Talk:Al Gore

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)


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)

concerning "draft dodgers"[edit]

"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)

I thought he was a centrist?[edit]

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? (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)


Maybe we should talk about the Al Gore presidential campaign, 1988Wikipedia? Faunas (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

South Park[edit]

Hey, could somebody update the section with SP in it? See the newest additions @South Park page. -- (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)