... most of my progressive friends have a more tolerant attitude towards the transaction: "After what happened to him," in the recount of 2000, one friend remarked, "I’d forgive him almost anything." A politically active environmentalist, too, was taking the news in stride: "I don’t think the community is too upset," he said. "My personal sense is he got a good deal."
January 8, 2013
"How does raking in $100 million petrodollars fit with [Al Gore's] life’s mission?"
"Though the deal’s been widely criticized on the right..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
155 comments:
Anyone who would have been bothered by Al Gore's hypocrisy would have been bothered a long time ago.
The assumption here is that the goals of western environmentalists are at odds with those of the Middle Eastern oil interests that just feathered Gore's bed.
That's not the case.
Middle Eastern oil producers, like environmentalists, do not want to see domestic US energy production take off.
They just gave Gore a grant to continue to do their bidding.
There are few things that define the modern liberal so well as the ease with which they abandon principle for the sake of saving face or being for whatever the right is against.
Just have Dick Cheney call Gore an American hero and watch their opinions change.
Is there a similar example of someone on the right so shamelessly enriching themselves by spitting in the eye of everything they supposedly stand for?
And remember, enriching yourself in the first place is an evil to the left, so he's evil X 2.
It fits in pretty well, I think.
Liberal morality. For me but not for thee.
This applies to every political question you could ever ask be it about oil, raising the debt ceiling, sexual harrasment a or wars. If it came out tomorrow that al gore was involved in illegal renditions against international law and said "of course it's agains international law that's why they call it a covert action" libs would say they guy had it coming.
Libs, you want to know why we think you're full of shit on global warming? This is why. This and every other bit of hypocrisy coming out of their mouths.
"My personal sense is he got a good deal.""
Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"
It's interesting that the Left can never be hypocrites.
EDH, I think what you are describing is that creature known as the useful idiot.
The only thing good I have to say about Al Gore is thank goodness he didn't become president.
Actually, who knows. Maybe with 4 years of Al Gore we wouldn't have had an Obama. Al Gore is merely lying, hypocritical, and incompetent. Obama is lying, hypocritical, and quite competent.
Cognitive dissonance. It will pass once they recapture reality. Unless they believe that Gore is a mortal god, or perhaps an oracle, then their cognitive function will continue to be disrupted, and suffer from progressive dysfunction. Not all faiths, and the articles upon which they are constructed, hold equal value to ensure a functional human being.
The Living Redwood has been a hypocrite since before he invented the Internet.
EDH, I think what you are describing is that creature known as the useful idiot.
That's assuming Al gore is an idiot in this case, instead of merely a hypocrite. Given the amount of beachfront property he has recently bought, in San Francisco, Florida, and I think elsewhere, I would say not an idiot in this case.
He doesn't believe what he says.
The evil here is not that Al got a bundle, but that Current has value only because of political connections and cronyism, not business position.
To the left, morals are weapons to be wielded against one's enemies, not guides to behaviour. Someone on the left appealing to morality is someone manipulating the audience to gain influence, they seldom believe any such restraint should apply to their own righteous self and the members of their own group and can always rationalize an apparent conflict. That is well demonstrated in the comments to the WP column.
We need some type of scorecard so we can keep a fair score:
I.E.
1-Fossil fuel wealth is always bad unless a lib gets the wealth.
2-Big corporate salaries are always bad unless it is a lib getting the big salary.
3-Koch brothers wealth always bad.
4- Big media salaries are always bad unless it is a lib getting the big salary.
5- Fox Media wealth always bad.
6- Big bucks paychecks from Big Education is always bad [see Phoenix Univ] unless it is a lib getting the big paycheck from a non-profit hallowed institute of higher education.
7- Wealth of Steve Jobs, Buffett, Gates et al is always good.
8-If you are not a lib, your wealth is always bad.
Synova:
They don't care about Gore's hypocrisy, because they don't, in fact, care about the environment, or anything other than their own material, physical, and ego gratification.
They support development of "green" technologies where environmental and labor disruption (e.g. solar panels) are shifted to places which are out-of-sight and out-of-mind. They will accept disruption in their vicinity when it does not affect them personally or they can willfully obfuscate its consequences (e.g. windmills).
They do not care about either the environment or people. Their principal concern is that disruption occurs somewhere else, to someone else.
They would do well to acknowledge their ulterior motives.
"The only thing good I have to say about Al Gore is thank goodness he didn't become president."
At the time I didn't see what was to prefer, one over the other.
If Gore had become president he may have been content with that con job and not turned to looking for an alternative.
Who knows.
I don't see how you can see taking $100M from the oil business as problematic other than through magical thinking. Boil it down --
They want to minimise the power of Big Oil, right, and maximise the power of the Environmentalism Lobby. Isn't transferring $100M from Big Oil to a Professional Environmentalist a good way of achieving this end? Perhaps, even, the best and most direct way?
"They want to minimise the power of Big Oil, right, and maximise the power of the Environmentalism Lobby. Isn't transferring $100M from Big Oil to a Professional Environmentalist a good way of achieving this end? Perhaps, even, the best and most direct way?"
Yeah, sure, but we all know that when Big Oil pisses away $100 million on anyone else not fully aligned with the Left, they are considered "bought and paid for."
Glenn Beck had looked into buying the channel but was refused on ideological grounds.
If it was a case of a business transaction then what complaint could there be? Every transaction doesn't have to be an expression of ideological purpose. But the fact Beck was refused on ideological grounds does more or less prove that being bought by Big Arab Oil was ideologically in concert with Gore's agenda and purpose.
I've no doubt there are people who are sincere in their belief in the disaster on it's way. Many of them were convinced by Gore and Gore made a fortune on it all. People who would use "profit" as proof that someone is not a trustworthy source chose not to care when Gore profits from the alarm he promotes.
I certainly hope that this contretemps doesn't damage Gore's reputation among environmentalists as much as Clinton's predations did among feminists......I can think of many damning arguments, but some of them would sound like a Democrat complaining about Bain Capital. I don't mean to be a right wing hypocrite, but I will observe that he didn't build that himself.....Gore isn't cashing in on his hard work in turning Current around and making it a successful cable channel. He's cashing in on his political influence.....Well, one hundred million is a substantial payday. Gore certainly knows how to make money.
