Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Al Gore's way of not answering the tough questions. Cut the mike.
YouTube - Al Gore & The Death of Journalism#
YouTube - Al Gore & The Death of Journalism#
Al Gore and the death of Journalism
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Ah jeez Pete, here we go again.......
Nine factual errors out of probably a thousand or more facts presented is a pretty good batting average. Particularly when these types of environmental "facts" are of the soft variety that can be interpreted in different ways given different perspectives.
If, overall, the presentation provides a theme that is factually based, and does so in a reasonable manner then it's good content. Anyone can pick a few facts out of context and show they're off base - it doesn't mean the whole thing isn't valid and supported.
Incidentally, if you look at Gore's background, he has been a strong environmental advocate going back to his college days - way, way before it was fashionable to be "green." He's a sincere guy and personally committed to doing what he can for the environment, it's not about personal gain/aggrandisement.
Nine factual errors out of probably a thousand or more facts presented is a pretty good batting average. Particularly when these types of environmental "facts" are of the soft variety that can be interpreted in different ways given different perspectives.
If, overall, the presentation provides a theme that is factually based, and does so in a reasonable manner then it's good content. Anyone can pick a few facts out of context and show they're off base - it doesn't mean the whole thing isn't valid and supported.
Incidentally, if you look at Gore's background, he has been a strong environmental advocate going back to his college days - way, way before it was fashionable to be "green." He's a sincere guy and personally committed to doing what he can for the environment, it's not about personal gain/aggrandisement.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Cliff with all due respect I think you missed the point, The journo asked a question and got a nothing answer and when he tried to ask it again his minders pulled the pin and switched of his mike.
Nothing to do with being green; all about being honest or not.
I thought you guys were all for the freedom of the press and free speech?
Nothing to do with being green; all about being honest or not.
I thought you guys were all for the freedom of the press and free speech?
Last edited:
Oh geez, it may have been inappropriate, but nothing more. The guy couldn't even answer a simple question himself. "Do you think polar bears are endangered." He repeatedly said they have increased in numbers, skipping the answer because we all know (hopefully), that although they may have increased in numbers, that does not mean they are not endangered.
Anyway, perhaps it was inappropriate but not such a big deal.
Anyway, perhaps it was inappropriate but not such a big deal.
Pete, the journalist's behaviour and demeanor had deteriorated to the level of a heckler and this is disruptive for all. The press conference wasn't for his (the journalists) personal grandstanding. Besides, the journalist's question wasn't significant in the grand scheme of things (please see my points above) and there were other's there with valid questions that needed answers too. I would have done exactly the same thing had I been running the conference discussion.
If you look at the long legal history of the US 1st Amendment right - commonly called "freedom of speech" - you quickly see that it doesn't mean one gets to impeded upon the free speech (or other activities) of other's in promoting one's own "free speech." Far from it. "Freedom of speech" is really a poor descriptor from a legal Constitutional perspective - it's quite a limited right in fact, limited by the reasonable expectations and needs of others.
If you look at the long legal history of the US 1st Amendment right - commonly called "freedom of speech" - you quickly see that it doesn't mean one gets to impeded upon the free speech (or other activities) of other's in promoting one's own "free speech." Far from it. "Freedom of speech" is really a poor descriptor from a legal Constitutional perspective - it's quite a limited right in fact, limited by the reasonable expectations and needs of others.
I know you guys are talking about journalism, but we are talking about AL GORE. Mr. GREEN. You know the one that owns 5-6 homes/mansions that eats up enough electricity to power a small town(you can look it up yourself). The guy that jets all over the world in the MOST fuel inefficient jet made that is probably one of the oldeest models out there. The one that stands to be an instant billionaire when the cap and tax bill takes effect. Yep, thats the guy. He has control over the infrastructure of the carbon credits. Like the Chicago Mercantile Mart over the futures. Yeah that is the guy.yeah he did win a Nobel prize, but you have to remember who does the chosing 5 Nowegian politicians. The same ones that gave the prize to Obama. I bet mr Nobel is getting dizzy from rolling over in his grave from the last 10 years of their choices.
Bill
Bill
Snooping around and found this... snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use
It is certainly a valid point that someone who is dedicating so much time to a cause should partake in that very cause themselves. However, you do have to look at this situation objectively. The "average" American home that everyone is comparing Al Gore's home to belongs to a family that is much, much lower on the financial totem pole. So is Al Gore supposed to live like he makes $40,000 a year even though he makes much more? Or is he automatically precluded from the debate because he's in that lifestyle sector?
It just so happens that given the situation he is in (just like everyone else in his financial category), he is actually "walking the walk" according to what Snopes has found. He could choose to do nothing and go on living like anyone else who does nothing about their "carbon footprint". However, he has actually done something and continues to do so.
It is certainly a valid point that someone who is dedicating so much time to a cause should partake in that very cause themselves. However, you do have to look at this situation objectively. The "average" American home that everyone is comparing Al Gore's home to belongs to a family that is much, much lower on the financial totem pole. So is Al Gore supposed to live like he makes $40,000 a year even though he makes much more? Or is he automatically precluded from the debate because he's in that lifestyle sector?
It just so happens that given the situation he is in (just like everyone else in his financial category), he is actually "walking the walk" according to what Snopes has found. He could choose to do nothing and go on living like anyone else who does nothing about their "carbon footprint". However, he has actually done something and continues to do so.
I'm not so sure that Mr. Gore is totally 'walking the walk', It would appear to me that he would be doing the bare minimum at best. His lifestyle is extremely extravagant, and I simply don't think you can live like that and be serious about his cause.
