Al Gore confronted at book signing over Climategate -video [Archive]

mczerone

12-01-2009, 05:20 PM

I hope Al Gore starts encountering this kind of thing everywhere he goes.

I don't.

The message we're trying to spread (liberty) dovetails nicely with the anti-global-political-climate-regime, but antics like this don't advance anything, not even a little. Hold signs outside the bookstore, provide pamphlets outlining the Climategate story and outlining that even if there is a job to do re the environment it should be private effort, not corrupt state coercion to do it. Shouting about Globalism and Eugenics at a book signing accomplishes negative returns. (Seriously, don't these guys know the rules of a book signing? Hand your book, say hi and that you love or hate him, take at most 10 seconds, get out of the way. It's organized as a book signing, not a policy debate).

(And this is from someone who supports peaceful civil disobedience in general, even if the general citizen observer is hostile to it, i.e. the open 420 celebrations in NH)

ClayTrainor

12-01-2009, 05:21 PM

I don't.

The message we're trying to spread (liberty) dovetails nicely with the anti-global-political-climate-regime, but antics like this don't advance anything, not even a little. Hold sings outside the bookstore, provide pamphlets outlining the Climategate story and outlining that even if there is a job to do re the environment it should be private effort, not corrupt state coercion to do it. Shouting about Globalism and Eugenics at a book signing accomplishes negative returns. (Seriously, don't these guys know the rules of a book signing? Hand your book, say hi and that you love or hate him, take at most 10 seconds, get out of the way. It's organized as a book signing, not a policy debate).

(And this is from someone who supports civil disobedience in general, even if the general citizen observer is hostile to it, i.e. the open 420 celebrations in NH)

True enough, it is not an effective marketing tactic.

Bman

12-01-2009, 05:22 PM

Mitt Romneys sideburns

12-01-2009, 05:27 PM

Well, Al Gore really isnt helping his side much when he goes on about this "consensus". He makes it sound like science functions by popular vote.

Mitt Romneys sideburns

12-01-2009, 05:28 PM

Oh damn, these kids arnt helping their side either. They look like loons.

paulpwns

12-01-2009, 05:32 PM

We are change has the WORST marketing ideas EVER.

They are taking a gourmet steak and microwaving it.

I won't even join We are Change Atlanta for this exact reason.

LibForestPaul

12-01-2009, 05:55 PM

Probably paid for by Gore.

LibForestPaul

12-01-2009, 05:55 PM

Look, my critics are loons. I am sane and rational.

paulpwns

12-01-2009, 05:55 PM

Probably paid for by Gore.

I am pretty sure WEARECHANGE is an Alex Jones spawn.

Suprised?

devil21

12-01-2009, 06:18 PM

Im not feeling so harsh about the video as most of you. No amount of logic or truth is going to change the minds of the Gore worshippers. He's their "God"...of their "religion". I kinda like the idea of Gore knowing there are very vocal people out there that aren't happy with what he's doing. That was the whole idea behind "government fearing the people" in the first place. Sure, they won't change the minds of anyone that's already standing in line for an hour just to have the Almighty sign their book, but neither would signs or pamphlets.

paulitics

12-01-2009, 06:47 PM

"We are change" are agent provocateurs or act like agent provocateurs. They are no different than code pink on the left, who discredits the whole antiwar movement.

Al Gore loves this, because it only makes him appear sane next to these guys who act like lunatics.

SL89

12-01-2009, 07:14 PM

But, I must say they have balls. While we are in here having civilized debate, they are doing something. Ludicrous as it may be.

InterestedParticipant

12-01-2009, 08:03 PM

"Its a globalist Eugenics program!"

Um, really? This is the best you guys can do to humiliate these politico con men? Make a scene that alienates you from everyone else in the store, and distracts from the actual proven malfeasance?

Gore is a lying tool, but the dorks in that video made him (and all of his people except the one assaulter) look quite rational.
Yup, you got it. We are Change is COINTEL.

They are deliberately sent out to look foolish and create copy cats, filled with more pawns from the public. I call this type of operation 'usurping the vector,' for the void for intelligent, responsible, adult-level conversation is taken-up and squashed by operations like these, which is exactly their role.

dannno

12-01-2009, 08:17 PM

Yup, you got it. We are Change is COINTEL.

They are deliberately sent out to look foolish and create copy cats, filled with more pawns from the public. I call this type of operation 'usurping the vector,' for the void for intelligent, responsible, adult-level conversation is taken-up and squashed by operations like these, which is exactly their role.

Um, no, it's that there aren't enough people who engage in adult-level conversation and are able to look at what is happening objectively to see what is really going on..

Look, these kids have energy, and they are pretty smart. They have figured out the system and 96%+ are nowhere near. The "adult-level" conversation people are too stuck in their brainwashed paradigm, so they can't even see the truth. Haven't you ever thought about WHY so many people in the liberty movement are the way they are, and not suit and tie cut-outs? There are only a few suit and tie cut-outs, and hundreds of thousands of non-suit and tie cut-outs in our movement. Better get used to it.

So until there is a large contingent of "adult-level" conversation people out there actively engaging in our movement, I will continue to support WeAreChange.

Captain America

12-01-2009, 08:28 PM

Good Job even if only one of those sheep inline look up what they were talking about then that would be a victory in helping at least one person realize the truth

BenIsForRon

12-01-2009, 08:32 PM

Why couldn't someone calmly ask "What do you think about the emails?" and see what he said?

ClayTrainor

12-01-2009, 08:35 PM

Why couldn't someone calmly ask "What do you think about the emails?" and see what he said?

That really would've been soooooo much better. The truth would be obvious in Gore's reaction and response...

TortoiseDream

12-01-2009, 09:30 PM

In response to the ridiculous moon comment...

"That may be true Al, but that is neither a logical argument against the point I made nor does it have anything to do with global warming at all."

Oh yea and that was pretty stupid...shouting is regress, not progress.

FrankRep

12-01-2009, 09:34 PM

These guys have balls! I'm glad to see people taking action.

Akus

12-01-2009, 09:41 PM

so did the secret service taze him?

bro....

jmdrake

12-01-2009, 10:23 PM

I don't.

The message we're trying to spread (liberty) dovetails nicely with the anti-global-political-climate-regime, but antics like this don't advance anything, not even a little. Hold signs outside the bookstore, provide pamphlets outlining the Climategate story and outlining that even if there is a job to do re the environment it should be private effort, not corrupt state coercion to do it. Shouting about Globalism and Eugenics at a book signing accomplishes negative returns. (Seriously, don't these guys know the rules of a book signing? Hand your book, say hi and that you love or hate him, take at most 10 seconds, get out of the way. It's organized as a book signing, not a policy debate).

(And this is from someone who supports peaceful civil disobedience in general, even if the general citizen observer is hostile to it, i.e. the open 420 celebrations in NH)

The protesters started peacefully enough. The first one was tossed out for simply asking a question about the climategate emails. It was after that when the shouting started.

jmdrake

12-01-2009, 10:25 PM

Why couldn't someone calmly ask "What do you think about the emails?" and see what he said?

Did you miss that part? Someone did calmly ask what he thought of the emails. Gore refused to answer and security tossed the questioner out for his troubles. That's when the shouting started.

RevolutionSD

12-01-2009, 10:31 PM

The conspiracy part is pretty irrelevant. Most people will think these guys are just nutcases. Why not point out the immorality of Al Gore? First, he has spent his career working for an organization that steals money from working people at gunpoint to accomplish what it wants to do. Secondly, Gore is profiting from a complete lie that is Global Warming, and his theory was proven false years before Climategate.

Let's keep this simple. The NWO may well be real, but we certainly do not have to prove that to show how wrong and immoral the politicians like Gore are.

jmdrake

12-01-2009, 10:32 PM

Yeah this video was just stupid. These people would have been better off putting flyers on cars or giving handouts outside. Now all they did is made themselves look like fools against the people they are arguing against.

Gee, someone should have told those guys back in 1776 to put more flyers on carriages. ;)

The first protester merely asked Gore a legitimate question, was tossed out for doing so, and yelled on his way out. I don't know if the other protesters were doing the same but that seems to be the pattern. If so, not a bad tactic at all.

