PDA

View Full Version : Gore Takes Aim at Bush's Iraq Policy


Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 01:45 PM
Former Vice President Al Gore, attacking U.S. policies in Iraq and at home, charged Thursday that the Bush administration "routinely shows disrespect" for the "honest and open debate" that produces the truth.
"I think it's partly because they feel they already know the truth, and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it," Gore said in a 35-minute address at New York University.

Ahh speaking at one of my alma-maters.
How relevant a political figure is Gore? What kind of impact, if any, will this have?


Full story (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-gorespeech0807,0,4415269.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
Ahh speaking at one of my alma-maters.
How relevant a political figure is Gore? What kind of impact, if any, will this have?


Full story (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-gorespeech0807,0,4415269.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Sounds like Al is positioning himself for reentry into the race. There are an awful lot of Democrats out there who would vote for him again, but the "movers and shakers" in the party don't want Gore to run. Hell, if he keeps up this position on Bush's foreign policy and Ashcroft's campaign against civil liberties I'd vote for him.

patrick0brien
Aug 7, 2003, 03:52 PM
"I think it's partly because they feel they already know the truth, and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it," Gore said in a 35-minute address at New York University.

-I think that's exactly it - and this probably applies to most current policy actions in this administration.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 04:04 PM
originally posted by patrickObrien
-I think that's exactly it - and this probably applies to most current policy actions in this administration.

i agree...it's reflected in the culture though. look at all the news shows where people don't debate - they yell down each other, and don't bother to listen to anything but their own voice.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 04:05 PM
originally posted by Seyhey
Sounds like Al is positioning himself for reentry into the race.

there's this:

friends say gore won't run (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-usgore0807,0,6496200.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 04:06 PM
Right message, wrong messenger.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
there's this:

friends say gore won't run (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-usgore0807,0,6496200.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Of course you maybe right, but Al wouldn't be the first politician to play fickle with the voters. It doesn't sound as if he is content to focus on the growth of my favorite computer company.

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Right message, wrong messenger.

If I get to pick the messenger Gore's not my choice either, but I want someone unafraid to deliver the message - if that is Gore, it's alright with me.

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
If I get to pick the messenger Gore's not my choice either, but I want someone unafraid to deliver the message - if that is Gore, it's alright with me.

I'd like to think I can separate the truth from the teller, but the fact remains that many people will automatically dismiss all of Gore's criticisms as political sour grapes without even bothering to address the argument being made. It's awfully difficult for anyone in his position to be taken completely seriously on political issues. We need fresh, new faces talking about this stuff -- people without a huge load of baggage to haul around.

jbomber
Aug 7, 2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Right message, wrong messenger.

Yeah, I agree. Gore was the man for the job before dropping off the radar. :(

Now it's a matter of picking through the barely warm bodies that the democratic party has left in the running, and finding someone with the balls to step up and say what needs to be said.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'd like to think I can separate the truth from the teller, but the fact remains that many people will automatically dismiss all of Gore's criticisms as political sour grapes without even bothering to address the argument being made. It's awfully difficult for anyone in his position to be taken completely seriously on political issues. We need fresh, new faces talking about this stuff -- people without a huge load of baggage to haul around.

I won't argue against the need for new faces, but why is Gore dismissed as so much sour grapes if a Nixon, Reagan or GHW Bush can run over and over?

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 7, 2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Of course you maybe right, but Al wouldn't be the first politician to play fickle with the voters. It doesn't sound as if he is content to focus on the growth of my favorite computer company.

i agree, but he may just want to do what he can to weaken bush and throw some support at the democratic runner. but altruism in a politician? i don't buy it either ;)

IJ Reilly
Aug 7, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I won't argue against the need for new faces, but why is Gore dismissed as so much sour grapes if a Nixon, Reagan or GHW Bush can run over and over?

That's a good question, but since I didn't care for any of these characters I might not be the one to ask. Gore really only ran in 2000 because he's a member of the Democratic political aristocracy, and it was "his turn." Both parties work this way most of the time, it seems to me.

mactastic
Aug 7, 2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
That's a good question, but since I didn't care for any of these characters I might not be the one to ask. Gore really only ran in 2000 because he's a member of the Democratic political aristocracy, and it was "his turn." Both parties work this way most of the time, it seems to me.

