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army.

When a man wants to take taxpayers money and give it to social welfare programs but does not give his own money to social welfare programs, he is a hypocrite. He professes the need for social welfare but refuses to contribute to it other than through the government. Come on Nazz, he could do a hell of a lot for social welfare by giving 10% of his income to Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army.
He is giving his money to social welfare programs--he's a goddamn taxpayer, Celtlund, just like the rest of us. He's voting on his own money as well as the rest of it. What he does with his personal money is no one's goddamn business, because that's a personal choice. What Kerry says with his votes is that the government has a responsibility--which it does, under the "provide for the general welfare" bit in the Constitution--to engage in social welfare programs. Again, there's nothing hypocritical going on here, except in your mind.

Think about it--you're demanding that Kerry give more money than others simply for him not to be a hypocrite in your eyes. Well that's crap, and you ought to know that. He pays his taxes--that's enough. If he gives to charity outside that, then good for him, and good for anyone else who does it, but if they choose not to, it's not hypocritical.

He is giving his money to social welfare programs--he's a goddamn taxpayer, Celtlund, just like the rest of us. He's voting on his own money as well as the rest of it. What he does with his personal money is no one's goddamn business, because that's a personal choice. What Kerry says with his votes is that the government has a responsibility--which it does, under the "provide for the general welfare" bit in the Constitution--to engage in social welfare programs. Again, there's nothing hypocritical going on here, except in your mind.

Think about it--you're demanding that Kerry give more money than others simply for him not to be a hypocrite in your eyes. Well that's crap, and you ought to know that. He pays his taxes--that's enough. If he gives to charity outside that, then good for him, and good for anyone else who does it, but if they choose not to, it's not hypocritical.

i think the point is that if it was such a big deal to him, he would do more than the minimum requirement (solely paying taxes)

Think about it--you're demanding that Kerry give more money than others simply for him not to be a hypocrite in your eyes. Well that's crap, and you ought to know that. He pays his taxes--that's enough. If he gives to charity outside that, then good for him, and good for anyone else who does it, but if they choose not to, it's not hypocritical.

What I would like him to do is to give a portion of his money to charity to help the poor through non-government aid before he gives any of his or my money away in ineffective government programs. If he really wants to help the poor, the best way to do that is through non-government programs.

P.S. OP, I'm sorry if Nazz and I hijacked the thread. We didn't mean to do so.

What I would like him to do is to give a portion of his money to charity to help the poor through non-government aid before he gives any of his or my money away in ineffective government programs. If he really wants to help the poor, the best way to do that is through non-government programs.

P.S. OP, I'm sorry if Nazz and I hijacked the thread. We didn't mean to do so.
Like it all you want--it still doesn't make Kerry a hypocrite.

What I would like him to do is to give a portion of his money to charity to help the poor through non-government aid before he gives any of his or my money away in ineffective government programs. If he really wants to help the poor, the best way to do that is through non-government programs.

P.S. OP, I'm sorry if Nazz and I hijacked the thread. We didn't mean to do so.

Eh it's ok, I'm pretty much done with it anyways, I've made my points and defended them.

Like it all you want--it still doesn't make Kerry a hypocrite.

OK, we agree to disagree. :fluffle:

OK, we agree to disagree.

i believe we can all agree that you don't know what the word 'hypocrite' means

Hypocrite means to say one thing and do something that goes against what you said. Gore says "Stop polluting" then flies all over the country on a jet, polluting more than the average person as he goes. That's hypocrisy.

Hypocrite means to say one thing and do something that goes against what you said. Gore says "Stop polluting" then flies all over the country on a jet, polluting more than the average person as he goes. That's hypocrisy.

Not if in flying around he educates enough people to actually lower their pollution.

If his goal is to reduce the pollution in the world, and in flying around in a jet and talking to people, he creates a net decrease in pollution growth, yet would not have by not using the jet, that is not being hypocritical. It is simply being efficient

I'm not really suprised about this to be honest.

haha,a politician that is not a hypocrite would spell the beginning of the end..gore is just one of the most blatant.

i think the higher you rise in public office is porportianate to how full of shit you are.

and all the left was pining for that pos after florida...dear god...i wouldnt know who to laugh harder at..bush or gore..equal opportunity scumbags.

granted bush is a puppet for corporate interests,but what the fuck is gore a puppet for(and you know he is)
thats what scares me most about him and his ilk,at least i know where the hell bush and his type are coming from..to fuck me over so they can get rich..i can deal with that,gore scares me,as i cant figure his agenda other then possibly being socialists...and i'll take bush over a socialist anyday...

thats american politics in a nutshell i guess.sad but true.

Not if in flying around he educates enough people to actually lower their pollution.

