![]() |
|
the OSCARS!
Well, well, well, well.....
It seems I don't pay enough attention to the popular media. Becky just informed me that one Al Gore made a documentary film of some sort and won an oscar for it. Evidently it had something to do with the former myth called "global warming." Timing is everything......in Hollywood, as elsewhere, it would appear. Of course, everyone has heard of it now that it has become real......in the past six weeks or so......but very few people probably know that global warming was an extremely popular (among a certain credulous portion of the population) theory about how the planet has heated up in the past century or so, supported by little more than a few billion data points consisting of recorded temperatures around the world over the course of the last three centuries......well, that and a few niggling tens of thousands of climatological studies encompassing pretty much the entire spectrum of scientific technology and the accumulated knowledge of the past two millennia. Anyway, it seems this Gore fella (who, it should be pointed out for the benefit of those few benighted souls who are STILL ignorant of ancient history, also singlehandedly invented something called the internet) has capitalized on the agonizing scholarship of our beloved POTUS (who, it will be remembered, has recently singlehandedly demonstrated that the eggheads made an unaccountably lucky guess) and stolen a march by saying "yup" just a few months before the fact. Hey, nobody can make this **** up.......right? Truth is indeed stranger than friction.......ainna? :) Wolfgang oh, and by the way, it appears that melissa etheridge also won an oscar. hey, i don't live in a ****in' cave or sumpthin'......OF COURSE i know who melissa etheridge is. um......well, i knew the name, anyway. becky had to play some of her stuff for me to recognize the voice. i don't recall whether she came up on the terrific female vocalists thread a few weeks back. she certainly should have. one of the most distinctive and moving voices in the generally vomitous puddle that is popular music today. |
the OSCARS!
Wolfgang wrote:
Well, well, well, well..... Wolfgang oh, and by the way, it appears that melissa etheridge also won an oscar. hey, i don't live in a ****in' cave or sumpthin'......OF COURSE i know who melissa etheridge is. um......well, i knew the name, anyway. becky had to play some of her stuff for me to recognize the voice. i don't recall whether she came up on the terrific female vocalists thread a few weeks back. she certainly should have. one of the most distinctive and moving voices in the generally vomitous puddle that is popular music today. Well, well, well, . . . ah crap. Amen to the above. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
the OSCARS!
On Feb 26, 8:12 pm, 13thchoise wrote:
Wolfgang wrote: Well, well, well, well..... Wolfgang oh, and by the way, it appears that melissa etheridge also won an oscar. hey, i don't live in a ****in' cave or sumpthin'......OF COURSE i know who melissa etheridge is. um......well, i knew the name, anyway. becky had to play some of her stuff for me to recognize the voice. i don't recall whether she came up on the terrific female vocalists thread a few weeks back. she certainly should have. one of the most distinctive and moving voices in the generally vomitous puddle that is popular music today. Well, well, well, . . . ah crap. Amen to the above. -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37905 " Thanks to that pesky Freedom of Information Act, we discover that, last August alone, Gore used 22,619 kWh - more than an average American family uses in a year. Accepting his Oscar last week, Gore said: "It's not as hard as you might think. We have a long way to go but all of us can do something in our own lives to make a difference." Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion. How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his house." :-), - Ken |
the OSCARS!
