Al Gore Facts

[Brassmask]

Al Gore is the only man alive who can save us from Global Warming. Al Gore is that cool.

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Al Gore.

Al Gore is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Al Gore.

Al Gore isn't running for President. Al Gore IS President.

Al Gore only let Bush serve to prove to the world that Republicanism is a totally bankrupt philosophy and practice. It worked.

After Al Gore is elected, Al Gore will turn back time and erase the last seven years.

Al Gore was waiting for America to grow up.

Time waits for no man. Unless that man is Al Gore.

Al Gore will be the first President to win three terms since Roosevelt.

Al Gore always knows the EXACT location of Carmen SanDiego.

Al Gore gave Mona Lisa that smile.

Note: some of these are blatantly stolen. Go ahead, sue me. Al Gore is my lawyer.

Al Gore does not sleep. He waits.

Republicants want to build a wall on the border. To keep Al Gore out.

Al Gore is so smart, he can divide by zero.

Al Gore doesn?t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

In 2000, Al Gore should have chosen Al Gore as his running mate.

Tipper is Al Gore's wife. But afterwards, she tips him.

Al Gore is so smart, he counted to infinity - twice.

When Al Gore falls in water, Al Gore doesn't get wet. Water gets Al Gore.

Al Gore CAN believe it's not butter.

Al Gore didn't just invent the internet. All Gore invented science. And fire.

Al Gore can touch MC Hammer.

Al Gore didn't invent color TV. But before Al Gore was born, the world was in Black and White.

It takes Al Gore 20 minutes to watch 60 Minutes.

Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.

When Al Gore is elected, Al Qaeda will follow us home from Iraq. To surrender.

Al Gore can slam a revolving door.

When the election is over, Al Gore will have won more than 50 states

Al Gore IS that tall. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Al Gore just slouches to make the rest of us feel better.

Al Gore can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.

Al Gore can balance the budget. On one finger. While juggling.

Al Gore can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.

Al Gore did in fact, build Rome in a day.

Al Gore is not running for President. He is strolling to President.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/6/172852/0575

[BT]

Al Gore isn't good at soundbites and spin. He said so himself. So he isn't strolling to the whitehouse. He thinks he can change the world through the cultural impact of the media.

[Brassmask]

Next year, we will see a swing back to real discussion and lessening of sound bite.  People are now so used to just paying problems to go away and having arguments made in 22 minute segments that they will want to hear people really hashing out problems rather than presenting sound bites in order to protect secret positions. 

As I and a couple of others have attempted to do in this very forum only to have those (perhaps including myself) who see themselves as "losing" the debate revert to the old bombastic "nipitinthebud" ways of stopping resolution to the problem.

The conversation that will be started by Michael Moore's SicKo next week will be a proving ground, I hope.  More and more people will realize that the fears conjured by those who don't want universal health care for all are simply trying to protect their pocketbooks.  Treating the sick always trumps making a buck.  At least in a world of people who aren't embodied by corporations.

Everyone should get THE BEST health care regardless of who they are or how much money they have.  That they now don't is a form of social Darwinism.

[BT]

That they now don't is a form of social Darwinism.

What is wrong with social darwinism?

[Xavier_Onassis]

What is wrong with social darwinism?

================================
Perhaps you are unclear on what is meant by social darwinism. It generally means that those who are the least successful in a society should be permitted to die off, since they will only make the society worse if they manage to reproduce and stay in the gene pool.

So if a person cannot afford health care, they shopuld just die, and the following generations will be healthier and more successful.

Please explain how you think that this is a good thing, or if I have not defined social darwinism adequately, please explain what it means to you and why it is a good thing.

[sirs]

By all means, lobby your congress critters and get the Constitution amended

[BT]

PLease explain how you think that this is a good thing,

I asked first.

What is wrong with expecting people to carry their own load?

[Plane]

So if a person cannot afford health care, they shopuld just die, and the following generations will be healthier and more successful.

So what happens with the alternative to social Darwinism?

