Well I'm convinced. I've got my protest idea all ready. Tonight, I dine on cabbage, bran, and jalapenoes. Tomorrow, I run bottomless from my apartment, squat on the neutral ground, and drop a huge, molten deuce while shaking my fist in the air screaming " 'cause Al Gore owns a mansion!!"
hmmm...the old "if you support it, you must do it" argument...
funny, when I use this argument in discussions about the war and telling others if they support it they should sign up, for some reason it doesn't fly....
as for Al, I would think those who support big business and big oil would be happy that Al is using these resources...
I just think many are blinded by hatred when it comes to Al...
Or maybe many are blinded by hatred for those who support the war, but don't actually serve in the military…???
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
If you don't have the technical know how, you ask those who do. A "call."
I agree with both of you.
When we have a mass collective humanity 'generating' the idea that a new technology is necessary, we will open ourselves to the mindsets that will ultimately create and support the new technology.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I happen to be shopping for a new car. I was looking at a Honda Civic Hybrid. But this invalidates everything. I am now leaning toward a Ford Expedition.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I happen to be shopping for a new car. I was looking at a Honda Civic Hybrid. But this invalidates everything. I am now leaning toward a Ford Expedition.
Hehe....
The Civic Hybrid kicks ass. A fried of mine just got one. Very nice machine.
When we have a mass collective humanity 'generating' the idea that a new technology is necessary, we will open ourselves to the mindsets that will ultimately create and support the new technology.
Unless of course you exchange that idea for another one that says technology is the cause of your problems. And then you get something very different.
I happen to be shopping for a new car. I was looking at a Honda Civic Hybrid. But this invalidates everything. I am now leaning toward a Ford Expedition.
Do it baby!
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Baraka posted his response above. If that's "prepared", Al Gore is dumber than I thought.
What is he suppose to do? I am guessing he does more then 99% of people in the USA do. He is a very wealthy man with a lifestyle that was established decades ago. The fact that he has championed this cause, altered his consumption, uses alternative energy sources,in fact, that he does anything at all, makes him a much better candidate them any of the others. What are they doing for the environment? Any of them?
Not use energy from fossil fuels, that's what. It's the core of his argument. It's what he's demanding from others.
This isn't complicated, people. Al Gore is telling you that you are producing emissions at a dangerous level. He is telling you, in effect, that you are a criminal. However, he is producing more emissions than you are, not even counting his world tours and such. And when a rapist damns you for rape, he's exposed a severe moral contradiction. And all evil stems from moral contradictions.
I happen to be shopping for a new car. I was looking at a Honda Civic Hybrid. But this invalidates everything. I am now leaning toward a Ford Expedition.
expediation is a good choice. thats what we have and its the best vehicle we've ever owned.
Not use energy from fossil fuels, that's what. It's the core of his argument. It's what he's demanding from others.
This isn't complicated, people. Al Gore is telling you that you are producing emissions at a dangerous level. He is telling you, in effect, that you are a criminal. However, he is producing more emissions than you are, not even counting his world tours and such. And when a rapist damns you for rape, he's exposed a severe moral contradiction. And all evil stems from moral contradictions.
I wouldn't put too much effort into this bro. The hardcore nutjobs will take control of this thread soon enough. It'll become impossible for your arguments to pry their way through the excessive backpatting.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Environmentalists, in an extremely generalized sense, have long fought a battle against what many of them see to be the cause of mankind's ills: technology. They established the battle lines long ago by creating a false moral separation between the inventions of man and the inventions of Nature, making the formal a moral negative and the latter a moral positive. This morality has permeated our culture to a very dangerous level, and has led to a duplicitous view of technology by the common man.
When we damn technology, we damn our primary means of survival as a species. Some people, however, do not agree with that. They believe that mankind would be more "Natural" and hence better-off without technology.
Global warming, in the political sphere, is simply the latest battleground in this fight. Whether or not the science is valid has largely become an irrelevancy to both sides. If those who believe technology to be evil win this fight, they will win the prize they have long been seeking: control of your primary means of survival. This represents the second and second-to-last salvo in any political conquest, following controlling your food and short of controlling your mind.
Is that enough elaboration for you? Or would you like some more
Owning such a large house is a matter of choice; not a burden he's forced to accept. Parts of his documentary were filmed while guzzling fuel at an obscene rate in his private jetliner. Other parts while touring the nation in gas guzzling SUVs and limos. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Except here, he's having trouble understanding his own rhetoric.
funny how eager you are to nail al gore on this yet give a free pass to multi-millionaires who made their fortunes via televangelism. isn't someone turning a huge profit on someone who endlessly preached against the wealthy and encouraged his followers to give up what they had to follow him just as bad, if not worse?
