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...

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

I found a link to the transcript:

[url]http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html[/url]

but it really doesn't do it justice

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[QUOTE=thesightless]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

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.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[QUOTE=superdave] Most Americans have sided with the President on this issue.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[QUOTE=superdave]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. [/QUOTE]

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:

[QUOTE=toasty]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?[/QUOTE]

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?

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 [B]without a warrant[/B], outside of the bounds of FISA. Take a look at the Complaint:

[url]http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/aclunsa11706cmp.pdf[/url]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

superdave, dont group me in with an asinine idea liek they are helping the terrorists. they arent, not in any way at all, i just think< OUTSIDE OF IRAQ< they are too soft on dealing with them.

and toasty, i dont care if they get a warrant, like i said, do whatever they have to stop it, without going into a military state where we are all treated like ""opposition suspects"". if a guy is calling his brother in kirkut, and not doing anything at all, i still think its worth the caution of checking it out.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[quote=toasty]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:

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?[/quote]

I've heard reporters ask the same question and the Bush Admin.supporter response is that FISA is NOT a rubber stamp court and going through the FISA process can be complicated and hinder investigations due to the process of obtaining the warrant.

Now, how true that is, I'm not sure, but I'll side with the people trying to stop the terrorists.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[QUOTE=superdave]I've heard reporters ask the same question and the Bush Admin.supporter response is that FISA is NOT a rubber stamp court and going through the FISA process can be complicated and hinder investigations due to the process of obtaining the warrant. [/QUOTE]

I'm calling bullshit. Perhaps Bush's definition of "after" differs from mine, but I have a hard time understanding how anything that happens [B]after[/B] an investigation is conducted can impede that investigation. Under FISA, worst case scenario, the warrant application is denied and the evidence is excluded in a criminal proceeding. From the standpoint of fighting terrorism, however, who really cares if the evidence is admissible or not? Hopefully, if they found anything important out, they would already be acting on it by the time a warrant application was submitted anyway...

Sounds to me like either: (1) Bush wants to conduct surveillance on people, but is concerned that he wouldn't be able to get a warrant if he asked for it, or (2) Bush doesn't want to have to screw with the paperwork.

If it's option 1, I have to wonder who it is he plans on spying on. Is there a judge in the country that would deny a warrant to tap the phone of a suspected terrorist?

If it's option 2, it is demonstrative of the incredible laziness that had characterized Bush's presidency. Should we dispense with the 4th Amendment and 200+ years of history because Bush doesn't want to be bothered to have one of a fleet of government attorneys "fill in the blanks" in a form warrant application and take it to the judge? Since FISA was enacted, some 18,000 applications have been made for warrants -- are you trying to tell me that the DOJ doesn't already have the paperwork in the can, locked, loaded and ready to go with just a few tweaks here and there?

[QUOTE=superdave]I'll side with the people trying to stop the terrorists.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to the poeple trying to help the terrorists? I get so sick of this absurd rhetoric and the suggestion that questioning anything the administration does is tantamount to treason.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Toasty -Let's look at why Bush is ordering wiretapping. Do you think Bush really wants other people besides the suspected terrorists to be wiretapped? Bush wouldn't have enacted a plan that would cause this type of controversy if he didn't think it was necessary and could get results. He's got enough trouble dealing with Iraq and Katrina criticism.

You admit in option 1 that you don't really know Bush's motives. So, you really don't have an idea why except yell Bullshit. Is it too much to believe that Bush is really trying to stop another terrorist attack? Have you gotten so anti-Bush that you've allowed your better judgment to get the better of you?

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[QUOTE=superdave]Toasty -Let's look at why Bush is ordering wiretapping. Do you think Bush really wants other people besides the suspected terrorists to be wiretapped? [/QUOTE]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, but the fact that it would be such a cakewalk to get a warrant to wiretap a suspected terrorist does suggest to me that he may have broader intentions. The problem, though, has less to do with who he decides to tap and more to do with the "I don't have to abide by the law" mindset that led him to do this. This happens to be a program you agree with, but what do you do when Bush -- or god forbid a democrat elected at some point in the future -- uses the same belief in the omnipotent power of the executive branch to do something you have a problem with, all in the name of what the president believes is best for the country?