" Isn't transferring $100M from Big Oil to a Professional Environmentalist a good way of achieving this end?"
Except Gore clearly isn't an environmentalist - he's an opportunist with a huge carbon footprint.
He's an ass.
"They want to minimise the power of Big Oil, right, and maximise the power of the Environmentalism Lobby. Isn't transferring $100M from Big Oil to a Professional Environmentalist a good way of achieving this end? Perhaps, even, the best and most direct way?"
Big Oil stays powerful. The Environmental Lobby doesn't affect middle east oil production at all, but it is effective at inhibiting domestic US production.
Again, people who's trump card is "follow the money" don't care.
Algore can never be a hypocrite. He was robbed. We all owe him forever. Poor guy.
So, it's better, environmentally speaking, to let some Petro-Sheikhdoms keep $100 million than part with it?
That sounds like some backward reasoning to me.
I'm no fan of Al Gore, but I'm not going to judge him for selling an asset. How can cashing out ever be wrong?
8-If you are not a lib, your wealth is always bad.
If you're a con, your morals and principles can be bought and sold.
I'm no fan of Al Gore, but I'm not going to judge him for selling an asset. How can cashing out ever be wrong?
Re: Synova:
Big Oil stays powerful.
Yeah, but they're effectively $100M less powerful since they just blew $100M on cable access (or something like that) for Al Jazeera.
Re: bagoh20:
Except Gore clearly isn't an environmentalist - he's an opportunist with a huge carbon footprint.
I . . . I'm not seeing the contradiction there. I said "Professional Environmentalist" for a reason.
I recommend everyone read or re-read The Wealth of Nations.
"If you're a con, your morals and principles can be bought and sold."
This in a thread about Gore selling his public morals.
Re: Ritmo:
So, it's better, environmentally speaking, to let some Petro-Sheikhdoms keep $100 million than part with it?
We are in agreement!
I don't understand how progressives like the ones Henneberger talks about in her article (or Henneberger herself, complaining about Gore's hypocrisy and how it "undercuts his message and credibility") can think there's a problem here. One of these progressives apparently says: “After what happened to him,” in the recount of 2000, one friend remarked, “I’d forgive him almost anything.” What's to forgive?
The only thing good I have to say about Al Gore is thank goodness he didn't become president.
Would 9/11 have happened? Would Obama be President? (definitely not).
In 2000, I was pretty neutral on the election, at least until the debate. I supported McCain in the primaries and was not that impressed with Bush. However, after losing the election, I think Gore lost his mind.
I had considered him more level headed than Clinton. He's just been crazy since 2001.
Re: Michael K:
I had considered him more level headed than Clinton. He's just been crazy since 2001.
I was really surprised at his divorce. And the reports of him frequenting massage parlours, etc. Meanwhile, the Clintons are still together putting up the united front.
This in a thread about Gore selling his public morals.
Um, he sold a TV channel. Not his morals. Can you perceive a difference?
Yes, Balfegor. We are in agreement. Reason rules!
There is no controlling authority on raking in loot. AlGore did manage to close the sale in time to avoid the tax increase.
We have to face the amorality of AlGore and nearly all super rich jerks. Tipper gave up on him. So should we.
Back when gore ran I still considered myself a liberal. In fact I even voted for Gore.what a mistake that was.
In fact one of the first things that turned me off to liberalism was how Gore lost and how liberals turned it into a farce of the hanging chad and arguments about how he won te popular vote. He lost fair and square.
Since then how he's comported himself makes me realize it was the worst vote I ever cast. And why I ever hitched my ride with socialists ill never know. (Youth, I guess. Peer pressure maybe).
"The business of America is business." -"Engine" Charley Wilson
"Um, he sold a TV channel. Not his morals. Can you perceive a difference?"
Not really.
If he was simply selling a TV channel he'd have sold to Glenn Beck.
Oh wait... maybe you mean that Gore doesn't sell his morals, he purchases them? Buys 'em like a carbon credit. Made a fortune by setting up companies so that other people could buy their morals, too.
O Ritmo wrote:
This in a thread about Gore selling his public morals.
Um, he sold a TV channel. Not his morals. Can you perceive a difference?
it's who he sold it to that shows he in fact sold his morals. Which assumes he ever has morals to begin with.
I think one of the biggest take-aways from this election season was the limits of money, and who "owns" (or owes) whom.
The Citizens United ruling put a chill down the spine of the left and people who were worried about the corruption potential of intertwining so much money with so much political influence. I had agreed, up to a point, and then figured, maybe we will see the limits of what money can do.
The right poured so much money into their campaigns... and with so much less to show for it than one presumed they should have. Perhaps it was just spent less wisely... perhaps there was only so good a case so much money could have "bought". (The preferred argument to my mind). But it also reversed our assumptions about which party has more power - the donor or the recipient.
Would the pundits who pocketed the cash have hell to pay? Or would the donors have felt more embarrassed? Who looked worse? Who ultimately displayed more "power" in the transaction? It's hard to say, but maybe because it exposed some flimsy assumptions about which party to such a political transaction is the stronger one.
It's just money. Some causes can only go so far. If an oil-sheikh wants to part with his cash, then good. I'd like to think that I could find better ways to spend it than he can.
Squirrel!
This deal was a good thing for Al Gore, and apparently a clean legal transaction, and I would prefer an American have that money than a Oil Sheikdom as well, but the point here is it is a slap in the face to the people who support him as a leftist rather than a capitalist, and yet they can't admit that. Like Ritmo, they have to become greedy, racist, capitalist suck-ups just to avoid admitting Gore suckered them all along.
If he was simply selling a TV channel he'd have sold to Glenn Beck.
I didn't know he offered. But if he did, I can confidently say that Glenn Beck's integrity and commitment to professional journalism are orders of magnitude less than those of the ultimate purchaser.
Well, Bag, you certainly seem to be doing a bang-up job descending into a rambling wreck. I guess in your world, not rejecting money makes you an anti-leftist. You've got it wrong: Seeing beyond the money makes you moral and less rightist.
It also makes you more of the type of visionary and businessman that Steve Jobs was, as opposed to... remind me again... what do you do? What sort of widgets do you make?
