Calling me a liberal scumbag and a faggot. What a mature, well thought out rebuttal. My assertions must be correct, otherwise I wouldn't have hit such a nerve.

Quote :

"diverting the issue to corporations"

Well, you are the right wing partisan that thinks that government spending money on welfare is costing you too much, but we spend several times more than that on corporate welfare. If anyone is wasting your well earned tax dollars, its them, so you should be outraged at them. But you won't, because it doesn't fit your comfortable, ignorant world view.

[Edited on February 24, 2007 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2007 9:48:17 PM

and where did I call you a faggot?

where did I say that we should divert money to corporate incentives?

where did I even imply that I am a right wing partisan?

seriously, stop the strawman. stop the lying. stop the bullshit.

the more you talk, the more you make an ass of yourself

2/24/2007 9:56:55 PM

Hey, "drums and weed" sound pretty good to me.

In any event, I don't know him, but I don't think aaronburro is "evil" at all; I think he was just trying to make a point. You know, I find it damned peculiar that you liberals claim to be SO fucking concerned about humanity--but only if the other humans agree with you.

2/24/2007 9:57:21 PM

I'm an ex army soldier, fraternity guy and former (staunch) republican.

I'm not a hippy. I don't smoke weed. I don't think that we shouldn't have development or we can't drive cars. I own a SUV myself. I'm just saying that if there's a better way to do things then why not? If you can drive your big ethanol or hydrogen guzzling SUV, then why not? Shouldn't we, as (somewhat) rational human beings be working to mitigate our own destruction?

I think that not using technology and moving towards sustainable consumption practices is irrational, from both economic and social terms. Why do we always have to wait until the damage has been done? Why do we want to keep funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries when we can usher in a new American agricultural revolution and prosperity producing ethanol? It doesn't make sense.

[Edited on February 24, 2007 at 10:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2007 10:07:37 PM

^^ i know, right?
check out this idiot here. He takes a thread on GLOBAL WARMING. starts talking about HEALTH CARE and such. I tell him that I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's lack of planning. He then bitches about CORPORATIONS, says I only care about money, calls me a racist, and claims I called him a faggot.

is your name actually tedgellar, cause you sure just followed his modus operandi

and who says any damage has actually been done? oh wait, we're starting to get back to the topic of the thread... uhoh!

2/24/2007 10:08:03 PM

Quote :

"starts talking about HEALTH CARE and such"

Well you're the one who brought up liberals and their concern for the "scum sucking" poor, a point you still haven't addressed.

I will admit that it was actually "Prawn Star" that called me a faggot, but you two are so hard to separate from ideology that its easy to confuse.

I think anyone who's been reading this thread realizes that I have absolutely destroyed you in every respect of this argument. I find something you say, destroy it with reason and you try expand or contract the scope of the argument to fit your limited understanding of complex systems. As its a Saturday night and I have stuff to do, have a good evening trolling the boards.

2/24/2007 10:17:14 PM

I think anyone who has read this thread has seen you post strawman after strawman after strawman, as well as calling people racists and accusing people of being evil and being paid off by corporations. if that qualifies as "destroying," then sure.

btw, I never brought up the liberals' "concern for scum suckers." I just said I didn't want to pay for scum suckers, though I didn't use the word "scum." please, continue to put words in my mouth. it only makes you look more intelligent

oh, and it's pretty clear that I destroyed you, as you have quit, once again. keep up the usual liberal tactics. I'll be here when you want some more.

2/24/2007 10:20:12 PM

Quote :

"Part of my request to Congress is going to be, we want to put $2.7 billion of your money to help concerns and smart people develop new ways of powering our homes and powering our automobiles."

President George W. Bush, January 24, 2007

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070124-4.html

2/24/2007 10:22:51 PM

congress has money?

2/24/2007 10:25:33 PM

^^^ "Destroyed" him? Hardly. I'd say that you have simply revealed yourself as what you are. Logical fallacy after fallacy is all I have seen from you.

[Edited on February 24, 2007 at 10:29 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2007 10:29:02 PM

^ i can't remember, do we hate each other in the soap box?

2/24/2007 10:31:39 PM

^ Who knows--I can't keep up with it.

2/24/2007 10:34:32 PM

can't keep it up, what?

2/24/2007 11:18:15 PM

^ Will. . .not. . .take. . .the bait!

2/24/2007 11:52:00 PM

doin better than scuba steve, then

2/25/2007 12:04:39 AM

Free thread?

2/25/2007 4:27:33 AM

No--not yet.

2/25/2007 4:33:48 AM

According to Science News, even a limited nuclear exchange would cool the planet down considerably.

Think it's too hot? Just press the big red button.

2/25/2007 11:43:23 AM

Quote :

"If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a moral outrage, we could cool the world."

http://oldsite.reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

2/25/2007 11:55:54 AM

Well, hopefully nanotechnology will give us cleaner energy sources.

2/25/2007 1:04:32 PM

2/25/2007 5:56:54 PM

I hope Al Gore took a public bus to the Oscars.... getting a limo isn't very fuel efficient.

2/26/2007 10:45:57 AM

maybe he carpooled

2/26/2007 10:48:33 AM

I'm serial.

2/26/2007 10:54:21 AM

Scuba Steve:

Quote :

"I own a SUV myself."

So....you think that the government should make drastic policy changes to prevent a catastrophic global warming event. And that the warming is caused by emission of greenhouse gases. And that anyone who disagrees is obviously misinformed and has no logical basis to their argument. But....you're not worried enough about it to sell your gas-hog yuppiemobile?

/any credibility Scuba might have had left

2/26/2007 2:47:45 PM

Hilarious. NOTHING infuriates a liberal more than saying people create their own destiny in America. The thought that people should be responsible for their own future is *evil*, right?

2/26/2007 2:49:34 PM

^^ gore does the same thing

rides in an SUV and a private jet, while telling others they shouldn't

2/26/2007 2:51:13 PM

^Now there's an "inconvenient truth."

2/26/2007 2:59:08 PM

"do as I say, not as I do"

2/26/2007 3:01:47 PM

so he shouldn't be pushing for higher emission standards for SUV's and jets?

this argument is pretty weak.

i could argue for higher taxes. does that mean i should voluntarily give the government money?

the whole idea is that he thinks these sorts of changes need to be legislated because people aren't making those changes on their own and it's important enough that it needs to be required.

I KNOW. when he travels he should travel in the jets and cars of the future that are more fuel efficient!

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2007 3:02:20 PM

Quote :

"i could argue for higher taxes. does that mean i should voluntarily give the government money? "

you dont really have a choice when paying taxes.....you have a choice in what type of car you drive, so that argument is pretty weak as well.

there are plenty of alternatives to riding in an SUV and taking a private jet (if he does indeed do that...i dont know)

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:07 PM. Reason : d]

2/26/2007 3:07:24 PM

^^Higher taxes =/= greenhouse emissions. I know it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside when you think you've come up with a good metaphor, but it's assinine to attempt to compare the two.

Quote :

"the whole idea is that he thinks these sorts of changes need to be legislated because people aren't making those changes on their own and it's important enough that it needs to be required."

No, it's not. If he thinks it's important enough to be legislated, he should be making the changes on his own. How am I supposed to believe that it's important enough to be legislated when it's not important enough for him to change his own vehicle?

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:11 PM. Reason : /]

2/26/2007 3:10:57 PM

maybe his choices aren't as clear as you make them. i don't think that gore is arguing against the utility of SUV's at all. there is a place for SUV's. there is a place for private jets. these things can be more efficient than they are now if legislation required it. i don't know the details on the vehicles that gore uses. but i could see the utility in a former VP riding in an SUV when going to and from public events. it may have modifications for the protection of a highly public (and obviously controversial) figure.

2/26/2007 3:17:12 PM

i think the point they are trying to get at is public perception. he can talk all he wants about saving the earth, but if he's participating in the same things he's condemning, then it makes him look like a hypocrite.

maybe there is a valid reason for it, but its not a very obvious one. i think you're reaching for the protection point....there are other cars that are used for transporting public figures.


[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:20 PM. Reason : g]

2/26/2007 3:19:16 PM

^^Actually, I wasn't really talking specifically about Gore, it was more geared towards Scuba Steve (who conveniently disappeared). However, I agree with ^ in regards to public perception. I've never once heard Gore address his own travel arrangements (and honestly I'm not sure how he travels). But I agree fully that a private jet may at times be necessary, although I'm a little harder pressed to justify the SUV thing, as you can armor most any vehicle when you've got enough money. I mean, at least it should be a hybrid, right?

