The Inconvenient Truth of Al Gore's Hypocrisy

[valvano]

uh oh, somebody has shown the light of truth on Al "Greenhouse Gas" Gore

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

:D

[Qdrop]

some of that is just ridiculous nitpicking....^

but these points:

"Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives."

...are a bit of a black eye.

[QueenAdrock]

LOL YAH NO ONE RECYCLE OR ANYTHING BECAUSE GORE ISN'T AS ECO-FRIENDLY AS HE COULD BE AND THEREFORE HIS MOVIE IS CRAP LOL

[Qdrop]

LOL YAH NO ONE RECYCLE OR ANYTHING BECAUSE GORE ISN'T AS ECO-FRIENDLY AS HE COULD BE AND THEREFORE HIS MOVIE IS CRAP LOL

it doesn't destroy his message....
but it does somewhat shame the messenger.


LOLZ that all you want, though...


you'd be salivating and barking like a pitbull is this was a Republican politico caught up in some hypocrisy....wouldn't you.

LOLZ indeed.

[QueenAdrock]

No, I do think it's a shame that Gore isn't as eco-friendly as he could be, but like the point I'm making (and like you have said), it doesn't take anything away from the points he was making in the movie. No one can argue that we need to be more energy efficient and protect our environment, and just because he doesn't follow that as much as he should doesn't mean other people shouldn't. All politicians are hypocrites. Doesn't mean that we should ignore what they've said, even if they don't follow it.

It just seems like Valvano's trying to discredit the movie because of some poor decisions of Gore, and it's not gonna work.

[valvano]

with liberals, it doesnt matter that they don't do anything to solve a problem, or their personal lifes goes against their public persona....just saying they care about a problem is good enough

:rolleyes:

[valvano]

[QUOTE=QueenAdrock]No, I do think it's a shame that Gore isn't as eco-friendly as he could be, QUOTE]

you need to change the could to "says he is"

[Documad]

I didn't see the movie, but I do believe that our world in in trouble climate-wise. What bothers me about Gore and many politicians who have adopted the cause is that they aren't willing to tell Americans in detailed, concrete terms, what we have to do right now. No one has the guts.

On a somewhat related note, the price of gas has gone up dramatically several times within the past few months. When prices first started going up, people talked about it a lot and some people talked about using public transportation. But as prices went up another 20 - 30 cents per gallon, people have quit talking about it. And no one has cancelled their plans to take a long road trip or changed how they're commuting to work. I find that odd, but it's so American.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, and not to mention the fact that 5% of his profits from movie sales went to combatting global warming, and that pamphlets were handed out to people exiting the theater that informed them of every day small things you can do that will save tons of energy per year. He's not helping solve any problems by doing THAT.

[valvano]

Yeah, and not to mention the fact that 5% of his profits from movie sales went to combatting global warming, and that pamphlets were handed out to people exiting the theater that informed them of every day small things you can do that will save tons of energy per year. He's not helping solve any problems by doing THAT.

just 5%? that's pathetic.....he's keeping 95% of the profits then? wouldn't that be the same a (gulp) CAPITALIZING ON GLOBAL WARMING??

if he truly cared about this cause, and since he's already one of the "rich whiteys" that you've ranted about in the past, why isn't giving away all his profits instead of a measely 5%....


more liberal hypocrisy...

[QueenAdrock]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong. After searching, I found out he IS donating more. It's just Paramount who's giving 5% of THEIR profits.



Al Gore has stated "Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming." [16]Paramount Classics is committing 5% of their domestic theatrical gross for the film, with a minimum guarantee of $500,000, to be donated to a new bipartisan[17] climate action group, Alliance for Climate Protection, dedicated to awareness and grassroots organizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth


So there ya, go Valv. Sleep easy at night knowing that he's not capitalizing off of anything and does truly "care about the cause" like you said he would have if he was donating everything.