He still doesn't change his own lifestyle though, and until he does he will be a hypocrite.[/quote]


If his goal is to reduce the pollution in the world, and in flying around in a jet and talking to people, he creates a net decrease in pollution growth, yet would not have by not using the jet, that is not being hypocritical. It is simply being efficient

Like I said Until he changes his own personal lifestyle, he will be considered a hypocrite.

There's a diffrence between Neo-Cons and regular Conservatism... You fail to distinct between the two.

oh?

modern conservativism meaning the 'new right' or modern conservativism meaning the neoconservative authoritarian death cult?

just what do you mean by the term 'distinct' (or as we used to say back in the day, 'distinguish')?

You also linked Modern Conservatism to Neo-Con. Modern Conservatism goes back to the New Deal.

the neoconservatives are part of modern conservativism (more than a part, as they dominate the coalition these days). unless you are restricting your usage of the term to something less all-encompassing, such as just the 'new right'. hence my question.

and the modern formulation of conservativism has it's historical roots in the old right's opposition to the new deal, but it is not the old right.

Again, hypocrisy would be if the Congress passed a law exempting them from having to pay taxes whatsoever.

....or voted themselves pay raises to cover them.

Whether or not Massa Gore is a hypocrite has got owt to do with the imperative of applying and imposing carbon-neutral lifestyles.

Folks who run to use the H-word? Sick bags of suck.

Not if in flying around he educates enough people to actually lower their pollution.

If his goal is to reduce the pollution in the world, and in flying around in a jet and talking to people, he creates a net decrease in pollution growth, yet would not have by not using the jet, that is not being hypocritical. It is simply being efficient

If he were using a commercial airliner instead of a private jet you might be right. But, he isn't hence hypocritical.

Al Gore is very environmentally friendly. He is made of 100% recycled aluminum cans and his atomic core will power him for the next 10,000 years.

I haven't bothered to read through past the first page of this. I hope I'm not the first one to post this, but has the creator of this thread heard of Argumentum ad hominem? Because this is just one jewel of an example.

He still doesn't change his own lifestyle though, and until he does he will be a hypocrite.

Like I said Until he changes his own personal lifestyle, he will be considered a hypocrite.
I got an idea: Why don't all the people who want to change the world become hermits who do not move from any one place and do not publish books (after all books require paper which leads to deforestation) and do not own any electrical devices or do anything that in any way impacts the environment so that the rest of you can go on living just as you always have. How does that make you feel? Nothing changes, climate change becomes worse and you'll never have to see Al Gore or other environmentalists ever again. They'll just sit in their log cabins and cry.

I got an idea: Why don't all the people who want to change the world become hermits who do not move from any one place and do not publish books (after all books require paper which leads to deforestation) and do not own any electrical devices or do anything that in any way impacts the environment so that the rest of you can go on living just as you always have. How does that make you feel? Nothing changes, climate change becomes worse and you'll never have to see Al Gore or other environmentalists ever again. They'll just sit in their log cabins and cry.

I think there's a difference between that and owning three houses totaling over 14,000 square feet, none of which are powered by alternative energy.

If Gore's houses were climate-neutral and were powered by alternative energy, I couldn't care less if he had 400,000 square feet and 10 houses; however, warning people to change their lifestyles while simultaneously violating his own rules is rather hypocritical. Hell, I don't even have a problem with the jet because it's possible that the benefits could vastly outweigh the additional pollution.

I think there's a difference between that and owning three houses totaling over 14,000 square feet, none of which are powered by alternative energy.

If Gore's houses were climate-neutral and were powered by alternative energy, I couldn't care less if he had 400,000 square feet and 10 houses; however, warning people to change their lifestyles while simultaneously violating his own rules is rather hypocritical. Hell, I don't even have a problem with the jet because it's possible that the benefits could vastly outweigh the additional pollution.
He claims he's living a carbon neutral lifestyle. If he hasn't been up to this point, I'm sure he will be due to the negative press. Until I see something not dug up by the Drudge report, I feel its more important to hear his message.

Also, he and his wife calculate their yearly amount of carbon emission and then buy offsets. You can choose to believe they are telling the truth or not.

I wonder how many people who think Gore is a hypocrite for causing some pollution in order to get the word out also think Bush is a hypocrite for going to war in which some Americans are killed in order to keep other Americans from getting killed?

Hmmmm?

He claims he's living a carbon neutral lifestyle. If he hasn't been up to this point, I'm sure he will be due to the negative press. Until I see something not dug up by the Drudge report, I feel its more important to hear his message.

Also, he and his wife calculate their yearly amount of carbon emission and then buy offsets. You can choose to believe they are telling the truth or not.

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence either way makes such claims impossible to prove. Even so, it doesn't matter as much as some people make it sound; it's not like Gore is deliberately trying to flout his own advice or anything, and the amount of pollution he's probably saved is far more than anything he could possibly produce on his own.

All Gore needs to do is prove that he's bought these credits and is making efforts to offset his lifestyle and it will shut up his critics (as well as increase his number of supporters).

