Dewey, if one or two people had actually been sloppy and then corrected it, I would excuse it. But they did it intentionally and kept doing it when it was pointed out to them.
As far as “helping to create”, Gore sponsored teh legislation, without which it would not have existed. While you may try to parse out the words all you like, without those acts the internet would not have existed, so “helped create” is accurate and not even too boastful. If anything, he understated.
As far as the OP goes, any collective, be it Republicans or Democrats, or Wiccans or Calvinists has the capacity to act in an evil fashion when their vision butts up against the vision of others. If only Republicans existed, it would be hard to argue that anything they did was evil with respect to anyone else.
For starters, most punditry didn’t really make out the Internet thing to be a “lie” so much as an exaggeration – it was painted as an example of Gore, essentially, puffing his resume.
And hell’s bells, man, there’s an election on – it is not the job of your opponent to choose the most flattering interpretation of your own words. Instead, it is your job to avoid uttering words that can be used against you.
Gore ran a stupid, stupid, stupid campaign, and this is a prime exhibit. If the Gore campaign had simply (and loudly) said “y’know, the vice president misspoke; he meant only that his legislation expanded the internet, and he’s sorry he didn’t phrase his reply to Wolf Blitzer in a clearer fashion,” none of this would have been a big deal. But Gore – and, more aptly, Gore partisans – tried to structure this ridiculous argument that the vice president’s words didn’t mean what they actually mean, that Gore didn’t make a mistake, that he said what he meant and meant what he said, blah blah blah – see I am Sparticus’ posts above for an example. And that attidude – that unwillingness to admit that their candidate had (gasp!) made a mistake – gave the joke legs. It reinforced the notion that Gore was a bloodless automaton filled with self-importance, and that hurt him in the campaign.
This kind of stuff is par for the course in American politics. Dan Quayle was certainly aware of how to spell “potato.” And don’t get me started on Bush Sr. and the supermarket scanners.
By this, I assume you mean conservatives who used “invented” instead of “created.” You still haven’t explained how those terms are different in any meaningful way. If the line on Gore had been “he said he created the Internet,” would your reaction be any different? I hardly think so.
BTW, I think “invented” caught on because of its alliteration with “Internet.” It’s catchier.
That is patently false on its face. The internet would certainly have “existed” even without the Gore legislation because it existed before those bills were ever written (only the web came about after the legislation, in 1991 – long after Gore’s legislation, and Gore’s legislation had nothing to do with that anyway). Without Gore, the Internet might have been smaller, it might not have grown at quite the pace that it has, but it would certainly have existed.
Oh, and one more thing, Sparticus: Gore did not say he “helped to” create anything. He said he “took the initiative in creating the Internet.” See the transcript I linked to earlier. You’re attempting a bit of revisionist history here by altering the quote.
“In the Beginning, God took the initiative in creating…”
No, doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? “Took the initiative” doesn’t say “created” unless the syntax is tortured into a confession.
Oddly, though Gore ran a “stupid, stupid campaign”, yet he still managed to stumble into a plurality of the popular vote. Dewey is perceptive to remind us that had President-Elect Gore run a good campaign, or even a mediocre one, he would have wiped the floor with whats-his-face, The Man Who Fell Up.
Don’t forget the words “While in Congress” - meaning, inescapably, “While performing the duties of a member of Congress, i.e. writing and passing legislaton and getting funding …”
Better reconsider the selection of pronoun in that statement.
Long past time to give it up, pal. You’re not helping the case of Republicans here.
At least that would represent an accurate description of the Creation story, which is more than can be said for the Gore quote in relation to his actual role in internet history.**
:rolleyes:
The full quote is took the initiative in creating the Internet. “Took the initiative” does not modify the sentence to mean Gore isn’t “creating the internet;” it just means that he was first on board with said creation – a claim at odds with the facts.**
Conjecture based on a constitutional scheme which does not exist. If the electoral college was not the method used for electing presidents – if it was based on a straight popular vote – then both candidates’ strategies would change dramatically. At best, the notion that Gore would have won under such a scenario is mere guesswork.
Their discussion is more detailed and succinct than what you see above. Pick it apart if you can, Dewey.
Note, while we’re all at it, the sheer number of fabrications about Clinton, Gore, and others cluttering the Net to the extent that Snopes needs a whole section. Somebody’s making up lies, and a whole lot more people are believing them, even when they’re smart enough to know better. But there is simply no comparable campaign of systematic lying, or number of people ready to swallow it, going the other way, is there?
[ol][]George W. Bush is stupid[]Bush is dyslexic.[]Bush is ignorant. []Bush is intellectually lazy.[]Bush did cocaine.[]Bush behaves like a cowboy.[]Bush still drinks.[]Bush’s Presidential decisions are actually made by (take your choice): his father, Dick Chaney, Karl Rove, right wingers in his administration.Bush was a failure as a businessman.[/ol]
Biggirl pretty much hit it on the head. Republicans are painted as being both stupid and evil, though typically not in the same sentence. This generalization isn’t so much perpetuated by the Democratic politicians and commentators themselves, though, as by Hollywood. And since everybody in this country seems to think that movie stars are actually qualified to give educated opinions on politics (snicker), the caricature sticks. Julia Roberts, trying to snuggle up to the Academy so she can get an Oscar nom for Erin Brokovich, says that Republicans are between “repugnant” and “reptile” in the dictionary. (How witty - and democrats are between “cat-raper” and “dipshit”, if you want to play that game.) Martin Sheen, based on his expertise in pretending to be president, says the real president is a moron. Barbra Streisand fires off typo-laden memos right and left, calling the Right “evil”. Cher says that if Bush gets elected, all our rights will be stolen from us. The celebrities pitch their vile crap, and the public laps it up, because if it comes from Hollywood, it must be true.
If you walk up to the average person on the street, and ask him “Which political party is painted as being evil?” I’ll bet you 10-1 they say Republicans. Ask them which party is supposedly stupid, you’ll get republicans again. In fact, I would be curious what the average Joe would say if asked what negative trait is associated with Democrats. Naive, maybe? Too generous? They’d have to stop and think about it for a minute, because Hollywood doesn’t have a sound bite to cover that.
Honestly, I would say the allegation of republicans being stupid is weightier than their being evil. Just look around the SDMB, and see how often GWB is painted as dumb. Honestly, anybody who thinks Bush, or any other president of the past century, is actually of below-average intelligence is themselves a fool.
ElvisL1ves:
Michael Moore should no more be called a political commentator than should Maureen Dowd. All he does is lob tired cliches in an attempt to be funny.
Really? No lies about the right floating about? I must have imagined that story about experts confirming that GWB was the stupidest president in the past century. And the story about GHWB and the store scanners. And the story that I Am Sparticus posted about Bush talking rudely to a man in line. Dear me, I better stop taking those hallucinagenic drugs.
Jeff
Actually, if you can be bothered to actually read the Snopes article, you’ll find it comes down pretty much in the same position as I have: that Gore certainly didn’t mean that he had literally invented the internet, but his wording was sloppy and self-serving. In short, he didn’t quite say what he meant to say.
Indeed, Snopes even takes issue with the more limited claim that Gore had much to do with any important developments of the internet:
Y’know, when you cite a source, you really ought to cite one that supports what you are saying.**
A search for “Al Gore” on Snopes turns up 12 hits. From the squibs, it’s clear that not all of them relate directly to Al Gore. “Clinton” turns up 48 hits, some for Hillary, some for Bill, many not related to either of them. “George Bush” turns up 41 hits, some for Sr., some for Jr., again some related to neither. Given that there’s only two years of Bush to debunk (compared to 8 for Clinton/Gore plus election stuff for Al and Hillary), I don’t think they’re getting it terribly bad by comparison.
At any rate, the claim that Snopes has a “whole section” on Clinton and Gore legends is demonstrably false – no such section exists on Snopes (Or are you just saying Snopes “needs” such a section? If so, they need a Bush section even worse).
This is your list of lies? Pretty weak refutation…
[ol][li]George W. Bush is stupid[/li]
Opinion of many based on his own behavior and words. Hardly a matter of lie vs. truth.
[li]Bush is dyslexic.[/li]
I’ve never heard anyone say this, but if they did, I’m sure their intent was to defend him, not defame him. Looks like an attempt to explain his incredibly poor speaking skills.
[li]Bush is ignorant.[/li]
Demonstrably factual, starting with his question about blacks in Brazil. (Of course, we are all ignorant of many things…)
[li]Bush is intellectually lazy.[/li]
Again, I’d have to go with this being a legitimate opinion based on his own behavior. God forbid he should have to go to Page 2, remember?
[li]Bush did cocaine.[/li]
And you have proof that he did not? (Not that I personally care, I know very few people between the ages of 40 and 55 who have not)
[li]Bush behaves like a cowboy.[/li]
I don’t even know what this means. Are you saying someone has accused him of rounding up cattle from the back of a horse?
[li]Bush still drinks.[/li]
Got any cites for this? I haven’t heard it. And you know that I have my ear tuned for any negative news about Koko.
[li]Bush’s Presidential decisions are actually made by (take your choice): his father, Dick Chaney, Karl Rove, right wingers in his administration[/li]
Again, speculation/opinion. Have you got proof to the contrary? Didn’t think so.
[li]Bush was a failure as a businessman.[/li]
Again, opinion.
C’mon, Stoid, you should know better than this. The burden of proof rests on the party making the claim. Those who claim that Bush have done cocaine, or that there is a “shadow president,” have the burden of proving that assertion. It is not up to their opponents to prove a negative.
Making the case that Republicans are stone evil is easy;
Simply make a reasonable evil definition, assign each evil action evil points, and pick an amount of time < 100 years and > 5, and let the record speak for itself.
Sure, individual Republicans aren’t necessarily evil, but you have to wonder why they stick with the party, considering the leadership now stands for the subjugation of the political, economic, and judicial spheres by the top 1% richest families.
Isn’t that something good people would disassociate themselves from?