So, a belief that pollution is bad coupled with the desire for new technology that produces less pollution = servitude to our austere, self appointed overlords to the detriment not only of all joys in life, but the very tools by which our species survives.
Environmentalists, in an extremely generalized sense, have long fought a battle against what many of them see to be the cause of mankind's ills: technology. They established the battle lines long ago by creating a false moral separation between the inventions of man and the inventions of Nature, making the formal a moral negative and the latter a moral positive. This morality has permeated our culture to a very dangerous level, and has led to a duplicitous view of technology by the common man.
When we damn technology, we damn our primary means of survival as a species. Some people, however, do not agree with that. They believe that mankind would be more "Natural" and hence better-off without technology.
Global warming, in the political sphere, is simply the latest battleground in this fight. Whether or not the science is valid has largely become an irrelevancy to both sides. If those who believe technology to be evil win this fight, they will win the prize they have long been seeking: control of your primary means of survival. This represents the second and second-to-last salvo in any political conquest, following controlling your food and short of controlling your mind.
Is that enough elaboration for you? Or would you like some more
Ah...the old duplicitous view of technology issue....
I do agree that there are environmentalistists who harken to the days of yesteryear, when we were fused with our environment, upholding them as our glory days. And who unrealistically call for a return to those days. The bottom line is that we are evolving. And we will be compelled to move forward, regardless of what the naysayers tell us.
You do admit to an extremely generalized view here. What I personally find is that we humans are unable to make extreme mass swings in any one direction, unless extremely motivated. And I just don't see that motivation in the mainstream on any one subject. So in my view, humankind will remain fairly middle of the road, irrespective of the battles being waged around us.
I'm glad to see you've got your positive-thinking cap on for the day, farfromglorified! We wouldn't want to add anymore fuel to the fear fire, afterall!
My original post in this thread was merely in support of those who believe a call for improvements in technology is effective in laying the groundwork for said new advances to spring from. From the middle-road view the average person takes, improved technologies is where there is a lot of 'power' in terms of making effective change on a wide scale.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So, a belief that pollution is bad coupled with the desire for new technology that produces less pollution = servitude to our austere, self appointed overlords to the detriment not only of all joys in life, but the very tools by which our species survives.
ouch
.
Hehe...no. A belief that pollution is bad is a great thing. As is a desire for new technology that produces less pollution. They are both logically consistent and worthy of applause.
Environmentalists, in an extremely generalized sense, have long fought a battle against what many of them see to be the cause of mankind's ills: technology. They established the battle lines long ago by creating a false moral separation between the inventions of man and the inventions of Nature, making the formal a moral negative and the latter a moral positive. This morality has permeated our culture to a very dangerous level, and has led to a duplicitous view of technology by the common man.
When we damn technology, we damn our primary means of survival as a species. Some people, however, do not agree with that. They believe that mankind would be more "Natural" and hence better-off without technology.
Global warming, in the political sphere, is simply the latest battleground in this fight. Whether or not the science is valid has largely become an irrelevancy to both sides. If those who believe technology to be evil win this fight, they will win the prize they have long been seeking: control of your primary means of survival. This represents the second and second-to-last salvo in any political conquest, following controlling your food and short of controlling your mind.
Is that enough elaboration for you? Or would you like some more
since when is environmentalism anti-technology? from what i understand, they're huge advocates of advancing technology. we've remained stagnant for quite a while now due to profits and influence by those who control curent technology AND the means of innovation. the environmentalists seem to want us to do more research and advance beyind fossil fuel technology to renewable technology. not sure where you get this idea that they are fighting a war against technology. their war is to make our technology smarter and with less side effects. what is unreasonable about that?
as to controlling our food, the eco-people lost that one already. very few people in this country have any control over their food and if anyone controls it it is moneyed interests. i try not to think about the hormones, pesticides, and preservatives being injected into our food supply cos it makes me paranoid... in fact, im gonna put these canned peaches back into my fridge now and go be sick
The instant it declares the manufacture of men absolutely evil and the manufacture of Nature absolutely good. Most "environmentalists" are not completely this way. However, many hold onto positions they've copped from others that require such axioms.
The post above made a very large generalization, and I owned up to that.
from what i understand, they're huge advocates of advancing technology. we've remained stagnant for quite a while now due to profits and influence by those who control curent technology AND the means of innovation.
Hehe....the "means of innovation" is a brain. And "profits" aren't what make things stagnant, they're what keep things moving. And "influence" is the primary business of people like Al Gore.
the environmentalists seem to want us to do more research and advance beyind fossil fuel technology to renewable technology. not sure where you get this idea that they are fighting a war against technology. their war is to make our technology smarter and with less side effects. what is unreasonable about that?
There are certainly many people who want us to do more research and advance. However, most of them mean "someone else" when they say "us".
as to controlling our food, the eco-people lost that one already. very few people in this country have any control over their food and if anyone controls it it is moneyed interests. i try not to think about the hormones, pesticides, and preservatives being injected into our food supply cos it makes me paranoid... in fact, im gonna put these canned peaches back into my fridge now and go be sick
Hehe....
When I said "controlling our food" I meant proclaiming ownership of land on the state-level, the core foundation of the nation-state, not the FDA.
Hehe...no. A belief that pollution is bad is a great thing. As is a desire for new technology that produces less pollution. They are both logically consistent and worthy of applause.
Provided no one says anything about it? A 'quiet' step forward?
Provided no one says anything about it? A 'quiet' step forward?
Huh? No. If Al Gore were just running around saying "We need better technologies", I'd be fine with that. We do need better technologies. However, we don't need control over the people who are going to bring those technologies to us, which Al Gore is largely seeking.
The instant it declares the manufacture of men absolutely evil and the manufacture of Nature absolutely good. Most "environmentalists" are not completely this way. However, many hold onto positions they've copped from others that require such axioms.
The post above made a very large generalization, and I owned up to that.
Hehe....the "means of innovation" is a brain. And "profits" aren't what make things stagnant, they're what keep things moving. And "influence" is the primary business of people like Al Gore.
There are certainly many people who want us to do more research and advance. However, most of them mean "someone else" when they say "us".
Hehe....
When I said "controlling our food" I meant proclaiming ownership of land on the state-level, the core foundation of the nation-state, not the FDA.
the means of innovation might be the human brain, but let's be real, you need capital and equipment for that kind of research and technology innovation. most of that capital and resources is held by industries that have a very vested interest in making sure such innovation does NOT take place because they make most of their profits off the current technology. it's a cultural problem: unwillingess to make short term sacrifice for long-term gain. in this specific case, lower profits to invest in technology that could put them on top in the long run is not an option becos those low profits might kill company stock before they ever get a chance to turn that profit. it's why america is losing a lot of ground to places like china and japan, who are much more willing to look at the long-term when choosing investments. profits neither make things stagnant nor do they drive innovation. this is why i say profits ensure stagnation. the people who are making the profits don't want to risk losing any and thus won't support anything that might entail a temporary hit on profits.
i havent seen inconvenient truth, so i dont know what environmental policies it recommends, but it sounds to me like its focus is on individuals reducing their use and buying smart. i dont see what problem you would have for this given your love of the free market? i get the feeling a lot of the environmental movement is changing people's minds and creating a demand for eco-friendly practices. is there anything wrong with that?
Huh? No. If Al Gore were just running around saying "We need better technologies", I'd be fine with that. We do need better technologies. However, we don't need control over the people who are going to bring those technologies to us, which Al Gore is largely seeking.
Huh? No. If Al Gore were just running around saying "We need better technologies", I'd be fine with that. We do need better technologies. However, we don't need control over the people who are going to bring those technologies to us, which Al Gore is largely seeking.
Is he? Here I thought it was just information and encouragement. I guess I need to start taking things more personally.
Comments
Baraka posted his response above. If that's "prepared", Al Gore is dumber than I thought.
lol 32?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Or maybe many are blinded by hatred for those who support the war, but don't actually serve in the military…???
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
I agree with both of you.
When we have a mass collective humanity 'generating' the idea that a new technology is necessary, we will open ourselves to the mindsets that will ultimately create and support the new technology.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hehe....
The Civic Hybrid kicks ass. A fried of mine just got one. Very nice machine.
politicians are almost exclusively liars by trade, hypocrites by nature, and greedy to a fault.
is anyone really surprised by this? if it is in fact true?
Unless of course you exchange that idea for another one that says technology is the cause of your problems. And then you get something very different.
Do it baby!
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Not use energy from fossil fuels, that's what. It's the core of his argument. It's what he's demanding from others.
This isn't complicated, people. Al Gore is telling you that you are producing emissions at a dangerous level. He is telling you, in effect, that you are a criminal. However, he is producing more emissions than you are, not even counting his world tours and such. And when a rapist damns you for rape, he's exposed a severe moral contradiction. And all evil stems from moral contradictions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
expediation is a good choice. thats what we have and its the best vehicle we've ever owned.
I wouldn't put too much effort into this bro. The hardcore nutjobs will take control of this thread soon enough. It'll become impossible for your arguments to pry their way through the excessive backpatting.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Environmentalists, in an extremely generalized sense, have long fought a battle against what many of them see to be the cause of mankind's ills: technology. They established the battle lines long ago by creating a false moral separation between the inventions of man and the inventions of Nature, making the formal a moral negative and the latter a moral positive. This morality has permeated our culture to a very dangerous level, and has led to a duplicitous view of technology by the common man.