Where was Al when the left cried "No Blood for Oil".
Getting an oiled massage?
Um, he sold a TV channel. Not his morals. Can you perceive a difference?
What morals? As near as I can tell, he is little better than a drug dealer. Maybe worse, since at least people have a choice as to whether or not to use drugs.
Surely you can come up with an analogy (or anything to say about this) less desperate than that, Dante...
"I didn't know he offered. But if he did, I can confidently say that Glenn Beck's integrity and commitment to professional journalism are orders of magnitude less than those of the ultimate purchaser."
Does it matter?
Either it's a moral transaction or it's a simple business transaction.
Refusing Beck proves it's a moral transaction, particularly when they just out and out said as much.
Of course, maybe this was just the least objectionable offer they had in time to avoid higher taxes. Which, if you're a conservative is just smart, but if you're a liberal is nothing but glaring hypocrisy.
This sale reminds me of the conversation in that movie between pile and Dutch about deke. Deke is their former partner who is now working with the railroad to bring the wild bunch to justice/
Pike Bishop: What would you do in his place? He gave his word.
Dutch Engstrom: He gave his word to a railroad.
Pike Bishop: It's his word.
Dutch Engstrom: That ain't what counts! It's who you give it *to*!
For someone who supposedly cares about the environment an who espouses the evils of fossil fuels, the fact that he profited from them of all people shows what his word and ethics are really worth.
Oh, I know what happened..
Al Gore heard Obama say he (Gore) "didn't really build that" network... Al Gore (being one of them) knows what Obama meant and he believed him... so he sold it before it was too late.
The movie in the reference by the way is The Wild
bunch.
Either it's a moral transaction or it's a simple business transaction.
Why the false dichotomy? It could be a little bit of both. And either way, I still agree that Glenn Beck does more damage to the cause of journalism than al Jazeera. Is that a moral determination? Perhaps to a degree. But it's limited. It's also not the point of the post.
You can now proceed to tell me about how we can help make the Arab countries more moral by teaching them the virtues of last minute scrawled out conspiracy schemes etched onto chalkboards.
$100 Million Petrodollars is nothing compared to a $1 Trillion Platinum Shilling. Gore's always running second.
* * *
What is both intriguing and offputting about the mirror divergence of Al Gore's money and Al Gore's morals is that the Al Gore who lost in 2000 was neither a green fabulist nor a second-rate glutton. He was a fairly run-of-the-mill center-left politician. I think that the 2000 election radicalized him dramatically, but what I would never have predicted is the chronic degradation of his personality: All ego, no superego.
Of course the truth is that Gore has always been about business, about making bucks off of green energy and the environmentalist movement. He's a con man selling snake oil, but because people who bought the snake oil refuse to admit they're dupes, they'll defend him no matter how clearly he's after the buck, no matter how big his mansion, no matter how many private jets spew carbon into the atmosphere, no matter how many people could pay for a month's groceries on the price of a plate of sea bass.
$100 Million Petrodollars is nothing compared to a $1 Trillion Platinum Shilling. Gore's always running second.
lol.
I envy Gore. He's better at making money than me, he's a top performer at pumping out tons of CO2, he can lie without flinching, and all without any apparent interference from a conscience.
He's a modern robber baron, and still gets the lefty chicks to rub out his chakra.
He's like a god slaying the hearts of lefties so smoothly they don't even feel the blade.
Ritmo, I don't make widgets = I make dream catchers, hand-cut from carbon credit certificates. Al says that's where the money is. I ordered his 50 CD set "How to get rich from Enviro-dummies." I'm raking it in.
Because if there's anything that Arab societies could use more of, it's conspiratorializing, intrigue, rumor-mongering, guessing at plots (especially "Zionist" plots), and the like.
Yep. Mentioning Glenn Beck just kind of opened a whole can of worms. You might have done better confining the comments to the intent of the thread - Al Gore versus al Jazeera.
What's a matter, Bag? Didn't sell as much BS and snake oil already today?
Let me know when you have a serious point to make.
Hey Ritmo, what's big oils carbon footprint again?
I don't particularly care, but I assumed al gore of all people would.
That would be like the Limey Piers Morgan owning a network and after lecturing us all so sanctimoniously about the evils of gum violence selling his show or network to
The NRA.
I don't particularly care, but I assumed al gore of all people would.
Which is precisely why they won't discuss it with you - you don't care. You're just out to score points.
Yeay! Go Team Right-Wing.
You, too, can let me know when you have a serious point to make.
But as long as you want to poke fun at Piers Morgan, let me know how good a case that Alex Jones guy made for anything with that last doozy of an appearance he made. Whew! That'll teach the electorate. I guess.
It always helps to have fringe-y 9/11 conspiracy theorists to make the pro-NRA case.
I guess Alex Jones also has something in common with the native audience for al Jazeera. Lol.
"Yep. Mentioning Glenn Beck just kind of opened a whole can of worms."
Why?
I don't expect Gore could have survived selling to Beck. But it still proves it wasn't just a sale, just a business transaction.
Gore has made his mega-fortune preaching against CO2 fuels and he happily takes oil money. So did he take it because he doesn't believe his own lies, or did he take it because it was the best offered in a time frame that let him avoid paying his fair share?
What doesn't work is trying to claim that it was just a normal business sale and not a moral expression. No one is surprised that Gore couldn't stomach Beck. But everything he's supposedly about and promoting and making his fortune from should mean that he couldn't stomach oil money.
The claim that he (most certainly) and his global warming followers don't really care about their cause is pretty clear... just like Clinton's feminist supporters really didn't have feminism as their priority, clearly.
" intent of the thread - Al Gore versus al Jazeera."
Actually the thread is about "Al Gore" the myth versus Al Gore the guy who makes a fool out of people who take it and beg for more.
It would be like olberman owning his own network and after railing on the evil conservatives and Koch brothers/Haliburton selling said network to the Koch brothers and trying to time the deal so he could get the deal that allowed him to pay the least taxes.
It would be like Michael Moore selling his production company to Roger Smith.
The fact that you presume someone as insane as Glenn Beck to have any journalistic, let alone intellectual integrity tells us all we need to know, Synova.
