• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Al Gore: 'Democracy Is Under Attack' (1 Viewer)

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A stunning observation? Not really. Elections are decided mostly on money, not issues. The media sees to that. Years ago, the media was responsible. Today, there is a good reason they are knwn as mediawhores.

Gore did not really need to make that statement. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of an artichoke can plainly see it.

Article is here.
 
danarhea said:
A stunning observation? Not really. Elections are decided mostly on money, not issues. The media sees to that. Years ago, the media was responsible. Today, there is a good reason they are knwn as mediawhores.

Gore did not really need to make that statement. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of an artichoke can plainly see it.

Article is here.
Then I guess the greater America is just one big artichoke
 
jfuh said:
Then I guess the greater America is just one big artichoke

When people choose to watch reality TV shows and other fluff instead of hard news, the artichokery naturally increases.
 
danarhea said:
A stunning observation? Not really. Elections are decided mostly on money, not issues.

Do you have any evidence of this at all? The only time I can see money making a difference is if the voters have never even heard of the candidate. Beyond that, what makes you think that it makes much of a difference?
 
danarhea said:
A stunning observation? Not really. Elections are decided mostly on money, not issues. The media sees to that. Years ago, the media was responsible. Today, there is a good reason they are knwn as mediawhores.

Gore did not really need to make that statement. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of an artichoke can plainly see it.

Article is here.

Funny I could have sworn that this administration was pro-Democracy.

Let's analyze that for a second.

Iraq, Georgia, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Lebanon are now all Democratic nations.

More Democratic nations have been added to this globe and more people have been freed under the Bush administration than at any other time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

How many Democratic nations did Clinton help to create? Oh ya 0 in fact Clinton actually aided tyrants in Indonesia, North Korea, and Iran.

Mr. Gore how many Democracies did you help to foster while you were vice President????

Mr. Gore is a ****ing idiot he says that Democracy is under attack when the exact opposite is true it is tyranny that is under attack and it is the United States that is doing the attacking!!! . . . litterally!
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Let's analyze that for a second.

Iraq, Georgia, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Lebanon are now all Democratic nations.

Wait, when did Palestine become a state?

Will Al Gore ever go away?
 
Kandahar said:
Do you have any evidence of this at all? The only time I can see money making a difference is if the voters have never even heard of the candidate. Beyond that, what makes you think that it makes much of a difference?
Bill Clinton would disagree with you. Raising $ for TV commercials was the primary focus of his first four years in office.
 
mpg said:
Bill Clinton would disagree with you. Raising $ for TV commercials was the primary focus of his first four years in office.

But are candidates popular because they raise a lot of campaign money...or do they have a lot of campaign money because they're popular? I strongly suspect the latter. I see no reason at all to believe that money helps win elections, once you're past the name-recognition stage.
 
Kandahar said:
I see no reason at all to believe that money helps win elections, once you're past the name-recognition stage.

It pays for the digging up of dirt on your oponent and mudslinging.

The name of the game now is not who is best for the job, but who comes out with less dirt on them then their opponent.
 
Doremus Jessup said:
Wait, when did Palestine become a state?

Will Al Gore ever go away?

They actually had democratic elections.........

I actually believe that Gore is more dangerous then Kerry if that is possible.....
 
TheNextEra said:
It pays for the digging up of dirt on your oponent and mudslinging.

The name of the game now is not who is best for the job, but who comes out with less dirt on them then their opponent.

But the amount of dirt you have on your opponent isn't really relevant, because you can always just make **** up too. For example, the Swift Boaters.

Even if one of the candidates never even jaywalked in his life, you can bet that there's going to be all kinds of allegations against him when he runs for public office.
 
Kandahar said:
But the amount of dirt you have on your opponent isn't really relevant, because you can always just make **** up too.
Do you mean like 60 Minutes and Dan Rather did to Bush??
 
Kandahar said:
What's your point?
Making **** up is done by both sides, whether you would admit this or not.
 
Kandahar said:
But the amount of dirt you have on your opponent isn't really relevant, because you can always just make **** up too. For example, the Swift Boaters.

Even if one of the candidates never even jaywalked in his life, you can bet that there's going to be all kinds of allegations against him when he runs for public office.

Here we go another attack by Liberals on guys who fought and risked their lives so he could put them down.......There were Medal of Honor Winners and Prisoners of War in that group............Shame on you Kandahar......
 
Democracy is under attack, no question about it. But the attack is from our own leftist elite, which seems to be so frustrated by their inability to sell their ideology to the people that they have redirected their anger toward Bush with no regard for the consequences to the country.
 
Gill said:
Making **** up is done by both sides, whether you would admit this or not.

Umm I didn't say otherwise, nor do I care to get involved in your annoying partisan bickering.
 
Kandahar said:
But the amount of dirt you have on your opponent isn't really relevant, because you can always just make **** up too. For example, the Swift Boaters.

Even if one of the candidates never even jaywalked in his life, you can bet that there's going to be all kinds of allegations against him when he runs for public office.

Umm what exactly did the swift boaters make up sir? Dems just got pissed because Kerry's own treacherous words from his winter soldier testimony were used against him.
 
TheNextEra said:
It pays for the digging up of dirt on your oponent and mudslinging.

The name of the game now is not who is best for the job, but who comes out with less dirt on them then their opponent.

Umm doesn't someones actions and moral character have something to do with whether or not they should hold public office?

It's not mudslinging when it's true.
 
Navy Pride said:
Here we go another attack by Liberals on guys who fought and risked their lives so he could put them down.......There were Medal of Honor Winners and Prisoners of War in that group............Shame on you Kandahar......

Yeah! Who do you liberals think you are? Swift Boat Vets?

Speaking of honoring our brave and honorable vets, you folks join Navy Pride and myself as we raise our glasses and toast our good buddy Caine who honorably served our nation in Iraq. An American hero. Ain't that right Navy, ol' buddy?

Three cheers for Caine. Hip, hip, hurray !
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm what exactly did the swift boaters make up sir? Dems just got pissed because Kerry's own treacherous words from his winter soldier testimony were used against him.

They said that he didn't really deserve most of his medals including his Purple Hearts (I remember hearing them refer to his battle wounds as a "skinned knee"). Of course those claims were ludicrous, since most of them didn't even know Kerry or just barely knew him, and those soldiers who knew him well overwhelmingly countered the claims of the Swifties.

I don't mind a good honest debate of ideas. I don't even mind a (very) little mudslinging when it's true or is hypothetical. But groups like the Swift Boat Veterans that just flat-out lie are the sleaziest of the sleazy. And that includes their friends who sunk the campaigns of John McCain and Max Cleland too.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Here we go another attack by Liberals on guys who fought and risked their lives so he could put them down.......There were Medal of Honor Winners and Prisoners of War in that group............Shame on you Kandahar......

Ah yes, because we all know that anyone who has ever worn a soldier's uniform is incapable of telling a lie. :roll:

Why do you apply that standard to the Swifties and not to Mr. Kerry?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm doesn't someones actions and moral character have something to do with whether or not they should hold public office?

It's not mudslinging when it's true.

Just about every person who has ever run for President, VP, Governor, Senate, or held any prominent Cabinet position has allegations against them that would be shocking if true.

Even being the cynical bastard that I am, I don't think it's possible that EVERYONE in the government is amoral. Hell, even Jimmy Carter - arguably one of the most personally decent presidents we've ever had - had plenty of sleazy allegations against him.

So a good portion of the mudslinging is not true, and after a certain point it becomes meaningless because the bullshit allegations dilute the true allegations.
 
Kandahar said:
They said that he didn't really deserve most of his medals including his Purple Hearts (I remember hearing them refer to his battle wounds as a "skinned knee"). Of course those claims were ludicrous, since most of them didn't even know Kerry or just barely knew him, and those soldiers who knew him well overwhelmingly countered the claims of the Swifties.

A) If Kerry deserved his medals why won't he release his military record???

B) If he deserved his metals why did he file to recieve them himself when it is SOP to have someone else recommend for you to recieve them?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom