Talk:Al Gore

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Apologies to user:Jimaginator for reverting your edit of the Nobel win. My only defence is that it ocurred just as I had finished reverting a spate of wandalism, and it looked like parody--I was also unaware that Gore had been nominated.--Remarcsd 08:11, 12 October 2007 (EDT)


I used to believe this guy. 12.75.66.202 23:20, 4 November 2007 (EST)

you can't use the minor edit cause your an anonymous IP. tmtoulouse persecute 23:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Contents

[edit] Hippocrate

A Hippo Crate. Meaning a Crate with a Hippo in it. Funny wordplay.

You do know this guy likes to ride around in a jet airplane that causes air pollution? 75.117.235.151 16:24, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Really? Wow, that's amazing, I didn't even know airplanes were invented back then. But what does Hippocrates' travel habits have to do with Al Gore? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:31, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Because Al Gore is a Hippocrate. 12.75.67.38 16:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)
No, the picture on the right is a hippo crate. This word, I do not think it means what you think it means. --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 16:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Al Gore is a person who does the opposite of what he preaches. 12.75.67.38 16:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Dude, an airplane is small potatoes. Do you realize that AT THIS VERY MOMENT, Al Gore might be exhaling CARBON DIOXIDE!?!? Therefore he is a filthy hypocrite hippocrate and everything he says can be ignored, and that's what's REALLY important. --SockOfGulik 19:34, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Am I suppose to be agreeing with sarcasm or disagreeing? I'm so confused.70.190.168.175 (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See the conversation at talk:Global warming wherein I get angry at Conservatives blaming Al Gore for investing in renewable energy. Bloke can't win either way. He's damned if he takes an aeroplane flight, damned if he invests in clean energy R&D. What would you have him do? Commission a hydrogen lift solar powered dirigible and never travel overseas until it's ready? --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 16:58, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I am not a conservative, i am a libertarian. Get it right!! 75.117.235.151 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Ah, you're a libertarian. Otherwise known as a radical conservative who smokes a lot of weed216.205.224.10 01:27, 12 February 2009 (EST)
You don't mean librarian do you? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:22, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Where did anyone say you were a Conservative? --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 17:06, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Ebil evolutionismist biologists are librarians, from what I have read. humanUser talk:Human 18:10, 8 December 2007 (EST)
A Libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs. -- Bob Black.
Republicans who take drugs are not Libertarian. Bob Black has the wrong idea. 12.75.66.202 19:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)
He didn't say what you said, though. Not all" GOPs on drugs are Libs - he said all Libs are GOPers who want to take drugs (or get laid, in the usual formulation). Oh well, say la "V"! humanUser talk:Human 20:05, 8 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] The Truth About Al Gore the Liar

Al Gore did not help create the internet. Al Gore is a scum bag who only wants your money so he comes up with a scheme called "Global warming" to scare you into paying more money for "economy safe things". Its a waste, its not going to help ANYTHING. Al Gore has a government funding program for scientists. In order to get funding, they have to support his theory. I'm not saying the earth isn't warming. I'm just saying that its not our fault. We weren't here when the glaciers melted and the ice age ended. Its a natural process that the earth goes through. Those charts and maps you see showing that our temp. is growing are correct. But its not our fault. Stop buying energy saving products, we aren't going to run out of energy, energy cannot be created nor deleted. It will always be here. You a moron if you think that we actually are causing Global Warming. For being such a concerned person about the economy, his house surly doesn't help it at all.— Unsigned, by: 209.17.190.78 / talk / contribs

What does Al Gore's recumbent position have to do with anything? And why is his house so irritable? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:31, 8 December 2007 (EST)
"we aren't going to run out of energy, energy cannot be created nor deleted." LOL. I'm assuming you're referring to the depletion of fossil fuels...we're running out of fossil fuels. But you would be correct in saying that, yes, the universe is not running out of energy.....♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠say wнäτ? 17:35, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Ancient Greeks and angry houses? American politics sure are more complex than I thought. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:36, 8 December 2007 (EST)
"Al Gore did not help create the internet" - actually, yes, he did. He worked hard on promoting the infrastructure when he was in the Senate. Hippocrates was his doctor back then, and his house was happy. humanUser talk:Human 18:12, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Even that notorious Liberal hippie Newt Gingrich</SARCASM> has publicly said that Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, but I strongly suspect that lie will be carved on Al's tombstone if the GOP has their way. As Mark Twain said, a lie can circle the world while truth is still putting on its boots. --SockOfGulik 19:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, there are a lot of flaws in your argument, 209.17.190.78. 75.117.235.151 18:18, 8 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] 3 strikes

Didn't understand it (being a Brit), but why remove it SS? SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:36, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I figure leaving it in would lead to another pro/anti Nader argument. Some see Gore as the great environmentalist hope of the world, some of us (at least in 2000) saw him as, well, too flawed to merit support. Global warming isn't the only issue in the world. Secret Squirrel 07:46, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
What little (very little!) I know of Nader, I think he's got a point or two but he does tend to divide the left (in American terms) vote. SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Question?

Why would those who blamed Nader necessarily be aghast that Gore was pro-NAFTA? I would assume that many of those who disliked Nader and liked Gore (like, oh, me) did so at least in part because Gore was willing to take steps to help the US economy (like support free trade) and not follow the siren song of protectionism. Researcher 20:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] concerning "draft dodgers"

"He didn't see much fighting, but at least he wasn't hiding in the Texas Air National Guard or spending the duration of the war dealing with an anal cyst."

