• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 Speech

H

hipsterdufus

Al Gore gave an amazing speech on Monday on the dangers of unchecked executive power.

It will be rebroadcast tonight (Tuesday Jan 17) at 8:00 PM on C-Span 1.
You can also download the video or podcast at c-span.org.

Here's a little quote:

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
http://www.dailykos.com/
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What an odd speech to give at a Martin Luther King celebration.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
what a hypocritical deushe god I hate that man first he implys that the world is safer now then it was during the Cold War what a load of bullshit atleast the Soviets could be reasoned with and knew as well as us that nuclear war was in no ones interests. The enemy we now face has no such scruples against killing large civilian populations as was made abundantly clear on 9-11. Does he really think that international terrorism is less of a threat than the Soviet Union? Did the Soviet Union ever attack us on our soil? Not since the second world war has there been such a threat to international and national security as there is today. And I just love how he ended the speech by implying that the American citizenry is to stupid to be trusted with the future of their own country. Why is that Algore, because they voted against you and your fifth column party? Apparently Gore thinks that Democracy is only good when they vote the way he wants them to. The fact of the matter is that this President was elected by a majority of the popular vote and the electoral college votes something that your administration never achieved the Republicans in the Congress were elected and the Constitution states that the President has the right to apoint Supreme Court nominees and the Senate has the right to either confirm or deny these appointees by a majority vote and if you don't like the Constitution Mr. Gore then I suggest you move to Red China I here tell that they love Kyoto over there because it screws America while doing nothing to their own industry. The arrogance of that man to think that he is some how intellectually superior to the average American, it's the typical, do as I say because I said it, liberal mantality. Well fuc/k you Mr. Gore see ya in ''06 and again in ''08.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
what a hypocritical deushe god I hate that man first he implys that the world is safer now then it was during the Cold War what a load of bullshit atleast the Soviets could be reasoned with and knew as well as us that nuclear war was in no ones interests. The enemy we now face has no such scruples against killing large civilian populations as was made abundantly clear on 9-11..
You have got to be kidding. During the Cold War the fate of all of civilization was in balance. The flu kills more worldwide in any given year than the Terrorists have killed in the last 50 years.

Terrorism is a threat, but on balance, comparing it to the Cold War is like comparing a dime to a dollar.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Al Gore gave an amazing speech on Monday on the dangers of unchecked executive power.

It will be rebroadcast tonight (Tuesday Jan 17) at 8:00 PM on C-Span 1.
You can also download the video or podcast at c-span.org.

Here's a little quote:


http://www.dailykos.com/
Yeah I heard his speech hips......Especially the part about illegal wire tapping without a warrant........I guess he forgot when Cinton and him did the same thing in the Aldrich Ames spy case and even went farther in conducting a search of Mr. Ames house without a search warrant..........:roll:

Oh and we were not even at war then...........
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
You have got to be kidding. During the Cold War the fate of all of civilization was in balance. The flu kills more worldwide in any given year than the Terrorists have killed in the last 50 years.

Terrorism is a threat, but on balance, comparing it to the Cold War is like comparing a dime to a dollar.
Bullshit the Soviets could be reasoned with and they acted on their national interests not out of religious psychosis, if AlQaeda obtains a nuclear weapon they will not hesitate to use it at least during the cold war the fingers on the buttons were attached to sain rational men but Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map. Never did the Soviets attack us on our soil so how can you say they were more of a threat? The fact of the matter is that the threat of nuclear war wasn't eliminated after the fall of the Soviet Union it actually increased because now you have hundreds of individual states each with nuclear arms with less security surrounding them and thousands of out of work Soviet nuclear scientists ready to sell their talents to the highest bidder. The enemy we now face maybe smaller but I'd rather fight a sane giant than an insane midget with a bazooka.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Navy Pride said:
Yeah I heard his speech hips......Especially the part about illegal wire tapping without a warrant........I guess he forgot when Cinton and him did the same thing in the Aldrich Ames spy case and even went farther in conducting a search of Mr. Ames house without a search warrant..........:roll:

Oh and we were not even at war then...........
And how about the part when he said we need to keep the internet free? I guess that he forgot that Clinton ordered millions of U.S. citizens internet accounts monitored for key words under operation echelon.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit the Soviets could be reasoned with and they acted on their national interests not out of religious psychosis, if AlQaeda obtains a nuclear weapon they will not hesitate to use it at least during the cold war the fingers on the buttons were attached to sain rational men but Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map. Never did the Soviets attack us on our soil so how can you say they were more of a threat? The fact of the matter is that the threat of nuclear war wasn't eliminated after the fall of the Soviet Union it actually increased because now you have hundreds of individual states each with nuclear arms with less security surrounding them and thousands of out of work Soviet nuclear scientists ready to sell their talents to the highest bidder. The enemy we now face maybe smaller but I'd rather fight a sane giant than an insane midget with a bazooka.
Either you are ignorant of the history of the Cold War, or you are incapable of objectivity.

That Cold War that you claim was less of a threat to the United States than terrorism:
  • Cost over 100,000 American lives in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
  • Resulted in over 200,000 Americans being wounded.
  • Nikita Khrushchev, you know one of those “Reasonable Soviets”, had enough Nuclear Missiles stationed in Cuba to level every single major city in the entire southern half of the United States. Including Washington D.C. Those missiles came literally within a hair of being launched and thus throwing the entire world into a literal Armageddon.
  • Joseph Stalin, a “Reasonable Soviet” who murdered 20 million of his own citizens, had control of the Soviets nuclear arsenal until his death in 1953.
For forty yearsthe slightest diplomatic or military mistake on the part of the United States or the Soviet Union would have resulted in a nuclear conflict that would have literally killed billions of people. Of course, maybe you are right. A few nut jobs living in caves are a bigger threat.

Today several small nations are nuclear powers, yet none of them, other than Russia and China has the ability to actually deliver a nuclear ordnance to U.S. soil. There is a significant risk associated with a terrorist group obtaining an unaccounted for nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union. However, the likely hood of that occurring is not that strong, and more than likely, the only way they would be able to get such a weapon to U.S. soil would be in the form of a dirty bomb. Because of psychological affects, a dirty bomb would be enormously disruptive to our economy, but in terms of actual deaths, would probably result in far fewer deaths that what occurred on 9/11.

The terrorists can kill some innocent Americans. They can scare us. Yet they cannot destroy our nation, or even remotely threaten civilization itself. This puts them in stark contrasts to the threat we faced during the Cold War.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Either you are ignorant of the history of the Cold War, or you are incapable of objectivity.

That Cold War that you claim was less of a threat to the United States than terrorism:
  • Cost over 100,000 American lives in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
  • Resulted in over 200,000 Americans being wounded.
  • Nikita Khrushchev, you know one of those “Reasonable Soviets”, had enough Nuclear Missiles stationed in Cuba to level every single major city in the entire southern half of the United States. Including Washington D.C. Those missiles came literally within a hair of being launched and thus throwing the entire world into a literal Armageddon.
  • Joseph Stalin, a “Reasonable Soviet” who murdered 20 million of his own citizens, had control of the Soviets nuclear arsenal until his death in 1953.
For forty yearsthe slightest diplomatic or military mistake on the part of the United States or the Soviet Union would have resulted in a nuclear conflict that would have literally killed billions of people. Of course, maybe you are right. A few nut jobs living in caves are a bigger threat.

Today several small nations are nuclear powers, yet none of them, other than Russia and China has the ability to actually deliver a nuclear ordnance to U.S. soil. There is a significant risk associated with a terrorist group obtaining an unaccounted for nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union. However, the likely hood of that occurring is not that strong, and more than likely, the only way they would be able to get such a weapon to U.S. soil would be in the form of a dirty bomb. Because of psychological affects, a dirty bomb would be enormously disruptive to our economy, but in terms of actual deaths, would probably result in far fewer deaths that what occurred on 9/11.

The terrorists can kill some innocent Americans. They can scare us. Yet they cannot destroy our nation, or even remotely threaten civilization itself. This puts them in stark contrasts to the threat we faced during the Cold War.
I'm no fan of the Soviet Union but the fact of the matter is that they were not as big of a threat as are international terrorists, they were out in the open with who they were they didn't want nuclear war anymore than the U.S., AlQaeda lurks in the shadows, has already attacked us on our soil, and would nuke us given half a chance.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SD, when are you going to answer my question about Clinton wire tapping and conducting illegal searches without a warrant? Where was your outrage then?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
SD, when are you going to answer my question about Clinton wire tapping and conducting illegal searches without a warrant? Where was your outrage then?
I did answer your question. If there is credible evidence of Clinton conducting searches or wiretaps of U.S. citizens without a warrant, then I think that he should be held accountable as well.

I am against any president conducting searches or wiretaps of U.S. citizens without warrant. I do not think that Bush should be impeached for this, that is unless it was found out that he was wiretapping political enemies or journalists. However, I do think that we are a nation of laws and that the President cannot be allowed to ignore the law and act without judicial approval or congressional oversight.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Navy Pride said:
Yeah I heard his speech hips......Especially the part about illegal wire tapping without a warrant........I guess he forgot when Cinton and him did the same thing in the Aldrich Ames spy case and even went farther in conducting a search of Mr. Ames house without a search warrant..........:roll:

Oh and we were not even at war then...........
I was wondering about Clinton's actions. Haven't heard anything in regards to Ames, did they search his house and then get a warrant? Or did they just never get a warrant? Do you have any sources for this?

I keep hearing how Clinton violated the same laws Bush is now accused of violating. I'm interested in this, any sources you got I'd like to see.

As for the not at war comment- It seems like we're at war, when that excuses some of Bush's actions and we're not at war when that works in the President favor.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
I did answer your question. If there is credible evidence of Clinton conducting searches or wiretaps of U.S. citizens without a warrant, then I think that he should be held accountable as well.

I am against any president conducting searches or wiretaps of U.S. citizens without warrant. I do not think that Bush should be impeached for this, that is unless it was found out that he was wiretapping political enemies or journalists. However, I do think that we are a nation of laws and that the President cannot be allowed to ignore the law and act without judicial approval or congressional oversight.
Haven't you heard of Operation Echelon?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Pacridge said:
I was wondering about Clinton's actions. Haven't heard anything in regards to Ames, did they search his house and then get a warrant? Or did they just never get a warrant? Do you have any sources for this?

I keep hearing how Clinton violated the same laws Bush is now accused of violating. I'm interested in this, any sources you got I'd like to see.

As for the not at war comment- It seems like we're at war, when that excuses some of Bush's actions and we're not at war when that works in the President favor.
The Attorney General was on Larry King last night and he said it happened.................I have heard FDR did it too...................I really don't have any problem wiretapping terrorists myself..................
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
The Attorney General was on Larry King last night and he said it happened.................I have heard FDR did it too...................I really don't have any problem wiretapping terrorists myself..................
A physical search of espionage suspect Aldrich Ames was conducted by the justice department under the Clinton Administration without warrant. However, at the time, FISA law did not address physical searches. Therefore, the Clinton Administration was operating within the law at the time. This is not to say that I agree with their actions. I don’t, I believe that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and that right should not abridged without judicial approval. However, since the Clinton Administration was operating within the confines of the law, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, the Clinton Administration latter successfully lobbied congress to extend FISA law to cover physical searches.

The Bush Administration on the other hand has asserted that it can ignore FISA law and the wishes of congress. A position that I would put money on them loosing in the courts and in congress as such a position is clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the Bush Administration wiretapping terrorists so long as they get a court order within 72 hours of doing so. If the law is inadequate, they need to get congress to change it. However, they cannot just ignore the law.

The problem is with this issue and many others, the right wing rags and the Bush Administration put out 2 inches of truth and throw about 10 feet of **** on top of it. As Reagan used to say, Trust but verify.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
A physical search of espionage suspect Aldrich Ames was conducted by the justice department under the Clinton Administration without warrant. However, at the time, FISA law did not address physical searches. Therefore, the Clinton Administration was operating within the law at the time. This is not to say that I agree with their actions. I don’t, I believe that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and that right should not abridged without judicial approval. However, since the Clinton Administration was operating within the confines of the law, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, the Clinton Administration latter successfully lobbied congress to extend FISA law to cover physical searches.

The Bush Administration on the other hand has asserted that it can ignore FISA law and the wishes of congress. A position that I would put money on them loosing in the courts and in congress as such a position is clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the Bush Administration wiretapping terrorists so long as they get a court order within 72 hours of doing so. If the law is inadequate, they need to get congress to change it. However, they cannot just ignore the law.

The problem is with this issue and many others, the right wing rags and the Bush Administration put out 2 inches of truth and throw about 10 feet of **** on top of it. As Reagan used to say, Trust but verify.
Come on SD, that is a cop out..........you don't search a house without a warrant........
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
A physical search of espionage suspect Aldrich Ames was conducted by the justice department under the Clinton Administration without warrant. However, at the time, FISA law did not address physical searches. Therefore, the Clinton Administration was operating within the law at the time. This is not to say that I agree with their actions. I don’t, I believe that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and that right should not abridged without judicial approval. However, since the Clinton Administration was operating within the confines of the law, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, the Clinton Administration latter successfully lobbied congress to extend FISA law to cover physical searches.

The Bush Administration on the other hand has asserted that it can ignore FISA law and the wishes of congress. A position that I would put money on them loosing in the courts and in congress as such a position is clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the Bush Administration wiretapping terrorists so long as they get a court order within 72 hours of doing so. If the law is inadequate, they need to get congress to change it. However, they cannot just ignore the law.

The problem is with this issue and many others, the right wing rags and the Bush Administration put out 2 inches of truth and throw about 10 feet of **** on top of it. As Reagan used to say, Trust but verify.
Two words: Operation Echelon.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
13,540
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Haven't you heard of Operation Echelon?
Yeah, but only from right wing rags and as its been shown time and time again, they tend not to be hallmarks of truth and objectivity. The day it is actually reported in the major media, and in that report, they document how the Clinton Administration conducted warrant-less wiretaps and searches of American Citizens, then I will put some stock into it.

Until then, it’s the same old half truths, rumors and speculation that is hallmark of right wing rags.

Of course I am sure that the only reason this has not been reported in any of the major media is the old “liberal media conspiracy”.:roll:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah, but only from right wing rags and as its been shown time and time again, they tend not to be hallmarks of truth and objectivity. The day it is actually reported in the major media, and in that report, they document how the Clinton Administration conducted warrant-less wiretaps and searches of American Citizens, then I will put some stock into it.

Until then, it’s the same old half truths, rumors and speculation that is hallmark of right wing rags.

Of course I am sure that the only reason this has not been reported in any of the major media is the old “liberal media conspiracy”.:roll:
Oh it's a proven fact that the media is left wing it's all been shown in a U.C.L.A. study, the fact of the matter is that 60 minutes did report about operation Echelon back in the 90's: “If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah, but only from right wing rags and as its been shown time and time again, they tend not to be hallmarks of truth and objectivity. The day it is actually reported in the major media, and in that report, they document how the Clinton Administration conducted warrant-less wiretaps and searches of American Citizens, then I will put some stock into it.

Until then, it’s the same old half truths, rumors and speculation that is hallmark of right wing rags.

Of course I am sure that the only reason this has not been reported in any of the major media is the old “liberal media conspiracy”.:roll:
You know, I can't swear to it, but I think 60 Minutes did a story on OE a few years back. Let me go do some research.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Oh it's a proven fact that the media is left wing it's all been shown in a U.C.L.A. study, the fact of the matter is that 60 minutes did report about operation Echelon back in the 90's: “If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)
Yeah, I didn't see your post. I knew I saw this on 60 Minutes.

Got a link to the UCLA study?
 
H

hipsterdufus

Pacridge said:
I was wondering about Clinton's actions. Haven't heard anything in regards to Ames, did they search his house and then get a warrant? Or did they just never get a warrant? Do you have any sources for this?

I keep hearing how Clinton violated the same laws Bush is now accused of violating. I'm interested in this, any sources you got I'd like to see.

As for the not at war comment- It seems like we're at war, when that excuses some of Bush's actions and we're not at war when that works in the President favor.
Clinton said that he absolutely did not violate the FISA law.
This is all a smoke screen.

Anyway. Gore's response to The Torture AG & Puffy McMoonface's tap dance was great!

"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

"There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

"Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

"The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

"The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59370
 
H

hipsterdufus

Pacridge said:
Yeah, I didn't see your post. I knew I saw this on 60 Minutes.

Got a link to the UCLA study?
The UCLA study was debunked years ago. I showed the proof somewhere in the media bias section. There criteria for determining the bias of the media is skewed beyond belief. For example according to their criteria Fox is centrist and Drudge leans to the left.
:spin: :spin: :spin: :spin:

I know FAIR has a story on this somewhere too.

http://www.fair.org/index.php
 
Top Bottom