AMAZING speech made by Al Gore...

[rogue yam]

To return to topic:

Spotted Al is the most deranged tree since The Wizard of Oz. His speech was utterly overwrought, self-contradictory, and unhinged. No clearer evidence is needed of the Democratic party's ideological bankruptcy than Alborg2000's ravings, and the sycophantic reception they received in Constitution Hall and on the leftie blogosphere.

Those wanting a concise, yet sufficiently detailed Fisking of Goron's spiel might go here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200601170833.asp

An excerpt:

Well, which was it? Did members of earlier generations "faithfully protect" our liberties, or did they set up COINTELPRO and intern Japanese Americans? Gore said both things, just a few minutes apart. It was, in a way, characteristic of his entire speech. Unilateral presidential action is illegal and it's legal. Leaks are bad and they're good. Previous generations curtailed our rights and they didn't.

No matter. The crowd was thrilled. Many people in the audience, it seemed, wanted nothing more than for Al Gore to tell them that everything they believed was right. And they got what they came for.

 

[nino_savatte]

New Orleans was not a famine and martial law was not declared.

Other than that...

Wrong, simpleton; martial law was declared. What do you think a curfew is and who was out patrolling the streets with orders to shoot anything that moved?

 

[TAE]

New Orleans was not a famine and martial law was not declared.

Other than that...

http://www.wben.com/newsroom/fullstory.php?newsid=03633
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/sports/13434390.htm
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,373074,00.html

Martial Law has been declared in parts of New Orleans as conditions continued to deteriorate.

Other than that ...

 

[rogue yam]

Other than that ...

You're an idiot. All you have demonstrated is that you are not the only dimwit with an agenda loosely tossing about the phrase "martial law". Further, the central point of Mr. Sen's quote, and the focus of this example, is the word "famine". That you completely ignore this demonstrates that you are as corrupt as you are unintelligent.

 

[rogue yam]

martial law was declared. What do you think a curfew is and who was out patrolling the streets with orders to shoot anything that moved?

A curfew is a curfew. Martial law is something else. Everyone knows this. Further, you lie about the orders, as is plain to all. You are psychotic.

 

[nino_savatte]

A curfew is a curfew. Martial law is something else. Everyone knows this. Further, you lie about the orders, as is plain to all. You are psychotic.

Martial law was declared, cuntstick. Have a look at the links in post 33.

If anyone is psychotic it is you...you're also an inveterate liar.

 

[rogue yam]

Have a look at the links in post 33.

I did, and I replied thusly in #34. You read poorly.

 

[kyser_soze]

What is it? Has he claimed to have invented fire?

 

[newharper]

Well, which was it? Did members of earlier generations "faithfully protect" our liberties, or did they set up COINTELPRO and intern Japanese Americans? Gore said both things, just a few minutes apart. It was, in a way, characteristic of his entire speech. Unilateral presidential action is illegal and it's legal. Leaks are bad and they're good. Previous generations curtailed our rights and they didn't.

So is 'Unilateral presidential action ' legal or illegal' in your humble opinion?

 

[888]

You can't argue with the banned! (why was he banned anyway?)

 

[ViolentPanda]

So is 'Unilateral presidential action ' legal or illegal' in your humble opinion?

Um, I think you're addressing the wrong guy if you want him to exercise any form of humility.

 

[nino_savatte]

You can't argue with the banned! (why was he banned anyway?)

Check his profile and click on "View all posts by rogue yam" and you'll get the answer to your question.

 

[newharper]

Um, I think you're addressing the wrong guy if you want him to exercise any form of humility.

 

[nino_savatte]

I did, and I replied thusly in #34. You read poorly.

It's a good thing you've been banned - isn't it? You've proved to us all what an ignorant wee shite you are and that you are incapable of engaging anyone in debate.

Oh btw, you're projecting when you say I "read poorly".

 

[atitlan]

(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?

A more intelligent way to proceed would be to throw away the closed parameters of the debate as framed by existing politicians (asking 'what system?' automatically frames the debate in terms of past and present systems and against something new) and ask in what way does democracy fail to give us good government, how does the democratic process as we now practice it fail to address long term issues such as the environment. What factors influence the democratic process such that it fails to represent the people's concerns on those issues and how can the system be improved to prevent those factors continuing to hold sway in the future.

Politicians love to paint things in simplistic terms; to listen to most of them all democracies are equally democratic and the only alternative is Soviet-style communism. As soon as you accept that kind of assumption you've stopped thinking and are constrained to acting within a dichotomy that works well for an us vs them argument, but totally fails to address the real world where there isn't simply position A and position B, but infinite shades of opinion beyond the bound of those positions and in between those positions.

 

[TAE]

You can't argue with the banned! (why was he banned anyway?)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=4081753#post4081753

 

[TAE]

You're an idiot. All you have demonstrated is that you are not the only dimwit with an agenda loosely tossing about the phrase "martial law". Further, the central point of Mr. Sen's quote, and the focus of this example, is the word "famine". That you completely ignore this demonstrates that you are as corrupt as you are unintelligent.

A better response would have been:

"Ok, so martial law was declared in parts of N.O. - but we were talking about famine not floods".

And I would have said:

"Sure, I was just commenting on the 'no martial law' assertion - I should have made that clearer."

Oh well.

 

[rogue yam]

So is 'Unilateral presidential action ' legal or illegal' in your humble opinion?

It depends on the action and the circumstances. The President of the United States is granted substantial powers of unilateral action under our Constitution. From the beginning there has been an ongoing debate about the proper limits of those powers, but no one seriously doubts that the President's powers of unilaleral action, particularly in the areas of foreign relations and national defense, are substantial.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The president of the united states can't even manage adult standards of toilet training "Mistress Condi, please deflate that big butt plug and let me crap my nappies"

I'm sure the UN were really impressed by George "stinky pants" Bush

 

[rogue yam]

The president of the united states can't even manage adult standards of toilet training "Mistress Condi, please deflate that big butt plug and let me crap my nappies"

I'm sure the UN were really impressed by George "stinky pants" Bush

For those who prefer sanity, there's this:

Excerpt from an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney by Neil Cavuto
FOX Studios
New York, New York
January 19, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060119-7.html

Q: Let me ask you about Al Gore's comments the other day, sir, in which he said, "This administration is breaking the law. These abusive wiretaps are the extreme." And some other pretty strong stuff. Do you think that that issue resonates with people that you are -- this administration is going to extremes?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't -- I don't have a lot of confidence in Al Gore's judgments or commentary about these kinds of issues.

<snip>

Q: What do you think of those who brought it (the NSA program) up?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: ...(T)he fact of the matter is that this is a good, sound program. Al Gore can say whatever he wants to say about it. The fact is, knowing what I know and having been involved from the very beginning, I would want to be absolutely certain that the man who was making the key decisions to safeguard the nation would do exactly what George Bush did. And frankly, I hear Al Gore make those kinds of comments I'm just reminded of how fortunate we are that he didn't get elected in 2000.

 

[nino_savatte]

It depends on the action and the circumstances. The President of the United States is granted substantial powers of unilateral action under our Constitution. From the beginning there has been an ongoing debate about the proper limits of those powers, but no one seriously doubts that the President's powers of unilaleral action, particularly in the areas of foreign relations and national defense, are substantial.

Of course US domestic law is often used to justify actions abroad. That is to say, DC ignores international law because it feels that the laws it has made transcend those made in international courts. In other words, the swaggering superiority of the US on the world stage is seen as being divinely ordained by those who see themselves as 'world policeman' and 'givers of freedom'.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

For those who prefer sanity, there's this:

Excerpt from an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney by Neil Cavuto
FOX Studios
New York, New York
January 19, 2006

<foxy bollocks snipped>

To use the word 'sanity' and then refer to Dick Cheney is the best oxymoron that I've heard all day.

 

[rogue yam]

DC ignores international law because it feels that the laws it has made transcend those made in international courts.

Different cultures have different approaches to law. In America, laws are not made by courts. They are made by the people through their elected legislators. What some call "international law" are really treaties that are entered into freely by the United States, as ratified by the elected members of our Senate. However treaties may never, under any circumstances, trump our Constitution. In America, the Constitution always prevails. The present question is about the power of the President of the United States to undertake unilateral action. The President is sworn, under his Oath of Office (the text of which is stated in the Constitution) to defend the Constitution. No "international law" can absolve the President of his sworn duty. If there is a threat, the President must respond, whatever other countries or "international courts" say. That's the law.

 

[TAE]

And yet you've said that the US never breaks any international treaties (such as the UN charter) it has signed.
Do you still stand by that statement.