[Qdrop]

just 5%? that's pathetic.....he's keeping 95% of the profits then? wouldn't that be the same a (gulp) CAPITALIZING ON GLOBAL WARMING??

if he truly cared about this cause, and since he's already one of the "rich whiteys" that you've ranted about in the past, why isn't giving away all his profits instead of a measely 5%....


more liberal hypocrisy...

because they have to cover the cost of the movie, production, promotion, marketing....
it's not like the box office all goes into Gore's pocket.

[valvano]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong. After searching, I found out he IS donating more. It's just Paramount who's giving 5% of THEIR profits.



Al Gore has stated "Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming." [16]Paramount Classics is committing 5% of their domestic theatrical gross for the film, with a minimum guarantee of $500,000, to be donated to a new bipartisan[17] climate action group, Alliance for Climate Protection, dedicated to awareness and grassroots organizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth


So there ya, go Valv. Sleep easy at night knowing that he's not capitalizing off of anything and does truly "care about the cause" like you said he would have if he was donating everything.


well then, I guess you should be glad he made this movie while Bush was President. Thank's to his tax cuts for the rich, Gore has more profits to keep and donate....had Clinton still been President, more of those donations would instead be wasted by Washington, DC...

:D

[QueenAdrock]

Don't be retarded. You know just as well as I do there's an upside and a downside for all tax cuts. Upside? Sure, free money! Bad side? Shitty economy and a deficit. You gotta weigh the options, and I'm for a booming economy rather than an extra $40 bucks in my pocket per paycheck.

Though I bet you're real glad that Michael Moore publically thanked Bush for his rich-people tax cut, because that meant he could donate ALL his tax refund money to his hippy liberal causes. See? Upside. (y)

[valvano]

Don't be retarded. You know just as well as I do there's an upside and a downside for all tax cuts. Upside? Sure, free money! Bad side? Shitty economy and a deficit. You gotta weigh the options, and I'm for a booming economy rather than an extra $40 bucks in my pocket per paycheck.

Though I bet you're real glad that Michael Moore publically thanked Bush for his rich-people tax cut, because that meant he could donate ALL his tax refund money to his hippy liberal causes. See? Upside. (y)

that's the way it should be, people decide best how they spend/donate/waste/save/invest/give away/hoard the money they earn and work for instead of turning it over to the govt to decide.......glad to see you are adopting a more conservative approach to life..(y)

less govt the better for all

[valvano]

oh, and since we are talking liberal hypocrisies and the environment, lets not forget Robert F Kennedy Jr, who flies around the country in a corporate jet telling others how to live their lives in a more environmentally friendly fashion and the need for alternative fuels, but who opposes (along with his rich whitey uncle Senator Ted kennedy) a wind farm near the famous Kennedy Compound:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/17/90822.shtml

another great example of the liberal "do as I say, not as I do" mantra...

even Green Peace faults him on this...:eek:

[Echewta]

The money in Washington D.C. certainly isn't being wasted now with Bush as President :rolleyes:

Just because a few rich people are getting tax cuts doesn't mean the government doesn't spend money still. Its called a deficit and Bush Jr. has been using it well.

[QueenAdrock]

that's the way it should be, people decide best how they spend/donate/waste/save/invest/give away/hoard the money they earn and work for instead of turning it over to the govt to decide.......glad to see you are adopting a more conservative approach to life..(y)

less govt the better for all

Except I said: "You gotta weigh the options, and I'm for a booming economy rather than an extra $40 bucks in my pocket per paycheck."

I'm more than for taxes. When police came to my house two weeks ago to help me, I'm very glad our tax dollars had been paying for them. I know that if I had been "leaving it up to the people," we'd have no police. Seriously, who would fund them? What kind soul would say "I want to donate to the police," rather than saying "I want a new SUV"? Maybe you just have more faith in humanity, but I for one do not. People by nature are greedy, selfish beings. Thus us needing taxes in my opinion.