2/26/2007 3:23:30 PM

^^the popemobile? i mean really. all you ever see are huge-ass cars. there's a reason for that.

and again, the point i'm trying to make is that he isn't arguing against specific types of cars, he's arguing FOR higher standards for all cars including SUV's, jets and everything in between (along with lots of other sorts of measures).

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2007 3:24:21 PM

Quote :

"he isn't arguing against specific types of cars, he's arguing FOR higher standards for all cars including SUV's, jets and everything in between (along with lots of other sorts of measures)."

please correct me if im wrong, but isnt he arguing for BOTH higher standards and personal responsibility (which includes chosing earth friendly products)?

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : d]

2/26/2007 3:26:10 PM

^^I'm no Catholic, but I don't recall the Pope making a documentary about how human-caused global warming is going to destroy the Earth within a few decades. When he does, maybe then he should get a more fuel-efficient car.

Regardless, we're going in circles here. Sure, it's great for him to push for higher standards, but what about the choices that people can make right now to reduce emissions? If this is such a huge problem, then every single person who believes that it is should be doing everything within their power to reduce it now, not in 5 years when government standards would take effect. The issue is that it's hard to perceive this as an urgent issue when it doesn't appear that one of its biggest supporters takes it seriously enough to make a few 'inconvenient' changes.

^You should know by now that no Democrat would ever advocate personal responsibility.

/potshot

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:32 PM. Reason : yes, I know it's wrong, but I had to do it... ]

2/26/2007 3:28:21 PM

the production of inconvenient truth was certified "carbon neutral" for what it's worth.

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : truth]

2/26/2007 3:33:39 PM

yeah, i really dont know what he drives or flies, im just going off what someone else said in this thread. they may be full of shit for all i know.

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : s]

2/26/2007 3:35:15 PM

he has suv's from the federal fleet as part of his security package. so... blame the government for not making their fleet more fuel efficient.

2/26/2007 3:44:51 PM

^I'm not so sure about that. I think 6 months after he left office, he lost SS protection, meaning he would have his choice of vehicles. Does he still have protection? Sure, but as we've discussed there are other options for armored vehicles, etc.

There was also an article a little while back (I'm still looking for it) that talks about how he gave a speech on global warming at a Sierra Club event, then left in an Escalade... I'm not sure about the validity, but if I can find the article I'll post it.

2/26/2007 3:49:22 PM

Gore offsets his carbon footprint buy makes carbon neutralizing purchases through organizations that spend that money of new green energy projects.

http://www.terrapass.com/index.html

I got mine last year in April since I drive for a living. I spent $70. Knowing that my whole carbon emmisions is now being accounted for and offset will lead me to re-new it this April.

And you can buy one for planes, homes, and dorms. So as you can see, you can do all these things (drive SUVs, fly in jets) and still not be a hypocrite.

However more needs to be done in the ways of emmisions and effiency, but you get the idea.

2/26/2007 4:02:39 PM

anybody see him last night? he needs to do a documentary on obesity in america

2/26/2007 4:20:58 PM

^^interesting...ive never heard of that.

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 4:22 PM. Reason : d]

2/26/2007 4:22:41 PM

Quote :

"i think the point they are trying to get at is public perception. he can talk all he wants about saving the earth, but if he's participating in the same things he's condemning, then it makes him look like a hypocrite"

iirc his mining operation in TN was in violation of EPA laws numerous times, including fines for polluting the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers

I posted the links like a year ago, but can't find them

yeah, we all need to do our part to make this earth cleaner and better for future generations, but being a hippocrite and politicizing the issue is hardly getting it accomplished

2/26/2007 4:22:43 PM

i think that gore's movie has actually done a lot to bring attention to this issue in america.

2/26/2007 4:27:28 PM

Quote :

"^I'm not so sure about that. I think 6 months after he left office, he lost SS protection, meaning he would have his choice of vehicles."

you're right, i was confusing the new 10 year limit for the president with gores protection

2/26/2007 4:29:29 PM

^^he pollutes more than I ever have and probably ever will


who is he to tell me what I HAVE to do?

oh thats right

it's ok for him to do things and then condemn "average joe" for it

did you not even read about the pollution he has been responsible for?

or are you just blindly nodding your head and agreeing with him because he is who he is

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ...]

2/26/2007 4:30:22 PM

well he hasnt condemned anyone for anything, he's just trying to raise awareness

2/26/2007 4:33:03 PM