Republicans learned that lesson when they ran BobDole against Bill Clinton when it was Dole's "turn". Just 'cuz it's your turn doesn't mean you are best suited for the job.

Sayhey
Aug 7, 2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
That's a good question, but since I didn't care for any of these characters I might not be the one to ask. Gore really only ran in 2000 because he's a member of the Democratic political aristocracy, and it was "his turn." Both parties work this way most of the time, it seems to me.

IJ Reilly,
would it make a difference if the names were Stevenson or Bryan? Don't get me wrong I'm not a great fan of Gore, although I've liked him a lot more since the 2000 election than before it. I like that he spoke out strongly when the resolutions around Iraq were before Congress when other Democrats were hiding. I like this new statement. I could go on and on about the things in the Clinton/Gore years I didn't like, but it seems to me that on the critical issues before the nation he's not so bad. And one other thing he has going for him that the other candidates don't - he should be President.

As to his background, I don't like rich boys who are groomed for the job anymore than the next guy. He and Dubya's background as politcal princes are too similar for my tastes, but then one could say the same about many political families such as the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

In the final analysis, I will work for almost anybody who is nominated and will take on Bush.

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ Reilly,
would it make a difference if the names were Stevenson or Bryan? Don't get me wrong I'm not a great fan of Gore, although I've liked him a lot more since the 2000 election than before it. I like that he spoke out strongly when the resolutions around Iraq were before Congress when other Democrats were hiding. I like this new statement. I could go on and on about the things in the Clinton/Gore years I didn't like, but it seems to me that on the critical issues before the nation he's not so bad. And one other thing he has going for him that the other candidates don't - he should be President.

As to his background, I don't like rich boys who are groomed for the job anymore than the next guy. He and Dubya's background as politcal princes are too similar for my tastes, but then one could say the same about many political families such as the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

In the final analysis, I will work for almost anybody who is nominated and will take on Bush.

Wasn't it Adlai Stevenson who said it was just as well that he was never elected president, because he would have hated having to shave twice a day?

Anyway... I'm not sure we're part of an actual majority to have a reflexive distaste for the politically well-born. The nation seem to elect a lot of them.

I'll see who the Democrats choose next year, but even though I've been a political nonpartisan for over 25 years now, I'm also prepared to back nearly anyone who can hand Mr. Bush his walking papers.

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Wasn't it Adlai Stevenson who said it was just as well that he was never elected president, because he would have hated having to shave twice a day?

Anyway... I'm not sure we're part of an actual majority to have a reflexive distaste for the politically well-born. The nation seem to elect a lot of them.

I'll see who the Democrats choose next year, but even though I've been a political nonpartisan for over 25 years now, I'm also prepared to back nearly anyone who can hand Mr. Bush his walking papers.

Never heard the Stevenson quote before, but I like it! No wonder Adlai didn't win, he was to human for the job.

I too used to register "decline to state" but I got sick of being confronted with choices I had no say in come November. I caved in and registered as a Democratic in the eighties. Glad to see there are some who still refuse to buckle. As to your last sentence all I can say, and this is from a non-religious man, AMEN!

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 8, 2003, 06:42 AM
IJ and Sayhey,

just wanted to chime in and basically say me too. as for the history of presidents born and raised for the job, the country loves its dynasties. i saw a quote earlier this year from some GOP big-shot talking about Jeb in '08, something like, "the nomination is his if he wants it." this was well before iraq, however.

i'm holding out hope that the dems will throw someone up next year who i'll feel good about supporting, and not just as an "anything but W" candidate.

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Never heard the Stevenson quote before, but I like it! No wonder Adlai didn't win, he was to human for the job.

I too used to register "decline to state" but I got sick of being confronted with choices I had no say in come November. I caved in and registered as a Democratic in the eighties. Glad to see there are some who still refuse to buckle. As to your last sentence all I can say, and this is from a non-religious man, AMEN!

I can't remember where I heard the Stevenson quote, and this is obviously a paraphrase, so consider it unverified!

My decline-to-state career began in 1976, when the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter. If figured if this was the best the party could do, they sure didn't need my help. Cast my first vote for an independent for president in 1980 (John Anderson). I still have one of his campaign buttons around somewhere. A future non-collectable item for sure.