[QUOTE=superdave]Bush wouldn't have enacted a plan that would cause this type of controversy if he didn't think it was necessary and could get results. He's got enough trouble dealing with Iraq and Katrina criticism. [/QUOTE]

You seem to have a problem with the concept of time. First, the meaning of "after" appears to elude you, leading to the indefensible idea that the procedure for obtaining a warrant [B]after[/B] conducting a search can somehow impede that search. Now, you suggest that Bush wouldn't enact a controversial plan in the wake of Iraq and Katrina, evidently ignoring the fact that the plan has been in place since September 2001, well [B]before[/B] either of those things hit the fan. Indeed, Bush personally asked the folks at the NYT not to run the story over a year ago, well before Katrina and before discontent regarding Iraq hit the pitch it is at now...

[QUOTE=superdave]So, you really don't have an idea why except yell Bullshit. Is it too much to believe that Bush is really trying to stop another terrorist attack? Have you gotten so anti-Bush that you've allowed your better judgment to get the better of you?[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between simply crying foul for the sake of crying foul, and yelling bullshit because something stinks. In this case, it is most certainly the latter.

In fairness, however, I am indeed extremely anti-Bush, but that has had no negative impact on my judgment. If anything, watching Bush progress from the straight talkin' simpleton I voted for in 2000 to the monster he is today has encouraged me to read more and investigate more rather than just listening to the words coming out of his mouth, and having the benefit of more information available to me enhances my judgment, I think. Bush's success relies upon people not really paying attention to much beyond the sound bites.

All of this has led me to the conclusion that I simply cannot take a single word out of Bush's mouth at face value. More than any president before him, Bush has embraced spin to the point that he doesn't have time to govern anymore. I view everything he does as propaganda, so yes, I do look at his actions with a jaundiced eye, and he is always starting out with 2 strikes against him. This is not the knee-jerk reaction of some leftwing nutjob, though -- Bush has worked long and hard to earn my mistrust, and he's got to show me a lot before he'll be back on a level playing field for me.

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

[quote=superdave]Toasty -Let's look at why Bush is ordering wiretapping. Do you think Bush really wants other people besides the suspected terrorists to be wiretapped? Bush wouldn't have enacted a plan that would cause this type of controversy if he didn't think it was necessary and could get results. He's got enough trouble dealing with Iraq and Katrina criticism.

You admit in option 1 that you don't really know Bush's motives. So, you really don't have an idea why except yell Bullshit. Is it too much to believe that Bush is really trying to stop another terrorist attack? Have you gotten so anti-Bush that you've allowed your better judgment to get the better of you?[/quote] Let's be realistic here. I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic-> international calls or domestic-> domestic calls. You don't either! And thats the whole freaking point. No one except our secretive government will ever know because Bush bypassed FISA.

You expect us to have blind loyalty for this President. The only evidence regarding the wiretapping you have is the word of this administration. You believe in him, I don't. What we need here is an unbiased third party to determine if the wiretaps are legal or not. I wish there were such a party.... oh wait! Almost forgot we had the rubberstamping FISA, yet we didn't even bother with them- even though we can seek approval 72 hours AFTER doing the wiretap. And if you don't think they are rubberstampers consider the statistics; they have only denied FOUR wiretap requests in their entire history.

I found this comment somewhere and am blatently stealing it because it sums things up pretty well:

[quote] Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?

Why are so many patriots so happy to violate the constitution? You can't burn a flag, but you can listen on my phone calls without due process? Why is everyone a constitutional scholar when it comes to guns or free speech, but starts whistling and looking uncomfortable when it's comes to due process?

Is the world some delicate and beautiful flower that will be crushed by our founding father's foolish "bill of rights?" Are times all that different?

Has everyone forgotten why we have these laws? We saw the consequences of not having them not that long ago. Most people who saw the civil rights movement and Watergate are still alive today. Collective amnesia?

What kind of patriot are you, if want the ten commandments in a courthouse, but not the constitution?

How do you not call yourself a hypocrite, when you impeach a man for lying about his affair, but not a man who admits to violate his oath of office, and the law of the land, and declares he will keep right on doing it?

FISA hardly ever said no. There's only one reason why they would want to hide their spying from FISA... "terrorists" now include their political enemies.[/quote]

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

You're right -- I would be going crazy and screaming civil rights abuses if a Democratic President was doing what Bush is doing. :lol:

Re: Gore's Speech Yesterday

Thanks Toasty.... you continually voice my sentiments in an articulate and rational way...