The Patagonian toothfish was designated a threatened species. Period.

 

It is possible that the animals were taken from the American fishery that runs from Northern Florida to the Carolinas, that is managed by the US, patrolled by the Coast Guard, and enforces with zero tolerance and is therefore sustainable. So as much as I dislike Gore, I think this multiple SUVs, gigantic houses, and brood of Gorelings are all better indicators of hypocrisy than this instance.

My thoughts:

 

Seafood is a very courageous dish to serve at a wedding. I mean, just in my family alone there is a split of those who hate seafood, like seafood, or are allergic to seafood.

I'm just trying to make a point.

 

The reason Vitter is a hypocrite is because hes a social conservative and the law he broke is a prostitution law. Had he gotten in a hit and run it would have been different.

 

Furthermore, almost endangered=threatened, which is a semi-protected status.

 

Also, I dont believe prostitution should be illegal, so to me eating a threatened fish is a hell of a lot worse than having sex with a consenting adult for money.

 

Chilean Sea Bass is NOT on the Threatened Species List. Come on man, stop spewing "facts" that you're just making up.

 

 

I'm just trying to make a point and it has been made. When its Gore, people always find a way to parse the facts to make it more acceptable. If its someone on the opposing sideline, they're automatically a hypocrite.

 

A person who is a hardcore environmentalist should not be serving chilean sea bass at a wedding. Period.

 

Rune, the fishery you're referring to has been predicted by experts to reach levels of nonsustainability within the next five years. But regardless of this fact or any other, Gore should not be eating these poor fish.

 

The fish is being threatened because it is illegally fished outsied the bounds of the regulated market, not because it is fished at all or because it is eaten by people. It is near danger because of the black market. Maybe Gore bought it from the legal market, which follows the requirments to maintain sustainability?

 

This stretch of logic is the equivilant of saying a person who is opposed to sweatshops can't wear clothes or else they are a hypocrite.

 

I love how this becomes a defense for David Vitter too. Your tactic is to muddy up the waters and say everyone is a hypocrite so it's no big deal. Parsing out the facts is getting to the bottom of an issue, not working with broad statements.

 

Actually you got it all wrong, my tactic is to say that no one is a hypocrite. But if one is so is the other. And in my personal nonpolitical opinion theres nothing wrong with prostitution. So the whole media sensationalist hypocrite nonsense is stupid.

Actually you got it all wrong, my tactic is to say that no one is a hypocrite. But if one is so is the other. And in my personal nonpolitical opinion theres nothing wrong with prostitution. So the whole media sensationalist hypocrite nonsense is stupid.

 

Actually, the hypocrite tag that the media has given Vitter is because he cheated on his wife after all of his moral outcries during the Clinton administration, not because he did it with with a prostitute. Let me ask you this, in your opinion, is there also nothing wrong with adultery?

Actually you got it all wrong, my tactic is to say that no one is a hypocrite. But if one is so is the other. And in my personal nonpolitical opinion theres nothing wrong with prostitution. So the whole media sensationalist hypocrite nonsense is stupid.

 

Actually, the hypocrite tag that the media has given Vitter is because he cheated on his wife after all of his moral outcries during the Clinton administration, not because he did it with with a prostitute. Let me ask you this, in your opinion, is there also nothing wrong with adultery?

 

My opinion on the point is actually irrelevant. But the fact that he was adulterous strengthens my point. At least as a lawmaker who breaks the law, there is an element of hypocrisy. What my own moral opinion on adultery is, is irrelevant. Most laws against it have either been rescinded or not enforced. Adultery is a private matter between a man and his wife and granted i understand why the tag was given but it is still ridiculous and no different than an environmentalist eating a fish that is even slightly protected.

 

So logic dictates that the only problem was that Vitter broke the law, and even then its a law thats antiquated and a violation of civil liberties.

