Al Gore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Jer keeps spraying about AG's carbon footprint being bigger than Canada's. That's all, wss.

---

There is this cool literary device called a "hyperbole". You should check it out sometime.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Actually it's what the thread WAS about. Now it's about Jer ducking questions like a 5year old girl caught in a lie.

You thought Gore's energy use was common knowledge because you accepted someone's word.

I would like to see data proving it is even 20 times the average american's.
It's easy to spew crap and easier still to just accept that crap. It's a bit more responsible to question that crap.

---

And it's even more responsible still, to put a little effort into educating yourself about things that are a matter of public record, rather than demanding that some guy on the internet do it for you.:p

Gore's energy bills are public knowledge. They are very easy to find, if you want to find them.

I don't really think jer was engaging in hyperbole....I think he really believes that shit. I suppose I may be wrong, though it probably doesn't matter.

Gore's energy bills are public knowledge. So is the fact that he spends thousands more to obtain energy from clean, renewable sources. What isn't widely known is the Gore household's net effect on global carbon emissions, per capita, and how that compares to the average american (since the average american seems to be the bar here, somehow). That's the crux of the bitching, or it should be.

Really this is all an inconsequential tangent to the entire issue of carbon emissions and global warming. Treating it as anything but is not responsible at all (since we're talking degrees of responsibility).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Gore's energy bills are public knowledge. They are very easy to find, if you want to find them.

---

Speaking of responsible, how are your energy bills? Isn't that what matters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

I'm just saying that he made a good movie

---

Really? What movie was that? The only one I've seen is An Inconvenient Truth and that one was so pathetically boring it was a joke. At least Michael Moore's propeganda films are somewhat entertaining. And he's even fatter than Gore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Come on be half the man Ann Coulter claims to be and back up your big boy talk. People like you (and her) repeatedly confuse intelligent thought with bombastic comment. Just answer that question with some cold hard facts instead of ducking it and trying to turn the issue into unrelated rants like you do in so many of your threads.

---

Now you're comparing me with Ann Coulter? The only thing we have in common is male genetailia and long hair.

"Unrelated rants" ? This thread is about Al Gore's obesity. Oh, I know, to you it's about something else, but in the real world it's just about Al Gore being fat. Chill, bro. Or continue letting me piss you off. Either way is fine with me. Either way, Al Gore's still a big fat lard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

There is this cool literary device called a "hyperbole". You should check it out sometime.;)



And it's even more responsible still, to put a little effort into educating yourself about things that are a matter of public record, rather than demanding that some guy on the internet do it for you.:p

Gore's energy bills are public knowledge. They are very easy to find, if you want to find them.

---

Hey I not making the claim so I don't think it's too much to ask for sources. I'm sure you found that in school when you had to list footnotes. Like I said it became common knowledge that he claimed to invent the internet so 'common knowledge' doesn't really cut it.

On to fun with figures does Gore take credit for a household of 20 plus 10 fulltime staff? Do the averages being used include carbon output produced while people work? I'm not really trying to justify what he does or doesn't do just trying to compare apples to apples on something more than hearsay. Asking someone to back up a statement isn't that big a deal unless of course all anyone can say is 'it's common knowledge' or maybe 'I read it on rightwingslandermongers.com'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

You thought Gore's energy use was common knowledge because you accepted someone's word.

---

Yes, I accepted someone's word. Almost all of the knowledge I have has been obtained in that way. So has yours and everyone else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Not far back it was largely accepted common knowledge that Gore had claimed to invent the internet since some supposed professional journalists spewed about it. It was completely untrue.

---

Now, see, I thought that was generally recognized as a joke, an exaggeration of whatever it was that he really said. I really don't see a parallel between the obviously ridiculous inventing the Internet story and the very plausible outsized user of energy story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Hey I not making the claim so I don't think it's too much to ask for sources. I'm sure you found that in school when you had to list footnotes.

---

I can't recall being asked to footnote statements I've made in conversation, and that's what a thread is, a conversation, not a term paper or a thesis. Nevertheless ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Like I said it became common knowledge that he claimed to invent the internet so 'common knowledge' doesn't really cut it.

