AlGore: 'too good for politics'

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    From a feature on him in the 'Tennessean'

    Spin?!!!!! You mean like screaming "he played on our Fears!!!!" Then embarking on a campaign, PLAYING ON OUR FEARS!

    Is 'spin' something like dismissing contra-indicating relevant facts cited on man-made/CO2/ global temperature relationships.. as "Complicated"?

    Is spin something like dismissing your OWN HUGE 'carbon footprint' as balanced out by your 'credit trading' to make up for it... just a few months before even the Guardian points out the hoaxes perpetrated?

    And 'reason' pointing out to anyone who bothers to think about it, showing that only the rich/connected have any hope of doing what HE does?
  2. quickdraw

    quickdraw New Member

    May 18, 2007
    RE: AlGore:

    Al Gore is no different than any other politician. Always quick to point fingers at everyone else, but never willing to look at themselves in the mirror.

    But as a potential president, I would vote for him out of the whole "Lesser of the two evils" situation.
  3. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Feb 28, 2006
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    I can easily picture petty's eyes bugging out while he typed that. This could be a very entertaining Presidential election just from that perspective alone.
  4. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Why would my 'eyes' be bugging out... I only write such as yet another reminder, or 'prod' that TRIES to point out that those who lead the initiatives, think they are better than you, and that YOU need to go without. Not them.

    If you want to quibble, think how many of the academic advocates of progressive politics and policies would be in favor of a pure academic meritocracy, instead of 'tenure'.

    Without his daddy's influence, AlGore would be a totally different person. that's not an aspersion, it's fair for him to use his position. But he ought to at least give some indication he understands it.

    In case you dont get the point... he claims he has 'reason' on his side. He equates that with logic, of course, but logic is too close to reality for comfort.

    Because logic is usually understood to be based on empirical results.

    And his causes are NOT ESPECIALLY... they are based on the same sort of reason that gave us marxist philosophies, which would never have been put down by anyone who realistically looked at the logical side of human nature.
    Reason on the other hand may be based on extrapolation from any given set-point.

    You know what I mean... like a "Conservative could not possibly care about the poor and oppressed".

    Stuff like that is what I refer to as a 'reasoned response' in this context.
  5. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    RE: Re: AlGore:

    'fog -- re your thread topic, how does "might not possess the skills necessary to be elected president" equate to "too good for politics?"
  6. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Re: RE: Re: AlGore:

    Because, as he says: 'Politics are based on spin; his views, on the other hand, are based on reason.'

    Get it? ... thought so.
  7. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    It should be a fantastic fund-raising year for the Republican Party. Despite the fact that one is not in the race and the other will NOT get the nomination, the party can wave their scary Al Gore and Hillary Clinton dolls at the check writers.

    Oooh Al Gore: He STUDIED in college; he talks to SCIENTISTS; he says REASON is good. He thinks governance is COMPLICATED. Oooh, don't forget to make that out to the RNC.

    Oooh Hillary Clinton: She's a WOMAN! She's a STRONG woman. She's a SMART woman. She's married to THAT GUY. She's ... that's right, keep writing.

    And, 'fog, I must tell you that it's hard to keep a straight face when your appeals to informed logic and intelligent analysis are almost always accompanied by attacks on people who have actually gotten themselves educated so that they're better prepared to use logic and analyze things intelligently. And also, if you really are using logic, why are all your commentaries so angry? And why can't people just be misguided or incorrect? Why must they be evil and manipulative and trying to fool everyone. And why are there so many of them? Because, I got to tell you, the one thing I don't see from your posts is "Poor so and so, he thinks he's got the right idea, but he's been misled and here's why." Instead, what I see is "LIKE ALL OTHER INTELLECTUAL SNOBS WHO THINK THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ...."

    And while we're on the subject, just how many bad guys do you have Take a few minutes [or hours], and make a list of all the boogie men [and, of course, women] that you hate and fear, say why they cause so much hate and anger in you.
    Attack, attack, attack. So many people to hate; so little time. Sigh.
  8. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    My commentaries are 'ANGRY' becuase the crap these guys, meaning ALL politicians dish out is simply crap.

    Why the hell dont you address what I JUST SAID about Gore and his definition of Spin and Reason?

    Why the hell dont you ADDRESS what I say about Human nature, logic and REASON!! Is it because you will have NO truck with ANYTHING THAT THREATENS YOUR WORLD VIEW. And is not your world view based on reason rather than consideration of human nature in concert with empirical history?

    I said EXACTLY what I meant. The Marxist philosophies are based on pure 'reason'. Lenin applied them in a practical sense in his writings, and tied them to human nature, is that right or wrong?

    I'm ONLY using that as an example of course but 'Reason' alone is deceptive at best and dangerous to everyone at worst.
  9. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I am ANGRY right NOW because of this crap immigration bill, I've remained silent on it because I wanted to see what I was missing... eveidently I wasnt missing anything. It's supposedly dead, and I would rather it remain so than go through as written... in secret with no input from anyone in a collusion of a bunch of cynical and scared pols.

    It is quite simply an AMNESTY bill despite what the unholy alliance say. ALL OF THEM ARE LYING when they say it isnt, or did I get it wrong?

    Dont just spout out your rehash of Lib crap, PROVE it penalizes, IN ANY WAY, those who are now here illegally but register and have no intention of taking the path to citizenship.

    It gives current illegals a legal status, pure and simple. They pay no penalty, they SUPPOSEDLY must even return to Mexico in a couple years but do you REALLY think they will?

    How after all is it ANY different than what they did in 86 when the situation was in no way as huge as it is now? They did NOTHING to enforce ANY of the measures in the bill.

    THAT is why I'm angry . I am ANGRY at those who think we are all sheep. You can be one if you want , I'm not.
  10. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Here's ANOTHER example of why 'Reason' is a poor substitute for reality based LOGIC.

    just saw a Beckham advert for

    When you go on their site, the 'solution' is bed netting*. What about DDT?

    REASON ruled OUT DDT . Reason says if too much is bad, any amount is too much.

    Logic and common sense says too much of anything is bad, but there are certain amounts that are beneficial.

    Of course the 'EDUCATED' INFORMED will have none of that.

    * One advantage of the bed netting is that it has dual uses.. in the day you can use it to herd sheep. How appropriate.

    The bolded part is the debate point in this particular post. If you want to argue, argue that and dont give me any of your sheep-bleat BS
  11. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Here's an interesting thing; everyone agreed -- although I didn't -- that current immigration policies are lacking and need to be fixed. By quaking in fear of losing the anti-Mexican vote, the Republicans exodus from their president has guaranteed 5 more years of what they agree is "a broken policy."

    Who's the winner? Lou Dobbs, of course.

    And could you please calm down for a moment and try to process this -- I like you a lot so I haven't given up on your ability to do it. I don't follow the dictates of any political philosophy or certainly not any political party. How could I when all political parties disagree among themselves about what constitutes their core beliefs. My view on issues is almost constantly evolving. Those one or two areas where I have completely unshakable beliefs were not dictated to me by some political party leader, they resulted from a lifetime of questioning, analysis, discussion, and even more questioning.

    The LEAST attractive of all the attributes of the post-1960 Conservative is the fervent belief that anyone who disagrees with them about ANYTHING must do so because they
    1. are stupid sheep who believe anything they are told.
    2. prefer to parrot the views of [insert name here] rather than think about things for themselves.
    3. don't completely understand how holding any non-Conservative view is so dangerous to the very future of The Republic.

    It is this abolute surety that everyone who disagrees with Conservative philosophy is stupid, evil, and wrong that frees conservatives from ever having to seriously examine and analyze ANY issue from ANY side. It's Politics Lite, filled with cartoon bad guys and cartoon good guys. It's so devoid of analysis and penumbra and nuance and texture, that it's the perfect home for people who have too much to think about at work and while raising their children, to have the time to really consider public policy.

    And it feeds on anger and attack, because it is a virus. It is negative, destructive, and abhors reason, cooperation, compromise, and the basic human decency required to listen to someone, weigh their opinions and concerns, and see how those opinions and concerns might relate in the formation of public policy.

    Now did you get that? Or are you going to ascribe these thoughts as something I got off the Internet? Or delivered to my front door? Or I picked up through my teeth thanks to flouride or something?

  12. kwdawson

    kwdawson New Member

    Jan 6, 2005
    Spring Hill, Florida
    I dont want a bought and paid for president, I want Ron Paul.
Similar Threads: AlGore 'too
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Harkin: McCain 'Too Military', 'scary' May 17, 2008
Miscellaneous The new "Jib-Jab" inauguration 'toon! Jan 19, 2005

Share This Page