Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
66 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: An inconvenient Nazi. Gore invokes Godwin rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Whatever bad things you want to say about good old GW Bush, you have to admit, the Texas Terror stopped climate change dead in it's path. Scared it silly cause there hasn't been any increase in global temp for 8 years.

Which pisses Al Gore off to no end. First that scalawag from Waco steals his rightful Presidency and then GW single-handedly puts an end to global warming! How else do you explain global warming stopping almost exactly when Bush bribed the Supreme Court?

So yesterday Al was over in the UK and he was on the warpath. He compared you and me and anyone who isn't in harmony with him to the Nazi's that Churchill staved off back in WWII. Of course he didn't mention Stalin, or Roosevelt or any of the other leaders and nations who put an end to Hitler and Company. But he did draw a direct path between those opposed to his message and Nazi's.

I guess I'm a Nazi. I think the only man-caused global warming is that in the vicinity of Al Gore when he opens that gaping yap of his and starts spewing his petulant and whiny vomit about how we're all gonna die in a sea of sweat unless everybody follows his lead right this second!

It's all over the intratubes and it's Moloko-plus me little droogies. Here's a good place to start:

Either you agree with Al or you're a Nazi!

6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim C
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I expect Poland to burst into a ball of AGW flames this September. France will follow next summer.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
So yesterday Al was over in the UK and he was on the warpath. He compared you and me and anyone who isn't in harmony with him to the Nazi's that Churchill staved off back in WWII.


Except he didn't. He drew the analogy to Churchill rallying Britain and the world to fight against a global threat but the enemy (the "Nazis" if you will) he talks about is global warming, not folks like you.

He accuses some politicians of murdering Jews by the millions lacking political will and says of the wider population that it's turning in neighbors for the camps, "The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change." Finally he says, "Those who oppose me are like the Nazis" "The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity."

Just because someone mentions WWII does not mean they are calling their political opponents Nazis...and the corollary to Godwin's Law is that when someone falsely accuses someone else of violating Godwin's Law he not only loses the current argument but the next ten as well.

See you on your eleventh.
24 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
+$1000
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
+$1000


+$1500

Ka-ching!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lebanon
Paris
flag msg tools
mb
DWTripp wrote:


It's all over the intratubes and it's Moloko-plus me little droogies. Here's a good place to start:

Either you agree with Al or you're a Nazi!



And out of all the internets you had to pick the Dailymail, that's just too funny
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
+$1500

Ka-ching!


But I am telling the truth, and you are not.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
+$1500

Ka-ching!


But I am telling the truth, and you are not.


You're funny. Do you think you're the only guy who can download free check creation software? People have been using programs like that for years to get loans or qualify for gov't hand-outs. Shit, I could download and create a W-2 or any piece of verification I needed in 10 minutes, scan it, upload it here and you'd never know if I was full of it or not.

You wanna send money to some activist organization? Have at it.

sincerely,

Your Friendly Nazi in Idaho
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
DWTripp wrote:


It's all over the intratubes and it's Moloko-plus me little droogies. Here's a good place to start:

Either you agree with Al or you're a Nazi!



You only get a nickle, me droogie, because I prefer Vendrum, or just straight up Milk Plus.

Go on and hit em in the yarbles..if they got any yarbles!!!!!

Darilian

Seriously, while Chad is right in pointing out that Trippy might be overstating the case, Tripp is right in pointing out that, more and more, the GW people are using apocalyptic rhetoric to frighten people into action, rather than actually persuade them.

Consider this- if you replace the words 'Terrorism' with "Global Warming" in Gore's speech, you'd swear he was GW Bush in 2002 trying to rally support for the Iraq war........


7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Seriously, while Chad is right in pointing out that Trippy might be overstating the case, Tripp is right in pointing out that, more and more, the GW people are using apocalyptic rhetoric to frighten people into action, rather than actually persuade them.


Come on. Tripp "might be overstating the case"? Gore spoke of rallying the political will necessary to fight a global threat and DW falsely claimed that he called his political opponents Nazis. That's cut-and-dried, and it's telling that Tripp has replied to other posts in the thread but neither defended nor retracted his false claim.

As for the rest, it's bull. There's certainly hysterical rhetoric out there, but if anything it's mostly coming from the anti-GW zealots. A few examples:

The Association of British Drivers compared a educational effort with Nazi attempts to use children against their parents.

Sterling Burnett wrote:
You don't go see Joseph Goebbels' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't want to go see Al Gore's film to see the truth about global warming.


Glenn Beck wrote:
Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government. You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming. Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.


Then you have Sen. Inhofe asserting not merely that people who believe in MGW are wrong but are actually committing fraud on a massive scale.