I believe the numbers of disaffected, disenfranchised nonpartisans like myself have been growing in recent years. I'm not a cussedly anti-party person, but I do feel like one of the lost tribes of Israel, wandering in the desert, hoping against hope that a leader will some day emerge to show us the way. I suppose this makes me a bloody-minded optimist; or even worse, an idealist.

Desertrat
Aug 8, 2003, 11:25 AM
"I believe the numbers of disaffected, disenfranchised nonpartisans like myself have been growing in recent years."

Probably right, considering the ever-lessening of eligible voters who do show up at the polls.

I'm an independent in local elections and in state elections, generally, where it's easy to get to know the incumbents and candidates. For national office, I've been mostly holding my nose and voting Republican. I'm a landowner and a long-time shooter and hunter: It's hard to support a Clinton or Gore, with their stance on such idiocies as the Brady Bill, or their land-use policies.

"I'm not a bigot; I hate all politicians equally!"

:D, 'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
... I suppose this makes me a bloody-minded optimist; or even worse, an idealist.

Don't say that as if it's a bad thing. And as John said your not the only one. It's too easy to become cynical in politics we need people who believe change for the better is possible.

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Don't say that as if it's a bad thing. And as John said your not the only one. It's too easy to become cynical in politics we need people who believe change for the better is possible.

I'm never sure whether to believe all of the traditional cautions against optimism and idealism, which boil down to accusations of naivety, callowness, or worse. I suppose I've resolved these issues in my own mind by adopting the personal philosophy of hoping for the best but expecting the worst.

mactastic
Aug 8, 2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I'm a landowner and a long-time shooter and hunter: It's hard to support a Clinton or Gore, with their stance on such idiocies as the Brady Bill, or their land-use policies.


Funny, I was thinking I'd have a hard time supporting Bush's stance on gun control and his land use policies.

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
IJ and Sayhey,

just wanted to chime in and basically say me too. as for the history of presidents born and raised for the job, the country loves its dynasties. i saw a quote earlier this year from some GOP big-shot talking about Jeb in '08, something like, "the nomination is his if he wants it." this was well before iraq, however.

i'm holding out hope that the dems will throw someone up next year who i'll feel good about supporting, and not just as an "anything but W" candidate.

Ambrose,

Jeb may well be the candidate in '08, unless we get his brother out of the WH in '04. In which case Dubya may be running again. It is interesting to think about who the Republicans could throw up other than the Bush brothers; there is not a lot to choose from after them. McCain is going to be saddled with age and health questions so that leaves who? Bill Frist? Perhaps we can look forward to nuts like Santorum or even Ashcroft? There is a definite drift to the right in Republican politics.

With the Democrats this cycle, I would not mind seeing Kerry, Dean, Kucinich, or Braun. The last two have no chance in hell, so I've been wavering between Kerry and Dean. As I've said before, if Gore gets back in I wouldn't mind him either. Of the current candidates I only have a dislike for Lieberman and Graham.

IJ Reilly,
I think the trick is to try to mix optimism, idealism, and a heavy dose of realism. At least that is what I think sounds good. I let you know if it works.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 8, 2003, 01:16 PM
I found the original quote (from thismodernworld.com), it's from mid-april:

With Republicans expecting President Bush to roll to reelection in 2004, their focus is fast turning to 2008 and whom the GOP will run against expected Democratic nominee Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now, Whispers is told that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush looks strong. "If Jeb is in the mix" for the nomination, says a top GOP official, "it's his."

as for other candidates, yeah i don't know...maybe they'll just decide to run DeLay. ashcroft...i'd definitely pack my bags for the great white north.

as for dems this time around, right now i prefer kerry or dean. being here in new england we got a lot of kerry/dean coverage, so i'm most familiar with them. lieberman comes off as just a moderate republican.

I think the trick is to try to mix optimism, idealism, and a heavy dose of realism. At least that is what I think sounds good. I let you know if it works.

pessimism is quickly gaining the upper hand with me, though i still get outraged over a lot of stuff..guess that means i still have some idealism left!