---

It became common knowledge as a joke. I didn't know that there were people who believed that or who thought that others did. I don't recall his exact words, but my understanding of the whole "invented the Internet" thing is that it was a goof on what were thought to be some exaggerated claims he made regarding his hand in propelling development of the Internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

On to fun with figures does Gore take credit for a household of 20 plus 10 fulltime staff? Do the averages being used include carbon output produced while people work? I'm not really trying to justify what he does or doesn't do just trying to compare apples to apples on something more than hearsay. Asking someone to back up a statement isn't that big a deal unless of course all anyone can say is 'it's common knowledge' or maybe 'I read it on rightwingslandermongers.com'

---

Good questions. Really. It's not so hard to dig for the information, so if you're really interested, I wonder why you didn't. Google "Gore's energy usage," for example. You'll get lots of hits. I perused a few. It seems that he's generally thought to be using way more than his share of energy, but there are - or may be - mitigating factors. I won't try to summarize what I read. Search and read it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

I don't really think jer was engaging in hyperbole....I think he really believes that shit. I suppose I may be wrong, though it probably doesn't matter.

---

I really hope you're not talking about the carbon footprint bigger than Canada statement. It's just too painful to think that you believe anyone could possibly mean that literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grrrr

Speaking of responsible, how are your energy bills? Isn't that what matters?

---

No, it isn't.

It's a nice idea and all, but the "solution" to GW isn't conservation. We are going to have to remove the offending agents from the atmosphere(or offset them in some way). Otherwise the earth is going to continue to heat up.

Conservation is good. Reduced emissions is good. We should have more of both. But neither is a "solution" to GW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

He presents facts to back up global warming. What we should do about global warming...those are opinions. I know this is difficult, but keep trying and you'll get there.

---

Al Gore may present some "facts" but he also adds alot of propaganda and exageration. One point being that he states the oceans will rise something like 20 feet in the next 100 years when the general consensus is that the oceans will rise a few inches in the same time frame. He knows that some of the things he is saying are not "facts." He is trying to scare people to get on the Al Gore 'Save Us' bandwagon.

That being said obviously it's a good idea to try to conserve, not pollute, etc. These are things that EVERYBODY would agree with. My guess is that Al Gore is hoping to get into the Presidential arena again and is waiting for his opening -- which is pretty obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

A big mansion could still be eco friendly. Bush's jet (Air force 1) is most certainly bigger than any jet Gore has and he wouldn't scream about global warming while he's in the pocket of big oil would he.

---

But we know damn well he has at least four "big" mansions and they are VERY likely NOT eco friendly. He uses as much energy as at least 20 normal families with his housing.

Air Force 1 is a jet that all Presidents fly in. Gore is flying in a private jet as a normal citizen. Gore produces more carbon output with a one-way flight on his private jet than quite a few of our cars produce all year combined.

As someone mentioned in another thread -- Al Gore made tons of money from Occidental Petroleum.

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with Al Gore. He is a prominent figure who has tried to bring it to the forefront of discussion. I know this, we as humans are not good for the planet. We all need to do better to stop the role, however big it is, in the warming of our planet. In my opinion, the true solution to Global Warming and MANY other issues facing our planet is to begin to reduce the number of people that live on earth. Not by killing people but rather by teaching people you don't have to have kids. Overpopulation is the biggest issue we face yet NO ONE wants to talk about it. Like telling people to not have kids who shouldn't is a bad thing. Al Gore has nothing to do with this whole thing. Stop finding holes in how he lives his life and start getting the overall message, you handle you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Did a search, couldn't find anything about his carbon footprint approaching canada's. I found some people spewing about his energy usage, and a few more spewing about flying/driving to speaking engagements. I found something about him using 10 or 20 times the energy of the average american. I'm pretty sure there's more than 20 or so Canadians. Even if the average Canadian uses 1/5 the energy the average american does, I'm pretty sure there's more than 100 of them. That's just a guess though.

Would you please quit with the "bigger than Canada" bullshit? It's a ridiculous assertion, especially when your time is too precious to back it up (which is ridiculous in its own right, you spent your Sunday afternoon spewing this shit on TGR and who knows where else).

---

I'm pretty sure he was using exageration to make a point. How could you not catch that? Do you really think he was claiming one person had the footprint of whole country. He's right... you guys get your panties in a bunch over anybody who has any sort of view that isn't the same as yours. Most people who bother arguing against the TGR mindset have probably researched their information a little more than the AVERAGE TGR poster who spews what everybody else says. It takes a little more nuts to disagree with everybody than it does to tote the line. As the saying goes... Free speach is absolute for liberals unless you don't agree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montanaskier

Overpopulation is the biggest issue we face yet NO ONE wants to talk about it. Like telling people to not have kids who shouldn't is a bad thing.