[valvano]

The money in Washington D.C. certainly isn't being wasted now with Bush as President :rolleyes:

Just because a few rich people are getting tax cuts doesn't mean the government doesn't spend money still. Its called a deficit and Bush Jr. has been using it well.

another closet conservative has been discovered....yes,the problem isnt taxes aren't high enough, the problem is govt spends too much...and yes, Bush Jr. has upset true fiscal conservatives...

tax money is to politicians like heroin to a junkie , which ever party is in control seems to find more uses for the pig trough.

[valvano]

Except I said: "You gotta weigh the options, and I'm for a booming economy rather than an extra $40 bucks in my pocket per paycheck."

I'm more than for taxes. When police came to my house two weeks ago to help me, I'm very glad our tax dollars had been paying for them. I know that if I had been "leaving it up to the people," we'd have no police. Seriously, who would fund them? What kind soul would say "I want to donate to the police," rather than saying "I want a new SUV"? Maybe you just have more faith in humanity, but I for one do not. People by nature are greedy, selfish beings. Thus us needing taxes in my opinion.

then you need to be upset with the folks who are calling the police when there is no need for the police....again, the problem is that taxes are not too high, its that govt spending and waste are too high....look back now on how many billions were wasted on katrina by the fed govt...and tell me we dont pay enough in fed taxes...go ahead, i dare you...

[QueenAdrock]

So you're saying we should do away with taxes and go into an even HIGHER debt? Yeah, that's smart. :rolleyes:

Edit: I do not think we need "higher" taxes, I think we need to get a fiscally-minded Democrat in office that will repeal all the tax cuts Bush put in place so we can finally start paying off the deficit. If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton had what we like to call a "surplus." Now we owe more money than ever to countries around the world, and our economy's going down the shitter.

[valvano]

taxes are not the problem....its spending...

you dont tax yourself into a deficit, you spend yourself into a deficit, and when you have a govt system that allows for bloated bureacracies, uncapped spending, no fiscal restraint, a budget not subject to the accounting practices that you and i and private businesses are, you got a problem...

get over your love for taxes...the less money in the hands of govt the better

now, i have to get back to work, i've played around on this board too much this morning..good day

[QueenAdrock]

Okay, I'll get rid of my love of taxes. I'll tell the cops to go fuck themselves and happily shell out $500 when my car's suspension and tires are destroyed by our unkempt roads. :rolleyes:

And yes, spending IS the problem. But seeing as how that's not going away, we either help out the problem to have a better economy, or we don't help out and the problem becomes worse and worse. It's silly to say "No taxes LOL" in today's age. This society would go even shittier if we didn't have taxes to pay for necessities, and it's naive to think otherwise.

[Bob]

And yes, spending IS the problem. But seeing as how that's not going away, we either help out the problem to have a better economy, or we don't help out and the problem becomes worse and worse. It's silly to say "No taxes LOL" in today's age. This society would go even shittier if we didn't have taxes to pay for necessities, and it's naive to think otherwise.

i dunno. i hate to agree with valvano, and i'm not sure that i am, but he's kind of got a point, increasing revenue isn't necssarily the best way to solve an expenditure problem. it's like, if i'm bad with money, and whenever i get a paycheck i just blow it on DVD's...giving me a raise isn't going to help much, it's just gonna give me more money to waste.

obviously government spending is more complicated than that and i'm not an economist by any means, but i'm really not convinced that raising taxes is the solution to all our economic woes either. i'm by no means afraid of taxes, i don't vote based on them and nothing else, i'm just not sure that raising them will help. government gets more money, government spends more money, government needs more money, government gets more money, it's a vicious cycle, if that's the right term.

[QueenAdrock]

No, I agree with the theory that if you get a raise you'll have more money to blow on crap. But this is the idea that you don't have money, and have been asking all your friends for loans and they're about to cut off relations with you because they're so pissed off that everytime you go out you ask for money and you don't give them anything back in return. And then you find out that you're getting a paycut because your company's cheap. There's not much you can do in a situation like that, except piss off the lenders. Or, stop spending, which we all know isn't going to happen with a war going on.

