| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Miller" |
| Date: |
12 Oct 2007 04:02:05 PM |
| Object: |
Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
Gore had a piece of the peace prize this year because apparently the
committee wanted to make a statement about the importance immediate action
on global warming. They also mentioned the disastrous effect it will have
on economies and cultures throughout the world. Is this an appropriate
reason for awarding the prize?
Scott
.
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 09:36:06 PM |
|
|
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss and
others of his ilk.
If you think someone is cut snip dodging, do what I do:
Repaste what the coward cut snip dodged.
For example, you dodged everything I posted above and now I'm going to
repost it below to rub your face into your own cowardice just like
Clinton is going to spend the next 8 years rubbing Gore's face into
the fact that, if Gore had listened to Clinton instead of putting on
airs, he could have prissed around in the White House for 8 years.
<beginning of cowardly cut/snip dodge>
There seems to be this negative
attitude about the guy
Hardly surprising considering Gore's all consuming hatred of the
ever
popular Clintons. A _Washington Post_ or some other columnist got it
half way right in 2000 comparing Gore to the Italian composer who was
jealous of Mozart. I say "halfway" because while Bill Clinton could
be a credible political Mozart, the Italian composer wasn't exactly
tone deaf.
The Democratic Party is big tent but the big tent shouldn't include
haters. Gore's irrational hatred of Clinton alone should have
precluded him from being in the party in any official capacity, let
alone being nominated as a presidential candidate.
Nominating a misanthrope in 2000 as a presidential candidate was the
dumbest mistake the Democratic Party has made in its two century
history. Even Tipper could have gotten into the White House and have
speeded up the time line for the first woman president by 8 years.
Campaigns and elections have consequences. With their concession
speeches Gore and Kerry are both joined at the hip with the worst
president in the history of the republic and no amount of
greenwashing
can mask this glaring fact in the minds of either future historians
or
'08 voters.
If the dunce in the White House has an approval rating of 25% --
mostly fundies and the politically incurious shunned by all Hollywood
types except maybe Mel Gibson -- what does this say about candidates
who couldn't beat him by at least double digits?
Gore and Kerry were too dumb to get their lofty message out with 100
million dollars and unlimited access to the media for a year?
To dumb to call the bottom fishing scams of the GOP?
To dumb to wrangle the public debate from media hyping social issues
and back to economic issues?
that isn't particularly rational.
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters
like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt
hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.
<end of cut snip>
See how it works?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 11:57:27 AM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the brightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Party with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton economic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "we got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Clinton a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were having their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was completely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virulent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite jerk who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a running
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S. Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."
I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or water . .
The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . . ."
From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A, saving the
polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans (including his
own fanny).
I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.
When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.
Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.
The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.
Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who isn't
consumed by hate.
Bret Cahill-
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 01:08:48 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the brightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Party with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton economic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "we got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Clinton a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were having their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was completely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virulent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite jerk who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a running
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute. The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
-tg
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S. Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."
I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or water . .
The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . . ."
From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A, saving the
polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans (including his
own fanny).
I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.
When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.
Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.
The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.
Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who isn't
consumed by hate.
Bret Cahill-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 06:15:53 PM |
|
|
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence?
Nader can be criticized, not for being a spoiler -- anyone who
concedes twice, both times without an accurate vote count just didn't
want to be president --, but for being an do nothing has been with
nothing to contribute.
.. . . .
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade.
Actually Nader never really said anything constructive.
And not too surprisingly, Nader has had zero effect on American
politics and policy for decades..
.. . . .
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute. The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
No one was saying the Republicans and Democrats were alike. The
Greens were saying Gore and Bush were alike.
"Bore & Gush"
It is true that both are the sons of national politicians,
unaccomplished non/anti public servants jerks who have never done a
day's work in their entire lives.
But that's no reason to vote for Nader.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 02:55:29 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 2:08 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the brightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Party with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton economic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "we got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Clinton a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were having their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was completely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virulent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite jerk who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a running
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute.