Quote:
Consider this- if you replace the words 'Terrorism' with "Global Warming" in Gore's speech, you'd swear he was GW Bush in 2002 trying to rally support for the Iraq war........


So what? Whenever someone gives a speech claiming that X is really important and that we need to generate the will to do X, they all tend to sound the same. That Bush might have given a similar speech doesn't make it wrong any more than if the personal hero of your choice made one would make it right.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Thank you for demonstrating that Gore's pro GW rhetoric is just as silly as the radical anti GW rhetoric.

The point is this- is the pro GW side suppossed to be the 'rational' side? The ones with the 'Science'? You know, the side that will win, eventually?

Stunts like this make Gore look either like

-a bully: I'm right, so do what I say NOW!
-an idiot, for making the wrong type of comparison
-like maybe his case isn't as strong as it should be.

There is a REASON why its only the most vehement antiGW folk making extreme attacks- they're trying to get their voices heard. Gore HAS a platform- and he uses it over and over to talk about how 'doomed' we are if we don't act NOW.

Fear fear fear.

If your side has the evidence, why the fear tactics?


Darilian

Edit-OH, Almost forgot-
The DDJ "Glen Beck Equivalency Rule"-
If you use Glen Beck on GW, this means you agree with Ted Rall that Obama is 'the WORST' President since GW Bush........
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
you'd never know if I was full of it or not.


We know.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Tripp is right in pointing out that, more and more, the GW people are using apocalyptic rhetoric to frighten people into action, rather than actually persuade them.


That's because the situation is getting more and more apocalyptic. This particular criticism seems very strange. If the situation is, in fact, desperate, shouldn't people say so?

I don't fault Bush for saying that Saddam was a grave threat, if that's what he thought. I fault him for being wrong in the first place.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Darilian wrote:
Tripp is right in pointing out that, more and more, the GW people are using apocalyptic rhetoric to frighten people into action, rather than actually persuade them.


That's because the situation is getting more and more apocalyptic. This particular criticism seems very strange. If the situation is, in fact, desperate, shouldn't people say so?

I don't fault Bush for saying that Saddam was a grave threat, if that's what he thought. I fault him for being wrong in the first place.


Are you saying that GW, within the next 100 years, is going to be an extinction level event?

If so, what is the probability of this?

Darilian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Are you saying that GW, within the next 100 years, is going to be an extinction level event? If so, what is the probability of this?


Probability 1, if I understand the question correctly. Global warming has already contributed to the extinction of many species.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Let me rephrase this-
HUMAN extinction.

Darilian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Let me rephrase this-
HUMAN extinction.


If humans are extinct in 100 years, it won't be due to global warming.

I don't quite understand how human extinction came into the picture. Are you arguing that a cap-and-trade system is likely to lead to human extinction, making it the worse choice?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
No-
Its just that it seems to me, if one is to use apocalyptic rhetoric, they better have a real apocalypse handy to back it up.

Human extinction would, of course, be a REAL apocalypse- the end of the world.

Every other scenario, while very BAD, is not.

Here's how I see it. GW fits under one of three 'danger levels'.

GW could be something that kills off all human life (or, at least, makes Earth uninhabitable- forcing an tiny fragment of the species to live in orbit or on the moon- close enough to the same thing.)

GW could make human life on Earth very unpleasant, killing off many other species and forcing us to make radical changes in our culture and society in order to protect life on Earth.

GW could be a major inconvenience to us, kill off a few other species not able to make the transition, but otherwise be no worse than any of the human calamities that we've inflicted on ourselves.

In your opinion, over the next 100 years, what threat level best describes the threat of GW?

Darilian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
In your opinion, over the next 100 years, what threat level best describes the threat of GW?


I'm surprised you think these are the only three choices. I'm pretty sure that Tripp would have also offered up, "GW can't hurt us except if Al Gore's hot air tricks us into destroying our own economy."

Of your choices, number three seems the closest: "GW could be a major inconvenience to us, kill off a few other species not able to make the transition, but otherwise be no worse than any of the human calamities that we've inflicted on ourselves." Except a lot more than "a few" species. The human impact on the planet has made many species much less able to adapt to climate change than they would be in a world without people.

"No worse than other major calamities humans have caused" still seems pretty bad, to me, and Mr Gore. The "major inconvenience" will be a lot more costly, in particular, than a transition to renewable energy would be. Even leaving aside the other, noneconomic, effects.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Darilian wrote:
In your opinion, over the next 100 years, what threat level best describes the threat of GW?


I'm surprised you think these are the only three choices. I'm pretty sure that Tripp would have also offered up, "GW can't hurt us except if Al Gore's hot air tricks us into destroying our own economy."

