Without even getting into your childish sarcasm, let me ask this; how is it that you can demand complete accuracy from everyone else, but not from Gore? And yes, I am well aware of DARPA and its history. But, by all means, continue to defend your candidate, as petulance and distortion seem right up your alley, as well.
You have just made another false statement, jag.
My surprise is perhaps less than complete.
I have not personally attacked you. I have judged the quality of your posts and reacted to the hypocrisy of your arguments. I find the juxtapostion of numerous false or biased statements with the accusation that another man is a pathological liar to be worthy of comment. Therefore, I comment.
Thank you for providing another example.
One was false, but not self-serving. One was accurate in describing the letter and picture he received; those who attack it have provided no evidence that the class in question was not 50% over capacity, which was the thrust of the example. Nevertheless you brand it a lie because the situation described was not lasting in its detail of the girl standing. One has not been demonstrated to be true or false, but you doubt it because it does not jibe with your own experience. I, having a good friend who taught in a Florida school that operated on shifts do not find it beyond the realm of probability. Nevertheless, I have been willing for several days now to examine any evidence to back the assertion that this statement was false. I have seen none.
Please point out to me any point in your posts which I have failed to address. My own perusal of this thread shows that I have responded in detail to your statements. If I have missed some, however, please call them ot my attention again. I am sure I will be able to find something to say about them.
smitty
First, that was adult sarcasm. Childish sarcasm would have been accompanied by the appropriate smiley.
Second, I demand complete accuracy from nobody. However, if one calls someone a liar and supports the charge by examining his statements under a microscope, then one should be prepared to have your own statements similarly examined. If one is not, then one is a hypocrite.
Let me elaborate: I care deeply and passionately for personal honesty. I despise lying in any form. Consequently, I view calling someone a liar as an extremely serious charge. When I see the charge leveled, I expect the evidence behind it to be iron-clad. If it is not, and particularly if the charge seems to be motivated by a less-than-scrupulous regard for the truth, then I sometimes feel compelled to respond. I make my own judgments about gore’s statements and his character, and I doubt they are what your or jag imagine. That is not relevant to the points I chose to raise in my posts.
[childish sarcasm]I note that in rising above my childish sarcasm you also rose above the request to offer substantiation for your position. How convenient.
:rolleyes: [/childish sarcasm]
then why did you say, “The government at the the time was funding a way to facilitate communication for government research.”?
Please defend your charge that I have distorted any facts in this thread.
Also, please find a place in this thread where I have stated that Gore is, or ever was, my candidate.
Whether or not Gore’s “this poor girl doesn’t even have a desk” story was a deliberate falsehood is less troubling for me than the fact that it completely misses the point. To use an overcrowding example as argument against school vouchers (“How can we take taxpayer money out of the public schools while this poor child is in danger of getting fallen arches from all the standing?!”) sort of ignores the most obvious consequence of voucher policy. Don’t vouchers necessarily result in a few more seats being available in the public schools (and the “per student” expense is reduced to a greater degree than the cost of the voucher)? Or am I missing something?
There are other arguments against school vouchers, of course. But my point is that while Gore may or may not be deliberately lying in this instance, he does seem guilty of a lapse in logic.
from the Washinging Times article;
“I was there in Texas in Houston with the head of the Texas emergency management folks and with all the federal emergency management folks. If James Lee was there before or after, then, you know, I got that wrong then.”
“I was there in Texas. I think James Lee went to the same fires. I’ve made so many trips with James to these disaster sites. I got that wrong,” the vice president said on “Good Morning America.”
So how vicious of a liar is he? He admitted to an error. That makes him EVIL? Seems he is human to me.
To err is human. To forgive divine. - A. Poe
And who doesn’t embellish on a job interview or résumé?
There are too many falsehoods in Gore’s recent history to all be just “slips”.
I think trying to rationalize that the “no seat in the classroom” lie was not a lie (or at least a gross misrepresentation of the facts) is really pushing it. Try as you might, Spiritus, you have not convinced me.