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence either way makes such claims impossible to prove. Even so, it doesn't matter as much as some people make it sound; it's not like Gore is deliberately trying to flout his own advice or anything, and the amount of pollution he's probably saved is far more than anything he could possibly produce on his own.

All Gore needs to do is prove that he's bought these credits and is making efforts to offset his lifestyle and it will shut up his critics (as well as increase his number of supporters).
Completely agreeable.

Well, he is not the only hypocrite. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have millions of $$$. How much of that wealth have they given to the poor? Not much, but they want to give your tax money to the poor.:mad:


That's also bullshit. Having money and wanting to help the poor is not hypocrisy. Being born rich and telling people that you get rich by hard work is hypocrisy.

If a rich guy just throws all his money on the street in a poor neighborhood he will then be poor, but he will not have done much to make that neighborhood a better place.

It could be argued that by using his money to finance a Senate career in which he advocates programs that help the poor and working class he is using his money to help the poor.

Oh, BTW, in the last tax statement I found according to the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200404140841.asp)

Kerry reported giving $43,735, or about 11 percent of his total income, to charity

Even the Catholic Church, and the height of it's power, only demanded 10%

You are employing one of the most annoying bullshit techniques of the bullshit right-wing. Appealing to the moral ignornace of your audience. Problem is, it only works long term on conservatives, who have no morality. Against liberals, the best you can hope for is a short-term bamboozling because most liberals are so unaccustomed to hearing such unabashed bullshit that we don't immediatly know how to respond. When confronted with new perspectives we have a tendency to assume that those perspectives have some merit. By the time we come to realize that yours don't, you've already claimed an undeserved victory.

What I would like him to do is to give a portion of his money to charity to help the poor through non-government aid before he gives any of his or my money away in ineffective government programs. If he really wants to help the poor, the best way to do that is through non-government programs.

P.S. OP, I'm sorry if Nazz and I hijacked the thread. We didn't mean to do so.

I refer you to my earlier post.

Here you are resorting to the other annoying bullshit strategy of the bullshit right-wing. Relying on the factual ignorance of your audience. Again, it tends to work in the short term on liberals, because when confronted with unfamiliar "facts" we don't automatically assume that they're false. By the time we realize we've been lied to, the conservative has run off with, again, an undeserved victory. It works against conservatives all the time, because they always, and only belive what they're told to believe by pre-approved authorities. e.g. there's no global warming, Dubya said so. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, Sean Hannity said so etc.

Bill O'Reilly does this all the time. He'll have a guest on his show who disagrees with him and he'll tell them something that "proves" that they're wrong, but it's not true ("I called a boycott on French goods, and France lost billions according to the Paris Business Revue"(there is no Paris Business Revue)). You can always tell when he's lying because he'll always either conclude the previous statement with "now that's true," or he will conclude the false one with "now that's a fact."

If he were using a commercial airliner instead of a private jet you might be right. But, he isn't hence hypocritical.

He is a political figure, as I have stated, and traveling in a public plane may not be an option.

So let him use the option that is available. Once again, matters of efficiency.

I haven't bothered to read through past the first page of this. I hope I'm not the first one to post this, but has the creator of this thread heard of Argumentum ad hominem? Because this is just one jewel of an example.
It's not ad hominem as a stand alone argument. We've gone over logical fallacies before in another thread. As a stand alone argument it is valid. It's soundness is being debated here, but the validity is not in question unless the argument is used against another imporperly.

This would be an example of ad hominem if it were used to say Gore isn't qualified to make these claims. The proper argument against his credibility would be that he is not a meterologist and does not have a significant understanding of atmospheric processes.

So? Environments change, extinctions happen, yet we're still here. Also, if the ice melts and flows into the ocean, the ocean temperature will drop, allowing plankton to flourish, which will in turn increase marine food sources.

Global warming will not help the fish stocks because ice is made of fresh water and when that melts the salinity of the water will decrease causing alot of aquatic life to die because they won't have enough time to adapt to the changing salinity.

I got an idea: Why don't all the people who want to change the world become hermits who do not move from any one place and do not publish books (after all books require paper which leads to deforestation) and do not own any electrical devices or do anything that in any way impacts the environment so that the rest of you can go on living just as you always have. How does that make you feel? Nothing changes, climate change becomes worse and you'll never have to see Al Gore or other environmentalists ever again. They'll just sit in their log cabins and cry.

Yea that'll make me happy. :p

I got an idea: Why don't all the people who want to change the world become hermits who do not move from any one place and do not publish books (after all books require paper which leads to deforestation) and do not own any electrical devices or do anything that in any way impacts the environment so that the rest of you can go on living just as you always have. How does that make you feel? Nothing changes, climate change becomes worse and you'll never have to see Al Gore or other environmentalists ever again. They'll just sit in their log cabins and cry.
Lead by example.:)

I expected as much.