 

My criticism is more about the hypocrite nonsense than actually saying anyone is a hypocrite. The reality is all politicians and public figures want airtime and votes. I dont blame Vitter for sleeping with whores and could care less about Gores SUVS, electric bills, or fish eating. But if one is a hypocrite so is the other. And anyone that calls Vitter a hypocrite should also call Gore a hypocrite, and if not for the fish, then for everything else hes done thats bad for the environment.

Actually you got it all wrong, my tactic is to say that no one is a hypocrite. But if one is so is the other. And in my personal nonpolitical opinion theres nothing wrong with prostitution. So the whole media sensationalist hypocrite nonsense is stupid.

 

Actually, the hypocrite tag that the media has given Vitter is because he cheated on his wife after all of his moral outcries during the Clinton administration, not because he did it with with a prostitute. Let me ask you this, in your opinion, is there also nothing wrong with adultery?

 

My opinion on the point is actually irrelevant. But the fact that he was adulterous strengthens my point. At least as a lawmaker who breaks the law, there is an element of hypocrisy. What my own moral opinion on adultery is, is irrelevant. Most laws against it have either been rescinded or not enforced. A private matter between a man and his wife (See Slick Willy) should not be made into a public matter.

 

So logic dictates that the only problem was that Vitter broke the law, and even then its a law thats antiquated and a violation of civil liberties.

 

You say that your opinion on adultery is irrelevant, but you have stated in this thread numerous times your opinion on prostitution and I really don't see how one could be relevant and the other not.

 

Also, I'm not saying that Vitter should be in legal trouble for cheating on his wife, I am saying that it is that misdeed that is being focusing on because of his previous viewpoints, not prostitution.

Actually you got it all wrong, my tactic is to say that no one is a hypocrite. But if one is so is the other. And in my personal nonpolitical opinion theres nothing wrong with prostitution. So the whole media sensationalist hypocrite nonsense is stupid.

 

Actually, the hypocrite tag that the media has given Vitter is because he cheated on his wife after all of his moral outcries during the Clinton administration, not because he did it with with a prostitute. Let me ask you this, in your opinion, is there also nothing wrong with adultery?

 

My opinion on the point is actually irrelevant. But the fact that he was adulterous strengthens my point. At least as a lawmaker who breaks the law, there is an element of hypocrisy. What my own moral opinion on adultery is, is irrelevant. Most laws against it have either been rescinded or not enforced. A private matter between a man and his wife (See Slick Willy) should not be made into a public matter.

 

So logic dictates that the only problem was that Vitter broke the law, and even then its a law thats antiquated and a violation of civil liberties.

 

You say that your opinion on adultery is irrelevant, but you have stated in this thread numerous times your opinion on prostitution and I really don't see how one could be relevant and the other not.

 

Also, I'm not saying that Vitter should be in legal trouble for cheating on his wife, I am saying that it is that misdeed that is being focusing on because of his previous viewpoints, not prostitution.

 

B/c my opinion on prostitution is based on the law and what I believe the interpretation of the constitution should be in regards to it. Adultery is a moral issue which no longer, and rightfully so, has a place in the law.

If this is true, I want everyone that called Vitter a hypocrit to the same for Gore

 

Because eating fish is the same as cheating on your wife.

 

Worse, eating a fish in danger of being an endangered species affects the world as a whole, unlike cheating on your wife, which is a private matter b/w the person and his wife.

 

:banghead :chair

 

I wish there was a clutching at straws smilie, I'd add that one too.

If this is true, I want everyone that called Vitter a hypocrit to the same for Gore

 

Because eating fish is the same as cheating on your wife.

 

Worse, eating a fish in danger of being an endangered species affects the world as a whole, unlike cheating on your wife, which is a private matter b/w the person and his wife.

 

:banghead :chair

 

I wish there was a clutching at straws smilie, I'd add that one too.

 

Hahaha, Environmentalists don't like to eat animals that are protected or even semi-protected. Have you ever spoken to an educated environmentalist?