It would be like if i was a great anti-smoking advocate and I have decreased my smoking from 4 packs a day to 1.
It would be like if i was a great anti-smoking advocate and I have decreased my smoking from 4 packs a day to 1.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Mr Gore is a lovely man who is dedicating his life to saving the planet.
He is not trying to make millions of dollars, nor is he a hypocrite as some ill informed people claim, he has even put solar panels on his mansion. He has told his pilot to throttle back on his jet whenever possible to conserve fuel. Not because of the cost of fuel, but because he cares.
His Oscar winning movie an inconvenient truth, did not contain any errors and nasty Mr. Justice Burton was wrong, wrong, wrong when he identified nine significant errors and stopped it being shown in British schools.
Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment - Times Online.
He will no longer answer questions from the floor when he speaks, not because he may be asked some difficult questions about his motives or the accuracy of his claims, but because he is very busy and has limited time available.
Yeah right!:laugh::laugh:
He is not trying to make millions of dollars, nor is he a hypocrite as some ill informed people claim, he has even put solar panels on his mansion. He has told his pilot to throttle back on his jet whenever possible to conserve fuel. Not because of the cost of fuel, but because he cares.
His Oscar winning movie an inconvenient truth, did not contain any errors and nasty Mr. Justice Burton was wrong, wrong, wrong when he identified nine significant errors and stopped it being shown in British schools.
Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment - Times Online.
He will no longer answer questions from the floor when he speaks, not because he may be asked some difficult questions about his motives or the accuracy of his claims, but because he is very busy and has limited time available.
Yeah right!:laugh::laugh:
All bow to the Guru. Self-important people are bad enough, but when their sycophants insist on foisting this attitude on non-believers, it really is too much.
Since Mr. Gore is a former Vice President of the United States of America, he is provided with a contingency of Secret Service agents to protect him. Anyone care to venture that at least one of the dark-suited individuals attempting to manhandle the reporter was one of these? Your tax dollars at work ladies & gentleman. Freedom for the rich and powerful...freedom from oversight and accountability, not just from their actions, but their words as well.
I don't give a damn if someone disagrees with how the reporter handled himself, or the claim he was advancing his own agenda...how is that different than what the ex-VP is doing? There is a reasonable expectation that people in positions of authority show restraint and unflappability in matters of patience-trying. Al Gore handled himself poorly...not only by his refusal to answer a question, but by allowing his employees to bully someone he chose to ignore and dismiss out of hand. When one is in a position of authority, they are in fact responsible for the actions of those employeed by them, due to the nature of heirarchy. Those men were acting on behalf of Al Gore. Overzealousness and fanatical loyalty are not generally regarded as positive traits in a "polite" society.
It is difficult to swallow the notion that freedom of speech is dictated by what others allow one to do. That is mob rule. And when the mob that is ruling has the power of the gun and the badge, using financing that was legally extorted from the populace, that is not freedom...that is slavery.
Since Mr. Gore is a former Vice President of the United States of America, he is provided with a contingency of Secret Service agents to protect him. Anyone care to venture that at least one of the dark-suited individuals attempting to manhandle the reporter was one of these? Your tax dollars at work ladies & gentleman. Freedom for the rich and powerful...freedom from oversight and accountability, not just from their actions, but their words as well.
I don't give a damn if someone disagrees with how the reporter handled himself, or the claim he was advancing his own agenda...how is that different than what the ex-VP is doing? There is a reasonable expectation that people in positions of authority show restraint and unflappability in matters of patience-trying. Al Gore handled himself poorly...not only by his refusal to answer a question, but by allowing his employees to bully someone he chose to ignore and dismiss out of hand. When one is in a position of authority, they are in fact responsible for the actions of those employeed by them, due to the nature of heirarchy. Those men were acting on behalf of Al Gore. Overzealousness and fanatical loyalty are not generally regarded as positive traits in a "polite" society.
It is difficult to swallow the notion that freedom of speech is dictated by what others allow one to do. That is mob rule. And when the mob that is ruling has the power of the gun and the badge, using financing that was legally extorted from the populace, that is not freedom...that is slavery.
Like I've said before, I feel like the gay guy in hot pants that just walked into a country western bar in El Paso....
OK, so you don't like Al Gore. Well, the good news is that there's definitely a few things not to like about him. The bad news is that he's a total boy scout compared to the average US politician. If you think he's corrupt and self interested, then DC is about as corrupt as Beijing or Bogota, or worse.
OK, so you don't like Al Gore. Well, the good news is that there's definitely a few things not to like about him. The bad news is that he's a total boy scout compared to the average US politician. If you think he's corrupt and self interested, then DC is about as corrupt as Beijing or Bogota, or worse.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Hey Cliff for once I agree with you. You can include about 99% of Australian Politicians in that and from David's Posts most of the British ones as well.
BTW I think you'd look cute in hot pants.:heart:
there isn't a single person here who could've said that better than you did yourself.
the freedom to enjoy cars we love is under direct attack from gore and his ilk.
you best believe we are gonna defend our rights. gore's principles are flawed beyond belief from a scientific perspective, and even worse, he refuses to debate his points with anyone of note! he is not a benign greenie, he is an evil capitalist in drag.
the good news is that the public in the US has turned. according to a recent gallup poll, over two thirds of this country thinks he is not accurate in his claims. somebody please alert the public school system, stop playing the damn movie already!
So if you are rich you can abuse resources and that is ok?
Similar threads