Well, if Gore had conceded and thrown support to Nader at the last
minute, we wouldn't be in Iraq, right?
So you're saying he should support someone that he doesn't really
support? Had he done that I would have no respect for the guy -- it's
called having principles. That's why they call them principles -- you
don't just discard them when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The thing
about Nader is that he has them -- he walks the walk.
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
To blame Nader and his voters for all the dead people in Iraq is
simply wrong.
The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
Can you point to where he said that?
I think you know what his message was: not that there are *no*
differences, but that the differences between the two are slight. Most
importantly, they are both beholden to the same corporate interests.
So whose environmental policies more closely aligns with yours? Whose
foreign policy is more hawkish?
And most importantly, who would you rather have a beer with? ;-)
-tg
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S. Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."
I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or water . .
The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . . ."
From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A, saving the
polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans (including his
own fanny).
I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.
When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.
Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.
The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.
Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who isn't
consumed by hate.
Bret Cahill-
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 07:50:42 PM |
|
|
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1192478129.296796.295130@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 15, 2:08 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the
American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the
White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the
brightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the
GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Party
with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton economic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "we
got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for
jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore
played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he
didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Clinton
a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media
writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were having
their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was completely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virulent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite jerk
who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss
and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he
won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a running
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the
media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute.
Well, if Gore had conceded and thrown support to Nader at the last
minute, we wouldn't be in Iraq, right?
So you're saying he should support someone that he doesn't really
support? Had he done that I would have no respect for the guy -- it's
called having principles. That's why they call them principles -- you
don't just discard them when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The thing
about Nader is that he has them -- he walks the walk.
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
To blame Nader and his voters for all the dead people in Iraq is
simply wrong.
The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
Can you point to where he said that?
I think you know what his message was: not that there are *no*
differences, but that the differences between the two are slight. Most
importantly, they are both beholden to the same corporate interests.
So whose environmental policies more closely aligns with yours? Whose
foreign policy is more hawkish?
And most importantly, who would you rather have a beer with? ;-)
-tg
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the
unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest
economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers
that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend
$100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never
_once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out
of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The
Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on
your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating
soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private
matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running
mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by
deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20
megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the
Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating
a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it
was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against
peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was
misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of
peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary
situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference
in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar
generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and
lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in
price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically
as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest
about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of
peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S.
Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and
petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."
I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who
predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or
water . .
The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . .
."
From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A,
saving the
polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans
(including his
own fanny).
I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but
he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to
a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.
When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term
Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.
Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for
sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is
now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.
The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not
only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is
precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.
Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who
isn't
consumed by hate.
Bret Cahill-
Good points. I'd like to have voted for Pat Buchanan...but one must ask
about the dynamics of popular voting.
Ross Perot essentially allowed Clinton to gain office in 1992, though those
voting for Perot, suredly moved only by their convictions. Like in 2000,
those voting for Raph Nader suredly did not see the ramifications of their
vote, but ultimately resulted in Bush II. Intelligence leaves us not so
much to act by our convictions, but more what comprimise attains the closest
result of those convictions. Democracy will always be the dynamic of what
'lesser evil' serves one's own cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 08:29:33 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 8:50 pm, "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"ta" <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1192478129.296796.295130@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 15, 2:08 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the
American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the
White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the
brightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the
GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Party
with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton economic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "we
got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for
jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore
played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he
didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Clinton
a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media
writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were having
their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was completely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virulent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite jerk
who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss
and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he
won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a running
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the
media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute.
Well, if Gore had conceded and thrown support to Nader at the last
minute, we wouldn't be in Iraq, right?
So you're saying he should support someone that he doesn't really
support? Had he done that I would have no respect for the guy -- it's
called having principles. That's why they call them principles -- you
don't just discard them when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The thing
about Nader is that he has them -- he walks the walk.
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
To blame Nader and his voters for all the dead people in Iraq is
simply wrong.
The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
Can you point to where he said that?
I think you know what his message was: not that there are *no*
differences, but that the differences between the two are slight. Most
importantly, they are both beholden to the same corporate interests.
So whose environmental policies more closely aligns with yours? Whose
foreign policy is more hawkish?
And most importantly, who would you rather have a beer with? ;-)
-tg
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the
unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest
economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers
that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend
$100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never
_once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out
of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The
Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on
your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating
soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private
matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running
mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by
deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20
megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the
Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating
a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it
was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against
peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was
misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of
peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary
situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference
in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar
generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and
lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in
price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically
as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest
about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of
peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S.
Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and
petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."
I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who
predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or
water . .
The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . .
."
From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A,
saving the
polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans
(including his
own fanny).
I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but
he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to
a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.
When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term
Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.
Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for
sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is
now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.
The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not
only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is
precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.
Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who
isn't
consumed by hate.
Bret Cahill-
Good points. I'd like to have voted for Pat Buchanan...but one must ask
about the dynamics of popular voting.
Ross Perot essentially allowed Clinton to gain office in 1992, though those
voting for Perot, suredly moved only by their convictions. Like in 2000,
those voting for Raph Nader suredly did not see the ramifications of their
vote, but ultimately resulted in Bush II. Intelligence leaves us not so
much to act by our convictions, but more what comprimise attains the closest
result of those convictions. Democracy will always be the dynamic of what
'lesser evil' serves one's own cause.
Good lord, how many times must this myth be debunked. You'll have to
pardon my lack of patience on this issue, but it's the story of "if
you repeat something enough times, people begin to believe it".
Ralph Nader is not to blame for Gore losing for God's sake -- this can
be objectively verified and reasoned. Did you know that more democrats
in Florida voted for Bush than for Nader? And even if they hadn't, you
can't isolate one factor and declare that that is *the cause*. Gore
couldn't even pull his home state of Tennessee.
If you don't want to crunch the numbers yourself, here is a good
summary:
http://www.alternet.org/story/10065/
If you're more visually inclined, check out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KV8shKupf2I
Democracy is a pretty simple concept to me -- choose the candidate who
most closely represents my viewpoints and values. Perhaps more people
should try it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 07:45:45 PM |
|
|
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
In that case all you need to do to vote for the person with identical
principles as yours is to cast your hat into the ring.
The more idiots we get out of real life politics the better.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 05:00:18 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 3:55 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:08 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the brightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Party with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton economic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "we got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Clinton a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were having their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was completely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virulent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite jerk who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weiss and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a running
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute.
Well, if Gore had conceded and thrown support to Nader at the last
minute, we wouldn't be in Iraq, right?
So you're saying he should support someone that he doesn't really
support? Had he done that I would have no respect for the guy -- it's
called having principles. That's why they call them principles -- you
don't just discard them when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The thing
about Nader is that he has them -- he walks the walk.
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
To blame Nader and his voters for all the dead people in Iraq is
simply wrong.
The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
Can you point to where he said that?
I think you know what his message was: not that there are *no*
differences, but that the differences between the two are slight.
But he was wrong about that. Being beholden to corporations is one
problem, and being psychotic is another. And Gore looks at the world
differently from Bush; in particular, he listens to scientists, while
Bush listens to the voices in his head. (And Cheney, which is even
worse.)
The point is that Nader (and most of us) could not have known how bad
it was going to be, and so 'sticking to his principles' was not
unreasonable. But if you are going to make that argument about Nader,
then you should also make it about Gore. The choice was between an
imperfect but intelligent and rational person, and .........ecchh.
Why do you expect some kind of sainthood on Gore's part? As a voter, I
have to make choices about what is going to yield the better outcome
in the things I care about.