On Feb 28, 11:48 am, " wrote:
Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion. How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his house." Well, the facts are that he does, in fact run his business from offices in his house, as does his wife. Throw in the energy demands for security requirements, etc. and you have a clearly above-average electricity demand, even for a quaint little 20-room mansion. Comparing Gore's electricity usage to an average family house is nothing short of stupid. Add to that the fact that Gore buys his energy (it's right there in that FOIA thing) from "green" producers at elevated prices and buys carbon offsets for the energy he uses, and you're left with the inescapable fact that Mr. Gore does indeed "walk the walk" where CO2 emissions are concerned. Those who try have tried to use his utility bill alone while obfuscating the rest of the story to paint him as some sort of hypocrite are fundamentally dishonest IMHO. $.02, Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
On 28 Feb 2007 09:16:00 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:48 am, " wrote: Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion. How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his house." Well, the facts are that he does, in fact run his business from offices in his house, as does his wife. Throw in the energy demands for security requirements, etc. and you have a clearly above-average electricity demand, even for a quaint little 20-room mansion. Comparing Gore's electricity usage to an average family house is nothing short of stupid. Add to that the fact that Gore buys his energy (it's right there in that FOIA thing) from "green" producers at elevated prices and buys carbon offsets for the energy he uses, and you're left with the inescapable fact that Mr. Gore does indeed "walk the walk" where CO2 emissions are concerned. Those who try have tried to use his utility bill alone while obfuscating the rest of the story to paint him as some sort of hypocrite are fundamentally dishonest IMHO. $.02, Joe F. I'm shocked! SHOCKED! /daytripper (!) |
the OSCARS!
rb608 wrote:
" wrote: Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion. How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his house." Well, the facts are ... WHOA !!! Hold on just a goddamned minute here, where in the hell do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with *facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left. -- Ken Fortenberry |
the OSCARS!
On Feb 28, 12:51 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: WHOA !!! Hold on just a goddamned minute here, where in the hell do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with *facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left. Even if Steven Colbert fades into oblivion, I think his one quote that will endure will be that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." :-) Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
" wrote in message ps.com... Thanks to that pesky Freedom of Information Act, we discover that, last August alone, Gore used 22,619 kWh - more than an average American family uses in a year. Accepting his Oscar last week, Gore said: "It's not as hard as you might think. We have a long way to go but all of us can do something in our own lives to make a difference." Gore is reportedly installing solar panels on the roof of his mansion. How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his house." Well, wouldn't ya just know it. Global warming was a colossal hoax for decades......and then Al Gore single-handedly causes it to become real in less than two months. Talk about yer irony! Moron. Wolfgang |
the OSCARS!
rb608 wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: WHOA !!! Hold on just a goddamned minute here, where in the hell do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with *facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left. Even if Steven Colbert fades into oblivion, I think his one quote that will endure will be that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." :-) Yep, a classic line. Here's a good one: http://www.unitedmedia.com/editoons/...ich/index.html -- Ken Fortenberry |
the OSCARS!
do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with *facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left. So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? To a true leftie I would think _that_ explanation would be just sooo right-wing. There ain't a single rational universe in which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life. Jon. |
the OSCARS!
|
the OSCARS!
wrote in message ups.com... do you get off ruining a perfectly ridiculous right-wing rant with *facts* ? Sweartagawd Joe, that kind of pathetic liberal behavior is just what we've come to expect from the loonie left. So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? To a true leftie I would think _that_ explanation would be just sooo right-wing. There ain't a single rational universe in which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life. What possible difference can it make to anyone? You don't actually BELIEVE that loonie left-wing "global warming" crap, do you? Idiot. Wolfgang |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote:
So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 1 - My objection to the article has little to do with climate change or Al Gore. I object to it because it's a bold-faced lie masquerading as "journalism". Anyone who wanted to could easily confirm *all* of the relevent facts; but this author feels bound by no such imperative. He is a lying sack of ****, and I enthusiatically extend that moniker to anyone who would promote this bull****. Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. There ain't a single rational universe in which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life. I disagree. Yeah sure, we all emit CO2 when we exhale, drive our cars, flip on the TV, or use any energy source generated by the burning of fossil fuel or use any product created by the same. I believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. Quantifying the amount is no simple matter, but the concept is rational IMHO. Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote: So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage. So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical. FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy is funny nonetheless. - Ken |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote: So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage. So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical. FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy is funny nonetheless. - Ken |
the OSCARS!