Anyway, countering cap and trade will require some "guerrilla marketing". I suggest making copies of a good anti global warming DVD and pasting it to the inside of all of Gore's books. Gore fans will buy the book and may get well into the DVD before realizing they've been had. By that time it's possible for some deprogramming to occur.

SelfTaught

12-01-2009, 10:39 PM

Gee, someone should have told those guys back in 1776 to put more flyers on carriages. ;)

The first protester merely asked Gore a legitimate question, was tossed out for doing so, and yelled on his way out. I don't know if the other protesters were doing the same but that seems to be the pattern. If so, not a bad tactic at all.

Anyway, countering cap and trade will require some "guerrilla marketing". I suggest making copies of a good anti global warming DVD and pasting it to the inside of all of Gore's books. Gore fans will buy the book and may get well into the DVD before realizing they've been had. By that time it's possible for some deprogramming to occur.

I recommend the Great Global Warming Swindle. Great documentary for people that haven't seen it.

parocks

12-01-2009, 10:58 PM

I'm not sure about this. This Climategate thing looks like it could be a game changer.
Some people don't know the new facts, others haven't really figured out the ramifications of the new facts. I'm not sure anyone really has. Global Warming = Fraud is a potentially valid statement. People who believe in Global Warming = Warmers - certainly a reasonable enough statement. If someone argues about consensus, it most certainly is a 100% spot on rebuttal that whatever consensus that did exist about global warming back in the day was formed based on fraudulent science, and it's going away, as people learn the truth.

It is most certainly true that those people who did at one time believe in global warming relied on that very science that was proven fraudulent. You ask those same scientists now, who knows what they'll say. They can easily say "We concluded there was global warming based on science that was proven to be a lie.
We need to step back and look at what's really going on."

Im not feeling so harsh about the video as most of you. No amount of logic or truth is going to change the minds of the Gore worshippers. He's their "God"...of their "religion". I kinda like the idea of Gore knowing there are very vocal people out there that aren't happy with what he's doing. That was the whole idea behind "government fearing the people" in the first place. Sure, they won't change the minds of anyone that's already standing in line for an hour just to have the Almighty sign their book, but neither would signs or pamphlets.

Anti Federalist

12-01-2009, 11:04 PM

Did you miss that part? Someone did calmly ask what he thought of the emails. Gore refused to answer and security tossed the questioner out for his troubles. That's when the shouting started.

Bah, pay the rear echelon back biters, whiners and panty wetters no mind.

They'd still be "negotiating" with King George today.

I'm off to throw a few more bucks at We Are Change.

Good for them.

constituent

12-01-2009, 11:16 PM

We are change has the WORST marketing ideas EVER.

They are taking a gourmet steak and microwaving it.

I won't even join We are Change Atlanta for this exact reason.

Ahhh, you've stumbled upon the most important aspect. While these vids don't market our ideas well, they attract recruits. And with recruits, donations and... more recruits.

constituent

12-01-2009, 11:17 PM

constituent

12-01-2009, 11:22 PM

The protesters started peacefully enough. The first one was tossed out for simply asking a question about the climategate emails. It was after that when the shouting started.

Exercising their right to police their private property in the manner they choose is a problem? Does the property owner exercising said right then justify the first guy's friend(s) acting like a douche?

ghengis86

12-01-2009, 11:22 PM

What you're missing is that no one gives a shit about facts.
Climate change is santa claus for the starbucks generation.

sad but true...

though i do think climategate will get too big to ignore

jmdrake

12-01-2009, 11:27 PM

Exercising their right to police their private property in the manner they choose is a problem? Does the property owner exercising said right then justify the first guy's friend(s) acting like a douche?

:rolleyes: In that case dhe private property owner was acting like a douche. Sure he has the "right" to be a douche but the protester has a right to react in kind. Besides I don't think it was the private property owner's security that was taking the action nor is there any indication that the store owner was even present. I believe it was Gore's on goon squad. If they were secret service then they work for me.

I wonder if those involved in the American revolution had these kind of esoteric debates?

You want to dress up like Indians and throw private property into the Boston harbor? Is that pro liberty? What about property rights? Won't you look like a douche? What's a douche anyway?

Regards,

John M. Drake

constituent

12-01-2009, 11:31 PM

:rolleyes: In that case dhe private property owner was acting like a douche. Sure he has the "right" to be a douche but the protester has a right to react in kind. Besides I don't think it was the private property owner's security that was taking the action nor is there any indication that the store owner was even present. I believe it was Gore's on goon squad. If they were secret service then they work for me.

I wonder if those involved in the American revolution had these kind of esoteric debates?

You want to dress up like Indians and throw private property into the Boston harbor? Is that pro liberty? What about property rights? Won't you look like a douche? What's a douche anyway?

Regards,

John M. Drake

Reckon this helps to sell books?

I reckon it doesn't really matter who the goons belonged to, they were serving the business owners' interest.

Don't blame your politics on that guy.

Also, I have to scoff at your boston tea party reference. If you only understood all the interests actually at play.

constituent

12-01-2009, 11:34 PM

though i do think climategate will get too big to ignore

agreed, which is why it was good marketing on the part of we are change, in terms of advancing the organization anyway.

jmdrake

12-01-2009, 11:38 PM

Reckon this helps to sell books?

Unlikely.

I reckon it doesn't really matter who the goons belonged to, they were serving the business owners' interest.

Or so you assume. If you really think the outburst sells books then it was in the owners interest to let them stay.

Don't blame your politics on that guy.

The above makes no sense. I wasn't blaming anybody's politics on anybody.

Also, I have to scoff at your boston tea party reference. If you only understood all the interests actually at play.

I scoff at your self important belief that you understand all of the interests actually at play.

constituent

12-01-2009, 11:41 PM

The above makes no sense. I wasn't blaming anybody's politics on anybody.

Sorry, that was meant rhetorically and was directed at the subject of thread and discussion within that post. It should have been obvious. I will try to be more precise in the future.

I scoff at your self important belief that you understand all of the interests actually at play.

I'm sorry, can you quote where I claimed such knowledge?

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 01:12 AM

Um, no, it's that there aren't enough people who engage in adult-level conversation and are able to look at what is happening objectively to see what is really going on..

Look, these kids have energy, and they are pretty smart. They have figured out the system and 96%+ are nowhere near. The "adult-level" conversation people are too stuck in their brainwashed paradigm, so they can't even see the truth. Haven't you ever thought about WHY so many people in the liberty movement are the way they are, and not suit and tie cut-outs? There are only a few suit and tie cut-outs, and hundreds of thousands of non-suit and tie cut-outs in our movement. Better get used to it.

So until there is a large contingent of "adult-level" conversation people out there actively engaging in our movement, I will continue to support WeAreChange.
Who said anything about a suit and tie, and what relevance does that have anyway.

The bottom line is, this is not an effective confrontation. In fact, it is regressive. It rationalized the technocracy's and elites response to the public, and that is that they are animals who cannot reason or engage in a constructive conversation.

Why do you think these COINTEL programs are designed as they are.... to vector smart young kids into useless and counterproductive activities... to expend their money and expunge their energy.

This is not accidental, and continued support simply keeps you within their paradigms of control.

Marcuse discussed this in Chapter 3 of his book, One Dimensional Man. It might be worth investigating.

ramallamamama

12-02-2009, 01:31 AM

Marcuse discussed this in Chapter 3 of his book, One Dimensional Man. It might be worth investigating.

http://wwws.forummotion.com/philosophy-f3/marcuse-one-dimensional-man-t114.htm

Thanks for the help earlier, IP. ;)

Call Me V

12-02-2009, 01:47 AM

What a waste of time.

devil21

12-02-2009, 02:05 AM

The bottom line is, this is not an effective confrontation. In fact, it is regressive. It rationalized the technocracy's and elites response to the public, and that is that they are animals who cannot reason or engage in a constructive conversation.

The problem is that THEY refuse to have the constructive conversation. I assume most sheep do not know this. So how does one attempt to make a point when the only option is something the opponent refuses to do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

talkingpointes

12-02-2009, 04:14 AM

The problem is that THEY refuse to have the constructive conversation. I assume most sheep do not know this. So how does one attempt to make a point when the only option is something the opponent refuses to do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

Indeed and also, the best confrontation is the one that commands all of the attention. These guys look sharp which I think is an improvement. In the end I didn't even see much applause or people cheering for him... Just sayin.

t0rnado

12-02-2009, 04:48 AM

This video was pretty amusing and it is definitely the best confrontation video I've seen since the one of Ron Paul supports in NH chasing Sean Hannity. About the 1st Amendment, it does not apply on someone else's private property. The guys in the video kept yelling about the 1st Amendment, but I'm pretty sure they were in a private bookstore. I may be wrong though because it could have been a large public library.

What I would have done was talk to people inside of the store and then shout down Al Gore outside like they did in the end. Chasing his SUV was great though.

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 10:32 AM

Sorry, that was meant rhetorically and was directed at the subject of thread and discussion within that post. It should have been obvious. I will try to be more precise in the future.

Ok. But even it that context your statement about someone "blaming their politics on that guy" is incomplete. Who's blaming their politics on anyone? Which "guy"? Are you mistaking tactics for politics?

I'm sorry, can you quote where I claimed such knowledge?

It's implied from what you said. You "scoffed" at my tea party reference and added "If you only understood the interests actually at play." In order to make such an assertion you would have to believe that you understood those interests. If you do then great. Enlighten us all oh wise one. If you don't then save your scoffing for another time.

Regards,

John M. Drake

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 10:53 AM

The problem is that THEY refuse to have the constructive conversation. I assume most sheep do not know this. So how does one attempt to make a point when the only option is something the opponent refuses to do? WHAT DO YOU DO?
Have you ever tried to engage these people in such a way that they can't throw you out of the room, they can't disregard you as a kook, and the audience doesn't turn against you? What do you think they can do then?

One might actually try reading appropriate passages from the Club of Rome book, First Global Revolution, to Al Gore. For it was he that arranged the 1989 DC meeting, that preceded the publication of that book, where they clearly state that they will manufacture global catastrophe in order to create a dialectic of man again humanity.

Just how would Al respond if you read from that book, read their own words back to them and asked him to clarify exactly what was meant by them, and why he would coordinate the DC meeting for such an elite think tank. I think the audience would be very interested in the answers, and no one is going to throw anyone out for that.

You see, the COINTEL groups will never show anyone asking relevant and meaningful questions, because the sheep are supposed to be stupid animals than can justifiably be disposed of in any way the elite desire. And by following the lead of these COINTEL operations, like We are Change, you are perpetuating the fallacy that the public is incapable of genuine, thoughtful and calm conversation, no matter what clothes the perpetrators may be wearing.

By the way, here's some relevant passages from their own writings:

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."

“Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Chapter V - The Vacuum
First Global Revolution
Club of Rome (1991)
http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"

- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (and Al Gore's biz partner)
Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992

SouthGeorgia61

12-02-2009, 11:01 AM

That video is not good, all it does is make them look like fools in the eyes of the public. I am sure the people there were thinking "lol look at the conspiracy theorists", and how can you blame them? And the 1st amendment doesn't apply inside private property.

The best strategy is to be calm and don't scream at people, because what is most important is to get people on the side of liberty, and this type of stuff doesn't work.

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 11:34 AM

Have you ever tried to engage these people in such a way that they can't throw you out of the room, they can't disregard you as a kook, and the audience doesn't turn against you? What do you think they can do then?

One might actually try reading appropriate passages from the Club of Rome book, First Global Revolution, to Al Gore. For it was he that arranged the 1989 DC meeting, that preceded the publication of that book, where they clearly state that they will manufacture global catastrophe in order to create a dialectic of man again humanity.

Did you even bother watching the video? :rolleyes: The first protester politely asked Al Gore a simple question of what he thought about the Climategate emails that are already in the MSM. If he got tossed for that what on earth makes you think he wouldn't have gotten tossed for essentially making a conspiracy theory charge?

Just how would Al respond if you read from that book, read their own words back to them and asked him to clarify exactly what was meant by them, and why he would coordinate the DC meeting for such an elite think tank. I think the audience would be very interested in the answers, and no one is going to throw anyone out for that.

That wouldn't have mattered in the least. And he not only would have been thrown out, he likely would have been tazed. Besides this wasn't an "audience". It was a book signing. A bunch of Al Gore zombie groupies wanting to get their book signed.

You see, the COINTEL groups will never show anyone asking relevant and meaningful questions, because the sheep are supposed to be stupid animals than can justifiably be disposed of in any way the elite desire. And by following the lead of these COINTEL operations, like We are Change, you are perpetuating the fallacy that the public is incapable of genuine, thoughtful and calm conversation, no matter what clothes the perpetrators may be wearing.

:rolleyes: Smoking gun evidence of scientists manipulating the data is not relevant? Really? I tell you what. Why don't you show up to the next book signing, start reading passages from a book, start talking about a manufactured global catastrophe and a "dialetic of man" and see how long it takes before you get tossed on your keister.

By the way, here's some relevant passages from their own writings:

Interesting but irrelevant to this discussion. You're assuming that Al Gore and his security detail are bound by your sense of decency and what is a "fair question". They clearly are not. Gore would ignore your question and if you kept trying to ask it and kept reading you quotes you would have been tossed. But hey, prove the rest of us wrong. Go wow Gore with your brilliance and post a youtube.

Regards,

John M. Drake

constituent

12-02-2009, 11:49 AM

Ok. But even it that context your statement about someone "blaming their politics on that guy" is incomplete. Who's blaming their politics on anyone? Which "guy"? Are you mistaking tactics for politics?

They (we are change) are there to fulfill a political objective. The property owner, in this case the book dealer, is there to turn a profit.

By fowling up the atmosphere at the book signing, they are forcing their politics on "that guy," the book dealer, likely to the determent of his business. (I understand that the book dealer is probably a corporation. It makes no difference, imo.)

Put yourself in the company's shoes. They're there to make a buck, and God bless 'em for it. So is We are Change. One is going about it the right way, the other the wrong.

This is pretty straightforward, imo.

Enlighten us all oh wise one.

You carry that chip on your shoulder everywhere you go?

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 12:13 PM

:rolleyes: Smoking gun evidence of scientists manipulating the data is not relevant? Really? I tell you what. Why don't you show up to the next book signing, start reading passages from a book, start talking about a manufactured global catastrophe and a "dialetic of man" and see how long it takes before you get tossed on your keister.
I already have, many times, and it works just fine. I am not confrontational, I don't ask loaded questions that will turn the audience against me, and the speaker is left having to tap dance around trying to address the questions, but they can't. The conclusion is that the audience is left confused, unable to rationalize the speaker's responses.

One will never ever understand how COINTEL works until one researches those thinkers who did the groundwork for its techniques. Until then, one can talk oneself in circles and exhaust everyone else's energy while attempting to frivolously mock those who have.

What do you think would happen if one ever decided to leave the labyrinth? Just because one is in a different part of the labyrinth, doesn't mean one is still not in it. Enjoy the maze.

By the way, Gore does NOT have a "security detail," as he travels alone. Only former US Presidents get lifelong Secret Service protection.

ScoutsHonor

12-02-2009, 01:13 PM

FrankRep

12-02-2009, 01:29 PM

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 02:07 PM

Show us how it's done. :D

Post your video.
Do you really require your hand to be held for this?

What happened to quiet, small gatherings of people having calm conversation. Is everything now only relevant if it is posted in the public domain, on a private company's computer infrastructure?

dannno

12-02-2009, 02:18 PM

Anyway, countering cap and trade will require some "guerrilla marketing". I suggest making copies of a good anti global warming DVD and pasting it to the inside of all of Gore's books. Gore fans will buy the book and may get well into the DVD before realizing they've been had. By that time it's possible for some deprogramming to occur.

Brilliant!!

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 02:25 PM

They (we are change) are there to fulfill a political objective. The property owner, in this case the book dealer, is there to turn a profit.

By fowling up the atmosphere at the book signing, they are forcing their politics on "that guy," the book dealer, likely to the determent of his business. (I understand that the book dealer is probably a corporation. It makes no difference, imo.)

Put yourself in the company's shoes. They're there to make a buck, and God bless 'em for it. So is We are Change. One is going about it the right way, the other the wrong.

This is pretty straightforward, imo.

I still don't see where you get "blame" out of all of this. Are you saying We are Change is blaming the store owner for squat. If anything he's simply collateral damage. Please go back and refresh yourself of the U.S. revolution (private property thrown in the Boston harbor), the economic boycotts of the 60s or any other movement for political change. There are always winners and losers. Always someone who gets caught in the middle. Besides I doubt this incident cost the dealer any business.

You carry that chip on your shoulder everywhere you go?

You "scoff" at tea party reference and you don't back up your scoffing. Whatever dude. Sorry you can't handle the truth.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 02:32 PM

I already have, many times, and it works just fine. I am not confrontational, I don't ask loaded questions that will turn the audience against me, and the speaker is left having to tap dance around trying to address the questions, but they can't. The conclusion is that the audience is left confused, unable to rationalize the speaker's responses.

:rolleyes: Apples and oranges. This wasn't a "question and answer" session. It was a book signing. And Al Gore showed that he wasn't interested in answering this particular question. I gave you a direct challenge. I see you've dodged it. I'm not surprised. I bet if this same person asked the same question he asked in the same measured tones that he did under totally different circumstances he'd have gotten a different response. But this was a book signing. So go to a Gore book signing, try your "Club of Rome" tactic and see what happens.

One will never ever understand how COINTEL works until one researches those thinkers who did the groundwork for its techniques. Until then, one can talk oneself in circles and exhaust everyone else's energy while attempting to frivolously mock those who have.

Maybe you know so much about COINTEL because you are COINTEL.

By the way, Gore does NOT have a "security detail," as he travels alone. Only former US Presidents get lifelong Secret Service protection.

And private citizens can't hire security? :rolleyes: I never said it was secret service. Maybe you don't know as much as you think.

Regards,

John M. Drake

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 04:51 PM

:rolleyes: Apples and oranges. This wasn't a "question and answer" session. It was a book signing. And Al Gore showed that he wasn't interested in answering this particular question. I gave you a direct challenge. I see you've dodged it. I'm not surprised. I bet if this same person asked the same question he asked in the same measured tones that he did under totally different circumstances he'd have gotten a different response. But this was a book signing. So go to a Gore book signing, try your "Club of Rome" tactic and see what happens.
Been done. Why don't you try it. What are you afraid of?

Maybe you know so much about COINTEL because you are COINTEL.
Maybe you should read.

Try Marcuse, Adorno or Ellul. Or, just read some MILDOC's on Psywar.

And private citizens can't hire security? :rolleyes: I never said it was secret service. Maybe you don't know as much as you think.
Gore does NOT have security. He travels alone.

Stop talking about things that you have no knowledge of.

devil21

12-02-2009, 05:02 PM

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 06:13 PM

We've already seen what "polite questions" (albeit it controversial ones) lead to. Don't taze me bro! These guys being physically removed for asking a question is nothing new. It's the MO of the unquestionable elites. Don't like the question? Just have your thugs remove the questioner and act like it never happened.
The don't taze me bro incident was staged. The guy who did it was a comedian.

People like Gore are well trained in ignoring or dodging questions with bs politician replies. I think the time for polite discussion is nearing an end.
You've been listening to too much A.J., but then again, that's his role.

GTFO. Vice Presidents have Secret Service protection as long as they live. Al Gore does NOT travel alone. That video should have clearly proven that.
For the last time, Gore travels alone.

Go see about Marcuse had to say about "The Conquest of the Unhappy Consciousness (http://homoacademicus.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/repressive-desublimation/)."

Reading through the One Dimensional Man I found an excellent chapter called "3: The Conquest of the Unhappy Consciousness: Repressive Desublimation," which can be described as follows (http://homoacademicus.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/repressive-desublimation/) by one blogger:

"Sublimation is when a natural human drive (i.e. sex) gets transformed into a more socially acceptable form (i.e. music or religion). Desublimation, then, would be when rather than being encouraged to make music or go to church you are urged to give in to your drives and just go have sex. Repressive desublimation would be when this desublimation happens in a form that instead of giving you freedom, restricts it. Yes, go out and indulge your sex drive, but do it by purchasing porn and other consumables."

So, what Marcuse developed is the technique of vectoring the unhappy conscious into tasks that either support the system or render the impact of those actions moot: "when a natural drive is conformed to a 'socially acceptable' form." This is why people like Alex Jones are critical, as they take all potential rebellion and channel it into meaningless, or even harmful, action. This Marcusian concept is precisely why Controlled Opposition is critical to control, because all spectrums within society must be channelled (or vectored) into harmless activity. Hence, they must usurp all potential "natural drives." This give new meaning to the concept of Full Spectrum Dominance (FSD), for their system is truely designed to be FULL SPECTRUM.

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 06:28 PM

Been done. Why don't you try it. What are you afraid of?

Great. Post a video of you quoting the club of Rome to Al Gore at a book signing or it didn't happen.

Gore does NOT have security. He travels alone.

Call the guys who threw out the questioner santa's little helpers then. :rolleyes:

Stop talking about things that you have no knowledge of.

Oh go stuff yourself.

devil21

12-02-2009, 08:32 PM

The don't taze me bro incident was staged. The guy who did it was a comedian.

Source? That tazer getting shot into his back by a cop sure was hilarious :rolleyes:

You've been listening to too much A.J., but then again, that's his role.

What? Politicians aren't trained in dodging questions? What the hell planet do you live on?

For the last time, Gore travels alone.

Source? Anything?

Go see about Marcuse had to say about "The Conquest of the Unhappy Consciousness (http://homoacademicus.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/repressive-desublimation/)."

Im full up on reading material and psychobabble isn't high on my list. I don't need someone trying to convince me that what I saw wasn't actually what I saw. Seems to work for you though so more power to you I guess.

I wish you would have stayed banned because you look like just a plain moron with posts like this. Once in a while I find your posts have value but then you go and say something idiotic like trying to paint lying and question dodging politicians as something only "AJ" related. It's funny because I don't listen to Alex Jones and I rarely visit his website.

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 09:07 PM

Great. Post a video of you quoting the club of Rome to Al Gore at a book signing or it didn't happen.
Grow a "pair" and do it yourself!

Source? That tazer getting shot into his back by a cop sure was hilarious :rolleyes:
The kid has a website. Look it up.

Source? Anything?
The source is me.

Im full up on reading material and psychobabble isn't high on my list. I don't need someone trying to convince me that what I saw wasn't actually what I saw. Seems to work for you though so more power to you I guess.
So you will happily live in ignorance as your masters spin you in circles through their labyrinth.

I wish you would have stayed banned because you look like just a plain moron with posts like this. Once in a while I find your posts have value but then you go and say something idiotic like trying to paint lying and question dodging politicians as something only "AJ" related. It's funny because I don't listen to Alex Jones and I rarely visit his website.
I have never been banned.

And how would you know what is idiotic and what is NOT idiotic, for you refuse to read anything of value. You simply don't have the foundation to judge anything.

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 09:13 PM

Grow a "pair" and do it yourself!

I'm not the one making bogus claims.

The source is me.

You are not a credible source to anyone but yourself.

Bossobass

12-02-2009, 09:19 PM

I really love the idea of calmly engaging tub-o-lard, pothead Gore, the vinyl siding salesman, to show everyone how right you are and how wrong he is.

That really gave me a chuckle.

I would take a shopping bag full of twinkies and offer them to him. Hard for him to babble while he stuffs his pork hole.

When you find a cockroach in your lunch bag, you don't politely ask it to climb out of the bag and leave your lunch alone.

Bosso

InterestedParticipant

12-02-2009, 09:26 PM

I'm not the one making bogus claims.
Back up that statement!