I'm not about raising the taxes, just simply getting rid of the ridiculous cuts that Bush imposed when he got into office. I remember things being fine when Clinton was in office, and we had a surplus. However, Bush is a spender, and a stupid one at that. We need someone more fiscally-minded AND someone willing to take back the tax cuts, in order to get the country back on track. Bush getting rid of his tax cuts now would only be a drop in the bucket for the deficit we have now, though it would help. He needs to stop focusing on his goddamn spending of rebuilding other countries when our own is going to hell.

[catatonic]

..

[Echewta]

If spending tax money wisely is a conservative view, then I'm out of the closet I suppose. Too bad both parties dont share the same view.

[yeahwho]

The truth of the matter is I can thank Al Gore for the information and the discussion.

Whatever his personal usage of carbon by-products is? Prove it's less or more than anybody else' in his income bracket. Then shut the fuck up. Otherwise what was the stupid ass point here? Like that Michael Moore uses Canadians to make his website? Neil Young is from Canada? The French are French? It completely misses the mark and ignores the point being made by Al Gore.

The other truth of the matter is no faith based right wing politician has come out with an cohesive documentary that can counter the speaking points.....

.....so as usual rather than have talking points on the issues, they attack the messenger. So just be a dumbass and ignore the message, thanks for fucking it up for the rest of us on Earth who do give a shit.

[Qdrop]

OH SHIT!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/22/gore-smear/

After USA Today Issues Correction, Fox Host Repeats Smears Against Gore

Earlier this month, Peter Schweizer published a hit piece on Al Gore’s environmental habits. (Schweizer works at the Hoover Institute which has received nearly $300,000 from Exxon Mobile since 1998.) It was an obvious attempt to discredit Gore’s efforts to combat the threat of global warming.

The problem was the piece was inaccurate and USA today was forced to print a correction [...]

1. Gore does not receive royalties from a zinc mine. From the USA today correction: “In a column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy…the mine was closed in 2003.”

2. Gore has never owned any Occidental Petroleum stock. His father worked for the company for several years and his parents used to own some stock. All of it was sold years ago.

3. Gore pays for his own carbon off-sets. Parmount is also purchasing off-sets above and beyond what Gore is doing individually.

---------

USATODAY'S PRINTED CORRECTION: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060817/correx17.art.htm

[D_Raay]

Peter Schweizer published a hit piece on Al Gore’s environmental habits. (Schweizer works at the Hoover Institute which has received nearly $300,000 from Exxon Mobile since 1998.)

...

[yeahwho]

You guys (Qdrop, D_Raay) just made my day, I had forgotten about this and filed it away as just another "swift boat tactic".

Thanks for remembering, I dismissed it as some goofy distraction at the start, but this is sweet. How valvano buys into this line of debate/discussion I'll never figure out.

Thanks for the post(y) :D

[drizl]

gore's just playing his role, like he did when he gave up on being president, like kerry did when he chose not to challenge. those at the top are at the top for a reason. its now time for a mainstream politician to bring global warming to the american public, to awaken a sense of care and maybe even fear into the public mind. gores chosen for that job.

[Qdrop]

You guys (Qdrop, D_Raay) just made my day, I had forgotten about this and filed it away as just another "swift boat tactic".

Thanks for remembering, I dismissed it as some goofy distraction at the start, but this is sweet. How valvano buys into this line of debate/discussion I'll never figure out.

Thanks for the post(y) :D

well, alot of it is that he and I, and many of us....trust a paper like USA Today.
you don't want to believe that a major paper would just let a unchecked "fact" like that make it to print.

guess that's mighty naive of us....

[STANKY808]

I didn't think that news organizations did fact checking on editorials/opinion columns?

[Qdrop]

I didn't think that news organizations did fact checking on editorials/opinion columns?

if not, they should.

opinion or not....if that opinion present possible damaging statements as FACTS rather than opinion....that's slander.

if someoene wants to write "al gore is a douche"..go for it.
if someone wants to write "al gore gets money from a Zinc mining operation on his property", which is not true.... that person should be fired.

[QueenAdrock]

Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American!

[Qdrop]

Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American!

TRUTHINESS!!