Gore,s speech

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Get real, Organized Chaos. By the time 2008 rolls around, the country will be so sick of the Neocons that anybody who ever supported them won't have a prayer at getting into the Whitehouse... That means McCain and Guiliani.

Well, that's if the Bushies haven't started WW3, declared Martial Law and suspended elections...

They won't have to suspend the elections. All they have to do is get enough of Diebold's electronic voting machines in place, and they can easily rig them...

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: screech

Here we go again......

Oh I havent even gotten started on this load of crap Gore spewed out of his piehole.

Enlighten us please.

You seem to have made up you mind, please share in detail why you think so, I myself am happy to see what the courts decide (since I'm not a lawyer).

It has nothing to do with "enlightening" you, it just has to do with political positioning, just like it always is.

This tapping stuff has been going on in one form or another for decades.

Nice try at dodging the issue. The issue is ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS wiretaps. SO tear apart former VP Gores speech if you can. Documentation will be accepted.

I already did.

This has been happening since the 60's. And to suddenly take the satnd about Constitutional infringements because of THIS is absolutely absurd. We've been losing our rights since the 30's, why should they suddenly decide to care?

because its a political weapon to use against the other side.

 

[jlmadyson]

We love you Al. Please come back in 2008 lol.

:beer:

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But NOW people care. That really pisses me off. The politicans dont care until they can use it as a political weapon. But if its not in their best interest to bring it up....mums the word.

That PISSES me off, badly. They should have cracked down on this decades ago.

Well that's how the world works; no one will change it so you've got to come to terms with it.
Peace man

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Specop 007
But NOW people care. That really pisses me off. The politicans dont care until they can use it as a political weapon. But if its not in their best interest to bring it up....mums the word.

That PISSES me off, badly. They should have cracked down on this decades ago.

Well that's how the world works; no one will change it so you've got to come to terms with it.
Peace man

I know, and its why his speech disgusted me.
Thanks for caring about the Constitution Gore....
Oh wait, you dont! You only care about it because it makes a good talking point against Bush.

But if overlooking those "unalienable" rights would benefit him you damn well better believe his answer would be "Constitution? What Constitution"

I want my Rights. I want ALL of my Rights.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: screech

Here we go again......

Oh I havent even gotten started on this load of crap Gore spewed out of his piehole.

Enlighten us please.

You seem to have made up you mind, please share in detail why you think so, I myself am happy to see what the courts decide (since I'm not a lawyer).

It has nothing to do with "enlightening" you, it just has to do with political positioning, just like it always is.

This tapping stuff has been going on in one form or another for decades.

Nice try at dodging the issue. The issue is ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS wiretaps. SO tear apart former VP Gores speech if you can. Documentation will be accepted.

I already did.

This has been happening since the 60's. And to suddenly take the satnd about Constitutional infringements because of THIS is absolutely absurd. We've been losing our rights since the 30's, why should they suddenly decide to care?

because its a political weapon to use against the other side.

No you didn't. So either put up or quit whimpering.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: PELarson

No you didn't. So either put up or quit whimpering.

You keep drinking the Koolaid. Let us big people have a conversation.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: OrByte
too bad this speech was given by Gore. Must have been a snoozer. But it is a really good speech.

I think that is a problem with America these days....We can't elect someone with the brains, we have to elect those who can act the best. While our leader should not be literally a ROCK, since you have to woo the people of your own country as well as other countries...being charasmatic is necessary to a degree.

Either way it dissapoints me how we care so much about "whether he will put us all to sleep" rather than the substance what is written.

Though if Gore did try to run again, he would get murdered because I remember someone on ATOT posted a pic of him and Gorey-boy a while back and he doubled in size or so

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Gores a moron!!

Give us more wisdom please :roll:

Maybe you were referring to Dan Quayle?

Personally both Quayle and Gore are has beens who are both norons!!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Gores a moron!!

Give us more wisdom please :roll:

Maybe you were referring to Dan Quayle?

No, I'm pretty sure he said and meant Gore.

 

[tommywishbone]

Gore lost to George W Bush. He MUST be an idiot. And yes, Kerry is a putz as well.

 

[LumbergTech]

"The FBI privately called King the ?most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country? and vowed to ?take him off his pedestal.? The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide."

people seem to forget that this wasnt that long ago....they all seem to have this bubblegum view of government like we live in some new age utopia where the government will no longer commit offenses such as the ones they did against Dr. King

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
"The FBI privately called King the ?most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country? and vowed to ?take him off his pedestal.? The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide."

people seem to forget that this wasnt that long ago....they all seem to have this bubblegum view of government like we live in some new age utopia where the government will no longer commit offenses such as the ones they did against Dr. King

See my post at the top of the page.

 

[Agrooreo]

Good Speech. Nice to see someone beating the drums in washington.... Lets see what happens now.

 

[Generator]

I think its finally time to let Georgie retire to the ranch. Don't worry Republicans, you'll be back, America will aways be eager to jump aboard your get rich theme. That Bob Barr quote is perfect. This President is so bold and arrogant that the American people finally have the final evidence that he simply does not understand what the Constitution is all about. He just doesn't know and will never know.

 

[Jhhnn]

What Specop007 pointedly tries to avoid, and what Gore points out, is that the programs against MLK and the Peace movement in the 60's were wrong, and have been recognized as such, and that Congress made a legitimate effort to prevent such abuses when they pased the FISA act...

Enter GWB, who tosses all that out, apparently because he wants to be a "War President"...

Something else that Gore points out is that Wingnuts need to be careful what they wish for- their guy won't hold the Whitehouse forever, and future Presidents will have whatever power Bush can usurp for the office...

Nor is the whole issue one of settled law- it's the Bush Admin's usual attempt to do whatever they want, defy anybody to stop them, that's all...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CSMR
I looked up this issue because it would be concerning if president Bush is acting illegally. Quite definitely he should not even if it is in the interest of the country. The argument that had been advanced that authorization to wage war gave the president the necessary power seeed very week. But other argments seem quite good, and now I think the position that wiretapping is legal looks pretty strong, but I am by no means competent to understand all the legal issues.


John Schmidt of the Chicago Tribune:

In the Supreme Court?s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president?s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that ?All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority.?

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ?agent of a foreign power,? which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law?s procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ?FISA could not encroach on the president?s constitutional power.?

The question that remains here is the limitations of that power. What we have here is spying at will on US citizens within the US.

I believe the SC will do everything to avoid this issue or go along with the President even if it privately believes it to be wrong. Why? Because it has been said (regarding Bush's torture opinon) that the law does not apply to Bush, and that his executive orders are not subject to judicial review.

If that is the view held by Bush, then by falling back on the authorization to use force as a blank check for any action could cause him to say that the Supreme Court's decision would be moot. He would be an at will dictator, because he would have set the Presidency above the other branches of govt.

IF that were to happen, that would cause the collapse of Govt. Would Bush? Well I don't know. I do know he seems not to recognize any authority other than his own when it matters to him.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The question that remains here is the limitations of that power. What we have here is spying at will on US citizens within the US.

No, I think it is spying for a particular purpose (terrorism) only.

I believe the SC will do everything to avoid this issue or go along with the President even if it privately believes it to be wrong. Why? Because it has been said (regarding Bush's torture opinon) that the law does not apply to Bush, and that his executive orders are not subject to judicial review.

Who has said this? It seems like a ridiculous position to take. Who has said it and why is the senate committee so deferential to him?

If that is the view held by Bush, then by falling back on the authorization to use force

I don't think President Bush would claim that authorization to use force allowed him to do anything to combat terrorism, only this particular thing, but you would have to ask him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The question that remains here is the limitations of that power. What we have here is spying at will on US citizens within the US.

No, I think it is spying for a particular purpose (terrorism) only.

I believe the SC will do everything to avoid this issue or go along with the President even if it privately believes it to be wrong. Why? Because it has been said (regarding Bush's torture opinon) that the law does not apply to Bush, and that his executive orders are not subject to judicial review.

Who has said this? It seems like a ridiculous position to take. Who has said it and why is the senate committee so deferential to him?

If that is the view held by Bush, then by falling back on the authorization to use force

I don't think President Bush would claim that authorization to use force allowed him to do anything to combat terrorism, only this particular thing, but you would have to ask him.

Does the purpose stated in fact warrant the response, and did Congress give it's blessing when it authorized force? It would be a stretch of the imagination to think Congress would forsee it being used as such, and as you know the intent of Congress is something that the SC must consider.

Next, saying something isn't so important as looking at action taken. Consider Jose Padilla. Was it not curious to you that a person could be held for so long a time without representation or charges, and who was fighting for his Constitutional rights, yet the courts remain silent for so long? Why? Because courts are (and have indeed said) that they are reluctant to rule on Presidential authority, and indeed give deference when possible.
Constitutional crisis is not a term I coined.

In the last, I cited example. Bush flat out says he is not subject to the law of Congress regarding torture. It's there in front of you. A main justification was that authorization. I never said he would fall back on it for EVERYTHING, however if it were important enough to him, he has shown that he can and will for his purposes.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: CSMR
I looked up this issue because it would be concerning if president Bush is acting illegally. Quite definitely he should not even if it is in the interest of the country. The argument that had been advanced that authorization to wage war gave the president the necessary power seeed very week. But other argments seem quite good, and now I think the position that wiretapping is legal looks pretty strong, but I am by no means competent to understand all the legal issues.


John Schmidt of the Chicago Tribune:

In the Supreme Court?s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president?s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that ?All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority.?

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ?agent of a foreign power,? which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law?s procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ?FISA could not encroach on the president?s constitutional power.?

You mean its legal for the President to have a call originating in America and terminating in a foriegn country be wiretapped??

That cant be...The Democratic Party wouldnt lie to us.......

That's nice.

 

[Pabster]

I've got an idea for Al ... in between screeching 'Bush Police State' how about he make a visit to China and examine a REAL police state.

Maybe he can stay there while he's at it.

The only thing we all have to be thankful for is that this traitor never became President.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: screech

Here we go again......

Oh I havent even gotten started on this load of crap Gore spewed out of his piehole.

Enlighten us please.

You seem to have made up you mind, please share in detail why you think so, I myself am happy to see what the courts decide (since I'm not a lawyer).

It has nothing to do with "enlightening" you, it just has to do with political positioning, just like it always is.

This tapping stuff has been going on in one form or another for decades. There was a program in the 60's, which evolved again in the 70's Cant remember the names of them right off though.
The latest incarnation of these wiretaps was Carnivore. Remember that? Where was the political outcry in the 60's? How about the 70's? 80's? 90's? What about the stuff under Clinton? Didnt see much hussle and bussle about Carivore.

But NOW people care. That really pisses me off. The politicans dont care until they can use it as a political weapon. But if its not in their best interest to bring it up....mums the word.

That PISSES me off, badly. They should have cracked down on this decades ago.

And further more, Gore is a lying son of a bitch to even bring up any Constitutional infrignements. Piss off with that crap. Why dont the Dem;s give a damn about the 2nd? Oh no, cant have guns, gotta take those off the streets. Doing that isnt a Constitutional infringement, nope not at all. So what we have is politicians screaming "Constitutional Infringement!" only when it can benefit their agenda. Ok, so we now pick and choose which Rights the people are allowed to have? Last time I checked, the our founding documents laid our our rights, ALL of our rights, and were not set up so we can pick and choose which ones the politicians think we need.

Which brings me back to my point.

Goddamn hypocritical politicians. :|

First off Carnivore, the e-mail tapping program that became widely known in the late 90's. Alot of people didn't like the concept, but the big difference between that and our current situation is that Carnivore required a court order for the FBI to implement it. And then the court order was per person tapped.

Second you comment on democrats trying to violate the 2nd amendment. Well let's look at the text of the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

First, nowhere does it specify firearms. Second the word infringed. Infringe - To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate. No one is trying to prevent people from having firearms, just trying to limit what firearms a person can legally obtain. I'm sorry you feel you have the right to own a 60mm mortar and high powered assault rifle with depleted uranium armor piercing bullets, but that's not a guaranteed right. So long as you had legal access to getting a musket, your rights are not being violated!

Thanks, and goodnight.

 

[KGB]

Excellent speech! :beer:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got an idea for Al ... in between screeching 'Bush Police State' how about he make a visit to China and examine a REAL police state.

Maybe he can stay there while he's at it.

The only thing we all have to be thankful for is that this traitor never became President.

What an easy term to toss around. Traitor. That could easily apply to Bush. I voted for Bush over Gore. Knowing now what I do, I would change that in a heartbeat. Be thankful it can't happen again, because a large number of people feel just the same. You would probably have lost, and worse, the country just might be better off today. You couldn't stand that.

 

[Harvey]

If Gore had been that forceful and direct when he ran, he may have been elected, and we'd never have been so poorly and illegally mislead by the Bushwhackos.