Al Gore's Speech--surprisingly good


PDA






Cosmoline
January 16, 2006, 07:29 PM
I just read the text of Gore's MLK day speech and I must say I'm surprised. I actually agree with most of what he said. I expect to see the four horsemen coming anytime now.

It's worth a read. He acknowledges that the problem with the growth in executive power stretches over many decades, and with some exceptions doesn't launch into the usual partisan attacks. He's close to the truth, I'm afraid. The signs and portents on their own may not be significant, but when added together they point in a terrifying direction. When Congress becomes a mere rubber stamp, and all real power rests with the Executive, then what is the difference between the President and Caesar? Between the limp Roman Senate of the imperial age and the Congress of today?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1g.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Al Gore's Speech--surprisingly good" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ReadyontheRight
January 16, 2006, 07:37 PM
I think it's sickening to hear this ....um.... gentleman talk about the "rule of law".:barf:

Funny how he suddenly has such concern over the Constitution.

From Al Gore's presidential campaign:

Al Gore’s campaign platform on gun control

IMPLEMENTING COMMON SENSE MEASURES TO GET GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS AND CHILDREN. As a Senator, Al Gore was one of the lead sponsors of the Brady Bill; as Vice President, he helped shepherd that legislation to enactment. But the current patchwork of laws and regulations leaves too many loopholes for criminals to exploit and too many opportunities for guns to get into the wrong hands. While protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners, as President, Al Gore would:

Seek a nationally mandated, state-run system of photo licensing for all potential hand gun purchasers. No more loopholes or exceptions – anyone who wants to buy a handgun would have to have a license that would prove they are eligible to own a handgun (having passed a background check to prevent felons and the mentally ill from buying guns and demonstrated knowledge of gun safety).

Ban so-called "junk guns," the cheap handguns so often used in violent crimes;
Increase penalties for knowingly selling a gun to someone ineligible to purchase one; for using a gun in a violent crime; and for illegal trafficking of guns;

Advance a variety of other common-sense gun control measures previously advocated by the administration, including a three day waiting period, one-gun-a-month, closing the gun show loophole, and requiring child-safety locks on hand guns;

Provide grants to states to develop systems that end plea bargaining for criminals who use a gun in a crime, and implement a model federal test program;

Oppose efforts to provide special legal protection for gun manufacturers.

Oppose efforts to loosen existing limits on concealed weapons;

Require gun manufacturers and federally-licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/AlGore_guns.htm

wally
January 16, 2006, 07:38 PM
When Congress becomes a mere rubber stamp, and all real power rests with the Executive, then what is the difference between the President and Caesar? Between the limp Roman Senate of the imperial age and the Congress of today?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1g.htm

The Second Admnedment.

--wally.

rick_reno
January 16, 2006, 07:39 PM
I read it too - it was a good speech, considering who was giving it. He did hit many of the nails on the head with this one.

fourays2
January 16, 2006, 07:41 PM
whilst I'm not sure that hell has frozen over, I do think that they're in the midst of a cold snap down there.

Cosmoline
January 16, 2006, 07:48 PM
The Second Admnedment.

--wally.

Tell me, what laws have been overturned on 2nd grounds in the courts?

The courts are NOT going to protect us from an antigun President. Only Congress can. When the next Dem takes the helm, what hope do we have if the Executive can simply enact its own laws and declare half the people on THR "terrorists."

Do I trust Gore? HELL NO!! But there's no denying he's right on the money this time. I don't think much of GW, and never have. But what really scares me is a President Gore or H. Clinton adopting the level of executive power GW has usurped. You have to look down the road with this. The problem didn't start with GW and it won't end with him--or with the "war on terror." An imperial executive with a left wing anti at the helm is the ultimate nightmare, but unless something is done SOON to check the power of the Executive--either by the Supreme Court or Congress--I fear in another decade the power just won't be there anymore and we'll have to resort to much more tragic means to deal with the problem.

The best thing that could happen now is to have the more excessive anti-terror measures overthrown in court, including seizure of US citizens without trial or warrant, wiretaps without even a FISA warrant, and virtually limitless power of TSA jackboots. But so far most of the courts have been too timid and unwilling to challenge the executive in the "time of war." It now falls on Congress to stand up and earn its pay. If those branches fails, it falls back to us. And unseating some future Caesar will be neither easy nor pleasant.

1 old 0311
January 16, 2006, 07:52 PM
Hi Fourays2,

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Kevin

carebear
January 16, 2006, 08:01 PM
I think he means that which the 2nd has guaranteed us, not the amendment itself.

The Praetorians couldn't have started naming Emperors if the people of Rome had all had glaidii and the will to use them.

ReadyontheRight
January 16, 2006, 08:05 PM
I read it too - it was a good speech, considering who was giving it. He did hit many of the nails on the head with this one.


The Democrats have no power. They can SAY whatever they want. It's pretty easy to take pot shots at the opposition.

Does Al Gore have any evidence of DOING any of this while he was a heartbeat away from the Presidency for eight years?

http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/fidnet.html

FIDNET: Will Big Brother Be Watching You?

Federal government's proposed network monitoring scheme threatens privacy, offers little in return.

by Patricia Fusco
ISP-Planet Managing Editor
[August 10, 1999]


If U.S. Vice-president and presidential-wannabe Al Gore can publicly identify himself a patriarch of the Internet, then President Bill Clinton may well go down in history as the sire of "Big Brother."

Those of you unfamiliar with the all-knowing totalitarian depicted in George Orwell's novel 1984 might want to familiarize yourself with the British author's rendering of "Big Brother" as an absolute, omnipresent, and automated antithesis to democracy.

What makes Mr. Clinton a candidate for the Orwellian epithet? Consider his administration's proposal for constructing a computer system capable of monitoring all data networks in the U.S.:

Security over privacy
As prescribed by the White House plan, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be charged with the task of scouring the nation's networks for intruders through a Federal Intrusion Detection Network—FIDNET. Its assignment: Notify the government of all computer attacks that could damage national operations or the American economy.

This network policing initiative takes aim at protecting the federal government's massive computer systems and infrastructure from attack. A spokesperson for the administration said that the "President is committed to doing what we need to do to protect our infrastructure, while at the same time balancing the need for privacy.''

Entrusting the FBI to protect both state and private networks means that FIDNET would be built around a "netted" intrusion detection system for non-Department of Defense government computers.

Omniscient system
Modeled after the DOD system, intrusion detection monitors installed on networks are connected, so that all FIDNET sites would automatically recognize a particular intruder or distinct intrusion technique utilized in any given attack.

The FBI will sit at the center of the system, where the filtered data from network sensors are channeled through the newly created National Infrastructure Protection Center. Ultimately, the plan calls for similar monitoring sensors to be installed on private-sector information systems.

Outside the Clinton White House, the FBI is not widely recognized as a principal conservator of civil liberties. Perhaps the administration would like to be able to reinvent history at will, just as Orwell's "Party" did through its "Ministry of Truth" in 1984.

Those bleeding hearts
The Center for Democracy and Technology was quick to criticize the FIDNET plan for trampling upon the civil liberties of netizens nationwide. According to the CDT the White House clearly recognizes that privacy is undermined by FIDNET, but the government seems convinced it possesses eminent domain over essential network operations.

The CDT believes protecting private networks is best left to the private sector. The organization said that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act already allows for system owners to monitor the use of their private networks in order to protect themselves from outside forces. The CDT contends that melding a military function with a civilian watch guard can only produce ill-favored results.

But the CDT's primary concern is that the plan places network monitoring and surveillance in the hands of a policing agency that is not well suited for such a vocation. Do you really want the folks who brought you the Branch Davidian fiasco poking around your network?

Other civil liberties groups criticized the proposed FIDNET system because a nationwide surveillance infrastructure would be ripe with the potential for abuse. FIDNET itself would most likely be vulnerable to security breaches and prone to constant attack.

Can't fight back
Although FIDNET has the commendable goal of alerting officials to unfriendly raids, the scheme is not designed to stop an assault that could cripple government activities—or the American economy. Without the ability to hinder network-choking activities, the FIDNET plan is analogous to hiring "Chicken Little" to broadcast a weather report. What's the point of telling everyone the "sky is falling" if you don't have an atmospheric repair kit handy?

Not to belittle the notion that computer terrorism poses a serious threat to state and private networks, eroding civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism does not justify sacrificing privacy.

In Orwell's 1984, "Party" lies are designed to uphold the ruling truths that "Freedom is Slavery," "War is Peace," and "Ignorance is Strength." In 1999, the Clinton Administration appears to be designing FIDNET to vindicate the political truths that "Access Guarantees Privacy," "Terrorism Begets Security," and "Networks are Eminent Domain."

—End

shermacman
January 16, 2006, 08:13 PM
Sad to see people believing al-Gore. He is the definition of a corrupt machine politician. His comments are interesting for two reasons:
1) They are part of the Bush Derangement Syndrome
2) They are the opposite of his actions.

ReadyontheRight
January 16, 2006, 08:14 PM
Do I trust Gore? HELL NO!! But there's no denying he's right on the money this time. I don't think much of GW, and never have. But what really scares me is a President Gore or H. Clinton adopting the level of executive power GW has usurped. You have to look down the road with this. The problem didn't start with GW and it won't end with him--or with the "war on terror." An imperial executive with a left wing anti at the helm is the ultimate nightmare, but unless something is done SOON to check the power of the Executive--either by the Supreme Court or Congress--I fear in another decade the power just won't be there anymore and we'll have to resort to much more tragic means to deal with the problem.



Cosmoline -- you ARE right on the money with this. I just think we're better off not running to the fox to protect the henhouse.

rick_reno
January 16, 2006, 08:29 PM
Do I trust Gore? HELL NO!! But there's no denying he's right on the money this time. I don't think much of GW, and never have. But what really scares me is a President Gore or H. Clinton adopting the level of executive power GW has usurped. You have to look down the road with this. The problem didn't start with GW and it won't end with him--or with the "war on terror." An imperial executive with a left wing anti at the helm is the ultimate nightmare, but unless something is done SOON to check the power of the Executive--either by the Supreme Court or Congress--I fear in another decade the power just won't be there anymore and we'll have to resort to much more tragic means to deal with the problem.


Comsmoline - +1. People better start looking past their noses - this utopian nightmare with Bush isn't going to last forever.

Biker
January 16, 2006, 08:34 PM
I'll ditto Rick Reno on that, Cosmo.
Biker

Herself
January 16, 2006, 08:37 PM
+1, Cosmoline.

RealGun
January 16, 2006, 09:00 PM
I don't believe Gore would have made such statements if he had been President, concerned about his own authority and ability to do what needs to be done. It is all essentially partisan. It is a political precedent though, likely to be quoted later, because a Democrat President might have some explaining to do if trying to assume the same level of power.

Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

CAnnoneer
January 16, 2006, 09:14 PM
+1 cosmoline

Why concentrate on who told the truth rather than what the truth is?

Also, attacking Gore is like flogging a dead rabbit - pointless and gratuitous albeit potentially sickly satisfying.

Lobotomy Boy
January 16, 2006, 09:22 PM
RealGun is correct in that Al Gore would not have said this had he been president or running for president, but that doesn't detract from what he said. I think this creep towards tyranny is something that people with all kinds of different political beliefs can agree is potentially dangerous.

RealGun
January 16, 2006, 09:31 PM
RealGun is correct in that Al Gore would not have said this had he been president or running for president, but that doesn't detract from what he said. I think this creep towards tyranny is something that people with all kinds of different political beliefs can agree is potentially dangerous.

Actually I am a bit amused because I am well into Napalitano's book describing with many examples how the government at many levels routinely breaks the law in the name of enforcing the law. They get away with it too.

Satch
January 16, 2006, 09:31 PM
Al's still "stuck on stupid" in 2000 and proves everytime he opens his mouth.:rolleyes:

Vern Humphrey
January 16, 2006, 09:38 PM
Sad to see people believing al-Gore. He is the definition of a corrupt machine politician. His comments are interesting for two reasons:
1) They are part of the Bush Derangement Syndrome
2) They are the opposite of his actions.

What Gore says doesn't bother me, because I know he wakes up in the wee hours of the morning and says to himself, "If I hadn't prostituted myself and come out in favor of gun control, I'd be President of the United States right now."

And that warms the cockles of my heart.:D

engineer151515
January 16, 2006, 09:39 PM
Good ole "No controlling authority" Al Gore...........


Put a few more gray hairs on his head and people are going to start mistaking him for crazy Grampa Jimmy Carter.


:rolleyes:

22-rimfire
January 16, 2006, 09:43 PM
Frankly I couldn't care less what Al Gore said or didn't say. I am just thrilled that he didn't end up as our president. Would we be in Iraq? Afghanistan? No... What would he have done after 9-11? Probably send a couple cruise missles toward Afghanistan and said he got retribution. We would now have a nuclear Iraq, and Iran claiming Iraq and Isreal as justification for its nuclear program. If you like would prefer this writing of history, Al Gore is your man.

taliv
January 16, 2006, 10:07 PM
Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country.

and the NFA '34 was a sincere act to protect the country... etc

who cares what bush's motivation is? he's still destroying our constitutional republic.


seriously, it was an excellent speech. gore, did get a few facts wrong. e.g. the trend didn't START with the bush admin. arguably, it started with his. Arguably, it started with Reagan.

In either case, YES, obviously gore is disingenuous, politically motivated and his actions were totally opposite of his words in this speech.

He's still spot on in this speech, and I don't think anybody's buying that HE'S the solution. But i wish the whole country would read this speech.


The best part was this:

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.

We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.

Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."


how could you say that and NOT support the 2A?

RealGun
January 16, 2006, 10:26 PM
seriously, it was an excellent speech. gore, did get a few facts wrong.

I will assume he didn't write it.

taliv
January 16, 2006, 10:31 PM
I will assume he didn't write it.


heh, no argument there

rick_reno
January 16, 2006, 10:59 PM
Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

How do you know his actions were an effort to protect the county? Do you have some inside information that supports this? or are you simply parroting what he has been telling us?

I remain convinced what he did is legal.

Standing Wolf
January 16, 2006, 11:03 PM
There's more intellectual content in cartoons than anything ludicrous old Liar Gore might have to say.

beerslurpy
January 16, 2006, 11:04 PM
What about the part where congress grants to the executive beaureaucracy the power to make and enforce regulations?

How much of the federal register is passed through congress and much of it is merely enacted under "authority granted by congress" to some executive branch? I think this is a much bigger threat to liberty long term.

ReadyontheRight
January 16, 2006, 11:11 PM
Arguably, it started with Reagan.


Actually - It started with George #1 -- George Washington that is.

Whiskey Rebellion.;)

Waitone
January 17, 2006, 12:19 AM
I'm too busy watching what Gore does to hear anything he says. :scrutiny:

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 12:42 AM
Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

You can keep saying that, but the evidence to the contrary just keeps piling up. Let's do a brief rundown of just those steps taken since the end of the Clinton era:

--Creation of the TSA and the militarization of port and airport security
--Declaration of a "war on terror" with multiple unconnecte enemies
--Launching of several nationbuilding wars with no delcarations of war
--Unilateral declaration that certain people are detainees with no rights
--Resistance to interference by any aspect of the court system in the administration's war
--Failure to make a case against alleged terrorists in those few cases actually brought to court
--Unilateral use of wiretaps outside of even the FISA court's rubber stamp
--Unilateral seizure of US Citizens and declaration that they are "enemy combatants" outside of any court system
--Resistance to the application of habeas corpus or ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS for anyone considered an "enemy combatant."
--Refusal to define what the enemy is and when the "war on terror" might be over
--Creation of massive, self-sustaining government agencies and the DHS.
--Increasingly bizarre political decisions and an autocratic attitude
--Reliance on the Secret Service to act as a latter day Praetorian Guard--physically preventing anyone, including Senators and Reps, from any contact with anyone in the administration without prior approval.
--A continued pattern of almost complete obsequious weakness on the part of most in Congress
--A continued pattern of blind party loyalty to the GOP among that party in Congress, over and above loyalty to the US

It goes on and on.

And as bad as this is, imagine what it would be like with President Clinton II in charge of this executive machine. Someone who views *US* as enemy no. 1 in the war on "domestic terrorism."

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 12:50 AM
What about the part where congress grants to the executive beaureaucracy the power to make and enforce regulations?

How much of the federal register is passed through congress and much of it is merely enacted under "authority granted by congress" to some executive branch? I think this is a much bigger threat to liberty long term.

This is a central part of the problem. It goes back many decades. A series of opinions from the arch-liberal Warren court refashioned the structure of federal power in order to preserve FDR's siezure of power for the Executive branch. The Burger court continued these holdings. They included a repudiation of the restrictive doctrines from earlier, conservative courts, a nearly limitless definition of "commerce" in the commerce clause and destruction of the Enumerated Powers, a very broad allowance for executive agency rule-making powers, and a myriad of other doctrines. This paved the path for future trouble. And every administration since then--GOP and Dem alike--have built on this foundation in the name of some "war on xxx" or another. The matter has reached a head with GW and the GOP Congress. My fear is if nothing is done it will become impossible to reverse the power shift by any peaceful means, and the republic will fail as all other republics have failed before it.

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 01:14 AM
Drivel.

Gore is just angry that he didn't become president so that he can lead us by appologizing to the terrorists for flying planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon, and possibly going as far as paying reperations to the families of the terrorists who lost their lives because of our evil capitalist buildings.

carebear
January 17, 2006, 01:32 AM
Take the sore loser name-calling by Gore out and re-read it just for content.

We do NOT want an executive branch able to do what has been done in the past and able to act as the current administration is. If those powers aren't curtailed now, then the day we lose the Presidency to an anti-gun Democrat is the day our rights go away by fiat rather than law, that honest gun owners are treated as "suspected terrorists" are being treated now.

That will be the day it is time to go to war for this country.

Don't let dislike or disdain for the messenger to override the essential truth of what he speaks. Don't let personal political conservatism override the necessity for personal liberty above political affiliation, even for people you don't like.

If there ever was a time to in all seriousness and accuracy to invoke the old "They came for my neighbor..." credo, we are living in it.

Waitone
January 17, 2006, 01:44 AM
We do NOT want an executive branch able to do what has been done in the past and able to act as the current administration is. If those powers aren't curtailed now, then the day we lose the Presidency to an anti-gun Democrat is the day our rights go away by fiat rather than law, that honest gun owners are treated as "suspected terrorists" are being treated now.Interesting comment in view of http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/presidency_0.htmPresident Bush's advisers are resigned to the Democratic capture of the White House in 2008, according to senior Republican sources close to the White House.

GOP sources said White House strategists have attempted to persuade Mr. Bush that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat and her party’s current front-runner to be the next presidential nominee, cannot be defeated in 2008. Bush strategists said the president should instead focus on seeking to retain the Republican majority in both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.

"There is nobody in the White House that will openly say we lost the presidency in 2008," a senior GOP source said. "But while the Democrats are completely focused on 2008, the White House has been completely aloof."

The strategists have argued that given the forecasts of a downturn in the economy, crises with China and Iran, Mrs. Clinton would be besieged with major problems that would ensure a one-term presidency, the sources said.

The strategists have pointed out that Mr. Bush, given the failing health of Vice President Dick Cheney, does not have a natural successor. Recently, Mr. Cheney, who suffers from heart problems, was rushed to the hospital because he had difficulties in breathing.

The sources said the strategists have assessed that Mrs. Clinton would easily win the Democratic leadership and the subsequent race for president. They said Mr. Bush has pledged to campaign vigorously for any GOP presidential nominee.

Administration sources said Mr. Bush has discussed the prospect of a Clinton presidency. But they asserted that the president has focused on the 2006 elections for Congress and the need to maintain the GOP majority.

"If we lost our majority in Congress, then the president immediately becomes a lame duck," an administration source said. "So, the talk of 2008 is not only premature, it's harmful."

Malone LaVeigh
January 17, 2006, 01:47 AM
You can keep saying that, but the evidence to the contrary just keeps piling up. Let's do a brief rundown of just those steps taken since the end of the Clinton era:

--Creation of the TSA and the militarization of port and airport security
--Declaration of a "war on terror" with multiple unconnecte enemies
--Launching of several nationbuilding wars with no delcarations of war
--Unilateral declaration that certain people are detainees with no rights
--Resistance to interference by any aspect of the court system in the administration's war
--Failure to make a case against alleged terrorists in those few cases actually brought to court
--Unilateral use of wiretaps outside of even the FISA court's rubber stamp
--Unilateral seizure of US Citizens and declaration that they are "enemy combatants" outside of any court system
--Resistance to the application of habeas corpus or ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS for anyone considered an "enemy combatant."
--Refusal to define what the enemy is and when the "war on terror" might be over
--Creation of massive, self-sustaining government agencies and the DHS.
--Increasingly bizarre political decisions and an autocratic attitude
--Reliance on the Secret Service to act as a latter day Praetorian Guard--physically preventing anyone, including Senators and Reps, from any contact with anyone in the administration without prior approval.
--A continued pattern of almost complete obsequious weakness on the part of most in Congress
--A continued pattern of blind party loyalty to the GOP among that party in Congress, over and above loyalty to the US

It goes on and on.

And as bad as this is, imagine what it would be like with President Clinton II in charge of this executive machine. Someone who views *US* as enemy no. 1 in the war on "domestic terrorism."
You left out the PATRIOT Act and the supposedly abortive TIA.

Mad Chemist
January 17, 2006, 03:56 AM
Frankly I couldn't care less what Al Gore said or didn't say. I am just thrilled that he didn't end up as our president. Would we be in Iraq? Afghanistan? No... What would he have done after 9-11? Probably send a couple cruise missles toward Afghanistan and said he got retribution. We would now have a nuclear Iraq, and Iran claiming Iraq and Isreal as justification for its nuclear program. If you like would prefer this writing of history, Al Gore is your man.

A nuclear Iraq? It sounds like you're rewriting history.

cracked butt
January 17, 2006, 04:22 AM
Take the sore loser name-calling by Gore out and re-read it just for content.

We do NOT want an executive branch able to do what has been done in the past and able to act as the current administration is. If those powers aren't curtailed now, then the day we lose the Presidency to an anti-gun Democrat is the day our rights go away by fiat rather than law, that honest gun owners are treated as "suspected terrorists" are being treated now.

That will be the day it is time to go to war for this country.

Don't let dislike or disdain for the messenger to override the essential truth of what he speaks. Don't let personal political conservatism override the necessity for personal liberty above political affiliation, even for people you don't like.


Carebear, I agree with you, but I simply can't seperate the message from the messenger on this one. It sounds like Al Gore is 'coming out of the wilderness' in time for the next election. While the message is important, I doubt his sincerity greatly.

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 04:49 AM
I absolutely hate the man. I don't trust him. I don't like him. I don't like the people who like him. Which makes it all the more disturbing that I agree with him this time. I don't think we should start support Gore, though in fairness he's so disconnected with the Democratic power base at this point he'd stand almost no chance against Hillary in the primaries.

But there's no denying the power of the Executive MUST be curtailed or we're going to be facing a world of pain that will make the Clinton years look like a cake walk.

I absolutely do not trust GW to keep things together for 2008. He's demonstrated some really enormous lapses in judgment lately (Justice Myers??), and the GOP faithful who keep trying to defend him are looking more and more absurd. The man has his good points but esp. this term he seems to have lost anyone in his cabinet who can stand up to him and slap him around. The only legacy he may end up leaving is a bloated executive branch with unlimited detention and surveillance powers--ready and waiting for whatever Dem can take it.

RealGun
January 17, 2006, 09:10 AM
How do you know his actions were an effort to protect the county?

Why would you ask that question?

MarkDido
January 17, 2006, 09:41 AM
After what Al Gore did to the country during the 2000 election, and especially what he TRIED to do to the military, if I bumped into him on a street corner at high noon and he told me it was daytime, I would have to check.

I heard on the news that one of the factions in Iraq (don't remember which one) said the election was invalid due to "voting irregularities".....

Gee, I wonder where they got THAT idea from? :banghead:

Camp David
January 17, 2006, 09:57 AM
I just read the text of Gore's MLK day speech and I must say I'm surprised. I actually agree with most of what he said. I expect to see the four horsemen coming anytime now....

I am so glad everytime I hear some Gore sighting... each time the GOP gains more voters! I hope Gore decides to run in the primaries; the GOP can use the extra voters and new Republican converts! God bless 'ya Al!

HankB
January 17, 2006, 10:37 AM
Expressed concerns about executive branch power from a man who was part of an administration that misused both FBI files and IRS audits against political opponents just doesn't ring true.

On those rare occasions when Gore does get something right, I put it down to the "broken clock" effect, i.e., even a broken clock is right two times a day. (For the younger reader . . . not all clocks are digital, some acutually have hands.)

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 10:39 AM
I absolutely hate the man. I don't trust him. I don't like him. I don't like the people who like him. Which makes it all the more disturbing that I agree with him this time. I don't think we should start support Gore, though in fairness he's so disconnected with the Democratic power base at this point he'd stand almost no chance against Hillary in the primaries.

Given that Gore is not a player in the '08 race, maybe he can inject some of the ideas he talked about earlier this week into the Democratic party. Right now even the Bush administration is conceding a Democratic presidential victory in '08 (though they could be as wrong about this as they were about WMDs and post-war planning). If they are right, it would behoove us all to see the Democratic party gain a modicum of common sense.

As for agreeing with someone you don't like, I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanon more often than not, and I believe Brother Buchanon is crazy as a bed bug.

bogie
January 17, 2006, 11:10 AM
Yeah, the "public awareness" campaign is succeeding. A lot of people aren't going to vote for a democrat - but they're going to vote against a republican.

I guess y'all want the 2nd amendment to go away.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 11:23 AM
I guess y'all want the 2nd amendment to go away.

I don't understand how you get to this conclusion over and over again? Many of us don't trust the Bush adminstration, we don't believe in its policies, and we strongly feel that its centralization of power in the Executive branch is dangerous and borderline unconstitutional. I can understand you disagreeing with this. What boggles my mind is the leap of logic from disagreeing with us on these issues to your assumption that we support the Democrats and want to repeal the Second Amendment.

Many of us believe Bush is leading the country down the path to tyranny. We feel that is as grave a danger as this country has ever faced. We are not going to abandon our beliefs in liberty and the Constitution to play petty party politics, which is the direction such comments as the one above are trying to take this debate.

USNCHIEF
January 17, 2006, 11:29 AM
CSPAN is right next to the channel where I watch the UFC fights. Well last night I accidently hit CSPAN and there to my amazment was the Nam vet that was there as a "reporter" for a few months. He sounded more like a preacher than a politician!!! I hate the S.O.B....but.....lest we forget "He invented the internet" ...and without that we would not be able to communicate like we are now.....

God Bless America

Manedwolf
January 17, 2006, 11:31 AM
I think it's sickening to hear this ....um.... gentleman talk about the "rule of law".:barf:

Funny how he suddenly has such concern over the Constitution.

From Al Gore's presidential campaign:

I'd rather hear him talk about "rule of law" than hear shysters like DeLay and Frist (and Blunt) drawl about it while they've got dirty money spilling out of their pockets.

Manedwolf
January 17, 2006, 11:34 AM
Actually the sky is not falling, since the President's actions in question were a sincere effort to protect the country. Had the FISA court been asked, they might have approved the actions. The jury is still out whether the actions were illegal, despite what popular sentiment Gore wants to reinforce.

The report's out on it. From that huge dragnet, from all those Americans listened to, we got...bzzt! NOTHING. No cells, no al-qaeda.

If the president wanted to make a sincere effort to protect the country, then Osama bin Laden's head would have been on a pole at least FOUR YEARS AGO, the ports would be secure, and some of the insane pork would be vetoed out of bills to divert money to ACTUALLY securing things!

Camp David
January 17, 2006, 11:40 AM
I don't understand how you get to this conclusion over and over again? Many of us don't trust the Bush adminstration, we don't believe in its policies, and we strongly feel that its centralization of power in the Executive branch is dangerous and borderline unconstitutional. I can understand you disagreeing with this...

The problem I have with your statement, Lobotomy Boy, is this (and by the way I respect your position): When has the current Bush administration or any of its officials ever wavered in its full and complete support of the 2nd Amendment? Cite date and official and his position against the 2nd Amendment? Thus, why would you say you don't "trust the Bush adminstration" and make a seeming leap to say they'll attack the 2nd Amendment? Have they?

As I have said on numerous posts, Bush's use of Executive Power is front and center during a war, of which we are engaged. Questions on his use of that Executive Power are sure to arise, and those are rightly addressed by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) which will field and has fielded questions and issues to address your concern of something being " borderline unconstitutional." Understand, the president's use of his Executive Power is different during a war as it would be in peacetime; the same sort of measures he invokes and powers that he utilizes during the current war would not be proper during peacetime. Further, any measure of Executive Power that you disagree with, which is used by the President under the Executive Powers clause of the Constitution in order to further national security, must be paired with an alternate plan; i.e., should you disagree that the president not wiretap a suspected terrorist or that he lacks such a right, kindly explain how you would provide the same national security guarantees without such action? While I don't begrudge or deny your right to criticize the actions of the Chief Executive in the time of war, criticism of such action should be paired with an alternate process of action, on your part, to accomplish a like result: prevention of terror.

Manedwolf
January 17, 2006, 11:42 AM
I don't understand how you get to this conclusion over and over again? Many of us don't trust the Bush adminstration, we don't believe in its policies, and we strongly feel that its centralization of power in the Executive branch is dangerous and borderline unconstitutional. I can understand you disagreeing with this. What boggles my mind is the leap of logic from disagreeing with us on these issues to your assumption that we support the Democrats and want to repeal the Second Amendment.

Many of us believe Bush is leading the country down the path to tyranny. We feel that is as grave a danger as this country has ever faced. We are not going to abandon our beliefs in liberty and the Constitution to play petty party politics, which is the direction such comments as the one above are trying to take this debate.

+1

And I'm personally getting tired of the kneejerk reaction whenever anyone admits that something that someone on "the other side" said might have been correct. It's very close to the people who say "If you dissent, you must HATE AMERICA."

The founding fathers certainly didn't agree on everything. And not all Democrats are gun-grabbing leftists. Some are (gasp) a lot more understanding of the need for them than some wannabe-fascist neocons who would stop all possibility of opposition to the powers in charge, if they could. The only reason that sort does NOT include guns in the "well, terrahists could get'em" list is that because it'd be political suicide...at this point. But let them be in power for a few more years, and see what happens. There's already starting to be nibbles in that direction. Remember how Mayor Bloomberg (R) of New York City managed to blame the NRA for recent police shootings and complained that the only reason to carry a gun in New York City is to "kill somebody"? Do you really think that's going to stop, in this political climate of enforced fear? Every election cycle, there are less (R) conservatives and more (R) neocons in power.

Listen to the person, listen to the message. The little (R) or (D) after a name doesn't tell you everything about a person..in fact, it tells you very little. And if you close your mind and respond in a knee-jerk fashion if the letter doesn't match the one you prefer, well...it's not helping things at all.

Personally, I could care less about parties in general. What _I_ care about is that the American flag used to be a symbol of hope. When Tiannamen Square happened, one of the people running past from the carnage shouted "Tell the Americans what is happening here!" ...because at that point, we were still a symbol of freedom, the calvary that could arrive to set things right.

Now we are feared, shunned, the American flag is burnt in more nations than ever, "Death to America" is shouted in more languages than ever, in all hemispheres. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them, and "down with America" is enough of a slogan to get the people behind tinpot dictators and South American socialists. We had the goodwill of the world after 9/11. Nations approved of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden. Even most hardline Islamic nations did...after all, vengeance is part of the culture, and we were justified. But we didn't take that chance to take out bin Laden and stop there. Now...we're regarded as imperialists. Terrorist recruitment has skyrocketed.

At home, we're willingly surrendering civil liberties to be "safe"...to feel more secure. And Gore WAS right. If we think, today, that we are somehow more in danger than when the founding fathers knew that to be caught was to be hung for sedition, or when we were fighting in world wars against enemies that wanted to invade and utterly destroy us, or facing down a nation that could push a button and destroy us and the world in the blink of an eye... then we're not only wrong, but we've lost something. Were people stronger, then? Why are we so scared, now, that we're willing to go against everything in the Federalist Papers, everything Franklin, Jefferson et al warned about, for some sort of thumbsucking false sense of security?

We ARE on the wrong course...and arguing whether the left or right side of the train heading towards the cliff is better doesn't help much, the brake handle needs to be pulled by everyone involved.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 11:48 AM
CSPAN is right next to the channel where I watch the UFC fights. Well last night I accidently hit CSPAN and there to my amazment was the Nam vet that was there as a "reporter" for a few months. He sounded more like a preacher than a politician!!! I hate the S.O.B....but.....lest we forget "He invented the internet" ...and without that we would not be able to communicate like we are now.....

God Bless America
Gore never said that "he invented the internet". Do some checking...
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 11:49 AM
Thus, why would you say you don't "trust the Bush adminstration" and make a seeming leap to say they'll attack the 2nd Amendment? Have they?

I don't recall ever saying the Bush administration would attack the Second Amendment. Bush's statement that he would sign the AWB renewal if it came across his desk could be construed as a passive 2A attack, but I personally wrote that off as politics as usual.

My criticism of the wiretaps is not that they were unconstitutional--I grudgingly accept that they would probably be interpretted as constitutional in the Supreme Court--my complaint is that Bush wiretapped in blatant violation of the FISA law. If he had said, "Oops. Screwed up. Sorry," I would have doubted his sincerity, but would have accepted that as the end of the story, again, grudgingly. But he didn't. He told us, the FISA courts, and the Constitution to go spoon a goose. He claimed to be above all laws. To me this was the equivalent of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, a declaration of dictatorial powers.

As for "wartime powers," I'm still waiting for congress to formally declare war, a prerequisite for the executive branch's assumption of wartime powers. When it comes to something as important as our liberty, I'm afraid I'm a stickler for such details.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 11:51 AM
And I'm personally getting tired of the kneejerk reaction whenever anyone admits that something that someone on "the other side" said might have been correct. It's very close to the people who say "If you dissent, you must HATE AMERICA."

Ever read Orwell's "1984"? Remember "Newspeak"? Think about this example:

"Those people who complain about my usurping America's freedom in the war against all those who hate us because of our freedom must really hate our freedom." If that wasn't an accurate paraphrase of Bush's position, it would almost be funny.

Camp David
January 17, 2006, 11:54 AM
Gore never said that "he invented the internet". Do some checking...
Biker

Biker...sort of a thread departure but since you raise the issue please let me respond...

In a discussion with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on March 9, 1999, Al Gore said:

"I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet...."

Sure sounds like it... In any event, it was a poor sentence syntax as Gore had absolutely nothing to do with DARPA's ARaPNet project which gave fruit to the internet/world wide web we know today; indeed when Gore was a Senator he frequently voted against DoD funding, under which DARPA's budget was funded. DARPA is Defense Advanced Research Products Agency, the creator of the project that yielded hyper text transfer protocol.

rick_reno
January 17, 2006, 12:16 PM
THE QUESTION - How do you know his actions were an effort to protect the county? Do you have some inside information that supports this? or are you simply parroting what he has been telling us?

Why would you ask that question?

Simple, you mentioned his reasoning. I'm needing clarification of how you know what his reasons are. Nothing sinister, just wanting to know if you've found some gem of information the rest of haven't seen that would add credibility to what he's been saying.

Nitrogen
January 17, 2006, 12:22 PM
I am not a fan of Al Gore, even tho, if you look below, I'm one of those dirty lilly-livered liberals. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and at least with this speech, Al Gore is right on.

Every once in a while, a complete moron can accidentally say something poingient (Oh g_d I hope I spelled that right)

Every once in a while, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken say something I agree with.
Al Gore is dead wrong with his stances on gun control, Affirmitive Action, and defense, to name a few.
Somehow, though, he managed to write and deliver a speech that had a lot of punch behind it, voicing an opinion that a lot of people seem to agree with. I really hope that people don't disraguard something they might agree with, because an idiot happened to say it.


Oh, and the whole al gore quote:
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

He's a clumsy speaker, about as bad as Kerry, but looking at the whole quote, to me, at least, he's taking credit for building legislation to enable the internet. Which is also Male Bovine Excrement, as the Internet was in development while he was serving in Vietnam.

12-34hom
January 17, 2006, 12:27 PM
Al Gore did not even carry his own state in the presidential elections.

That should tell anyone wondering about Al gore and his motivations.

12-34hom.

RealGun
January 17, 2006, 12:37 PM
The report's out on it. From that huge dragnet, from all those Americans listened to, we got...bzzt! NOTHING. No cells, no al-qaeda.

If the president wanted to make a sincere effort to protect the country, then Osama bin Laden's head would have been on a pole at least FOUR YEARS AGO, the ports would be secure, and some of the insane pork would be vetoed out of bills to divert money to ACTUALLY securing things!

Tough customer ;)

RealGun
January 17, 2006, 12:42 PM
Simple, you mentioned his reasoning. I'm needing clarification of how you know what his reasons are. Nothing sinister, just wanting to know if you've found some gem of information the rest of haven't seen that would add credibility to what he's been saying.

How do I know what you're saying is true. If I allow you credibility and have no indication to doubt you, why would I raise the question? I can be skeptical, but I am not hostile.

roo_ster
January 17, 2006, 12:47 PM
I can't take anything Al Gore says seriously, any more than I would take anything Lyndon LaRouche said seriously.

Al Gore is a fanatic with a slippery grasp on reality. Read Earth in the Balance and tell me with a straight face that he is a reasonable man.

carlrodd
January 17, 2006, 12:56 PM
+1

And I'm personally getting tired of the kneejerk reaction whenever anyone admits that something that someone on "the other side" said might have been correct. It's very close to the people who say "If you dissent, you must HATE AMERICA."

The founding fathers certainly didn't agree on everything. And not all Democrats are gun-grabbing leftists. Some are (gasp) a lot more understanding of the need for them than some wannabe-fascist neocons who would stop all possibility of opposition to the powers in charge, if they could. The only reason that sort does NOT include guns in the "well, terrahists could get'em" list is that because it'd be political suicide...at this point. But let them be in power for a few more years, and see what happens. There's already starting to be nibbles in that direction. Remember how Mayor Bloomberg (R) of New York City managed to blame the NRA for recent police shootings and complained that the only reason to carry a gun in New York City is to "kill somebody"? Do you really think that's going to stop, in this political climate of enforced fear? Every election cycle, there are less (R) conservatives and more (R) neocons in power.

Listen to the person, listen to the message. The little (R) or (D) after a name doesn't tell you everything about a person..in fact, it tells you very little. And if you close your mind and respond in a knee-jerk fashion if the letter doesn't match the one you prefer, well...it's not helping things at all.

Personally, I could care less about parties in general. What _I_ care about is that the American flag used to be a symbol of hope. When Tiannamen Square happened, one of the people running past from the carnage shouted "Tell the Americans what is happening here!" ...because at that point, we were still a symbol of freedom, the calvary that could arrive to set things right.

Now we are feared, shunned, the American flag is burnt in more nations than ever, "Death to America" is shouted in more languages than ever, in all hemispheres. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them, and "down with America" is enough of a slogan to get the people behind tinpot dictators and South American socialists. We had the goodwill of the world after 9/11. Nations approved of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden. Even most hardline Islamic nations did...after all, vengeance is part of the culture, and we were justified. But we didn't take that chance to take out bin Laden and stop there. Now...we're regarded as imperialists. Terrorist recruitment has skyrocketed.

At home, we're willingly surrendering civil liberties to be "safe"...to feel more secure. And Gore WAS right. If we think, today, that we are somehow more in danger than when the founding fathers knew that to be caught was to be hung for sedition, or when we were fighting in world wars against enemies that wanted to invade and utterly destroy us, or facing down a nation that could push a button and destroy us and the world in the blink of an eye... then we're not only wrong, but we've lost something. Were people stronger, then? Why are we so scared, now, that we're willing to go against everything in the Federalist Papers, everything Franklin, Jefferson et al warned about, for some sort of thumbsucking false sense of security?

We ARE on the wrong course...and arguing whether the left or right side of the train heading towards the cliff is better doesn't help much, the brake handle needs to be pulled by everyone involved.

great post! we are on a dangerous road in this country....self destructive intrusions abroad, and self-destructive, liberty smashing, fear mongering politics at home. and no one party is to blame. how does the saying go?....'a house divided against itself cannot stand.'.......applicable in so many ways. i don't see what the solution is, but keep your eyes open, because things are seriously coming to a head.....it's in the air.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 12:59 PM
great post! we are on a dangerous road in this country....self destructive intrusions abroad, and self-destructive, liberty smashing, fear mongering politics at home. and no one party is to blame. how does the saying go?....'a house divided against itself cannot stand.'.......applicable in so many ways. i don't see what the solution is, but keep your eyes open, because things are seriously coming to a head.....it's in the air.

I don't know what to do either, other than try to wake as many people to the danger as possible. My gut feeling is to start stock piling lots and lots of ammo.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 01:05 PM
Nobody cares, LB. As long as we have our 'big screens', pizza, beer and sports, bread and circuses as it were, no one will care until it's too late.
I hate to sound like a defeatist, but America has a terminal illness and we, as a collective patient, are still in denial.
I hope to God I'm wrong...
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 01:12 PM
I hope you're wrong too, Biker, but I see little to indicate that you are.

Except maybe the number of people I encounter on lists like this who have their eyes wide open and aren't looking through a tunnel of dogmatic, ideological blinders. This forum is perhaps the very best source of information I've ever discovered. I'm not just talking about people posting their opinions thoughts; I'm talking about the vast number of links to credible sources of information that people use to cite and back up those opinions and thoughts. There are a lot of high-quality brain pans connected to this forum.

longeyes
January 17, 2006, 02:10 PM
Give the Devil his due. Some of this had to be said. And it was said well.

longeyes
January 17, 2006, 02:13 PM
Nobody cares, LB. As long as we have our 'big screens', pizza, beer and sports, bread and circuses as it were, no one will care until it's too late.
I hate to sound like a defeatist, but America has a terminal illness and we, as a collective patient, are still in denial.

Grave, not necessarily terminal.

The patient is sick but has yet to fully manifest the symptoms of Debtoritis. Not long to wait, however.

Vern Humphrey
January 17, 2006, 03:00 PM
how could you say that and NOT support the 2A?

It's simple -- he's projecting. He's not outraged over what Bush is doing, he's jealous that it isn't him doing it -- and if he were in charge, it would be worse.

ArmedBear
January 17, 2006, 03:02 PM
It's simple -- he's projecting. He's not outraged over what Bush is doing, he's jealous that it isn't him doing it -- and if he were in charge, it would be worse.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. (And in Al Gore, we have a wiener.)

And I don't especially like Bush.

One word about Gore: Echelon.

GARMASTERS
January 17, 2006, 03:11 PM
Anybody who listens to ANYTHING Gore says needs to get a life.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 03:51 PM
Anybody who listens to ANYTHING Gore says needs to get a life.
I gather that you didn't agree with the content of his speech?
Biker

Carl N. Brown
January 17, 2006, 05:34 PM
Al Gore has a great speech writer, but remember "I am not a crook."?

I agree with most that he read, but while good speechwriters may be
expensive, talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

Al Gore saying "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" is more like `I pushed for the internet'
than the doubly false statement `I invented the internet' which Gore did
not say and which is not true. Congressmen take the initiative in creating
aircraft carriers without actually inventing them or saying they invented
them. This bulsht (a word I picked up from the printed lyrics of a Jefferson
Airplane song) distracts from real issues: WHICH BOTH DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS and all the talking heads on TV and "journalists" are doing
to the deteriment of America.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a
man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It
does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering
words that may have all the effect of force.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, in
Schenck v United States (1919)

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 06:16 PM
Al Gore and TRUTH in the same writing?bwhahahaha.This man joins Ted Kennedy,Charles Schumer,and Howard Dean in the qwest for DUH!<oh yea ,he did invent the internet though...bwhahahahahaha>

Biker
January 17, 2006, 06:23 PM
Al Gore and TRUTH in the same writing?bwhahahaha.This man joins Ted Kennedy,Charles Schumer,and Howard Dean in the qwest for DUH!<oh yea ,he did invent the internet though...bwhahahahahaha>That's tellin' 'em.
Biker

taliv
January 17, 2006, 06:25 PM
iron horse, please let us know which parts of gore's speech you don't agree with


btw, i get the impression that not only have you not read his speech, but you haven't read any of the previous posts before replying. otherwise, i'm hard-pressed to understand why you would embarrass yourself by bringing up the "invent the internet" misquote a 3rd time.

Mad Chemist
January 17, 2006, 06:35 PM
This entire thread is riddled with ad hominem fallacies. I'm sure that most of us here aggree that Al Gore is a putz. That is not the point. The point is that sometimes even a putz gets something right. If you don't like the contents of his speech then attack them logically. Regurgitating one-liner attacks from the 2000 campaign will only illustrate your own bull-headed ignorance of the subject at hand.

JH

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 06:38 PM
Sorry Taliv,but thats a classic from way back and bears repeating always..Stupid is as ..well.And not only didnt I read his speach.....I actually watched it! wow...This numbnut sounded and looked more like Jimmy Swaggert then a politician.He keeps reinventing himself to score browny points.Research his unadulterated exasberation of the laws being broken,and you will find this many times in the democrat strongbox of "what we never did".Oh yea,lets talk about the law changing this during the Clintoon era..bwhahahaha..remember arkansas land deals?.....ppppppp..His bullypulpit is nothing more then a lifelong dream to be somthing close to Billary..why who knows.If you think the fight to maintain the right to bear anything closley resembling a republic is a just quest,plug your ears as he talks.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 06:41 PM
Sorry Mad,but the dems have been "puking" the same rethoric for some years.Now thats getting old.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 06:52 PM
But the Repubs haven't been puking the same rhetoric for years?
What part of Gore's speech do you take issue with?
Biker

shermacman
January 17, 2006, 06:56 PM
How do you guys figure that the al-Gore quote is wrong?
I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.

Not to add to the ad hominum, but al-Gore is an egotistical fool. And he clearly tries to impress Blitzer with his claim that he created the internet.

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 06:59 PM
This entire thread is riddled with ad hominem fallacies. I'm sure that most of us here aggree that Al Gore is a putz. That is not the point. The point is that sometimes even a putz gets something right. If you don't like the contents of his speech then attack them logically. Regurgitating one-liner attacks from the 2000 campaign will only illustrate your own bull-headed ignorance of the subject at hand.

JH

Exactly. Some folks, including a bunch of posters who apparently just joined the forum, are working overtime to smear Gore and avoid addressing the message in this speech. It's bizarre.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 07:06 PM
Biker, I doubt you're going to get through to this dude, and you can't really condemn his resistance to answering your question--it's basic human nature. Kenneth Galbraith, the economist who coined the term "conventional wisdom" (which he considered an uncomplimentary description), wrote: "[Economic and social behaviors] are complex, and to comprehend their character is mentally tiring. Therefore, we adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding." You're not going to pry folks like THEREALIRONHORSE off that raft regardless of how hard you try.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 07:12 PM
Thats a pretty low blow "those who just joined".Does your status make you more correct?I have always found it funny that the human race is easily overcome by those who excel at public speaking,and find humor and fault with an individual not so grand on the soapbox,no matter how right they may be.I never said I did not respect your opinion,as you do not mine,BUT.If you have any historical knowledge of Al Gore<not sure of your age>he becomes as most democrats do,whatever the flavor of the month is.Any correct statement made by him are in my opinion nulified by the fact he had one mission in mind,like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Polosi.Forget us,lets smear you.Nothing,and I mean nothing has been accomplished by Gores,nor any democrat leaders almost treason like attitude in the past 5 years.Its purley politically motivated.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 07:21 PM
Sorry folks.I dont mean to tread on you or your beliefs,I just found this to be an great forum,full of intellect,and never meant to come on harsh.Im a hunter trapper of 32 years living in the catskills,I guess so to speak,set in my ways,and really sick of politicians reinventing themselves..HUNT ON

Carl N. Brown
January 17, 2006, 07:21 PM
This is the disease affecting the American body politic from left
and right, democrat and republican, on practically every issue:
complex issues reduced to one line jokes or scare tactics.

[tin foil helmet on]
The dang flouride in the drinking water has reduced the average
American attention span to twenty seconds!
[tin foil helmet off]

Judge Alito approved strip searching ten year old girls.

Judge Alito approved a police woman in a drug raid strip searching
a woman and a ten-year girl in private, given the fact that gangsters
often foist drugs or weapons on children hoping they won't be searched.

The short version is punchier.

taliv
January 17, 2006, 07:24 PM
shermacman, invented!=created

in neither connotation or denotation

shermacman
January 17, 2006, 07:32 PM
Because al-Gore is lying, that's why. Those of you who are fooled by his words should have had your eyes opened by his actions. After all, he was the Vice President of the United States. And under his direction he circumvented whatever laws he felt were in his way.

The list is long and covers everything he ever touched, from his rental properties not conforming to building code and occupancy laws, to using FBI and IRS files as tools of intimidation. Election laws, campaign finance and (in my opinion the most important) throwing out votes from our servicemen.

He whimpers about the treament of foreign prisoners yet happily sat by while his administration fired rockets into asprin factories, killing a bunch of absolutely innocent janitors.

