Al Gore

[Delirium]

Anyone see the Al Gore speech at the Moveon.org thing today? You can watch it at c-span.org/homepage.asp and you will see a link for Al Gore. Its too bad he didnt show that kind of insane rage in 2000 when he was running for president and Bush would have had a cakewalk. This reminds me of the Howard Dean Screech heard round the world. This guy is turning into James Carville it seems. His face contorts into a devil looking face and he screams into the mic and flails his arms. This guy is a joke who has to speak at radical leftist organizations now which is kind of sad. He is now the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh(Im no fan) and doesnt even have the followers.

[Atlanteax]

He had to buy that "Liberal TV network" of his so that he wouldn't become "forgotten."

He's so desperate for attention, and to be able to be an influence. :rolleyes:

It's sad to the extent that it's borderline pitiful. :down:

[Parkbandit]

He must have had his emotion chip implanted recently.

Gore the Bore + chip = Raving lunatic

[theotherjohn]

who?

[Czeska]

My guess is that when 9/11 happened, Al fell to his knees and thanked his god that he wasn't in charge that day.

[TheEschaton]

Isn't that speech from like, a year and a half ago?

-TheE-

[Gan]

...

No its from yesterday
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405270829.asp

Screw that, when 9/11 happened, I fell down on my knees thanking Al Gore wasn't president.

- Arkans

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Arkans
Screw that, when 9/11 happened, I fell down on my knees thanking Al Gore wasn't president.

- Arkans

:thumbsup: :clap:

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Arkans
Screw that, when 9/11 happened, I fell down on my knees thanking Al Gore wasn't president.

- Arkans

Oh yeah .. because it took Bush's superior leadership skills to figure out that the 9/11 attacks were al Quaeda and that al Quaeda was in Afghanistan and that we should probably attack there.

And .. gee whiz .. let's also think about the fact that if Gore had been in office, he would have continued with the same level of priority on anti-terrorism as Clinton did - instead of focusing on missle defense and Iraq, and there's a very good chance that we would have thwarted al Quaeda before they had a chance to attack.

But yeah .. it was much better to have a president who spent most of the summer on vacation in Texas when all the chatter was up.

-P

[Bobmuhthol]

The country was in excellent condition when Clinton was President, and he was the greatest of our time.

The condition now? Not so great.

HINT HINT IT'S BECAUSE BUSH IS PRESIDENT.

[Artha]

...or not.

Clinton = Rode the success of the two previous Presidents and the bubble. He was just lucky enough not to be in office when it burst.

[Bobmuhthol]

A lucky President is better than a bad one.

[Artha]

I think I'm going to go slam my nuts in a car door now.

[Bobmuhthol]

Have fun. :clap:

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Arkans
Screw that, when 9/11 happened, I fell down on my knees thanking Al Gore wasn't president.

- Arkans

Oh yeah .. because it took Bush's superior leadership skills to figure out that the 9/11 attacks were al Quaeda and that al Quaeda was in Afghanistan and that we should probably attack there.

And .. gee whiz .. let's also think about the fact that if Gore had been in office, he would have continued with the same level of priority on anti-terrorism as Clinton did - instead of focusing on missle defense and Iraq, and there's a very good chance that we would have thwarted al Quaeda before they had a chance to attack.

But yeah .. it was much better to have a president who spent most of the summer on vacation in Texas when all the chatter was up.

-P

That's the scary part. If Gore went the way of Clinton went with terrorism, we'd be in a lot worse shape. Clinton had many of chances to get Osama's head. In fact, there was a report where some military guys were ready to nail Osama Bin Laden with a missle and all they needed to do was to get Clinton's approval for the attack. It never came though, he was too busy playing golf.

Also, Clinton had this weird of habit of bailing out when the going got tough. Mogadishu, remember that? We lost 19 American soldiers and instead of finishing the job there we turned tail and ran. It's reasons like this that the Fundamentalists see us as weak. Thanks, but no thanks.

- Arkans

[Ilvane]

I really like Al Gore..and I do wish he had shown some of that spark when he was running. He was intelligent anyway, and for some odd reason that was seen as being annoying..oh well.

I guess those that voted thought we should have someone like Bush, because he'd be better to have a barbeque with. Me, I'd take the brainy guy over that anytime!

:smirk:

-A

[Back]

Bush Sr. served one term. The people decided they wanted someone else. In steps Clinton and thus starts the eight year party.

The problem with Clinton is that I had such a good time those eight years... earning well, money wasn't spread so thin, no major hostilities with any countries, enjoying the expanding internet global growth... now things aren't as good and I'm bummed. I'm speaking of my own situation at the time as compared to now.

Huh?! No international problems?! Clinton lobbed missles at Iraq to get Monica off the headlines and we bombed the living daylights out of Serbia! Don't forget Mogadishu either! C'mon!

- Arkans

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Arkans
Screw that, when 9/11 happened, I fell down on my knees thanking Al Gore wasn't president.

- Arkans
And .. gee whiz .. let's also think about the fact that if Gore had been in office, he would have continued with the same level of priority on anti-terrorism as Clinton did -
-P

Yes... that old "Let's wait and see" policy really helped us out.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Bush Sr. served one term. The people decided they wanted someone else. In steps Clinton and thus starts the eight year party.

The problem with Clinton is that I had such a good time those eight years... earning well, money wasn't spread so thin, no major hostilities with any countries, enjoying the expanding internet global growth... now things aren't as good and I'm bummed. I'm speaking of my own situation at the time as compared to now.

Yes.. and had we taken care of things during those 'relaxing 8 years', our recession wouldn't have been as deep and maybe even 9-11 may have been twarted.

[Bobmuhthol]

Osama bin Laden had CIA training during Clinton's presidency so he could kill Soviets. Clinton wasn't about to kill him.

[Artha]

You're forgetting that there weren't soviets in 1996.

[Sean]

It's always fun to watch people speculate all the shoulda, woulda, coulda's. Really they don't mean anything because honestly none of us know.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<You're forgetting that there weren't soviets in 1996.>>

Duh. My bad.

It was in the 80's. Ronald Reagan != Bill Clinton.

