Jump to content

Some inconvenient truths


polksalet
 Share

Recommended Posts

the problem with the whole global warming mantra is that it has essentially become a religious crusade. what other conclusion could you come to when you hear the self-righteous hollywood windbags (whose chartered transatlantic planes, hugh houses and the like burn a lot more fossil fuels than the average joe, but that's really another topic entirely) talking about how global warming isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. sounds a little like pat robertson to me, except this circle-jerk of concerned citizens has chosen consummate loser al gore as their guru. they talk about "saving the planet" as an impenetrable, unarguable moral imperative veiling over all sorts of naked political ambition, EXACTLY the way religious conservatives use their concept of "God" to do the same thing -- and they shout down and villify "deniers" in EXACTLY the same way. it baffles me that some of you who lean left can't seem to recognize this. and you wonder why the "movement" turns a lot of people off?

 

That is a completley understandible stance. Honestly, my rationale for buying into the moral elements of doing right by the planet and telling religious zelots to piss off for craming their ideology down my throat is quite simple. It comes down to the fact that conservation makes perfect sense to me and claims that homosexuality will be the downfall of humanity does not.

 

Honestly, think about it. On one side you've got somebody saying dumping toxins into our drinking water and air will be our undoing and on the other you've got somebody saying, "That's a bunch of bull. The real problem is the fact that those two dudes over there are making out."

 

What side is any rational person going to choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the problem with the whole global warming mantra is that it has essentially become a religious crusade. what other conclusion could you come to when you hear the self-righteous hollywood windbags (whose chartered transatlantic planes, hugh houses and the like burn a lot more fossil fuels than the average joe, but that's really another topic entirely) talking about how global warming isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. sounds a little like pat robertson to me, except this circle-jerk of concerned citizens has chosen consummate loser al gore as their guru. they talk about "saving the planet" as an impenetrable, unarguable moral imperative veiling over all sorts of naked political ambition, EXACTLY the way religious conservatives use their concept of "God" to do the same thing -- and they shout down and villify "deniers" in EXACTLY the same way. it baffles me that some of you who lean left can't seem to recognize this. and you wonder why the "movement" turns a lot of people off?

 

 

Let me see if I have this straight: you disagree with the method of communicating the global warming message even though you may agree in general with its substance, so you oppose its proponents. And you disagree with the method of communication of the far right theocrats AND you oppose the substance of their message, but yer a Republican like they are so you support their candidates.

 

Just making sure I get yer positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a completley understandible stance. Honestly, my rationale for buying into the moral elements of doing right by the planet and telling religious zelots to piss off for craming their ideology down my throat is quite simple. It comes down to the fact that conservation makes perfect sense to me and claims that homosexuality will be the downfall of humanity does not.

 

so, if i can sum up.... it's not the fact that they're cramming their morality down your throat that you have a problem with, it's the actual morality that they're cramming. if it's a morality you're personally on board with, then the cramming is actually a good thing.

 

it's always been my contention that most left-leaners (often pretending to be 'libertarian') ultimately feel exactly as you've decribed here, i just wish more of them were as honest about it as you're being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I have this straight: you disagree with the method of communicating the global warming message even though you may agree in general with its substance, so you oppose its proponents.

 

i believe global warming is a legitimate issue confronting society, just as i believe that sexual immorality (not really with 'the gays', but in general) and countless other things are legitimate issues confronting society. and yes, i disagree pretty strongly with how those messages are generally conveyed by zealots in the political discourse.

 

though in most cases, i would say i "oppose its proponents" for reasons OTHER than their positions on global warming.

 

And you disagree with the method of communication of the far right theocrats AND you oppose the substance of their message, but yer a Republican like they are so you support their candidates.

 

 

i would say in some ways i support the substance of their message. IMO it's not a black/white question on "substance", just as it isn't with global warming. you're right that i disgaree strongly with the method of communication.

 

but again, in general, if i support a republican candidate, it's almost certainly for reasons OTHER than their political stance on religious morality.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, if i can sum up.... it's not the fact that they're cramming their morality down your throat that you have a problem with, it's the actual morality that they're cramming. if it's a morality you're personally on board with, then the cramming is actually a good thing.

 

it's always been my contention that most left-leaners (often pretending to be 'libertarian') ultimately feel exactly as you've decribed here, i just wish more of them were as honest about it as you're being.

 

Honestly, I'm not thrilled by the tactics that are often taken by those who's opinions I share. I think Michael Moore is a ham-fisted doofus and wish he'd be less of a clown because he does unearth some good points that I wish would be taken seriously. Of course, because he's such an a-hole, they aren't.

 

This is only one example. The delivery, however, is less important to me than the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know how I feel about the Global Warming thing. In all honesty, if it is in the best interest of the planet to change some behavioral habits. I'm willing to do that. I get along just fine without aerosol. The airconditioning works just fine without freon. I am willing do just about anything within reason.

 

Agreed. While the extent to which human pollution is contributing to global warming is debateable (despite what Al Gore and ceratin atmospheric scientists who have vested political/financial interests in promoting a doomsday scenario are telling us), I think it's only logical that we attempt to cut back on fossil fuel emissions. Nothing good can come out of releasing pollutants into the atmosphere.

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want to be seen as just another Skins with red hair and a taste for asian boys?

 

 

I notice Atomic never said he didn't have a taste for asian boys.

 

If maybe somebody could tell me how to use the search function, I could prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with the whole global warming mantra is that it has essentially become a religious crusade. what other conclusion could you come to when you hear the self-righteous hollywood windbags (whose chartered transatlantic planes, hugh houses and the like burn a lot more fossil fuels than the average joe, but that's really another topic entirely) talking about how global warming isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. sounds a little like pat robertson to me, except this circle-jerk of concerned citizens has chosen consummate loser al gore as their guru. they talk about "saving the planet" as an impenetrable, unarguable moral imperative veiling over all sorts of naked political ambition, EXACTLY the way religious conservatives use their concept of "God" to do the same thing -- and they shout down and villify "deniers" in EXACTLY the same way. it baffles me that some of you who lean left can't seem to recognize this. and you wonder why the "movement" turns a lot of people off?

 

Like Detlef, I can see where you're coming from with this and, again like Detlef, I think it really does depend on the nature of the morality (in it's broadest sense). In the greater scheme of things, global warming / climate change has the potential to affect every living soul on the planet, very possibly detrimentally. The type of morality espoused by Robertson et al is concerned with interfering with people who have zero effect on anyone else (unless you subscribe to homophobic scaremongering, etc).

 

The other reason it's perhaps being treated as a religious crusade is that those tactics have already been seen to work and work well for the religious right, the gun nuts and so on. Also, there's a feeling that the current administration doesn't give a rats ass for anything beyond tomorrow, so it's necessary to shout loud enough for everyone to hear since there's going to be nothing coming from administration sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, we need to find a way to plug all volcanoes, we also need to immediatly stop all air travel and start riding horses... doh, no, I mean walk around.

 

Wait... my response to this is:

At the very least, we know that we are putting increasing amounts of unnatural chemicals into the air we breathe, the atmosphere which protects us from the sun's radiation, and the water we drink. To claim that the pollutants we create have no effect is simply covering our eyes.

 

Technological advancement is inevitable, and it would be cool if legislation could be used to motivate companies to develop cleaner technologies as part of that advancement, because it is not necessarily in their business interests to do so without incentives.

 

I think it's funny that H8Tank actually accidentally linked to a thread where I was riding skins for posting his partisan liberal-biased crap. :D

 

Nice work, detectives. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did Clinton / Gore do when they were in office in regards to the environment ? Serious question. I really dont know the answer and I am not looking to bait anyone..Do those of you that support Gores movie believe he genuinely cares about this as much as he lets on or do you think he latched on to a "hot" topic and a lot of this is about him being relevant again..As a person who is intentionally oblivious when it comes to politics I dont understand why one side fully agrees one way and another side fully agrees another way on a topic that isnt as cut and dry as most things we debate on here..Why would republicans deny this ? Is it because people dont think they are taking it as serious as it is and arent acting on it and taking the precautions they are supposed to be taking ? also do you think the libs are biting off more then they can chew with this topic in regards to the fact that if a democrat gets elected they are going to really get called to the carpet to act on all of these suggestions that are supposed to help this problem ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do those of you that support Gores movie believe he genuinely cares about this as much as he lets on or do you think he latched on to a "hot" topic and a lot of this is about him being relevant again..

 

 

I think he is primarily using this issue to keep himself relevant in the political game. But, unlike most of the righties here, I don't think that minimizes the scientific importance of the issue. I simply don't understand how people get overly worked up at Gore using this for political maunevering. Big energy will always have a Hugh influence on America's energy policy (probably never as much as under this administration). But, some people simply decide to get completely riled about Gore's movie or dirty hippies driving hybrids while presidential administrations are explicity editing scientific reports to appease their financial base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did Clinton / Gore do when they were in office in regards to the environment ? Serious question. I really dont know the answer and I am not looking to bait anyone..Do those of you that support Gores movie believe he genuinely cares about this as much as he lets on or do you think he latched on to a "hot" topic and a lot of this is about him being relevant again..As a person who is intentionally oblivious when it comes to politics I dont understand why one side fully agrees one way and another side fully agrees another way on a topic that isnt as cut and dry as most things we debate on here..Why would republicans deny this ? Is it because people dont think they are taking it as serious as it is and arent acting on it and taking the precautions they are supposed to be taking ? also do you think the libs are biting off more then they can chew with this topic in regards to the fact that if a democrat gets elected they are going to really get called to the carpet to act on all of these suggestions that are supposed to help this problem ?

 

I got the impression from the movie that this has always been very important to him and he had been spending much of his career working towards this end. So, in that respect, I honestly don't think it's just something that he's recently grabbed on to. He made several references to college professors of his that really opened his eyes to the effects and trends of global warming.

 

I am not for one second claiming that he wasn't promoting himself and, as I said before, I thought the movie suffered from having too much Al, but I do think this subject is important to him and has been for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how the libs like it, the ruling class... and the rest of us.

 

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

 

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

 

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not thrilled by the tactics that are often taken by those who's opinions I share. I think Michael Moore is a ham-fisted doofus and wish he'd be less of a clown because he does unearth some good points that I wish would be taken seriously. Of course, because he's such an a-hole, they aren't.

 

This is only one example. The delivery, however, is less important to me than the message.

 

If you would replace the words "Michael Moore" with the word "skins", I think you would be describing how 99% of Huddlers feel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

 

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

 

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average."

 

 

Belle Meade is BY FAR the most expensive area of Nashville. It is where the "old money" and super rich live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can't argue with your unreferenced quote. The source MUST be legitimate, because you have a history of getting the facts right. :D

 

 

USA Today

 

edit: and get this,

♦ The Lynnwood Boulevard home of former Vice President Al Gore, a stately mansion in Belle Meade, has been declared a Superfund site.
:D

 

here's another link that delves into the claims in more detail.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information