Gore Assails Bush's Policies, Reiterates Not Running in 2004

Originally posted by FreeMason
The Founders of our Republic, never expected it would come to "Should we allow Gays to Marry".

They didn't expect a lot of things. Women voting, end of slavery, men on the moon, nuclear weapons...what's your point?

Originally posted by FreeMasonFor no where in the Constitution does the Government derive the power to determine the morality of the nation.

Which is actually a great argument for striking down laws against homosexuality.

AL GORE SPEAKS THE TRUTH!


Why isn't he running! We need him to save America

[Edited on 8-8-2003 by Killuminati]

Clinton/Gore lied through their teeth

...about many issues, let's not forget!!

From the Congressional Record:
``Clinton's assertion,'' and I am quoting here, Mr. Speaker, ``at a
June 25, 1999, postwar news conference that the bombing was a way to
stop, quote, deliberate, systematic efforts at genocide,'' he called it
genocide in Kosovo. It goes on to say, ``was either disingenuous or
ignorant. Before the start of NATO's bombing on March 24, 1999, almost
2,000 civilians, overwhelmingly ethnic Albanians but also Serbs, had
been killed in 15 months of bitter warfare. Up to that point, there had
been no genocide or ethnic cleansing.'' The genocide and ethnic
cleansing started when Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac started the war
against Milosevic.
----------------------------------------------------


frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov...

[Edited on 9-8-2003 by Tyriffic]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
FM

If the Supreme Court tells a State it can't interpret a law to continue counting votes in order to protect the constitional right of voters, then that is as much judicial dictatorship as any 1,000 examples you would care to mention.

MA, that isn't an interpretation, that is ignoring the law.
How about the thousands who didn't vote in the predominately conservative panhandle of Florida? The ones who didn't vote because the media said Gore won, although there was another hour of voting in the central time zone? Should they get to vote, even though the polls closed by the time they found out the media lied in order to help Gore? Obviously the answer is NO! Voting is not an individual right, crap happens. Once again, you'd better look long and hard at the Democratic antics and then realize just how hypocritcal it is to mention the election, and not to mention how much of a Gore Loserman (Couldn't help the gag!) it makes you guys sound like!

F-M, get real, the Democratic party is by no means dead, nor is it going to die. How dead did the Republicans appear to be when they threw Bob Dole into the Presidential fray? If that wasn't giving the appearance of flatlining....

Now, what a brighter America and more peaceful world we would have had if Dim Son wasn't installed by a corrupt & partisan Supreme Court?

No, B-T, no matter how this president is, the fact that the FL Supreme Court was willing to violate its own law and had to be correcrted by the U.S. Supreme court is not indicative of the U.S.S.C. appointing any president, but it is indicative of the corruption and agenda driven motives of the democratic-appointed judges. You must be proud, wallowing in the hypocricy.

TC

Voter apathy isn't fraud.

However, on your incorrect interpretation, again, denied.

what al gore has done here is the political equivalent of a hit and run.

he whines, complains and runs away. he offers no solutions and isnt man enough to stand up and run again. as the saying goes you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, if you're not helping then you're hindering. all he's doing is stoking the anti bush anti republican fires. thats about it. he knows his words will encourage the anti bush sentiment but he also knows his own ideas (which he has changed to suit his own needs) are hollow and worthless. he also knows he cant win against him.

at this point all he offers is complaints and whining diatribes and no real solutions. and the funny thing is some people even on this board are suckered into thinking he's a great person. he's just a heartless politician who changes his views to keep his popularity. its all about him. typical politician.

[Edited on 10-8-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]

THe absolte WORST part of his diatribe was when he stated'Under Clinton/Gore America's military was stregnthened, as recently proven"...

I about HURLED when I heard that LIE!

What happened to America's military under that administration was SLASH, CUT and BURN...

His implication was we won in Iraq BECAUSE of their administration's stregnthening of our military...

The TRUTH is we won in Iraq IN SPITE of their administration!

I have YET to speak with ONE military person who was active through those years who has ANYTHING positive to say about the way the Executive branch dealt with the military.

Reality is budgets were SLASHED, bases were closed, incredible programs were shelved, and the best and brightests were RUNNING AWAY from service as soon as they could do so without without being a deserter or going A.W.O.L....

When I hear CRAP like that come from a politician's mouth it makes me ill. I am an INDEPENDENT, I KNOW BOTH parties are corrupt and in it for ONE reason, POWER.

Yep, I am conservative in my beleifs but I also son't think the government has ANY business in ANY part of my life or any body else's life either.

the gOvernment is here to keep the streets up, the lights on, the crooks in jail and the borders and our interests off shore safe... That's IT.

I don't beleive they should raise my kids or pay for my life. The day I allow them to pay MY way I OWE them. That's the EASIEST way to give yOUR power away to another person...

PEACE...
m...

what al gore has done here is the political equivalent of a hit and run.

he whines, complains and runs away. he offers no solutions and isnt man enough to stand up and run again.

Are you remotely serious? He pointed out several issues and justified them with supporting evidence.

We invaded a country based on lies. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

We are pursuing stupidly insane economic policies based on lies. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

We are raping the world's ecology. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

Gore said the current administration is flat out lying, or is so convinced of the veracity of its statements that it ignores all evidence to the contrary. The solution, and I think he is right, is remove the administration.

Hell, put another republican administration in, as long as it's one which can be bothered to actually consider the best possible evidence layed before it and that won't resort to tactics like revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative to discredit its opponents.

I think Gore's right to not run in 2004. It would bring up too much outdated animosity. But he is dead on the money regarding the flaws of the current administration.

Originally posted by bioguy

what al gore has done here is the political equivalent of a hit and run.

he whines, complains and runs away. he offers no solutions and isnt man enough to stand up and run again.

Are you remotely serious? He pointed out several issues and justified them with supporting evidence.

We invaded a country based on lies. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

We are pursuing stupidly insane economic policies based on lies. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

We are raping the world's ecology. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

Gore said the current administration is flat out lying, or is so convinced of the veracity of its statements that it ignores all evidence to the contrary. The solution, and I think he is right, is remove the administration.

Hell, put another republican administration in, as long as it's one which can be bothered to actually consider the best possible evidence layed before it and that won't resort to tactics like revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative to discredit its opponents.

I think Gore's right to not run in 2004. It would bring up too much outdated animosity. But he is dead on the money regarding the flaws of the current administration.

Thanks, you saved me the trouble of "Shocking the Monkey back to life" ( soory Mr. Gabriel) as we know it.

Good God I tell you, this version of Conservative, or those who believe they march under that flag, are so ill equipped to process reasonable argument it's scary.

The bottom line is this- Gore is just getting in the way again of the one or two Dem candidates that have a legitimate shot at Bush. 1 or 2.

He isn't (like the rest of the Dems) bringing anything new to the table such as ideas, solutions (to these seemingly horrific problems) or innovations.

Algore, bring me an idea that I crave!!

He is just posturing again. Testing the political climate because he also can see that the field is weak this time around. I am glad he is opening his mouth, his feet will fit nicely. It seems all the Dems can do is blame and whine. They have no solutions and this is why many in this country are not rallying behind them (California) despite the accusations against the Bush Admin.
If they had a tangible idea and not just whine, blame and assert....well.

Originally posted by bioguy

what al gore has done here is the political equivalent of a hit and run.

he whines, complains and runs away. he offers no solutions and isnt man enough to stand up and run again.

Are you remotely serious? He pointed out several issues and justified them with supporting evidence.

We invaded a country based on lies. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

We are pursuing stupidly insane economic policies based on lies. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

We are raping the world's ecology. Any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored.

Gore said the current administration is flat out lying, or is so convinced of the veracity of its statements that it ignores all evidence to the contrary. The solution, and I think he is right, is remove the administration.

Hell, put another republican administration in, as long as it's one which can be bothered to actually consider the best possible evidence layed before it and that won't resort to tactics like revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative to discredit its opponents.

I think Gore's right to not run in 2004. It would bring up too much outdated animosity. But he is dead on the money regarding the flaws of the current administration.

yes i am serious.

anyone can point out issues. anyone can whine (we have a lot of that on this board, dont need to look to a politician for that!) doesnt take a politician to do that but it takes a politician to get you to believe this tripe. funny how we are more apt to believing lying two face double standard politicians than those who stand nothing to gain from what they tell you.

YOU feel we invaded iraq based on lies. this doesnt make them so. but often paranoids will convince themselves everything is a lie if they arent told everything on their own schedule.

the economy? well lets see here, enron and other corps having been lying about their profit earnings before bush became president but somehow its his fault. yup, you're right bush is bad! get real. its not his fault corporations cant hire honest CFOs.

i can think of other places in the world that show much less regard for the enoviroment than america. but i wont bother naming them, you wont believe me anyway.

gore said the administration is lying? lol well he should be able to recognize lies when he sees them.....he's a politician for crying out loud, you cant name FIVE politicians in office right now that HAVENT told a lie. i know i cant.

and yes gore is very good at pointing out flaw in persidential administrations, he was part of one for 8 years. he should be an expert.


for anyone who tows ANY political party line such as yourself.

i'm not saying against gore because he's a democrat (i love how people assume i'm a conservative or a republican!) i'm saying things agaisnt him because he cant make up his mind on any issue long enough to let the ink dry on a newspaper before he changes his mind again. if he was at least consistent in what he stood for he wouldnt seem so bad but like most politicians he's throwing out complaints about other politicians to distract you from their own short comings.


and as for the "any reports contradicting the party line are erased and ignored" comments. ive seen other administrations do that. its old hat and i dont agree with it but dont act like bush is the only person who does bad things. they all do it and they ALL need to be driven out of washington.

The man has not flip flopped, he has not waivered, he's offered suggestion on what to do, he's detailed better strategies on the environment and economy. Get your head out of your arse and stop defaulting to the tread worn clap trap that it's "all politician, they all lie". Think for a nano and weigh out "I didn't inhale" versus "They have drone planes that can reach the US" + "They are months away from active Nukes" + "Osama calls Iraq his second home"+"These are mobile weapons labs"+"They were in Africa with a Nuke shopping list" and my all time favorite " Iraq poses a clear and present danger to the US".
And people think you a conservative and Republican because you've made inane comments in line with that o so limitied way of thinking.
A great example: the 1998 strike on Iraq by Clinton.
Bill Clinton stood up to Iraq in 1998, therefore Democrats must accept unprovoked war in 2003 no questions asked. Where to begin. Let's start with the historical revisionists. In 1998, Bill Clinton struck Iraq after weeks and months of obstruction of weapons inspectors by Saddam. There were numerous attempts by the inspectors and numerous warnings. Finally, Bill Clinton acted with UN backing and within a framework supported broadly and internationally.
Contrast with 2003, where UN weapons inspectors were doing their jobs, not knowing that the decision for unprecedented immoral war had already been made. What passed for public debate on Iraq turned out to be merely a stalling tactic while the Bush Administration created a series of lies and a bait-and-switch rationale designed to fool the American public and blow off international protests, including those of our most important allies.
Yet, there's blow back and we're supposed to shut up about all that because Clinton did the right thing the right way?

Clinton Gore and their immoral war in Bosnia....I will keep posting the link if needed.

Can you honestly imagine Algore running the country after 9/11???


shivers......chills..........nightmare of ineptitude and vacillation leading to capitulation and certain chaos.

...and yes. Prank is correct if some here would really pull their craniums from out of their morning business ends- Enron, worldcom must have been looting people well during ye ole Clintonian Era eh??? Where was the Clinton SEC then???? At least Bush has em going to jail or outta busines.

Solutions. Bout time....I still son't see any coming from the dems except Dean, who balanced a budget and operated a decent health care program in.......drumroll.............VER-PUNY-MONT!!

The town I live in has twice the population of Vermont! No way you can project this nationally with conficence.

Moseley brown, Kucinich(I'm in Ohio...LLLLLoser), Sharpie, I am John Kerry and your not, Gulphard, hmmm...........Leiberman not even worth making fun of. Jeez, I wonder how long Ahnold's going to hold the national stage from these guys?? What a hoot- a liberal Republican steals the show from the 9 Dwarves.

Originally posted by Bout Time
The man has not flip flopped, he has not waivered,

oh? i guess this copy of a letter i have that he SIGNED and sent to a constituent before he became vise president stating that we was against abortion, was for prayer in school and for smaller government is just a piece of republican propaganda huh? yeah you're right, he has NEVER flip flopped on a issue before! lol keep thinking that.

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Can you honestly imagine Algore running the country after 9/11???

Of course, the 9/11 security breakdown would not have happened:

- no alligence to the Saudis, so unlike Bush, he would not have called off all Intel investigations against the Saudis
- he would have implemented the bipartisan Hart/Rudman measures, as well as his own special anti-terror task force findings, both of which called for ramped up airline security checks and locked, steel reinforced cockpit doors
- he would not have called off the drone shadowing Osama, as did Bush
- seeing as he's erudite and, unlike Bush, who has the attention span of a gadfly, he would have read the whole report; you know about pilot training and skipping the landing part and "planes as weapons"...you know?
- he wouldn't have let the Saudi royal family memebers, one of whom was a know terror fund raiser, skip the country on 9/12 saying that they are "beyond reproach" ( Pssst...Us New yorkers, especially the family of those killed, don't think they are)
- he would have had the same anti terror team in place that squashed the Millenium terror plot, not some fire & brimstone evangelical fundie whack job who decide the hookers of New orleans were a bigger threat.
- On the economy, he would not have allowed price fixing in CA, or allowed tax cuts for the rich to destabalize the economy

Yeah, it would have been great!

And Monkey, as for the SEC, this site has a great search feature, read my posts on that very subject.

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Can you honestly imagine Algore running the country after 9/11???

Of course, the 9/11 security breakdown would not have happened:

- no alligence to the Saudis, so unlike Bush, he would not have called off all Intel investigations against the Saudis
- he would have implemented the bipartisan Hart/Rudman measures, as well as his own special anti-terror task force findings, both of which called for ramped up airline security checks and locked, steel reinforced cockpit doors
- he would not have called off the drone shadowing Osama, as did Bush
- seeing as he's erudite and, unlike Bush, who has the attention span of a gadfly, he would have read the whole report; you know about pilot training and skipping the landing part and "planes as weapons"...you know?
- he wouldn't have let the Saudi royal family memebers, one of whom was a know terror fund raiser, skip the country on 9/12 saying that they are "beyond reproach" ( Pssst...Us New yorkers, especially the family of those killed, don't think they are)
- he would have had the same anti terror team in place that squashed the Millenium terror plot, not some fire & brimstone evangelical fundie whack job who decide the hookers of New orleans were a bigger threat.
- On the economy, he would not have allowed price fixing in CA, or allowed tax cuts for the rich to destabalize the economy

Yeah, it would have been great!

And Monkey, as for the SEC, this site has a great search feature, read my posts on that very subject.

Hogwash!

We have been in bed and inbedded with our foriegn gas station for decades! How old are you?!
Gore would be floundering around kissing Al Sauds behind like we are now- just more so I think.

To lay all this at GWB's feet is disingenuous at the least. History is a wonderful tool my friend....ask Jimmy Carter about '78 when I stood in line for gas because of OPEC.

You seem to give Algore a lot of credit (fictional) for stuff he may have done- are you sure this passion play would end this way??

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Can you honestly imagine Algore running the country after 9/11???

Of course, the 9/11 security breakdown would not have happened:

- no alligence to the Saudis, so unlike Bush, he would not have called off all Intel investigations against the Saudis
- he would have implemented the bipartisan Hart/Rudman measures, as well as his own special anti-terror task force findings, both of which called for ramped up airline security checks and locked, steel reinforced cockpit doors
- he would not have called off the drone shadowing Osama, as did Bush
- seeing as he's erudite and, unlike Bush, who has the attention span of a gadfly, he would have read the whole report; you know about pilot training and skipping the landing part and "planes as weapons"...you know?
- he wouldn't have let the Saudi royal family memebers, one of whom was a know terror fund raiser, skip the country on 9/12 saying that they are "beyond reproach" ( Pssst...Us New yorkers, especially the family of those killed, don't think they are)
- he would have had the same anti terror team in place that squashed the Millenium terror plot, not some fire & brimstone evangelical fundie whack job who decide the hookers of New orleans were a bigger threat.
- On the economy, he would not have allowed price fixing in CA, or allowed tax cuts for the rich to destabalize the economy

Yeah, it would have been great!

And Monkey, as for the SEC, this site has a great search feature, read my posts on that very subject.

Hogwash!

We have been in bed and inbedded with our foriegn gas station for decades! How old are you?!
Gore would be floundering around kissing Al Sauds behind like we are now- just more so I think.

To lay all this at GWB's feet is disingenuous at the least. History is a wonderful tool my friend....ask Jimmy Carter about '78 when I stood in line for gas because of OPEC.

You seem to give Algore a lot of credit (fictional) for stuff he may have done- are you sure this passion play would end this way??

I'm 39, a money lovin' capitalist, have had my own IT Consulting practice since the early '90's, count a Republican Congrssman from NY as a friend ( even was a Reganite with my first vote), former military, and though I didn't finish at Wharton, my undergraduate is Ivy Leauge. As I often implore folks to do, I have reached out with both hands and gotten a grip!
You seem to laude Bush with accomplishments ( fictional ), while distancing him from culpability ( fictional).
Yet, as I implored Monkey to do, use the search engine here:
- Gore did head an anti-terror commision that mirrored the Hart/Rudman findings that was implored to be adopted by the in coming administration....who scrapped it and said Cheney would head a task force on the subject....that didn't get started until AFTER 9/11. Now even a person who's drunk the Kool-Aid like yourself would concede that someone who would be President would implement the very reccomendations they made prior?
- The House of Saud family members WERE the only ones flying on 9/12 except the US military
- Saudi intelligence gathering ceased immediately under Bush's directive as soon as he took office, also an easily searched fact, along with the Osama drone.
- Also found via search is Ashcroft's request for dept. budget increases for all areas except ANTI-TERROR
Again, " Hey Kool-Aid!" - how do you rationalize a reemphasis away from anti-terror measures via budgetary allocations not having a direct line impact to terror interdiction !?!?


The reason I am so sure of how this "passion play" would have played out is the same reason I knew Bush would "lead" us to the sorry state we're in: continuation of established themes of choice & perspective. Anyone who took the time to see how very much worse Bush left the state of Texas than when he found it would never have voted for him...well maybe you, Thomas & Monkey-Boy!

Quote:
I'm 39, a money lovin' capitalist, have had my own IT Consulting practice since the early '90's, count a Republican Congrssman from NY as a friend ( even was a Reganite with my first vote), former military, and though I didn't finish at Wharton, my undergraduate is Ivy Leauge. As I often implore folks to do, I have reached out with both hands and gotten a grip!
You seem to laude Bush with accomplishments ( fictional ), while distancing him from culpability ( fictional).
Yet, as I implored Monkey to do, use the search engine here:
- Gore did head an anti-terror commision that mirrored the Hart/Rudman findings that was implored to be adopted by the in coming administration....who scrapped it and said Cheney would head a task force on the subject....that didn't get started until AFTER 9/11. Now even a person who's drunk the Kool-Aid like yourself would concede that someone who would be President would implement the very reccomendations they made prior?
- The House of Saud family members WERE the only ones flying on 9/12 except the US military
- Saudi intelligence gathering ceased immediately under Bush's directive as soon as he took office, also an easily searched fact, along with the Osama drone.
- Also found via search is Ashcroft's request for dept. budget increases for all areas except ANTI-TERROR
Again, " Hey Kool-Aid!" - how do you rationalize a reemphasis away from anti-terror measures via budgetary allocations not having a direct line impact to terror interdiction !?!?


The reason I am so sure of how this "passion play" would have played out is the same reason I knew Bush would "lead" us to the sorry state we're in: continuation of established themes of choice & perspective. Anyone who took the time to see how very much worse Bush left the state of Texas than when he found it would never have voted for him...well maybe you, Thomas & Monkey-Boy!

Since we are patting ourselves on the back, I am older, claim a Godfather as an Ohio congressman (Democratic), a Godmother the same and a sprinkling of city councilmen (former) also as friends......Alumni from The Ohio State Univ., am not a money grubbing capitalist; former military, my first vote was Democratic and I have never been to Jonestown. Thank You.

Crystal balls are a wonderful thing- I am certain that GWB (who I have never lauded for achievement- only defended from spurious inuendo at times) and the Admin. wanted their own plan - they were preempted by the horror of 9/11. This is no reason to gloat "I told you so's!" , similar seeming ineptitude transpired at Pearl Harbour I recall.

The point I made concerned post 9/11. I really, and there were polls that concured, believe Algore would not have been the force we needed to act decisively in Afgahnistan. I just do not think he has it. Neither did the American people according to Gallup.

As for GWB cutting the budget for Homeland Security, I'm not sure where that is so: From uspolicy.be-

www.uspolicy.be...

From the OMB-

In a February 5 statement before the Senate Budget Committee, Daniels told lawmakers that despite the demands of war and recovery from recession, the federal budget for fiscal year 2003 will be "near balance," and that the deficit the OMB predicts "will be the nation's smallest in times of recession since the early 1950s."

President Bush's budget proposals "do what must be done, while protecting our fiscal future," Daniels said.

The OMB Director said the recession in the United States contributed to the decline in estimated budget surpluses. Since the September 11 terror attacks on America, it was clear that the government's "fiscal picture had changed in a fundamental way," he said.

The Bush administration budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 -- October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003 -- is a budget for a "two-front war," Daniels said.

The budget proposal helps the government to "deliver on the paramount duty" to secure the safety of the American people, he continued.

According to Daniels, President Bush is asking for 12 percent growth "in base defense spending." The President is also requesting a sum of $10 billion ($10,000 million) to be used, if needed, in waging the war against terrorism overseas.

The Bush administration budget would also double the funding for homeland security, Daniels said.

"We have worked closely with the Office of Homeland Security to define and budget for these activities," he said.

...Ashcroft oversees the FBI and not much more since HSecurity bill was passed and eliminated some responsibility from him. If ashcroft asked for increases in all areas he oversees- this is not right?? He is wrong?

And, we can wax sentimental about BC's war on terrorism results......if we could find any. Algore confabulates so much he doesn't even know what he is lying about most of the time- this is why he has earned the mistrust of the people. Perspective counts it seems. Perhaps if the last Admin. had not been embroiled up to it's heavy lidded eyeballs in missteps, missdeeds and such, Osama may have had his very own drone for Christmas.

I personally appreciate ThomasCrowne and Prank for(unlike many whose contributions consist only of pointing out their opinions and assertions of republican wrongdoing and wishing GWB was dead(?)) keeping perspective and negativity at bay when we need it the least. I almost wish one of your candidates makes the Whitehouse so the shoe goes on the other foot for a while- ...well, maybe not.....the pain of mediocrity would be too much. I'd rather gov. err on the better side than fail for self- agrandizement and votes.

Again, I had a vote. Now I live in the present like you. Do I like all that is happening in partisan politics-no. Do I wish we could have a panacea where all agree and construct only for the public good? Yes. This is never going to happen and one must make choices within ones own perspectives- I'll have some strawberry please now.