/end debate
O Ritmo wrote:
Which is precisely why they won't discuss it with you - you don't care. You're just out to score points.
actually it was the left and al gore out to score political points by pushing the whole carbon footprint thing in the first place. I don't care because I think you guys were always full of shit. But for someone who cares about global warming as the moral/wnvironmental issue of our age perhaps Al Gore should. Perhaps you should.
The inconvenient truth is that al gore is a hypocritical douche bag.
What I wanna know, is, this:
Will Alex Jones join forces with the, uh, "currents" of Arabian society and move closer to the 9/11 conspiracy theory that believes Israel, and not the American government, pulled it off?
I mean, he's really not that far apart from your average Saudi opinion poll on the matter.
Surely, as a business matter, there's got to be a way that he and they can pool their, uh, 'resources' and find a way to split the difference.
"What's a matter, Bag? Didn't sell as much BS and snake oil already today?"
How can you be so dense to not see the self parody in that question from a guy supporting Al Gore. Do you even understand what this thread is about? It's about YOUR snake oil salesman.
I'm blow away by his mad skills at playing you.
Jr tries his hand at the "I know you are (or Al Gore is) but what am I" fallacy as a defense. Otherwise known to logicians as the tu quoque.
/not legitimate debate.
"How does raking in $100 million petrodollars fit with [Al Gore's] life’s mission?"
Lets see... how would his mentor have handled it?
It depends upon what the meaning of $100 million means. If $100 million means to include the Bush tax cuts, and never the Obama increases, that's one thing. If it means, $100 millions after the Obama taxes, then I'm afraid there is none, it was a totally bad deal.
Madison Man - Do you honestly believe that 9/11 would not have happened if Al Gore was President? I am sorry if that is your illusion, Al Qaeda didn't give a rats butt who our President was, is or will be. It really is as if nothing bad ever happened under a Democrats and everything bad always happened under Republicans. I really expected better from you.
The only green al really seems to value is the green of a dollar.
Bag - I'm sure your knowledge of geophysics and climate will blow anyone else's out of the water. Not that you could ever explain why. But I'm sure that, deep down, in your heartiest heart of hearts, you just know it to be true and therefore, so should everyone else. It's a faith-based argument of the highest order. Consumer evangelism squared.
Do you feel better now? Did you want a cookie?
I wonder if Gore was really a true environmentalist in the first place, or just a first rate opportunist. Remember, the money that took his father from being dirt poor when he went into politics to moderately wealthy, and, thus, able to send his namesake to top schools, was primarily coal money, and the family did benefit from sweatheart deals with that evil coal company.
I never saw him as overly ideological when he was in politics - just liberal enough to survive on the Democratic side of the isle and as VP. Similar, to some extent, to a lot of the Red State and heartland type of Democrats in the Senate even today.
That was why I was a bit surprised when he seemed to go off the deep end environmentally when he failed at his attempt to steal the 2000 election through selective recounts and the disenfranchisement of military voters in Florida. Yet, somehow, he has managed to benefit, time and time again, through being at the right place at the right time in the climate controversy. This transaction isn't making him rich - because he already was rich - last I heard, already worth $100 million or so, much of it from selling carbon indulgences.
What must be remembered is that Gore (Jr) is not stupid. I saw a list recently of SAT scores, and his were higher than those of Bill Clinton, GW Bush, probably much higher than Kerry's, and likely decently higher than Obama's too. Probably not high enough to get him in Harvard today, but likely high enough to have gotten him in when he went, even if he hadn't have political pull. He just wasn't a good student.
Maybe he shouldn't have gone into politics in the first place. He seems sometimes to have merely been following the dreams of his father, just as Obama did, a father, in Gore's case, who had groomed him for the Presidency that he, himself, a hillbilly done good, could never have achieved.
"The fact that you presume someone as insane as Glenn Beck to have any journalistic, let alone intellectual integrity tells us all we need to know, Synova.
/end debate"
You sure killed that strawman dead, dead I say! Wow, a deader strawman i never did see. He's a deader, Jim, dead as a door knob, dead as a dead... dead thing. Just... DEAD.
O Ritmo wrote:
Jr tries his hand at the "I know you are (or Al Gore is) but what am I" fallacy as a defense. Otherwise known to logicians as the tu quoque.
as a defense? Wouldn't that require that you make the charge and I made the reply?
No, I'm simply saying I know you are, because you are
It's not a straw man. You said that Glenn Beck should have been the one to purchase Gore's channel.
jr -
You don't know anything except how to type empty sentences over and over again.
Sorry - I apparently underestimated AlGore's fortune. According to this article (The New Liberal Aristocracy) by Victor Davis Hanson, he was worth close to a billion dollars before this transaction went down. Maybe this will put him over the top.
O Ritmo wrote:
jr -
You don't know anything except how to type empty sentences over and over again.
I know al gore is a fraud and a hypocrite. As are you. And I think you know it too (in both cases) only are too chickenshit to acknowledge the point.
"How does raking in $100 million petrodollars fit with [Al Gore's] life’s mission?"
Fits perfectly. Duh.
[congratulation pop-up card]
a small figure sprays cash overhead like a rainbow with gold pots on both sides of the card, the model is Alice in Wonderland under a spread of playing cards.
"Cor! You big stinking dobber."
I said that Glenn Beck expressed interest and Gore turned him down.
I said that if it was not an ideological decision, but merely a business decision, that he'd have sold to Beck. If Gore didn't care who he sold to, he'd have sold to Beck. But he clearly does care who he sold to and chose to take a big oil pay day.
Do you really think that Al Jezera is going to preach against big oil and the need to save the planet?
But see, Gore is a smart guy and knows his dupes well. You'll swallow big oil whole while Glenn Beck would choke you in a moment.
Ritmo, None of this has anything to do with climate change. That's what so damned funny. You thought it did, and apparently you still do, but nobody here ever did.
Here's what the right-wing's become. In the same paranoid style that Beck specializes in, Alex Jones descends from the depths of madness into outright 9/11 conspiracy theories that he clings so dearly to, before offering the piece de resistance of an extended mocking of a British accent.
Yep. al Jazeera's a much better prospect than these guys. The former's moving forward while the Becks and the Joneses do their damnedest to move America backward.
