Gore's Speech Yesterday

[toasty]

I'll preface this comment by stating that you will be hard-pressed to find someone less enthused with anything Al Gore has to say than me, but with that said, did anyone catch any of his speech regarding the wiretap scandal yesterday? Great speech, imo -- they guy that gave that speech was the complete opposite of (almost) everything I dislike about Gore.

I'd post a link to the speech, but the only clips I've seen on the internet miss the good parts -- they basically show the same old Gore...

[toasty]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

I found a link to the transcript:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_o...eech_0116.html

but it really doesn't do it justice

[anonin]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

I have nothing but love for gore, he did invent the interent afterall

[sakio pod]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

gore is just pissed off still......i can see what he wouldn't do in office


yeah lets let other country's walk over us


shut your mouth bitch

[thesightless]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

they arent tapping everyone.

they are tapping young and middle aged people from middle eastern countries and who make calls to people in the middle east. i.e. the target audience. throughout the world it is really only islamic people of middle eastern descent who do these things (outside of basque) and its just too fucking bad if you claim racial profiling. it isnt a white, catholic kid from east london or kentucky who mombs nightclubs, trains, flies planed into buildings, etc.

GET

OVER

IT

AL.

[geoffgulley]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

I can't stand the fucker and I'm a democrat (NOT a liberal). That being said what this administration has done with the whole wiretap/eavesdropping shit is ridiculous to say the least.

[superdave]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Who's Al Gore? And who really cares at this point. Isn't he like a college teacher now?

I skimmed through the transcript and heard clips on TV and he doesn't sound any different than the usual left winger.

He and Hillary are jockeying for position for the Democratic presidential nomination and are doing whatever they can to get it.
At least Gore didn't bring racial overtones like Hillary's plantation remark. I don't think any politician should use references for plantations to describe the Congress.

[thesightless]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

especially that she is a part of it, not to mention hostory is already beginning to judge her first term in office, not too kindly either. bush will be worse, but billary wasnt good either.

[toasty]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

they arent tapping everyone.

they are tapping young and middle aged people from middle eastern countries and who make calls to people in the middle east. i.e. the target audience. throughout the world it is really only islamic people of middle eastern descent who do these things (outside of basque) and its just too fucking bad if you claim racial profiling. it isnt a white, catholic kid from east london or kentucky who mombs nightclubs, trains, flies planed into buildings, etc.

GET

OVER

IT

AL.

That's not the point. The point is that the US was founded on the concept that placing all power in one central authoritarian figure is a bad idea. If we grant Bush this kingly power, free from any checks or balances, we are turning away from what made this country what it is.

You evidently think Bush should have the right to conduct warrantless searches on suspected terrorists, and that the other branches of government ought not have a say in it, so be it. What happens, though, when Bush, or his successor, decides unilaterally to do something you have a problem with? To you gun owners, what happens when some left-leaning executive gets into power and decides that gun owners are a threat to our public safety and starts secretly tapping your phones without warrants? Having already expanded the executive power to include "whatever the president thinks it ought to include for the good of the country," how do you get your civil liberties back?

[superdave]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Toasty - Bad analogy about gun owners getting their guns taken away from a lefty President. Listening to suspected terrorists and taking the rifle away from Bubba in Arkansas isn't the same thing.

Most Americans have sided with the President on this issue. Just the lefties and Bush haters support attacking Bush on this issue.

[toasty]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Most Americans have sided with the President on this issue.

On what issue?

If the issue is whether or not the NSA ought to spy on suspected terrorists, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that thinks that's a bad idea.

If the issue is whether or not Bush broke the law, I'd like to see your proof on that one, because the polls that I've seen reflect nothing of the sort.

The thing to me that is most troubling about Bush doing the spying this way is that it is so fucking easy to do exactly what he wants to do within the bounds of the law. Why do the end-around?

Finally, with respect to the gun analogy, you've again changed the question. The point is that in both situations the president is spying on Americans without a warrant simply because he thinks it's he right thing to do. I don't know about you, but I don't have that much trust in politicians to give them that sort of freedom from scrutiny.

Come to think of it, why is it that you right-wingers, who want to see government shrink so much, put so much blind trust in them? I'd like to see small government because I want it out of my life to the extent possible. You folks claim to want smaller government, but it has become so bloated and intrusive now that the neo-cons have control.

[thesightless]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

the real fucking issue is nothing directly related to any of this.

i really think that more and more the true issue is why justice is no longer prevailing over law in many many circumstances. just look at this sick fuck in NYC who beat and molested and killed his 8 yr old step daughter... the law, and the beuracracy has done nothing but prevent justice in this country. thats my problem. i hope more and more that the next terror attack kills mike moore, hillary clinton or the ACLU HQ.

[superdave]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Sightless - The ACLU, Hillary, and Michael Moore aren't targets because they are helping the terrorists. The ACLU wants to stop the NSA from listening in to terrorists cells in our country. They filed a lawsuit a couple of days ago.

Toasty - The issue I'm referring to is that Americans would prefer the NSA monitor terrorists in this country. I bet even more Americans will agree to monitor terrorists considering Osama's warnings today on his new tape. By fighting for "freedoms", Gore, the ACLU, and Left Wingers are endangering Americans and helping the terrorists plot another attack.

[toasty]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Toasty - The issue I'm referring to is that Americans would prefer the NSA monitor terrorists in this country. I bet even more Americans will agree to monitor terrorists considering Osama's warnings today on his new tape.

With all due respect, no shit. Who is arguing this point? It's not Gore, by the way. If you look back at his speech and his voting record, you'll note that he voted for FISA, which allows for wiretaps, and immediate ones at that. I can't fucking believe I'm standing up for Al Gore, but there you have it. The Act speaks for itself, though, regardless of what we think of Gore.

In the numerous threads on this topic, I have yet to hear anyone answer the simple question I've posed above, and have alluded to in other posts. Rather than restate it yet again, I'll quote myself:

The thing to me that is most troubling about Bush doing the spying this way is that it is so fucking easy to do exactly what he wants to do within the bounds of the law. Why do the end-around?

If anyone can offer a good explanation for this, I'd love to hear it. At this point, though, I'd settle for ANY explanation, because up to this point all I've heard is people like yourself rely upon the self-evident point that we ought to be able to conduct wiretaps when an exigency exists without stopping to get a warrant first -- which FISA explicitly allows.

Any takers?

[toasty]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

BTW, the ACLU isn't trying to prevent us from wiretapping the phones of suspected terrorists, either -- they are challenging the wiretapping without a warrant, outside of the bounds of FISA. Take a look at the Complaint:

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/doc...sa11706cmp.pdf