Gore is brilliant, but he is also the mouthpiece of special interests that are contrary to mine, not to mention uses massive hyperbole--- i don't fault him for this, but yes, he is wrong on many issues. peace, surf PS-- i am not a republican and lean toward anarchocapitalism as an ideal-- although i know its fanciful thinking currently--- but 100 years from now, it will be common. surf
Environmentalists who are in the service of well funded special interests. First time I ever hear the two mentioned at the same time. Did Greenpeace start a prop trading group and scored big with otm options?
Agree...a pretty poor analogy. Fisher's criticism was misplaced because nobody outside the game got harmed the way the rules were set even before. He could have equally benefitted from edges to be gleaned from game theory. It was a level playing field. Not quite applicable to this topic.
Man you are weak and clueless. Greenpeace has revenue of over 360 million annually and has made more money from its whaling campaign than the economies of many nations. Dude, wake up, it's all a scam. surf
Sure and I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with your suggesting AL Gore is some sort of marionette , sent around the globe not out of own altruistic convictions but because he financially benefits from doing so. Who is wearing the tinfoil hat here...
How does Greenpeace make money from its whaling campaign? Youmean through donations? I'm not a greenpeace supporter, just curious.
Isn't America great. Be considered a great philanthropist while purchasing a $71 million dollar Palm Beach estate - with a ZIRP induced low rate mortgage. What a country ... of suckers.
Umm ya mean like not looking to get a "free" mortgage for your $71 mil beachfront pad - laser like focus on profit?
of course he (PTJ) conveniently omits that the risk in his and everyone else's mortgage origination process is socialized. The US is a country of mostly brainwashed middle class suckers who would even commit harakiri before ever criticizing their own bankrupt capitalist model which allowed them in the first place to lever up on debt in order to afford their 2nd and 3rd Toyotas and Fords (needed because most are too obese to walk and their cities are too capitalist to implement a socialist public transportation system). Of course the masses are spared from the little detail that their "freedom system" is mostly benefitting the top 1-2%.
Now, what would you say, that each time he advocates for whatever causes, he receives money via whatever means? You are not completely wrong : you are forgetting that they get paid for that. I suggest you study the case of Tony Blair, and find also his wife comments on why he changed and her answer meanings "it is mammon". He is the easiest example to understand how "advocates" are chosen, approached, and then given "opportunities" for enrichment as payments for their work. Welcome to reality