The Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore's an Idiot

That's what I mean.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we are so far opposite we might back into eachother!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly! Recall Arlen Specter? He was a freaky rightwing extremist in the 80's. Now he sounds almost socialist!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But who could trust a guy named Specter? He sounds like a comicbook supervillian, or perhaps an evil organization.

Yeah, well, we both like Survivor. And we're both pulling for a Republican victory this November.

 

Odd bedfellows we are!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Indeed. I checked out your profile:

What do you like to read? Have you ever read any Ayn Rand? It would probably make your head explode.

 

I'm allergic to Rand. :bugeye:

 

Just as I suspected. Have you read any of her work? Or did you immediately break out in hives before you had a chance to read anything? I made in thru Das Kapital {Marx}, I figured I should see what he had to say. Surely you couldmake it thru some Rand.

Anyway, other than Rand, what do you like to read?

 

I co-hosted a nightime radio show with a Randian militant. I also ran into Randites at political demos and anti-war marches. She was a shallow racist in my book. Now I confess I'm mostly a newspaper, news mag reader. Though I am about to embark in a huge book about Hirohito.

 

Racist? I've never heard her described as a racist. She was completely against racism. She was also an atheist, you might like that part. But seriously, what is your basis for calling her a racist?

Also, other than exposure to a Randian militant, have you ever actually read any of her novels?

Regarding Hirohito and WW2, there's a really good novel called Black Wind you might want to check out. It's about two guys who grow up as neighboors and best friends, one of whom is Japanese, the other American. The American learns Japanese from his neighboor and so ends up as an intellegence officer in WW2. They end up fighting on opposite sides and, well, things get pretty messy. It takes you from the thirties all the way to the end of the war and reveals "the real reason" that Hiroshema was nuked.

 

Rand had some bad things to say about those in poverty in the USA. I read some of her stuff in the 80's and a pamphlet or two since. Her belief business is the human prophet, let the poor starve and many other stances her minions took were opposite of my moral code.

I'll check out the book you mentioned. I'm currently interested in the Pacific campaigns; The Battle for the Gilberts, Palau, other S. Pacific countries and the Philippine war. I thought I would go back to the birth of Hirohito and start over from there!

 

It seems like Genji thinks that the "Left" consists of gun-toting radical rebels. Nothing could be further from the truth. The type of radicalism that he seems fond of is just as militant and conservative as the Right.

The idea of a "Left" comes from the French Revolution. And those guys would be Republicans if they were around today. The European Liberal was for small government and capitalism. Basically, for as much freedom as possible. These were the original Liberals.

Once the Left was hi-jacked by the Labor movement, it became something different. Something socialist, cruel, and ignorant. If Genji is suggesting that the Left is moving away from its ugly marriage with Labor, and back to its roots of pure human freedom, then I surely hope he is onto something.

 

What's the point in having a Left if it isn't married to Labour, and primarily concerned with upholding the rights of the poor, the powerless and the downtrodden? You prefer that it should concern itself with freedom. I think it rightly concerns itself with the question: freedom for who? How dainty and useless the Left would be if it were solely the preserve of coffee-sipping liberal intellectuals. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Your political views are valid, but calling them "Left" is a recent trend. You are using words that already had a different meaning. This just confuses the issues.

Why not just call your political leanings "Radical", or "Socialist", or something more apt? Why steal the words "Left" and "Liberal" from somewhere else and create this semantic morass?

Besides definitions, it would be interesting to hear some proof that any "Labor Party" has ever done anything to help the poor and downtrodden. The Labor Wars have never been primarily between workers and owners, it has been mostly between organized workers and unorganized workers. Organized workers get higher pay at the EXPENSE of unorganized workers. Basically, Unions have a long history of stealing money out of the economy from workers that are not organized, not a history of taking money from owners. Couple this with a history of violence, coercion, mafia-ties, blackmail, damage to the economy, etc... and I'm not sure if it can be shown that unions have had a net positive effect in the world. Most improvements in working conditions came about without Union influence.

Capitalism has done more to improve the lives of the poor than any other system ever tested by man. Does it create inequality? Sure, any meritorious system will. But all measures of quality of living are directly proportional to how free the markets are that the people live within.

Socialism does not fight poverty, it fights inequality. It does this very well by making most people equally poor (and usaully starves them to death). The only people that make out are the "planners" and the corrupt. And whatever slivers of freedom that you grant people in a socialist economy will be employed towards the creation of a free-er market, aka a Black Market. Which goes untaxed and unregulated.

These experiments have been played out on grand scales for 100 years. Nobody who examines the results, even the most ardent old-school supporters of Marxism, still pretend that a planned economy is possible, or even desirable. Ony the young and un-read still hold utopian fantasies of perfect worlds populated by pure human beings.

 

Gore must be an idiot if he said that because it is absolutely untrue.
The majority of scientists do not agree that humans are destroying the earth.
All scientists agree that humans are destroying the earth.

 

Please tell me how it would be possible for humans to destroy the Earth.

