Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

AMAZING speech made by Al Gore...

X-77

Active Member
...today according to the posters on Democratic Underground right now. They are ecstatically happy saying it is the most important political speech for decades, it has reduced them to tears etc etc. It's on US channel C-SPAN but the other networks are (predictably) ignoring it so far.

If anyone finds a transcript or audio link can you post up here please - I am dying to hear it after the hype they are giving it..there's loads of threads on it but here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x152590
 
Here is the speech text

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html

There is so much truth in it eg

In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Just a shame that he stopped short of denouncing the 9/11 cover-up

"The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm."

Still if he gets people asking questions and speaking their truth instead of "going along to get along." it is very welcome indeed. IMO Al Gore lost any claim to be a radical or genuine defender of the constitution the day he accepted to the 2000 election result, but at the end of the day if his speech moves us closer to the day we rid ourselves of the Bush Cabal, then all power to him.

Amazing that Al Gore has to rely on C-Span to break the media monopoly
 
Looks like a great speech to me.

Bush has lied and has broken existing laws and must be held to account.
 
sparticus said:
Just a shame that he stopped short of denouncing the 9/11 cover-up
Now why might that be do you think?

It couldn't possibly be because he doesn't subscribe to your ludicrous, fact-free fantasies, could it?

:rolleyes:

In fact, if you were capable of reading without your built-in selective quoting filters, you'd see he's not questioning the actual events of 9/11, just the woeful incompetence that preceded it.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
I
He also talked about the deficit. We have to get these spend and spend Republicans out of there before they literally sell the country to foreigner.

And what's wrong with that exactly?:mad: I could do good things with that country if it belonged to me, good things!
 
foreigner said:
And what's wrong with that exactly?:mad: I could do good things with that country if it belonged to me, good things!

LOL! I'm sure you could. :D

It was just a poor choice of words on my part.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
I was more impressed with John McCain this Sunday. He talked about global warming and Kyoto (basically in favor of, but he didn't think it went far enough.)

He also talked about the deficit. We have to get these spend and spend Republicans out of there before they literally sell the country to foreigners.

<edited to add>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/08/ftn/main1186790.shtml

Funny, that's what Repubs say about the Dems...and it says an awful lot about the health of the US body politic.
 
nino_savatte said:
Funny, that's what Repubs say about the Dems...and it says an awful lot about the health of the US body politic.

The problem is that they talk a good game, but then go make backroom deals that ensure that the spending will continue. I've practically given up on politics as a means to addressing issues. The route that everyone has been told -- vote, write your representatives, etc. don't work.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
The problem is that they talk a good game, but then go make backroom deals that make sure that the spending will continue.

Not that either party really matters in the final analysis; they're just tools of the military-industrial complex...."God bless our defense industries" as one congressman said during a session in the House on Fahrenheit 911. :mad: :rolleyes:
 
nino_savatte said:
Not that either party really matters in the final analysis; they're just tools of the military-industrial complex...."God bless our defense industries" as one congressman was heard to say on Fahrenheit 911. :mad: :rolleyes:

Right. I've come to the conclusion that "democracy" is a tool to mask the lack of real input the average citizen is allowed. It's just a word that has ceased to mean what it means in our current Orwellian system.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
Right. I've come to the conclusion that "democracy" is a tool to mask the lack of real input the average citizen is allowed.

Democracy is an illusion that we get to participate in every so often at election times; then it becomes a festival, a carnival - another spectacle. Nice sounding phrases are spoken and promises are made...but it's business as usual the very next day.

The rulers of 18th & early 19th century was very much against the idea of democracy because it threatened their very existence...they all found a way around it in the end...except for the French monarchy who were dispatched and the Russians who clung on far too long and were also dispatched.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
Right. I've come to the conclusion that "democracy" is a tool to mask the lack of real input the average citizen is allowed. It's just a word that has ceased to mean what it means in our current Orwellian system.
If you actually had a half-way decent Democrat party it might be a bit more worthwhile. The impression I get is that the US is run by a small elite of millionaires who cut all their deals on the golf course. People need a vast amount of money to participate in elections and end up bankrolled by corporate and special interests. Districts are gerrymandered so that they now hardly ever change hands. None of these factors is any different for either party as far as I can see. I have also never worked out why people aren't automatically registered to vote for example. There are some good points - for example more local positions and jobs are elected than in the UK (although this has negatives) and there are some places that have more referenda.

