2000 Election

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Where are the ones he admitted having but could never account for?

We have a surrendered scientist who claims they courted Al-Queda (proven), that WMD were moved to Syria in the mid 90's (?) who also said he WORKED on the programs, and they were ordered to destroy everything just MONTHS before the war. He was able to lead US forces to buried precursor chemicals that HE could have used to make WMD.

Two points in opposite order.

First, the claim re. the Iraqi scientist's story is false. I already showed Alistar7 that he misread the article; he chooses to ignore this. The scientist says they were ordered to destroy the materials many years ago, sometime before the mid-90's when he was last associated with Iraq's NBC program.

Second, Alistar7 answers his own question re. where are the weapons. The Iraqi scientist he quotes plainly said they destroyed them.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: NightTrain
The entire left would be better served to move on...it ain't 2000 anymore.

And it isn't 2001 (9-11) anymore either. The entire right would be better served to move on. Good advice from ya, NightTrain.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: NightTrain
The entire left would be better served to move on...it ain't 2000 anymore.

And it isn't 2001 (9-11) anymore either. The entire right would be better served to move on. Good advice from ya, NightTrain.

For some it is easier to forget about hanging chads and recounts than it is to forget 3,000 innocent dead people and the disappearance of the most prominent feature in the Manhattan skyline. I think the right has moved on, they're just insuring that it doesn't happen again. A mistake is not a mistake if you learn from it.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

For some it is easier to forget about hanging chads and recounts than it is to forget 3,000 innocent dead people and the disappearance of the most prominent feature in the Manhattan skyline. I think the right has moved on, they're just insuring that it doesn't happen again. A mistake is not a mistake if you learn from it.

Some believe that the Election face that happened in 2000 is the impetus for the 9-11 attack in 2001.

If Bush hadn't branded Iraq/Iran/NK the "Axis of Evil", the attacks might never have happened. If Bush hadn't taken such a right-wing strong-arm to the world, the attacks might never have happened. If Gore had been elected, to a "kindler, gentler" or truly "peace-loving" nation, the attacks might never have happened.

A major event is the result of a chain of events.

I can see and agree with your viewpoint about the mistake/learning from it.

 

[UltraQuiet]

If Bush hadn't branded Iraq/Iran/NK the "Axis of Evil", the attacks might never have happened.

What attacks might not have happened?

 

[phillyTIM]

9-11

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
9-11

You do realize that the 'axis of evil' speech was in 2002.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Bush branded them the axis of evil in his 2002 state of the union address, not the 2001 state of the union...am I wrong on that, I didn't really look for it, going from memory. I doubt the Al-quaeda had any vested interest in the outcome of the 2000 election. I doubt Gore would've refrained from chasing them down in Afghanistan, but I also doubt Gore would've pressured any other states to quit harboring terrorists.

I don't really like the language Bush uses all the time, but the man has backed up his words so far. He's rough about his ways and he is defenitely a cowboy, but I think that is what is needed right now, when things cool off and we round up some of the bad guys I'll be ready for someone to smooth it over when the dirty work is done.

 

[phillyTIM]

ahh, you are correct; my faux pas

danke

 

[Alistar7]

Bush Far Outspent Gore on Recount

In addition, the fund paid two controversial companies for the use of their jets: Just over $13,000 to Enron Corp. and $2,400 to Halliburton Co.

That's ok Philly, I am sure you can find some way to spin the blame to Bush for 9/11, you have already convinced yourself the fault lies not with those who flew the planes into the buildings, you are almost there....

 

[phillyTIM]

hey, if the shoe fits.....

 

[Bulk Beef]

Some believe that the Election face that happened in 2000 is the impetus for the 9-11 attack in 2001.

The hijackers had been in flight training well before the election. It was going to happen regardless of who was in office. And as has already been pointed out, the "Axis O' Evil" speech was partly in response to 9-11, not the other way around.

 

[etech]

There is more evidence to link 9/11 with the Somilia action(Blackhawk Down) than with the Axis of Evil speech. The Rangers were sent in there without the heavy equipment they requested and when Americans were killed they were quickly pulled out.

