Aren't most pimps rich people? I mean "pimp" in the broad (excuse the pun) definition of the term.
Another Hypocrite Bites Dust!
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Aren't most pimps rich people? I mean "pimp" in the broad (excuse the pun) definition of the term.
I know (and so do you) that Gore has two homes which is excessive IF you are going to preach conservation. I know that Gore charters jets which is excessive IFIFIF you are trying to save the planet. you are preaching conservation. I know that Gore takes limos which is excessive you are trying to save energy. I know Gore allows and profits from Zinc mining on his land which is excessive
That is how the rich live, EagleSmack. Gore has earned money by the barrel full, and it is nonsense to expect him to live by a middle class lifestyle. As to mining zinc, somebody has to do it, we need zinc. Why should Gore shut down his zinc mine when others are running (and zinc is essential to our society)?
Again, the point is, how does his footprint compare with others of his income class? Unless we know the answer to that, we won’t know if he is a hypocrite or not.
That is how the rich live, EagleSmack. Gore has earned money by the barrel full, and it is nonsense to expect him to live by a middle class lifestyle. As to mining zinc, somebody has to do it, we need zinc. Why should Gore shut down his zinc mine when others are running (and zinc is essential to our society)?
Again, the point is, how does his footprint compare with others of his income class? Unless we know the answer to that, we won’t know if he is a hypocrite or not.
ALL media reported about Gore's houses. All did about the fact that he had not taken a commercial flight in decades. All - even the fountain of all truth, according to SirJosephPorter, CNN, reported about Gore's lavish life style.
Only SirJosephPorter lives in denial.
Yukon, again, how does his carbon footprint compare with others of his economic class? Until we know the answer to that, we don’t know if he is a hypocrite or not.
More ironic is the fact that more and more scientists agree that the Earth is in an actual COOLING cycle. Shouldn't MORE CO2 in the atmosphere help slow the process of turning Earth into another Ice Age?
That is your political opinion Yukon, nothing more. Indeed, global warming deniers have been saying this for so long (claiming that more and more scientists are coming out absent global warming) that it is a surprise that any scientist supports global warming today.
But like it or not, that is the scientific consensus, and I go by the scientific consensus.
Only SirJosephPorter lives in denial.
Yukon, again, how does his carbon footprint compare with others of his economic class? Until we know the answer to that, we don’t know if he is a hypocrite or not.
More ironic is the fact that more and more scientists agree that the Earth is in an actual COOLING cycle. Shouldn't MORE CO2 in the atmosphere help slow the process of turning Earth into another Ice Age?
That is your political opinion Yukon, nothing more. Indeed, global warming deniers have been saying this for so long (claiming that more and more scientists are coming out absent global warming) that it is a surprise that any scientist supports global warming today.
But like it or not, that is the scientific consensus, and I go by the scientific consensus.
Upon giving this issue some serious further thought, I'm amending my opinion of the rich and their larger footprint, just a tad so don't let it go to your head. If that rich person is creating employment for others, then I believe there is justification in having a large "commercial" foot print, BUT that doesn't excuse him as far as his "personal" behaviour.
You are confusing two issues. Al Gore may very well be right regarding his global warming views. At issue is not whether we should or shouldn't listen to Gore. At issue is whether he is a hypocrite.
Other than being a supporter of his, how are you sure of these things? To quote you...
Again, this is about Gore the hypocrite, not Gore the environmentalist.
Of course we do. Being a hypocrite or not has nothing to do with what others are doing. Using your argument, until we know the sexual histories of all politician, we can not call Sanford a hypocrite. The issue is not the size of Gore's carbon footprint. It is that he is calling for people to reduce theirs while not reducing his.
Good morning Cannuck- Your arguments are mostly good, but truthfully I don't think this issue is going to be resolved on this forum, for one thing there doesn't seem to be a clear cut definition of what the issue is. A larger footprint? Understandable if necessary for the creation of employment. Hypocrite? Probably yes, we are all hypocrites at some time and to some degree, that's just part of a natural trait of people being prejudiced when it comes to themselves. Faults that I have sure piss me off when I see them in other people...........:lol::lol::lol::lol:
If they do put some sort of tax on energy, the rich are in a much better position to afford it, while the poorer people will have to make sacrifices in order to afford it. Home heating, transportation to and from work, higher food prices are some prime example's. Not to mention which class of people stand to profit from it more. Taxing a carbon footprint sounds great, but in the short and long term it is the poor and middle class who will pay.
As to personal behavior, that depends. If he is leaving the lights on, or not recycling, then I agree that he is to blame. However, a rich person is going to drive a more expensive car than a middle class person, he is going to live in a bigger house, perhaps a mansion (depending upon his financial situation). He is going to travel much more. If he does a lot of traveling (as I assume Gore does), he is going to own a plane or charter a plane.
These actions will leave a rich person with a larger footprint, and it has nothing to do with whether he is creating employment or not.
As I said before, compare a middle class person with a minimum wage person. Would you blame a middle class person for having a bigger footprint than a minimum wage person? I wouldn’t. It is the same with a rich person, I wouldn’t blame him for having a bigger footprint than a middle class person.
The question is how he behaves in his private life. If he doesn’t’ recycle, leaves lights on and waste energy needlessly, then that would make him a hypocrite. But we don’t know if that is indeed the case.
The criticism by conservatives sounds like sour grapes to me.
I think tax on energy is a great idea. If household consumption exceeds a certain value, the tax could kick in, so that only the rich, with bigger carbon footprint will have to pay.
....or the many poor & lower middle class that have managed to obtain a
mortgage, but between mortgage & taxes & utility bills & increased food
prices and such...aren't able to upgrade into 95% efficiency furnaces and
better windows and doors and such. Just playing Devils advocate here SJP.
Depends upon how high the threshold is, Ron. The threshold could be put fairly high, so that the rich people like Gore will have to pay, but middle class will fall below the threshold, even with inefficient appliances.
There should be positive incentives to put in energy efficient appliances, rather than negative ones.
That $250,000 minimum income (which maybe lowered) will not even count towards the extra money people will have to pay for food, heating anything really that have to go up because of carbon or what ever taxes created by our new Social Democratic left wing government. All will be effected.
Having been raised in poverty myself and stuggled with it during my formative years, I've always struggled with quandary of fairness for the poor and I'm coming to the conclusion there just is no fairness. If you aren't not going to tax the poor and middle class, then there's just not much use in taxing anyone- the numbers lie with the lower income groups. I've often thought (since I've got fairly good credit and can buy most commodies at any time) how unfair it is that the poor can not afford to buy in bulk and realize the savings the rest of us have access to.
Maybe one solution is for the poor to form a Co-op at least that way a few of them could get together on a 100 lb. bag of flour or 50 lbs. of sugar, split it up and realize the savings.
As a child, my family went thru about 2 years struggling to pay rent and eat. But my Dad finally got a good job and that was the end of that. Forming some kind of Co-op that the poor can get food and other staples cheap or free might work. There used to be lots of free food handed out, but now it is thru "Food Stamps" which is a fixed amount of money that can be used at a super market for just about everything but cigarettes, booze etc. Cannot live on that though, just helps a little, very little.
If you aren't not going to tax the poor and middle class, then there's just not much use in taxing anyone- the numbers lie with the lower income groups.
JLM, there is no point in taxing the poor, you don’t raise a lot of revenues that way. I agree with you about middle class, significant revenues can be raised only by taxing the middle class. So middle class must be taxed.
Taxing the rich does not generate that much revenue, simply because there are not very many rich people. However rich people must be taxed because that is the fair thing to do. In the name of fairness, the rich must pay their share(and perhaps a bit more).
JLM, there is no point in taxing the poor, you don’t raise a lot of revenues that way. I agree with you about middle class, significant revenues can be raised only by taxing the middle class. So middle class must be taxed.
Taxing the rich does not generate that much revenue, simply because there are not very many rich people. However rich people must be taxed because that is the fair thing to do. In the name of fairness, the rich must pay their share(and perhaps a bit more).
I think we've had this discussion before and I'm pretty hesitant about taxing "the rich"- I guess the rich could be classified as those with an annual income of over $150,000 or so. But there's rich and then there's rich, some from inherited money tied up in investments and others who have a high paying profession for which they gave up a few earning years just to get the education at a cost of possibly $1/2 million - Do you really want to tax them (while they may be paying off student loans at the rate of $20,000 annually)
''Maybe one solution is for the poor to form a Co-op''
The wealthy call themselves good Christians -- so why don't they just give away their money to the poor or to the govenrment to help the poor. This way there will be no poverty. And they would guarantee their way to Heaven!
ON TOP OF ALL THAT WE WON'T EVER HAVE TO PAY TAXES AGAIN!!!!!
The wealthy call themselves good Christians -- so why don't they just give away their money to the poor or to the govenrment to help the poor. This way there will be no poverty. And they would guarantee their way to Heaven!
ON TOP OF ALL THAT WE WON'T EVER HAVE TO PAY TAXES AGAIN!!!!!
A friend of mine says that if Christians are all so fired up about spending eternity with their god, he would be more than obliging to help speed up the process. That would free up enough assets to wipe out the dept world wide.