Al Gore's Speech on Bush

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

if america is gonna re-elect bush, who beat Gore in '00, what makes you think they're gonna put him in office now?

Well technically Bush didn't beat Gore. He didn't win the popular vote and he didn't win Florida. A bunch of BS is what it is. What a great thing democracy is.

I'm rooting for Warner btw.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This is an example of how the executive branch can become a tyranny if these things go unchecked. MLK is a character that many believe to have had no connections to communism. However, the federal government used surveliance to watch him under their 'belief that he had connections to communism'.

The fact that this happened to MLK makes it all the more possible to happen to any of us. How different is he than any of us, average citizens, who may at one time or another have a belief against the President?

If we do such, and go forward with our disbelief in the President, then who is to say that we will not be watched and called a 'threat' to the U.S.?

I think Gore used MLK as a perfect example of a victim of surveliance that should not have been one. And because this error has been done in U.S. history, because this error has been done in recent U.S. history, then who is to say that it will not happen today? Do we have that must trust in our elected officials that they have changed themselves not to suspect the wrong persons?

I agree 100%. They did everything in their power to destroy MLK, who is one of the few true heroes’ of history. Check the facts. They smeared him so much; they put out so much negative propaganda about him. It's embarrassing. IF, and that's a big IF, Ray did act alone then the FBI and Co. are partly responsible for creating an environment where someone would feel compelled to do such an appalling thing.

Which brings us to today. I'm only 22 so I'm not going to tell you anything that you shouldn't already know. Remember the saying; those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Come on people. My father used to always ask me if I knew what the definition of insanity was. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[Thiebear]

I am not saying the wire-tapping wasnt in the bounds of a speech during MLK day.

I am saying that Gore is NOT the person to be giving it by any means and was just USING the day to his advantage...

I have no problem with all the the wiretaps going to a court to be found legal/illegal based on whatever law/precedent put forth in the 70's etc... I have no problem with due process.

I do have a problem with hypocritical attention whores that spout whatever they think will play that day with not one fiber in their being believing it or wouldnt use it themselves. If it was a person up there that was wiretapped incorrectly or someone that has put forth any legislation to investigate this current issue then fine. Gore is just jockeying for 08.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

A. THE WIRE TAPPING WAS/IS NOT ILLEGAL

B. I could give a speech on the values of child molestation to the MBLA and have it be well received.

How is it not illegal? Normally when you do something that a law somewhere says you shouldn't do that means it's illegal.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I do have a problem with hypocritical attention whores that spout whatever they think will play that day with not one fiber in their being believing it or wouldnt use it themselves. If it was a person up there that was wiretapped incorrectly or someone that has put forth any legislation to investigate this current issue then fine. Gore is just jockeying for 08.

So if I lived during the civil rights movement and I'm not black and I'm not an elected official who can't propose law then I have no business campaiging or protesting for the rights of minorities?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Oh and one last thing. For all you Hannity douche bag ****s who are going to start re-spouting BS info about Clinton did this and that to Ames in 93. Here you go...

1. Prior to 1995, FISA did not cover physical searches. (With Clinton’s signature, the law was expanded to cover physical searches in 1995.) The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.

2. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA.

[PleaseBlitz]

Someone remind me who Al Gore is and why anyone cares what he thinks.

[Air Force Cane]

for the leftist who talked about Latin America showing how awful Bush is:

how about the Australian Prime Minister Howard being REELECTED?

how about Koizumi in Japan being REELECTED?

how about Poland electing a Conservative President?

Lebanon kicking out the Syrians and electing new Parliament?

how about Libya giving up its WMD?

how about Schroeder in Germany LOSING?

how about Tony Blair being REELECTED?

how about free elections in UKRAINE?

but yeah, Bolivia voted in a socialist. it is all Bush's fault.

oh yeah- the Canadians are going to replace its liberals with conservatives next week. how do you explain all these things?

[Air Force Cane]

"Someone remind me who Al Gore is and why anyone cares what he thinks."

:notworthy

[Mania]

if america is gonna re-elect bush, who beat Gore in '00, what makes you think they're gonna put him in office now?

BTW, lets not forget that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, hey he even won the electoral college!!????!!

[Kilmer17]

BTW, lets not forget that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, hey he even won the electoral college!!????!!

He didnt win the electoral college vote, and he didnt win the overall popular vote. What he won, was more than 50% of the popular votes THAT WERE COUNTED.

And since over 3 million werent counted (in states like CA where they wouldnt have swung the vote), it's inconclusive at best to say he did otherwise.

It's a point lost in the Liberal media.

[Thiebear]

So if I lived during the civil rights movement and I'm not black and I'm not an elected official who can't propose law then I have no business campaiging or protesting for the rights of minorities?

Incorrect: If you hadn't used it yourself..

Edit: And you were completely insincere about it but felt it was a good time to USE it.

[Ax]

Someone remind me who Al Gore is and why anyone cares what he thinks.

Weren't he the guy what made the innernet?

[Leonard Washington]

Weren't he the guy what made the innernet?

i use that joke all the time but most people are clueless. :doh:

[Sarge]

Well technically Bush didn't beat Gore. He didn't win the popular vote and he didn't win Florida. A bunch of BS is what it is. What a great thing democracy is.

I'm rooting for Warner btw.

Bush won every recount that was conducted, even the ones by the Washington Post and NY Times.

Nothing else matters

[cadets08]

Al Gore is an idiot. This is the same moron that said he invented the internet. Give me a break. This guy couldn't even win his OWN state in the 2000 election let alone jiggle a few wires and send info over a phone line. He also missed one critical element of the Constitution. There is such thing as IMPLIED POWERS. This includes the President's duty to protect the welfare of the American people (says right in the Constitution). Now tell me how tapping into a phone conversation amongst suspected terrorists is a crime? If you are suspected of being a terrorist you must be doing something wrong anyway. No terrorist attacks have occurred since these tappings began. Look's like it's working to me. And I really doubt the government cares about your conversation between your mother or girlfriend. Last thought, if it weren't for the liberal biased media we would never have known about this and lived our lives normally while terrorism was being fought. So thanks again Al, all the Michael Moore's, and Dan Rather's. You guys truly know your stuff. Forgive me for questioning your omniscent selves.

[AlexRS]

Wiretapping without court order is illegal.

Bush ordered wiretapping without court order.

Am I missing something?

[AlexRS]

Now tell me how tapping into a phone conversation amongst suspected terrorists is a crime?

It is a crime if you do it without showing who is suspected of what and why. The idea behind that is to have Judicial branch make sure the Executive branch does not wiretap people they are not supposed to.

If you are suspected of being a terrorist you must be doing something wrong anyway. No terrorist attacks have occurred since these tappings began. Look's like it's working to me.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I have been protecting us from terrorists by brushing my teeth in the morning. I forgot to do it on Sep 11 '01 and see what happened!! I have been brushing diligently since then and look - no attacks! Your reasoning is that of a child.

[cadets08]

It is a crime if you do it without showing who is suspected of what and why. The idea behind that is to have Judicial branch make sure the Executive branch does not wiretap people they are not supposed to.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I have been protecting us from terrorists by brushing my teeth in the morning. I forgot to do it on Sep 11 '01 and see what happened!! I have been brushing diligently since then and look - no attacks! Your reasoning is that of a child.

Again I point to the implied powers the President posesses. This states that the President has the RIGHT AND DUTY to protect the American people. Gathering intel by wiretapping suspected terrorist falls under that category. It doesn't even take a middle school diploma to figure that one out. And yes I know about the system of checks and balances thank you very much. Now since hindsight is 20/20 what makes you so sure that by not wiretapping suspected terrorists, a terrorist attack wouldn't have occurred anyway?

[Larry]

He also missed one critical element of the Constitution. There is such thing as IMPLIED POWERS. This includes the President's duty to protect the welfare of the American people (says right in the Constitution). Now tell me how tapping into a phone conversation amongst suspected terrorists is a crime? If you are suspected of being a terrorist you must be doing something wrong anyway.

Um, #1, I don't believe the part you're referring to is actually in the Constitution. I think you're referring to the clause which states that Congress has the authority to pass laws to "promote the general welfare".

And while you're looking things up in the Constitution, you might consider

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, you can try to conjure up imaginary "implied" powers all you want. (I even believe in implied powers. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution that authorises Congress to compell witnesses to testify before them. But it's a power that's necessary for them to perform their duties.)

But it's another horse, entirely, when the Constitution absolutely forbids something, and a President is claiming that he's got the right to ignore that part because, well, there's this power that isn't really mentioned, but he just knows it's supposed to be in there, somewhere.

If you are suspected of being a terrorist you must be doing something wrong anyway.

1) If there was a reason to suspect these people, then it would've been easy to get warrants. The FISA court, since it was created, has approved something like 95% of the requests it's received. There are even proceedures that authorise the President to start a wiretap now, and get the warrant later.

Only conclusion I can come to is that there was no reason to suspect these people in the first place (or at least, no reason that was good enough to get what is, essentially, a rubber stamp).

2) I'd point out that your statement implies that there was no need for the warrant, he could have just made the people disapear and tortured them without any evidence, too. But I keep remembering that this administration (and a lot of Loyal Party Members) thinks that's legal, too.

[AlexRS]

Now since hindsight is 20/20 what makes you so sure that by not wiretapping suspected terrorists, a terrorist attack wouldn't have occurred anyway?

Let's get this one out of the way first. I simply pointed out that there is not enough information here to establish any kind of causality. There is no way of knowing whether wiretaps had any effect on preventing an attack. Maybe they did. Maybe they did not. I think they did not, you think they did. It's all good, as long as we agree that both of those are our OPINIONS. We do not have information to make a valid argument either way. Lack of an attack does not support either opinion.

Again I point to the implied powers the President posesses. This states that the President has the RIGHT AND DUTY to protect the American people. Gathering intel by wiretapping suspected terrorist falls under that category. It doesn't even take a middle school diploma to figure that one out. And yes I know about the system of checks and balances thank you very much

Indeed it is president's right and duty to protect the American people. Does this give him the right to circumvent checks and balances? You say you are aware of them, do you understand that they are in place to prevent this exact thing?

[Larry]

Again I point to the implied powers the President posesses. This states that the President has the RIGHT AND DUTY to protect the American people. Gathering intel by wiretapping suspected terrorist falls under that category. It doesn't even take a middle school diploma to figure that one out. And yes I know about the system of checks and balances thank you very much. Now since hindsight is 20/20 what makes you so sure that by not wiretapping suspected terrorists, a terrorist attack wouldn't have occurred anyway?

Let's take things from a different angle.

Let's ignore the fact thet "protect the American people" isn't a Presidential authority, and just pretend that it is.

Could you please tell me what it is that you think the President can't do?

According to the current administration, the President has unlimited authority, to do anything they want to any one who isn't a US citizen, anyone outside the geographical US, anyone who has any dealings with anyone outside the US, and any american citizen within the US (if they write themselves a memo that says so).

Please tell me what you think the government can't do. (Constitutionally).

[AlexRS]

Please tell me what you think the government can't do. (Constitutionally).

It cannot allow it's citizens to remain unprotected and insecure! :laugh:

[Larry]

It cannot allow it's citizens to remain unprotected and insecure! :laugh:

News Flash! I've discovered someone who's more in favor of an all-powerfull government than I am.

For a long time, I've thought that the most abused phrase in the entire Constitution, the one thing I'd re-write if I had a time machine, was the phrase "promote the general welfare", because that one phrase pretty much authorises the government to do anything it wants, as long as they claim they're doing it with "good intentions".

Heck, I support the concept of government welfare, although I think it needs to be cut back substantially.

But aparantly, here's someone who thinks that the government has the authority to kidnap people, torture them, make them disapear. With no consequences or checks whatsoever, as long as they say they've got a good reason.

[WinSkins]

Only a BIG-GOVERNMENT LIBERAL could possibly trust the federal government to excersize unchecked powers because no real conservative ever trusts the federal government to do anything right.

As a veteran who was stationed in Washington, D.C., I know from experience that the government lies whenever necessary and often when it's not necessary and I would never trust anybody in the White House...no matter what party?!

This implied powers argument is absolutely ridiculous! There is nothing in FISA that prevents wiretaps from being applied immediately. It only requires that they be reviewed and approved within 72 hours by a court that is available 24/7.

Question: How do we know when the politicians are lying to us?

Answer: Their lips are moving!