Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Current Events


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2008, 05:28 AM
bobbymcgill bobbymcgill is offline
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 153
usa us california
bobbymcgill has a spectacular aura aboutbobbymcgill has a spectacular aura about
Credits: 1,362
Default You go, Gore! ... Big Al, gets pissed off.

A fired-up Al Gore encouraged American youth to carry out acts of civil disobedience if new coal plants don't implement measures to decrease the emission of hazardous carbons.

Sharing the stage with U2's Bono, Gore told a gathering at the Clinton Global Initiative, "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration." The crowd roared with approval.

He and Bono then lit candles and joined in a seance attempting to channel the soul of Woody Guthrie.

But seriously, Big Al is right --this is a problem that needs to be addressed. If not by reason then by riot. Perhaps it is time for some picket-lines, campfires and cheesy folk songs to stir things up.

Not for me of course, but I will surely lend my support by watching the demonstrations on TV with Big Al while we toss back a couple of Odwalla's and vodka.

Conservative bloggers and commentators of course jumped all over Al and his call to arms --calling him a nutcase and saying that "Gore's continuing intellectual decline is actually rather entertaining."

Steven Miller, commenting on a Wall Street Journal article offered these choice thoughts on the Gore-ster, "I would like to know, would garlic hep get rid of this buffoon?"

To Steven I say, your lack of success with women and dwindling friend base might be attributed to something other than said spice which you reference.

Ok, enough picking on angry little Stevie.

As usual, this is all about money --and reasonably so. "Scrubbing" and "sequestration" methods, which take the fumes from coal processing and inject them back into the earth, will bring about higher prices. A study by the International Energy Agency estimated the current cost of processing runs at about $1,371 per kilo-Wat and a comparable system that captures carbon could cost $1,860 per kilo-wat.

As with most new technology, the costs will gradually decrease over time, but if we don't take measures to clean the air, over time we will gradually decrease.

Is it such a difficult choice?

The pro-coal, anti-brain cell group can issue all the clever repartee they like (much like myself), but at some point we should stop listening to lobbyist and blowhards and start listening to the vast majority of scientists who say that while there is some truth to global warming being a natural phenomena, the bulk of the responsibility falls squarely on us.

Is it so big a problem that we can't do something? I mean, geez, we sent a man to the moon 40 years ago. And Big Al invented the Internet! You'd think being the smart monkeys that we are, that we could figure this thing out.

Bobby McGill
http://idlewordship.com
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2008, 05:35 AM
TheHat's Avatar
TheHat TheHat is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,154
usa
TheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant futureTheHat has a brilliant future
Credits: 3,654
Default

So Al Gore has picked up the community organizing mantra and is now running with it?

Telling youth to start rioting and pillaging public and private property.



Good job Gore, I always knew you were a nutter.

Fascism, sure is fun!!!

Can I start being civilly disobedient, since I think we pay to much in taxes? Or b/c Congress is about to spend $700 billion?

Its either Gore's way, or just get belligerant!
__________________
If I had the option of voting 2000 and 2004 over again, I would still vote Bush.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2008, 05:43 AM
Frolicking Dinosaurs's Avatar
Frolicking Dinosaurs Frolicking Dinosaurs is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,298
usa us tennessee
Frolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond reputeFrolicking Dinosaurs has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 13,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Answers.com
by Shirin Rai/Vittorio Bufacchi

A political act involving disobeying governmental authority on grounds of moral objection, with the aim of promoting a just society. The term was first used by H. D. Thoreau in his essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, 1849.

Civil disobedience occurs when someone intentionally and publicly violates certain laws. The law being violated may be the target of one's protest, for example dodging conscription to the army. Alternatively the civil disobedient may have no objection to the law being violated, but may do so as a symbolic act to draw attention to other laws that are deemed unjust, as in the case of sit-ins in public places during the Vietnam War. The civil disobedient differs from a mere criminal primarily in terms of motive, since the ordinary criminal acts out of self-interest, while the civil disobedient violates penal statutes in order to make society more just. Furthermore the civil disobedient objects to the injustice of a particular law or policy, while maintaining fidelity to the system as a whole, therefore unlike the revolutionary the civil disobedient has no desire to overthrow the system entirely.

There are at least three issues that divide scholars on civil disobedience. Should the civil disobedient accept the punishment for breaking the law, or is resistance to the agents of law and order justified? Accepting one's punishment is seen by some as necessary in order to emphasize that civil disobedience is a public act done for the public good, not an excuse to run riot. Those who reject this argument point to the fact that tactical considerations must be taken into account, therefore resisting arrest may be justified if doing so furthers the goal of defeating the unjust law.

Is violence ever justified during acts of civil disobedience? Following Gandhi, it may be argued that non-violence is intrinsic to civil disobedience, although many feel that some form of violence, within limits, is acceptable. The suffragettes for example used violence against property, smashing windows and slashing paintings in art galleries, although they never directed their violence against other people.

Finally, there is the question whether civil disobedience is a right bestowed on all citizens of a just society, or alternatively, as famously argued by Thoreau, whether upholding justice means that we have a duty to engage in acts of civil disobedience.
Perhaps we need to discuss this.
__________________
He who angers you, controls you!

Last edited by Frolicking Dinosaurs; 09-25-2008 at 05:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2008, 08:16 AM
Rebellion's Avatar
Rebellion Rebellion is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 14,615
usa
Rebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond reputeRebellion has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 142,705
Default

Al has a great point. I think we should start by burning his house to the ground and urinating in the ashes. It will not only reduce the carbon footprint that he uses, but will save on water. And people say I am not environmentally friendly. Go figure.
__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who hasn't Biden pissed off so far? Whaler17 Elections & Campaigns 10 09-20-2008 01:37 AM
Bush vs Gore Toby Environment & Conservation 7 06-18-2008 05:28 PM
If Al Gore becomes the Dem Nominee... exodus84 Elections & Campaigns 10 03-24-2008 09:02 AM
Al Gore on SNL Hard-Driver Humor & Satire 3 05-17-2006 08:44 PM
Gore viper910 Political Opinions & Beliefs 3 01-10-2006 05:51 PM

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden