Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, March 30, 2007

Guy Who Owns A Boeing 707 For Private Use Tells Us All To Cut Down On Our Carbon Emissions

Another day, another limousine liberal hypocrite.

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to “do their bit” to tackle global warming.

But although he readily admitted: “I fly jets”, he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton’s tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using “alternative methods of fuel” – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But his appointment as a “serving ambassador” for the Australian airline Qantas doesn’t seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

“It [global warming] is a very valid issue,” Travolta declared. “I’m wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

“Everyone can do their bit. But I don’t know if it’s not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.

Maybe we wouldn’t have to be thinking about alternative methods of fuel if John Travolta weren’t burning all the fuel up in his private fleet of airplanes.

Here’s a description of Travolta’s extravagant lifestyle as an amateur pilot:

‘I called my son Jett and I wanted to call my daughter Qantas, but my wife wouldn’t let me.” John Travolta was, he says, only joking - about his daughter - although this self-confessed “airline geek” just happens to own a former Qantas jet. And what a jet: a 600mph, 134ft 6in long, 250,000lb, 1964 Boeing 707-138B airliner. The 49-year-old Hollywood actor also just happens to park this classic aircraft in the backyard of his elegant new Florida home. As any self-respecting Hollywood star does. A Gulfstream executive jet keeps it company. The house, meanwhile, looks like a take on an art deco or Bauhaus airport terminal of the 1930s complete with an ersatz control tower rising from the roof.

Keeping up with the Travoltas is, it would appear, a touch more challenging than keeping up with the old school Joneses, whose wildest neighbour-blowing ambition might stretch, if they happen to be among the 650,000 private pilots in the US, to a Cessna-152. That is the chug-along, piston-engined plane most amateur pilots learn to fly in. Yours for 20,000 bucks, second-hand.

A full-blown Boeing, capable of flying around the world - which it did, in 2002, with Travolta in old-style captain’s uniform at the controls - is slightly more expensive to buy and run, and pretty unbeatable in the one-upmanship stakes. Unless, that is, the Joneses could run to a Jumbo jet. There are plenty of pre-owned models on the market for a few million bucks apiece. Travolta can fly one, but has yet to trade up from his 707 to a bigger Boeing. Not that there would be a problem chez Travolta with a 747. The airstrip that serves Jumbolair, the fly-in Florida development where the family airport stands, is 1.4 miles long. The main runways at Heathrow might be half-a-mile or so longer, but are not readily accessible to those living in the flanking estates of Heston, Hatton Cross and Hounslow even if they pitched together to buy a second-hand Tiger Moth.

Travolta’s is surely the ultimate boys’ fantasy home made real. Aside from the parking lots for the brace of jets, there is a garden in the guise of a heliport, further parking for at least six swanky cars, a swimming pool with swirling hot tub, that 1.4-mile runway, a gym and stables for the 75 horses down the road.

Here’s a picture of Travolta’s home:

image

Personally, I think his place is pretty flippin’ sweet.  I wish I could afford something like that, and as a capitalist conservative I’m not at all against Travolta being able to afford it for himself.  But when Travolta is telling me to get rid of my SUV while he’s got a couple of jets parked in his driveway I can’t help but think of him as a jerk.

Comments

Unless my eyesight is a lot worse than I think, there’s a full size pickup truck in the drive behind the house, and at least two SUVs parked in back alongside what appears to be two Mercedes as well.

That Mr. Travolta is a raving hypocrite is hardly a surprise.  His money, his palace, his exotic toys, his fame and notoriety all derive from his talent for make-believe and fantasy.  It’d be hard to imagine that he would have even a passing acquaintance with reality.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on March 30, 2007 at 10:29 pm

It’d be hard to imagine that he would have even a passing acquaintance with reality.

Which is probably why he believes that global warming malarkey.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 31, 2007 at 04:47 am
Avatar for Will

Even more retarded is that he suggests it’s “too late already”. Now that’s a true liberal. “Yeah ‘everyone can do their bit’ but since Bush already ruined the earth, I’m going to keep flying my jets.

Will on March 31, 2007 at 05:57 am
Avatar for jpe

He wasn’t very forceful; it sounds like he was saying that stuff because that’s what movie stars say.  I doubt he cares one way or another, and this was just a way to continue to be invited to the right parties.

’m wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

Oh man....that’s awesome.  He’s been watching too much Logan’s Run.  I wonder if his god told him about the domes, or if he came up with that all by his (not so) little self.

jpe on March 31, 2007 at 06:08 am

Travolta is actually a pretty cool guy.  Flies his own jet planes.  Gets women to sleep with him by snapping his fingers.  You guys are just completely jealous.  Appropriately so.

Hard to evaluate without a real link, but his solution is not to produce less CO2 through “conservation efforts”, but to improve technology.  How hypocritical is that?

Carrick on March 31, 2007 at 06:19 am

That would be pretty cool to have a couple of jets in your driveway!

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 06:26 am

Carrick, I don’t think that Ravolta is flying his jets with an alternative fuel is he?

This new technology he wants us to pay for isn’t going to reduce his emissions, right?

I’m just saying that if he was sincere in what he was saying he could make a difference with his own actions.

Hippopotamus, no.  Hypocrite, yes.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 31, 2007 at 06:39 am

Home looks remarkably like
La Guardia Marine Terminal NYC.
The private aviation part of LAG.

2004466580837998516_rs.jpg

Wealth enables more expensive vices.

WOOF on March 31, 2007 at 06:45 am

Cool...!

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 06:52 am

TW:

I’m just saying that if he was sincere in what he was saying he could make a difference with his own actions.

I don’t even know how sincere he was… hard to judge.

If he became a jihadist for global warming like Gore, you might have a point, as it is, looks more like an over-reaction on your part.

Carrick on March 31, 2007 at 07:07 am

Glogal jihad. That has a nice ring to it… Greean peace, man! I can see the AlGoreist’s now all dressed up like Cindy Sheehan??? Yikes!

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 07:15 am

I found the link and added it.

Carrick I don’t think I overreacted.  Thinking that a guy’s actions don’t match his rhetoric make him somewhat of a hypocrite.

Merely mentioning that is barely reacting, certainly not over reacting.

I don’t think I said he was a bad person or anything like that.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 31, 2007 at 07:16 am

With all the hot air that these elitist “stars” pass they should be flying dirigibles.

Mickey on March 31, 2007 at 07:20 am

Why is there a Mexican flag in front of his house? And on the righthand side at that.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 31, 2007 at 07:29 am

John is Italian/Irish, likely the flag of Italy

2004289308531258936_rs.jpg

WOOF on March 31, 2007 at 07:46 am

Did any of you know that Travolta, at his own expense and as pilot flys children and their families to the Special Olympics? I am not disagreeing about his calling for others to reduce greenhouse gases and having two large private jets, only pointing out there is a charitable side to him wherein those Jets help others. I know because some of the special needs children I work with each week and their families have directly benefitted from his kindness in that regard.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on March 31, 2007 at 08:16 am

To me it comes down to if he expects me to sacrifice for his beliefs but exempts himself from living the same. 

Make up your own mind.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on March 31, 2007 at 08:18 am

If it cost each citizen $1000/year

to fix greenhouse gases/air polution/climate change/transfat
french fries,

John T. will willingly
kick his grand into the pot.

WOOF on March 31, 2007 at 02:13 pm

I can’t get clearer resolution on the image. Not really the point. From my estimate the masts are of equal height, and the foreign flag is on the right. Someone needs to hip John to the deal.

And yes, he does lots of good deeds at his own expense. He flew in 3 loads of Medical equipment and supplies to LA and MS after Katrina, and transports families to Special Olypmics and to John Hopkins and Shriners for medical treatment.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 31, 2007 at 03:44 pm

He is a good guy. BUT if he is concerned about carbon footprints he might want to work on his flight plans?

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 04:05 pm

WWLRHD?

I think that John boy should be pretty upset with Al Gore because “Global Warming” seems to be taking the place of “Scientology” as the new made-up religion of Hollywood.

Justin B. on March 31, 2007 at 04:45 pm

I better be careful--I heard that messing with the Scientologists is Risky Business…

Justin B. on March 31, 2007 at 04:46 pm

Justin...You better be careful. OR you know who might get you???

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 04:56 pm

Justin! Fuck’em!


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 31, 2007 at 05:02 pm

Tom? Tom! This is John Travolta, Tom. Come out of the closet Tom.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on March 31, 2007 at 05:17 pm

I heard that messing with the Scientologists is Risky Business…

Yeah! They just might send out their Top Gun!



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on March 31, 2007 at 05:18 pm

Or their rain man?

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 05:32 pm

I hear Legend has it, that a Few Good Men with All the Right Moves as Collateral, are Far and Away the Firm choice for this and won’t be Losin’ it!



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on March 31, 2007 at 05:47 pm

Sounds like Risky business to me…

Zsa Zsa on March 31, 2007 at 05:49 pm

I think I need a Cocktail after this conversation.

Justin B. on March 31, 2007 at 08:47 pm

That’s not a cocktail, that’s just rain, man!
Hey! Did you see his tennis movie?

Bjorn on the Fourth of July



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on March 31, 2007 at 09:07 pm

Was that the one where Paul Newman was teaching him to hustle people at Tennis matches? 

Or where he lost the big match, the coach kicked him off of the team, and he ended up working in the steel mill like his dad?  I think that was the one where he ended up nailing Marty McFly’s mom.  Great Scott!

Justin B. on March 31, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Avatar for Ted

Here is the truth about Global Warming.

http://www.gorelied.notlong.com

After seeing this video, you will come to realize it for the scam it is .

Ted on March 31, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Ted, thanks for the link. But at this blog you are a day late and a dollar short. Check the archives , under Enviroment, and you will find quite a few very good pieces on the subject by several of our regular commentators.

And don’t forget, his name is Algore, The Goreacal.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on April 1, 2007 at 04:31 am

Was that the one where Paul Newman was teaching him to hustle people at Tennis matches? 

No, I think he was part of a wheelchair racing team, fighting aliens in ancient Japan…



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 1, 2007 at 07:55 am
Avatar for Dave

Rob:

But when Travolta is telling me to get rid of my SUV while he’s got a couple of jets parked in his driveway I can’t help but think of him as a jerk.

Speaking out against global warming while flying a private jet is like supporting the War in Iraq while refusing to fight in it. Actions speak louder than words.
Dave on April 2, 2007 at 10:09 am
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Actually, dumbass, it’s not.

In order for myself to rise to Travolta’s level of hypocrisy I’d have to support the war with my words and then actually travel to Iraq and fight against our troops.  Because that’s what Travolta is doing.  Speaking out against global warming while actually being one of the biggest individual contributors to global warming in the country.

And you assume that there’s only one way to support the war in Iraq.  I support crime fighting in my home town by paying my taxes and making my law enforcement policy preferences known as a free, voting citizen.  The same works with the Iraq situation.

The chickenhawk argument is for morons.  Which, of course, is exactly why you’re making it.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 2, 2007 at 10:18 am

You forgot a couple of things.  I don’t know if Travolta is as into the global warming jihad has much as the rest of Hollywood, but let’s assume he is.

Hollywood wants to take away our freedom not to participate in global warming.  That would equate to drafting people to fight a war they don’t agree with.

Plus Hollywood is doing their best to silence any debate over global warming.  So that would equate to overturning the 1st amendment.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on April 2, 2007 at 10:41 am
Avatar for Dave

John Travolta wants Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, while refusing to do so himself. You want Americans to fight in Iraq, while refusing to do so yourself.

But, never mind, you’re right, the two situations are totally different. Your criticism of Travolta is entirely different from the flawed left-wing chickenhawk argument.

See? I know the chickenhawk argument is flawed! It’s just as flawed as your “chickenhawk” argument against Travolta and Edwards.

Dave on April 2, 2007 at 10:42 am

Speaking out against global warming while actually being one of the biggest individual contributors to global warming in the country.

It would first have to be proven that Jet emissions cause Global Warming…

Language like that indicates acceptance of an unproven theory.  /just-sayin’

Seth Yantiss on April 2, 2007 at 10:45 am
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

No, it’s actually not.

I think one can support a certain foreign policy for this country without joining the military.  Just as you can support fighting crime without becoming a police officer.

You can’t tell other people to reduce their personal power consumption while living a power extravagant lifestyle yourself.

Not that you’re intelligent enough to grasp the difference here.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 2, 2007 at 10:45 am

See? I know the chickenhawk argument is flawed!

But you keep making it over and over.  Not surprising.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on April 2, 2007 at 10:46 am
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Good point, Seth.  I should have said “biggest carbon emitters in the nation.”


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 2, 2007 at 10:47 am

Not that you’re intelligent enough to grasp the difference here.

Rob: Arguing with Dave is like arguing with his girl friend...except she might occasionally stop chewing her cud and bleat more intelligently than Dave.



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 2, 2007 at 10:57 am

John Travolta wants Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, while refusing to do so himself. You want Americans to fight in Iraq, while refusing to do so yourself.

And Dave wants Humans to be less important than animals but refuses to feed himself to rabid wolves. 

I’d quit eating meat if you did that Dave.

Seth Yantiss on April 2, 2007 at 10:58 am
Avatar for Dave

The Whistler:

But you keep making it over and over.

I have never ever used the chickenhawk argument, because it’s as flawed and dishonest as Rob’s Original Post here. I criticize the policy someone supports; I don’t resort to petty ad hominem attacks.
Dave on April 2, 2007 at 11:19 am
Avatar for Dave

Seth:

And Dave wants Humans to be less important than animals

No I don’t. I want them to be of equal importance. (I think persons warrant even greater importance.) I’m oh so surprised that you’re confused here, Seth. You’re normally so clear-headed!
Dave on April 2, 2007 at 11:21 am

I was just trying to be funny at your expense… Sorry =)

Seth Yantiss on April 2, 2007 at 11:32 am

I meant that to be a frown-ie face… :(

Seth Yantiss on April 2, 2007 at 11:34 am
Avatar for Dave

I think one can support a certain foreign policy for this country without joining the military.  Just as you can support fighting crime without becoming a police officer.

You can’t tell other people to reduce their personal power consumption while living a power extravagant lifestyle yourself.

What’s the precise definition of “extravagant lifestyle”? Is there a certain limit as to how much power one can consume, above which he can no longer tell others to reduce their power? Say...if your house is 100,000 square feet, you can’t tell others to reduce their power, but if it’s just 90,000 then you’re okay?

Take me. Can I tell other people to reduce their energy consumption? I live in a small apartment and drive a car that gets 36 mpg. Is this too much? What if I traded my car for a bike--would I be good then? Let me know! Since you provide absolutely no justification for your insane and arbitrary decisions, it’d be great to have this information enumerated!

Dave on April 2, 2007 at 11:35 am

Since you provide absolutely no justification for your insane and arbitrary decisions

Dave:  If you can’t tell that the difference between driving a 50 to 75 ton (empty) airplane and an SUV is greater than the difference between a 36MPG car and a bike, then buy your date another bale of hay and leave blogging to the adults.



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 2, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I don’t know about Travolta’s plane, but one online source stated

the Boeing 707 uses 40 gallons of kerosene per minute per engine.

times four engines=

160 gallons/minute

Dave: How many minutes does it take your car to burn through 160 gallons of fuel?
In the time it take for you to read this post (well, maybe not you, but a normal person) the 707 will burn 80 gallons of fuel.



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 2, 2007 at 12:36 pm

I have never ever used the chickenhawk argument, because it’s as flawed and dishonest as Rob’s Original Post here

Come on.  Rob didn’t make the argument, the British papers did.  Rob just pointed out the article and quoted it.

Now if Rob cherry picked his quotes and made the article say something it didn’t by taking selective quotes and omitting context, that would be dishonest… unless he works for the New York Times or CNN, then it would be called Journalism.

Justin B. on April 2, 2007 at 02:04 pm

Wow, and the picture was in the British paper too.  Rob didn’t even photoshop the planes into it like the AP would.

Justin B. on April 2, 2007 at 02:05 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Is there a certain limit as to how much power one can consume, above which he can no longer tell others to reduce their power? Say...if your house is 100,000 square feet, you can’t tell others to reduce their power, but if it’s just 90,000 then you’re okay?

This isn’t a class warfare argument I’m making, numb nuts.  Personally, I think John Travolta can own and fly all the private jets he wants to.  If I had his kind of money that’s probably what I do as well.  It’s flippin’ cool.

My problem is when John Travolta starts telling me to quit using more energy than I have to.  Clearly, he doesn’t need a private fleet of jets.

It’s called “practice what you preach.” And no, the chickenhawk thing doesn’t apply.  I don’t have to be a legislator to think our laws should be written a certain way.  I don’t have to be a firefighter to believe that fires should be put out.  I don’t have to be a cop to believe that criminals should be arrested.  And I don’t have to be a soldier to believe that our country should pursue a certain foreign policy course in the middle east.

Take me. Can I tell other people to reduce their energy consumption? I live in a small apartment and drive a car that gets 36 mpg. Is this too much? What if I traded my car for a bike--would I be good then? Let me know!

So, you’re telling us that you can’t understand the difference between someone driving a 36mph car and owning/flying a private fleet of jets?

C’mon.  You’re stupid, but you’re not that stupid.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 2, 2007 at 02:10 pm
Avatar for Dave

I don’t have to be a legislator to think our laws should be written a certain way.  I don’t have to be a firefighter to believe that fires should be put out.  I don’t have to be a cop to believe that criminals should be arrested.  And I don’t have to be a soldier to believe that our country should pursue a certain foreign policy course in the middle east.

But you do have to live frugally to believe that our citizens should reduce their levels of energy consumption. That is the lone exception to the billion other examples in the world where your reasoning does apply.
Dave on April 2, 2007 at 02:37 pm
Avatar for Dave

Have I stated your position properly, Rob?

And Proof, are you any closer to establishing the exact cutoff limit on this issue?

Dave on April 2, 2007 at 02:39 pm

Dave,

No, it is like Michael Moore giving advice on a healthy diet.

Or it is like Kobe Bryant giving advice on chastity and the value of marriage.

See, the difference is that most people keep their mouths shut, lest they come off like jackasses.  But Travolta and Hollywood love to preach about global warming, despite their lifestyles.

I don’t understand why you would support John Travolta living the way that he does while you drive a car that gets 36 mpg.  Yet somehow Rob is the person you have a problem with simply because he points this out.  You should be thanking Rob and others for placing pressure on Hollywood celebs to practice what they preach.  Putting that kind of pressure on them is not good for Republicans, but rather good for the earth and is the only way to save us from the Oceans rising 20 feet.  Don’t you care about Global Warming, Dave.  Global Warming is real and if Travolta and others don’t help us, it could devastate mankind causing hurricanes and floods and catastrophe.

Justin B. on April 2, 2007 at 02:45 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Where did I say that one most live in poverty?

In order not to be a hypocrite, one must actually refrain from living a power extravagant lifestyle if you’re going to tell others to quit using power they don’t need.

Reasonable, level-headed people are capable of making this judgment.  A fleet of private planes obviously isn’t a necessity, thus it is an extravagance.

Now, mind you, I’m not saying that people can’t live extravagantly.  I think people should be able to live as extravagantly as they can afford to live.  It’s the global warming cultists like Gore and Travolta who want to tell other people how to live their lives while simultaneously not practicing what they preach.

Now have I satisfied your thirst for meaningless argument on this point?  Do you even have a point, other than to irritate people?