Or hopping a plane to England and lighting up a big fat joint, perhaps? (See Norm Macdonald weekend update) Burkean (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I thought he was a centrist?

When he ran for president at least wasn't he the centrist candidate? Hence why Nader ran to his left? For all the claims he's some sort of left-wing radical he was willing to do quite a bit of privitization while in politics and he seems like he's basically a New Democrat? ClothCoat (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Duh? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Lol ok I was just wondering why he's under "Left-wing activists"? Maybe he should be under "centrist stupidity" instead if only for his inability to run an even passable campaign when his opponent should have been easily beatable. ClothCoat (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL I don't know why I'd be warning an adversary, but you most likely won't win favor with your fellow like minded progressives if you question the intelligence of Al Gore Burkean (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
And here, class, we can see an extraordinarily extreme example of cognitive dissonance. A conservative stumbles into a long-dead conversation of liberals freely criticizing Al Gore with no defensiveness involved, and declares, out of the blue "Liberals won't let you criticize Al Gore."
So... Burkean, I think you might be more at home in the Dark Enlightenment communities than here. Your propensity for long-winded bald-assertion filled defenses of clearly failed ideologies would fit right in. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess I usually affiliate myself with libertarianism, and many in the dark enlightenment movement tend not to favor that approach, despite the fact that Thiel gave money to Ron Paul. In any case, as many have pointed out, there are many issues where Ron Paul isn't very libertarian. I guess it's all in my head, but there are many instances when people on the left (Tom Udall, Rocky Anderson, Alexander Cockburn) have been excoriated for criticizing him. And what they had to say was quite a bit milder than calling him a centrist idiot. What any of this has to do with the dark enlightenment is unapparent. Interesting for you to throw such a spanner in the works while criticizing me for going off on long winded apparently meaningless rants. Attacking my comments seems to be your latest cause. Pity you're not any better at it. Friendly reminder, you have yet to respond to my very reasoned bewilderment at your attacks on me for merely pointing out that Allan Bloom isn't a neocon, and that neocon and paleocon are two very different things. Oh well, I'm sure responding to such drivel would be beneath even someone of below average intelligence, like yourself Burkean (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Really Burkean? Calling your opponent stupid is your way of arguing? Sheesh, man. What's gonna be next? Ad cellarium? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is sarcasm. I was telling the person (Ikanreed) that if they are going to present themselves as intelligent, cheap uninformed insults don't really fall within that parameter. And your criticism is rich considering the fact that this person called me stupid, and the discussion was concerning people calling Al Gore stupid. So your disappointment seems rather selective. I also don't remember telling him to move out of his parents basement, though the tactic has been utilized many times against me by several people on this site, though not this person. Burkean (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The fuck I did. You were making a bunch of specious arguments, and I just went back sure to make damn sure that you're a fucking liar about me calling you stupid. Your arguments, sure. You, no. Don't accuse me of calling you stupid, just because you have a hard-on for making weak arguments about conservative identity politics. That's a dick move. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Here comes the ghetto talk. Is this supposed to be an intelligent conversation or an episode of Maury. Opps! There goes my racism again! You have yet to explain why it is specious for me to distinguish Bloom from neoconservatives. You have not established why it is specious for me to point out how each form of conservatism is miles apart ideologically. And yes, since the people in the dark enlightenment movement say many things which are uninformed and not true, and you attack my arguments as weak, that itself is an attack on my intellectual abilities and by default my intelligence. To pretend otherwise would be, as you say, a "dick move".
But when you start writing like "I just went back sure (???) to make damn sure that you're a fucking liar" and "hard on" maybe that's because you don't have much of an argument and have to spice it up. And a lecture on etiquette from you is laughable considering the fact that you're trolling me and "spoiling". You attack my intellectual rigor, then claim this is something different from insulting intelligence, and provide no evidence for why my arguments are specious except to say "paleoconservatives are racist", then proceed to link to a blog which supports my main point, while it offers no evidence as to why or how Allan Bloom is a neoconservative, except for a guilt by association because he studied under Leo Strauss. If that isn't specious, I don't know what is. Oh, and by the way you can read any of his papers from the time or see his interview with William F. Buckley where he discusses his opposition to the Vietnam War. Burkean (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"You said my arguments lack rigor thus insulted my intelligence" is a weak out. You're quite blaise about it too. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's you with the weak out. Excellent use of language yet again. Oh, darn! Now, I'm tone trolling! If only I could play by the rules. Anyway, you compare me to a group of people who are well known for their lack of intellectual rigor, then claim it is wrong to confuse that with an insult to one's intelligence. Oh, sure, I compared you to cro magnons and flat earthers, but that wasn't insulting your intelligence! Lulz.
This all stems from me making a self deprecating remark (apparently not even less intelligent people could stand my horrible arguments, so no wonder ikanreed doesn't like them!). Hardly some brutal insult. You then proceed to wear your heart on your sleeve and then trash talk like their is no tomorrow. And again, as before, nothing to prove that Bloom is a neocon (save guilt by association), nothing to prove that neocon and paleocon are one in the same, except something from The New American which says they're...completely different. Drink some hot chocolate and take a nap. Burkean (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support