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 01:41 PM
How's this for a dose of pessimism, Ann Coulter for President in 2008! We all can be up on treason charges! Sorry, didn't mean to give anyone nightmares. ;)

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 8, 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
How's this for a dose of pessimism, Ann Coulter for President in 2008! We all can be up on treason charges! Sorry, didn't mean to give anyone nightmares.

i'm already trembling!

how about this, which i saw at thismodernworld (taken from salon). perot is thinking of an 04 run:

But should we really just treat Ross as a bad joke? My read of his proposal is that he is serious about addressing the country's economic problems, furious at the GOP's irresponsible tax cuts and anxious to return to the national stage, possibly with some form of grass-roots movement by his side. For anyone who remembers how little respect Perot has shown for the Bush family over the years -- not only did he break Poppy Bush's hold on the White House, in 1994 he went out of his way to publicly endorse the Democratic gubernatorial opponents of both George W. in Texas and Jeb in Florida -- there's an intriguing subtext to all this: Ross may think that by launching this new effort in time for 2004 he can crack the Republican lock on power again, to stop the party's "radical agenda" and prevent a "fiscal disaster."

mactastic
Aug 8, 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
How's this for a dose of pessimism, Ann Coulter for President in 2008! We all can be up on treason charges! Sorry, didn't mean to give anyone nightmares. ;)

Or Angela Davis to creep out those on the right. :p

bobindashadows
Aug 8, 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
How's this for a dose of pessimism, Ann Coulter for President in 2008! We all can be up on treason charges! Sorry, didn't mean to give anyone nightmares. ;)

That would be fun to watch if Hillary ran. Hillary would probably win, but Ann will always be much funnier than Hillary.

Of course, I doubt 2% of this board has actually read the book (have you? don't judge her opinions if you don't really know what they are. I don't know if you have, but i doubt anybody else has.) - most of you wouldn't fall under the "treasonous" category with which she labels liberals today. I doubt many of you people would say Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent, nor Alger Hiss. Unfortunately, all of your media venues hold strong to this, such as the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Read the book(s), then judge her. Even if you disagree with her, her books are based on empirical research.

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
i'm already trembling!

how about this, which i saw at thismodernworld (taken from salon). perot is thinking of an 04 run:

It makes sense. Perot's main issue was always the deficit and Bush has certainly given him an issue to run on. I can't believe that a Perot campaign would get anywhere near the traction it did in '92. Still, I'd welcome anyone who will take away Bush votes.

bobindashadows,

"Read the book(s), then judge her." You're right I haven't read her book, but I've heard her talk many times. She seems to me to be the most shrill, uninformed, talking head out there, IMO.

Desertrat
Aug 8, 2003, 02:49 PM
mactastic, stuff like the gun control thing is a "by comparison" deal. Some politicos will see things the "wrong" way, by my views, but they may not be activist about it.

Leaving out all other problems with Ashcroft, I'd sure rather have his views of the Second Amendment than Janet Rhino's!

Sure, Bush opened his mouth about the sunset of the "assault weapons" ban, but his handlers rather quickly muzzled him. He doesn't need a bunch of the gun-owners staying home on election day.

As far as land use, the Bushies are less enamored of such things as the UN "Biosphere Preserve" stuff than were the Klintonians. I'm in favor of protecting or enhancing certain habitats, but not in the high-handed manner of recent years. It's the old bit about, "It's not what you're doing, it's how you're doing it that's making me mad."

'Rat

bobindashadows
Aug 8, 2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey

bobindashadows,

"Read the book(s), then judge her." You're right I haven't read her book, but I've heard her talk many times. She seems to me to be the most shrill, uninformed, talking head out there, IMO.

Could you provide a point as to why you feel that way? Because she is conservative and doesn't agree with you? Because that's what I've been getting out of most people on this board. And if you have an example to explain why you think she is uninformed, I'd love to hear it.

"Well, I hate Bush and all conservatives, so I don't care if Stalin opposed him if he'd take Bush's votes. Republican's are so stupid!"
"Hehe. I hate republicans. They're dumb."
"Yeah, I'd have to say Republicans are the most stupid people on Earth! Bush is the worst. I'm smarter than he is!"
"Yeah, so am I."
"My kid is smarter than GWB!"
"Haha republicans are stupid"

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Read the book(s), then judge her. Even if you disagree with her, her books are based on empirical research.