---

I've been talking about this for at least 10 years and the pseudo wanna-be ECO-SAVIORS blow a gasket. Try telling an environmentalist that they have to limit the amount of kids they want if they want them. I actually think that the "One birth" policy China has tried to impliment in some regions is a good thing. But coming from a conservative like me the liberal bandwagon seems to think its a crazed right wing conspiracy that trambles on their rights. Well it might be stepping on their rights but we all have rights. I have the right to be an idiot and waste tons of energy if I want. That doesn't make it sane or right -- neither does having a boatload of kids. One kid is all that any responsible ENVIRONMENTALIST should have -- otherwise their just a hypocrit.

I am an environmentalist and am definatley liberal, however this overpopulation thing is out of control. More and more people in places like Phoenix, Vegas, Cali, issues like lack of water are going to be a HUGE issue going forward. We simply don't have the resources to take care of this bulging population. People are ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

It takes a little more nuts to disagree with everybody than it does to tote the line.

---

A douchebag, a dumbass, a wingnut--call crass what you will, but know this: he never, NEVER totes the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

My solution... just take out all the Muslims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natty dread

A douchebag, a dumbass, a wingnut--call crass what you will, but know this: he never, NEVER totes the line.

---

I don't know why I took you off my ignore list (actually you said I was on yours)

What I mean is that its easier to float down the river on a tube with a beer in your hand than it is to swim upstream which is typically what I do here.

Anyway I'm glad you could chime in with your always insightful comments that are never born of your own mind. You either spout a couple names or post an article to speak for you. Do you have the intelligence to form your own thoughts and form a paragraph without posting an article somebody else wrote? I can't think of anytime I have seen you write from your mind and not just post somebody elses article. Your parents must be proud of your analytical skills natty.

He knew what you meant, you fucked up the cliche and he was making fun of you for it. I can't believe you didn't catch that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

I actually think that the "One birth" policy China has tried to impliment in some regions is a good thing.

---

Wow, I actually agress with something Crass3000 thinks. Maybe "two birth" limit would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Below Zero

Wow, I actually agress with something Crass3000 thinks. Maybe "two birth" limit would be better.

---

How bout a zero birth limit if you make less than a certain wage meaning you can't afford to care for the child on your own or if your IQ level is not at least a certain number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

He knew what you meant, you fucked up the cliche and he was making fun of you for it. I can't believe you didn't catch that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Did a search, couldn't find anything about his carbon footprint approaching canada's. I found some people spewing about his energy usage, and a few more spewing about flying/driving to speaking engagements. I found something about him using 10 or 20 times the energy of the average american. I'm pretty sure there's more than 20 or so Canadians. Even if the average Canadian uses 1/5 the energy the average american does, I'm pretty sure there's more than 100 of them. That's just a guess though.

...

Would you please quit with the "bigger than Canada" bullshit? It's a ridiculous assertion, especially when your time is too precious to back it up (which is ridiculous in its own right, you spent your Sunday afternoon spewing this shit on TGR and who knows where else).

---

Pot ... kettle.

IMO, one birth is good, two births is the limit - you are ok to replace yourself. more than two is not ok, unless you adopt.

While scanning the xm the other day, heard a crying dummy on Dr. Laura. This dope had 5 kids already and was pregnant with another. She had just lost the pregnancy. She was carrying on and on about what to do, they wanted more kids sooo bad, blahblahblah. Dr. Laura and the dummy agreed to take some time to recover and then try fertility drugs!!!! I almost wrecked. 5 kids is too many to begin with and when nature steps in and says no more, we take drugs to get what we want! Unbelievable.

Losing a child is a terrible tragedy and this post is not meant to sound mean or uncaring to those of you who have lost children....hopefully you get the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodstocksez

Pot ... kettle.

---

I know. That was actually my motivation -- he was making fun of me for the same thing earlier.

I still maintain that Jer sucks at exaggeration, but now that everybody thinks he's DW, I don't know what to think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crass3000

I actually think that the "One birth" policy China has tried to impliment in some regions is a good thing.

---

A good thing?

You know how they enforce that policy? This has been going on for decades. But it is perhaps even more troubling that it still happens under the current "relaxed" system. At least troubling for those of us with a conscience - you probably don't care.

How China enforces this and other policies is a travesty, the idea behind it is good. China is not so good on the human rights stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montanaskier

China is not so good on the human rights stuff.

---

Is that a GWB quote?

How do you propose we'd enforce such a policy without running amok of human rights, religious groups, etc.? [/genuinely curious]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Is that a GWB quote?

---

That redeems the Canada analysis.

Their is no way to enforce this type of rule. What needs to happen is that we need to teach people that we are facing a massive over population issue on this planet. We need to teach people that having 4 or 6 or 10 kids is not ok. We need to give tax breaks to those that have zero or 1 or 2 kids only and NOT give federal assistance to those that have so many damn children. The sad part is that is a situation that will probably never get better because people are going to always want their kids and nooone ever thinks about the day they turn on their faucet and no water comes out.

and no......not a GWB quote. I am very liberal on almost every issue, population, immigration, and government assistance not withstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montanaskier

Their is no way to enforce this type of rule. What needs to happen is that we need to teach people that we are facing a massive over population issue on this planet. We need to teach people that having 4 or 6 or 10 kids is not ok. We need to give tax breaks to those that have zero or 1 or 2 kids only and NOT give federal assistance to those that have so many damn children. The sad part is that is a situation that will probably never get better because people are going to always want their kids and nooone ever thinks about the day they turn on their faucet and no water comes out.

---

I agree that education is key.

Convincing the religious right that we have an overpopulation issue won't be easy, especially when they know jesus is gonna come back any day now.

On current issues w/ abortion and planned parenthood, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction.

Withholding assistance isn't a very good solution, as the primary losers will be the kids (i.e. the innocent).

true about assistance, however we could make it way more worthwhile for those doing the right thing than for those doing the wrong thing. It will never happen, as was mentioned in a previous thread....our lawmakers and leaders don't do what is right, they do what gets and keeps them elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montanaskier

Global Warming has NOTHING to do with Al Gore.

---

Yeah but this thread has EVERYTHING to do with Al Gore, genius.

I thought this thread just had to do with him being a fatass.

Who?..................

Al Gore, genius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodstocksez

I can't recall being asked to footnote statements I've made in conversation, and that's what a thread is, a conversation, not a term paper or a thesis. Nevertheless ...



It became common knowledge as a joke. I didn't know that there were people who believed that or who thought that others did. I don't recall his exact words, but my understanding of the whole "invented the Internet" thing is that it was a goof on what were thought to be some exaggerated claims he made regarding his hand in propelling development of the Internet.



Good questions. Really. It's not so hard to dig for the information, so if you're really interested, I wonder why you didn't. Google "Gore's energy usage," for example. You'll get lots of hits. I perused a few. It seems that he's generally thought to be using way more than his share of energy, but there are - or may be - mitigating factors. I won't try to summarize what I read. Search and read it yourself.

---

Ok for example if in a 'conversation' I said, 'in High school this guy woodstocksez used to stick it in his mother's poopenhausen in front of his sister and father.' Do you think I should have to back that up. Typically I would just ignore it if I thought it sounded unlikely or similar to other attempts to discredit someone that I've encountered before.

For expample the Gore internet thing was not a joke and was created and passed on by supposedly reputable journalists apparently desparate to discredit him on basis of polictics. Sort of like oil companies are desparate and rich enough to go to great lengths to discredit those overly concerned with global warming and the role of carbon. I made the statement so I'll back it up with some links.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/research...rs/Gore412.pdf

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032999_1.shtml

I'd go digging myself like I did when I first wanted to find out about the internet thing but the history seems to show a real need to discredit the guy beyond all acceptable standards so I'm not biting on 'common knowledge' I am just asking someone to offer credible proof about his carbon footprint be in 10 times the US average or bigger than Canada's just something credible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

Ok for example if in a 'conversation' I said, 'in High school this guy woodstocksez used to stick it in his mother's poopenhausen in front of his sister and father.' Do you think I should have to back that up. Typically I would just ignore it if I thought it sounded unlikely or similar to other attempts to discredit someone that I've encountered before.

---

I think you may or may not "back it up" (and you could do that in any number of ways, which will vary in credibility) and I'd accord veracity to your contention based on that, as well as other criteria (such as what I know about you and Woodstocksez, as well as the things you mention in the last sentence of the above paragraph). "Providing proof" is not the be all and end all. I believe plenty of things that people tell me without asking them to cite to other authority. So do you. So does everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

For expample the Gore internet thing was not a joke and was created and passed on by supposedly reputable journalists apparently desparate to discredit him on basis of polictics. Sort of like oil companies are desparate and rich enough to go to great lengths to discredit those overly concerned with global warming and the role of carbon. I made the statement so I'll back it up with some links.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/research...rs/Gore412.pdf

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032999_1.shtml

---

The Gore Internet thing did become a joke, whatever it was when it started. (Ever visit a Yahoo message board before they became extinct?)

I didn't review all of the links you gave. I did look at some of the Berkeley paper. The actual statement was apparently that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." I'll grant that that's not quite "inventing the Internet," but it is an overstatement and I don't have a problem with him being criticized for it. Moreover, doesn't the same or similar happen to all politicians? It's part of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L7

I'd go digging myself like I did when I first wanted to find out about the internet thing but the history seems to show a real need to discredit the guy beyond all acceptable standards so I'm not biting on 'common knowledge' I am just asking someone to offer credible proof about his carbon footprint be in 10 times the US average or bigger than Canada's just something credible.

---

Enough with Canada: none of us are retarded here, no matter how much some like to insist that's the case.

Certainly skepticism is in order when someone offers up that Gore is an outsized user of energy and therefore a hypocrite on the subject of global warming. But the scenario is certainly plausible: Al Gore would hardly be the first to say do as I say, not as I do. If you really want to know, it's not hard to do the simple search I suggested. Moreover, you're more likely to find skeptical views than if you rely on "authority" provided by the person making the statement, thus providing a better picture of what the situation really is.

For my part, I view all news reporting skeptically. I've seen reputable newspapers get it wrong when reporting on my field of endeavor, even when they have no axe grind and aren't doing so on purpose.

We're probably putting too much effort into this. After all, Gore is getting pretty fat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodstocksez

I think you may or may not "back it up" (and you could do that in any number of ways, which will vary in credibility) and I'd accord veracity to your contention based on that, as well as other criteria (such as what I know about you and Woodstocksez, as well as the things you mention in the last sentence of the above paragraph). "Providing proof" is not the be all and end all. I believe plenty of things that people tell me without asking them to cite to other authority. So do you. So does everyone.



The Gore Internet thing did become a joke, whatever it was when it started. (Ever visit a Yahoo message board before they became extinct?)

I didn't review all of the links you gave. I did look at some of the Berkeley paper. The actual statement was apparently that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." I'll grant that that's not quite "inventing the Internet," but it is an overstatement and I don't have a problem with him being criticized for it. Moreover, doesn't the same or similar happen to all politicians? It's part of the game.



Enough with Canada: none of us are retarded here, no matter how much some like to insist that's the case.

Certainly skepticism is in order when someone offers up that Gore is an outsized user of energy and therefore a hypocrite on the subject of global warming. But the scenario is certainly plausible: Al Gore would hardly be the first to say do as I say, not as I do. If you really want to know, it's not hard to do the simple search I suggested. Moreover, you're more likely to find skeptical views than if you rely on "authority" provided by the person making the statement, thus providing a better picture of what the situation really is.

For my part, I view all news reporting skeptically. I've seen reputable newspapers get it wrong when reporting on my field of endeavor, even when they have no axe grind and aren't doing so on purpose.

We're probably putting too much effort into this. After all, Gore is getting pretty fat.

---

You're right we all take things at face value from some sources. That is KNOWN SOURCES as opposed to some guy with an alias spewing on the internet. Especially when the subject is someone who has been falsely maligned before.

You parsed Gore's statement again. In fact what he said is 'in his role in senate he is proud of the intiative he took in creating the internet.' I think it is fair to say the government was a driving force behind the internet and Gore was a driving force within the government by all accounts.

The guys who wrote most of the code for the internet said Gore was consistently putting forth bills that advanced and popularized the internet which I think is fair to say creating it as it is today. It's easy to change or shorten a quote and change it's meaning substantially.

Yes it became a joke but with Gore at the brunt of that joke based on something he never said/did. It first was reported as fact which is ironic since journalists made up facts to ridicule someone they claimed made up facts.

I've never given a crap about the Canada statement other than it is typically idiotic. I would just like to see someone back up statements about 10-20 times the average american. Yea I can look but given the source and the history of false accusations about Gore I'm more inclined to dismiss it as shit just as you would from a bad source with an outrageous claim in a personal conversation.

Let's face it on this topic you have stated the Gore/internet thing was only a joke and then you parsed his quote to something that implied something different. You're are not a source worthy of me digging verification for especially since you can't be bothered to back up your own statements.

Yea he's fat...... still completely unclear on what that has to do with anything. Not like it's Kirstie (Ally?) that made me stiff and then got grossly fat and is worthy of lament.