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

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**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. **

Quite right but I think this has gone way beyond “junior high school kids.” Which is what makes it so troubling. Specially on a board such as this one where the general level of knowledge is obviously way above the norm on every topic under the sun – with one glaring exception, this one.

We’ve all heard the old adage, “never talk about politics or religion,” however, on this board, I’ve seen religious intolerance of any kind buried almost inmediately under the sheer weight of the evidence presented in counter arguments by people from all ends of the religious spectrum. Sure, once a fundie, almost always a fundie, but, by and large, radical atheists and/or religious zealots have it coming from all sides. However when it comes to this topic, beyond the regular beatings the usual suspects get, it appears that The Right thinks it’s OK to skate bye on a wing and a prayer. IOW, ignorance reigns supreme once this subject is breached. Because there’s almost no end to the number of facts available to counter the lies presented as feeble excuses for the invasion of Iraq.

And you know what? That pisses me off to no end. Because as a foreigner that has always had a love affair with most things American, it is highly disappointing to see how jingoism and plain ol’ ignorance has taken a hold of a majority of Americans. I used to – key word, used – to give your lot much more credit than that. No more. You’ll have to gain it back. Because what I see here on a daily basis only confirms the worst of the rumors I had eagerly fought against before. Sure, there are any number of you that are fighting the good fight and I truly and highly commend you for that on an individual basis, but as long as the majority of Americans keep backing this imperialistic runaway train that governs your nation, my former admiration has become just that, former.

If that makes me an “anti-American,” so be it. I’ll wear the label proudly, because I don’t think there’s anything “American” about the way you’re acting now.

[/end rant]
My apologies for veering so far stray but it’s something I felt I needed to do with the way this thread was going. And unless anyone thinks this doesn’t hit close to home, think again. I have a wondeful thirteen year old, born and bred in the US. Like hell I’ll let him be used as cannon fodder for Dubya&Co gain. Which is what this boils down to. My heart goes out to all who has lost their lives for them.

Wake the fuck up, America. Please.

[RedFury]

Make that “all who have lost their lives for them.”

Note to self: preview even if upset.

Perdón.

[december]

*Originally posted by 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? **

I have read an article claiming that the accusations are baloney. First of all, it says, the amount of politicization in the Treasury Dept. is no different from the past. Secondly, it says these figures weren’t unfair. Here’s a letter from the New York Times explaining the opposing POV

"As deputy assistant secretary responsible for tax analysis at the Treasury Department from April 2001 to July 2003, I must respond to Paul Krugman’s Aug. 5 column accusing it of political bias.

"Mr. Krugman objects to an analysis of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for six representative families, including a married couple, both 65, with $40,000 in income, including $2,000 in dividend income. He says that such a family is not representative of elderly taxpayers.

"Obviously, no single example can be representative of all elderly taxpayers, but this couple has income quite close to the median for filers their age, and dividends quite close to the average for elderly filers at that income level, about half of whom receive dividends. The couple in the example would see its income tax liability decline from $1,396 to $675 as a result of the tax cuts.

"Mr. Krugman is certainly free to oppose the tax relief, but he should be more circumspect in asserting political bias in the underlying analyses.

See http://poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp the first item from Aug 9.

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**How in god’s name do you arrive at that? In whose estimation is the substance of the speech irrelevant? Are you actually coming in here arguing that what is important here is to dissect possible political manueverings? That THAT is where import and meaning lie?

Good god…talk about disconnect!

This is a prime example of what I find so unendurable. God help us. **

So every time a politician’s trap flaps open I’m supposed to hanker down and start taking notes? It will be a sorry day indeed when we start taking our politicians at their word.

It might come as a surprise to some posters here, but Al Gore is a politician, not a philosopher, not a thinker, not even a political analyst. He is also not a very successful politician, at best. “Political maneuverings” is the only thing politicians do. Political speeches are instruments of “political maneuverings”.

My opinion is that Mr. Gore just shot himself at the foot one more time with his latest speech. However, there is another valid opinion that he just made a well calculated political move by raising a trial balloon of sorts. To continue the analogy, the appearance of this balloon and markings on it may be important. I seem to discern a message “Help! I can’t shut up!”, but another poster is saying, “No, it really says “More Gore in '04!””. Regardless, we both know that inside the balloon there is nothing but hot air. The words of his speech are nothing but hot air. I don’t care to conduct the precise analysis of this hot air.

I will read your posts, disagreeable as they are intended to be for me, because I know that you are most likely in earnest and sincere. I will never grant the same allowance to any politician.

[december]

The liberal Washington Post doesn’t like Gore’s foreign policy position at all. They call it carrying the Democratic Party in a dangerous direction on the issues of the Iraq war and national security – dangerous for the nation and risky for the party too. Some of the candidates are more off course than others. If they listen to former vice president Al Gore, who took it upon himself last week to suggest a theme of attack for the nine candidates, they will all go off the cliff.

WaPo included a devastating rebuttal to Gore’s POV:

If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people.

This is a 1998 quote from Vice President A. Gore, Jr.

[RickJay]

I’m curious; if Saddam Hussein used “poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his own neighbours” … umm, what were the OTHER weapons of mass destruction? Did the Washington Post state whether these were nuclear weapons or biological weapons? I’m quite curious. I don’t remember any nukes going off during the 1980-1988 war.

[Desmostylus]

It’s not the Washington Post that would need to explain that, RickJay, it’s Gore.

Gore said that stuff in 1998 on “Larry King Live”.

[Avenger]

by december
WaPo included a devastating rebuttal to Gore’s POV:

Hardly. Unless you believe that a viewpoint that the war was not justified or necesary at the time it was started equates to a viewpoint that we should have sat watching and smiling while Saddam accumulated a nuclear arsenal. Which you probably do :rolleyes:

The Post’s comment also says:-

It certainly would be fair now to argue that the logic was wrong. There was a cogent case to be made against the war, and even those who supported it might now say that the absence of any uncovered weapons of mass destruction, or the continuing violence against Americans, gives them, in hindsight, a different view

[Tedster]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**Rickjay, * we * know here, but we are also an unusually articulate, intelligent and enlightened group of people … I was just this morning reflecting upon how much the Dope’s population seems to differ from the rest of the country in our attitude about gay marriage, for instance. Where are all those people who are so against it? They don’t seem to hang out here very much.
**

This is exactly the attitude that has given us the Incredibly Shrinking Democratic Party.

[Stoid]

I don’t follow your point, Ted. Are you suggesting that the Democrats should shun gays or something?

[december]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**I don’t follow your point, Ted. Are you suggesting that the Democrats should shun gays or something? **

Tedster may have been alluding to the out-of-touch arrogance of certain Democrats, as typified by movie critic Pauline Kael’s alleged reaction to Richard Nixon’s landslide presidential victory over George McGovern in 1972" “How can that be?” she supposedly said. “No one I know voted for Nixon.”

There is no question that the Doper population includes a substantial number of articulate, intelligent and enlightened liberals. However, there are other places where you could find many articulate, intelligent, knowledgable conservatives.

Avenger
Unless you believe that a viewpoint that the war was not justified or necessary at the time it was started equates to a viewpoint that we should have sat watching and smiling while Saddam accumulated a nuclear arsenal. Which you probably do :rolleyes:

I believe that waiting increased the risk that Saddam might accumulate a nuclear arsenal. There was no way for us to be certain of how far along he was. After the war in 1991, we were surprised to discover how much progress he had made. Foreign policy must recognize that intelligence is far from perfect.

[Avenger]

by december
I believe that waiting increased the risk that Saddam might accumulate a nuclear arsenal. There was no way for us to be certain of how far along he was. After the war in 1991, we were surprised to discover how much progress he had made. Foreign policy must recognize that intelligence is far from perfect.

See, now this is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. But it also entirely consistent with Gore’s statements about how the pre-war debate was conducted. Because, people were not allowed to recognize that the intelligence might not be perfect, any attempt to look at stated “evidence” in a critical light or to look at other possible explanations was denounced as “unpatriotic”. And this is still going on.

[ElvisL1ves]

New Iskander, you’re still not getting it. Every time you enter debate on a subject, you have to first grasp the issue at hand. The issue on this board is Gore’s speech. You refuse to read it. Even though you’ve already spent more time denouncing it than it would have taken to read it, you still refuse to find out what the hell the topic you’re “debating” is. And yet you take offense at being responded to with derision?

Now go do your homework and come to class prepared next time.

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by MmmDonut *
**Good thread. Still waiting for the rebuttals. I’m sure there are some wheels grinding at the moment. **

I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. It’s been three days since the thread started and, well, see for yourself. Heck, the most persistent rightwing poster to this thread refuses to even read the speech in question – I find that quite telling.

[Tedster]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
**I don’t follow your point, Ted. Are you suggesting that the Democrats should shun gays or something? **

My point is only tangentially related to that, the fact is, a lot of so-called liberals are quite authoritarian, and have a certain “we know what’s best for everyone else because we’re so much smarter, intelligent, better looking” and so on. That post is a classic example. There’s nothing “liberal” about gun control or antismoking initiatives, or using the courts to bypass the legislative process. There’s a reason people are leaving the Democratic party in droves, and it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

[elucidator]

Good point, Tedster. Almost anywhere you hear people talking about current events, they are fuming about “using the courts to bypass the legislative process”.

“Things in Iraq sure are going swell, huh?”

“You bet! I hear they’re all coming home next week!”

“That’s great! But I’m really pissed about this whole activist judiciary thing, here, bypassing legislative processes in defiance of the powers seperation structure of the Constitution!”

“Huh?..”

[Stoid]

Um, Ted… I was referring to Dopers in general, and I *specifically included the conservatives. *

Further…what the hell are you on about with the gun control and antismoking initiatives? What does that have to do with the price of beer? (not to mention the fact that gun control most certainly is a liberal issue. Anti-smoking, no opinion, except that it’s hard to imagine anyone other than a liberal or an asthmatic Republican proposing such initiatives.)

I confess I may just be particularly thick headed today, so I put it to you to take pity on me and restate your position for the benefit of a ten year old. so that I might better understand it.

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
**I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. It’s been three days since the thread started and, well, see for yourself. Heck, the most persistent rightwing poster to this thread refuses to even read the speech in question – I find that quite telling. **

I suppose “the most persistent rightwing poster” would be me, please correct if wrong. I am so “persistent” only because I won’t be left alone by you and others. In my first post I simply expressed an agreement with those who commented on failings of Mr. Gore so well before me. Of course I glanced through the speech,-and found it full of hot air.

Don’t delude yourself by assuming that you are dealing with a lonely “rightwing” cook. I am a little bit to the right on economics and national politics and a little bit to the left on moral and cultural issues. I guess that puts me right on center overall. There must be few more dozen of millions like me around.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Tedster *
This is exactly the attitude that has given us the Incredibly Shrinking Democratic Party.

Do you actually have a cite that the Democratic Party is shrinking, like membership size over years or such? Or is this just another right-wing masturbatory fantasy with no basis in fact?

[elucidator]

“Republican porn”.

(Is that Minty Green’s very own original line? If so, we should all send him a dollar.)