• 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 Speech

hipsterdufus said:
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!


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59370

YAY because we all know that Clinton couldn't tell a lie especially under oath iin front of a grand jury but of course that all depends on what the definition of is, is, right? :roll: If Clinton didn't violate FISA how the hell do you explain Operation Echelon??? I'm all ears.
 
hipsterdufus said:
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
First off the study is a month old.

Ya debunked by op-eds from liberal controlled media outlets what do you expect them to say? "Yes of course we're biased." No they say: "what bias this non-partisan scientific research study is biased we are not yadayadayada."
 
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.

ok, first off, during the cold war, the soviets did not incite the korean or vietnam wars. they did sent money, and supplies to help, but did not incite them. also, with the cold war, at least we knew who we were facing, as opposed to now, where almost anyone can be a terrorist. cuba, the soviets backed down, did they not? have you known of a terrorist to back down?
 
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.

So you're saying they searched his house without a warrant but that was legal somehow. That just does not smell good.
 
"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program
wouldn't this fall under the National Security Act?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off the study is a month old.

Ya debunked by op-eds from liberal controlled media outlets what do you expect them to say? "Yes of course we're biased." No they say: "what bias this non-partisan scientific research study is biased we are not yadayadayada."

The date on the link you gave is 12-2004? That's not a month old.
 
Al Gore lecturing anyone on following the law is like Ray Charles driving up behind another driver and bitching them out about breaking traffic laws and putting the public at risk. He's in no position to lecture anyone.

He was the 2nd in command of the most criminal administration since Warren Harding. Clinton-Gore authorized even further unchecked use of warrant-less wiretaps than Bush has.

Most Americans, especially after 9/11, are cool with letting the government monitor calls to America from Al Queda cells without warrants. I am okay with it too, but I must admit that letting CLINTON-GORE use such latitude scares me a little more since they overtly abused such powers many times over in ways Bush has yet to be caught doing-like having the Clinton-Gore IRS audit Gennifer Flowers (someone well beneath the tax bracket the IRS ever bothers with) right in the middle of her trial against Clinton. :roll:

Clinton-Gore's horrific abuses of power are well-documented and record-breaking.

Again we see that when Democrats start fear-mongering, the people who have done the kind of things to warrant such fears...are Democrats.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
They didn't release their findings until last month.
Doesn't matter when this "manuscript" was released. It's not peer reviewed and thus can not be accepted as a good credible source. I will accept this article when it's submitted and reviewed. As for now it's nothing more than a personal file on some one's FTP.
Additionally, for extreeme rightwing nutheads that are so far to the right, anything that doesn't agree with them is left of them so of course they are "leftest".

But lets not stray from the real question at hand. Perhaps Clinton did perform illegal taps. But just to say that oh look, Clinton did this and that, hardly by any means justifies the known and admitted fact that Bush has wiretapped American citizens. That this Administration has tortured. Even if Clinton did it, to hide behind that vail and say well so and so did it, bla bla bla is a complete fallacy in logic.

If you agree that wiretapping citizens without a judicially approved warrent is illegal, then there's nothing left to say. Throw the guilty in jail, regardless of how they lean politically.
 
aquapub said:
Al Gore lecturing anyone on following the law is like Ray Charles driving up behind another driver and bitching them out about breaking traffic laws and putting the public at risk. He's in no position to lecture anyone.

He was the 2nd in command of the most criminal administration since Warren Harding. Clinton-Gore authorized even further unchecked use of warrant-less wiretaps than Bush has.

Most Americans, especially after 9/11, are cool with letting the government monitor calls to America from Al Queda cells without warrants. I am okay with it too, but I must admit that letting CLINTON-GORE use such latitude scares me a little more since they overtly abused such powers many times over in ways Bush has yet to be caught doing-like having the Clinton-Gore IRS audit Gennifer Flowers (someone well beneath the tax bracket the IRS ever bothers with) right in the middle of her trial against Clinton. :roll:

Clinton-Gore's horrific abuses of power are well-documented and record-breaking.

Again we see that when Democrats start fear-mongering, the people who have done the kind of things to warrant such fears...are Democrats.

What was Al Gore's favorite saying when he got his hand caught in the cookie jar? "There is no controlling legal authority."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/op030797.htm ROTFLMAO
 
Navy Pride said:
Clinton also said "I did not have sex with that woman ms lewinsky.":roll:
This then prooves what exactly?
 
jfuh said:
This then prooves what exactly?