Of your choices, number three seems the closest: "GW could be a major inconvenience to us, kill off a few other species not able to make the transition, but otherwise be no worse than any of the human calamities that we've inflicted on ourselves." Except a lot more than "a few" species. The human impact on the planet has made many species much less able to adapt to climate change than they would be in a world without people.

"No worse than other major calamities humans have caused" still seems pretty bad, to me, and Mr Gore. The "major inconvenience" will be a lot more costly, in particular, than a transition to renewable energy would be. Even leaving aside the other, noneconomic, effects.


Yes, but believe it or not, David, I'm not DW Tripp. And while I find him very interesting and thought provoking, this doesn't mean that I don't disagree with him often- and him with me.

Ok- so its going to be a major inconvenience. This is the point where I throw out Lomborg and argue that whats necessary at this point is for us to have a clear idea of the costs involved- and look for the most efficacious solution.

I, for one, hate cap and trade. I'll agree that we need to put a 'cost' on Carbon, just as we needed to put a cost on fresh water. But I would prefer to go with a simpler solution of a flat tax on Carbon use, and avoid creating a speculative market on Carbon. The reason is that this market wouldn't be actually MAKING anything- and given the fact that its serving a governmental purpose, the government would HAVE to pick up any tab left if speculative bubble burst. How could you say no, if the alternative meant going back to using Carbon with NO cost? Future administrations would HAVE to bail out that market- which means, its not a REAL market. If speculators KNOW that they have no risk, they will blow that bubble sky high- over and over again.

No- better to just raise the cost on fossil fuels and other carbon emissions by a smidge, across the board, and raise them SLOWLY so as to minimize the impact onto the Global economy. Then use economic and political solutions to try and get the big elephants in the room- India and China- to sign on.

But all of this doesn't justify the rhetoric that Gore is using. The political challenges facing the US on GW are more like getting changes made in the WTO- they are issues of trade. IMPORTANT issues of trade, certainly. But nothing on the level of trying to whip up people into a common front to be able to fight off National Socialism, which WOULD have lead to at least Level Two on my scale- the death of Billions of people.

Darilian

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:


Fear fear fear.

If your side has the evidence, why the fear tactics? :p


I think David did a fine job of answering your other points, but this particular statement struck me as interesting.

See, they've presented the evidence in clear, fairly easy to understand terms. Almost nobody was listening. In fact, it's not that people aren't listening but that people don't want to listen do to the profound impact such a reality would have on our lifestyles. At this point, the challenge isn't providing evidence, it's getting people to give a damn about what evidence that's already been provided.

Granted, some Pro-Global Warming individuals can be a bit heavy handed when it comes to this approach, but it's not as though the entire 'movement' has stopped trying to provide logical reasoning. I don't even follow this issue closely and I still stumble upon a new article every month or so.

It's like you're holding a red meeple and someone keeps insisting that it's yellow. You provide logically sound and evidencially supported arguments to support your assertion that the meeple is, in fact, red, but each time you just get a reply of "No, no, no... yellow." Now, let's assume that something really important depended upon you convincing this other person that the meeple was red. Eventually, frustration is going to get the better of you and you're going to try 'alternative' methods of persuasion, ones that appeal to something other than logic and evidence. This is especially true if there is a time limit involved.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't tell what I like best about this thread:

A) The layman's analysis of climate change ("Why, it ain't been hot outsides in nigh on a fortnight! That Al Gore, whatta maroon!)

B) The fact that DDJ's threat of philanthropy appears to actually be making DW angry

C) Darilian's revelation that he's narrowed the effects of climate change down to just three options.

D) No MrSkeletor

Ah hell, E) All of the above.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
See, they've presented the evidence in clear, fairly easy to understand terms. Almost nobody was listening.


Incorrect. The arrogance of the AGW zombies is truly astounding. Of course people who reject the "theory" have listened. They simply have determined it's a pile of steaming shit of a theory with so many holes, assumptions and data manipulations that anything other than ignoring it or perhaps chuckling at the comical nature would be granting too much credibility.

So here's the deal. True believers in AGW aren't the only ones who can read. And when not everybody buys into your religion it ought to give you pause to reflect on your own abilities to read and evaluate. But do the AGW zomboids do that? No. Of course not. Instead they mimic evangelists converting "lost souls" to the ways of Jesus. Preaching, preaching, preaching.

Really, it's no different at all. And just like most churches, the only way to salvation is to pay up. Not just in cash either. In order to "save" yourself one must pay in a reduced level of comfort and safety, higher taxes, more expensive energy and more, more, more. And if not, what then? Why, damnation! That's what! The planet dying in a heat wave steaming inland on top of melted ice and tidal waves. Storms lashing out and tumbling skyscrapers! Terrifying plagues caused by humid, fecund conditions! Starvation as the fertile soils of Earth turn to windblown deserts! Collapse of the entire ecosystem as Gaia gasps her last, steamy breaths at the hands of people who refused to turn down their a/c or buy a Prius.

