Who has the right to tell me what i can and cant listen to and BUY! If I have the money, and you are selling the product, as long as we arent talking cigarettes and alcohol, why should it be of any concern how old I am?
I make porn for a living. Would you like me to sell my latest movie to your kid?
Hope not. Because I wouldn't.
I find it kinda ironic that me, the porn producer, sees more use in limiting age-appropriate content to adults than you do.
Is that supposed to be "Oh shit, I just got owned" or is it more like "Oh shut up, facts are silly things and I don't need to have any sort of grasp on reality, facts, chronology, history, or politics to be completely correct about my sweeping and unfounded generalizations?"
So Gore didnt think music and objectionable content was bad in 1992? He changed his opinion and said "my wife was wrong back in 1985 and I was wrong in 1985"?
Lets be clear and not forget he was a sitting politician, whether we are talking 85 or 1992. He was in power.
Yeah and when I think of rational and level headed and honest debate, a sharing of ideas, one person saying an idea, and another sharing another, while being respectful, I definitely dont picture you dear friend Soulsinging.
The fact you defend a politician, any politician says alot about you soulsinging. In my code of ethics and moral, politicians are scum and liars. They lie cheat and steal. Not the group of folk I usually cast my lot with. But if you want to spend your days sucking up to these lowlives, go ahead, hope it works out for ya.
Politics is so stupid. PJ can support whoever they want, but look at what Tester has done. The guy is the same garbage as every other politician. He isnt remotely progressive. And is intolerant.
Clearly, you've never had a wife or serious gf. You don't pick fights you don't need to. Odds are Gore didn't give a flying fuck about the PA sticker going on albums. How is it different from movie ratings?
That said, since we're talking about intolerance, it's rather un-progressive of you to act like Tipper should not say anything without Gore's approval. Fact is, Tipper's her own person. She made that her cause and Al said "have fun dear, I'm going to worry about other problems and stay out of this one." It's not worth publicly battling your wife over something that trivial. If you'd ever had a serious relationship, you might understand the desire to avoid the doghouse.
What evidence do you have that Gore didnt support the work his wife was doing on behalf of censorship?
About the same evidence you have that he would have adopted the same policies Bush did. Must've hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like this... you only had to quote this 4 times to get your tantrum out of your system? I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to mos def. What I do know is there is nothing remotely similar between a first lady running around making racist remarks, and a senator's wife attempting, as a mother, to monitor what her children read and see and listen to.
So answer me this, since you're so invested in the real world outside your door, do you truly believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq if he'd been elected president?
Is that supposed to be "Oh shit, I just got owned" or is it more like "Oh shut up, facts are silly things and I don't need to have any sort of grasp on reality, facts, chronology, history, or politics to be completely correct about my sweeping and unfounded generalizations?"
So Gore didnt think music and objectionable content was bad in 1992? He changed his opinion and said "my wife was wrong back in 1985 and I was wrong in 1985"?
Lets be clear and not forget he was a sitting politician, whether we are talking 85 or 1992. He was in power.
Yeah and when I think of rational and level headed and honest debate, a sharing of ideas, one person saying an idea, and another sharing another, while being respectful, I definitely dont picture you dear friend Soulsinging.
The fact you defend a politician, any politician says alot about you soulsinging. In my code of ethics and moral, politicians are scum and liars. They lie cheat and steal. Not the group of folk I usually cast my lot with. But if you want to spend your days sucking up to these lowlives, go ahead, hope it works out for ya.
Politics is so stupid. PJ can support whoever they want, but look at what Tester has done. The guy is the same garbage as every other politician. He isnt remotely progressive. And is intolerant.
Clearly, you've never had a wife or serious gf. You don't pick fights you don't need to. Odds are Gore didn't give a flying fuck about the PA sticker going on albums. How is it different from movie ratings?
