Skip to main content

View Diary: Gore-Hating Republican Blogger LOVES Inconvenient Truth (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, fine... (0+ / 0-)

    I suppose then if Bush were to come out and say he likes the movie, you could forgive him for the damage he has done to this country as well?  I didn't particularly think it was necessary of you to analyze my comment which was innocent enough and twist it all around. All I stated was that Al Gore has been giving this presentation for thirty years and was not a "Gorebot." How you got all you did out of that baffles me. And OF COURSE, people who see this movie and sincerely wish to join the effort to do all they can in their lives to now fight this crisis is EXACTLY what this is all about. I do not believe you will see ANY comment I have made to the contrary. And I am not cranky. Again, I am expressing my opinion like everyone else here. Or am I now to be trollrated off this forum for daring to do so?

    •  Gorebot reference isn't about environment (0+ / 0-)

      The "Gorebot" reference was to how he came across as a candidate in the 2000 election - not to the presentation on the environment he has been giving for the last 30 years, which frankly many people are only being exposed to now for the first time. He has a passion about this issue which really shines. It's a shame that his passion for all the issues facing him in the 2000 campaign wasn't as evident.

      •  No it wasn't... (0+ / 0-)

        The person writing it stated it as fact, not that he "perceived" it based on the the media spin. That was the purpose of my first response...To refute it.

        •  then why do you confound your own argument (0+ / 0-)

          Your posts continually tie the Gorebot statement to this notion that the person is saying Gore was robotic in his past efforts on environmental issues. It muddles your position.

          •  No I didn't... (0+ / 0-)

            it was in direct reference to what I read. The fact that he has been doing this presentation and trying to get this information out for thirty years is the refutation of the word "Gorebot" which I don't happen to like. That was the point. Why are you picking it apart? That's all there was to it.

            •  my mind is my own (cause I don't watch tv regular (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              EricBlair, Patriot for Al Gore

              I always thought Al Gore was charismatic, intelligent, handsome and a knock-out in the debates.  I never understood for a second how anyone ever thought that GW beat him with his stupid debate comments, like "I don't know about those fuzzy numbers."
              It always seemed to be that Gore creamed Bush in the debates, until the next day when I read the newspaper and it said Bush won.  Each passing day it seemed when the debated was mentioned, Gore did worse and worse until he was laughed at and scorned.

              We all wanted an intellectual, sincere President. The press stole that away from us when they twisted our thinking so severely that we still believe the lies they told us to be the basic truth.

              There was nothing wrong with Gore's personality.  NO defect that should prevent him from being President.  If think there is/was, you have been misled by the media.

              The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. Thomas Jefferson

              by Thea VA on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:19:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  as is mine ... (0+ / 0-)

                I must admit, the overwraught sighs bothered me and I worried that the way he came across in the debates (despite the fact that he totally won on substance) would turn people away.

                There was certainly nothing that should have prevented him from becoming President, but I think people did respond to his style independent of the media, which then took the ball and ran with it.

            •  to understand it (0+ / 0-)

              I'm picking it apart in order to fully understand it.

              Yes, Gore has been doing this presentation for 30 years and is very passionate about the environment. On that issue, he hasn't been accused of being robotic, wooden, stiff, etc.

              If anything, they're saying why couldn't he have come across just as passionately and convincely in the 2000 campaign as he does when discussing the enviroment?

              If you wish to refute the term Gorebot, it helps to argue from ground that hasn't already been conceded.

    •  You are being hyperbolic. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      latts, greeseyparrot

      I was talking about people who in ernest have changed their minds and you and I both know that Bush will never saying anything honest as long as he lives.  Of course I wouldn't even think to troll rate you.  I was trying to engage in constructive dialogue with you because I am always impressed with your passion and your committment and sometimes I feel like your anger over the past gets in the way of your very good and on point arguments.  

      The troll rating comment is an example - why did you feel the need to ask that anyway?  Are you attempting to bait people into a fight?  Why do that?

      •  Because out of this... (0+ / 0-)

        "the Gore-bot 2000 is dead. A relic. A thing of the past. Al Gore is far from what he used to be. An Inconvenient Truth not only proves to make a compelling call to action about global warming, but also makes Al Gore seem like something he hasn't before to many people. Human."

        Please, spare me. Not human? Al Gore has been showing this slide presentation for thirty years. It is wonderful that people of all politics are praising this movie based on it's topic, and that is really the intent... Now if we could only dispose with the BS political cliches in describing him previously that would be progress.
        I get accused of chastizing people and turning "new Gore" supporters away, with of course, the person writing this being defended for it. I mean come on, to say Al Gore wasn't even "human" is a stretch to me. And where do you see the chastizing here? Where do you see me turning people away here? "Gorebot" is a political cliche is it not? It is false, is it not? Why can't I then make a statement refuting that without being told I am being cranky or chastizing people? And the troll rate comment was made based on what has been going on in general here from what I have read the past week. As you know, I don't start fights, but I sure do see the slant in diaries about Al Gore now. If you write anything "political" it hops right to the top of the rec list. However, if you write about the environment only in reference to him, not even a whisper. Is it any wonder those of us who do care about the environment wonder about the real motivations of some regarding praising this movie? Is it because they truly are moved (which I truly hope is the case,) or is it because they think by doing this they will convince him to enter the fray again to give them the political show they want?

        •  The other real phenomenon that is going on (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          checkmate, Torta, navajo, averybird

          with this movie is that our opposition is getting to be very, very afraid of Al Gore's potential to beat them into a pulp in an election.  I am celebrating that great shift in popular opinion. The fact that our opponents are saying that Gore isn't the wooden figure that many people perceived him to be is a good thing.  Yhey are debunking the myth themselves within their own ranks.  That means that they understand that the con they carried off in 2000 will not work now.  Chris Matthews is trying to advance the tactic of calling Gore "an insane person with a beard" because he did what every normal person does after a long-hard job concludes which is to take some time to rest.  That is who I would be beating up right now because that is the next attack.  Frankly, Matthews' commentary has gotten so out of control and so close to the edge that if I were Gore, I would have my lawyers monitoring Matthews for opportunities for a libel suit.  Matthews is in my opinion very close to the edge in his rhetoric at the moment.  Of course he won't probably do that, but that is what I am worried about right now.  

          Anyhow, I am not "accusing" you.  Again - constructive criticism and you are free to leave it on the table.  Really.  As for the "political" v. "environmental" slant in diaries all I can say is that this is first a political blog and not an environmental blog so generally speaking political will win out over environmental here.  

          And who cares if Gore has a political agenda concurrent with his environmental beliefs anyway?  This "political" spin is working EFFECTIVELY ON our side at the moment.  I was listening to Randi Rhodes going on and on about Gore's 30 years and saying, "This movie isn't political."  Well that is bullshit.  There is nothing more political than this crisis we are facing and we need to solve the problems through government.  Liberals are now scrambling around trying to defend Gore by calling this movie apolitical?  Look up the definition of political.  It is POLITICAL.  If Al Gore doesn't have an agenda to make a change through political / governmental means then his movie is nothing but a bunch of whining anyway - all talk no action.  Anyone who walks out of that movie and hides under their covers instead of going out and making political changes is useless in my mind.  We must respond to the earth's changes and adapt or die.  That's politics pure and simple.

          Gore can win the White House.  I am certain of that and I think it is really his duty to pursue it at this point in American history because we as a nation need him right now.  Gore must put every ounce of political capital behind this issue that he can muster because America needs that NOW.  Even if he didn't win, but his participation will definitely shift the debate to this area which is critical to change.  Look at what Dean did by taking a stand against the war in the 2004 race.  He made it possible for every Democrat who came after him to defy the conventional wisdom about popularity and being anti-war.  Gore must enter the arena to advance this debate and hopefully lead us as a nation out of this crisis.  

          If a person really wants to make a huge and important change in the world and a person has a shot at becoming the President of the United States how in the world could anyone call into question the logic and wisdom of that course of action?

          Why are we being defensive about Gore running?  

          Why aren't we on the offensive saying instead, "Yeah, well he SHOULD run in '08.  The country would be lucky to have his leadership and if this movie plays a role so what?  If it means that people will see the real dangers that we face and will motivate them to action which in part may include a vote for Gore if he ran for president then that is awesome."

          •  Who is we? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Anyway, I have very clear reasons why I do not want Mr. Gore in this TOXIC system now, and they actually align with his own reasons. Why am I chastized for expressing that opinion here? Show me where this system has really changed and I will discuss it further with you. Until then, I see no point to entering a system of soundbites and thirty second ads that as Mr. Gore phrased it, "takes a serious issue and turns it into a sport." And a blood sport at that. And using this issue just to ask him to run in it instead of it moving people to make changes to this TOXIC system is not in my opinion the way the scenario should play out.

            When we have a system that finally is free of corporate influence, corporations counting our votes, AIPAC and other lobbyists deciding our policy, and politicians more into need than greed, I will be the first one calling for my President to come forward. For that is the ONLY way I would support him entering this system again. He is a great man doing a great thing for this planet and I support that wholeheartedly. Why can't that be enough for some of us? To me that IS the greatest campaign right now.

            •  I have enormous faith that Gore (0+ / 0-)

              is not corruptable even in the "toxic" system and that is why I want him back in.

              •  Of course he isn't... (0+ / 0-)

                And I hope you aren't intimating that I am stating that. And if you want him back, then why do you choose to ignore everything else that I pointed out? You just contradicted the whole argument. He is not corruptable, therefore, NOT someone who would get very far in the very system you claim you want him in. And why would you wish that on him after all he has been through? He also chose not to run in 2004, so what would be so all Earth shattering now if he didn't again? People didn't seem too disappointed about that even though actually, that was the window we should not have allowed to be closed.

                I obviously am not looking at all of this from the same perspective as many here. I want him to be happy, and he is now very happy with his life and the great changes he will most definitely make with this movie and the book (which I hear is WONDERFUL and can't wait to buy this weekend) and I know I can support that regardless of any election. Of course, being the President of the United States is a position of great power when it comes to influencing policy... in a truly DEMOCRATIC system. We don't have that here, however. But we do have him, and that is something I am very grateful for.

                So again, explain to me how he would even be able to truly devote the time and effort to this issue there that he is here and now? And how would that be possible with those working around him unwilling to face it? That again is the point of this movie... to cause a change in thinking across the political board in all Parties. Can that really happen in a system of corruption, corporate payola, rigged elections, special interests, etc? Of course, he could ignore it all, but then he wouldn't be President of the United States if he did, and that is exactly his point.

                •  You say... (0+ / 0-)

                  "He's not corruptable therefore he wouldn't get very far in the very system you want him in."

                  I disagree completely with that statement.  Your view of government is so cynical that you are basically saying that it is beyond repair.  I disagree with that completely.  As both of my parents worked in government, I also sort of take it personally when people start slinging those "they are all corrupt in Washington" arrows because it is actually not true and INSULTING to people who do care and work hard and give up a lot to go into public service as opposed to the private sector.  So now you are actually starting to piss me off because you are insulting my family and numerous life-long friends and even my neighbors.  What gives you the right to make these sweeping judegments about the people who make up our government anyway?  Yes we have some crooks in power in the moment, but that does not by any means mean that EVERYONE is on the take and motivated by sinister plots.

                  You may take on any pursuits that you choose, but if you go for destroying this democracy by poisoning it with your particular breed of cynicism, I will stand firmly in your way.  

                  Democracy has and always will require a leap of faith.  If you can't make that leap of faith, you can't have a democracy.  Cynicism and faith are antitherical to one another.

                  And again - I have faith in Gore's ability to not only lead with scruples and get very far doing that.  I don't think you're noticed that it isn't 2000 anymore.  The pendulum IS starting to swing back.

                  •  It's called reality (0+ / 0-)

                    You simply refuse to face the truth of what I type, so you turn the tables on me. It WAS the enabling Congress on all sides who IS beholding to corporate interests over the people that did this to us. And if I am angry about the current state of politics in this country, I have a good reason to be. Those who handed power to Bush and his thugs on a platter enabled the shredding of our Constitution and the theft of our President and NO ONE stepped up to stop it. That isn't cynicism, that is REALITY. Since that day my faith in this system is gone. And since you refuse to show me anything to restore it but would rather attack me for my opinions, my comments about it stand.

                    •  But you wouldn't have Gore step up to (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      stop it because he is too precious to come out of some Ivory Tower that you have built around him?  Very strange and again - thanks for the insults to all of the people who you do not know - or even know about - who have actually spent a good deal of time and risked their livelihoods to stop the misdeeds of the past six years.  Your view is so bleak and dark that we might as well find a way to make Bush king and accept our fate to fail at democracy right now - just give up right this very minute because "all people are bad".  Oh and if you want proof that democray can work, maybe you should read a little bit of history.  Perhaps study the FDR era or the Revolutionary War that did not result in a totalitarian regime or Harry Truman and the Marshall plan.  I don't have to prove that to you.  You just choose to believe it is all bad like one of those cartoon characters whose only line is "We're all gonna die."  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site