On 1 Mar 2007 13:27:24 -0800, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote: So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 1 - My objection to the article has little to do with climate change or Al Gore. I object to it because it's a bold-faced lie masquerading as "journalism". Anyone who wanted to could easily confirm *all* of the relevent facts; but this author feels bound by no such imperative. He is a lying sack of ****, and I enthusiatically extend that moniker to anyone who would promote this bull****. OK, what in the story was a "lie?" And you mentioned in a prior reply about security - what security system would warrant THAT kind of electrical and NG consumption? In fact, what sort of security system do you envision that uses ANY NG? Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. Er, no, not really. He leads an excessively consumptive lifestyle, and as such, he consumes (or indirectly causes the consumption of) excessive amounts of energy. For example, unless he has acquired something else recently, when he drives, he drives big Cadillacs and a 60-something Mustang, and when he doesn't, well, let's just say he doesn't regularly alight from a chauffeur-driven Prius...and GS-V's aren't exactly models of fuel-efficient transportation... There ain't a single rational universe in which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life. I disagree. Yeah sure, we all emit CO2 when we exhale, drive our cars, flip on the TV, or use any energy source generated by the burning of fossil fuel or use any product created by the same. I believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. Quantifying the amount is no simple matter, but the concept is rational IMHO. I agree. But Gore doesn't do anywhere near what he could, and could do easily. It's not like solar systems are new, and I'm pretty sure he could afford a fuel cell. He's not the biggest hypocrite on the face of the planet, but a lot of his "lifestyle" is very hypocritical. TC, R Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote: On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote: So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage. So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical. FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy is funny nonetheless. - Ken You're bordering on obsession, what with two exact posts :~^ ) You do it again, and folks may et the impression that you are trying to start a movement! Op |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 4:51 pm, " wrote:
The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage. If your going for the equation of excessive consumption with immorality, then I'll go with you that far. I won't go as far as agreeing that one can subsequently buy their morality back, any more than using a Hummer to deliver meals-on-wheels somehow mitigates the excess. In the end, carbon emissions will need to be a zero sum game, and everybody's consumption takes away from everyone else's. If you're an immorally wasteful SOB, buying offsets doesn't change that. So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical. As above, it's not a matter of innocence or guilt. If, as a global population, we ultimately embrace the concept of offsets, the situation will be no different than other resources are today. Some are scarce, and those with the most money have an advantage over those who don't. It's Economics 101, not morality. To be sure, there are moral issues embedded therein, but that's way beyond anything we're discussing here. FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore I don't think that's entirely true. Why else would you post the article? Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 4:51 pm, " wrote:
The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage. If your going for the equation of excessive consumption with immorality, then I'll go with you that far. I won't go as far as agreeing that one can subsequently buy their morality back, any more than using a Hummer to deliver meals-on-wheels somehow mitigates the excess. In the end, carbon emissions will need to be a zero sum game, and everybody's consumption takes away from everyone else's. If you're an immorally wasteful SOB, buying offsets doesn't change that. So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical. As above, it's not a matter of innocence or guilt. If, as a global population, we ultimately embrace the concept of offsets, the situation will be no different than other resources are today. Some are scarce, and those with the most money have an advantage over those who don't. It's Economics 101, not morality. To be sure, there are moral issues embedded therein, but that's way beyond anything we're discussing here. FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore I don't think that's entirely true. Why else would you post the article? Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
Wolfgang wrote:
Idiot. Wolfgang Pot? Kettle? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
the OSCARS!