There are just too many of these “falsehoods”. All made in one damned debate! Come on! (He also “lied” about the poor little old lady in the Winnebago. Or at least he gave a very false impression of her.) We’ve got the FEMA thing, the school thing, the Winnebago thing. And I forget if there are other lies as well.
I could be sympathetic if someone pulled a collection of “so-called” lies from the last few months or years, strung them together, in order to make it look worse than it really is. But these “lies” were all made in the expanse of an hour and a half. Gore has a problem, IMO.
Which facts were grossly misrepresented?
He received a letter and a picture from the girl’s father. True.
He stated that the letter stated the girl had to stand in class because there were 36 students in a class designed for 24. True.
The girl did not have a desk. True, but perhaps misleading in the duration. The duration was long enough to take a picture, obviously.
To call this a gross misrepresentation puzzles me. It was an overly dramatic example used to illustrate a point. Are you incensed because it is the first time you have ever seen a politician use such a tactic?
As for the woman in the winebago. Where was the lie? Are her experiences invalid because she has chosen not to accept money from her son? If he had not named her, but had said some retired women collected tin cans to supplement their social security income, would that have been a lie?
I note, also, that yet another person has made reference to the “numerous” lies during the debate without providing a shred of evidence to substantiate the third charge.
As to convincing you . . . of what? That these particular charges seem thin evidence upon which to brand a man a habitual (or pathological) liar? Fair enough. Each of us wieghs evidence according to our individual experiences and conscience. Personally, I value objectivity higher than political philosophy. Perhaps you see yourself the same way. If so, I would ask whether you have investigated every claim made by George Bush during the debate with as critical an eye as you turn on Gore.
Funny thing that everybody is looking hypercritically on everything Gore is saying.
Al Gore got a letter from the girl’s father that included a newspaper clipping from the local paper.
Headlined:
No Room at the School
“She had 36 classmates, all assigned to a laboratory that was designed for 24 students …”
If I had read the newspaper article, I would have concluded the same thing.
Well, Sterling, you don’t strike me as a dumb guy. Maybe you would have had someone, you know, pick up the phone and call someone at the school? It doesn’t take too many brains to verify something before going on national TV.
The interview with the school principal was quite clear. It was the first day of class (when, as you know, students are not exactly set in their schedules), and it would have been easy enough to snag an extra chair from another room. In fact, it was so easy, she was squared away the next day! Not to mention all that new lab equipment.
You can spin this any way you want. The fact is, some parent wanted to get in the spotlight, and Gore (and his advisors–what, are they asleep or something?) got had. If he didn’t actually lie, it was because he would rather remain deliberately misinformed to score a political point.
Internet: The best I can tell from the article from Kahn and V. Cerf is that Gore was eager and willing to back what was going on with policies and with his desire to be knowledgeable - thats a far cry from taking the initiative in creating the internet. How many others in Congress where just as eager and willing and have taken no credit? Did he help it along? Yeah. But the initiative was all on those doing the further development of an already 10-20 year old platform.
There are so many individual things that were necessary in making the internet what it is today - TCP/IP, BIND/DNS, HTML, ISP’s and online services, Modem technology advancements, carrier trunk advancements. Where exactly did Gore take any initiative in any of those?
But the whole point here with the lies and exaggerations is that Gore can’t seem to tell a story about anything without someone questioning it? Look at the thing with the story about his uncle being gassed in Europe in WW-I. As far as I know, no one publically questioned that, but even his own campaign felt they had to come up with supporting documents to back him up. After searching government records, they had to settle for the uncle’s obitary in the local newspaper that mentioned he had been treated for complications from being gassed in France.
Everything he says is questioned? Why is that? It’s because he’s been caught in lies and exaggerations so many times. It’s something he seems to not be able to control. And this is nothing new. Drudge posted the text of several memos from campaign advisors to Gore in his '88 presidential campaign that warned him about stretching the truth. Interesting thing in there was not only those warnings, but apparently he had illegally attained campaign funds, that had to be returned, as far back as his first Congressional campaign. The man cannot learn from his mistakes.
Was there a touch of truth in any of the examples brought out from the debate the other night? Sure - the girl had to stand for one day - she had to stand, but he implied that it was still going on. Was he in Texas with FEMA during the fires, well, he was in Texas at that time, apparently, but not with FEMA. What about Winifred, the can collecting, Winnebago-driving lady who can’t afford prescription drugs. Yes, she picks up cans and turns them in for money, which she uses for her prescriptions, but not out of necessity - she is anything but destitute and her well-to-do son would be willing to help her out but she refuses. Yet another exaggeration by Gore. And that she allows herself to be exploited like that doesn’t help the my opinion of her and the fact that I think she should be celebrated as someone with gumption and determination instead of being exploited as an old, destitute lady who can’t afford prescription drugs.
Do any of the lies and exaggerations, singly, affect anything in this universe? No. But the fact that it has been going on, and continues to go on, over the stupidest, silliest stuff is a problem. It shows that he can’t be trusted in anything he says. Nothing he says can be taken at face value. We’ve already had 8 years of that - we certainly don’t need more.
The more I see him, the more I get the impression he is like those people who don’t entirely make up their lies but they have this compulsion to embellish their stories to the point where they are just not true. They have this compulsion to be the center of the story so if you tell a story of the day you were out sailing and got into trouble, they immediately tell an even better story where the situation was more dangerous but he saved the day. I’ve met a few people like that and it seems to be compulsive as they have nothing to gain from the story except looking good (or bad as soon as people get to know them).
The story about the schoolgirl was not intended to support the idea that schools are poor. The new lab equipment is a red herring.
The story was supposed to support the idea that class sizes are too large. It would seem, at least from the text of teh newspaper article, that the class was indeed overloaded with students.
Not, I realize, that such information will be acknowledged from those who hold outrage in higher regard than accuracy.
Spiritus,
This is exactly my point. Why is it that everything the man says has to be backed up by an explanation? Either someone has to find facts to back him up or they have to explain what he actually meant. Even Clinton isn’t that bad - we only do that when it comes to his sex life or business dealings. But with Gore it’s every little minute story that has to be backed up or explained because no one believes him any more - even his own campaign knows that.
So. If he’s elected, everytime he makes a speech or a holds a news conference, are we going to have an interpreter follow behind him?
You may call the lack of a desk a red herring, but it was the focal point of his story, and the one everyone had to look into. Says a lot for his credibility.
As far as schools being poor and under-funded, that’s for another thread, but I will say that is a bunch of hooey. How is it that many private schools give a much better education to their students with as much as one-half the amount of money spent per student? It’s because the public school systems eat up most of their money in upper management and leaves little to actually get to the classroom and the teacher. There may be some school districts in poor areas that fall short of even enough for the basics, and they do need help. Last I heard BTW, Sarasota was not a poor area. But other than a few exceptions, schools have the money - they just don’t apply it correctly. It also doesn’t help that teachers find themselves having to act more and more as parents than teachers in the clasroom, but that’s an even different subject.
“Class sizes too large” does not equate with “underfunding”? I’m not following your logic. Isn’t the answer to overcrowded classrooms to hire new teachers, build buidings, etc.–IOW, spend $$$? And, I’ll point out again, that I’m pretty certain he used this as an answer to the pro-voucher position, which (I think) completely misses the point–i.e., vouchers will eliminate at least some of the overcrowding (and at a lesser cost than keeping the kids there who would now have an alternative).
I’m not trying to make a pro-voucher argument. My point is only that at the very least Gore is guilty of faulty logic. And, that I distinctly got the impression that Gore was arguing that diverting any tax money from the public school system at this point would exacerbate an already dire situation. Did anyone else have a different read of his message (regardless of whether or not you agreed with it)?
MKM – please read my post(s) again, you seem to have misunderstood some of what I said.
BobCos, underfunding does not equal overcrowding. Witness, please, the $100,000 red herring. How many additional classrooms and teachers did that funding bring about?
Here is what Gore said immediately before telling the story about the girl and her desk.
Now, to me it seems clear he was addressing class size and his proposal to fund the recruitment of 100,000 new teachers. You might, perhaps, be able to defend your idea that it was said in direct response to Bush’s voucher proposal, but I do not see that in the transcript.
As to the logic, it may indeed be faulty. How is that relevant to calling the man a liar?
Yes, after re-reading your post and BobCos’ reply, it seems I have. I appologize on that point.
I haven’t called him a liar, though I did suggest that I find a logically unsound position to be at least as great a concern.
And I’m afraid I’m still missing your point that overcrowding doesn’t largely equate with a lack of funding in that you acknowledge he was proposing to address the overcrowding (at least in part) via funding the recruitment of 100,000 new teachers. The fact that the school in question purchased computer equipment (but apparently didn’t hire new teachers) still doesn’t mean they can have both without more $$$.
Or what exactly was his point, I guess is the real question, if not this? The fact that classrooms are overcrowded leads him to what conclusion regarding appropriate strategy and public policy? I don’t think his position was ambiguous (we need to spend more $$$ seemed clear), just illogical.
Well, obviously teachers need to be paid. More teachers means either raising more revenue or shifting funds away from other areas. Clearly Gore is proposing more funds.
But, simply raising more funds is no guarantee that more teachers will be hired or that smaller class sizes will result. How much clearer an example do you need than a classroom that is simultaneously 50% over-enrolled and has $100,000 of new equipment stacked in the back of the room. Gore, from what I understand, has proposed funds earmarked s[ecifically for the recruitment and hire of new teachers. That does not equal a simple proposal for new funds.
Is it clear, now?
If I say my son needs more vegetables in his diet, and I don’t want to cut back on his expenditures on clothes, cereals, etc. Then I will have to spend money to get him those vegetables.
That is not the same as saying I should give him a raise in his allowance.
I had CNN on a few days back while making dinner and overheard something about Gore’s story checking out, so I looked up the CNN archives after reading this thread and dug this up:
CNN — Fact check: Gore claim of overcrowding at Florida school holds up.
I’ll quote the relevant parts from the article:
There are other factoids in there going against and for Gore, but I’m sure you’d rather read the article yourselves. I don’t want to touch the current debate with a ten foot pole though, so just consider this a presentation of some supposedly credible data…
Spiritus, you said,
“Gore’s statement was obviously self serving. It was not obviously a lie. When a politician says he “took the initiative in creating something”, most reasonable people do not assume he meant that he built it by hand. Politicians act by providing government funding, regulatory control, building consensus, making resources available, etc. Gore acted in exactly those ways in supporting the early development of networked computing techniques.”
It was not obviously a lie and the follow up explanation implies to me that it was a lie, just not obviously one. I have tried to separate myself and re-read this as objectively as possible because of your avid denial above, but I keep coming to the same conclusion. (please note I did not cut out the sentences that serve my purpose) I do believe you should take a poll on what ‘most reasonable people’ assume he meant, it looks to me that more people posting here disagree on your assessment of what most reasonable people think. Not to imply everyone here is reasonable…
I have made my points quite clearly to where I believe an objective viewer can draw the same conclusions. I have no new or further information to offer, and until then will let the above point-by-point explanations stand. I obviously will never convince you of the same, but may convince most reasonable people.
I am not at all certain what you are trying to say, jag.
Which follow up explanation? How did said explanation imply that Gore was lying? What poll would you like me to take? My statement was that most reasonable people would not assume that a pollitician claiming credit for the creation of something is claiming to have built it by hand. Do you seriously disagree with this?
As to how clearly you have made your points. I agree. I have simply chosen to point out that you have also made clear your lack of objectivity and hypocrisy on this issue. I think you have made my points quite clear, too.
You, of course, are free to disagree.