So does that invalidate the argument or statement? The road you're about to go down will end with defending Bush because someone before him was worse and then defending that person with the "worse" actions of someone else, with the end result of no one being to blame for any of their own actions.
no, it doesn't invalidate either.
the extent of the outrage is ridiculous though, since MY argument isn't "there are people worse so why bother" My argument is that this thread has nothing new on it.
for starters, this was an issue like a year ago when people wanted valid reasons to NOT "believe" that man has an effect on his eco-system.
solution?
let's hate Al Gore.
browse through the threads I have made you'll notice I have never said
" Bush Hypocrite?" because that's both ridiculous and inconsequential.
Gore is a hypocrite by his lifestyle, whether he "buys" his way clean or not. There's no neutrality the way his supporters like to see it, it's a trade off but there's no way to accurately measure what he's "saved" vs what he's "hurt" through donations and recklessness
I don't remember arguing that.
I don't remember saying he wasn't, I don;t think it's important, like the Wright thing.
it's noise, like always.
people with interests that **** up the world live for this ****, because then, they can point at this as if it WAS important and by endlessly discussin non-issues like these we fall into their game.
I remember when every other article that touted the "global warming hoax" spoke with derision of "gore and his followers" like it was a church galvanizing all sorts of idiots into believing that not doing anything about the environment was a way to stick it to Al Gore.
just predictions and I've seen how gore likes to use favorable predicitions to help his case (an inconvienant truth). End of the day though to be an "envirnmentalist" that follows in gore's actions would be impossible for the average US citizen, only the rich could do it. There's a double standard here that if regarding anything other than the envirnment we'd be all over any politician about.
now we are on to inconvenient truth?
to be an environmentalist all you have to do is give up a fraction of your convenience like Stormin' Norman said, that's what this is all about, people like their convenience and they don;t like to take responsibility for their actions and their impact on their environment, the best way to continue as such? find a scapegoat.
"well, since I can't do nothin' for the dad gum environment I ain't gonna! a-hiuk!"
the fact that the simple double standard you mentioned applies to every single politician and yet none of them have threads made about them is an example of how this isn't even about Gore anymore.
There are plenty of threads knocking various politicans on here from George Washington to Clinton with all sorts of truths, half truths, propaganda or outright lies. No one should or does get a pass. If you're using bush as the comparison I don't think you'd have to look too far to find threads about his hypocracies or lies. Hell you wouldn't even have to look for a thread about him, he get's brought up in ones about Gore as well.
no, that's incorrect there are not "plenty of threads knocking various politicians " at all, and you KNOW this.
the reason I'm using Bush is that acting outraged at a guy that has a large house and has been on the environmental train for the last 30 or 40 years is ridiculous when there's a WAR going on, what importance does Gora have in the scheme of things anyway he isn't even a scientist for god's sake!
Gore's overall message was good, but to say that excuses him from practicing what he preaches is a pretty bad road of thought to go down. He's profitted far more from his policies then they've cost him and that's something to consider.
I don't think I have ever said, are you sure it's me you wanted to quote?
It doesn't hurt his argument to show the feat of clay of the man, just shows that he's human and a politican just like all the others and hopefully seperates the symbol (al gore) from the message (conserve more) which is a good thing in the long road especially since gore doesn't actually sacrifice anything for his beliefs, he actually makes all that money that he uses to "offset" his deficiencies from telling other people how not to live the exact way he does.
I call ******** on that.
sorry, but I do.
). He did not have presidential aspirations in this election (and he would have won. Studies show he would've taken about 30-40 % of both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters and basically all Edwards supporters), so why would he do a 180 and become VP again? The prospect of Gore taking the second seat again is nothing more than foolish fantasizing.