What is the proper term for the altenative to social Darwinism?

[Brassmask]

PLease explain how you think that this is a good thing,

I asked first.

What is wrong with expecting people to carry their own load?

Nothing. 

There is something wrong with being ok with those who don't just dying off or in danger of extinction.

Social darwinism leads to eugenics.  Is it ok to relegate certain groups of people to extinction because of physical defects?  And who gets to make the distinction as to what is a physical defect, mein herr?

Finally, social darwinism is not "expecting people to carry their own load".

[Brassmask]

What is the proper term for the altenative to social Darwinism?

Democracy.

[_JS]

The proper term for the opposite of social darwinism is equality.

Having universal healthcare does not require an amendment to the constitution.

What is wrong with expecting people to carry their own load?

I know that not everyone will like this, but I like to interject into the discussion a bit of reading from the Gospel of Matthew chapter 25 starting at verse 31.

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32 and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

If you look closely, you'll notice that it doesn't matter how the "least ones" got into the predicament they were in. There is no argument from those destined for eternal punishment that one of our posters makes, "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes." I suspect that Christ's answer to that would still be verse 45.

In Genesis God gives man dominion over the Earth. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. "The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise."

So no. Treating the poor to a poorer system of healthcare because they deserve less based on their inadequate income is in my mind one of the most un-Christian and un-civilized decisions a modern nation can undertake.

[BT]

In the last 8 years of posting on this site i have been told that Christian ethics should have no bearing on government policy.

Why is the government the safety net of first resort. What is wrong with famililies taking care of their own? What is wrong with local communities and neighborhoods taking care of their own. Why the push for federal fixes? And what is wrong with the federal fixes in place now?

[_JS]

In the last 8 years of posting on this site i have been told that Christian ethics should have no bearing on government policy.

That is up to the individual. I think it should, but a lot of Christians tend to pick and choose what they want to apply. Often the social justice parts of the Christian faith fall by the wayside.

Why is the government the safety net of first resort.

Why shouldn't it be? The government is supposed to reflect our society and our values. I've been told over and over how this is the "greatest country on Earth." Yet, when it comes to helping our poor and neediest, I hear things like "why should I pay for someone who makes mistakes?"

What is wrong with famililies taking care of their own?

Nothing. But not all families are so caring are they? Not all families have much wealth.

What is wrong with local communities and neighborhoods taking care of their own.

Again nothing, but again it isn't necessarily effective.

Why the push for federal fixes?

Why not? It is the Government of the people is it not?

And what is wrong with the federal fixes in place now?

I think we've been down this road. Did you know that even the most obvious case of disability almost always requires a lawyer and is almost always rejected the first time for disability allowance? Our system of benefits is a joke. It is built on the notion that everyone is a case of fraud until proven otherwise. More than that, people are often deliberately humiliated and put through needless interviews and waiting rooms for the express purpose of making them feel shamed.


I mean, we could do like Jamaica and just arrest anyone who is poor, homeless, aged, infirm, and basically imprison them. That is another option, would that be more suitable?

[BT]

I think we've been down this road. Did you know that even the most obvious case of disability almost always requires a lawyer and is almost always rejected the first time for disability allowance? Our system of benefits is a joke. It is built on the notion that everyone is a case of fraud until proven otherwise. More than that, people are often deliberately humiliated and put through needless interviews and waiting rooms for the express purpose of making them feel shamed.

And yet you want the same government that came up with this fix to come up with its replacement. Anything wrong with that picture.

[_JS]

And yet you want the same government that came up with this fix to come up with its replacement. Anything wrong with that picture.

It depends what values are applied. If it is this neo-liberal disdain for the poor, then I don't expect they will even bother to fix such a system. They will just keep harping on about how any government benefits are horribly evil and the less taxes the wealthy pay, the better off everyone will be after they tinkle down on us all.

If another system of values is applied, one that has honest compassion for the poor and the well-being of the neediest in society then I think the system can most certainly be fixed to the benefit of social equality.