Empirical research, as in scientific experimentation? That's rich. Anybody who can imagine an apology for Joe McCarthy in this day and age must have a screw loose. In fact I doubt they'd possess a single secured screw or bolt in their entire physiology. Proven by empirical research, btw...

patrick0brien
Aug 8, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
"Well, I hate Bush and all conservatives, so I don't care if Stalin opposed him if he'd take Bush's votes. Republican's are so stupid!"
"Hehe. I hate republicans. They're dumb."
"Yeah, I'd have to say Republicans are the most stupid people on Earth! Bush is the worst. I'm smarter than he is!"
"Yeah, so am I."
"My kid is smarter than GWB!"
"Haha republicans are stupid"

-bobindashadows

Finger pointing and blamestorming gets us nowhere - let alone name calling.

Open, spirited, and respectful debate, absent of name calling, overtalking, and distractive points is what gets things done.

Unfortunately, this is in short supply - always has been. Ergo the writing of Robert's Rules of Order in Parlimentary Procedure.

BTW- I'm republican, and am told quite often, smart. And I rarely mention my political affiliations as well, so cherish this admission :D

bobindashadows
Aug 8, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Empirical research, as in scientific experimentation? That's rich. Anybody who can imagine an apology for Joe McCarthy in this day and age must have a screw loose. In fact I doubt they'd possess a single secured screw or bolt in their entire physiology. Proven by empirical research, btw...

You're right, empirical was the incorrect word.

And since you obviously haven't read the book and don't want to hear anything but what you already believe, I'm not going to spend any more time trying to convince you.... I'm done on the political boards. I've spent way too much time trying to open the minds of you people beyond the confined spaces of your own ideals - you can all just sit in your own world where the only sane people are liberals, and the only reason any Republicans are in power is because they manipulate the votes. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-bobindashadows

Finger pointing and blamestorming gets us nowhere - let alone name calling.

Open, spirited, and respectful debate, absent of name calling, overtalking, and distractive points is what gets things done.

Unfortunately, this is in short supply - always has been. Ergo the writing of Robert's Rules of Order in Parlimentary Procedure.

BTW- I'm republican, and am told quite often, smart. And I rarely mention my political affiliations as well, so cherish this admission :D

Uhh... I was saying that's how lots of the liberals on this board act.... I don't believe any of that. But you make a good point about open, spirited, and respectful debate.

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
You're right, empirical was the incorrect word.

And since you obviously haven't read the book and don't want to hear anything but what you already believe, I'm not going to spend any more time trying to convince you.... I'm done on the political boards. I've spent way too much time trying to open the minds of you people beyond the confined spaces of your own ideals - you can all just sit in your own world where the only sane people are liberals, and the only reason any Republicans are in power is because they manipulate the votes.

No, I don't have time for reading fetid political compost of any persuasion, and I have especially little patience for people who'd make a mockery of history. I recently posted a damning critique of this book -- written by a credentialed conservative. So it seems you have missed the point by a wide mark.

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Could you provide a point as to why you feel that way? Because she is conservative and doesn't agree with you? Because that's what I've been getting out of most people on this board. And if you have an example to explain why you think she is uninformed, I'd love to hear it.

"Well, I hate Bush and all conservatives, so I don't care if Stalin opposed him if he'd take Bush's votes. Republican's are so stupid!"
"Hehe. I hate republicans. They're dumb."
"Yeah, I'd have to say Republicans are the most stupid people on Earth! Bush is the worst. I'm smarter than he is!"
"Yeah, so am I."
"My kid is smarter than GWB!"
"Haha republicans are stupid"

Bobindashadows,

First things first - the remark about Coulter running in 2008 was a JOKE! If you like her and think it would be good for the country if she runs, I'm sorry if I offended you. I think she would be and is a disaster!

Why I don't like her politics and think she is "shrill and uninformed," well check out the following web page from the Washington Monthly that includes many quotes from her many appearences on TV:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

I particularly like:
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks." --- Rivera Live 8/2/99
amazing political insight! and
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." --- George , 7/99
of course all of the majority of the country who voted for him actually hate our country, why didn't I see it before?