I guess this is something that I have some personal experience with;
I've done the Nader thing a few times in my life, and in the end I
have to honestly conclude that it was more about my ego and less
making things better for people that I cared about. There was some
effect; but my personal influence stopped at the point that I left the
scene. What about Nader as attorney general or some other position
like that? How does that balance against his 'principled stance'?
-tg
Most
importantly, they are both beholden to the same corporate interests.
So whose environmental policies more closely aligns with yours? Whose
foreign policy is more hawkish?
And most importantly, who would you rather have a beer with? ;-)
-tg
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be president by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message out?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparalleled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest economic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budget
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers numbers that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spend $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never _once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip out of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The Supreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rating soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private matters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a running mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 megawatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of the Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nominating a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned against peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years of peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary situation---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a difference in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/solar generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) and lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in price, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politically as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midwest about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch of peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S. Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast."
I then quoted a marine biologist at Scripps in La Jolla who predicted
in as little as 15 years, they'll draw down Lake Mead below the
turbine inlets and S. Cal. wouldn't have any electricity or water . .
The acquaintence just gloated, "we have coal, we have water . . ."
From that remark was obvious he had already skipped plan A, saving the
polar bears, and gone directly to Plan B, saving humans (including his
own fanny).
I'm a little more hopeful ("breakthroughs are guaranteed") but he's
right that all the greenwashing by the rich wouldn't amount to a hill
of beans as far as future reality is concerned.
When gas is $10/gallon toward the end of Hillary's second term Gore's
polar bears and the Branson's Prize will seem like sick jokes.
Let's hope that Hillary does more than $50 billion for sustainable
energy. We need at least $100 billion/year -- what Cheney is now
spending on his Iraqi oil quagmire.
The Nobel Prize needs to go to someone with _solutions_. Not only
does Gore have no solutions, political or technical, Gore is precluded
from ever having any solutions because Gore abhors ideas.
Even more, the Nobel Prize also needs to go to someone who isn't
consumed by hate.
Bret Cahill-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 11:16:51 PM |
|
|
The point is that Nader (and most of us) could not have known how bad
it was going to be,
Actually Nader either knew, or as the trial lawyers say, should have
known.
I knew. Why couldn't Mr. Safety Belts figger it out? Was he too
stupid or what?
My view of the Gore fiasco in the summer of 2000 was like that of a
passenger on an airliner was accellerating down the runway under
Clinton but under term limits he had to turn the controls over to what
he thought was his copilot.
Just when the aircraft should have been taking off to clear the jet
fuel tank farm, Gore slams the stick forward whining, "I'm not going
to do it . . ."
What kind of campaign is, "I'm not going to do it?"
That's not just a lousy campaign. That's an incredibly lousy person,
a jerk.
If Gore didn't like Clinton or the sex scandal, Gore should have
resigned from the administration.
Instead Gore wanted it both ways. Gore didn't want competitive
primaries so he stayed with Clinton so he could preclude other
Democrats like Bradley who could have easily beat Cheney.
And quess what's going to happen now?
Gore is going to spend _another_ 8 years stewing in his own juice,
watching Hillary win by double digits, passing health care with a
heavily Democratic Congress and having all kinds of parties and
dignitaries in the White House -- the stuff that makes a shallow
person like Gore green with envy.
When the Bushies are out of power people will start to ask, "what was
all THAT about? How did that motley assortment of character ever get
into power in the first place? Who did the Democrats run against
Bush?"
Then politically astute historians will understand my airline takeoff
analogy.
.. . .
Why do you expect some kind of sainthood on Gore's part?
Because he's so sanctimonious? The late Molly Ivins pointed that out
in 2000.
.. . .
As a voter, I
have to make choices about what is going to yield the better outcome
in the things I care about.
Progressives don't believe in a final perfect static state of society.
Only libertarians, Greens and neocons believe that.
I guess this is something that I have some personal experience with;
I've done the Nader thing a few times in my life, and in the end I
have to honestly conclude that it was more about my ego and less
making things better for people that I cared about.
It was no reason to vote Greenola but Nader comes out ahead of Gore on
that matter. Nader once did a useful day's work.
There was some
effect; but my personal influence stopped at the point that I left the
scene. What about Nader as attorney general or some other position
like that? How does that balance against his 'principled stance'?
How about appointing Gore to a new international cabinet position:
Secretary of Carbon?
After all, Gore has already promised some solutions.
Gore is so shallow, however, he probably imagines it's about a chimney
sweep.
In sharp contrast, I'ld be very proud to be CO2 Czar.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 07:53:08 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 6:00 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 3:55 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:08 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the Ame=
rican
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in th=
e White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White Ho=
use
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the bri=
ghtest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed the=
GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a loser,=
he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic Par=
ty with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton econom=
ic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, "w=
e got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for ji=
ngoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gore =
played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but he =
didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating Cli=
nton a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media w=
riter
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were havin=
g their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was complet=
ely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a virule=
nt
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite j=
erk who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, 20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah Weis=
s and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a lo=
usy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and he=
won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a runni=
ng
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wash=
in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and the =
media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? Nad=
er
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcrosies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. If =
the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so be =
it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute.
Well, if Gore had conceded and thrown support to Nader at the last
minute, we wouldn't be in Iraq, right?
So you're saying he should support someone that he doesn't really
support? Had he done that I would have no respect for the guy -- it's
called having principles. That's why they call them principles -- you
don't just discard them when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The thing
about Nader is that he has them -- he walks the walk.
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
To blame Nader and his voters for all the dead people in Iraq is
simply wrong.
The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
Can you point to where he said that?
I think you know what his message was: not that there are *no*
differences, but that the differences between the two are slight.
But he was wrong about that. Being beholden to corporations is one
problem, and being psychotic is another. And Gore looks at the world
differently from Bush; in particular, he listens to scientists, while
Bush listens to the voices in his head. (And Cheney, which is even
worse.)
The point is that Nader (and most of us) could not have known how bad
it was going to be, and so 'sticking to his principles' was not
unreasonable. But if you are going to make that argument about Nader,
then you should also make it about Gore. The choice was between an
imperfect but intelligent and rational person, and .........ecchh.
Well, no -- the choice was between three people . . . one horrid, one
a little less horrid, and one really good. If you choose to vote for
the mediocre one, that's your right, but I tend to vote *for* a
candidate, not *against* the other candidate.
Why do you expect some kind of sainthood on Gore's part?
I don't. But he's as much a part of a corrupt, failed system as Bush.
In that sense, they are more alike than different. By the way, I don't
consider living up to one's espoused principles is "sainthood". Nader
walks the walk -- that doesn't make him a saint, but it makes him a
person I respect and trust, and I'd rather have someone I respect and
trust running the country than, well . . . . Gore or Bush.
As a voter, I
have to make choices about what is going to yield the better outcome
in the things I care about.
I guess this is something that I have some personal experience with;
I've done the Nader thing a few times in my life,
You make it sound like the latest fad. There is no "Nader thing" as
far I'm concerned. There are choices to be made about who most closely
represents my values and principles (that's why we call them
representatives, right?), and that person gets my vote. Period.
and in the end I
have to honestly conclude that it was more about my ego and less
making things better for people that I cared about.
There was some
effect; but my personal influence stopped at the point that I left the
scene.
From a strictly rational perspective, Nader's policies and ideas, if
implemented, would make the country a better place for me and the
people I care about imo. I wouldn't vote for him otherwise. (although
actually in 2004 I did the "vote swap" thing, where I voted for Kerry
in my state, since it was a battleground state, and another person
voted for Nader in her state - so technically, I voted for Kerry).
What about Nader as attorney general or some other position
like that? How does that balance against his 'principled stance'?
You're thinking like a politician, and politicians care more about
having power than actually working from a principled stance. The thing
I like about Nader is that he's not a career politician, and he does
act from his principles. Having power is not his motivating force,
unlike nearly all politicians -- he's genuinely passionate about
making meaningful changes.
However, I'm certain Nader would offer Gore a position in his
administration, perhaps as chief of the EPA.
-tg
Most
importantly, they are both beholden to the same corporate interests.
So whose environmental policies more closely aligns with yours? Whose
foreign policy is more hawkish?
And most importantly, who would you rather have a beer with? ;-)
-tg
-tg
Is it particularly rational to claim you should be presiden=
t by
claiming that you were too dumb to get your lofty message o=
ut?
Is it particularly rational to campaign against the unparal=
leled
successes of your own administration, i. e., the longest ec=
onomic
expansion in the history of the republic, trillions in budg=
et
surpluses, highest increase in black family income since the
Emancipation Proclamation, all with economic numbers number=
s that
discredited GOP "market" economists?
Is it particularly rational for the Democratic Party to spe=
nd $100
million for a candidate to get his ideas out when he never =
_once_ in
the course of his entire campaign let the word "idea" slip =
out of his
mouth?
It it particularly rational to make 2 concession speechs in=
one
campaign, both times without an accurate vote count? The S=
upreme
Court never ordered anyone to concede even once.
Is it particularly rational to blame Clinton's sex scandal =
on your
failure to become president when Clinton's own approval rat=
ing soared
during the scandal?
Was it particularly rational to select jihad Joe "private m=
atters like
religion and sex are political matters" Lieberman as a runn=
ing mate
just because Lieberman denounced Clinton's sex scandal?
Is it particularly rational to try to greenwash yourself by=
deploring
global warming while having no solutions to your own 20 meg=
awatt hour/
month electric consumption?
Democrats need to face reality: All the irrationality of t=
he Bushie
years is traceable to the irrationality of Democrats nomina=
ting a
pompous unaccomplished ingrate senator's son in 2000.
Shortly after he was elected W. Bush told some Swedes that =
it was
pretty amazing when you think about it. He campaigned agai=
nst peace
and prosperity and he won.
Like just about everything else the Bushies said, this was =
misleading
too.
Actually it was Al Gore who was campaigning against 8 years=
of peace
and prosperity.
Just to have a little positive note on a dreary situation=
---some of
the tech that should come out of this will make a differe=
nce in low-
standard-of-living high-birthrate places. Put a wind/sola=
r generator
in an African village (Bill Gates, are you listening?) an=
d lots of
things are possible. But they will have to come down in p=
rice, which
will only happen through first-world market forces.
Just to add a realistic note I was explaining to a politica=
lly as well
as technically astute acquaintence now residing in the midw=
est about
the dire situation in S. California with the one two punch =
of peak oil
and global warming drying up the Colorado River. I said S=
.. Cal.
relies on two liquids more than any other place, water and =
petroleum
"and both are disappearing or getting expensive really fast=
.."
I then
...
read more =BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize |
15 Oct 2007 08:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 8:53 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:00 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 3:55 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:08 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:57 pm, ta <padl...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 12:21 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the A=
merican
people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in =
the White
House.
Another better reason is that Gore let Dumbya into the White =
House
and, from the POV of most, rightards as well as many of the b=
rightest
liberal commentators like Eleanor Clift, promptly destroyed t=
he GOP.
According to rightard theory, if Gore hadn't been such a lose=
r, he
would have have gotten elected and destroyed the Democratic P=
arty with
his preachyness.
We saw the same thing with Kerry.
In reality the GOP was destroyed by the high tax Clinton econ=
omic
boom. That's why Rove, et. at., were running around saying, =
"we got
to think big! BIB I tell ya!!!"
The Bushies abandoned the Gipper and "market" economists for =
jingoism
because that was their only choice.
Except for all the waste involved, even I must admit that Gor=
e played
a cruel, if unintentional, trick on rightards.
. . .