I don't agree that "democracy" is merely a 'sign' - I think the idea and ideal is sound, but I agree that in some places it doesn't live up to the ideal, and I'd argue that America is one of them.
 
Some places? All places.

Why are they (dem underground) all falling for it? The usual platitudes and truisms forever regurgitated by politicians the world over. Stupid fucking liberals. He's finally in a position where he can spout something very superficially defiant-sounding. Politics is a word game and they're all taken in by it.

yuwipi woman said:
I've practically given up on politics as a means to addressing issues. The route that everyone has been told -- vote, write your representatives, etc. don't work.

Good to see that kind of sentiment on the increase.
 
888 said:
Some places? All places.
Well I am not an anarchist, but I suppose if something is an "ideal" then reality will never fully lives up to it, but then this same thing would apply to any kind of ideal not just democracy.

I simply don't accept that everything can or should be localised and done at the level of small communities, and there will always be a problem in aggregating the views and opinions of millions of people into a single law and unified policies that apply to a large area. Democratic systems of various types are still the best option for negotiating this and bias and corruption always needs to be fought against.

Some people will point to any failings and say it discredits the whole idea and system, but I have yet to hear about a viable alternative that is any better so I continue to support the idea of democracy, which in its widest sense isn't just about elections in isolation but about rights and freedoms, a pluralistic society, a free press and the rule of law and due process.

"An open society is a society based on the recognition that nobody has a monopoly on the truth, that different people have different views and interests, and that there is a need for institutions to protect the rights of all people to allow them to live together in peace. Broadly speaking, an open society is characterized by a reliance on the rule of law, the existence of a democratically elected government, a diverse and vigorous civil society, and respect for minorities and minority opinions."
 
A less idealistic view of democracy is that it is not for getting the best government, or even honest government, but just avoiding the worst government ie, massacre/famines etc.

added: Nobel Prize winning Economist Amartya Sen claims "No famine
has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.

One of the big problems is it doesn't deal with long term problems, eg environmental or its own slow erosion by concentration of wealth so one day it will be so enfeebled that it will no longer protect against the worst government :(

added: pendulum between civil liberties and 'national security', with drugs/terrorists/cold war as boogiemen is nothing new, but with modern surveillance, it is much easier for the pendulum to stick to the 'national security' side.
 
Red Jezza said:
1 question; just what is so 'amazing' about this speech? :confused:
that's what I wanted to know - thanks for the link to transcript to those that provided it. They're a soppy bunch on DU but then again any hint of something decent being said by someone must get their hopes up - it is a rarity on US TV!

Must admit I haven't read whole thing although I am about to listen to it here:

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/gore/2006/01/16/Gore_Constitutional_Crisis-01-16-06.96.mp3
 
samk said:
(1) A less idealistic view of democracy is that it is not for getting the best government....

(2) One of the big problems is it doesn't deal with long term problems, eg environmental...

(1) The realistic standard is to ask "What system, practicably attainable, yields better results." If the answer is "None", then democracy is the best government. The fact that it is yet imperfect means only that we are living in an imperfect world. I'm used to that.

(2) Again, what system yields better long term results for the environment?
 
samk said:
added: Nobel Prize winning Economist Amartya Sen claims "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.
Sen's a wise old fucker but (as he well knows) this one depends very much on how you draw up the definitions of famine and functioning democracy. Stands up a whole lot better than the fucking Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention though.
 
Red Jezza said:
1 question; just what is so 'amazing' about this speech? :confused:
Not much. Criticises egregious mainstream complacency from a position of slightly-different-flavoured egregious mainstream complacency.
 
samk said:
added: Nobel Prize winning Economist Amartya Sen claims "No famine
has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.

Of course not! A government will switch to martial law in such a situation...
 
Back
Top Bottom