Taliv, want to try again? Your post is incomprehensible. It lacks punctuation, subject, verb and most significantly, it lacks a point.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 07:36 PM
Sorry folks.I dont mean to tread on you or your beliefs,I just found this to be an great forum,full of intellect,and never meant to come on harsh.Im a hunter trapper of 32 years living in the catskills,I guess so to speak,set in my ways,and really sick of politicians reinventing themselves..HUNT ONNo reason to be sorry, Friend. I think you'll find that there is a diverse (Gawd! I hate that word) political crowd here.
Having said that, a guy (or girl, heh heh...) will get called on the carpet for spouting 'one-liners' and cliches.
Whether it's about Bush or Clinton, nobody profits intellectually from speaking in 'bumper-sticker'.
:)
Biker

Biker
January 17, 2006, 07:40 PM
Because al-Gore is lying, that's why. Those of you who are fooled by his words should have had your eyes opened by his actions. After all, he was the Vice President of the United States. And under his direction he circumvented whatever laws he felt were in his way.

The list is long and covers everything he ever touched, from his rental properties not conforming to building code and occupancy laws, to using FBI and IRS files as tools of intimidation. Election laws, campaign finance and (in my opinion the most important) throwing out votes from our servicemen.

He whimpers about the treament of foreign prisoners yet happily sat by while his administration fired rockets into asprin factories, killing a bunch of absolutely innocent janitors.

Taliv, want to try again? Your post is incomprehensible. It lacks punctuation, subject, verb and most significantly, it lacks a point.

Do you realise that just about everything you've attributed to Gore in this post could be attributed to the present administration in one form or another?
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 07:40 PM
Thats a pretty low blow "those who just joined".

I don't mean to apologize for Cosmoline, the original poster, but there has been a strange number of new posters in recent weeks who are posting just slight variations of the same party line. It's like on those John Stewart bits about Bush administration spin--they show a montage of television talking heads all saying more or less the same message in unison. It's creepy.

For the record, Ironhorseman, you are not in that group. You're expressing unique and interesting thoughts. I don't agree with many of them, but I understand where you're coming from.

taliv
January 17, 2006, 07:45 PM
Taliv, want to try again? Your post is incomprehensible. It lacks punctuation, subject, verb and most significantly, it lacks a point.

How do you guys figure that the al-Gore quote is wrong?

Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the internet."

A bunch of blithering idiots took that to mean that that an uneducated politician was claiming to have invented the TCP/IP and HTTP protocols and algorithms all by himself, and have turned it into an ad hom attack to ignore everything he's said since.

Perpetuating this sham REQUIRES misquoting gore using the word "invent" which would imply some technical skill, instead of "create" which in the context of his job, clearly means focus on shifting tax dollars to fund a DARPA program.

It's nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

I hope that's comprehensible enough for you.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 07:50 PM
I don't mean to apologize for Cosmoline, the original poster, but there has been a strange number of new posters in recent weeks who are posting just slight variations of the same party line. It's like on those John Stewart bits about Bush administration spin--they show a montage of television talking heads all saying more or less the same message in unison. It's creepy.

For the record, Ironhorseman, you are not in that group. You're expressing unique and interesting thoughts. I don't agree with many of them, but I understand where you're coming from.

Thanks LB.
Funny thing is,Im a 44 year old longhaired been there done that family oriented gun owning mountain living hunting fishing conservative family man.Im a snowstorm in april sometimes..

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 07:51 PM
Because al-Gore is lying, that's why. Those of you who are fooled by his words should have had your eyes opened by his actions. After all, he was the Vice President of the United States. And under his direction he circumvented whatever laws he felt were in his way.

How many times do I have to explain this. I'm not supporting Al Gore. I don't like the man. In this case, though, he's come closer to the truth than any other major politician of either party.

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 07:53 PM
I don't mean to apologize for Cosmoline, the original poster, but there has been a strange number of new posters in recent weeks who are posting just slight variations of the same party line. It's like on those John Stewart bits about Bush administration spin--they show a montage of television talking heads all saying more or less the same message in unison. It's creepy.

This is what I was trying to get at. If the new posters are really interested in gun ownership and hunting issues I hope they stick around. But I've noticed an unusual number of one or two shot members in this and other threads spouting soundbytes and leaving.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 07:56 PM
Im a 44 year old longhaired been there done that family oriented gun owning mountain living hunting fishing conservative family man.

I'm a 43-year-old, shaved-headed, been-there-done-that, family-oriented, farm-living, hunting, fishing, non-dogmatic family man. I shot three deer opening day last November and have been ice fishing a half-dozen times already this year. But I digress...

Waitone
January 17, 2006, 07:57 PM
A stopped clock is right twice a day. So Al Gore can be right occasionally. :scrutiny:

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 07:57 PM
This is what I was trying to get at. If the new posters are really interested in gun ownership and hunting issues I hope they stick around. But I've noticed an unusual number of one or two shot members in this and other threads spouting soundbytes and leaving.


You should have checked my signature first.I never hide who I am.

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 08:00 PM
The link is busted. But in any event it's not about people "hiding"--it's about what appear to be a new breed of partisan flame artists. Obviously, since you've stuck around you're not in this category.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 08:00 PM
I'm a 43-year-old, shaved-headed, been-there-done-that, family-oriented, farm-living, hunting, fishing, non-dogmatic family man. I shot three deer opening day last November and have been ice fishing a half-dozen times already this year. But I digress...
lol ,But I digress...If I tried ice fishing Im sure my tipups gigs and me would be in the wash...lol been so damn warm here for the past ...well long time.Must be Bushs fault..global warming ya know...lol just kiddin
Dont wanna start another war..:)

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 08:03 PM
The link is busted. But in any event it's not about people "hiding"--it's about what appear to be a new breed of partisan flame artists. Obviously, since you've stuck around you're not in this category.

Sorry,fixed the link.My mistake

taliv
January 17, 2006, 08:12 PM
btw, i was underwhelmed with the white house response (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6GR08O.html) to gore's speech, which in summary was "you guys did it first"


i'd like to think that much like the Kilo case, politicians will realize that America is not ok with the emminent domain ruling, and in many states, set themselves to putting much more severe restrictions on seizure of private property...

politicians will also realize that whether or not bush's actions were legal, they're simply NOT acceptable to us, and the law needs to be changed immediately so that it's unambigous on this point.

of course, jail time for bush would be good, just to set an example

ArmedBear
January 17, 2006, 08:14 PM
the law needs to be changed immediately so that it's unambigous on this point.


Exactly. This is the most important thing.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 08:14 PM
of course, jail time for bush would be good, just to set an example
See,thats bull????:rolleyes:

shermacman
January 17, 2006, 08:19 PM
A bunch of blithering idiots took that to mean that that an uneducated politician was claiming to have invented the TCP/IP and HTTP protocols and algorithms all by himself, and have turned it into an ad hom attack to ignore everything he's said since.

Perpetuating this sham REQUIRES misquoting gore using the word "invent" which would imply some technical skill, instead of "create" which in the context of his job, clearly means focus on shifting tax dollars to fund a DARPA program.

It's nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

I hope that's comprehensible enough for you.

Nope, you lose, but thanks for playing. Name the appropriations bill that al-Gore was responsible for in funding DARPA. Be careful, especially with the time lines.

Vern Humphrey
January 17, 2006, 09:00 PM
Nope, you lose, but thanks for playing. Name the appropriations bill that al-Gore was responsible for in funding DARPA. Be careful, especially with the time lines.

For those who are temporaly challenged, here's a hint -- this claim has the same flaw as the claim his mother used to lull him to sleep singing "Look for the Union Label."

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 09:07 PM
For those who are temporaly challenged, here's a hint -- this claim has the same flaw as the claim his mother used to lull him to sleep singing "Look for the Union Label."


your either a Liberal,or I missread your post

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 09:13 PM
Oh, he's a liberal all right. He's a regular Commie, that Vern ;)

Seriously, the mods don't particularly appreciate using any kind of label as a personal insult and calling someone a "liberal" will get a thread closed as surely as calling him or her a three-toed Amish buggy chucker.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 09:18 PM
Oh, he's a liberal all right. He's a regular Commie, that Vern ;)

Seriously, the mods don't particularly appreciate using any kind of label as a personal insult and calling someone a "liberal" will get a thread closed as surely as calling him or her a three-toed Amish buggy chucker.


I never said"commie".Im a "conservative republican" "neo con"" as the stupid left say" Is that banned as a tag?

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 09:21 PM
I never said"commie".Im a "conservative republican" "neo con"" as the stupid left say" Is that banned as a tag?


Wait ...wait..I said "stupid" and "left"..that means somthing dont it?

Vern Humphrey
January 17, 2006, 09:44 PM
your either a Liberal,or I missread your post

M'lad, I was the Republican candidate for Congress from the First District of Arkansas in '04.

To translate the post -- Al Gore was not in Congress when the internet was created, and he was a bit old to be sung to sleep when "Look for the Union Label" was written.

He was raised in a hotel in Washington, DC, and bragged that his grandfather taught him to clear land with a double-bitted ax (apparently the Gores never heard of the chainsaw) and to plow a steep hillside with a mule (they never heard of erosion, either.)

This is the man whose own land was leased (by his father) to grow tobacco, and who made a tear-jerking speech about how the tobacco companies killed his sister.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 09:46 PM
Wait ...wait..I said "stupid" and "left"..that means somthing dont it?
No, and yes. "Stupid" can be synonmous with any party. What point are you trying to get across?
Biker

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 09:47 PM
Al Gore was not in Congress when the internet was created, and he was a bit old to be sung to sleep when "Look for the Union Label" was written.

He was raised in a hotel in Washington, DC, and bragged that his grandfather taught him to clear land with a double-bitted ax (apparently the Gores never heard of the chainsaw) and to plow a steep hillside with a mule (they never heard of erosion, either.)

This is the man whose own land was leased (by his father) to grow tobacco, and who made a tear-jerking speech about how the tobacco companies killed his sister.

In other words, he's a typical politician, ie., a sleazebag. That doesn't make what he said any less true.

Good lord, I just realized that I posted this in response to a post by a politician. Vern, I am not implying that you are a sleazebag. There are decent politicians out there--I've met them in person. Most are as opportunistic as Mr. Gore, however.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 10:00 PM
First let me say Im nor Irish or Scottish,nor upper england<if they still say me lad">
Glad ta meet ya Vern.My Brother used to refer to himself as Vern..I have no answer why..lol...I didnt mean to implie you knew nothing nor were involved in politics,..I am 100% though running for office would probably be a non no


lol
:)

Vern Humphrey
January 17, 2006, 10:25 PM
In other words, he's a typical politician, ie., a sleazebag. That doesn't make what he said any less true.

Good lord, I just realized that I posted this in response to a post by a politician. Vern, I am not implying that you are a sleazebag. There are decent politicians out there--I've met them in person. Most are as opportunistic as Mr. Gore, however.

Try running for office before you judge -- politicians are worse than you think.:p

shermacman
January 17, 2006, 10:50 PM
Sung to the tune: Let's Do the Time Warp Again!"

Let's do the time line, again, again and again. For the poor fools who think that al-Gore was anything other than a sniveling little snot flunking out of Divinity School. He did not take: "...the initiative in creating the Internet".

Despite his own words. What is the matter, taliv? That is his quote. Why do you have such a problem with it?

Cosmoline
January 17, 2006, 11:06 PM
What do the campaign issues from 2000 have to do with any of this? Have you people actually read the speech? Do you have a reasonable response to it? Or are you just going to keep harping on the same old stuff we all know about Gore?

Malone LaVeigh
January 17, 2006, 11:42 PM
What do the campaign issues from 2000 have to do with any of this? Have you people actually read the speech? Do you have a reasonable response to it? Or are you just going to keep harping on the same old stuff we all know about Gore?
That's a trick question, right?

ReadyontheRight
January 18, 2006, 12:21 AM
Or are you just going to keep harping on the same old stuff we all know about Gore?

Yup.

When the watchdog does something bad, I don't want the the wolves to take over guard duty.

taliv
January 18, 2006, 12:24 AM
cosmoline, i agree completely and took their silence as a default judgement on the matter


Sung to the tune: Let's Do the Time Warp Again!"

Let's do the time line, again, again and again. For the poor fools who think that al-Gore was anything other than a sniveling little snot flunking out of Divinity School. He did not take: "...the initiative in creating the Internet".

look... again, nobody here likes gore. nobody's sticking up for him. nobody thinks he's telling the truth. and nobody here is in danger of voting for him. I don't think he's anything but a sniveling little snot, etc.

that, however, has nothing to do with whether or not what he said is the truth.

Despite his own words. What is the matter, taliv? That is his quote. Why do you have such a problem with it?

The point is that his actual quote is NOT what has been repeated here and by right-wing hacks. If they used his actual quote, it would be obvious to everyone that they're twisting his words.

I'm not even saying he had anything to do with "creating" it, meaning funding and legislative agendas, etc. He could be lying about that for all I know. I don't even care.

However, the facts of the timeline are these:

The first TCP/IP wide area network was operational by 1 January, 1983(this is technically the birth of the internet), when the United States' National Science Foundation (NSF) constructed a university network backbone that would later become the NSFNet.

Gore was in the House from '76 to '84 and in the Senate from '84 to '93.

So, those dates work for me. If you want to contend that the internet was invented in the '60s, have at it.

edit:
by the way, if you want to read what vint cerf has to say about al-Gore (http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html) you might see his claim isn't as insanely stupid as Limbaugh makes it out to be.

Cosmoline
January 18, 2006, 12:46 AM
Yup.

When the watchdog does something bad, I don't want the the wolves to take over guard duty.

Yeah, but when the wolf beats the bejesus out of your dog and your dog just whimpers and pees itself, maybe it's time for a new guard dog! Esp. if your dog is biting you a lot more than the wolf.

Kodiaz
January 18, 2006, 01:27 AM
Well say what you like about Gore but he's right. No president has ever made a powergrab like the current administration. The constitution is holding on by a thread if it is even holding on. You can sit there and trash Gore all you want. But we have a modern day tyrant king running our country. He didn't start the powergrab but he's grabbed more than anyone else. We have so much federal govt. if Jefferson and company were around now they'd be loading there muskets and walking out there front doors. Unless there is a miracle we've lost our freedom. We gave it a way so we could be safe from some boogey man.

PCGS65
January 18, 2006, 02:13 AM
by teliv

of course, jail time for bush would be good, just to set an example

I think jail time for all politicians would be good, just to set an example.;)

Mad Chemist
January 18, 2006, 06:25 AM
How do you guys figure that the al-Gore quote is wrong?


Not to add to the ad hominum, but al-Gore is an egotistical fool. And he clearly tries to impress Blitzer with his claim that he created the internet.

It's cool, you even gave us a two for one.:cool: Your quote adds the non-sequiter fallacy.:D

Homework assignment:
The first person to use the ad-hominem, non-sequiter, straw man, and argument from authority fallcies in one post, gets a sticker.:p

(Warning, vague South Park reference ahead)

Once again, Al gore=douchbag.
But what does that have to do with the speech.
Would you listen if the speech came from a turd sandwich instead of a douch?:D
JH

Carl N. Brown
January 19, 2006, 04:50 PM
What about the powers of those firemen who
break and enter houses with axes, where will it end?

My mother had a shoebox of newspaper clippings from
the late forties and other fifties; the editorials about
Harry Truman and the Korean War could just as easily
be used against GWB and Iraq. FWIW.

We need to recognise that emergency situations may
call for emergency powers; we also need to insist that
emergency powers end when the emergency ends.

Biker
January 19, 2006, 04:54 PM
What about the powers of those firemen who
break and enter houses with axes, where will it end?

My mother had a shoebox of newspaper clippings from
the late forties and other fifties; the editorials about
Harry Truman and the Korean War could just as easily
be used against GWB and Iraq. FWIW.

We need to recognise that emergency situations may
call for emergency powers; we also need to insist that
emergency powers end when the emergency ends.
And who is the arbitrater? Who decides when the emergency ends? The one with the power to declare it ended, no doubt. I haven't heard of a whole lotta people who like giving up power once they've attained it.
Biker

longrifleman
January 19, 2006, 06:26 PM
No president has ever made a powergrab like the current administration

Well, Let's check out Lincoln and FDR before we give Bush the gold medal. I think Jackson is probably in the running also. I do think Bush is making a push for the top spot, he just hasn't got there yet.

The big problem I see is that every prez builds on the usurpation of power that his predecessors got away with, and then the current mess becomes the norm. After a few years the conservative types will fight to the death rather than see any reduction in govt power, and the liberal types will fight to the death to add more power for the central govt. Don't tell me that I'm wrong because Bush is a Republican so that makes him conservative. From where I set, Bush is a whole lot more of a Democrat of about 30 years ago than any type of conservative.

Hawkmoon
January 19, 2006, 08:56 PM
whilst I'm not sure that hell has frozen over, I do think that they're in the midst of a cold snap down there.
This means that he knows his value as a politician has come to an end. He would be more of a liability than an asset for any Dem campaigning for national office. So the only way he can earn huge speaking fees these days is to fall back on telling the truth and hoping someone wants to pay to hear it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Al Gore's Speech--surprisingly good" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!