That proves Clinton is a liar.........If he lied about that on National TV in front of 150,000,000 Americans he would lie about wiretapping or anything else to save his sorry butt..........
 
jfuh said:
Doesn't matter when this "manuscript" was released. It's not peer reviewed and thus can not be accepted as a good credible source. I will accept this article when it's submitted and reviewed. As for now it's nothing more than a personal file on some one's FTP.
Additionally, for extreeme rightwing nutheads that are so far to the right, anything that doesn't agree with them is left of them so of course they are "leftest".
yadayadayada, it's a scientificly conducted study just because it proves something that is against your opinion on the way the media operates doesn't make it any the less true.
But lets not stray from the real question at hand. Perhaps Clinton did perform illegal taps. But just to say that oh look, Clinton did this and that, hardly by any means justifies the known and admitted fact that Bush has wiretapped American citizens. That this Administration has tortured. Even if Clinton did it, to hide behind that vail and say well so and so did it, bla bla bla is a complete fallacy in logic.
No because we aren't against Clinton doing it but what we are against is your hypocricy, the fact of the matter is that we're at war and why anyone would not want taps on terrorists phone calls is beyond me.
If you agree that wiretapping citizens without a judicially approved warrent is illegal, then there's nothing left to say. Throw the guilty in jail, regardless of how they lean politically.

It's not illegal that's the whole freaking point.
 
Last edited:
Pacridge said:
So you're saying they searched his house without a warrant but that was legal somehow. That just does not smell good.
From a previous post...

cnredd said:
Does anyone remember Aldrich Ames?

Reportedly, the Clinton administration had not always been enthusiastic about expanding the court's powers. Like its predecessors, it operated under the assumption that the executive already had inherent authority to exempt itself from Fourth Amendment constraints and could order warrantless searches to protect national security. Nonetheless, the government avoided allowing this inherent authority to be tested in the courts.

Then along came Aldrich Ames. The spy case proved a convenient vehicle on which to hitch expansion of state power. It also offered a glimpse at the state-of-the-art domestic counterintelligence techniques that might well be turned on an activist group near you. Following months of electronic and physical surveillance which included a break-in of Ames' car and searches through his office and family trash FBI agents were finally turned loose in the early morning hours of October 9, 1993. They didn't `pick' locks like in the movies; they made their own keys. Among other agents in the FBI, the consensus was unanimous: The tech agents were geniuses.

Thanks to a warrant authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno, a team of agents from the sprawling National Security Division had permission to enter the Ames home in Arlington, Va. There was only one minor problem. The attorney general of the United States does not have the authority to order a warrantless physical search of a citizen's home, argued Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University National Law Center. The Aldrich Ames search in my view was obviously and egregiously unconstitutional.

Other civil liberties lawyers agree with this evaluation, and the Justice Department itself was concerned enough about the question to refer to this problem when it negotiated a deal with Ames in order to avoid trial. While Ames was sentenced to life in prison, his wife Rosario received five years. We didn't get to the point of litigation, I regret to say, said Ames' lawyer Plato Cacheris. The problem was that Ames very much wanted to see that his wife was treated a little more softly than he was being treated.

Now eager to put a stamp of judicial impartiality on the hazy executive branch doctrine of inherent authority, the Justice Department immediately got behind the bill to expand the FISA court's power. Soon after Ames pleaded guilty last year to spying, administration officials began arguing that adherence to traditional Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens would unduly frustrate counterintelligence efforts against spies operating in the U.S.

Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy, argued Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless. Gorelick went on to explain that A [traditional] search can only be made when there's probable cause to believe a crime is involved, whereas a national-security search can be made at a substantially earlier stage. We often don't know what we're looking for when we go in, she observed.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.court.html

This is, by no means, an attack on Clinton...

When it comes to stuff like this, I totally agreed with it then as I do now...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=177951&postcount=157
 
Something else needs to be bropught forward........Leaders in the Congress knew about the wiretapping...........
 
Congress needs to heed Gore's words about growing a spine and becoming legislators again. It can start with Congressional Democrats coming out and refuting the administration's lies on this every day.

Someone needs to call out Gonzales every time he opens his mouth and lies about wiretaps on the circuit.

Gore's speech yesterday had some very salient points in it -- and many that would resonate with John Q. Public who might not see how this is such a gross disrespecting of the Constitution. How this tears at the very fabric of our nation.

It is against these tyrannies that we revolted from King George 230 years ago. Don't you get that?

Here were Clinton's comments about domestic spying:

When asked if the president should have constitutional authority to order domestic surveillance without a warrant during wartime — a controversy President Bush currently faces — Clinton said it is "a decision the Supreme Court would have to resolve."

"My attitude was that once the Congress had spoken on it and given us the tools that we needed, we used it," he said. "We used the law. We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it, because I thought it was a good — I think in the country you always have to try to balance these things out, so that's what we did."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=1500147
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
Congress needs to heed Gore's words about growing a spine and becoming legislators again. It can start with Congressional Democrats coming out and refuting the administration's lies on this every day.

Someone needs to call out Gonzales every time he opens his mouth and lies about wiretaps on the circuit.

Gore's speech yesterday had some very salient points in it -- and many that would resonate with John Q. Public who might not see how this is such a gross disrespecting of the Constitution. How this tears at the very fabric of our nation.

It is against these tyrannies that we revolted from King George 230 years ago. Don't you get that?

Here were Clinton's comments about domestic spying:


http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=1500147


Bla bla bla, Clinton did the same damn thing! Operation Echelon look it up.

The fact of the matter is that Gore isn't interested in anything except for his own power and the power of the Democratic party. See ya in '06.

As for this being the same type of tyranny that we revolted against well guess what buddy the inherent war powers of the President were granted in the Constitution for a reason because the founding fathers knew full well that what was good for peace time could screw us in times of war.

If you think Bush a tyrant then you will have to call Lincoln, and every president since and including FDR tyrants as well.

Bush is not a tyrant because we are at war Clinton was a tyrant because he violated the 4th amendment and the Constiution during peace time, do you see the difference?
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bush is not a tyrant because we are at war Clinton was a tyrant because he violated the 4th amendment and the Constiution during peace time, do you see the difference?
I do, absolutely.
 
January 17, 2006
Gore to Star in Brokeback Mountain Sequel…Alone
by Scott Ott

(2006-01-17) — Former Vice President Al Gore, who won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, yesterday made another in a series of speeches condemning the man he beat, President George Bush, and made a surprise announcement that he would add movie acting to his already diverse resume.

Mr. Gore told a tri-partisan gathering of political activists that he’s been cast in the lead role of Ang Lee’s sequel to ‘Brokeback Mountain’, the Golden Globe-winning cowboy adultery story.

An unnamed spokesman for Mr. Lee said the film, ‘Brokerecord Mountain’, “will tell the heartbreaking story of a man’s love for the sound of his own voice, and his futile crusade to convince others to love it as well.”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2149
 
Navy Pride said:
That proves Clinton is a liar.........If he lied about that on National TV in front of 150,000,000 Americans he would lie about wiretapping or anything else to save his sorry butt..........
SO then this makes it Ok for Bush to wiretap? One case you have an unknown the other you have a confession. Like I said, just because Clinton lied doesn't to any extent make right of what Bush does.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
yadayadayada, it's a scientificly conducted study just because it proves something that is against your opinion on the way the media operates doesn't make it any the less true.
Is that what you do when you don't have any better argument to make? yadayadayada? Great argument really.
As I've said, for it to be a scientific study that can be merited it needs to be peer reviewed, as is the case with all scientific studies. If not, then we would have many more cases such as the Korean Stem cell scientist.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No because we aren't against Clinton doing it but what we are against is your hypocricy, the fact of the matter is that we're at war and why anyone would not want taps on terrorists phone calls is beyond me.
If you can give me a clear cut way of deffrentiating between terrorists and normal citizens I will have no beef, in which case I see no reason why the you would need to circumnavigate the judiciary branch.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's not illegal that's the whole freaking point.
It is illegal when the judiciary branch does not approve of it. Tell me, what are we fighting for exactly?
 
Navy Pride said:
Something else needs to be bropught forward........Leaders in the Congress knew about the wiretapping...........
Source? Who are these leaders?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bla bla bla, Clinton did the same damn thing! Operation Echelon look it up.

The fact of the matter is that Gore isn't interested in anything except for his own power and the power of the Democratic party. See ya in '06.

As for this being the same type of tyranny that we revolted against well guess what buddy the inherent war powers of the President were granted in the Constitution for a reason because the founding fathers knew full well that what was good for peace time could screw us in times of war.

If you think Bush a tyrant then you will have to call Lincoln, and every president since and including FDR tyrants as well.

Bush is not a tyrant because we are at war Clinton was a tyrant because he violated the 4th amendment and the Constiution during peace time, do you see the difference?

Same exact fallacy of tuquo quoi. Just because some other person may have done it hardly to any extent justifies it.
 
KCConservative said:
January 17, 2006
Gore to Star in Brokeback Mountain Sequel…Alone
by Scott Ott

(2006-01-17) — Former Vice President Al Gore, who won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, yesterday made another in a series of speeches condemning the man he beat, President George Bush, and made a surprise announcement that he would add movie acting to his already diverse resume.

Mr. Gore told a tri-partisan gathering of political activists that he’s been cast in the lead role of Ang Lee’s sequel to ‘Brokeback Mountain’, the Golden Globe-winning cowboy adultery story.

An unnamed spokesman for Mr. Lee said the film, ‘Brokerecord Mountain’, “will tell the heartbreaking story of a man’s love for the sound of his own voice, and his futile crusade to convince others to love it as well.”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2149

Very constructive argument. How does this add to the thread except making you look like an idiot?
 
Back
Top Bottom