Nazis, Nazis Everywhere!
Everyone is going crazy about Sterling Burnett supposedly comparing Al Gore to Josef Goebbels. Here's the quote:
Burnett: That's the problem. If I thought Al Gore's movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I'd say, everyone should go see it, but why go see propaganda? You don't go see Joseph Goebbels’' films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don't go see Al Gore’' films to see the truth about global warming...
Is he calling Gore a Nazi? Nope, he's calling him a propagandist. Perhaps he should've used a different example, cuz ya know we are ALL sick of being compared to Nazis no matter how innocuous the comparison.
I would've compared Gore to Tubby Riefenstahl but that's me.
Posted by Rosemary on
05.24.2006
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
No, if you want to see the truth about global warming, you go to the oil companies. They'll tell you the truth.
And can anyone imagine the screams and howls of rage is this "Goebbels" comparison was applied to anything on the right? Let's try it.Oooooo. I can't wait to start using this technique, it's most excellent.
I LOVE this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Rosemary. I'm going to use it all day.
God forbid anyone should actually, you know, discuss whether or not Gore's vision for the future is on target or not.
Better to just call him a crank (like y'all do with anyone who disagrees with Dear Leader).
You don't listen to Joseph Goebbels to hear truth about Nazi Germany. You don't listen to Rosemary to hear the truth about these kind of comparisons...
I'd find that a valid statement if you can show me when I have ever lied. Not been wrong but lied.
Ara,
I didn't call Gore anything, this time. I just said that Burnett was suggesting that Gore was a propagandist. I didn't say that believed it. What I said was that if I wanted to suggest Gore was a propagandist I would've picked someone less vile to compare him to like Tubby.
What did Al Gore lie about?
Here are a few:
Washington Post, Sept. 24
CLAIM: At Sept. 22 press conference, Gore says, “I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.”
TRUTH: President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman.
USA Today, Sept. 19
CLAIM: Addressing a Teamsters meeting, Gore spoke of lullabies from his youth and sang, "Look for the union label."
TRUTH: The song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27.
October 3, 2000; First presidential debate, Boston, Mass.
CLAIM: “I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out [in Parker County].”
TRUTH: FEMA spokeswoman Mary Margaret Walker told NR: “During the fires in Parker County, Texas, the vice president participated in a roundtable about the fires with FEMA's regional director. . . . He was not with Mr. Witt at that time.” Gore admitted as much on ABC's Good Morning America: “I've made so many trips with James Lee to these disaster sites. I was there in Texas, in Houston, with the head of the Texas emergency management folks and with the federal emergency management folks. If James Lee was there before or after, then, you know, I got that wrong then.”
October 17; third presidential debate, St. Louis
CLAIM: “The big drug companies…are now spending more money on advertising and promotion — you see all these ads — than they are on research and development.”
TRUTH: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reported in July that drug companies spent between $5.8 billion and $8.3 billion on marketing and $21 billion on research in 1998, according to CBS News.
Want more?
Answer my original question, I don't take too fondly suggestions that I'm dishonest.
TRUTH: The song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27.
I hadn't heard this, so I just looked into it. Apparently, this was part of a joke, and was laughed at by the audience (“That was a joke,” he told a press conference. “You know? Nobody sings a lullaby to a little baby about union labels?”). So wouldn't this be a bit like claiming that, say, George Bush looked under his office furniture for WMDs, or that Dan Quayle actually thought that Latin was spoken in Latin America?
What question?
October 3, 2000; First presidential debate, Boston, Mass.
Ley's see, this would be an instance of Gore being wrong about something, admitting that he was wrong, and you are posing it as though it were a lie?
CLAIM: At Sept. 22 press conference, Gore says, “I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.”
It was authorized in '75, but began operating in '77, and Gore was a member from that time.
Why are you posing these as lies? It seems a bit misleading.
++UG: As a strictly logical exercise, if you think this statement, as constructed, implies you lack objective credibility, then you still need to answer Rosemary's question. Or apologize.
You have shown in the past that you are capable of respectful, intelligent discourse. You don't need to throw matches into powder magazines. (watched too much Bugs Bunny when I was young)
Reminds me of that World Net Daily guy who said hey, deporting 12 million illegal aliens can't be that hard - look what Hitler did with the Jews!
As for propaganda, I'd bring up Rumsfeld's "Tikrit and north, south, east and west somewhat," and Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" pronouncements. But that's just me.
Where did I say or imply that Rosemary was a liar? In the joking use of her name in the second comment? If so (a) it was a joke, get over it, (b) a propagandist is not the same as a liar, as Dean has pointed out on his fine blog, and (c) if Rosemary was offended by my second comment, then I profusely apologize, I have never thought of Rose as a liar in any way.
Well now, that actually is a lie, but not Al Gore's.