Just go watch Al's award-winning movie or those cable docu-dramas for evidence that this is exactly what the high priests of global warming are terrifying our children with.

Oh, and Cappy, I think David should give all of his money to his political causes. I mean every dime, every red cent. He either backs his belief-system up with total commitment or else he's just another "do as I say, not as I do" dilettante.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
I, for one, hate cap and trade. I'll agree that we need to put a 'cost' on Carbon, just as we needed to put a cost on fresh water. But I would prefer to go with a simpler solution of a flat tax on Carbon use, and avoid creating a speculative market on Carbon.


I have no real horse in this fight. I don't care and I don't think it makes very much difference. The main advantage of cap-and-trade, from my view, is that it makes it more likely that we'll hit our actual targets. If we only auction off N permits, then (cheating aside), we'll only emit that much CO2. If we set the tax at a price that we "predict" will lead to the equivalent of N permits, the politics will probably make the price too low to actually achieve that goal.

That aside, the issue you raise is a reasonable one. We already have lots of speculation in energy markets, I don't think this would be much different, but I'm not a big fan of speculation either (even though I have friends who have gotten wealthy doing it).

The bottom line for me is that one thing we can (possibly) do, and one thing we can't. So I support the one we might be able to do. I just talked to a member of Congress, though, an intelligent and serious guy, who voted against Waxman-Markey and says he would have voted for a carbon tax. So you are not alone.

Quote:
But nothing on the level of trying to whip up people into a common front to be able to fight off National Socialism, which WOULD have lead to at least Level Two on my scale- the death of Billions of people.


I am the last one to argue that we shouldn't have fought WWII, but I don't know how you figure that not defeating Nazi Germany would have led to the deaths of billions of people. That seems, let us say, at least somewhat debatable. Stalin won WWII, his rule was pretty horrific also, he didn't seem to generate billions of deaths though. By the way, the world had only about 2 billion people in 1940; if we had killed "billions" of them, that wouldn't have left very many at all.

You asked if I thought that global warming would lead to calamities of a comparable scale to human-caused calamities of the past, by which I thought you meant WWI, WWII, the Black Death, etc. My answer to that was yes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Darilian wrote:
I, for one, hate cap and trade. I'll agree that we need to put a 'cost' on Carbon, just as we needed to put a cost on fresh water. But I would prefer to go with a simpler solution of a flat tax on Carbon use, and avoid creating a speculative market on Carbon.


I have no real horse in this fight. I don't care and I don't think it makes very much difference. The main advantage of cap-and-trade, from my view, is that it makes it more likely that we'll hit our actual targets. If we only auction off N permits, then (cheating aside), we'll only emit that much CO2. If we set the tax at a price that we "predict" will lead to the equivalent of N permits, the politics will probably make the price too low to actually achieve that goal.

That aside, the issue you raise is a reasonable one. We already have lots of speculation in energy markets, I don't think this would be much different, but I'm not a big fan of speculation either (even though I have friends who have gotten wealthy doing it).

The bottom line for me is that one thing we can (possibly) do, and one thing we can't. So I support the one we might be able to do. I just talked to a member of Congress, though, an intelligent and serious guy, who voted against Waxman-Markey and says he would have voted for a carbon tax. So you are not alone.

Quote:
But nothing on the level of trying to whip up people into a common front to be able to fight off National Socialism, which WOULD have lead to at least Level Two on my scale- the death of Billions of people.


I am the last one to argue that we shouldn't have fought WWII, but I don't know how you figure that not defeating Nazi Germany would have led to the deaths of billions of people. That seems, let us say, at least somewhat debatable. Stalin won WWII, his rule was pretty horrific also, he didn't seem to generate billions of deaths though. By the way, the world had only about 2 billion people in 1940; if we had killed "billions" of them, that wouldn't have left very many at all.

You asked if I thought that global warming would lead to calamities of a comparable scale to human-caused calamities of the past, by which I thought you meant WWI, WWII, the Black Death, etc. My answer to that was yes.


Ok, now we're getting waayy off topic (or maybe back on topic, who knows?)

Anyway, I do support the contention that if the Germans had won WWII we would have seen the deaths of billions. Himmler had drawn up 'Generalplan Ost' for what to do with the occupied territories of Poland and Russia. Integral to the general plan to 'Germanoform' Poland and Russia into Germany (making man made hills, planting forests, etc, in an attempt to make the East look more like Germany), was the plan to slaughter at LEAST another 100-150 million people.

Not to mention what the Japanese would have done to China or India...or the Nazis to Africa.

But fortunately, they lost.

Darilian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.