Preach it, Al! (Gore Speaks...and the truth shall set us free!)

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by JRR *
** Stoid, consider the fact that a full third of young Germans believe that the US staged the 9/11 attacks, and realize that crazy people are not in any way unique to America. **

Demo answered the other, but I’m interested in those wacky Germans.

First of all, with all due respect to our German Dopers (if we have any), who are certainly the exception simply by virtue of being Dopers, I think we all know that those wacky Germans are just, well, insane. I offer into evidence two world wars, one of which featured the genocidal stylings of a frustrated painter named Adolf, and the most twisted and bizarro porn available outside of Japan. Really, they are just fuckin’ nuts. The beer’s great, and “Run, Lola, Run” was cool, but c’mon, capitalizing every noun? Who can read that except crazy people?

Secondly, I have to take issue with that article. It is so poorly written I really have no idea WHAT those wacky Germans believe.

In reference to the question at hand, they use the following phrases:

“One-third of Germans believe US may have staged Sept. 11 attacks”

" the U.S. government may have sponsored the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"

“Asked whether they believed the U.S. government could have ordered the Sept. 11 attacks,”

The three underlined phrases can mean *at least * three different things. The first could mean that the whole thing was a lie, as some people have called the Holocaust, and since I’m guessing some of those very same people are probably German, it’s possible that if this is the word choice in the survey, that’s what many of them were thinking was intended.

The second could mean that US funds, funneled through various sources, could have actually paid for the attacks, knowingly or unknowingly.

The third is asking “could” - a speculation on what the US Government is * potentially* capable of.

Precision, precision, precision. It really does counts.

And in the end, the general insanity of Germans doesn’t make any difference to my horror that so many Americans could allow themselves,* when they already knew better * , to be sucked into the vortex of lies created by His Dreadfulness.

[ChaosGod]

Humphreys was a best a total nutjob, at worst. a total nutjob. He certainly wasn’t some innocent victim of Big Brother, so don’t try to paint him as such. **

Yeah, right. 37 months in prison for making a joke is clearly “Infinite Justice”,… pleaaase. You people are losing touch with reality in your zeal to defend the current paranoia of your government.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

*Originally posted by december *
**Which three years is Gore referring to? The last three complete years are 2000, 2001, and 2002. Clinton was President through all of 2000. The 2001 economy is more a result of Clinton’s policies than Bush’s, since it takes many months for new economic policies to be adopted and to affect the economy.

Ah, well. Some Dems now blame Reagan for the bad economy in 1980. Bush is in good company. **

december, oftentimes for the purposes of budget, fiscal and economic matters, the concept of something we call a “fiscal year” is used. This does not coincide with the calendar year, and will generally begin in July of one year and end in June of the next. http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?1984This definition does not add much more, but may be helpful for those completely unfamiliar with the concept. I’m a bit surprised that you have never heard of these, but then again, not everyone concerns themselves with such things. Hope this helps!

[december]

*Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian *
**december, oftentimes for the purposes of budget, fiscal and economic matters, the concept of something we call a “fiscal year” is used. **

It’s conceivable that Gore was referring to fiscal years, although he didn’t say he was. Although budgeting may be done on a fiscal year, reports of economic condition are more often handled on a calendar year.

Even if your guess is correct, the first of the 3 fiscal years would have been no later than 7/1/2000 - 6/30/2001. Clinton deserves responsibility for economic conditions during that fiscal year. He was President during the first half (+ a few days), and Bush’s policies yet hadn’t taken effect in the second half.

[monty2_2001]

It’s just not fair to saddam and the Taliban. Had gore won, they’d still be in power and could kill off Westerners as they pleased. It’s just not FAIR!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

What westerners did Saddam kill?

[Avenger]

What westerners did the Taliban kill?

[monty2_2001]

Come on, there’s more than enough evidence to accuse Saddam and the Taliban of being at least knowledgable and probably very involved in numerous terrorist attacks over the years.

Note Atta’s meeting in Praque with an Iraqi intelligence agent at the very least.

Also, this isn’t a court of law. To exact vengence for 9/11 we don’t have to prove beyond all doubt who did it. Sorry, that’s how warfare is.

All the leftism in the world won’t make me sorry those two vilians are history.

[ElvisL1ves]

No evidence for Atta’s meeting in Prague even exists. You’re left with zero reason to believe Saddam and Osama had any connection at all, and good reason to believe that at least Osama hates Saddam too much. The case for war wasn’t proven “beyond all doubt”, there was no evidence at all. That is not how warfare is, kiddo.

[BrightNShiny]

All the leftism in the world won’t make me sorry those two vilians are history.

Yes, and all your non-cited, unsupported nonsense adds nothing to the debate here.

With regards to the OP, I’m wondering if the Dems are using Al in the role of “bad cop.” He can pretty much say whatever he wants to, and put out issues on the table, which the other Dem candidates might be too reluctant (or spineless) to broach first. My guess is he keeps this up straight through to the elections, attacking Bush while letting the Dem nominee to take the high road.

[RedFury]

Come on, there’s more than enough evidence to accuse Saddam and the Taliban of being at least knowledgable and probably very involved in numerous terrorist attacks over the years.

Quick! Run, don’t walk, to the nearest phone, dial the WH and give them that “more than enough evidence” you have on Saddam. Geez! Where have you been hiding all this time?

OO7 has nothing on you. :eek:

PS- Best not used that Atta/Prague meeting though. That was debunked looong ago and, well, it wouldn’t make you a very credible secret agent, would it?

** President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic has discreetly informed the White House that there is no evidence of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence official and Mohamed Atta, the September 11 hijack leader.**

The Telegraph

[monty2_2001]

kiddo? Ok jackass, I guess you miss saddam. Frankly, I believe strongly that saddam and sons were eyebrow deep in lots of terrorism. Even if they weren’t, I don’t care. F em.

[Spavined_Gelding]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**kiddo? Ok jackass, I guess you miss saddam. Frankly, I believe strongly that saddam and sons were eyebrow deep in lots of terrorism. Even if they weren’t, I don’t care. F em. **

You know, it is precisely this juvenile approach to the discussion of the great questions of the day, the great issues before the nation, that makes some people think that trying to pose a serious discussion on these board is just futile. “I don’t care. [Screw] ‘em.” That’s a real contribution.

One can only hope that the junior high kids go back to school shortly.

[monty2_2001]

Problem is, he started an ad hominem attack, thereby throwing his argument in the trash with such a logical fallacy. I don’t converse with name callers.

[Calliope]

Forget Iraq. It’s a distraction from the other issues. I’d like the conservative posters here to tackle these particular assertions:

…the budget deficits are already the biggest ever - with the worst still due to hit us. As a percentage of our economy, we’ve had bigger ones – but these are by far the most dangerous we’ve ever had for two reasons: first, they’re not temporary; they’re structural and long-term; second, they are going to get even bigger just at the time when the big baby-boomer retirement surge starts.

Do you disagree with the economic forecasts that show this to be true? On what factual evidence do you support your position? Ten Nobel laureates agree with Gore. The issue isn’t what caused the downturn in the economy, but what Bush is doing to worsen it for years and years to come.

Nobel Prize winning economist George Akerlof in an interview with Speigel says,

Our administration is just throwing the money away. First, we should have fiscal stimulus that is sharply aimed at the current downturn. But this deficit continues far into the future, as the bulk of the tax cuts can be expected to continue indefinitely. The Administration is giving us red ink as far as the eye can see, and these permanent aspects outweigh the short-term stimulatory effects.

as well as:

Future generations and even people in ten years are going to face massive public deficits and huge government debt. Then we have a choice. We can be like a very poor country with problems of threatening bankruptcy. Or we’re going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security. So the money that is going overwhelmingly to the wealthy is going to be paid by cutting services for the elderly.

And I’d like you to address these allegations as well:

Secondly, when leaders make up their minds on a policy without ever having to answer hard questions about whether or not it’s good or bad for the American people as a whole, they can pretty quickly get into situations where it’s really uncomfortable for them to defend what they’ve done with simple and truthful explanations. That’s when they’re tempted to fuzz up the facts and create false impressions. And when other facts start to come out that undermine the impression they’re trying to maintain, they have a big incentive to try to keep the truth bottled up if – they can – or distort it.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, the White House ordered its own EPA to strip important scientific information about the dangers of global warming out of a public report. Instead, the White House substituted information that was partly paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. This week, analysts at the Treasury Department told a reporter that they’re now being routinely ordered to change their best analysis of what the consequences of the Bush tax laws are likely to be for the average person.

It is indeed true that the administration told the EPA toalter its report. It is also true the Treasury department is being told to alter its analysis. Do you think it is ok for the Administration to do this? If so, why? If you do not think it is ok, then why aren’t you angry about it? If you concede the Administration has been, shall we say, less than candid about its economic forecasts as well as environmental impact reports, then why isn’t it feasible, if not probable, that this administration does in fact engage in deception on a number of other issues as well, including justification for our attack on Iraq?

Please, let’s talk about specifics. Convince me Al is wrong.

[Gyrate]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
Ok jackass, I guess you miss saddam.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
Problem is, he started an ad hominem attack, thereby throwing his argument in the trash with such a logical fallacy. **I don’t converse with name callers. **

:rolleyes:

[monty2_2001]

Frankly, the so-called “budget surplus” from clinton never existed, it was simply projections of the economy. Of course, it predicted that the boom of the late 90’s would last forever. It didn’t.

[december]

*Originally posted by Calliope *
**Do you disagree with the economic forecasts that show this to be true? On what factual evidence do you support your position? **

I think Bush has increased government spending, e.g. on education and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He proposes other increases, e.g., prescription drug coverage in Medicare. He has done little to impose spending discipline on Congress. He cut tax rates. He hit a downturn in the economy and in the stock market. All these causes combined to produce a big deficit right now.

Long term and even medium term, government income is anyone’s guess. Even in the next couple of years it will depend on the degree of economic recovery. Spending is controllable. Congress and the President can cut spending to match income. So, I’m not sure I agree that we will see deficits for years to come, but it’s certainly quite possible. Big deficits are avoidable by spending cuts, but I don’t the will to enact spending cuts.

I fully support the tax cuts, but I wish Bush and
Congress had made corresponding spending cuts in wasteful, unnecessary or counterproductive areas of government. I also wish Bush had been more successful at enacting laws to reduce barriers to economic growth. Tort reform and regulatory reform could be helpful.

[MmmDonut]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**Frankly, the so-called “budget surplus” from clinton never existed, it was simply projections of the economy. Of course, it predicted that the boom of the late 90’s would last forever. It didn’t. **

Why are we wasting money on war, in that case?

Good thread. Still waiting for the rebuttals. I’m sure there are some wheels grinding at the moment.

[Calliope]

While I don’t share your view that the tax cuts are a good idea, december, I do appreciate that you answered one of my questions. What say you to the Treasury department’s allegation that they are being “asked” to change forecasts to suit the administration’s goals?