I have many reasons not to like Coulter's views and her style, but if you like her - have at it.

I do have to ask if all the quotes you include in your post are from anybody or did you just make them up as straw men to make your argument easier to support? I know they aren't from me.

bobindashadows
Aug 8, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Bobindashadows,

First things first - the remark about Coulter running in 2008 was a JOKE! If you like her and think it would be good for the country if she runs, I'm sorry if I offended you. I think she would be and is a disaster!

Why I don't like her politics and think she is "shrill and uninformed," well check out the following web page from the Washington Monthly that includes many quotes from her many appearences on TV:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

I particularly like:
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks." --- Rivera Live 8/2/99
amazing political insight! and
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." --- George , 7/99
of course all of the majority of the country who voted for him actually hate our country, why didn't I see it before?

well I appreciate the fact that you were able to show an example of your opinion, to which you are entitled. I have a feeling that the "Clinton masturbates in the sinks." thing was kind of a joke, she tries to be funny to appear less uptight (is my idea) and i think its kind of a funny. The other one, she was probably serious, but perhaps she doesn't realize that most of the democrats who helped keep him in office simply voted party line - she may think that liberals don't appreciate America, but most liberals aren't the kind she's actually talking about, and they do appreciate it.

However, I do get the impression on this board that a lot of people here do hate America. I won't name names because that'll get me in twubble. I don't think you do, but there is a crowd here.

Originally posted by Sayhey

I have many reasons not to like Coulter's views and her style, but if you like her - have at it.

I do have to ask if all the quotes you include in your post are from anybody or did you just make them up as straw men to make your argument easier to support? I know they aren't from me.

No... those were exaggerations ;) I try to throw in exaggeration to make a funny or two. I don't think that supported my argument at all, I was just trying to be silly. However, I do hear a lot of "Republicans are stupid/ignorant" here, and in this thread, a lot of people saying they'll support anyone that will run against Bush... which is essentially saying they hate Bush, which is perfectly fine in this country.... I just wish people wouldn't try to mask hatred with their position on issues.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 8, 2003, 06:27 PM
However, I do hear a lot of "Republicans are stupid/ignorant" here, and in this thread, a lot of people saying they'll support anyone that will run against Bush... which is essentially saying they hate Bush, which is perfectly fine in this country.... I just wish people wouldn't try to mask hatred with their position on issues.

I said I would suppoprt anyone against W (within reason of course), because I disagree with him on just about every issue, vehemently in many cases, and I fear the direction he is bringing this country towards. Does that mean I hate him? I never met him, who knows. I do think he is a very bad President, absolutely. As for hating this country, if that were the case, I just wouldn't care what happens.

I think someone like Ann Coulter spews much more hatred, and whether or not it is just an act to sell more books, it's part of this culture of political debate where you win if you shout down your opponent. Not very constructive...

patrick0brien
Aug 8, 2003, 06:31 PM
-Gents

Don't forget that it is debates like these and the differring opinions that lead to the checks and balances that make the U.S. system of government as great as it is.

This system is self-correcting, and that's a direct result of endorsing these conversations, no matter how heated they get.

Keep it up gents, and try not to pee in each others Wheaties too much :D

IJ Reilly
Aug 8, 2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
No... those were exaggerations ;) I try to throw in exaggeration to make a funny or two.

Was this remark directed at me:
I've spent way too much time trying to open the minds of you people beyond the confined spaces of your own ideals - you can all just sit in your own world where the only sane people are liberals, and the only reason any Republicans are in power is because they manipulate the votes.
... supposed to be "funny?" If so, kindly explain how belittling and misrepresenting the views of others is humorous, because I sure don't get the joke.

Sayhey
Aug 8, 2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
....However, I do get the impression on this board that a lot of people here do hate America. I won't name names because that'll get me in twubble. I don't think you do, but there is a crowd here.

... However, I do hear a lot of "Republicans are stupid/ignorant" here, and in this thread, a lot of people saying they'll support anyone that will run against Bush... which is essentially saying they hate Bush, which is perfectly fine in this country.... I just wish people wouldn't try to mask hatred with their position on issues.