The last thing the Middle East needs. Funny how even they're interested in becoming more civilized, informed and progressive than the Beck-Jones axis defenders here are.
I never said Gore *should* have sold to Beck. I made the argument that it was illustrative that he did not and that it disproved the "you can't blame him for selling to big oil because it was just a business thing" claim.
Gore cared where his money came from.
Clearly.
And big oil money was acceptable. (As was wriggling out of paying "his fair share" which, of course, will bother liberals Not At All.)
The displeasure with Gore among the [Current TV] staff was thick enough to cut with a scimitar.
“We all know now that Al Gore is nothing but a bulls***ter,” said the staffer bluntly.
"We do stories on the tax code, and he sells the network before the tax code kicked in?"
Just 2 months ago... this kind of thing was akin to a 'felony'.
"[Romney] was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments,” including layoffs and the outsourcing of jobs.
But when Al Gore does it... its OK.
Synova:
Are you really too stupid to understand that the fools who parted with their money, "Big Oil" as you put it, are now $100 million poorer?
Only in Right-Wing Land does becoming poorer enhance the power of a cause. I guess that's why they donated so heavily to such stupid, wishfully thinking, error-prone jackasses as Karl Rove and Dick Morris in 2012.
The fantastic thing about it, and this is so bizarre but it is Reversolandia after all, now we get an actual viable news agency that right off the plate is more reliable than anything home-grown. Isn't that sick? I never thought I'd feel a need to look to outside sources for something approaching objective reporting, but now I do.
It's like that time I caught dementia and had to rely on the judgement of my family. A terrible fate because they're wrong about everything. Man, I'm glad that didn't last.
But I won't listen to them anyway. It's on radio, right?
“Of course Al didn’t show up,” said one high placed Current staffer. “He has no credibility.
“He’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bulls***ter sells to the emir?”
Heh.
"Are you really too stupid to understand that the fools who parted with their money, "Big Oil" as you put it, are now $100 million poorer?"
Are you so stupid to think they didn't get anything for it. You think they just burned it up, or worse paid it to the U.S. Government.
How devoid of economic understanding do you have to be to see one side of a voluntary transaction as just losing 100% of your investment. We are wasting our time here with you.
Glenn beck rips apart madman Alex jones for his on air rant:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-rips-apart-madman-alex-jones-for-crazy-piers-morgan-rant/
Alex jones may have some good points on guns but that doesn't make him representational of all right wingers. Even beck says as much.
And isn't Alex jones also a truther? Do you think most right wingers find 9/11 to have been an inside job?
"Are you really too stupid to understand that the fools who parted with their money, "Big Oil" as you put it, are now $100 million poorer?"
It's not as though the television station is worthless. Do you really think they're poorer? They made an investment. Perhaps they expect to run at a loss and keep it subsidized like any other "green energy" project. But I doubt it. They might expect to operate at a loss as a public relations expense, which would naturally support Islam and... Big Oil. It also might actually turn into an interesting, profitable, network worth watching and make them a profit. If Qatar wanted to be *poorer* they could throw money away anywhere. But usually rich people and rich countries, too, aren't rich because they spend money without getting a valuable return.
And no matter what... Gore still took their dirty money when his network wouldn't even take their advertising.
Integrity!
How devoid of economic understanding do you have to be to see any potential investor as making an investment of equal value, simply because it has the same dollar amount sale price?
Well, seeing as how you make widgets, I'm sure that's a big void on your part. Interchangeable investors, is the way that Bag of Doggie Treats sees things.
It's good to know that you condescend to any investors you might have that way. Sure, they're all just as dumb (or smart) as the next guy! The widget bag says so!
Lol. Fool.
"How devoid of economic understanding do you have to be to see one side of a voluntary transaction as just losing 100% of your investment."
Probably devoid enough to think that taxing the rich or making companies pay for health insurance isn't going to cost poor people jobs.
Do you think most right wingers find 9/11 to have been an inside job?
I think most right-wingers live in fear of normal things and can't reason their way out of avoiding conspiracy theories as easily as most people can. Most of them are just looking for the next thing to fear. And if they can't find one, they make one up.
o Ritmo wrote:
Only in Right-Wing Land does becoming poorer enhance the power of a cause. I guess that's why they donated so heavily to such stupid, wishfully thinking, error-prone jackasses as Karl Rove and Dick Morris in 2012.
only in retardo land does paying for a product service means you are not getting something for your money.
When the unions give money to the Barack Obama
Campaign it's not with the intent of enhancing the power of a cause?
Wow, so what is the issue with the Koch brothers spending money on right wing causes? By your logic all they are doing is making themselves poorer.
Probably devoid enough to think that taxing the rich or making companies pay for health insurance isn't going to cost poor people jobs.
(Synova pretends that record profits are actually being used to "create" jobs).
Do you ever read?
only in retardo land does paying for a product service means you are not getting something for your money.
It depends on the value of that thing, dumb douchebag. It also depends on not being defrauded by someone dumb enough to believe his own hype and not distinguish a marketing strategy from the substance of his sales pitch.
Economics, much?
"How devoid of economic understanding do you have to be to see any potential investor as making an investment of equal value, simply because it has the same dollar amount sale price?"
Bain bought failing companies and made them profitable.
Al Jezeera buying a failing company doesn't mean they intend to lose money on it.
And for the record... I don't have anything (much) against Al Jezeera and nothing (much) against those little countries nestled around Saudi Arabia like Qatar or Dubai. Grand capitalist places, seem like, with princes that are interested in expanding their capitalist enterprises beyond oil and oppression and proving who has the bigger package by building enormous glittering towers and hosting world class universities instead of killing people.
But they most certainly are capitalist and certainly are socially not *at all* liberal in any way shape or form and they are most certainly NOT going to advocate against petroleum.
Of course the "community" isn't too upset. He's the master of the game so many of them are playing.
It's a green movement after all, people just were fooled into thinking it was forest green instead of money green.
There are true believers out there, but they've been duped by the usual suspects who play this game in every generation.
Any time some kid comes to me with some Inconvenient Truth BS... I'll tell him that, Al Gore, changed those Inconvenient Truths for Convenient ones.
"(Synova pretends that record profits are actually being used to "create" jobs).
Do you ever read?"
If someone isn't using their profit NOW to create jobs... you think that taking that profit away is going to be neutral? People are going to lose their jobs. People who can't afford it are going to get fewer hours because owners either can not or chose not to pay what they don't feel they can afford.
You can't (logically) argue that business owners and rich people are selfish pricks and then claim that your policies punishing them for this will CHANGE THEIR NATURE.
But you do... over and over and over.
Even the angelic and unassailable morality of Al Gore worked to maximize his profit and minimize his taxes.
Synova Jones:
Capitalism was (originally) liberal - before the Crazy Cons hijacked as a way to turn Adam Smith's ideas about progressive taxation on their head:
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
In Europe, supporters of market "freedom" are called "neoliberal", as a legitimate label.
You simply don't know what you are talking about, other than which "team"-based talking points you have been programmed to regurgitate.
You may want dynamic markets - in the Gulf. That's nice. But back here in America you just want the market to stagnate with hoarding.
That's why I like libertarian ideals and capitalism.
Instead of denying humanity's sinful nature it's, "Huh... we can work with that."
Progressives of various sorts seem all to be convinced that human nature is a problem that can be solved by pretending it doesn't exist.
What is the value of that thing dumb douchehbag? Isn't the value what they paid? Perhaps they see a value that you don't. Hence the forking over of the money,dumb douchebag
Are you really too stupid to understand that the fools who parted with their money, "Big Oil" as you put it, are now $100 million poorer?
Only in Right-Wing Land does becoming poorer enhance the power of a cause.
This is so patently absurd only a dumb douche bag would think it was remotely valid as a principle.
Now, if you are suggestin that Al Jazeera paid too much it might be accurate, but they might see value that we don't yet. It doesn't mean that they are 100 million dollars poorer though.
If you are paying money for influence or an asset (be it to
A charity or a political campaign) you may lose
That money but you are getting the value
Of the asset you are paying for. That is the principle by which all lobbyists run, and why things like Pacs exist. And why the Koch brothers or move on donates to the party of their choice.
Dumbass, douchebag.
You can't (logically) argue that business owners and rich people are selfish pricks and then claim that your policies punishing them for this will CHANGE THEIR NATURE.
No one's nature need be changed. People go into business for a variety of reasons and some are more innovative and talented than most. If you want to hierarchically "order" society this way (with supposed "winners" and "losers") than anyone can direct that back around to the various businesses themselves.
Unemployment is higher than 7% right now simply because the reactionaries wanted a public employment-bereft recovery - which has never happened before and won't happen now.
Yes, let the government punish those who are hoarding and redistribute it to some sorely needed infrastructure. Or just into the budget that you pretend needs to be cut (except when it comes to the massively bloated defense budget!)
Yep, any business owner who thinks his record profit is more important than employment should have that record profit involuntarily yanked back into the treasury to pay for the things that others need and he can afford anyway. If selfishness is good enough as a sole motivation for him, then he has no right to complain when the vast populace rise up and act on just as narrow an impulse, except applied to such basics as eating and decent health rather than a yacht.
If you can't see that then you belong in Nicaragua.
The mission of Current TV as it was created and the interest of the Qatar new owners could not be more at odds...
It follows that the people hired by Gore were hired with that mission in mind.
There will be layoffs!
There will be people left w/o health insurance ... someone will get cancer and die...
Al Gore will have blood on his hands.
Progressives of various sorts seem all to be convinced that human nature is a problem that can be solved by pretending it doesn't exist.
Well, yours seems to be a problem. But we can find ways to correct for that.
Remember - railing against socialism is just your euphemistic way of admitting that you're anti-social.
Yes, we will correct for that. You are attempting to subvert the basic order of the social contract and democracy will not and cannot tolerate it. It never does. No society does.
Pretend that you really are a conservative for a minute and embrace the stability that you are instead gleefully attempting to shred to pieces.
"You may want dynamic markets - in the Gulf. That's nice. But back here in America you just want the market to stagnate with hoarding."
Use the state to take away what people are hoarding and they hoard more.
Always. No matter what it is. Any proposed scarcity results in hoarding. Always. No matter what it is. It could be something no one ever uses and if it was going to be unavailable people would stock up just in case. People who save up their money will save up their money more, they'll find ways to keep it that are secure.
Putting in place policies guaranteed to result in more hoarding only makes sense if the important component is moral and not practical.
People will lose their jobs, job growth will stay slow, unemployment will stay high, because people who are smart enough and clever enough to make fortunes will be smart and clever enough to keep them.
If hoarding is the problem, policies that will increase hoarding are pretty stupid, but if the goal is to punish the hoarders, then maybe it's not so stupid... so long as punishment is more important than economic growth and jobs.
Well, I guess that's pretty clear...
It's about punishment.
Okay then.
Troll valiantly defends the reputation of Al Gore.
I laugh.
lol.
As if the reputation of Al Gore was worth defending.
Lol.
Trolls.
Lol.
It's about punishment.
Yep. Being anti-social comes with its own costs.
People will lose their jobs
Thanks to Republicans, and their "public sector job-cut recovery" philosophy, people already have. 1.5% greater unemployment than it would have been. We could be at 6.4% unemployment instead of 7.9%, but Republicans wanted to not only hoard, but to encourage hoarding. They made this policy. Not a way to stimulate an economy. If your philosophy is anti-growth, pro-hoarding, then you are not serious about economic recovery and deserve to lose the presidency, the Senate, and the 500,000 vote deficit they even got in the gerrymandered House.
The "social contract" I signed was one that promised to protect my property and avenge my wrongs if I promised not to steal from others or take justice into my own hands.
I don't recall any element of that social contract that involved banding together with other citizens to steal from the people we decide have more than they need and so saving myself from the moral burden of personal charity.
"Yep. Being anti-social comes with its own costs."
Scratch a lefty, find a fascist.
... find a fascist.
First you might want to try finding a dictionary.
Fascism actually means merging the power of corporations with the power of the state, and that describes your policy goal to a "T".
Seriously, have you ever heard of a guy named "Mussolini"?
The "social contract" I signed was one that promised to protect my property and avenge my wrongs if I promised not to steal from others or take justice into my own hands.
You didn't make up your own personal version. It already exists based on thousands of years of experience - that you don't know much about.
I don't recall any element of that social contract that involved banding together with other citizens to steal from the people we decide have more than they need and so saving myself from the moral burden of personal charity.
Me neither. So why do you support Mr. Romney's 12% tax burden, which is quite a bit lower than the percentage I pay. Do you pay 12%? Why do you let him "steal" like that?
In any event, Adam Smith disagrees with your definition of that word, too.
You must have some pretty low self-esteem to build up wealth (at quantities that you probably don't even come close to) as an idol.
Try believing in yourself instead of in the power of someone else's wealth. You might actually like it. In any event, it will make you more normal.
I envy Gore. He's better at making money than me, he's a top performer at pumping out tons of CO2, he can lie without flinching, and all without any apparent interference from a conscience.
Personally, and I do mean this, I would rather live in Africa in a hut and shit in a hole in the ground than be Al Gore. My personal integrity means too much to me. The only thing that would change that is the support of my kids, and I mean every word of that.
I'm willing to bet a lot of Americans feel the same way, still. Though I'll tell you, it's drives me to insanity to see so many people duped by this man. Duped by their vanity, that supposedly because they like "Team X," they are smarter than everyone else, never realizing the irony.
This man is worse than Jim Jones. 7.2 million acres of farmland converted to produce Ethanol in the US. Meanwhile, surprise, food prices are up. Never mind that some think that ethanol consumes more gasoline than it displaces with ethanol, once all the environmental factors are considered (including building the ethanol refineries, amortization, etc.)
Meanwhile, the big joke is that evil fracking has reduced US C02 production to about 1990 levels, as natural gas becomes cheaper.
Al Gore: "The Seas will Rise (but don't notice I buy beach front property)."
"Pestilence and Plague will rule the earth" (oops, the malaria thing didn't work out, I wonder if Gore cares).
"Eco Wars will break out" (didn't happen).
"There will be 100 Million Climate Refugees by 2010" (sorry, no climate refugees).
"We can convert to an All Electric Fleet in 10 years!!!" (show me a battery powered car that gets even 100 miles: won't happen, energy density in batteries is a bitch).
And of course, "Nuclear will take too long." No, you tard, Nuclear can't and hasn't happened because of liars like you.
And, there are too many polar bears these days, so they are increasing the take.
The useful idiot? The wanna-be pseudo intellectual leftist. "I wanna be smarter than everyone else, so I BELIEVE.
Thanks to Republicans, and their "public sector job-cut recovery" philosophy, people already have. 1.5% greater unemployment than it would have been. We could be at 6.4% unemployment instead of 7.9%, but Republicans wanted to not only hoard, but to encourage hoarding
Sorry, as a fiscal conservative I don't understand what you are talking about. Please help me to understand.
Use small words.
You know, I think Obama Care is actually going to increase jobs? There will simply be fewer full time jobs requiring health care benefits. There has been a lot of that in the news, you know.
Does Obama Care increase or decrease jobs? To me, it takes a fixed resource, medical care, and places more demand on it. What happens when demand increases and supply stays the same?
To me, it takes a fixed resource, medical care, and places more demand on it. What happens when demand increases and supply stays the same?
Don't be foolish. I get your point- health care is a "more" fixed resource than some -- it's regulated, but not set in stone. Medical schools could decide to respond by increasing the number of physicians. Affiliated professions could respond by increasing the "supply" of nurses, and P.A.s. Physicians could decide to respond to the influx of people needing primary care and stop shunting so many into costly specialities. Etc., etc., etc.
Hospitals will be encouraged to operate more efficiently because the scale of delivery will increase. They welcome the influx of patients, just as any business prefers more customers to less. These are all good things.
You have a valid concern, but there is a bigger picture beyond it.
Well okay then...
Scratch a lefty, find a totalitarian vindictive power-hungry twit.
And really... Romney keeping his money isn't stealing from anyone. For it to be stealing, all money would have to belong to the State and be gifted back to citizens.
And THAT isn't part of any social contract or law of nature in the universe.
Manbearpig could beat Marmaduke.
I think the deal fits perfectly with Gore's life mission, and the life mission of all leftists. We're merely pointing out that that mission is to enrich themselves using their governmental connections and the aura of leftist politics they seem to believe absolves them of the inherent evil of free exchange.
You make $100 million building a B to B business and you're a greedy capitalist causing all the ills of America. But if you parlay your government built notoriety into $100 million everything's fine. Somehow they never seem to question the conflict of interst ocurring when government officials are focused on the fortunes they can make - unless those officials are Republicans of course.
Don't be foolish. I get your point- health care is a "more" fixed resource than some -- it's regulated, but not set in stone. Medical schools could decide to respond by increasing the number of physicians.
Well, thanks for taking the point.
In your estimation, how long will it take to increase the supply of doctors, and why should it cost any less? How long will it take to increase the doctor producing machinery, to make more doctors?
Is this part of Obamacare, to increase the supply of medical practitioners?
And let's recall, Obamacare is meant to reduce costs. So what's the incentive?
Once more with ennui: The left doesn't have principles. Not really.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
... find a fascist.
First you might want to try finding a dictionary.
Fascism actually means merging the power of corporations with the power of the state, and that describes your policy goal to a "T".
One wonders how the left reaches this particular conclusion, other than by merely repeating it so often amongst themselves they now accept it as an article of faith. One party believes the government can and should mandate private citizens purchasing products of a particular industry. They further believe in government primacy including an unfettered right to regulate and usurp the prerogatives of ownership. Yet they absolve themselves of fascist guilt.
Meanwhile free markets include no component combining government and corporate power, yet they claim those supporting free markets are fascist.
It's a comedy.
Ritmo. "Fascism actually means merging the power of corporations with the power of the state, and that describes your policy goal to a "T". "
GM. Solyndra. GE.
Ritmo. "Fascism actually means merging the power of corporations with the power of the state, and that describes your policy goal to a "T". "
GM. Solyndra. GE.
I got a kick out of reading about the workers at the TV station talk about what a big bullshitter Gore is. I doubt if they'll even see any kind of severance package. There are some very rich investors, including Pelosi's husband that will also see a big pay day. Libs all.
Once again, Fen's Law is applicable.
Liberals aren't upset because they share Gore's hypocrisy. Liberals don't really care about the environment, poor people, its all about power, their selfish goals. They use government to get what they want and what they want benefits them not the poor or the environment.
Notice liberals are still upset they weren't able to steal the 2000 election, an election that at no time did Gore ever have more votes than Bush.
We have a serious entitlement problem in this country which is the liberals sense of entitlement.
" Medical schools could decide to respond by increasing the number of physicians. Etc., etc., etc.
Hospitals will be encouraged to operate more efficiently because the scale of delivery will increase. They welcome the influx of patients, just as any business prefers more customers to less. These are all good things."
The diagnosis and treatment suggested are so vastly erroneous that one cannot even begin to explain it, except to conclude that the author is painfully ignorant and profoundly unteachable, and leave it at that.
It depends on the value of that thing, dumb douchebag. It also depends on not being defrauded by someone dumb enough to believe his own hype and not distinguish a marketing strategy from the substance of his sales pitch.
Nearly there.
Both parties are assumed to have done their due diligence. Marketing aside-he's selling a business as a going concern not a buick. On the sellers side, he has to make the companies books available to the other party. Reveal any encumbrances or assets that go with the company. On the buyers side he has to assure the seller he can make good on the purchase. I t really isn't any bodies business who Al Gore sells his property to.
Hypocrisy aside.
Fascism actually means merging the power of corporations with the power of the state,
Ah! Like GM and Chrysler.
"It really isn't any bodies business who Al Gore sells his property to."
Sadly, that used to be true in pre-Obama America.
Now everyone is in everyone else's business, such as health care and gun ownership and political donations and on and on, 24/7.
Ain't it grand?
Fascism is merging corporation and state, eh?
Obama bought the support of big corporations to get Obamacare passed.
Obama is buying off big corporations to get gun control through.
Obama is working closely with big corporation GM, buying them out and artificially propping them up.
YOU ARE THE FASCISTS. The left sees buying off and colluding with corporations as the quickest way to consolidation of power. Your side is doing it as we speak.
Your side rationalizes this by pretending fascism is only "when corporations control the government."
Sorry, that's never been true in a fascist country. Fascism is essentially a less honest version of socialism which nominally leaves production in private hands while controlling it. Gives you someone to blame when your policies fail.
you have the nerve to call others fascist, when your political group is openly buying off and merging corporate power with the state as we speak, while railing against the "antisocial" and promising to punish them.
YOU SOUND LIKE MUSSOLINI, NOT US.
YOU ARE THE FASCIST.
One of the favors Ritmo does for us is expose the creaky and flawed reasoning of the left. I'm not very good at politics of any kind, because I'm too concrete of a thinker, but Ritmo lays out the strategy pretty clearly.
"most of my progressive friends"
What rubes! Gore sells out (but he has been selling out since Vietnam) and they say ok.
His 'green' shtick companies failed while he got another fancy yacht.
But remember, the word "progressive" is not the same as liberal.
Progressives are more like the Hitler Youth or Mao's red book wavers. They will sell out the old, weak, poor, fat, etc... to get some kind of perfect society they envision. For them, soylent green is a logical way to feed the people.
Hey Ritmo, let's see if you have any logical consistency whatsoever.
I'm sure you believe we wingnuts believe in "you're on your own" economics, while also saying we are the fascists, when fascism is defined as "greater together", a bundle of sticks.
Show us stupid wingnuts a single shred of evidence that Hitler or Mussolini believed in "you're on your own" society.
You can't do it, because your logic is reactionary and doesn't see past its own nose.
Ritmo is nothing but a dangerous fascist.
'O Ritmo Segundo' said, "I still agree that Glenn Beck does more damage to the cause of journalism than al Jazeera."
The (obvious?) difference is, Glenn Beck is not a journalist and doesn't pretend to do journalism. Would you call Rush Limbaugh a journalist?
Of course not. And neither would he. The difference is, Al Jazeera is propaganda pretending to be journalism. Like Pravda. Like Al Gore's "Currents."
In any case, the issue as I see it is not so much Al Gore's comfort with Big Oil as his comfort with Al Jazeera. Would he truly be more comfortable living as a subject of the Emir of Qatar than living in an America where Glenn Beck can find an audience?
Why is the Left so much more comfortable with Islamic Absolutism than with home-grown social conservatives?
And of course... most "green" energy and investments are only lucrative because they are directly subsidized by government. It's nothing but a way to funnel tax money into private pockets.
Al Gore Sr sold his soul To Joseph Kennedy and then to big oil years ago, did you expect Al Jr to be any different
Quick! Tell them all that Al Gore has changed his party affiliation to Republican. See what happens to their answers.
Thanks all. I loved this comment thread. Hats off to those staying calm (especially Synova) while Ritmo slowly revealed more and more of his totalitarian tendencies.
I loved that he thinks libertarian = fascism and that he was wholly oblivious to the actual fascist activities of the current President. What a mutton head!
The writer thinks that Al Gore, Sr. waited until after he left office to cash in.
Wrong.
At least Al Jr. did that.
Just catching up on this thread now, but really enjoyed Shitmo attempting to derail it as usual with squirel shouts, ranting about "hoarders and redistribution, Hugo Chavez much?) and then running away.
Beautiful.
For it to be stealing, all money would have to belong to the State and be gifted back to citizens.
Who do you think prints and mints the money, you Dingleberry?
Show us stupid wingnuts a single shred of evidence that Hitler or Mussolini believed in "you're on your own" society.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.... Hitler and Mussolini "cared" about others.... Hahahahahahha.... Stupid wing nut bullshit. They were just regular Mother Theresas! Hahahahahaha....... Repeat.
"profoundly unteachable"
By the profoundly indoctrinated.
GIven Pole-Glow's comfort with staging a work slow-down, I'll take this as an admission that he's vastly overcompensated and wouldn't at all mind the increased competition and decreased clout produced by a greater influx of physicians. Hell, they might even - unlike him - give a damn! Which would be a vast improvement to his profession.
Clearly the artificially high barriers to entry are allowing him to create a drag on the industry. It's time to get tougher on louts like him.
Post a Comment