That said, since we're talking about intolerance, it's rather un-progressive of you to act like Tipper should not say anything without Gore's approval. Fact is, Tipper's her own person. She made that her cause and Al said "have fun dear, I'm going to worry about other problems and stay out of this one." It's not worth publicly battling your wife over something that trivial. If you'd ever had a serious relationship, you might understand the desire to avoid the doghouse.
as an elected official his job and duty is to serve the public. I dont hold my breath for gore or obama or anyone to do that, but as a vice president or senator that was his duty. And I personally think alot of people were and are still pissed about censorship.
Censorship? Last I checked, the lyrics were still the same on all albums I buy... they just have a little sticker in the corner so that I don't unwittingly give my 6-year old niece a NIN album and hear her singing about wanting to "fuck you like an animal."
I did check my facts. And maybe you want to check yours friend. The fact I am openly a radical anarchist commie socialist, and have been for years on this board, makes it highly unlikely I would be parroting a single word from the conservative radio crowd. Dont patronize me unless you can get your facts straight.
Sorry dude, there is nothing radical about you. You're as tame and mainstream as any other wannabe college liberal ranting against the man from your computer. You watch mtv, use a computer, whine about "the man" and then sit around your apartment with no job or income and rant about how we should do away with the technology that seems to be the focal point of your life activities.
Who was vouging for Tipper? Who was saying she was correct? If she is the wife of a sitting or was the wife of a sitting vice president and was speaking on policy issues dont you think that what she is doing is being condoned by Al Gore and Bill Clinton? Gore didnt go out and say, "you know, I disagree with my wife's views on music censorship, and believe I have a different way of doing things".
According to transcripts of
" RECORD LABELING
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
The one that took place in 1985? Hmmm, last I checked, Clinton/Gore weren't in the White House until 1992/93...
But hey, I didn't exactly fact check that last sentence.
as opposed to your life soulsinging? Last i checked you werent doing a damn thing, since everytime I post, you are there to respond. I guess it takes a lazy and wannabe person, to know a lazy and wannabe person eh?
I suppose so. I've been doing my damndest to kick back these days. A bit worn out from finishing law school a few weeks ago, resting before I take the bar exam, and enjoying as much downtime as I can get before I start making the big bucks this fall... figure I'm due. How's you job hunt going? Or are you still rationalizing unemployment as some sort of lifestyle choice instead of ineptitude?
Who has the right to tell me what i can and cant listen to and BUY! If I have the money, and you are selling the product, as long as we arent talking cigarettes and alcohol, why should it be of any concern how old I am?
I make porn for a living. Would you like me to sell my latest movie to your kid?
Hope not. Because I wouldn't.
I find it kinda ironic that me, the porn producer, sees more use in limiting age-appropriate content to adults than you do.
I know you're going to think I'm joking, but I may be going into IP law (trademarks and copyrights)... so what would I need to do to make the move to the west coast and get a desk job in the industry? I'd be up for a more active role, but I'm not sure I'm... ah... built for that, hehe.
I know you're going to think I'm joking, but I may be going into IP law (trademarks and copyrights)... so what would I need to do to make the move to the west coast and get a desk job in the industry? I'd be up for a more active role, but I'm not sure I'm... ah... built for that, hehe.
Though I am madly in love with Keri Sable...
No idea.
I went to film school and started as a video editor making DVD menus for a solo male site. I now work for a gay hardcore site. Not a lot of desk jobs for copyright lawyers at studios. They generally don't have lawyers on staff unless they're dealing with piracy or legal stuff like contracts and such.
No idea who Keri Sable is. I stay away from the straight porn industry.. those people are freaks.
I know you're going to think I'm joking, but I may be going into IP law (trademarks and copyrights)... so what would I need to do to make the move to the west coast and get a desk job in the industry? I'd be up for a more active role, but I'm not sure I'm... ah... built for that, hehe.
Though I am madly in love with Keri Sable...
No idea.
I went to film school and started as a video editor making DVD menus for a solo male site. I now work for a gay hardcore site. Not a lot of desk jobs for copyright lawyers at studios. They generally don't have lawyers on staff unless they're dealing with piracy or legal stuff like contracts and such.