Bobindashadows,

I don't think "Republicans are stupid/ignorant" and if you see me express those views on these boards I'll make you a deal - I'll read Coulter book! My dear "sainted" mother, who is a life-long Republican, would kill me if I every said such a thing! Now, I might say such things about individual Republicans, but never you.

I think from the link you can see why many people have such a reaction to Coutler. She seems to specialize in ad hominem attacks that get her lots of attention but few friends.

As to people who hate this country, I see a lot of questioning of the direction our leaders are taking us in, but not hatred toward our people. But whatever the emotion behind the sentiment, it seems to me that it is always better to weigh the content of statements rather than react to the emotion. Can't say that I've always done that, but I try.

bobindashadows
Aug 8, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Was this remark directed at me:
[too lazy to put in my quote - if people want it, they can scroll up and look at IJ Reilly's post]
... supposed to be "funny?" If so, kindly explain how belittling and misrepresenting the views of others is humorous, because I sure don't get the joke.

It wasn't directed at you. You appear to me to think within reason.

And yes, Ann Coulter has a lot of hatred. I never said she should be president - she serves better as a columnist. I'm just saying that if Hillary ran, it would be funny if Ann ran against her.

pseudobrit
Aug 8, 2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
However, I do get the impression on this board that a lot of people here do hate America. I won't name names because that'll get me in twubble. I don't think you do, but there is a crowd here.

Ever think that people hate Bush because of his position on issues and his actions? That's why I don't like him. If Bush were a decent president, I'd have no trouble supporting him, regardless of party. I wanted to like him, I really did, especially after 9/11, but everything he's done flies in the face of what being an American is all about (hint: being an American isn't all about cutting taxes and waging war).

As it is, he's a disaster who's ruining my country. If you think it's people like me who hate their country because we complain the loudest, you're horribly mistaken.

I love my country and I want the best for it and the world, and that's exactly why I'm sick at what's being done to it.

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 01:33 AM
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
--H.L. Mencken

Sayhey
Aug 9, 2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
--H.L. Mencken

Like the quote, Zimv20. What do you think of Gore's statement?

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Like the quote, Zimv20. What do you think of Gore's statement?

i've been super busy the past couple days and haven't had a chance to read it. i did read an article w/ some quotes. i liked what i heard. i like the idea of gore finally getting angry and, hopefully, setting the tone for those who have been angry but didn't feel they could express it.

i think it's time to get mad. bush has made my country a threat to the rest of the world and a laughingstock. i'm mad. i'm glad gore is, too.

Sayhey
Aug 9, 2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
i think it's time to get mad. bush has made my country a threat to the rest of the world and a laughingstock. i'm mad. i'm glad gore is, too.

Very good, zimv20, very good! Glad to see Chicago has a few rabble rousers left. I'm ready to march to Haymarket square with you. Now if some of the candidates would only show a little of that fire.

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 09:49 AM
I see a lot of "Bush is wrong." I see little "What I would have done is...", followed by, "However, given the existing situation, what I would try to do is..."

It takes no smarts whatsoever to carp and whine about others' misdeeds. It does take a modicum of talent to offer viable solutions--with the operative word being "viable".

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 9, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I see a lot of "Bush is wrong." I see little "What I would have done is...", followed by, "However, given the existing situation, what I would try to do is..."

It takes no smarts whatsoever to carp and whine about others' misdeeds. It does take a modicum of talent to offer viable solutions--with the operative word being "viable".

'Rat

Hey that sentiment is there on both sides. I haven't heard you offering much in the way of solutions either...;)

zimv20
Aug 9, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I see a lot of "Bush is wrong." I see little "What I would have done is...",

geez, i got a million of 'em. here's a few:

1. wrt terror intelligence, let the CIA/NSA/et. al. do their job and see where it actually led
2. don't assume a couple rosy GAO surplus predictions will actually come to pass
3. come out in support of ICC
4. demand legislation raising min. mileage requirements for passengar vehicles
5. repeal stupid "free hummer" laws
6. day 1 - have some serious talks w/ N. Korea
7. push for campaign finance reform
8. push for increases in education funding
9. sick my attorney general on enron et. al.
10. close tax loopholes/shelters for offshore HQs
11. make china my new best friend
12. become a truly disinterested (not same as uninterested) party between israel and the palestinians
13. let the african NGOs do their work unhindered
14. enact most if not all the recommendations in the hart-rudmann report

there's a few for starters.