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 2, 2007 at 02:47 pm

Rod did you see where the Supreme court ruled based on Al Goron’s book? What is this world comin to?


check out Goon’s World

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

http://redneckndgoon.blogspot.com/

goon on April 2, 2007 at 02:58 pm

Proof, are you any closer to establishing the exact cutoff limit on this issue?

Funny! Nobody asked me to be the arbiter of All Things Conservation, but let me see…
My gas tank...20 gals
JT’s gas tank...15,000-23,000 (on one of his vehicles)
There is no “cutoff limit” on the discussion. But anyone with a modicum of common sense, above the age of eight could probably figure out what the issues are… I guess that lets you off the hook, Dave!



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 2, 2007 at 03:22 pm
Avatar for Dave

Rob:

Where did I say that one most live in poverty?

The same place where I accused you of saying that: Nowhere. You’re making things up.

In order not to be a hypocrite, one must actually refrain from living a power extravagant lifestyle if you’re going to tell others to quit using power they don’t need.

But it is okay and certainly not hypocritical to sit on your ass all day and tell others to risk their lives to fight a war. Perfect.

Sit on your ass and recommend people to reduce their energy output: BAAAAAD!!! How dare they!?!?
Sit on your ass and force people to risk their lives in Iraq: Good! Patriotic!

Do you even have a point, other than to irritate people?

That there is no difference between your ad hominem attacks on the global warming crowd, and liberals’ chickenhawk arguments on pro-war citizens who have opted out of military combat. If one is wrong, the other is wrong.

The chickenhawk argument is wrong. So is yours.

Dave on April 2, 2007 at 04:19 pm

ad hominem attacks on the global warming crowd

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out hypocritical behavior. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out the fallacies of your arguments.
Davey: You might consider actually looking up some of these words before you use them.



Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 2, 2007 at 04:25 pm

Goon...That is awful ! The supreme Court ruled on AL Gore’s book???

Zsa Zsa on April 2, 2007 at 04:27 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

That there is no difference between your ad hominem attacks on the global warming crowd, and liberals’ chickenhawk arguments on pro-war citizens who have opted out of military combat. If one is wrong, the other is wrong.

The chickenhawk argument is wrong. So is yours.

Are you really this dumb?

I’ll break it down for you one more time:

If I say that I am in favor of fighting crime and then do not join the police department, choosing instead to pay my taxes and vote for the public officials who further the law and order policies I favor, I am not a hypocrite.

If I say that I am in favor of fighting crime and then go out and start mugging people I am a hypocrite.

With global warming, if I say that I feel that extravagant carbon emissions are a problem and then support the politicians who further the environmental policies I favor while simultaneously refraining from emitting extravagant amounts of carbon myself I am not a hypocrite.

If I say that extravagant carbon emissions are a problem and then tool around the nation in my private jet for no other reason than my own amusement I am a hypocrite.

That you can’t get this means that you’re dumb.  There’s just no other explanation here.  You cannot be a global warming zealot, and call for people to reduce the amount of energy they use in their lives, while simultaneously owning your own fleet of private jets that you fly around for your own amusement.  You just can’t.  That’s hypocritical.

You can, however, support certain American foreign policies without joining the military.

You’ll pretend like you don’t get this just so you can sit in your mom’s basement and giggle about how angry you’re making the blog people, so I’m done.

I’ve got better things to waste my time on than you.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 2, 2007 at 04:37 pm

It is not an ad hominem attack to point out hypocritical behavior. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out the fallacies of your arguments.


However, if one continually practices hypocritical behavior, one might infer that one to actually be a hypocrite.
If one continually engages in shallow, puerile, and falacious arguments (Davey), one might infer that one to be a moronic vegetarian. Or, at best, less than serious…


Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Proof on April 2, 2007 at 04:38 pm

As I have said before, the fumes from the Squishy machine have melted what brains davey had. Or perhaps he has been imbibing to much Colonel Kwickie Kwentucky Bourbon. Whatever the cause, he ain’t worth wasting serious consideration on.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on April 2, 2007 at 06:06 pm
Avatar for pokies

he needs to get laid

pokies on April 4, 2008 at 03:22 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.