Your complaint seems to be that you wanted him to win but h=
e didn't
win by enough,
Gore din't even have a campaign, unless you consider hating C=
linton a
campaign.
Soon everyone will know what was going on.
Clinton was systematically destroying the GOP. A corp. media=
writer
even wrote "it's Clinton v the GOP. The antibiotics were hav=
ing their
effect .
Instead of continuing the antibiotics until the GOP was compl=
etely
dead Gore suddenly discontinued the treatment allowing a viru=
lent
strain of rightardism to evolve.
and so now you have to find a personal attack
If someone is a sanctimonious (Molly Ivins) pompous hypocrite=
jerk who
never accomplished anything in his entire life and now wants =
to
greenwash himself while burning tons of fossil fuels / year, =
20
megawatt hours/month, then he's going to get attacked.
Anyway you dodged the issue:
Gosh Bret you are becoming as much of a snipcoward as Massah We=
iss and
others of his ilk. What's up?
I can only repeat---you sound like a jilted lover. Gore was a =
lousy
campaigner and so on, he made bad choices, blah blah, .....and =
he won.
It isn't at all clear that if he had *not* run from Clinton (and
picked the other definition of "sanctimonious *****" as a run=
ning
mate,) the outcome would have been better. It was probably a wa=
sh in
the end, I think. More significant were your buddy Nader and th=
e media
personal attacks which you are now repeating.
Yikes, are we still scapegoating Nader for Gore's incompetence? N=
ader
was a presidential candidate publicly pointing out Gore's hypcros=
ies
and failed policies/record. Heaven forbid we have that sort of
critical analysis in a presidential campaign!
Come on, you gotta respect the guy for calling a spade a spade. I=
f the
uncomfortable truths about Gore are revealed in the process, so b=
e it.
The democrats should be held to the same sort of logical scrutiny=
as
the republicans.
I've respected Nader for a long time. However, there are *lots* of
dead people and an even more corrupt Supreme Court now, and those
things might not have happened had he made his point and then thrown
support to Gore at the last minute.
Well, if Gore had conceded and thrown support to Nader at the last
minute, we wouldn't be in Iraq, right?
So you're saying he should support someone that he doesn't really
support? Had he done that I would have no respect for the guy -- it's
called having principles. That's why they call them principles -- you
don't just discard them when it's inconvenient or unpopular. The thing
about Nader is that he has them -- he walks the walk.
My job as a voter is not to try to predict who I think is going to win
and then follow the rest of the sheeple and select the most popular
candidate -- it's to vote for the person I feel most exemplifies the
principles that I hold.
To blame Nader and his voters for all the dead people in Iraq is
simply wrong.
The argument that there was no
difference between the Dems and the Repubs was simply wrong.
Can you point to where he said that?
I think you know what his message was: not that there are *no*
differences, but that the differences between the two are slight.
But he was wrong about that. Being beholden to corporations is one
problem, and being psychotic is another. And Gore looks at the world
differently from Bush; in particular, he listens to scientists, while
Bush listens to the voices in his head. (And Cheney, which is even
worse.)
The point is that Nader (and most of us) could not have known how bad
it was going to be, and so 'sticking to his principles' was not
unreasonable. But if you are going to make that argument about Nader,
then you should also make it about Gore. The choice was between an
imperfect but intelligent and rational person, and .........ecchh.
Well, no -- the choice was between three people . . . one horrid, one
a little less horrid, and one really good. If you choose to vote for
the mediocre one, that's your right, but I tend to vote *for* a
candidate, not *against* the other candidate.
Why do you expect some kind of sainthood on Gore's part?
I don't. But he's as much a part of a corrupt, failed system as Bush.
In that sense, they are more alike than different. By the way, I don't
consider living up to one's espoused principles is "sainthood". Nader
walks the walk -- that doesn't make him a saint, but it makes him a
person I respect and trust, and I'd rather have someone I respect and
trust running the country than, well . . . . Gore or Bush.
As a voter, | | | | | | |