But first, you might want to do some reading because I see nothing from you that refutes that "We Are Change" is nothing more than a manifestation of Repressive Sublimation. So, you're going to need to be armed with something other than more noise.

jmdrake

12-02-2009, 09:28 PM

Back up that statement!

I don't have to. You've done it for me already. Multiple times.

sofia

12-02-2009, 09:37 PM

"Its a globalist Eugenics program!"

Um, really? This is the best you guys can do to humiliate these politico con men? Make a scene that alienates you from everyone else in the store, and distracts from the actual proven malfeasance?

Gore is a lying tool, but the dorks in that video made him (and all of his people except the one assaulter) look quite rational.

the initial reaction of the sheep will be antagonistic to the truthtellers...but you know what....those brave activists planted a seed of doubt that will germinate later on....

the time for rational debate with these scumbags has past...its time to get in their face

mczerone

12-02-2009, 11:52 PM

the initial reaction of the sheep will be antagonistic to the truthtellers...but you know what....those brave activists planted a seed of doubt that will germinate later on....

the time for rational debate with these scumbags has past...its time to get in their face

Those scumbags are not worth addressing. They are entrenched, and aren't going to drastically change because some punk yells at them inappropriately. The "sheep" that went to get their Gore book signed aren't much more likely to be swayed.

Those "brave activists" weren't "truthtellers" - they were propaganda yellers. There's no Eugenics program related to the Climate debate, and the people who listen to Gore won't understand why he's being called a Nazi.

I don't know what your ultimate goals are, but "getting in the face" of those "scumbags" won't accomplish as much a rational debate with your friends and family, or as spreading peace and love amongst those who value those ends.

Fighting with the wolves that are leading the sheep isn't going to dissuade the wolves from leading nor the sheep from following. Lead yourself, let others follow, and don't let anger guide your decisions.

Anti Federalist

12-03-2009, 12:03 AM

I don't know what your ultimate goals are, but "getting in the face" of those "scumbags" won't accomplish as much a rational debate with your friends and family, or as spreading peace and love amongst those who value those ends.

My goal is to spread liberty.

Peace and love are secondary, as they must be, there are many who have no peace and love and seek to limit liberty.

InterestedParticipant

12-03-2009, 09:47 AM

I don't have to. You've done it for me already. Multiple times.
That's an interesting empty retort. You can't substantiate your own statements, so this is what you come back with? Pathetic.

InterestedParticipant

12-03-2009, 09:51 AM

jmdrake

12-03-2009, 09:54 AM

That's an interesting empty retort. You can't substantiate your own statements, so this is what you come back with? Pathetic.

:rolleyes: If you want to see pathetic look in the mirror. I'm not the one making claims. You are. Now you want me to prove that your claims are unproven? That's simple nonsense like most of the crap you put out. You maid the claim that what you've done "successfully" is the same thing that (in your eyes) W.A.C. has "failed" to do. But not only have you not backed up any of your claims (including the claim that the security in the video didn't work for Gore) but you have failed even to explain how what you did was similar. Again you seem incapable of understanding the difference between a book signing and a meeting with a question and answer session. I've been and meetings and asked questions that confounded people too. But that's different from a book signing. And just because I didn't get thrown out of one meeting doesn't mean I wouldn't get thrown out of the next.

But hey, go on with your self important fantasy. I'm sure you're winning over everybody with your eloquence and grand oratory.

ClayTrainor

12-03-2009, 09:54 AM

What have these We Are Change people achieved?

They appeal only to the audience who are already skeptical.

And they are dismissed by, and antagonistic to audiences who are either already convinced by Gore or who are undecided on the issue.

How is this approach beneficial, and how does the content they promote get any closer to what you call "truth" when the entire discussion of Climate Change (either side) is to bring one into the Simulacrum?

I agree with your assessment here...

This kind of approach from WAC is anything but helpful, imo.

jmdrake

12-03-2009, 10:04 AM

I agree with your assessment here...

This kind of approach from WAC is anything but helpful, imo.

And do you think that if WAC had started reading from Club of Rome documents about how climate change was a grand conspiracy to take over the world that this would have worked with this particular audience? Because that's what "Interested Participant" is advocating. The WAC took what is currently the best evidence we have that the climate change argument is a fraud and calmly asked Al Gore about it. People keep ignoring that fact. The yelling happened later. Counter productive? Maybe. But as the saying goes "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". What WAC did wasn't violent, but it was a step up in agitation caused by the other side. And WAC also does a lot of one on one discussions with people and those discussion do have positive results. Folks just seem to gravitate to the "speak truth to power" vids.

See:

YouTube - WeAreChange talks to America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIcOdmCvuk)

Chester Copperpot

12-03-2009, 10:15 AM

And do you think that if WAC had started reading from Club of Rome documents about how climate change was a grand conspiracy to take over the world that this would have worked with this particular audience? Because that's what "Interested Participant" is advocating. The WAC took what is currently the best evidence we have that the climate change argument is a fraud and calmly asked Al Gore about it. People keep ignoring that fact. The yelling happened later. Counter productive? Maybe. But as the saying goes "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". What WAC did wasn't violent, but it was a step up in agitation caused by the other side. And WAC also does a lot of one on one discussions with people and those discussion do have positive results. Folks just seem to gravitate to the "speak truth to power" vids.

See:

YouTube - WeAreChange talks to America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIcOdmCvuk)
I think the we are change people are great. building awareness, educating people and calling out the tyrants..l

come on.. who doesnt love to see Alan Greenspan outed as a moneychanger??

YouTube - We are CHANGE confronts Alan Greenspan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjA72dHB2Gk)

Anti Federalist

12-03-2009, 10:28 AM

come on.. who doesnt love to see Alan Greenspan outed as a moneychanger??

Apparently, the contingent of people here who think that the only proper course of action is to humbly touch our forelocks in eternal supplication to our oppressors for return of our lost liberty.

"Please sir, may I have some more?"

Bullshit.

Dianne

12-03-2009, 10:43 AM

I have to say, I admire the nerve of those guys. I wish I were brave enough to shout down a crook !!

ClayTrainor

12-03-2009, 10:47 AM

Apparently, the contingent of people here who think that the only proper course of action is to humbly touch our forelocks in eternal supplication to our oppressors for return of our lost liberty.

"Please sir, may I have some more?"

Bullshit.

I think you're misrepresenting the people who don't want to take the "He's a NAZI!" approach.

There are more intelligent, convincing and still aggressive ways to approach these folks, without screaming in front of crowds.

Remember when Alex Jones confronted Gergen? YouTube - Alex Jones asks David Gergen about Bohemian Grove Rituals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM)

That's how you confront these scumbags... not with "NAZI!, FASCIST!" crap, that We are change displayed in the al gore video. That kind of tactic will work against us, and turn potential activists into our opposition.

Of course, I have yet to confront Al Gore myself, so this is merely my bias opinion as an observer.

ClayTrainor

12-03-2009, 10:56 AM

And do you think that if WAC had started reading from Club of Rome documents about how climate change was a grand conspiracy to take over the world that this would have worked with this particular audience?

Maybe some of them. I know quite a few people who used to like Al Gore a lot, that absolutely hate him now.

Because that's what "Interested Participant" is advocating. The WAC took what is currently the best evidence we have that the climate change argument is a fraud and calmly asked Al Gore about it.
They did? perhaps i need to watch it again.

People keep ignoring that fact. The yelling happened later. Counter productive? Maybe. But as the saying goes "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". What WAC did wasn't violent, but it was a step up in agitation caused by the other side.

Perhaps they had a decent reason, but I really do think it was counterproductive behavior.

And WAC also does a lot of one on one discussions with people and those discussion do have positive results. Folks just seem to gravitate to the "speak truth to power" vids.

See:

YouTube - WeAreChange talks to America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSIcOdmCvuk)

I definitely don't hate WAC or anything. I just didn't like their approach in the al gore video. They've done good work in the past, for sure.

InterestedParticipant

12-03-2009, 10:57 AM

:rolleyes: If you want to see pathetic look in the mirror. I'm not the one making claims. You are. Now you want me to prove that your claims are unproven? That's simple nonsense like most of the crap you put out. You maid the claim that what you've done "successfully" is the same thing that (in your eyes) W.A.C. has "failed" to do. But not only have you not backed up any of your claims (including the claim that the security in the video didn't work for Gore) but you have failed even to explain how what you did was similar. Again you seem incapable of understanding the difference between a book signing and a meeting with a question and answer session. I've been and meetings and asked questions that confounded people too. But that's different from a book signing. And just because I didn't get thrown out of one meeting doesn't mean I wouldn't get thrown out of the next.

But hey, go on with your self important fantasy. I'm sure you're winning over everybody with your eloquence and grand oratory.
Your claims are as follows, which can be taken directly form your posts or inferred from your statements. I see nothing to back them up.

We Are Change is a legitimate organization seeking benevolent change for the public
This is the best method for approaching iconic "leaders"
The content that We Are Change spouts is "truth"
Al Gore travels with a security detail
That what happened in the video (ie simulation) is an accurate representation of what happened at the "event"
That calmly approaching an iconic "leader" will result in the same treatment for any one else who does it.

You just assume that everything you state or infer is inherently proven. You don't even question your own assumptions, nor attempt to prove them. And then you dismiss anyone who challenges these assumptions.

Anti Federalist

12-03-2009, 11:22 AM

Of course, I have yet to confront Al Gore myself, so this is merely my bias opinion as an observer.

Nor have I, (other than haranguing Barney Frank on an airplane last year) or anybody else who is commenting, which is why I don't have any patience for those who haven't done it, to sit back and "pooh pooh" how somebody else is doing it.

ClayTrainor

12-03-2009, 11:25 AM

Nor have I, (other than haranguing Barney Frank on an airplane last year) or anybody else who is commenting, which is why I don't have any patience for those who haven't done it, to sit back and "pooh pooh" how somebody else is doing it.

If i did it, i would want people to criticize my approach, because i know for a fact that I make mistakes. Otherwise it's more about personal ego, than anything else.

This approach needs to be criticized, but the effort needs to be commended.

I don't believe in this "if you don't do this exact type of activism, you shouldn't say anything", way of thinking.

jmdrake

12-03-2009, 11:49 AM

Your claims are as follows, which can be taken directly form your posts or inferred from your statements. I see nothing to back them up.

My main claim is that you have said nothing to back up your claims. You ignore that for some odd reason. But continue.

We Are Change is a legitimate organization seeking benevolent change for the public

I've never said they were legitimate or otherwise. You've said they were COINTEL pro. You've never given any proof to back that up.

This is the best method for approaching iconic "leaders"

I never said it was the best method. I did say that calmly asking Al Gore about the Climategate emails is really no worse then you reading some conspiracy stuff from the Club of Rome documents. Don't get me wrong. I agree that the Club of Rome docs are legit. But so are the emails. And these emails have actually been in the news recently.

The content that We Are Change spouts is "truth"

Are you suggesting that there have not been emails discovered that cast doubt on "climate science"? If not then admit you are wrong. I've never said that everything WAC said is truth. But the question they raised in this particular video is clearly truth. Emails casting doubt on Climate Science do exist it's legitimate to ask Al Gore what he thinks of them.

Al Gore travels with a security detail

You're flat out lying. I never said security traveled with Al Gore. Maybe he hired some local rent-a-cops. Maybe he asked the bookstore to supply him with security. (Although there's never any security in suits in any bookstore I go to.) The bottom line is that these were security officers assigned to Al Gore. Besides it's an irrelevant point. As I already said, you can call them "santa's little helpers". The bottom line is that they threw someone out of the store on behalf of Al Gore who was asking a legitimate question that Al Gore didn't want to answer. If you think that if you had been in the same store reading quotes to Al Gore from the Club of Rome talking about how it wanted to use global warming to take over the world and what did he think of that and you don't believe you would have gotten tossed out then you are just delusional.

That what happened in the video (ie simulation) is an accurate representation of what happened at the "event"

You've offered no evidence that it wasn't. You haven't even called it a "simulation" until this point. Do you always make up new claims as you go along?

That calmly approaching an iconic "leader" will result in the same treatment for any one else who does it.

I'm talking about this particular leader under this particular circumstance! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? Sometimes people in this world get mistreated for no good reason. It happens. For instance there was the ambulance driver that got pulled over, choked and then arrested by an out of control cop. (Maybe you think that was a "simulation" too?) I'm pretty sure there's nothing anyone else could have said or done to calm down that particular out of control cop at that particular time. That doesn't mean that every time an ambulance passes a cop car on the way to the hospital the driver is going to be pulled over, choked and arrested.

You just assume that everything you state or infer is inherently proven. You don't even question your own assumptions, nor attempt to prove them. And then you dismiss anyone who challenges these assumptions.

You are clearly addressing the above to yourself (Intrested participant) because that is what you do. And I'm not the only person that has noticed this. Please get some help. (I'm serious).

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake

12-03-2009, 12:10 PM

Maybe some of them. I know quite a few people who used to like Al Gore a lot, that absolutely hate him now.

But I doubt anyone like that would buy his latest book and then wait in line for him to sign it. This is a self selected audience of people who probably still adore Gore.

They did? perhaps i need to watch it again.

Please do. Watch between 2:00 and 2:30. I just watched it again myself. The WeAreChanger didn't even finish getting his question out to Gore about Climategate before being pushed out by "Santa's little helpers". (I'm avoiding use of the word "security" lest I set off our resident self proclaimed COINTEL expert on another rant.) The WeAreChanger didn't start yelling or saying anything conspiratorial until he had been pushed halfway out the room. Then he shouted out "This is a eugenics operation". After that someone tried working the crowd asking people if they knew that "30,000 scientists" signed a document countering Gore's claims. He got thrown out too.

Perhaps they had a decent reason, but I really do think it was counterproductive behavior.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I doubt talking to this same crowd about the "Club of Rome" would have been any better.

I definitely don't hate WAC or anything. I just didn't like their approach in the al gore video. They've done good work in the past, for sure.

To each his own. I don't think there was anything wrong with their initial approach of calmly asking Al Gore a question. Maybe their approach of what to do next when "santa's little helpers" ejected them from the room wasn't the best. Maybe they hadn't thought that far ahead. If video encourages others to confront Al Gore and "do a better job" than great. I see nothing productive, however, from sitting around ripping into people actually out doing something. (Note I'm distinguishing "constructive criticism" from unfounded accusations that they must be COINTEL.)

Regards,

John M. Drake

InterestedParticipant

12-03-2009, 03:12 PM

My main claim is that you have said nothing to back up your claims. You ignore that for some odd reason. But continue.

I've never said they were legitimate or otherwise. You've said they were COINTEL pro. You've never given any proof to back that up.

I never said it was the best method. I did say that calmly asking Al Gore about the Climategate emails is really no worse then you reading some conspiracy stuff from the Club of Rome documents. Don't get me wrong. I agree that the Club of Rome docs are legit. But so are the emails. And these emails have actually been in the news recently.

Are you suggesting that there have not been emails discovered that cast doubt on "climate science"? If not then admit you are wrong. I've never said that everything WAC said is truth. But the question they raised in this particular video is clearly truth. Emails casting doubt on Climate Science do exist it's legitimate to ask Al Gore what he thinks of them.

You're flat out lying. I never said security traveled with Al Gore. Maybe he hired some local rent-a-cops. Maybe he asked the bookstore to supply him with security. (Although there's never any security in suits in any bookstore I go to.) The bottom line is that these were security officers assigned to Al Gore. Besides it's an irrelevant point. As I already said, you can call them "santa's little helpers". The bottom line is that they threw someone out of the store on behalf of Al Gore who was asking a legitimate question that Al Gore didn't want to answer. If you think that if you had been in the same store reading quotes to Al Gore from the Club of Rome talking about how it wanted to use global warming to take over the world and what did he think of that and you don't believe you would have gotten tossed out then you are just delusional.

You've offered no evidence that it wasn't. You haven't even called it a "simulation" until this point. Do you always make up new claims as you go along?

I'm talking about this particular leader under this particular circumstance! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? Sometimes people in this world get mistreated for no good reason. It happens. For instance there was the ambulance driver that got pulled over, choked and then arrested by an out of control cop. (Maybe you think that was a "simulation" too?) I'm pretty sure there's nothing anyone else could have said or done to calm down that particular out of control cop at that particular time. That doesn't mean that every time an ambulance passes a cop car on the way to the hospital the driver is going to be pulled over, choked and arrested.

You are clearly addressing the above to yourself (Intrested participant) because that is what you do. And I'm not the only person that has noticed this. Please get some help. (I'm serious).

Regards,

John M. Drake
You fail to question, test and challenge your own assumptions. Until you do this, you're a target for contrived vectors supplied to you by others, which is exactly what is happening here. Can you prove that anything that you assume is real?

Perhaps you can donate to We Are Change, as you have been taught only to "exchange" your position inside the dialectic for a "rational" purchase (Thank you, Marx!).

InterestedParticipant

12-03-2009, 03:16 PM

purplechoe

12-04-2009, 03:59 AM

YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 1/6:WeAreChange Activist Confront Al Gore with Real Facts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMQVDjdUHyM)

YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 2/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glj7v5FpPqg)

YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 3/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0U-66-dj-g)

YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 4/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs3HtyLDNg8)

YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 5/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygg_4KehLM)

YouTube - We Are Change Members on Alex Jones Tv 6/6:WeAreChange Activists Confront Al Gore with Real Facts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTARHgGi86s)

jmdrake

12-04-2009, 07:23 AM

You fail to question, test and challenge your own assumptions. Until you do this, you're a target for contrived vectors supplied to you by others, which is exactly what is happening here. Can you prove that anything that you assume is real?

Perhaps you can donate to We Are Change, as you have been taught only to "exchange" your position inside the dialectic for a "rational" purchase (Thank you, Marx!).

You fail to make a coherent argument.

You fail to put two logical points together.

You fail at any attempt of honesty.

You fail to understand why nobody takes you seriously.

You are one big fail.

Your whole premise that just because you've (supposedly) asked tough questions and not been thrown out of meeting means that it's impossible to ask tough questions and get thrown out of a book signing is retarded on two levels.

Level 1: You fail to understand the difference between a meeting with an official question and answer session and a book signing where people usually just fawningly present their book and say "thank you".

Level 2: You fail to understand that every event is different because every person is different and just because things work out a certain way ONE time doesn't mean they will work out that way EVERY time.

For instance, recall the death of Steve "Crocodile Hunter" Irwin. A response similar to yours would be "That can't be true! I've been at SeaWorld and fed stingrays and I didn't even get scratched. It must be a simulation to cause a dialetic where people hate stingrays". That has the same level 1 and level 2 fails. Petting stingrays is different from swimming with them. And just because people don't get killed every time they swim with stringrays doesn't mean it couldn't happen this time.

Really, go back to school. Take a basic class in logical reasoning. Then come back and try to argue.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake

12-04-2009, 07:28 AM

ClimateGate is an OP that has been manufactured in order to disguise the fact that the decisions (ie 'treaties') to implement the carbon offset economy and the infrastructure to do so are all already in place and moving forward.

The following video explains this concept further, using the example of Watergate as a cover for law & order. Please listen to this video, particularly the part where he discusses Watergate and its significance inside the Simulacrum.

:rolleyes: Or maybe the Club of Rome book you're quoting from in a "OP" to make people think that those who attack climate change are just weird conspiracy theorists and not take those who attack climate change seriously. Did you have think of that? Do you ever question your own assumptions?

Regardless it irrelevant. The WeAreChange group didn't make the argument that the emails were legit or not. They simply asked the question. And any logically thinking person would be more likely to think there might be something sinister behind the climate change debate once they found out the science was being rigged. I'm sure you can find a youtube that agrees with your backwards thinking but that just proves than anybody can put anything up on youtube.

Regards,

John M. Drake

RM918

12-04-2009, 07:43 AM

But, I must say they have balls. While we are in here having civilized debate, they are doing something. Ludicrous as it may be.

Yep, just like Bush decided to 'do something' after 9/11 instead of talking about it.

I really don't understand why people keep doing this. The reason why there's so much animosity for folks that support Alex Jones solidly is because they keep discrediting causes by coupling our popular ideas with their pet causes such as 9/11 truth, global eugenics or whatever. I'm all for a new investigation, and I'd completely agree with a scenario where the federal government either let it happen due to incompetence or willful ignorance, but accusing them of perpetrating it themselves is a deep, deep cross over the logical chasm that few are willing to take seriously without any smoking guns.

If they can believe in that sort of conspiracy, why is it so hard for them to realize that people who are currently of the strategy to refer to our popular causes as crazy will take a cause of yours that is popularly regarded as absolutely crazy to further discredit you? My apologies to all the truthers who have the sense to support what we do and not scream about 9/11 being an inside job while being easily linked as a Paul supporter, but why in the hell would people that do believe in it blatantly walk into this sort of trap that hurts the rest of us regardless of how right you feel you are?

ScoutsHonor

12-04-2009, 08:30 AM

You fail to make a coherent argument.

You fail to put two logical points together.

You fail at any attempt of honesty.

You fail to understand why nobody takes you seriously.

You are one big fail.

Your whole premise that just because you've (supposedly) asked tough questions and not been thrown out of meeting means that it's impossible to ask tough questions and get thrown out of a book signing is retarded on two levels.

Level 1: You fail to understand the difference between a meeting with an official question and answer session and a book signing where people usually just fawningly present their book and say "thank you".

Level 2: You fail to understand that every event is different because every person is different and just because things work out a certain way ONE time doesn't mean they will work out that way EVERY time.

For instance, recall the death of Steve "Crocodile Hunter" Irwin. A response similar to yours would be "That can't be true! I've been at SeaWorld and fed stingrays and I didn't even get scratched. It must be a simulation to cause a dialetic where people hate stingrays". That has the same level 1 and level 2 fails. Petting stingrays is different from swimming with them. And just because people don't get killed every time they swim with stringrays doesn't mean it couldn't happen this time.

Really, go back to school. Take a basic class in logical reasoning. Then come back and try to argue.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I do seriously object to this statement. I definitely take InterestedParticipant seriously... How do you presume to speak for "everybody"?

jmdrake

12-04-2009, 08:42 AM

I do seriously object to this statement. I definitely take InterestedParticipant seriously... How do you presume to speak for "everybody"?

Ok. Nobody that I would respect takes him seriously. Hows that? :D (just kidding).

Now I have to ask why on earth would you take him seriously? I tried to once. I was warned preemptively by others how nonsensical he is. I had to learn the hard way when I tried to engage him in actual discussion and saw how he couldn't string to logical points together if his life dependent on it. Maybe if you spend enough time questioning him you might come to the same conclusion. Then again maybe not.

jmdrake

12-04-2009, 08:50 AM

Yep, just like Bush decided to 'do something' after 9/11 instead of talking about it.

I really don't understand why people keep doing this. The reason why there's so much animosity for folks that support Alex Jones solidly is because they keep discrediting causes by coupling our popular ideas with their pet causes such as 9/11 truth, global eugenics or whatever. I'm all for a new investigation, and I'd completely agree with a scenario where the federal government either let it happen due to incompetence or willful ignorance, but accusing them of perpetrating it themselves is a deep, deep cross over the logical chasm that few are willing to take seriously without any smoking guns.

If they can believe in that sort of conspiracy, why is it so hard for them to realize that people who are currently of the strategy to refer to our popular causes as crazy will take a cause of yours that is popularly regarded as absolutely crazy to further discredit you? My apologies to all the truthers who have the sense to support what we do and not scream about 9/11 being an inside job while being easily linked as a Paul supporter, but why in the hell would people that do believe in it blatantly walk into this sort of trap that hurts the rest of us regardless of how right you feel you are?