In a rational world he'd be a respected statesmen.
Instead we get mental pipsqueaks who call him a liar and a Nazi.
You obviously don't venture into the internet too often do you? There are always comparisons to Nazis... As Rose said, a better example would have been in order. IMO, people keep throwing around the word Nazi and it has become watered down!
Because they don't agree with Gore? Or for some other reason?
The only dispute (and it is by far a minority view) seems to come from those scientists who believe that the effect is due mostly to natural processes or is unknown in origin.
Classic Ara source! HAHAHAHA
Well, here's the thing. The effects are unknown, and will likely be for some time. But the effects of global warming will likely be fairly unpleasant, so therefore it is in our best interest to stop polluting in case that turns out to be the cause. Here's a decision grid, with causes of global warming at the top, and human action on the left. As you can see, the only possible scenario that might prevent global warming from occurring is to stop polluting.
(table would have gone here)
Dammit Rosemary, your preview allows the table tag, but posting doesn't.
A warning that the page can only be edited by registered Wikipedians due to vandalism by unregistered users. Why is that an issue?
Yes, but what makes you think that he doesn't believe that the surviellance is illegal?
Classic Ara source! HAHAHAHA
There you go again, sticking your fingers in your ears -- "LALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
P.S. The National Academy of Sciences has also gone on record saying the same thing (and more).
Yes, but what makes you think that he doesn't believe that the surviellance is illegal?
Don't fall for it -- Bush apologists are desperate to change the subject anyway, anyhow, anytime they can.
Besides, Bush himself admitted that he didn't get the FISA warrants after saying that he did. That pretty much makes him a crook AND a liar.
I would love to see your chart. From what you have written, I agree with your statement. Well said! If you can give a new link, I would love to see it!
As for the Wiki thing...you and I can go on that site and change things. You need to have a vaild address, but you can go in there and put your own facts on any subject..well except g.w as they have that locked!
Either way, I doubt Gore is attempting to produce a balanced piece, examining all the evidence, pro and con. I suspect it is an advocacy piece. That's what propaganda means. Casablanca and The African Queen were also propaganda. It is perfectly honorable to produce propaganda.
So I would prefer the following: But I disagree with Burnett's premise. Why go see propaganda? Well, if you see one movie advocating for Gore's position, and one movie advocating for Jerry Pornelle's position (which has always made more sense than Gore's position) you will end up pretty well informed.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
I could change things there as I'm a registered user. But I repeat, why is the article being locked an issue? And even if it were not locked, any changes that are not either cited or approved of by many other wikipedians knowledgable in the subject matter would be removed within seconds. Wikipedia is a reasonable source of information like this, and that particular article being locked makes it more so, not less as you imply.
It's actually a simple table, but it's impossible to produce here because the table tag and the pre tags are disallowed by the blog. Dammit.
Here it is in non-table mode:
Cause of Global Warming: Natural causes
Humanity does nothing: You get global warming
Humanity reduces pollution: You get global warming
Cause of Global Warming: Greenhouse gases
Humanity does nothing: You get global warming
Humanity reduces pollution: No global warming, or less global warming
This is completely false. The change log to the Global Warming page indicate that almost every single incidence of vandalism on that page were fixed in less than one minute.
It usually takes a complaint to get it changed/locked..or it gets changed when someone disagrees with it.
This too is completely false. Many frequent contributors to certain Wikipedia topics have special software that informs them of changes to certain pages, and can revert it almost instantly. And most pages don't require "a complaint", anyone can fix the page.
I don't think you know as much about Wikipedia as you think you do. These are pretty basic facts to be getting wrong.
I wanted to point out this sight on GW.
There is alot of disinformation out there! The site starts out sounding credible until you get to this point:
I believe that arson played a big part that year!
You could be wrong, but I don't think so. You go ahead and use them. I don't for good reason!
or is Al Gore using his (rumored) political return to promote his movie?
Well, Gore has become a demogogue since he lost,
How so?
and I would not hand Gore a blank check on any environmental issue.
I don't think I would either, nor do I know any liberals or Democrats who would, nor would it even be possible under our form of government. So why even suggest anyone wants to do that?
His speeches about Iraq are pure demogogery. I've lost considerable respect for him because of his tone.
So why even suggest anyone wants to do that?
Wasn't suggesting a governmental blank check. I was talking about giving him a blank "I believe you" check on the issue.
Yours,
Wince
Special web-only bonus, on the occasion of the release of An Inconvenient Truth:
Al Gore's Big, Fat Carbon Footprint
"Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story"
WMV: Hi - Low
Quicktime: Hi - Low
Since quite a few of Gore's claims for sea level rising are an order of magnitude (or 10000% give or take) above what even the respectable global warming advocates are stating as worst-case(20+ feet versus 80 cm in the same time frame, f'rinstance),
Can you provide links?