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Yes.. and had we taken care of things during those 'relaxing 8 years', our recession wouldn't have been as deep and maybe even 9-11 may have been twarted.

The whole "If a democratic president had a good fiscal term, it was because of the republican before him, and, if a republican president has a bad fiscal term, it was because of the democrat before him" argument is a joke. Think about it for two seconds and you can figure out the fallacy.

I'm staying out of the 9/11 blame game because I wouldn't have wanted that for Bush, or anyone.

Back to Gore the Bore... had Saturday Night Live had him and Tipper on before the election, he probably would have won.

[TheEschaton]

I still can't believe American Idol got 15 million more votes in 4 hours than the last Presidential elections got in a day.


-TheE-

[i remember halloween]

all i needed to see to know that gore was a complete retard was him attempting to play football. people who are so physically incapable of looking even remotely natural while doing physical activities (assuming they aren't handicapped) are not fit to lead.

[Artha]

I still can't believe American Idol got 15 million more votes in 4 hours than the last Presidential elections got in a day.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people with multiple phones.

[Parkbandit]

They weren't 60 million unique 'votes' either..

[pennywise]

The RNC rebuttal, from Communications director Jim Dyke

"Al Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed US citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole"

"Al Gore's attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia."

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by pennywise]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by pennywise
The RNC rebuttal, from Communications director Jim Dyke

"Al Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed US citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole"

"Al Gore's attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia."

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by pennywise]

About time they started fighting back. Great quote and oh so true.

:clap:

[Warriorbird]

:chuckle: Holding it down with the recently captured Bin Laden, Park?

;)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
:chuckle: Holding it down with the recently captured Bin Laden, Park?

;)

Was that sarcastic.. or was he really?

If it's sarcastic.. I don't get it.

If we did.. then because I wasn't aware of this great news.. my celebration was rather.. lackluster.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by pennywise
The RNC rebuttal, from Communications director Jim Dyke

"Al Gore served as Vice President of this country for eight years. During that time, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States five times and terrorists killed US citizens on at least four different occasions including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on Khobar Towers, our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole"

"Al Gore's attacks on the President today demonstrate that he either does not understand the threat of global terror, or he has amnesia."

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by pennywise]

And good ol RNC Comm Director clearly suffers from either amnesia himself or the same self-induced willful ignorance of history that seems to permeate the right-wing these days.


Well let's see here. The 1st WTC Bombing was in 1993 - scant months after Clinton and Gore entered office. One could pretty much surmise that most of the planning for it went on under the nose of the previous president. Not only that, until the bombing, no-one really even knew al Quaeda existed. It was the investigation of WTC bombing that first put al Quaeda even on the radar - that made us aware of its existence. And guess what? We sucessfully prosecuted those responsible. Yeah .. big failure there, Mr RNC.

The USS Cole bombing happened at the end of the Clinton years .. and we didn't even know for sure it was al Quaeda until after Bush was in office. So .. the RNC is going to bag on Gore for that?

Meanwhile, on Clinton and Gore's watch we did things institute the largest increases funding for anti-terrorism ever, create stockpiles of antidote and vaccines against bio-weapons (where do you think all the anti-anthrax stuff came from?), thwart many many terrorist attacks including the millenium attack.

And .. if you go a little deeper into Clinton's repsonses to terrorist attacks, you'll find that it was the military's downfall more than his. They gave him two options for fighting terrorism - nothing, or a full-scale invasion. And .. when he did actually attempt to do something he was accused of a "wag-the-dog" policy - that he was just trying to get Monica off the front page. Gee, thanks Ken Starr and the Republican attack dogs for making the country safe against blow jobs.

So .. you can bag on Clinton and Gore all you want for all kinds of things - but terrorism is one area that they did one hell of a great job despite the obstacles they faced - like being under frivolous investigation for most of their tenure in office.

-P

[i remember halloween]

you are retarded, fat kid

[Artha]

The 1st WTC Bombing was in 1993 - scant months after Clinton and Gore entered office. One could pretty much surmise that most of the planning for it went on under the nose of the previous president.

Hey...that reminds me of something...

Let me guess Artha? The Second WTC Bombing?!!!

[Artha]

YOU MUST BE PSYCHIC!!!1

[Ravenstorm]

Shrub did a very good job in taking out the Taliban. He gets credit for that. Would Gore have done the same? Probably. All the info Bush had after 9/11 Gore would have had as well. Clarke would have pushed for it as would the military. Still, it's possible Bush did a better job with them than Gore would have.

And had Bush left office right after that it would have been perfect. We're worse off now than right after Afghanistan and that's a situation Gore would not have put us in. And if Gore can't play football? Big fucking deal. That it was even mentioned is the biggest sign of the idiocy of some of the people who support Bush. I'd rather have a nerd than a dumb jock making the decisions for the country.

Now if you Republican idiots had nominated McCain instead of Dubya...

Raven

[Artha]

Then we'd hardly be Republicans.

[Delirium]

Suddenly all the democrats love McCain because they think they can all talk him into being VP for Kerry. That aint happening. You might as well take polls if JFK would run VP for Kerry.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by The Edine
Let me guess Artha? The Second WTC Bombing?!!!

Well by golly it does, doesn't it?

Gee whiz .. is it possible that Clinton could have done more about al Quaeda at the end of his term? Absolutely!

Since the 93 WTC bombings happened on Clinton's watch, wasn't he ultimately responsible? Definately! Did Clinton track down and proscecute those responsible? Damn straight!

So .. which is it. Are you going to hold Bush to this same standard? Or are you going to blame 9/11 on Clinton and Gore, because God forbid our current president actually take some fucking responsibility for something.

And l loved the complaints about someone somewhere hearing story that Clinton might have been playing golf instead of attacking al Quaeda. Do you really want to discuss how much time Bush has spent on vacation? or where he was when the terrorism chatter was at an all-time high in the summer of 2001?

-P

[Ravenstorm]

Suddenly? McCain is one of the better Republicans out there. Had he been running against Gore, I might even have voted for him. If it was McCain verse Kerry, that would be even a tougher decision with McCain probably getting my vote. He's sensible. He's also not (that I know of but could be wrong) controlled by the religious right which is my number one problem with the Republican party.