Wolfgang wrote:
Moron. Wolfgang Pot! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 3:51 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:27 pm, "rb608" wrote: On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote: So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. The point appears to be that if you have enough money you can purchase your morality without having to alter your energy usage. So preaching that we can all be "carbon neutral" because you have the bucks to buy your innocence does seem to be hypocritical. FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy is funny nonetheless. Yeah, hypocrisy IS funny. :) You know, I cannot find it in my heart to fault Joe for treating you and kennie and jonnie and dicklet and stevie and......like adults. Hell, it's hardly a secret that I derived some amusement from doing so myself for a couple of years......remember? But, of course, I could not continue to do so in good conscience because it was obvious that none of you gained any real benefit from it and it bacame (and continues to become) increasingly undeniable that as consumers all of you are a profound embarrassment to American higher education.....and even secondary education. Worse, several of you are an even greater embarrassment as putative purveyors of education. Here's what I should do: Find out where you boys play on your off time and spend a few evenings sitting in a dark booth at the end of the bar and listen to you and your nitwit peers tell each other how hip and cool and smart and nice you are. Wanna see beer squirt out of my nose? :) Here's what you (plural) should do: For good or ill, English is the lingua franca of ROFF. You should learn to read and write in English. Then you should learn something about the subject matter in the particular threads in which you choose to demonstrate yet again what we all already know about you. None of this will make any difference whatsoever. Wolfgang that's right, the fun never stops! :) |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 4:03 pm, wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 13:27:24 -0800, "rb608" wrote: On Mar 1, 1:02 pm, wrote: So let me get this straight: as long as you got the means, you can simply _buy_ your way out of modifying your lifestyle for The Cause? Point 1 - My objection to the article has little to do with climate change or Al Gore. I object to it because it's a bold-faced lie masquerading as "journalism". Anyone who wanted to could easily confirm *all* of the relevent facts; but this author feels bound by no such imperative. He is a lying sack of ****, and I enthusiatically extend that moniker to anyone who would promote this bull****. OK, what in the story was a "lie?" And you mentioned in a prior reply about security - what security system would warrant THAT kind of electrical and NG consumption? In fact, what sort of security system do you envision that uses ANY NG? Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the global environment; and he has done it with more than his wallet. He has also, to his great credit, put his money where his mouth is. Er, no, not really. He leads an excessively consumptive lifestyle, and as such, he consumes (or indirectly causes the consumption of) excessive amounts of energy. For example, unless he has acquired something else recently, when he drives, he drives big Cadillacs and a 60-something Mustang, and when he doesn't, well, let's just say he doesn't regularly alight from a chauffeur-driven Prius...and GS-V's aren't exactly models of fuel-efficient transportation... There ain't a single rational universe in which Al Gore can claim to live a "carbon-neutral" life. I disagree. Yeah sure, we all emit CO2 when we exhale, drive our cars, flip on the TV, or use any energy source generated by the burning of fossil fuel or use any product created by the same. I believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. Quantifying the amount is no simple matter, but the concept is rational IMHO. I agree. But Gore doesn't do anywhere near what he could, and could do easily. It's not like solar systems are new, and I'm pretty sure he could afford a fuel cell. He's not the biggest hypocrite on the face of the planet, but a lot of his "lifestyle" is very hypocritical. 1: Do you think you could possible get any dumber? 2: If so, how would you go about it? Seriously. Wolfgang who will grant that, at roughly 5,000,000,000 or so, HIS OWN solar system isn't exactly brand spanking new......but believes that others are still coming off the line all the time. |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 5:01 pm, 13thchoise wrote:
Wolfgang wrote: Moron. Wolfgang Pot! Dumbass. Wolfgang |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 2:27 pm, "rb608" wrote:
Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the Ok, so he moved from the top 0.1% of energy users to the top 0.2%(*) I guess that's progress. So no worries, mon! (*: yes, I'm guessing, but a big mansion and jetsetting around the world ain't exactly being a Bangladeshi) believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. I agree, as long as we throw away any semblence of a first world lifestyle. As long as we and the "spokespeople" perpetuate the myth, like Kermit in the Ford spots, that "it's easy being green" (just gotta buy the hybrid SUV), there will be no measurable slowdown in GH emissions. That anthropocentric global warming is happening is an obvious no brainer as far as I'm concerned. But I've not yet met a single first-world person, even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to significantly do anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from driving a Prius. Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by definition acting inconsistent with their beliefs. Jon. |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:27 pm, "rb608" wrote: Point 2 - Al Gore has, in fact, set an example as to how one may substantially alter one's lifestyle to reduce their impact on the Ok, so he moved from the top 0.1% of energy users to the top 0.2%(*) I guess that's progress. So no worries, mon! (*: yes, I'm guessing, but a big mansion and jetsetting around the world ain't exactly being a Bangladeshi) believe it is possible however, to alter our consumption in conjunction with compensatory prevention of emissions elsewhere to the extent we could reasonably be considered "carbon neutral" in relation to the net quantity of CO2 emissions we generate. I agree, as long as we throw away any semblence of a first world lifestyle. As long as we and the "spokespeople" perpetuate the myth, like Kermit in the Ford spots, that "it's easy being green" (just gotta buy the hybrid SUV), there will be no measurable slowdown in GH emissions. That anthropocentric global warming is happening is an obvious no brainer as far as I'm concerned. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! :) But I've not yet met a single first-world person, even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to significantly do anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from driving a Prius. Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by definition acting inconsistent with their beliefs. Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses. How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican, Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within walking distance play into the equation? Wolfgang who didn't used to think that thinking globally was all that tough. :( |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 2:57 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:51 pm, " wrote: FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore I don't think that's entirely true. Why else would you post the article? Joe F. Because it was funny. There's no way I can ever prove it to you. You'll just have to trust me. I think that Clinton was a lowlife, but think that Gore paid a high price for being associated with him. - Ken |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 2:05 pm, "Opus" wrote:
" wrote in message FWIW, I have no real feelings pro/con about Gore...the hypocrisy is funny nonetheless. - Ken You're bordering on obsession, what with two exact posts :~^ ) You do it again, and folks may et the impression that you are trying to start a movement! I made fun of him for inventing the internet back in the 90's, so I guess it might be 3 posts now.....wait does this post count too? DAMN! - Ken |
the OSCARS!
On 1 Mar 2007 15:49:24 -0800, "Wolfgang" wrote:
On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote: [...] But I've not yet met a single first-world person, even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to significantly do anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from driving a Prius. Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by definition acting inconsistent with their beliefs. Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses. How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican, Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within walking distance play into the equation? ahahahahahaha! I had to read Jon's post twice (which was at least twice more than it was worth), but even though it sure sounds like he was talking about GW Bush - what with the repeated use of the Disaster word and all - he really wasn't.... /daytripper (but he could have - or should have ;-) |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 5:00 pm, 13thchoise wrote:
Wolfgang wrote: Idiot. Wolfgang Pot? Kettle? Ok., just what is it you're trying to say here? Are you saying something about the kettle calling the black pot?.......or is the black perhaps calling the pot kettle? English is not your first or second language is it? Wolfgang fess up now, who in this place is NOT overjoyed every time someone even dumber than the kennies, stevie, jonnie.......and dicklet......shows up? :) |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 8:04 pm, daytripper wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 15:49:24 -0800, "Wolfgang" wrote: On Mar 1, 5:29 pm, wrote: [...] But I've not yet met a single first-world person, even among those who think GW will bring disaster, who is willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyle to the extent it will take to significantly do anything about GW. No, they just like the warm fuzzies they get from driving a Prius. Anyone who _truly_ believes GW is going to bring disaster unless we do something now, and who still lives a first-world lifestyle, is by definition acting inconsistent with their beliefs. Well, he's already gotten us into two useless wars......to the tune of about half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand or so corpses. How do YOU define disaster? And how does my having Indian, Mexican, Thai, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Greek, and Italian markets within walking distance play into the equation? ahahahahahaha! I had to read Jon's post twice (which was at least twice more than it was worth), but even though it sure sounds like he was talking about GW Bush - what with the repeated use of the Disaster word and all - he really wasn't.... /daytripper (but he could have - or should have ;-) Whatever some folks step in......it ALWAYS smells the same......ainna? :) Wolfgang |
the OSCARS!
" wrote in message
Because it was funny. Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've got an odd sense of humor. Joe F. |
the OSCARS!
rb608 typed: " wrote in message Because it was funny. Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've got an odd sense of humor. Well, *there's* the problem. Everyone knows that humor has a well-known conservative bias. -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 1, 8:13 pm, "rb608" wrote:
" wrote in message Because it was funny. Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've got an odd sense of humor. Joe F. We've both been here how long?....and you're just figuring this out now. :-), - Ken |
the OSCARS!
Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed: " wrote: Because it was funny. Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've got an odd sense of humor. Well, *there's* the problem. Everyone knows that humor has a well-known conservative bias. Watch an installment of the Fox Half Hour News Hour. It's a pathetic right-wing attempt at imitating the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Face it Timmay, right-wingers can no more do funny than liberals can do talk radio. -- Ken Fortenberry |
the OSCARS!
|
the OSCARS!
On Mar 2, 4:45 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: So in Jon's world unless you live in a mud hut with no electricity and eat, wear and use nothing that requires CO2 emissions you're a hypocrite ? Damn man, that's harsh and it reminds me of something written by Voltaire, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. The perfect is the enemy of the good." Come on Ken I expect better than some reductio ad absurdum response. No one expects people to live a peasant's life. However when you're living in a mansion, consuming 10x the energy that the average American uses (100x(?) what the average person uses) you gotta expect some grief. Doubly so if you are flying around the world preaching that we need to consume less. - Ken |
the OSCARS!
Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote: rb608 typed: " wrote: Because it was funny. Well, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, you've got an odd sense of humor. Well, *there's* the problem. Everyone knows that humor has a well-known conservative bias. Watch an installment of the Fox Half Hour News Hour. It's a pathetic right-wing attempt at imitating the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. I haven't seen that show, but Colbert would be hard to top. Face it Timmay, right-wingers can no more do funny than liberals can do talk radio. Well, one of those statements has certainly been proven true. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
the OSCARS!
On Mar 2, 9:41 am, " wrote:
Come on Ken I expect better than some reductio ad absurdum response. No one expects people to live a peasant's life. Oh no, you've got it all wrong. We _do_ expect lots of people to live a peasant's life. Just not us. If we can keep those pesky Indians and Chinese from building more coal plants, we can still jetset around the world chasing fishies, and feel good about the Prius in our garage. To KenF, I didn't say it _all_ first worlders were hypocrites, only those that "truly believe global warming will cause disaster". I'm not pushing perfection, but if one really believes the disaster scenario, then nothing short of radically abandoning the first world lifestyle is even "good", and it is, yes, hypocritical. (Still to KenF and others) Look, I like what Al Gore has done in raising this issue. I didn't nor haven't criticized him for this. The only thing I said was that the idea that you can live the life you want and simply purchase your "carbon offsets" so that you can claim to be carbon neutral is, IMO, a very elitish, right-wing idea. And I stick by that. Jon. PS: From the horse's mouth at http://www.carbonfootprint.com/carbon_offset.html: "We do realise that for some individuals ... avoidance of all CO2 emissions will be almost impossible... e.g. taking holiday flights". Yep, it doesn't get any better than that! |
the OSCARS!
" wrote in message
However when you're living in a mansion, consuming 10x the energy that the average American uses (100x(?) what the average person uses) you gotta expect some grief. Again with the parroting of the smear machine talking points? I was avoiding this sort of detail, but that comparison to the "average American" is so bogus, I gotta put a few talking points of my own out there. The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone (per the Dept. of Energy), the average energy usage is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's total usage is three (not 20) times the average, and his usage per square foot is average. That's *average*; not 20x average, not 100x average; but average. Lastly, I expect you would concede the point that the Gores are not an "average" family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. This clearly precludes an "average" size house. So, what validity is there in comparing Gore's energy bill to that of an average American household? The answer: none. It's utter bull****; and it was only done and only repeated by people who don't give a **** about portraying the facts in manner that actually reflects the truth. I think I used the term "lying sack of ****". It's contemptible, IMHO. Joe F. p.s. By way of disclosure, a good deal of the above was copied, paraphrased, or otherwise plageirized from genuine, honest-to-god talking points at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/28/155124/075. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter