Gore Announces S.O.S.

parados wrote:

I get it just fine.

Please point out where the statement advocates a one world government.

Here is the complete quote again:

"The world is once again at a critical juncture. We are invading ourselves and attacking the ecological system of which we are a part. As a result, we now face the prospect of a kind of global civil war between those who refuse to consider the consequences of civilization's relentless advance and those who refuse to be silent partners in the destruction. The time has come to make this struggle the central organizing principle of world civilization.
Source: Earth in the Balance, page 294
Parados, it isn't that hard to see if you would read the words. He is saying it will be a global civil war between the environmentalists and the non-environmentalists. Environmentalists reside throughout the world. He also says the struggle is the central organizing principle of the world. So if the peoples of the world are to be organized around the world according to some kind of green government, it would have to be a world government, and if the government is the central organizing principle, figure it out Parados, it isn't that hard.

Quote:

Please point out where the statement is advocating rolling back civilization's advance.
Please point out where the statement says technology is evil.

He implies the impacts of civilizations relentless advancement are bad. This advancement is obviously due to technology, so figure it out, Parados.

Quote:

Please point out where he says environmentalism is his religion.

By his statements, he appears to place environmentalism as the central organizing principle of the world, apparently above human rights, freedom, decency, nationhood, and everything else. That is what I read, Parados. That sounds pretty high up on the ladder, and that is why I asked the questions I did. I confess I don't know what goes on in Al Gore's head, but I can only be puzzled and curious about what is motivating him.

Quote:

You can't provide any evidence of the above based on the quote. Without any of the above being in the quote how is he a whacko? I will say it again. You have to resort to making stuff up.

Who is really the whacko here? I don't think it is Gore. He hasn't made up things that are not in statements of others. Seeing things that aren't there could be catagorized as psychotic, okie.

I am only asking logical questions to try to explain Gore's whacko statements. Simply have the courage to read what he says and think logically. Based on what he says and does, I think he is a whacko, in my opinion, and in lots of other peoples opinions as well. Keep in mind I only chose one quote, but there are hundreds of them that could be used.

And importantly, you skew my questions to indicate I made statements of fact, which I did not. I am merely using some logic to wonder out loud what Gore's weird statements appear to possibly mean. I do not claim to know what goes on inside his head. I can only theorize based on what he says, and that is the reason for the questions I asked. You would think that a guy that takes the time to write a book would put a little thought into what he says, and that what he says in the book does mean something. He wrote it, I didn't.

P.S. It is obvious that environmentalism is not scientific, so it has to be something else, such as political and religious mixed together.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
I get it just fine.

Please point out where the statement advocates a one world government.

Here is the complete quote again:

"The world is once again at a critical juncture. We are invading ourselves and attacking the ecological system of which we are a part. As a result, we now face the prospect of a kind of global civil war between those who refuse to consider the consequences of civilization's relentless advance and those who refuse to be silent partners in the destruction. The time has come to make this struggle the central organizing principle of world civilization.
Source: Earth in the Balance, page 294
Parados, it isn't that hard to see if you would read the words. He is saying it will be a global civil war between the environmentalists and the non-environmentalists. Environmentalists reside throughout the world. He also says the struggle is the central organizing principle of the world. So if the peoples of the world are to be organized around the world according to some kind of green government, it would have to be a world government, and if the government is the central organizing principle, figure it out Parados, it isn't that hard.

Actually it is hard to figure out what you are thinking okie. Is the person that said the following a whacko?

Quote:

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.

A "war" does not lead to a one world government. Wars can be to create a second government such as our revolutionary war. A civil war concerning environmentalism is really no different from a cultural war. There is no forming of a government. There is no violence, invasion and death. You have put meaning that is not there in. Anyone that talks about the cultural war MUST be a whacko using your attempt at a standard. Saying there will be a war doesn't mean you are advocating a war. Bush is fighting the war on drugs. Is that evidence he is trying to take over the world with one world government? Heck okie, you support the war on drugs, does that mean you support a one world government?
No, okie, you prove once again you have to put things into the statement that are not there and if applied to others make just about everyone equally whacko.

Quote:

Quote:
Please point out where the statement is advocating rolling back civilization's advance.
Please point out where the statement says technology is evil.

He implies the impacts of civilizations relentless advancement are bad. This advancement is obviously due to technology, so figure it out, Parados.

"those who refuse to consider the consequences of civilization's relentless advance" does NOT equate to "all technology is bad." If I say "that those who refuse to consider the consequences of driving" shouldn't drive, does it mean that I think all cars are bad? No. it doesn't. It doesn't even mean I think driving is bad. Again you make up stuff to mean what it doesn't. You mangle the English language then pretend you didn't.

Then you assume the ONLY way civilization can advance is due to technology. A rather silly assumption and one that defies understanding. Civilization is hardly made up of technology alone. There are lots of things that advance civilization that are not technology. Art advances civilization. Higher math advances civilization. The Declaration of Independence advanced civilization. Advancements do have consequences, some good, some bad. Saying people should consider those consequences doesn't mean they are opposed to the advance or won't work on that advance. Check out the history of those that worked on the atom bomb. They considered the consequences. It doesn't mean they refused to work on it or were opposed to it. The men that voted for the Declaration of Independence considered the consequences. That doesn't mean they were opposed to it.

Quote:

Quote:
Please point out where he says environmentalism is his religion.
By his statements, he appears to place environmentalism as the central organizing principle of the world, apparently above human rights, freedom, decency, nationhood, and everything else. That is what I read, Parados. That sounds pretty high up on the ladder, and that is why I asked the questions I did. I confess I don't know what goes on in Al Gore's head, but I can only be puzzled and curious about what is motivating him.

So are you saying that religion is the only organizing principle in the world? A rather bogus argument. Because something is an organizing principle does NOT make it religion.

You can point to nothing. You use vague arguments that have no meaning.

Quote:

Quote:
You can't provide any evidence of the above based on the quote. Without any of the above being in the quote how is he a whacko? I will say it again. You have to resort to making stuff up.

Who is really the whacko here? I don't think it is Gore. He hasn't made up things that are not in statements of others. Seeing things that aren't there could be catagorized as psychotic, okie.

I am only asking logical questions to try to explain Gore's whacko statements. Simply have the courage to read what he says and think logically. Based on what he says and does, I think he is a whacko, in my opinion, and in lots of other peoples opinions as well. Keep in mind I only chose one quote, but there are hundreds of them that could be used.

Your questions are hardly logical. They DEFY logic. They make leaps that no sane person would make.

Quote:

And importantly, you skew my questions to indicate I made statements of fact, which I did not.

You said this..

Quote:

I think he is a whacko environmentalist, and I have good reason to believe he is by simply examining what he says and does.

It appears you are not simply examining what he says. You are making what he said out to be what it is not.

Quote:

I am merely using some logic to wonder out loud what Gore's weird statements appear to possibly mean.

What logic? Logic remains the same for every circumstance. You change it based on your opinion. That isn't logic. If you are wondering out loud what Gore's statements mean they you are not "simply examining" them. You aren't examining them at all in fact. You are merely wondering what you can make them mean to fit what you want others to believe. There is no logic there at all okie. You can't defend how it is logic.

Quote:

I do not claim to know what goes on inside his head.

There is a difference between what he said and your questioning what goes on inside his head. You stated you could simply examine what he said but instead of simply examining it you are forced to speculate about what was going on inside his head. Your statement was false and you can't "simply examine" his words to make your case. You have failed to make any kind of a case based on "simply examining" what he said.

Quote:

I can only theorize based on what he says,

Your theory has nothing to do with what he said which is what you claimed you could base your "logic" on.

Quote:

and that is the reason for the questions I asked. You would think that a guy that takes the time to write a book would put a little thought into what he says, and that what he says in the book does mean something. He wrote it, I didn't.

He wrote it. You are bastardizing what he wrote to smear him.

Quote:

P.S. It is obvious that environmentalism is not scientific, so it has to be something else, such as political and religious mixed together.

It is obvious? Provide your evidence of how it is obvious. I don't think you know the meaning of the word "obvious" anymore than you know the meaning of "simply examining".

0 Replies

I will give you credit for breaking down the statements and discussing them at length, Parados, but the only logical conclusion I can draw from your explanations is that you are a Gore apologist. In contrast, I choose not to apologize for his weird statements. For example, going back to just a part of the quote I used, which says: The time has come to make this struggle the central organizing principle of world civilization.
I think there are plenty of organizing principles more important than the environment, one being human rights and basic decency, plus a civilized form of government as embodied in our very own constitution. I for one am not ready to pitch them overboard to a lesser value than some omnipotent environmental vision defined by Al Gore. Environment needs to be considered, but to make it a central point of some world organizing principle is extreme in my opinion. I would rather organize around more important issues and principles. I think he is whacko if the environment trumps everything else in his mind.

I maintain some of his statements are at least curious, poorly reasoned, and yes, weird and whacko. I doubt more argument accomplishes anything, as you will defend and explain away virtually anything to defend your liberal pals.

Parados, you now love the word, "smear," I notice. Any time anyone criticizes Gore, it is a "smear," but if you criticize my opinions, I am very confident you would not consider that a "smear," right?

P.S. The Swift Boat people "smeared" Kerry according to Kerry, and probably you, but when Kerry accused virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities, of course Kerry and you do not consider that a smear.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think there are plenty of organizing principles more important than the environment, one being human rights and basic decency,

So does that make human rights and basic decency a religion? It should if we follow your "logic."

0 Replies

Quote:

P.S. The Swift Boat people "smeared" Kerry according to Kerry, and probably you, but when Kerry accused virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities, of course Kerry and you do not consider that a smear.

When did Kerry accuse virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities? Cite his words and lets see if they mean what you say or if you are just wondering out loud again.

By the way his statement can be found here.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1972VVAW.html

If I say 150 policemen say they have told me they falsified evidence it doesn't mean I am accusing every policeman of falsifying evidence. This is more of your wondering aloud okie that doesn't have any relationship to the reality of what was said.

0 Replies

I can't believe you are going to try to defend the indefensible. I will catch you later with more time.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I can't believe you are going to try to defend the indefensible. I will catch you later with more time.

I asked you to defend your outlandish claim. It seems you don't want to do it. It's not a very long statement. Surely it should be obvious if he said what you claimed.

I posted a link so everyone can see that your claim is what it is, a fabrication without any logical support. If you want to call your claim indefensible, I can live with that.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
I can't believe you are going to try to defend the indefensible. I will catch you later with more time.

I asked you to defend your outlandish claim. It seems you don't want to do it. It's not a very long statement. Surely it should be obvious if he said what you claimed.

I posted a link so everyone can see that your claim is what it is, a fabrication without any logical support. If you want to call your claim indefensible, I can live with that.

Parados, the only thing outlandish is Kerry and his claims. This has all been documented.

okie wrote:

P.S. The Swift Boat people "smeared" Kerry according to Kerry, and probably you, but when Kerry accused virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities, of course Kerry and you do not consider that a smear. [okie]

When did Kerry accuse virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities? Cite his words and lets see if they mean what you say or if you are just wondering out loud again.

By the way his statement can be found here.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1972VVAW.html

Very easy, even from your link, Parados.
I quote:
"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. ......."

"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Read the words slowly to yourself again, Parados, "These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Quote:

If I say 150 policemen say they have told me they falsified evidence it doesn't mean I am accusing every policeman of falsifying evidence. This is more of your wondering aloud okie that doesn't have any relationship to the reality of what was said.

If it turns out that of the 150 so-called policeman, a significant percentage of them were frauds, either had never been policemen, or had been in the police departiment but never saw street duty or had not been stationed at the places they claimed, or perhaps had been on the street but lied about what they did on the street as policemen, that is a huge problem. Also if those same so-called policemen implied that their stories represented what all policemen typically do or had done, that would be a huge problem. Especially to real policemen that know better.

Parados, you might start educating yourself on this issue by doing some research. I picked the following for you as a start.

http://qando.net/archives/002160.htm

I know many Vietnam vets, some very, very well, none of which characterize their experience to be anything similar to the blatantly fraudulant claims of Mr. Kerry. Mr. Kerry is an out an out fraud, plain and simple. Furthermore, the Swift Boat vets were very credible, and correct on many, many points. I read their stuff, and because I had been to Vietnam myself, the material totally agreed with my experience there and it was totally credible and consistent with reality, which by the way my tour was 12 months with two different divisions in the field. By the way, I saw no atrocities even close to Kerry's Winter Soldier fiasco fraud, none, zero, nothing.

I was not everywhere at every time, and cannot say atrocities did not occur, but to imply as Winter Soldier and Kerry did that they were commonplace is an outright lie, and I think Kerry knew it, and if he didn't, he is an absolute idiot of total naivity. It is frankly an insult to the country that such a man has been a senator for all these years and almost won the presidency. There are many, many inconsistencies and mis-representations in Kerry's stories to Congress and otherwise, but it is a total waste of time to go over them all again to you. I don't frankly feel like wasting time on it for you. I cannot explain the small number of guys in Kerry's own boat that seem to side with him on a couple of points, but the many other guys, including other commanders of boats in his unit saw Kerry for what he was, a "dud," that spent only 4 months in country, and then found a way to go home by getting 1 or 2 phony purple hearts.

All the fabrication belongs to your argument and Mr. Kerry, Mr. Parados. If you can't bring yourself to see the truth on this issue, there is zero hope for you.

0 Replies

Relating stories told by 150 people does NOT equate to accusing 2,594,000 or more of the same acts.

Your argument is ludicrous and defies logic okie. It makes zero sense. You can point to nothing in the statement that says ALL that served committed atrocities.

Crimes are committed on a day to day basis in the US. That does NOT mean that everyone in the US is committing crimes. Nor does Kerry's statement equate to every US soldier committed the acts he says 150 told him about.

0 Replies

Whether the "Winter Soldier" stories were true or not really has no bearing on the accuracy of your statement okie. You claimed Kerry accused virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities.

Change the words to any group of a million and ask a disinterested person if the stories by 150 and Kerry's words accuse the entire group. No one with any understanding of the English langauge would agree with your interpretation.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Relating stories told by 150 people does NOT equate to accusing 2,594,000 or more of the same acts.

Can you read, Parados? I think that was in fact the insinuation, and Kerry knew it.

Quote:

Your argument is ludicrous and defies logic okie. It makes zero sense. You can point to nothing in the statement that says ALL that served committed atrocities.

Go ahead and split hairs, but you know you are wrong.

Quote:

Crimes are committed on a day to day basis in the US. That does NOT mean that everyone in the US is committing crimes. Nor does Kerry's statement equate to every US soldier committed the acts he says 150 told him about.

The only thing Kerry's statement means is about himself, not Vietnam, and that is he is a phony.

Quote:

Whether the "Winter Soldier" stories were true or not really has no bearing on the accuracy of your statement okie. You claimed Kerry accused virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities.

You are a barrel of laughs, Parados. It has alot to do with it.

Quote:

Change the words to any group of a million and ask a disinterested person if the stories by 150 and Kerry's words accuse the entire group. No one with any understanding of the English langauge would agree with your interpretation.

The only thing that Kerry's words proved is that he was and still is a fraud, but unfortunately you are 100% wrong on this whole thing, and that is the fact that "perception" does not follow your hair-splitting reasoning. You are almost as good as Clinton at parsing words, but Parados, remember this, words mean things and perception means alot.

One final point, I don't care about Kerry in regard to Vietnam anymore, but for the sake of historical accuracy, I will continue to point it out so that at least some people might be willing to acknowledge it. And in the case of the Swift Boat people, that is also what they did, and they were and are honorable people. In no way shape or form was it a smear, in my opinion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
Relating stories told by 150 people does NOT equate to accusing 2,594,000 or more of the same acts.

Can you read, Parados? I think that was in fact the insinuation, and Kerry knew it.

Yes, I can read okie. As can anyone else that compares Kerry's statement to what you claimed he said. Now we have to read Kerry's mind and not just the words?

Quote:

Quote:
Your argument is ludicrous and defies logic okie. It makes zero sense. You can point to nothing in the statement that says ALL that served committed atrocities.

Go ahead and split hairs, but you know you are wrong.