Raven

[Artha]

is it possible that Clinton could have done more about al Quaeda at the end of his term? Absolutely!

Is it possible Bush (I) could've done more for terrorism at the end of his term! Sure! Except, well:


It was the investigation of WTC bombing that first put al Quaeda even on the radar - that made us aware of its existence.


Did Clinton track down and proscecute those responsible? Damn straight!

I get it now! By refusing Osama when he was offered up by Syria in 1996, he was letting Osama live with his guilt! Great job, President Clinton!

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Suddenly? McCain is one of the better Republicans out there. Had he been running against Gore, I might even have voted for him. If it was McCain verse Kerry, that would be even a tougher decision with McCain probably getting my vote. He's sensible. He's also not (that I know of but could be wrong) controlled by the religious right which is my number one problem with the Republican party.

Raven

Very true,but you have to admit that at least some democrats started loving McCain when the polls showed like a 14 point lead for Kerry against Bush if McCain was the VP. Maybe Bush can dump Cheney and hire on Edwards and either way both parties win(and lose).

[Ravenstorm]

Getting rid of Bush is one of the biggest recommendation someone could have so yes, Democrats should like McCain just for that. But it's also who he is as displayed witht he entire Iraq fiasco.

He obviously doesn't believe that speaking up is anti-American. He doesn't believe criticizing his own party makes him a bad person. He doesn't believe that things should be swept under the carpet or that the ends justify the means. He believes in humane treatment of prisoners, getting to the bottom of political fuckups and people taking responsibility for things that go wrong. And on top of it, he doesn't shove his religious beliefs into people's faces and try to codify them into law.

The exact opposite of Bush and his flunkies.

Now granted, he hasn't been examined under a microscope like a presidential candidate has been since he never reached that level (as opposed to a party candidate). Nor did I pay too much attention to the Republican primaries since I'm a registered Democrat so there might be things about him I don't like. But from what I've seen of him, I like him. And I certainly trust him a hell of a lot more than I do Bush. Probably more than I do Kerry for that matter but it would take more researching. Course, since he won't ever be running, there's not much point to do it.

Raven

Originally posted by Prestius



Gee whiz .. is it possible that Clinton could have done more about al Quaeda at the end of his term? Absolutely!
He did what he felt prudent at the time. It was not enough, just as what Bush did was not enough.


Since the 93 WTC bombings happened on Clinton's watch, wasn't he ultimately responsible? Definately!
No not in my eyes.

Did Clinton track down and proscecute those responsible? Damn straight!
Most of those involved yes. Is President Bush, and all of law enforcement be they the FBI, CIA, and the military not attempting to do the same right now?


So .. which is it. Are you going to hold Bush to this same standard? Or are you going to blame 9/11 on Clinton and Gore, because God forbid our current president actually take some fucking responsibility for something.
No I dont blame it on Clinton and Gore. I blame it on those that committed the atrocities.


And l loved the complaints about someone somewhere hearing story that Clinton might have been playing golf instead of attacking al Quaeda. You will enjoy Moore's new movie no doubt, I think he accuses Bush of the same thing in it.


Do you really want to discuss how much time Bush has spent on vacation?
I agree with you there, Clinton spent a lot of time at Camp David while he was in though. But I would say bush has spent more time out of DC than Clinton


or where he was when the terrorism chatter was at an all-time high in the summer of 2001?
Why don’t you fill me in on this, and give me credible sources, because I am sure you do not remember off of the top of your head.

-P [/quote]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<You will enjoy Moore's new movie no doubt, I think he accuses Bush of the same thing in it.>>

Nevermind. Fahrenheit 911 I know nothing about, but if it's anything like Bowling for Columbine, I don't doubt it.

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

Well "Bowling for Columbine" has been proven to be very Fallacious.

[Bobmuhthol]

Actually it wasn't so you lose.

[Delirium]

I actually liked Bowling for Columbine. I was shocked as i only rolled my eyes about three times instead of the 500 i expected. The reviews of Farenheit 911 though have been less than expected. Someone said something like "It has lots of new information in it only if youve lived in a cave in Afganistan for the past three years" or something close to that. And yes i do know it did very well at the Cannes film festival but it could have been a sheet of paper with Bush Sucks on it and could have done as well there. Moore belongs with the Al Frankens, Al Gores and James Carvilles of the world. Pushed off to the side until the democrats need someone to make a stupid rant and take one in the ribs for the team. Just like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are for the republicans.

[Bobmuhthol]

Bowling for Columbine, because it is Michael Moore's work, implies a hell of a lot of things. It isn't, however, wrong, because those implied things are just that; there aren't any lies, you have to draw your own conclusions.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

If people take it as fact it is quite wrong. Many people do not go home after a movie and look up websites saying what is wrong in the movie they watch. When one says they are making a documentary, it is expected to be truthful, with Bowling, it was not the case.


I leave you with this a definition of the word Documentary

"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."

That takes away the directors ability to selectively edit, as Moore is known to do.

[Sean]

I would offer that theres probably no documentary in history that fits that description if you consider selective edits as something that disqualifies a film. Any photograph, any image, purposefully edited or not has a bias created by the taker. Inaddition, every documentary would be 100s of hours long if you didn't cut down and interviews and other points.

Tijay you know as well as I do that Moore did more than just a little "Slanting" in that movie.

[Artha]

It isn't, however, wrong, because those implied things are just that; there aren't any lies, you have to draw your own conclusions.

Have you ever seen it?

[Bobmuhthol]

Yes.

[Artha]

Then how the hell can you tell me Moore doesn't attempt to lead the viewer in the wrong direction multiple times?

The cartoon where the NRA guy gives the KKK guy gas for his cross, the Charleton Heston interview, the Charleton Heston speeches, even the Titan missiles.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Then how the hell can you tell me Moore doesn't attempt to lead the viewer in the wrong direction multiple times?>>

I'm not saying that. I know that's what he did, but what I'm saying is it's implied only, he doesn't actually say it, and that's where the smart people don't get pissed about it and the dumbasses believe every word of it and are fooled by him.

Sadly Bob, Most of the world Is not smart enough to figure it out on their own.

[Bobmuhthol]

And so continues my ongoing belief that 99% of the population of the world should cease to exist.

[Ravenstorm]

Political ads do exactly the same and theoretically, they're supposed to be the truth too. Except people will be more inclined to believe a political commercial because the President (or presidential wannabe) isn't supposed to be a liar. Condemn them all equally.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

McCain > Bush > Kerry

Dogshit > Michael Moore('s movies)

Also, thanks for stealing my first signature ever, Bob.

[Artha]

the President (or presidential wannabe) isn't supposed to be a liar.

Of course they are. They're politicians.

[Prestius]

>> Why don’t you fill me in on this, and give me credible sources, because I am sure you do not remember off of the top of your head. <<

Bush was on vacation in Crawford, Texas, of course. In fact up until 9-11 Bush had spent something on the order of 40% of his presidency out of the office either in Texas, Maine, or Camp David.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/


And to answer the inevitable questions that will follow:

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

-P

Well match up the two articles, it is amusing one says... the first one from a columnist {it is from april of 04}
"Dana Milbank counts that through his entire term to date, Bush has spent 500 days—again, about 40 percent of his time in office—at the ranch, the retreat, or the compound."

The second one
" Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation." "

Now granted there is a 8 month difference between the dates,

But 8 months = 243 days roughly so He must have never been in the Whitehouse.

Just pointing it out.

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by The Edine]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Also, thanks for stealing my first signature ever, Bob.>>

???????????????????????????????????????????/

Dieplz. Non-fatally, of course.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Also, thanks for stealing my first signature ever, Bob.>>

???????????????????????????????????????????/I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

I used that as my signature. It was while you were banned (but after I joined). And you stole it. :(

Obviously, the German stuff is all you.

[Bobmuhthol]

Why are you listening to Santa Esmerelda?

You must suck. Hippie.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Why are you listening to Santa Esmerelda?Because when some of us watch a movie, it doesn't take 9 months to recognize that a particular song (that was in said movie) is freaking awesome. (That's Esmeralda, btw)

[Bobmuhthol]

The song itself (the longer version) pretty much sucks.

Reasons:
Only good part is < 1:00
Song is over 10:00
The lyrics are pretty Bobmuthol except that one line

And the shorter version doesn't even have the good part.

[Edited on 8-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

You seem pretty right wing, Edine. Just curious. What are your opinions on Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage?

- Arkans

[Back]

To save time I am going to respond to a few comments without quoting everyone, so try and keep up.

Reagan years were properous. That dude was on the right page. He brokered peace out of the USSR, the economy was good, drugs were readily available... Arnold seems to be the next Reagan, and I'd vote for him.

The 9/11 should'a, would'a, could'a blame game is pretty pathetic. Politics have swerved it into that wreck. It should simply be an across the board review of how we can prevent this again, solidifying our security. Pointing out holes in it is easy. Mending them is another thing.

DC is a cool town. Its magnetic. Maybe its all that government stuff going on. I dunno. Hell of a nightlife too. The city swirls with off shore winds, a cosmopolitain diversity, and no doubt, power. I'm not even the President and I think its groovy.

Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. His pressures by boycotting the Olympics and putting up Starwars to further drain Soviet money was a pretty brilliant idea.

- Arkans

[Back]

Originally posted by Arkans
Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. His pressures by boycotting the Olympics and putting up Starwars to further drain Soviet money was a pretty brilliant idea.

- Arkans

Call it what you want. It happened without a drop of blood. Thats the way to do it.

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Arkans
Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. His pressures by boycotting the Olympics and putting up Starwars to further drain Soviet money was a pretty brilliant idea.

- Arkans


Errr... That's not quite correct.

North Korea? Vietnam? The attacks on our planes during the Cuban missle crisis? Not without it's fair share of bloodshed.

- Arkans
Call it what you want. It happened without a drop of blood. Thats the way to do it.

[Back]

Originally posted by Arkans

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Arkans
Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. His pressures by boycotting the Olympics and putting up Starwars to further drain Soviet money was a pretty brilliant idea.

- Arkans


Errr... That's not quite correct.

North Korea? Vietnam? The attacks on our planes during the Cuban missle crisis? Not without it's fair share of bloodshed.

- Arkans
Call it what you want. It happened without a drop of blood. Thats the way to do it.

So what are you trying to say here? Because, you fucked that quote up pretty good. Are you saying Reagan was a good president? A bad one?

Its the Al Gore topic. With a name like a low budget slasher villian, his campaign should have appealed to at least the metal heads.

I dont have anything against Rush or Michael. Rush is a egomanic and Mr. Savage does not get air time in our city that I know of. I also find Al Franken amusing as well for all it is worth.
But I would say i am more akin to Rushes point of view on politics than other big names.

Good President, definatly. As an amateur historian though, I just wanted to set the general facts straight, that's all.

Just as a reply to Edine. Limbaugh does have a lot of good points, but some points really do bother me. I really dislike how he keeps trying to convince people that gas prices are not that high. I have to strongly disagree with him there. It's a pain in the ass to gas up my car.

Michael Savage is pretty decent though, if not a bit extreme. He's pretty up in your face with his views, but he is very much a right winger, more of a hardcore nationalist if anything. Worthy to listen to if you get a chance. Even if you don't agree with the majority of what he says, he brings up a few decent points. I do prefer Rush myself, though.

- Arkans

Don't say you like Rush to loudly here, the donkeys will come in guns a blazing....

Let 'em come. An Elephant can stomp the crap out of a donkey any day. :smilegrin:

- Arkans

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Actually it wasn't so you lose.

Yes it was.. It's not even technically a 'documentary'.

[Ilvane]

Here's the text of Gore's remarks..in it's entirety. It was a great speech.

Now at least read it? I don't agree with everything Moveon does, either..but I do appreciate Al Gore, and his candor.

http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html

-A

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
The song itself (the longer version) pretty much sucks.

Reasons:
Only good part is < 1:00
Song is over 10:00
The lyrics are pretty Bobmuthol except that one line

And the shorter version doesn't even have the good part. The 10 minute (or thereabouts) version is awesome. The 14 minute is too long, the short one is too short. You're just not mature enough to appreciate it. I bet you don't like In A Godda Da Vida either.

Al Gore makes for great comedy. Then again, so does Bush.



[Edited on 8-20-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't recall a 14 minute version.

But there's only like 40 good seconds of it.

[Bobby]

Sir, you are clearly mistaken about your facts.


Originally posted by Prestius

Well let's see here. The 1st WTC Bombing was in 1993 - scant months after Clinton and Gore entered office. One could pretty much surmise that most of the planning for it went on under the nose of the previous president. Not only that, until the bombing, no-one really even knew al Quaeda existed. It was the investigation of WTC bombing that first put al Quaeda even on the radar - that made us aware of its existence. And guess what? We sucessfully prosecuted those responsible. Yeah .. big failure there, Mr RNC.


Sir, the bombing took place in September of 1993. During the following trial, (of the three players we did catch) the planning for this began in the spring of '93. It took them six months to plan to fill a truck with explosives and drive it down to the bottom of the parking garage and set it off. Yes, they were trying to knock the building down, but what they failed to realize (which is why they switched their plans for another attack) was their failure to understand how the buildings were put together.


The USS Cole bombing happened at the end of the Clinton years .. and we didn't even know for sure it was al Quaeda until after Bush was in office. So .. the RNC is going to bag on Gore for that?

Once again, you're listening to Al Franken. The bombing took place on October 12th, 2000. 3 weeks before the election. The reason they picked that day was to try to influence the election and get Gore elected. We did nothing to those involved. Had Clinton decided to commit troops to Afghanistan at that time, people would have had his head examined (even though he should have it done anyway).


Meanwhile, on Clinton and Gore's watch we did things institute the largest increases funding for anti-terrorism ever, create stockpiles of antidote and vaccines against bio-weapons (where do you think all the anti-anthrax stuff came from?), thwart many many terrorist attacks including the millenium attack.

::sigh:: Once again, your facts are skewed. The anthrax letters are the reason we have stock piled the antidote. The first anthrax letter was sent out 2 months after 9/11.


And .. if you go a little deeper into Clinton's repsonses to terrorist attacks, you'll find that it was the military's downfall more than his. They gave him two options for fighting terrorism - nothing, or a full-scale invasion. And .. when he did actually attempt to do something he was accused of a "wag-the-dog" policy - that he was just trying to get Monica off the front page. Gee, thanks Ken Starr and the Republican attack dogs for making the country safe against blow jobs.

Dude, you seriously need help.

Were you in any of these high level meetings in which you claim he was given only 2 options? Dude, during the 9/11 hearings, we heard from 12 different people that said he was given nearly 1/2 dozen options. The only person whose saying he got two options was Dick Clarke.




So .. you can bag on Clinton and Gore all you want for all kinds of things - but terrorism is one area that they did one hell of a great job despite the obstacles they faced - like being under frivolous investigation for most of their tenure in office.

-P


Hope you have fun at Simucon next week. Drink heavily dude, you'll need it.

[Prestius]

Heya Bobby ...

I may or may not be at Con .. had some stuff come up .. but ..

I'm afraid you are mistaken in your assessment of my statements - and your thinly veiled "::sigh:: you poor misguided fool" comments are borderline insulting. However .. I will respond anyway.

I fail to see what you said about the 93 WTC bombing somehow shows my lack of knowledge of the facts.

Did we, or did we not prosecute those repsonsible for the 93 WTC bombing? Can you please show where al Quaeda was a known entity prior to 93 .. 94 .. or even 95? This is why the rhetoric that "Clinton/Gore had 8 years to get al Quaeda" is crap and why I refuse to let statements like that stand. --- because they're simply not true. al Quaeda wasn't even on the map until after the prosecution of the WTC bombing.

I don't doubt the reasoning behind the Cole attacks - but that's not what I was saying. The RNC makes it sound like Clinton/Gore did nothing about them - which is crap. They started the investigation, which took several months. Which took us into the Bush adminstration's watch. That's all I'm saying. To bag on Clinton/Gore for the Cole bombings just shows a complete desire to ignore the facts.

We began stockpiling antidotes *years* before 9/11 - as part of Clinton's anti-terrorism program. There's no way we could have come up with the number of doses needed in such a short period of time after the Anthrax letters. Certainly we began to beef up those stockpiles again post-9/11 and post anthrax attacks, but those stockpiles were in place long before 9/11 specifically because of Clinton.

And of course I wasn't in any high-level meetings. Were you? Clearly I was simplifying the general situation, but when you boil down that half a dozen options, that's what you ended up with. Please try to recall the political climate we were in at the time. The military was loathe to commit troups anywhere without overwhelming forces. And yep, I'm rlying on Clarke for that information. Have you actually read his book?

-P

[Bobby]

Since its difficult to gauge people's tones in text, I want to preface all this by saying that this is a nice spirited debate and its obvious that I can't change your mind of things, nor can you change my mind. But it is healthy. ;-)



Originally posted by Prestius
I fail to see what you said about the 93 WTC bombing somehow shows my lack of knowledge of the facts.

You said, a "scant' few months into the Clinton presidency, or as you put it, "Clinton's Watch". (BTW, This "watch stuff" is a catch phrase that was put on the lips of 2 WTC family's by the DNC). Clinton was in office for 3 months when the planning began and it continued under their noses until the explosion in '93.

As to putting al Qaeda on the map by putting those on trial... During the 80's, under Regan's Watch, they gave Bin Ladin the money he needed and the training, to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The "Taliban" at the time were non existant. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, was born. Taliban is an off-shoot ... tribe, if you will, of al Qaeda.


Did we, or did we not prosecute those repsonsible for the 93 WTC bombing? Can you please show where al Quaeda was a known entity prior to 93 .. 94 .. or even 95?

See above. The US government knew who/what/where al Qaeda was. They paid for it. Now if you want to ask me if we the people knew, obviously not until the WTC in 93.

If you'd like to know where I get this information from, as silly as it may sound, from the declassified documents under the freedom of information act. All you have to do is ask them, and they'll send you all declassifed info on al Qaeda or bin Laden.


This is why the rhetoric that "Clinton/Gore had 8 years to get al Quaeda" is crap and why I refuse to let statements like that stand. --- because they're simply not true. al Quaeda wasn't even on the map until after the prosecution of the WTC bombing.

Which is why I asked you if you were part of any of these meetings. Not to be a smart ass or anything, but you were almost quoting Dick Clarke verbatim from his book. His book is full of 1/2 truths, innuendos, all formed into statements of facts. His testimony to the 9/11 commission was full of holes and contradictions of his own sworn testimony that he was just making a mockery of the proceedings. (This, by the way, is why I wrote to the Fed to get what I could).

Just because someone says something in print, doesn't mean its the truth. If that's the case, I would STRONGLY urge you to get a copy of Dick Morris' book, "Re-writing History". Another of Clinton's aides, only this time, telling another story. The DNC wants us to dismiss him as a radical, but funny how we are to dismiss former Aides (8 years he was in the Clinton Camp) and Clarke was there since Bush 1, and all of a sudden, Clarke is telling the truth, but Morris isn't. <grin>


I don't doubt the reasoning behind the Cole attacks - but that's not what I was saying. The RNC makes it sound like Clinton/Gore did nothing about them - which is crap. They started the investigation, which took several months. Which took us into the Bush adminstration's watch.

Actually, from press accounts, the official investigation did not begin until January 26th, 2000. 4 days after the inaugaration.

The Yemen authorites began the investigation on November 1,2000.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/


That's all I'm saying. To bag on Clinton/Gore for the Cole bombings just shows a complete desire to ignore the facts.

Im still waiting for any of your claims of facts to be substantiated. All I see so far is the banter that the DNC has been putting out.


We began stockpiling antidotes *years* before 9/11 - as part of Clinton's anti-terrorism program. There's no way we could have come up with the number of doses needed in such a short period of time after the Anthrax letters. Certainly we began to beef up those stockpiles again post-9/11 and post anthrax attacks, but those stockpiles were in place long before 9/11 specifically because of Clinton.

Sir, once again, without me trying to find some internet proof, (google turned up nothing for anthrax antidotes/us stockpiles) prior to Nov of 2001. I have documents that clearly show the US had some "stockpiles" but for military use in case an enemy used it against our forces.


And yep, I'm rlying on Clarke for that information. Have you actually read his book? -P

Yep, sure did. Read his book, read Al Franken's book, read Dick Morris' book. All quite interesting reading. I also read Bob Woodward's book. Did you happen to read the last two or are you just into reading books that have views similar to yours? <grin>

Yes!! That was a stab!! I'm sorry!!

Seriously, one of our joys of being Americans is that we're able to keep open minds. Tell me, if you took your car to a mechanic, who told you that your finstock bearing needed replacing, then found out a month later there was no such thing, wouldn't you be wary?

I read Clarke's book. There were several sections that I had a lot of trouble believing. A little investigation got the answers. Is Dick Clarke a liar? In my humble opinion, yes, he is a liar. I have proof, the RNC has proof, even the 9/11 commission has proof.

What I'd like to see is someone stepping forward and put an end to these statements that do nothing more then aid and give comfort to the enemy.

A former vice-president of the United States, standing on a stage, turning into a beet. My god, could you ever see Spiro Agnew, LBJ, or any of these former VPs talking about our country in that manner?

My god.

Even if 100% of what Al Gore is saying is true (which it isn't), why do it in public? Why not take care of things in private? The President is a liar? Get a committee together to investigate it. Don't blast it over TV.

Oh well, one good thing has come out of it. 155 days till the election. Let's get this over with. I doubt I can take much more.

Have a good time if you go to Simucon. I had some other things come up (going out of the country for a week) during Simucon, so it's a wise choice for me.

LOL

Have a good Memorial Day weekend.

[Ilvane]

//Actually, from press accounts, the official investigation did not begin until January 26th, 2000. 4 days after the inaugaration.//

Do you actually believe that it took them 4 days to get this together in the new administration and then *they* were the ones that organized the investigation?

I'm sure it was planned to be investigated during Clinton's term, and the fiasco after the election probably delayed it..:lol:

Um, anyway..1993 bombing happened and was planned during the Bush I administration. Do you really think it takes these guys a short time to plan?

//Even if 100% of what Al Gore is saying is true (which it isn't), why do it in public? Why not take care of things in private? The President is a liar? Get a committee together to investigate it. Don't blast it over TV.//

Why shouldn't he blast it on TV? Bush is more than willing to espouse blatent lies about what the last administration did without much thought. Why should Gore keep his mouth shut? If I were him, I would be pretty irritated too..especially since the election was decided in Jeb Bush's state, and the Supreme Court.

It's about time we had a discussion of what this country is doing. Everyone who speaks out about it--they are not any less patriotic, or American. In fact, this is more American than being President Bush's 'Yes' men or women.

I admire Al Gore for speaking out, and he is intelligent enough to do so. He couldn't even come close to matching Bush in a debate, but somehow--being intelligent was seen as a negative thing!! I don't get it.;)

-A

[Artha]

especially since the election was decided in Jeb Bush's state, and the Supreme Court.

I'd be pissed if they didn't let me steal an election too.

[Ilvane]

Yeah, exit polls said Gore won..then the big Democratic counties had people turned away..then suddenly there is no recount..then the Supreme Court decides?

Yep, sounds fair and the will of the people to me.

I still say, if that had happened in another country, we would be screaming that democracy was not in play!

-A

P.S. Artha, it's sad that you are such a Republican at a young age. Maybe you'll read some more and change your mind, someday.:) Of course, you have a right to your opinion.:yes:

[Artha]

Dear Ilvane,

Hi.

Signed,
The Electoral College



Artha, it's sad that you are such a Republican at a young age.

:)

[edit: I'm a conservative, but I'm not very extreme. I got a placement of (2.00, 1.28) on the political compass...which puts me next to Schroeder and Martin.]

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Artha]

[Back]

The Electoral College is a joke. I learned about it in Jr. High. There is only one other time in the history of the United States that an elctoral college vote decided over the popular vote.

Electoral College keeps Presidents for just going to states like California and New York and going.. OLOLOLOLOL!!1111111 STFU SMALL STATES UR GH3Y!11111

- Arkans

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Arkans
Electoral College keeps Presidents for just going to states like California and New York and going.. OLOLOLOLOL!!1111111 STFU SMALL STATES UR GH3Y!11111

- Arkans

Pretty much...

Also, the United States is a Republic... NOT a Democracy.

Though the peons are lead to believe so. :duh:

Meanwhile, the Electoral College was intentionally designed in such a fashion where citizens are voicing their preference who the representatives (those who vote on behalf of the state) should vote for.

However those representatives that I referred to... their votes are the only real votes that count as while it is generally expected, not mandated that they vote along with the indicated preference of the citizens, they are able to change their votes to cast in favor of other candidates.

The Republican and Democrat parties counter this by handing picking representatives for each state, believing that those representatives will be loyal and vote accordingly.

I think there's been recorded instances of such representatives voting for other candidates instead of the one that they were "supposed to vote for."

.

Bottom line, the Electoral College is in place to protect the citizens from themselves... with the assumption that the representatives are more educated and more political astute that the citizens, who the designers of the EC did not hold high regards for. :shrug:

But judging from American society, where stupid people obviously make up the vast majority... and it does seem that Americans are getting "dumber" over time... I have to predict that the EC will save this country one day from true chaos. :!:

[Hulkein]

Excellent points Ilvane. Contradicting Bobby's points which he used sources for with the 'do you really think' argument.

[Prestius]

>> yep, sure did. Read his book, read Al Franken's book, read Dick Morris' book. All quite interesting reading. I also read Bob Woodward's book. Did you happen to read the last two or are you just into reading books that have views similar to yours? <grin> <<

As a matter of fact, I got tired of listening to other people interpret these books for me, so I have in fact read the Woodward, the Clarke, the Franken, the Morris, the Dean, the Karen Hughes books.

>> Yes!! That was a stab!! I'm sorry!! <<

Yep .. it was.

>> Seriously, one of our joys of being Americans is that we're able to keep open minds. Tell me, if you took your car to a mechanic, who told you that your finstock bearing needed replacing, then found out a month later there was no such thing, wouldn't you be wary? <<

Umm .. sure. Interesting straw man. Appropos to ??

>> I read Clarke's book. There were several sections that I had a lot of trouble believing. A little investigation got the answers. Is Dick Clarke a liar? In my humble opinion, yes, he is a liar. I have proof, the RNC has proof, even the 9/11 commission has proof. <<

Ok .. I'll bite. I'd like to see your proof that makes the entire Clarke book a complete lie. I certainly don't trust the RNC's data - hell they've already proven themselves to be viscious to anyone who suggests that the truth about the President and his administraion might be something other than what the RNC says it is - does the outing of a CIA operative ring any bells? Which leaves the 9-11 commission. The entire testimony is online. Please point the specific testimony out to me. And please if it's panel members saying "you've got a credibility problem" - you're going to have to try a bit harder.

Actually .. the last part of Clarke's book was his opinion on a lot of things. Some I agree with, some I don't. However, the bulk of the book is him describing things as he dealt with them. I'd love to see where any of that stuff has been shown to be false. Please -- educate me, since cleary your vastly superior intellect in these matters is far beyond my ability to understand.

But we can go back and forth on this ad nauseum. The bottom line here. The statement "CLinton and Gore had 8 years to get Osama." is patently false. It ignores the history of al Qaeda and Osama, and the political climate of the 90's.

-P

[Bobby]

1) Ilvane:


"Um, anyway..1993 bombing happened and was planned during the Bush I administration. Do you really think it takes these guys a short time to plan?"

If you would go back and review what I said, you'll find that this information came out during the trial. So, yes, it takes these guys a short time to put something like that together.

[quote] Why shouldn't he blast it on TV? Bush is more than willing to espouse blatent lies about what the last administration did without much thought. Why should Gore keep his mouth shut? If I were him, I would be pretty irritated too..especially since the election was decided in Jeb Bush's state, and the Supreme Court.

Yes, the election came down to that state, however, what about all the others states, including his home state of Tennessee, he didn't win? I do enjoy hearing about how Bush "stole" the election, but it's like Saturday night's NBA basketball playoff game. The Lakers lost the game by 2 points! If Shaq would have sunk just 3 more free throws they would have won. Does that make it Shaq's fault they lost?

Al Gore lost the election because he didn't have enough electoral votes. Period. He lost Florida. But he also lost 22 other states.


Yeah, exit polls said Gore won..then the big Democratic counties had people turned away..then suddenly there is no recount..then the Supreme Court decides?

Ok, this is twice you brought that up. No problem. Exit polls are not an accurate gauge of an election, obviously, or why wouldn't we just walk up to people and ask them who you want to vote for and just write it down. Secondly, it was the DNC that asked the Supreme Court in Florida to review things. If the DNC doesn't like the laws, they just ignore them and try to change them through the court system. Same thing happened with Lautenberg in New Jersey.

In our litigious society we have been taught over the past decade or so that if we don't like it, sue. It's incredible actually.

2) Backlash:
The Electoral College is a joke. I learned about it in Jr. High. There is only one other time in the history of the United States that an elctoral college vote decided over the popular vote.

I agree. However, the Electoral College is necessary to allow states with little population to be a part of the National election process.

3) Presitus:
But we can go back and forth on this ad nauseum

Yup. I think we've pretty much summed it all up. You don't trust the RNC, I don't trust the DNC. Means our votes cancel if we live in the same state. :-)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Yeah, exit polls said Gore won..then the big Democratic counties had people turned away..then suddenly there is no recount..then the Supreme Court decides?

Yep, sounds fair and the will of the people to me.

I still say, if that had happened in another country, we would be screaming that democracy was not in play!

-A

P.S. Artha, it's sad that you are such a Republican at a young age. Maybe you'll read some more and change your mind, someday.:) Of course, you have a right to your opinion.:yes:

What is truly sad is that you simply ignore the facts on how the election was determined.. or you are simply ignorant on how the election process works in the United States.

If you do a google search on it.. I am sure you can find the facts your argument seems to be sorely missing.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Ok .. I'll bite. I'd like to see your proof that makes the entire Clarke book a complete lie. I certainly don't trust the RNC's data - hell they've already proven themselves to be viscious to anyone who suggests that the truth about the President and his administraion might be something other than what the RNC says it is - does the outing of a CIA operative ring any bells? Which leaves the 9-11 commission. The entire testimony is online. Please point the specific testimony out to me. And please if it's panel members saying "you've got a credibility problem" - you're going to have to try a bit harder.

-P

If you are taking Clarke's book as the gospel truth about how things happened in the Bush administration.. you are a fool who is simply blinded with Bush hatred that you cannot see the truth anyway.. so why bother explaining it to you.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

If you are taking Clarke's book as the gospel truth about how things happened in the Bush administration.. you are a fool who is simply blinded with Bush hatred that you cannot see the truth anyway.. so why bother explaining it to you.

The Gospel Truth? Perhaps not - but I certainly give his story a LOT more credence that the ones that the Bush Administration has told - and how they try so hard to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. Besides, only a small portion of the book talks about the Bush Administration, and most of it is NOT all that horrible - except of course on how they dealt with terrorism - which is that they pretty much didn't. No wonder they want him to shut up and why they went to such lengths to make him out to be a liar.

I do highly reccommend that people read Clarke's book and not rely on what others tell you about it. The last section is his opinion and pretty much educated conjecture, but the bulk of the book sticks fairly well to the facts.

I found his description of 9-11 to be very compelling - and the section of the book that lays out the roots and progress of terrorism is fascinating and eye-opening.

-P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit

If you are taking Clarke's book as the gospel truth about how things happened in the Bush administration.. you are a fool who is simply blinded with Bush hatred that you cannot see the truth anyway.. so why bother explaining it to you.

The Gospel Truth? Perhaps not - but I certainly give his story a LOT more credence that the ones that the Bush Administration has told - and how they try so hard to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. Besides, only a small portion of the book talks about the Bush Administration, and most of it is NOT all that horrible - except of course on how they dealt with terrorism - which is that they pretty much didn't. No wonder they want him to shut up and why they went to such lengths to make him out to be a liar.

I do highly reccommend that people read Clarke's book and not rely on what others tell you about it. The last section is his opinion and pretty much educated conjecture, but the bulk of the book sticks fairly well to the facts.

I found his description of 9-11 to be very compelling - and the section of the book that lays out the roots and progress of terrorism is fascinating and eye-opening.

-P

Sorry.. I don't do fiction and I certainly wouldn't pay money to some disgruntled employee who didn't get what he wanted.. so he wrote a book because bashing the administration sells.

If you would like to send me your copy.. I'll be happy to give you my address. But I won't reward a person whom I see as lying to sell books.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Sorry.. I don't do fiction and I certainly wouldn't pay money to some disgruntled employee who didn't get what he wanted.. so he wrote a book because bashing the administration sells.

If you would like to send me your copy.. I'll be happy to give you my address. But I won't reward a person whom I see as lying to sell books.

Wow.

Well .. the Republican smear machine definately did its job. I'm not saying to run out and buy it, but seriously it's NOT a work of fiction and Clarke really isn't the liar that they've made him out to be.

-P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Sorry.. I don't do fiction and I certainly wouldn't pay money to some disgruntled employee who didn't get what he wanted.. so he wrote a book because bashing the administration sells.

If you would like to send me your copy.. I'll be happy to give you my address. But I won't reward a person whom I see as lying to sell books.

Wow.

Well .. the Republican smear machine definately did its job. I'm not saying to run out and buy it, but seriously it's NOT a work of fiction and Clarke really isn't the liar that they've made him out to be.

-P

Actually.. the Republicans didn't make him out to be a liar.. he did a good enough job of doing so on his own.

Even many Democrats have distanced themselves from him and his testimony.

He's not a credible source for information.. unless you simply are looking for more things to dislike about Bush.. then he will work until the next disgruntled, book peddling individual happens by.

[Bobby]

He's not a credible source for information.. unless you simply are looking for more things to dislike about Bush.. then he will work until the next disgruntled, book peddling individual happens by.

Well said.

[Prestius]

He's not a credible source for information.. unless you simply are looking for more things to dislike about Bush.. then he will work until the next disgruntled, book peddling individual happens by.

Well said. [/quote]

It's NOT well said. It sounds exactly like a statement that someone would make who never actually read the book and is relying on someone else to tell them about it. Huge chunks of the book aren't even about the Bush Administration and actually show them in a good light in terms of immediate response to 9-11.

But hey .. if you want, dismiss Clarke as disgruntled. Sure beats the hell out of doing any form of critical thinking.

-P

[Hulkein]

I wrote a book.

It's entitled "Prestius is a wang banger."

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

He's not a credible source for information.. unless you simply are looking for more things to dislike about Bush.. then he will work until the next disgruntled, book peddling individual happens by.

Well said.

It's NOT well said. It sounds exactly like a statement that someone would make who never actually read the book and is relying on someone else to tell them about it. Huge chunks of the book aren't even about the Bush Administration and actually show them in a good light in terms of immediate response to 9-11.

But hey .. if you want, dismiss Clarke as disgruntled. Sure beats the hell out of doing any form of critical thinking.

-P [/quote]


Your notion that you cannot have an opinion until you read his book holds zero merit for me... especially with all the information that is at my fingertips within a matter of minutes. You read the book.. yet completely missed the FACTS that he contradicted himself on MANY things. What exactly does this say about your intelligence or reading comprehension?

Let me help you out. Here's a Time Magazine article on the subject.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html

Hell, they even TRY to give Clarke the benefit of the doubt.

If after reading this quick article you cannot see how Clarke has contradicted himself.. then I'm simply going to chalk it up to you being a Bush hater and not paying attention to the real truth.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I wrote a book.

It's entitled "Prestius is a wang banger."

Ouch!

Check .. and mate!

-P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius
Ouch!

Check .. and mate!

-P

:D

[AnticorRifling]

So this comic was talking about the election and how it was all a bet. The bet was this "I bet you I can beat Al Gore with a retarded canidate" Too easy. "Ok I bet I can beat Al Gore with a retarded canidate and a dead running mate." Sounds like a beat to me. And they won! All because of a bet.