Keep in mind that every nuclear weapon in existence during the height of the Cold War combined would have thousands of times less power than the meteor strike that took out the dinosaurs.

And humans weren't in current form when the last dozen ice-ages covered most of the temperate zones with frozen water.

And continents used to be in existence, covered with life and amazing ecosystems. These continents have been pushed below other plates, and melted back into magma.

So please detail how us all-powerful humans are destroying the Earth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you an idiot?
Do you not know what roads and buildings are and deforestation?
Do you not notice how many animals are on the verge of extinction do to our expansion of replacing wildreness with roads and buildings?

The list is bleeding endless. Humans do not protect the environment. We infest it and destroy it. The proof is clear. Just look at the earth. Humans pollute everything. People living in dumps. Animals that need to be kept alive only through humanitarian intervention. Destruction. More destruction. Humans are a disease to earth.

The earth is a bleeding landfill.
Every scientist knows this.
There is no clean water to swim in. It is all poluted.

Unided States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/
They regulate laws preventing pollution.
They ensure large companies do not violate environmental protection regulation.

If you actually believe that humans are not destroying planet earth, you must be living in a dreamworld.
I've seen alot of ignorance in my day, but I have never met a person that believed humans are not destroying the environment.
Everybody knows this fact. This earth is in serious danger more than any war.

United Nations: http://www.unep.org/
World Bank: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...K:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:244381,00.html


The conversation we should be having is not whether or not humans are destroying the environment. That is without a doubt. The question is, how can we take down the rich oppressors, and take our world back for the people and the protection of earth?

 

Well, at least you have backed away from "Humans are destroying the Earth", and taken the far less crazy position of "Humans are destroying the environment". That is a ton of progress for you to make in a single day. I applaud you.

You still have a ways to go, though. What you mean to say is that "Humans are ~changing~ the environment, not destroying it. There is no way for humans to destroy the environment. Long before it was totally destroyed, humans would have starved to death, since we depend on the ATP-Creb cycle that is only possible with photosynthesis at one point of the loop. So... right before we got to the point of totally destroying the environment, the last human would die a very hungry death, and then the plants would start growing again.

Who is the ignorant person? Don't you even have the smallest understanding of how nature works? That it has survived thousands of megatons of TNT of meteor-power? Don't you know that 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct? And that this happened before humans came about? Species do not last very long. They go extinct. What you see on the planet today is .01% of every species that has ever existed.

You cry about roads. Have you never flown in a plane? Next time, look out the window. Fly across Europe, the United States, Africa, or Asia. The planet is mostly empty. And that is LAND, which is only 25% of what our Earth is. We have hardly scratched the planet. We put out less CO2 than natural periods of heavy volcanism. Less than the massive forest fires that used to rage across our continents.

Do you think the O2 we breathe comes from trees? Think again. Most of it comes from the top few inches of the ocean. It comes from very small organisms that live there and feed on sunlight. That's why you don't get short of breath during the winter, when all the green stuff goes bye-bye. And no, it isn't spread from the opposite hemisphere, it is diffused from all plant-life, but mainly from the ocean. Vastly from the ocean.

When I go kayaking in the river by my house, I fill my water bottle right out of the river. This is a river that runs through Charlottesville, VA, a pretty decent sized city. I've looked at this water in my microscope, and there are just the sort of swimmers that you expect to find in good water. Some samples were cleaner than my well water! The water I camp by (three different spots) is even cleaner. You could bottle and sell the stuff.

Most landfills are reclaimed and beautiful afterwards. Many people now recycle, and businesses have found it to be great PR, and good for their budgets, to recycle as much as possible. By all accounts, the environment in the United States today is FAR CLEANER than it was 30 years ago. Not even close. There used to be rivers in the US that would burn all day due to chemicals put in them. We now know better, and the law is brutal. We have cleaned up a TON of our mess. Even with the greater GDP, the environment today is better off in my country than it was a single generation ago. This is fact.

And please stop saying that every scientist agrees with you. This is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Besides, since I am a scientist and I also live with one, and we both disagree with you, we are enough to make this an outright falsehood. Your rudeness and fanaticism is what turns people away from conservation, not something that will help your cause. I suggest you bone up on your science and learn to speak kindly and soundly on this subject. Otherwise, you are going to recruit for the other team.

 

It's pretty much the same thing. Anybody that says that human's are destroying the earth is talking about human destruction of the earth environment.
You simply do not know how to interpret english properly.

No I mean humans are destroying it.
Destruction is changing it, but most definitely not for the better.
Humans are changing it very destructively. To put it simple, humans are destroying it.

 

Even if it was accurate which it is not, it is irrelevant.
Human expansion over natural territory has forced animals to move further into the wilderness. As stated in the previous post, many facts remain that humans have caused immense harm to the earth, forests, animals, and such.

Regardless if 100% of all animals spieces have been exitinct, and go extinct all the time, nobody is discussing that. It is not relevant. The cause of current endangerment is human destruction. Humans do not nurture the earth and take care of it. Humans destroy it left and right.