Once again watch section 2:00 to 2:30. The protester asked a simple legitimate question and got tossed out for his troubles. Once again go back and look at any successful movement done in the past from the U.S. revolutionary war to Ghandi to the U.S. civil rights struggle. There were different people using different tactics. And whether you realize it or not, there were infights from insiders making the same arguments you are making against certain tactics. History shows the critics were wrong and the tactics ultimately worked. Who would have thought dressing up like Indians and throwing some tea overboard was a good idea? But it worked. The great thing about WAC is that they employ various tactics, try different stuff, and they put there stuff out there for others to learn from. You don't think getting tossed out of a book signing is productive? Well now you know that if you question Gore his "santa's little helpers" might toss you out. Frankly seeing how unreasonable Gore and company reacted to a reasonable question is helpful IMO. Maybe not in yours. You're welcome to your opinion.

ScoutsHonor

12-04-2009, 09:04 AM

Ok. Nobody that I would respect takes him seriously. Hows that? :D (just kidding).

Not good. :rolleyes:

Now I have to ask why on earth would you take him seriously?The questions is, why on earth would I take YOU seriously? You've just started a conversation with me with an ad hominem.
To speak to you in the language you seem to prefer: :rolleyes: (That's NOT an argument).

I suggest you learn, manners if nothing else, from IP rather than criticize so lamely and ad nauseum.

ramallamamama

12-04-2009, 09:14 AM

ScoutsHonor leads with a shot to the kidney...

jmdrake

12-04-2009, 09:16 AM

Not good. :rolleyes:

The questions is, why on earth would I take YOU seriously? You've just started a conversation with me with an ad hominem.
To speak to you in the language you seem to prefer: :rolleyes: (That's NOT an argument).

I suggest you learn, manners if nothing else, from IP rather than criticize so lamely and ad nauseum.

I see you have no sense of humor. Fine. Then I'll cut to the chase. I laid out a clear logical argument why IPs ad hominems made no sense. Yes IPs ad hominems. If you think he has "manners" then you don't know what manners are. He's called people he never met "COINTELPRO" based off of his own circular definitions. He claimed I had no "balls". He said I don't "back up my claims" when in fact I was merely asking him to back up his. I don't mind being called names, but its sad when people like him can't take what they dish out or when people you pick and choose when to call people out for not showing "manners". So no. I won't take any "manner" lessons for a self aggrandizing jerk such as IP. And you have really added nothing to the conversation. Let me know when you come up with a real point.

Regards,

John M. Drake

ramallamamama

12-04-2009, 09:17 AM

Actually it was a pretty tight combo, jaw, jaw, kidney.

ScoutsHonor

12-04-2009, 09:29 AM

I see you have no sense of humor. Fine. Then I'll cut to the chase. I laid out a clear logical argument why IPs ad hominems made no sense. Yes IPs ad hominems. If you think he has "manners" then you don't know what manners are. He's called people he never met "COINTELPRO" based off of his own circular definitions. He claimed I had no "balls". He said I don't "back up my claims" when in fact I was merely asking him to back up his. I don't mind being called names, but its sad when people like him can't take what they dish out or when people you pick and choose when to call people out for not showing "manners". So no. I won't take any "manner" lessons for a self aggrandizing jerk such as IP. And you have really added nothing to the conversation. Let me know when you come up with a real point.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Point made.
Kindly return to your previous conversation.

"Regards"

ScoutsHonor

InterestedParticipant

12-04-2009, 12:42 PM

What is fascinating here is that almost no one refers to the sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, great thinkings, military documents, etc. that I have referred to in this thread and in countless others in this forum. They are relegated to the dustbin of cognitive dissonance by some of the lazy thinkers that occupy this online space.

The good news is that through all the noise, some are being reached, some are reading Marcuse and beginning to understand what the One Dimension Man is, and how we are all manipulated through repressive sublimation techniques. They are figuring our how these techniques are combined with Adorno's victim groups, and manifested into organizations that the public believes are benevolent, but really are vehicles intended to waste our time vector us from higher truths.

For those reading through the noise, go back to my post earlier in this thread about Marcuse and his description of "repressive sublimation." Continue to reach beyond what is being served on a platter (both theses and anti-theses) to the masses of lazy thinkers, and begin to see what is being hidden by the various dialectical vectors served to audiences everywhere. It's fascinating. I promise.

jmdrake

12-04-2009, 02:31 PM

(delete)

InterestedParticipant

12-04-2009, 06:51 PM

To summarize, based upon my research, and my own analysis, it is my assessment that the purpose of ClimateGate is as follows:

To cover up the fact that the Green Economy (ie "economy based upon CO2 offsets/taxation") is already in place, with the infrastructure established, with industry already online with new products and marketing campaigns, and with the relevant treaties/agreements already signed.
To create a meaningless dialectic that the LEFT and RIGHT can fight over, specifically, the validity of the "science," the content of the emails that were "hacked," and the attempt to manipulate "truth" and "scientific fact."
To cover up the fact that virtually all "science" is now controlled, and therefore that there is no independent research or science anymore.
To manufacture the appearance that the public is somehow part of the decision process with respect to Global Warming and the Green Economy, and that this process is still ongoing and the end goals undetermined.
To create the illusion that crises and scandal are still "investigated," therefore leading the public to believe that law, order and some form of morality still exist in this Geo-Capitalist system.
To crush the Global Warming dissenters psychologically when Obama, the Underwear Model, travel to Copenhagen to sign-off on the fictitious treaties anyway, ignoring and disregarding the concerns of those that represent the Global Warming anti-thesis.

This hypothesis is based upon my study of Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkmeir, Baudrillard and Ellul.

Those interested in continuing this discussion in a responsible and polite manner, may do so here (http://http://wwws.forummotion.com/current-information-operations-io-f1/climategate-its-purpose-t155.htm).

Ron_Paul_Knows

12-11-2009, 09:45 AM

ABC World News covered this confrontation on the 12/09 broadcast. Go to about 2:30.

YouTube - ABC National news covers WAC Chicago confrontation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPeq-qsRrVk)

jmdrake

12-11-2009, 10:40 AM

ABC World News covered this confrontation on the 12/09 broadcast. Go to about 2:30.

YouTube - ABC National news covers WAC Chicago confrontation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPeq-qsRrVk)

Well there you have it. I'm sure this won't convince the "haters", but it proves W.A.C. strategy was correct. Part of any propaganda war (which is indeed what this is), is to get your message out to the widest possible audience. You likely wouldn't convince people standing in line to get an Al Gore book signed that AGW is a fraud no matter what tactic you used. But these young people got a message out about climategate to a much larger audience without even having to get arrested. Kudos for them! If 1 person in 100 watching this news report decides to go and look up the information about the emails that the WeAreChanger politely asked Gore about then W.A.C. won that round. Sometimes we are our own worst critics.

American Idol

12-11-2009, 10:51 AM

"Its a globalist Eugenics program!"

Um, really?

Uh-huh. Really!

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

Bruno

12-11-2009, 10:55 AM

Well there you have it. I'm sure this won't convince the "haters", but it proves W.A.C. strategy was correct. Part of any propaganda war (which is indeed what this is), is to get your message out to the widest possible audience. You likely wouldn't convince people standing in line to get an Al Gore book signed that AGW is a fraud no matter what tactic you used. But these young people got a message out about climategate to a much larger audience without even having to get arrested. Kudos for them! If 1 person in 100 watching this news report decides to go and look up the information about the emails that the WeAreChanger politely asked Gore about then W.A.C. won that round. Sometimes we are our own worst critics.

"Their message now has a world-wide megaphone".

:D

CecilZephyr

12-13-2009, 02:38 AM

Let's put some incentive behind having Monckton debate Gore on Global Warming (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=twSm4q_CgwsQeE_p1z9oi2w).

InterestedParticipant

12-23-2009, 01:59 PM

Wonder what all the pet loving Global Warming lefties are going to do now that they are going after their Dogs? What's next, people?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f0_1261489225&c=1

Global Warming Cultists Now Claim Dog-Made Global Warming

Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as More..troublemakers.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.

And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.

"If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale.

"If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."

Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.