Skip to comments.AlGore: It's morality, stupid.
Posted on 02/26/2007 9:56:08 PM PST by grandpa jones
Last nights coronation of The Goracle was truly wonderful theater. It had everything: glitz, glamor, beautiful people, song and dance, and the man of the hour, The Goracle, himself, making the claim that This [global warming] isnt a political issue, its a Moral Issue.
To many people, this entire issue appears to be nothing but a political power grab. So, for Gore to try and re-frame global warming as a moral issue is interesting. These neo-moralists are the very same people who claim that Christians are trying to force morality down their throats to establish a THEOCRACY. Yet, here they are, applauding The Goracle for staking out a claim on the moral issue of our lifetime. An issue, that to accept in toto, requires more faith than science.
And, just in case hes forgotten, since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 1 year, 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 43 minutes, and 34 seconds have elapsed.
I for one, dont buy into The Goracles version of morality. Forgive me, but Ive heard all the weasel words before. Furthermore, I am extremely suspicious of anyone who wants to shut down the debate by claiming that the debate is over before it has even truly begun.
Especially, since The Goracle himself, declared that his entire premise for global warming hysteria is based on a classic Gore trait exaggeration.
(Excerpt) Read more at nukegingrich.wordpress.com ...
I wonder if anyone notice what kind of cars these people were driving. Big gas guzzling, big oil supporting, terror funding, SUVs, Ill bet...
Well, he's partly right. It's stupid.
Wow! It's the Rather virus ...
"The Goracle?" I dunno. He keeps telling the big lie until people believe it's the truth, so I call him Al Gore-bbels.
Here's what Gore told Grist:
[Grist's] question: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
[Gore's] answer: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
Thanks for linking the interview, but please, do everyone a favor and actually pull such quotes and let people read them. It leads to the spreading of the facts rather than a flip characterization of what was actually written.
It also prevents people from pulling Clintonoid games and accusing someone of lying if they don't get the words exactly right -- something that still goes on when a conservative errs in saying Gore said he "invented" the Internet when he actually said he "took the initiative in creating" it.
Al Gore Junior and Tipper claimed their 1980s Senate hearings into rock music was a moral issue too. It was a political issue to introduce Gore to the national stage for a failed 1988 presidential bid. This too shall pass.
The internet goes back to the days when Al Gore Junior was a college flunky. He didn't even take the initiative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.