 

[nino_savatte]

Different cultures have different approaches to law. In America, laws are not made by courts. They are made by the people through their elected legislators. What some call "international law" are really treaties that are entered into freely by the United States, as ratified by the elected members of our Senate. However treaties may never, under any circumstances, trump our Constitution. In America, the Constitution always prevails. The present question is about the power of the President of the United States to undertake unilateral action. The President is sworn, under his Oath of Office (the text of which is stated in the Constitution) to defend the Constitution. No "international law" can absolve the President of his sworn duty. If there is a threat, the President must respond, whatever other countries or "international courts" say. That's the law.

You're talking out of your arse. The US constantly flouts international law and ignores UN resolutions, yet it demands that other countries adhere to such laws and you see no contradiction? Of course you don't, you're a freeper.

 

[TAE]

I find it rather puzzling that R.Y. would rather quote the dissing of A.G. than quote the really relevant bit:

There have been a lot of commentaries -- this is often called "domestic surveillance." No, it's not domestic surveillance. The implication of that is somehow we're listening in on Americans talking to Americans and so forth. What this specifically is about, as the President has been very clear, is a situation in which we have communications, but one end of which is in the United States, the other end of which is overseas, and one end of which we have reason to believe is al Qaeda-affiliated. Those are the conditions under which we're talking about this activity. And the President has authorized that. It is fully consistent with the Constitution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060119-7.html

What do you guys make of that assertion?

 

[rogue yam]

And yet you've said that the US never breaks any international treaties (such as the UN charter) it has signed.
Do you still stand by that statement.

Well, the wise course is to never say "never", so my answer is that the U.S. honors its commitments. This leftist meme that somehow the U.S. willfully and consistently violates valid, binding agreements in a way that others do not is complete bollocks. But has there never in all of history been a single instance where an argument could be made against U.S. action? Who knows?

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, the wise course is to never say "never", so my answer is that the U.S. honors its commitments. This leftist meme that somehow the U.S. willfully and consistently violates valid, binding agreements in a way that others do not is complete bollocks. But has there never in all of history been a single instance where an argument could be made against U.S. action? Who knows?

You can't stop yourself from using the word "leftist" as a pejorative - can you? The "US honours its commitments"? Which "commitments would those be?

 

[Streathamite]

For those who prefer sanity, there's this:

Excerpt from an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney by Neil Cavuto
FOX Studios
New York, New York
January 19, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060119-7.html

Q: Let me ask you about Al Gore's comments the other day, sir, in which he said, "This administration is breaking the law. These abusive wiretaps are the extreme." And some other pretty strong stuff. Do you think that that issue resonates with people that you are -- this administration is going to extremes?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't -- I don't have a lot of confidence in Al Gore's judgments or commentary about these kinds of issues.

<snip>

Q: What do you think of those who brought it (the NSA program) up?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: ...(T)he fact of the matter is that this is a good, sound program. Al Gore can say whatever he wants to say about it. The fact is, knowing what I know and having been involved from the very beginning, I would want to be absolutely certain that the man who was making the key decisions to safeguard the nation would do exactly what George Bush did. And frankly, I hear Al Gore make those kinds of comments I'm just reminded of how fortunate we are that he didn't get elected in 2000.

efrr...right...so one mainstream politician simply sledging another indiscriminately, when the other has simply raised civil liberty issues 9as they have a right to do', is 'the voice of sanity'.
err....right, that's really 'fair and balance'.
btw, yammie, you wouldn't get past Year 1 in a third-rate med school, so you are NOT qualified to state what is or is not 'insane'. learn to use words properly, do.
alternatively, grow up.

 

[rogue yam]

I find it rather puzzling that R.Y. would rather quote the dissing of A.G. than quote the really relevant bit

I thought the whole interview was great, and I considered quoting more, but there have previously been complaints about excessive cut-and-paste, so I'm trying to find the right balance. I did provide the link, and I encourage all to read what "Big Time" has to say.

As for the specific point about the taps being placed only on calls with at least one party overseas, the Administration has maintained all along that this is the case, and in fact no one has shown any evidence otherwise. Now, the Democrats have gone public with their shrieking about "domestic surveilance" knowing that some will assume that this refers to the tapping of calls that occur entirely within the U.S. But none* of the elected Democrats are actually making that charge explicitly as they know that it is false and don't want to be called on it. So they make their deceptive pseudo charges, and hope that people will be too poorly informed to catch them out.

* so far as I've heard (Upon re-reading my post, I remind myself to "never say never" since there is no predicting how far the fringe-most Dems will go in their rhetoric.)