Thread: Do You Think GWB Hates Al Gore?

Originally Posted by icedog

We have consumed all and conserved little. What would you suggest is the solution?

Brad

I know you didn't ask me, but if you had I would answer that I would consume at least as much as I need to perform at maximum strength and efficiency. I don't think cutting back on resources is a good answer, but diversifying them and making good use of them ought to be wise

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I know you didn't ask me, but if you had I would answer that I would consume at least as much as I need to perform at maximum strength and efficiency. I don't think cutting back on resources is a good answer, but diversifying them and making good use of them ought to be wise

Your to damned sharp to be only 28!



I feel pretty, oh so pretty!

Originally Posted by icedog

John,

Do you think it is possible we (humankind) has over harvested the oceans? Do you think it is possible the use of chemical fertilizers and pestacides on farms along the Missippi River have caused a tremendous dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico? I think the profound lesson I have learned in my life is that man has the ability and the inconsiderate selfishness to cause serious damage to our environment. Perhaps you dislike the messenger but the message (in my eyes) is clear and true. We have spent enough time at the top of the food chain to eat ourselves out of house and home. We have consumed all and conserved little. What would you suggest is the solution?

Brad

Hi again.
Believe it or not, I think we can and do quite a few of those things. However wrt to the atmosphere not enough science has supported the results Mr. Gore and others have alleged. I do believe we have AN effect, but I also believe there hasn't been enough study into previous warming trends (i.e. 800-1100 AD, when studies say it was warmer even than today, and perhaps even prehistoric examples seemingly running in cycles). The premise is made by his organization and others that his is THE explanation, the ONLY explanation, and no OTHER explanation need even be considered. Such is not true science. The fact it has given Mr. Gore a wave of popularity based on the support of various groups politically aligned with his views does not change this fact.
I would much rather listen to a real conservationist explain how best to save the environment (as well as our wallets, to be honest) than send a single penny to a hypocritical former political candidate who does not practice what he preaches to buy "Carbon credits". Nor do I support the idea of giving the UN or other global organizations more and more power based on the fear of something which they have no real control over, when it is apparent they and other organizations (EU anyone) are using every excuse to reach farther and farther into the sovereignty of their member nations. I did not elect three guys in Brussels, no matter what the weather is in Tulsa or Memphis tomorrow. Unfortunately I don't think this is all about true science, but that it is about a new behemoth government (global this time, not US) organization trying to stick it to EVERYONE based on science IT has already made its conclusions on, regardless of fact.
We already pay through the nose for superfund sites and all sorts of things with the intent of cleaning up the environment. The stuff we already have is working, and we are already on the right path to correcting our actions. Paying the UN or Al Gore's company a ton of money isn't going to change anything. It's akin to the Medieval practice of paying priests to pray for the soul of a friend. There's no way to see if it does anything, and the priest gets richer. Likewise government entities like the UN/EU etc. they get bigger and bigger and are very unlikely IMHO to announce any positive news that would equal less money/power for themselves. Of course, first HINT of something bad, and the tax man is knocking.


John P.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

My point is that "Cabernet Communists" is a bit shrill. How would you feel if that sort of language was turned on you? Would that be "gentlemanly?" "Communist" is such a byword among some people; should we respond by calling them "Nazis?" Is either really accurate?

Besides, I see nothing "conservative" about the current crop of Republicans, climate change nay-sayers, and religious social engineers.

j

Methinks you doth protest too much...

Perhaps Syrah Socialists would be preferred since it is arguably less offensive? And let there be no doubt, socialism is what many mainstream Democrats advocate as a cure for all of America’s ills. Labeling a socialist a communist for the sake of highlighting their common traits is neither inaccurate nor unfair, merely an exaggeration. Socialism and communism spring from a common ancestor, Marxism; the latter is simply the former taken to the extreme.

Additionally, calling conservatives Nazis is not the same thing as calling liberals communists. The Nazis implemented a form of fascism which became known as National Socialism just as the Soviets implemented a flavor of Marxism which became known as Communism. Therefore, while few conservatives wish to impose anything approaching true fascism, the appropriate in-kind response to being called a communist would be to call your accuser a fascist. Thus had I said Sauvignon Soviets, a retort of … Nazi becomes logical. Sort of.

Still sounds like name calling to me, regardless of how complicated you rationalize it.

I have an idea . . . lets move on. . .

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Methinks you doth protest too much...

Perhaps Syrah Socialists would be preferred since it is arguably less offensive? And let there be no doubt, socialism is what many mainstream Democrats advocate as a cure for all of America’s ills. Labeling a socialist a communist for the sake of highlighting their common traits is neither inaccurate nor unfair, merely an exaggeration. Socialism and communism spring from a common ancestor, Marxism; the latter is simply the former taken to the extreme.

Additionally, calling conservatives Nazis is not the same thing as calling liberals communists. The Nazis implemented a form of fascism which became known as National Socialism just as the Soviets implemented a flavor of Marxism which became known as Communism. Therefore, while few conservatives wish to impose anything approaching true fascism, the appropriate in-kind response to being called a communist would be to call your accuser a fascist. Thus had I said Sauvignon Soviets, a retort of … Nazi becomes logical. Sort of.

You're right -- calling liberals "socialists" is not the same thing as calling conservatives fascists -- even assuming that there are such things as "liberals" any more, which I doubt.

Liberals never advocated government control of individual rights or the expansion of government. They do believe that government has a role in some areas where individuals can't get the best results, like health care or environmental protection, but other than that, nada.

On the other hand, conservatives -- and especially neo-cons -- have a great deal in common with fascists. In fact, they adhere to the most central tenets of fascist dogma. (Check here: Economic Fascism )

But, as Alan said, it's really just name calling, which was the subject of my post in the first place. I believe that conservatives would find that they could be much more persuasive if the could avoid such schoolboy tactics.

j

Getting back on topic, I dont think they hate each other, they have too much in common, such as an ever increasing role of government in indidual lives and liberty.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Getting back on topic, I dont think they hate each other, they have too much in common, such as an ever increasing role of government in indidual lives and liberty.

Ah, the voice of reason.

I don't think they hate each other either. To my observation, politicians seem to regard each other rather impersonally.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

On the other hand, conservatives -- and especially neo-cons -- have a great deal in common with fascists. In fact, they adhere to the most central tenets of fascist dogma. (Check here: Economic Fascism )

"fascists considered the economy to be of little importance and did not have clear economic views." - Wikipedia, the Ultimate Source of Knowledge

Interesting

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Getting back on topic, I dont think they hate each other, they have too much in common, such as an ever increasing role of government in indidual lives and liberty.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Ah, the voice of reason.

I don't think they hate each other either. To my observation, politicians seem to regard each other rather impersonally.

j

+1 and +1.
Wow.
I agree with both of you. I'm sure not much has changed WRT professional politicians since the days of the Romans.
So much for the founding fathers' ideals of the government being run by common citizens. That would seem to be the exception, rather than the rule, now, a campaign (if one hopes to be even remotely competitive) costs more than most Americans will ever SEE, let alone earn.

John P.