When we damn technology, we damn our primary means of survival as a species. Some people, however, do not agree with that. They believe that mankind would be more "Natural" and hence better-off without technology.
Global warming, in the political sphere, is simply the latest battleground in this fight. Whether or not the science is valid has largely become an irrelevancy to both sides. If those who believe technology to be evil win this fight, they will win the prize they have long been seeking: control of your primary means of survival. This represents the second and second-to-last salvo in any political conquest, following controlling your food and short of controlling your mind.
Is that enough elaboration for you? Or would you like some more
The authority many people here are ready to give him. The authority he failed to win last time because he failed to be appealing or principled.
funny how eager you are to nail al gore on this yet give a free pass to multi-millionaires who made their fortunes via televangelism. isn't someone turning a huge profit on someone who endlessly preached against the wealthy and encouraged his followers to give up what they had to follow him just as bad, if not worse?
ouch
.
Ah...the old duplicitous view of technology issue....
I do agree that there are environmentalistists who harken to the days of yesteryear, when we were fused with our environment, upholding them as our glory days. And who unrealistically call for a return to those days. The bottom line is that we are evolving. And we will be compelled to move forward, regardless of what the naysayers tell us.
You do admit to an extremely generalized view here. What I personally find is that we humans are unable to make extreme mass swings in any one direction, unless extremely motivated. And I just don't see that motivation in the mainstream on any one subject. So in my view, humankind will remain fairly middle of the road, irrespective of the battles being waged around us.
I'm glad to see you've got your positive-thinking cap on for the day, farfromglorified!
My original post in this thread was merely in support of those who believe a call for improvements in technology is effective in laying the groundwork for said new advances to spring from. From the middle-road view the average person takes, improved technologies is where there is a lot of 'power' in terms of making effective change on a wide scale.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hehe...no. A belief that pollution is bad is a great thing. As is a desire for new technology that produces less pollution. They are both logically consistent and worthy of applause.
since when is environmentalism anti-technology? from what i understand, they're huge advocates of advancing technology. we've remained stagnant for quite a while now due to profits and influence by those who control curent technology AND the means of innovation. the environmentalists seem to want us to do more research and advance beyind fossil fuel technology to renewable technology. not sure where you get this idea that they are fighting a war against technology. their war is to make our technology smarter and with less side effects. what is unreasonable about that?
as to controlling our food, the eco-people lost that one already. very few people in this country have any control over their food and if anyone controls it it is moneyed interests. i try not to think about the hormones, pesticides, and preservatives being injected into our food supply cos it makes me paranoid... in fact, im gonna put these canned peaches back into my fridge now and go be sick
The instant it declares the manufacture of men absolutely evil and the manufacture of Nature absolutely good. Most "environmentalists" are not completely this way. However, many hold onto positions they've copped from others that require such axioms.
The post above made a very large generalization, and I owned up to that.
Hehe....the "means of innovation" is a brain. And "profits" aren't what make things stagnant, they're what keep things moving. And "influence" is the primary business of people like Al Gore.
There are certainly many people who want us to do more research and advance. However, most of them mean "someone else" when they say "us".
Hehe....
When I said "controlling our food" I meant proclaiming ownership of land on the state-level, the core foundation of the nation-state, not the FDA.
Huh? No. If Al Gore were just running around saying "We need better technologies", I'd be fine with that. We do need better technologies. However, we don't need control over the people who are going to bring those technologies to us, which Al Gore is largely seeking.
the means of innovation might be the human brain, but let's be real, you need capital and equipment for that kind of research and technology innovation. most of that capital and resources is held by industries that have a very vested interest in making sure such innovation does NOT take place because they make most of their profits off the current technology. it's a cultural problem: unwillingess to make short term sacrifice for long-term gain. in this specific case, lower profits to invest in technology that could put them on top in the long run is not an option becos those low profits might kill company stock before they ever get a chance to turn that profit. it's why america is losing a lot of ground to places like china and japan, who are much more willing to look at the long-term when choosing investments. profits neither make things stagnant nor do they drive innovation. this is why i say profits ensure stagnation. the people who are making the profits don't want to risk losing any and thus won't support anything that might entail a temporary hit on profits.
i havent seen inconvenient truth, so i dont know what environmental policies it recommends, but it sounds to me like its focus is on individuals reducing their use and buying smart. i dont see what problem you would have for this given your love of the free market? i get the feeling a lot of the environmental movement is changing people's minds and creating a demand for eco-friendly practices. is there anything wrong with that?
how? i haven't heard what he's proposing here.