Bush won't watch Gore movie

binauralsounds wrote:

So does that make you ignorant if you didn't see passion of the Christ?

First of all, I did see it. Secondly, the film you refer to is not scientificly sound, so any "knowledge" would be that of someone's opinion, in this case a raging anti-semite alcoholic....:D

binauralsounds wrote:

neither is Gores movie. I mean, hell, we just had global cooling panic 30 years ago, now global warming. Which one is it??? One decade, wer'e told we are going to freeze to death, next, we are told we are going to burn to death. Cmon!

Give me as credible a source as Al Gore and have that person make a film backed up with science and fact and then I'll try to answer your question. But remember, I'm an American so it's gotta be entertaining or I won't vote for it.

don't gimme no wrote:

"Some" may be wrong, but we probably shouldn't bring the constitution into this.

What?

don't gimme no wrote:

I'm just saying, he's a fucking politician. Lip service is his forte and instead he chooses to take a shot at Al by saying, "doubt it."

I'm not sure where you come up with propaganda. Gore has no political motivations other than helping those who can make a difference become informed.

I will give you that he may have used bad judgement in choosing those words. I said that in the post that you quoted.

I have not seen the movie. It doesn't look like it is giving the facts from the scientists who say that global warming is not occurring. Why should the President watch every movie that is trying to sway opinion? If Gore had no political motivations other than what you state, why was the movie released for general consumption instead of being targeted and sent only to those "who can make a difference?"

zstillings wrote:

I have not seen the movie. It doesn't look like it is giving the facts from the scientists who say that global warming is not occurring.

Well, that's an easy one. They're virtually non-existant. Come on, zstillings, are you new here? We all know that there are only a handful of crack-pot "scientists" that dispute global warming. Plus, Gore does mention some of their theories so he can put them to rest with solid, sound science.

zstillings wrote:

If Gore had no political motivations other than what you state, why was the movie released for general consumption instead of being targeted and sent only to those "who can make a difference?"

The thing is, we all can make a difference. We really can. But policy changes would be key to turning this around before it's too late. IMO, it's simply irresponsible to not see this film. What do you have to lose? $8.00? Wait for DVD and rent it for $3.50, ffs. If you're so against it, then at least you can go in thinking that you can laugh at all of Gore's ridiculous claims, right?

zstillings wrote:

It is being MARKETED as propoganda. I never said it was. I will not see it in the theater so I, as I have stated before, and will not say that the movie is propoganda outright.

I'm not sure how you get that conclusion. The only "marketing" I saw for this was Al's appearance on Larry King. How is that being marketed as propaganda? BTW, Al Gore is a class act who is very intelligent and has his heart in this stuff. And he's entertaining now.....which is why he didn't become president right? Because he was boring?.....well, he's anything but boring these days. You really should check it out.

don't gimme no wrote:

I'm not sure how you get that conclusion. The only "marketing" I saw for this was Al's appearance on Larry King. How is that being marketed as propaganda? BTW, Al Gore is a class act who is very intelligent and has his heart in this stuff. And he's entertaining now.....which is why he didn't become president right? Because he was boring?.....well, he's anything but boring these days. You really should check it out.

I saw posters up all around town and many speeches. Also there many articles about it. It is a utilizing a newer medium for overt political statements much like talk radio.

hippiemom wrote:

Find one who isn't on an energy company or conservative think tank payroll.

They have to get funding for their science somewhere. It's obvious that those who want to find the opposite to be true will not pay them. If we can discredit people based on their affiliations then this movie would be discredited based on the fact that Al Gore is a vocal member of the Democrat Party.

hippiemom wrote:

Because we ARE the ones who can make a difference. The people who are opposed to reform are powerful and outrageously well-funded. The only hope for change is for the overwhelm majority of the public to demand change.

If this is true then the movie should have its intended effect. This means that the fact that Bush is not watching it shouldn't be an issue at all. It just seems a little petty that people are complaining about his remark on this.

chiefojibwa wrote:

zstillings wrote:

I'm sorry. My mistake. I will still have to watch it to gather my own opinion of the movie. When you use a word like "crack-pot" it makes me think that you are letting your own bias in on this and are willing to disregard all science that may go against your own. This is nothing against you, I will just make form my own opinion on the matter.


it's a fact, jack, that not ONE peer-reviewed article exists refuting global warming. NOT ONE.

see:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=210412

zstillings wrote:

If this is true then the movie should have its intended effect. This means that the fact that Bush is not watching it shouldn't be an issue at all. It just seems a little petty that people are complaining about his remark on this.

I'm with you on that. I don't think it matters what he sees or doesn't see, it would probably go over his head anyway.

binauralsounds wrote:

So does that make you ignorant if you didn't see passion of the Christ? I mean even if ya don't believe in fairy tales, does that still make you ignorant?

By his logic, or by his definition of ignorant, I guess so.