mactastic
Aug 9, 2003, 12:42 PM
Where can you get a free hummer? Is this another Clinton program?:p :D ;)

IJ Reilly
Aug 9, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Where can you get a free hummer? Is this another Clinton program?:p :D ;)

I think he must be referring to the substantial tax subsidies (an immediate write-off) available for people who buy vehicles over three tons in gross weight for business use. When these tax laws were passed (during the '70s, IIRC), vehicles of this size were trucks used for construction businesses and the like. Now that some of the largest passenger cars qualify, nobody's had the guts to propose revising the rules. So you can't really get a "free Hummer." A government subsidized Hummer will have to do.

pseudobrit
Aug 9, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
I see a lot of "Bush is wrong." I see little "What I would have done is...", followed by, "However, given the existing situation, what I would try to do is..."

It takes no smarts whatsoever to carp and whine about others' misdeeds. It does take a modicum of talent to offer viable solutions--with the operative word being "viable".

'Rat

Like they'd listen to a better solution anyway.

They're egotistical bastards, every one. From Bush to Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, their pride is their sin, and we're doing the penance for it.

Desertrat
Aug 9, 2003, 03:52 PM
You're sure close, IJ. It's not instant writeoff; it's the 100% writeoff. If you bought the same-value Lexus sedan as your business vehicle, you can only write off $13,000 worth. Ergo, the one-ton dually 4WD 4-Dr pickemups, the big Suburbans, etc. Any GVW of 6,500 pound or more. The $13,000 deal was a Democrat deal of "No corporate bigwigs in tax-deductible Cadillacs." Sure didn't help average fuel economy worth a darn.

mactastic, I haven't done a whole bunch of hollering as an "aginner", either. :)

Re a few of zimv20's list, where I think I have a dab of understanding:

1. wrt terror intelligence, let the CIA/NSA/et. al. do their job and see where it actually led

I assume you mean a more objective manner? While I would agree with that, I don't know how you have any agency without the employees having their own beliefs and agendas which affect their work.

4. demand legislation raising min. mileage requirements for passengar vehicles

Raising the minimum as opposed to raising the average? The present deal spreads the costs throughout all levels of our transportation system, whether end-user or producer. I am against ordering folks out of vehicles with which they are happy. It is apparently the case that hydro-carbon fuel cells are some 30% more efficient than the IC engine, so right now I'm in "wait and see" mode.

5. repeal stupid "free hummer" laws

Naw, just get rid of the $13,000 limitation on writeoffs.

6. day 1 - have some serious talks w/ N. Korea

Yeah--but it takes two serious folks for serious talks...

7. push for campaign finance reform

PACs came about as the Democrats' notion of campaign reform. If you remove the First Amendment violations from this last abortive effort, I probably wouldn't object to the other terms...

8. push for increases in education funding

The feds got into the education act around 1962. I've watched things go downhill from there. Leave the tax money at the local/state level and get rid of the US Dept of Edu.

10. close tax loopholes/shelters for offshore HQs

Why? Why can't folks set up their corporations any darned where they please? If a corporate Hq can be moved from NYC's tax base to Houston's, why not to a climate more salubrious from a federal tax standpoint?

11. make china my new best friend

Insofar as is possible, sure. "Best", however, depends on China.

12. become a truly disinterested (not same as uninterested) party between israel and the palestinians

Okay, but I'd think there would be a credibility problem. We're inherently Israel's friend and would stay that way, I think. Might be better for a truly disinterested other party to try? However, I remember the Helsinki love-fest...At any rate, there's enough for a book, on this issue...

13. let the african NGOs do their work unhindered

Fine by me. I'm like a lot of folks who have little optimism about the multitudes of problems there--most of which, IMO, stem more from venal politicians than from the various groups of peoples.

'Rat

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 11, 2003, 06:49 AM
here's a long but interesting article from yesterday's washington post about the evidence used to justify the war. i think you need to register with the site to access content (for free)

Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html)

here's a randomly pulled excerpt:

The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 03:26 PM
Just finally got around to watching all of Gore's speech. It's available at http://moveon.org/ for viewing using realplayer. It's about 45 minutes and worth the time.