Who is splitting hairs? You are the one that is demanding we must read Kerry's mind to understand what he meant. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Quote:
Crimes are committed on a day to day basis in the US. That does NOT mean that everyone in the US is committing crimes. Nor does Kerry's statement equate to every US soldier committed the acts he says 150 told him about.

The only thing Kerry's statement means is about himself, not Vietnam, and that is he is a phony.

Now you have gone from it accuses all soldiers to it's only about Kerry. Laughing

Quote:

Quote:
Whether the "Winter Soldier" stories were true or not really has no bearing on the accuracy of your statement okie. You claimed Kerry accused virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities.

You are a barrel of laughs, Parados. It has alot to do with it.

Now you go back to Vietnam after you said the "only thing" about Kerry's statement was himself and not Vietnam. The barrel is overflowing okie and it isn't me that keeps filling it.

Quote:

Quote:
Change the words to any group of a million and ask a disinterested person if the stories by 150 and Kerry's words accuse the entire group. No one with any understanding of the English langauge would agree with your interpretation.

The only thing that Kerry's words proved is that he was and still is a fraud, but unfortunately you are 100% wrong on this whole thing, and that is the fact that "perception" does not follow your hair-splitting reasoning. You are almost as good as Clinton at parsing words, but Parados, remember this, words mean things and perception means alot.

Oh, now it's not about Vietnam anymore. You can't seem to make up your mind. Who is parsing words here okie. It isn't me. You clamied they mean something they don't. I merely asked you to tell us which words had the meaning you claimed.

Quote:

One final point, I don't care about Kerry in regard to Vietnam anymore, but for the sake of historical accuracy, I will continue to point it out so that at least some people might be willing to acknowledge it. And in the case of the Swift Boat people, that is also what they did, and they were and are honorable people. In no way shape or form was it a smear, in my opinion.

Oh, you don't care but you managed to bring it up in the first place then couldn't defend it when questioned. Now we should just pretend you never wanted to talk about it.

0 Replies

You are hopeless, Parados. Have you applied to work for Hillary as legal counsel if she should win the White House? I think you could get along well in that job. You can defend almost anything, and apparently you think you make sense, amazingly. That is quite an accomplishment.

I wonder sometimes if you actually believe your own arguments, or if you are just having fun with people.

0 Replies

I am hopeless because I can tear your arguments apart? Or I am hopeless because I don't believe like you do?

You have listed 2 things you believe here okie and when questioned in both cases you have to "wonder aloud" about the meanings rather than just examining the words and taking the meaning from those words. I guess I must be hopeless because I have an education that taught me that words have meanings and one should use those meanings to decipher what a person meant. One shouldn't just make up stuff that isn't in the words and claim that must be the meaning.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I am hopeless because I can tear your arguments apart? Or I am hopeless because I don't believe like you do?

You have listed 2 things you believe here okie and when questioned in both cases you have to "wonder aloud" about the meanings rather than just examining the words and taking the meaning from those words. I guess I must be hopeless because I have an education that taught me that words have meanings and one should use those meanings to decipher what a person meant. One shouldn't just make up stuff that isn't in the words and claim that must be the meaning.

You tore the arguments apart only in your mind, and possibly in your fellow sympathizers that want to believe something so bad that any reasoning will do. You fail to even acknowledge the meanings of the words you analyze. You read the words, but you then make them fit what you desire, not what they say.

You also choose to ignore the fact that perception is reality, and what Kerry conveyed to Congress in regard to his fraudulent Winter Soldier summit conveyed a perception of Vietnam that was fraudulent, and we still live with the fraud to this day. Instead of acknowledging this, you persist in attempting to parse the words, in the same spirit as Clinton did with the meaning of the word, "is." You should be ashamed of yourself, Parados.

Not only was the perception that Kerry conveyed, fraudulent, but most of the details he claimed were fraudulent as well. The whole thing was a fraud.

Back to Gore. I would not categorize Gore as fraudulent, just extremely mis-guided at a minimum, and a total hypocrit. Telling the truth is not a smear, Parados.

0 Replies

I wonder if old Al can wipe with just one square?

0 Replies

Gore Announces S.O.S.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know