Where's Al Gore On This Important Issue?

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm sure it had nothing to do with his own massive ego or all the cash he's raking in.Algore is a moron on the scale of Dan Quayle. He has found a subject that he can go around preaching to anti-capitalist who are worshiping the ground he walks on. It’s just that simple

Actually, I think this thread should be about how Dan Quayle was actually a brilliant guy that constantly gets $*** on.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Actually, I think this thread should be about how Dan Quayle was actually a brilliant guy that constantly gets $*** on.

Yeah, I feel pretty bad for Dan Quayle. I'm being soooo serial!Wang

[Balloon guy 158]

Dan Quayle is a very good golfer

[JoeyJoJo 18]

constantly gets $***

Ass dollars?

[hblask 1]

your claim sounds pretty close to libertarian craziness.

Do you mean that libertarian craziness that would let you smoke weed in your house and play online poker against donkeys? God forbid....

[hblask 1]

henry, this isn't sound. anyone who is a spokesman/woman for any cause is gaining fame and notoriety, probably money as well. this doesn't render either the cause or the spokesman/woman's position invalid at all. fame, notoriety, money--often simply byproducts of the process of making people aware of something. your claim sounds pretty close to libertarian craziness. to achieve something on a societal level, you need to organize people, which requires organization and thus some level of bureaucracy. just the way it is. and ALL those things require money. i have lots of friends from college who are currently working for PIRGs around the country, making money by fighting for causes that they are behind. PIRGs pay better than mcdonald's. does that make them hypocrites too?

The problem is not that he makes money from promoting his cause. It's that he doesn't *live* the cause. This notion that "I can waste in ways I tell others not to, because I'm helping" is a bit silly.Global warming: you guys are too young to remember, but when I was your age, global cooling was as sure a thing as global warming is now. Curiously, we are still alive.Libertarian craziness: this is a huge misconception about libertarians, that they just want to destroy the environment. The easiest test to see if central planning is the answer is to have a giant real-world experiment. For example, take a fairly homogenous country, and divide it into two halves, with one half running on free market principles and the other on central planning principles. Then after several decades, see which is cleaner and less polluted. (Un)fortunately, this experiment has been done with East and West Germany. The results are clear -- market mechanisms and the creation of wealth are the quickest way to a cleaner environment. Are there times when regulation is necessary? Yes, there are. But it shouldn't be the first reaction; it shouldn't be based on an untested and unproven "trendy" theory, and it should be based on giving people the choice -- keep clean or pay the cost you impose on others. It should NOT be a centrally planned solution. This is actually my biggest objection to Algore -- his enduring socialist streak. I still think the other stuff is a problem, but that is his biggest issue for me.

[checkymcfold 0]

The problem is not that he makes money from promoting his cause. It's that he doesn't *live* the cause. This notion that "I can waste in ways I tell others not to, because I'm helping" is a bit silly.Global warming: you guys are too young to remember, but when I was your age, global cooling was as sure a thing as global warming is now. Curiously, we are still alive.Libertarian craziness: this is a huge misconception about libertarians, that they just want to destroy the environment. The easiest test to see if central planning is the answer is to have a giant real-world experiment. For example, take a fairly homogenous country, and divide it into two halves, with one half running on free market principles and the other on central planning principles. Then after several decades, see which is cleaner and less polluted. (Un)fortunately, this experiment has been done with East and West Germany. The results are clear -- market mechanisms and the creation of wealth are the quickest way to a cleaner environment. Are there times when regulation is necessary? Yes, there are. But it shouldn't be the first reaction; it shouldn't be based on an untested and unproven "trendy" theory, and it should be based on giving people the choice -- keep clean or pay the cost you impose on others. It should NOT be a centrally planned solution. This is actually my biggest objection to Algore -- his enduring socialist streak. I still think the other stuff is a problem, but that is his biggest issue for me.

nonono, that's not what i meant by "libertarian craziness," sorry. what i meant was that from what i know of libertarian theory, there's some odd mistrust of anything that involves human beings joining together for a common cause: an assumption that it always leads to either corruption or a mob mentality. that's what i think is bonkers about libertarians, not their respect for social liberties (which i very much agree with). any societal change absolutely requires people getting together, and i don't understand why that has to be a bad thing.also, global warming has a LOTLOTLOT more science--and science of an altogether more sophisticated variety--behind it than global cooling ever did. science in 2006-7>>>>>>science in the 60s and 70s, especially in terms of what can be done with radar and satellite imaging, not to mention the way we can now study the ice caps (one of my friends worked in antarctica for a while, and he, being a big nerd, would get super excited about all the advances in technology that were being sent his way that would allow them to get better ice core samples, etc.).as for the way al gore lives his life, i think we can all agree that no one knows shit about shit. anyone who says anything either way about it likely has some sort of agenda for doing so, either the partisan hacks over at the hilariously terrible tennessee research institute or the people who fight tooth and nail to defend gore on that score. i've never seen his house. i've heard he drives around in a prius a lot of the time, but i've also heard that he drives around in a limo all the time. what i'm saying is that i really don't give a fuck, since he is pretty amazing at explaining the science of global warming to non-scientists in a straightforward and easy to understand way. he's probably better at that than most scientists would be, and he also has political clout. that's what makes him a good spokesman for the cause in my book, meh.

[checkymcfold 0]

I always like it when you post, because you're pretty much always listening to the same PitchforkInspired music I'm spinning. I just got out of my car, and I was listening to a CD with both Peter Bjorn and John AND Band of Horses on it. My analogy was incredibly weak and ill-conceived, but HBlask's response might have been even more illogical. I've begun thinking about this as an equation. Al Gore uses resources (fossil fuels, CO2, etc)- more than the average human- to live his life. But with those resources, he pushes an agenda that should LOWER the use of said resources, and raise awareness, for a net positive in the sphere of environmentalism. Perhaps he could use fewer resources, but that doesn't change the fact that his impact on the environment is STILL positive. This completely beside the point, however, because this argument should be about how hypocrisy effects the soundness of an argument.Wang

once i got drunk, read your blog, and laughed out loud. take that for what you will. also, consider this a sign of respect for your ability to make mixes.but i don't read pitchfork very often . i actually prefer a site called tinymixtapes.com, which i think doesn't fall into the trap of hating bands once they get famous or finding "babies" and running with them forever. for instance: pitchfork likes bloc party's new album, which i think is objectively terrible and bland, and tinymixtapes didn't. since the latter agrees with me, they are better.

[checkymcfold 0]

but i don't read pitchfork very often . i actually prefer a site called tinymixtapes.com, which i think doesn't fall into the trap of hating bands once they get famous or finding "babies" and running with them forever. for instance: pitchfork likes bloc party's new album, which i think is objectively terrible and bland, and tinymixtapes didn't. since the latter agrees with me, they are better.

i love it when i make myself LOL.

[hblask 1]

nonono, that's not what i meant by "libertarian craziness," sorry. what i meant was that from what i know of libertarian theory, there's some odd mistrust of anything that involves human beings joining together for a common cause: an assumption that it always leads to either corruption or a mob mentality. that's what i think is bonkers about libertarians, not their respect for social liberties (which i very much agree with). any societal change absolutely requires people getting together, and i don't understand why that has to be a bad thing.

Libertarians love to see people work together for a common cause. It is one of the things that drives them. They just don't want to see a subset of people to band together and then use force to get other people to toe the line.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Dan Quayle is a very good golfer

He's had alot of free time to practice.

[mk 11]

i love it when i make myself LOL.

LOL

[strategy 4]

LOL

LOL juanda

[mk 11]

LOL juanda

LOL GFY