By not providing the troops with the equipment they needed and then retreating at the first set back it just possibly encouraged bin Laden into thinking that he could kill Americans with out repercussions.


" In a 1998 interview with ABC News, he(bin laden) said Somalia proved the United States lacks the resolve to fight when it means Americans will die.

"We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage cold wars and unprepared to fight long wars," bin Laden said. "They can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia."

 

[Insane3D]

If we have this thread, shouldn't we start another for all the people who can't seem to let the whole Clinton thing go as well? It also seems to pop up in many threads and he seems to be blamed for just about everything...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
If we have this thread, shouldn't we start another for all the people who can't seem to let the whole Clinton thing go as well? It also seems to pop up in many threads and he seems to be blamed for just about everything...

Be my guest - you are still free to air your opinions here as far as I know

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

Nah, I try to waste a lot of time getting all hot and bothered about the past and things that can't be changed. I just figured it would balance out things since most of the people who talk about the 2000 election are more left. A thread about how much Clinton sucks and such would be a thread just for the right leaners..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Nah, I try to waste a lot of time getting all hot and bothered about the past and things that can't be changed. I just figured it would balance out things since most of the people who talk about the 2000 election are more left. A thread about how much Clinton sucks and such would be a thread just for the right leaners..

Well you can't say that Clinton didn't give "us right leaners" alot of ammo

CkG

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: outriding

Pics are nice but the numbers never lie

Popular vote means nothing. There are 3 other presidents that did not get the popular vote.

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Some believe that the Election face that happened in 2000 is the impetus for the 9-11 attack in 2001.

If Bush hadn't branded Iraq/Iran/NK the "Axis of Evil", the attacks might never have happened. If Bush hadn't taken such a right-wing strong-arm to the world, the attacks might never have happened. If Gore had been elected, to a "kindler, gentler" or truly "peace-loving" nation, the attacks might never have happened.

A major event is the result of a chain of events.

I can see and agree with your viewpoint about the mistake/learning from it.

I respect that you took correction gracefully but statements like show that you will connect lines that do not exist to back up your ideology. Doesn't this make you loose some credibility? This is why I am an independent.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Nah, I try to waste a lot of time getting all hot and bothered about the past and things that can't be changed. I just figured it would balance out things since most of the people who talk about the 2000 election are more left. A thread about how much Clinton sucks and such would be a thread just for the right leaners..

Well you can't say that Clinton didn't give "us right leaners" alot of ammo

CkG

Yes I can. In my opinion, you "right leaners" manufactured most of that ammo; you blew $50 million of our money to dredge up much of the rest. The witch-hunt against Clinton was largely fueled by the intense hatred of a bunch of unprincipled, poor-loser Republicans, not by Clinton's actions.

It's one reason I keep moving farther to the left. According to all the traditional factors, I should be a staunch Republican. I used to be solidly right of center, but became appalled at the behavior and unapologetic hypocrisy of various Republican icons. From the Reagan administration's many outrages, Newt's contract on America, the dominance of religious zealots, and today's illegal war, the right keeps doing stuff I can't stomach. Couple this with the way so many Republicans place themselves above right and wrong - it was OK for Reagan to lie about Iran and Bush-lite to lie about Iraq, but we'll crucify Clinton for lying about sex - and I keep finding myself siding with Democrats. I will never be a Democrat, but I refuse to blindly support Republicans just because they claim to represent people like me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

A thought just struck me as I re-read this whole thread. I'd say most of the people in this thread claim to be "independant" and/or Libertarians. Now I know the lot of us don't neccesarily provide a good cross section of america but I think we come close to a good representation of the VOTING public. Soooo.....

Why can't an "independant" or "Libertarian" gain enough support to hold office?

Is it because we're afraid of "throwing our vote away" ala Ross Perot or Ralph Nader? I think we all need to do a "gut check" and see if we would actually back up the rhetoric we toss around here by actually voting our beliefs? Now I know some of you will come in here and claim you actually do vote "for people, not parties" but I think most of that is hogwash. "Independants" or small "parties" don't get near enough votes for me to believe that. People will vote for the lesser of 2 evils and not for the candidate who most represents their views and ideology.

2000 election I voted for G.W. Bush because I didn't want Gore to be the next president, and not neccesarily because I wanted Bush to be. I think that is wrong. If people like me that used our vote "against" a candidate would actually grow a set - our political system could start become more representative of American's views.

I will personally vow to take a hard look at some of the lesser known candidates - regardless of their affiliation before I vote in the next election.

What we need is a "revolution" in politics. We need to send a message to DC that we're sick and tired of the games, money, and corruption that thrives because of our 2-party system. But we need to be mindful not to stir the pot too quickly so as to spoil the stew. Minnesota got it half right by electing Ventura because he is a man of his word and doesn't seem to be a bought and paid for official. But he was a little too rough around the edges IMO.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
A thought just struck me as I re-read this whole thread. I'd say most of the people in this thread claim to be "independant" and/or Libertarians. Now I know the lot of us don't neccesarily provide a good cross section of america but I think we come close to a good representation of the VOTING public. Soooo.....

Why can't an "independant" or "Libertarian" gain enough support to hold office?

Is it because we're afraid of "throwing our vote away" ala Ross Perot or Ralph Nader? I think we all need to do a "gut check" and see if we would actually back up the rhetoric we toss around here by actually voting our beliefs? Now I know some of you will come in here and claim you actually do vote "for people, not parties" but I think most of that is hogwash. "Independants" or small "parties" don't get near enough votes for me to believe that. People will vote for the lesser of 2 evils and not for the candidate who most represents their views and ideology.

2000 election I voted for G.W. Bush because I didn't want Gore to be the next president, and not neccesarily because I wanted Bush to be. I think that is wrong. If people like me that used our vote "against" a candidate would actually grow a set - our political system could start become more representative of American's views.

I will personally vow to take a hard look at some of the lesser known candidates - regardless of their affiliation before I vote in the next election.

What we need is a "revolution" in politics. We need to send a message to DC that we're sick and tired of the games, money, and corruption that thrives because of our 2-party system. But we need to be mindful not to stir the pot too quickly so as to spoil the stew. Minnesota got it half right by electing Ventura because he is a man of his word and doesn't seem to be a bought and paid for official. But he was a little too rough around the edges IMO.

CkG

Good points. For what it's worth, I do frequently vote for third-party candidates because I find that they offer more than their Repubocratic competitors. I have been accused of "throwing away my vote" because of this, but I think that's exactly backwards. Except in an extreme fluke, an individual vote for a big-2 candidate is wasted; less than a drop in the bucket. Each vote for a third-party candidate sends a message - I'm unhappy with the way things are run and I want change. In a sense, it's a vote against the status quo.

Ironically, I didn't do this in the 2000 presidential election. I knew the election was close and I flat-out couldn't stomach Bush, so I voted for Gore. Guess you and I canceled out, CkG.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Ironically, I didn't do this in the 2000 presidential election. I knew the election was close and I flat-out couldn't stomach Bush, so I voted for Gore. Guess you and I canceled out, CkG.

And that's what's "wrong" with voting to stop the other guy, because there will be those that do the same to counter your "against" vote. But if there was a good 3rd party candidate we need to vote for them. NOT because they are "independant" but because we agree with their views and ideas. I know it is a double edged sword when it comes to "independants" but I think alot more good can come from compromise than with 2 sides that hardly ever do truely compromise.

The "problem" is that it seems most 3rd party candidates seem to be more facist than either of the big 2. Ross Perot gave it a good run in 92 but he wasn't "different" enough than Bush so he didn't do well.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Interesting how there seems to be a nexus between the 2000 election and all the Iraqi stuff.... it is linked... just like the economy and everything else.... so it seems plausable to expect reference to "if this then that" as a retort to the rightious pedistal upon which some place a sitting administration... no?

 

[orion7144]

The economy started going down hill long before Bush took over!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: orion7144
The economy started going down hill long before Bush took over!

well there was a positive blip between Reagan and Bush the current.