That's exactly what I'm looking to do, even if I'm not working directly in their company, I'd love to be their go to counsel. It's one of the few big corporate industries I can get behind
I'll keep Keri to myself. But you're right... some of the stuff in those videos... whoa
wasnt gore, and clinton and all the other democrats saying iraq was a major threat in 2000, and 2001 and even before that?
I mean its a pretty simple exercize folks, pull up some gore speeches from 2000 and pull some up from 2004 or so, and see if they are different, beyond the personal changes one might expect someone to have after 4 years. Did Gores tone change? Was he more pissed off? Did he get more radical and urgent?
What could have been the impetus for such a strong steering to the left? Was it merely that Bush was in office?
Al Gore worked with Madeline Albright, who said that "it was worth it" for 500,000 iraqis to die via U.S. sanctions. I didnt hear gore say that was a horrific thing to say. You know why? Because he believed it.
Gore viewed Iraq as a threat and he like any other concious human being knew that america has vital interests in the middle east.
Until recently, gore has been a fairly mainstream environmentalist. Honestly. Look at some of the solutions offered up at the end of An Inconvenient. They are all things like recycle or buy a hybrid or get new lightbulbs. None are big picture things. Do we honestly think that recycling is the solution to the melting polar icecaps? Even if every single person recycled, and got a hybrid, would bears go back to hibernating, would the salmon not go extinct etc...
Gore is just like all the other people. He identifies a problem, an important problem and offers a solution that allows us conveniently to continue our way of life. We can still build more cars, but just please make them hybrid. We can build more highways, but please dont build over wetlands and dont cut down trees. We can continue to to live our hyper consumerist and capitalist ways, which are inherently antienvironment. Antilife. Antihumanity.
Thats the ironic thing about the whole damn issue. For someone who cares so deeply about the planet, what does Gore think war does to land and animals, to the sea? What does he think those bombs in Bosnia did to the environment there? And he certainly isnt antiwar, so what does he think war does?
Can you honestly say capitalism and life can go hand in hand? Theres no way in hell. Life values...life. And capitalism values the almighty dollar. Moses and his prophets.
Gores refusal to endorse a more radical environmental solution is all the answer one needs to the original question I asked.
Do you value life or dont you. If you start wars and profit from them, I cant think of any definition in the world of "valuing life" that encompasses this. If you bomb some countries but dont bomb others, are you somehow morally superior to the Bush administration? How is any war justifiable?
Its funny, year after year, its "this politician is different, things will change". But things never do change, and we have the same idiots year after year in the white house and the halls of congress and the senate, bowing down to their real masters, no not us, the people who elected them, but corporations and money.
I dont support politicians. They all lie. To believe otherwise if to ignore all of human history
I voted nader in 04 and 08. And supported Kucinich and had hoped nader and ron paul would have teamed up and been a ticket.
That said, I am wise enough to know that to believe any politician is going to come in and make the world a better place is naive in the extreme. I dont believe people should support politicians. I think they should be activists and act of their own accord. Putting faith in a politician to end the war or stop global warming or to save the salmon and polar bears puts the responsibility for those important issues on politicians and the pressure is taken off individuals, normal average folks.
Ive said it a thousand times. Pick an important issue or cause or movement, Women's suffrage, environmental justice, racial equality, issues of war, none of those issues were fought for because some president or senator decided to get with the cause and help out. Quite the opposite, things changed and change because people are pissed off and no one in political office is doing anything.
change has never come from the top down. Presidents didnt think up the montgomery bus boycott. Presidents werent getting their heads beaten in on the Edmund Pettis Bridge demanding civil rights. Presidents werent out there during Vietnam demanding the troops come home. Presidents dont care. Its always been the normal person. The person who will never appear in any textbook or history book that changes things.
amazingly, politicans DO tho. all those activists, and you are right...it IS the communities, the activists, who go out and spread the word, fight for the causes they believe in.....get it going, but bottomline, some politican still has to go in and support it too. and politicans were 'normal people' once upon a time. carolyn mccarthy, was a housewife before she became a congresswoman, and something she personally fought for, and still does, is gun control. i am not endorsing her here, merely using her as an example. activists get it going, but it still takes the cogs in the machinery - our elected officials - to actualy inact said changes, create/repeal/rework laws, etc. even activists are 'working the system'...to push forth the ideals they want to see represented in their government. it's all related.....
wasnt gore, and clinton and all the other democrats saying iraq was a major threat in 2000, and 2001 and even before that?
I mean its a pretty simple exercize folks, pull up some gore speeches from 2000 and pull some up from 2004 or so, and see if they are different, beyond the personal changes one might expect someone to have after 4 years. Did Gores tone change? Was he more pissed off? Did he get more radical and urgent?
No, that's not all you have to do. Because you said Bush and Gore were the same. So proving Gore changed between 2000 and 2004 does nothing to prove that Gore was the same as Bush in 2000. I feel like I'm talking to a kindergartner here. No wonder you can't get a job.
gore was going to be elected in 2000, not 2004. He didnt run in 04, at least not to my knowledge, or if he did, we all know it was kerry who was nominated for the dems. So I dont get what your saying.
Saying Gore changed from 2000 to 2004 makes no difference in my argument. My argument was, Gore and Bush would have attacked iraq and Afghanistan no matter what. And Gore was going to be elected in 2000.
Maybe try your insults again. Pot meet kettle. Try that kindergarten comment again, but this time, look in the mirror and say it.
Gore changed. Still my argument holds. In 2000 Gore would have been elected and would have started wars.
I think schools letting out about now, so you may want to sign up for kindergarten for the fall.
In 2000 gore felt iraq was a threat. What evidence suggest gore would have done nothing? Gore was an is anything but a pacifist. He believes lobbing bombs is justified. Given that, why are we even having this conversation. Gore believes in the use of military power to obtain objectives, thus, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to infer, having said iraq was a threat, he would have used the military to attack iraq as well.
I know its alot of brain power to think these things through soulsinging, but just stay with me...hopefully the logic and facts dont jar you and scare you. I know I have to speak in a slow and deliberate manner as you are going to be entering kindergarten vewy vewy soon little buddy!
My argument was, Gore and Bush would have attacked iraq and Afghanistan no matter what. And Gore was going to be elected in 2000.
Exactly. And you have no proof of that whatsoever. No evidence, not even a lame argument to support it. All you say is that Gore was different by 2004. That doesn't mean a damn thing. It's like saying "he was a butterfly in 04, but a caterpillar in 00, so it's clear that in 2000 it was a bear like the other guy." What sense does that make?
In 2000 gore felt iraq was a threat. What evidence suggest gore would have done nothing? Gore was an is anything but a pacifist. He believes lobbing bombs is justified. Given that, why are we even having this conversation. Gore believes in the use of military power to obtain objectives, thus, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to infer, having said iraq was a threat, he would have used the military to attack iraq as well.
That premise does not lead inevitably to that conclusion. Bush said Iran and Korea were threats... he didn't invade either of them. So just because a given politician calls somebody a threat does not mean we will automatically invade them. Yes, there would have been military action in the wake of 9/11 if Gore had been elected. But there would not have been an Iraq invasion. That was solely Bush's initiative.
I know I have to speak in a slow and deliberate manner as you are going to be entering kindergarten vewy vewy soon little buddy!
Grow up dude. This isn't grade school. I said your REASONING is like a kindergartner's. You aren't going to disprove it by acting like one, only by showing a little bit of intelligent logic in your arguments.
In 2000 gore felt iraq was a threat. What evidence suggest gore would have done nothing? Gore was an is anything but a pacifist. He believes lobbing bombs is justified. Given that, why are we even having this conversation. Gore believes in the use of military power to obtain objectives, thus, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to infer, having said iraq was a threat, he would have used the military to attack iraq as well.
That premise does not lead inevitably to that conclusion. Bush said Iran and Korea were threats... he didn't invade either of them. So just because a given politician calls somebody a threat does not mean we will automatically invade them. Yes, there would have been military action in the wake of 9/11 if Gore had been elected. But there would not have been an Iraq invasion. That was solely Bush's initiative.
In 2000 gore felt iraq was a threat. What evidence suggest gore would have done nothing? Gore was an is anything but a pacifist. He believes lobbing bombs is justified. Given that, why are we even having this conversation. Gore believes in the use of military power to obtain objectives, thus, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to infer, having said iraq was a threat, he would have used the military to attack iraq as well.
That premise does not lead inevitably to that conclusion. Bush said Iran and Korea were threats... he didn't invade either of them. So just because a given politician calls somebody a threat does not mean we will automatically invade them. Yes, there would have been military action in the wake of 9/11 if Gore had been elected. But there would not have been an Iraq invasion. That was solely Bush's initiative.
Bush's initiative along with the countless democrats in the house and senate who voted with the president in authorizing the invasion of iraq, as well as the continued funding of it, that remains to this day.
Bush is a big reason why we have the iraq war, but it wouldnt have been possibly without the help of the incompetent Reid and Pelousy. Or the multitude of democrats who were caught on tape for all eternity, saying that iraq and saddam were threats. Or the multitude of democrats who knew torture was going on, and did nothing to stop it. Or the democrats who whined and whined and whined in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and said "we cant end the war because we arent in power". The we they came to power in 2006 and 2009 they have completely squandered it and done absolutely nothing to end the war.
Bush went to war because he had the verbal and nonverbal support of democrats who were too wimpy and scared of being antipatriotic and antiamerican to stand up and say "hell no we wont fund this war".
Gore viewed Iraq as a threat. Its a fact. He also viewed Bosnia as a threat, or clinton did, and clinton used military force there. Gore wasnt running in 2000 on some "lets put flowers in the barrels of guns" platform. He was strong on defense. He wasnt in the debates talking about reducing military spending.
To believe Gore wouldnt have started a war with Iraq is to believe the democrats and republicans are different parties. That they are funded by different corporations. That the democrats dont cower in the face of adversity or hardship and that they as opposed to the republicans are interested in the wellbeing of average people.
I wish it were the truth, but somehow, I dont believe thats true.
The fact is, there has never been a major politician who has run for president who has challenged the basic idea of expansion. Never been a presidential pick from either party who has run on the idea that we should drastically cut the military budget.
bottomline, gore DIDN'T get the white house, the presidency....so truly, wtf difference does it make what you or i or anyone think he *would* have done....b/c he didn't, and he couldn't..... so there is NO real, definitive proof of what he MIGHT have done in any case...and we are left with bushy's legacy.......
Gore viewed Iraq as a threat. Its a fact. He also viewed Bosnia as a threat, or clinton did, and clinton used military force there. Gore wasnt running in 2000 on some "lets put flowers in the barrels of guns" platform. He was strong on defense. He wasnt in the debates talking about reducing military spending.
To believe Gore wouldnt have started a war with Iraq is to believe the democrats and republicans are different parties. That they are funded by different corporations. That the democrats dont cower in the face of adversity or hardship and that they as opposed to the republicans are interested in the wellbeing of average people.
No, Gore wasn't running on a pacifist platform. No American president ever has. But once again, that does nothing to indicate he would have invaded Iraq... an initiative entirely conceived of by Bush/Cheney, sold by Powell, and then jammed through Congress. Yeah, everyone else went along with it, but it was entirely a plan hatched by Bush and his admin. And there's absolutely nothing to support your contention that Gore would have undertaken the same initiative.
All you have is your theories about party buying, which isn't even accurate. It's quite clear that some industries and corporations prefer one party to the other. CEO's prefer republicans, labor prefers democrats. Defense likes republicans, schools and pharmaceuticals love democrats. And no doubt, these elected officials favor the special interests that fund them. I agree that neither party is particularly concerned with the well-being of average Americans. But that does not mean they are identical and that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. There's no reason whatsoever to think he would have. We'd probably still be in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We'd never have gone if not for Dubya.
Comments
I make porn for a living. Would you like me to sell my latest movie to your kid?
Hope not. Because I wouldn't.
I find it kinda ironic that me, the porn producer, sees more use in limiting age-appropriate content to adults than you do.
Hey, if you're hot I put you in a movie. We're always casting for our straight line.
ha.
**thinks and wonders how cool it would to be in a porn movie**
About the same evidence you have that he would have adopted the same policies Bush did. Must've hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like this... you only had to quote this 4 times to get your tantrum out of your system? I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to mos def. What I do know is there is nothing remotely similar between a first lady running around making racist remarks, and a senator's wife attempting, as a mother, to monitor what her children read and see and listen to.
So answer me this, since you're so invested in the real world outside your door, do you truly believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq if he'd been elected president?
Censorship? Last I checked, the lyrics were still the same on all albums I buy... they just have a little sticker in the corner so that I don't unwittingly give my 6-year old niece a NIN album and hear her singing about wanting to "fuck you like an animal."
I suppose so. I've been doing my damndest to kick back these days. A bit worn out from finishing law school a few weeks ago, resting before I take the bar exam, and enjoying as much downtime as I can get before I start making the big bucks this fall... figure I'm due. How's you job hunt going? Or are you still rationalizing unemployment as some sort of lifestyle choice instead of ineptitude?
I know you're going to think I'm joking, but I may be going into IP law (trademarks and copyrights)... so what would I need to do to make the move to the west coast and get a desk job in the industry? I'd be up for a more active role, but I'm not sure I'm... ah... built for that, hehe.
Though I am madly in love with Keri Sable...
No idea.
I went to film school and started as a video editor making DVD menus for a solo male site. I now work for a gay hardcore site. Not a lot of desk jobs for copyright lawyers at studios. They generally don't have lawyers on staff unless they're dealing with piracy or legal stuff like contracts and such.
No idea who Keri Sable is. I stay away from the straight porn industry.. those people are freaks.
(Sorry for the thread hijack)
That's exactly what I'm looking to do, even if I'm not working directly in their company, I'd love to be their go to counsel. It's one of the few big corporate industries I can get behind
I'll keep Keri to myself. But you're right... some of the stuff in those videos... whoa
I mean its a pretty simple exercize folks, pull up some gore speeches from 2000 and pull some up from 2004 or so, and see if they are different, beyond the personal changes one might expect someone to have after 4 years. Did Gores tone change? Was he more pissed off? Did he get more radical and urgent?
What could have been the impetus for such a strong steering to the left? Was it merely that Bush was in office?
Al Gore worked with Madeline Albright, who said that "it was worth it" for 500,000 iraqis to die via U.S. sanctions. I didnt hear gore say that was a horrific thing to say. You know why? Because he believed it.
Gore viewed Iraq as a threat and he like any other concious human being knew that america has vital interests in the middle east.
Until recently, gore has been a fairly mainstream environmentalist. Honestly. Look at some of the solutions offered up at the end of An Inconvenient. They are all things like recycle or buy a hybrid or get new lightbulbs. None are big picture things. Do we honestly think that recycling is the solution to the melting polar icecaps? Even if every single person recycled, and got a hybrid, would bears go back to hibernating, would the salmon not go extinct etc...
Gore is just like all the other people. He identifies a problem, an important problem and offers a solution that allows us conveniently to continue our way of life. We can still build more cars, but just please make them hybrid. We can build more highways, but please dont build over wetlands and dont cut down trees. We can continue to to live our hyper consumerist and capitalist ways, which are inherently antienvironment. Antilife. Antihumanity.
Thats the ironic thing about the whole damn issue. For someone who cares so deeply about the planet, what does Gore think war does to land and animals, to the sea? What does he think those bombs in Bosnia did to the environment there? And he certainly isnt antiwar, so what does he think war does?
Gores refusal to endorse a more radical environmental solution is all the answer one needs to the original question I asked.
Do you value life or dont you. If you start wars and profit from them, I cant think of any definition in the world of "valuing life" that encompasses this. If you bomb some countries but dont bomb others, are you somehow morally superior to the Bush administration? How is any war justifiable?
Its funny, year after year, its "this politician is different, things will change". But things never do change, and we have the same idiots year after year in the white house and the halls of congress and the senate, bowing down to their real masters, no not us, the people who elected them, but corporations and money.
I dont support politicians. They all lie. To believe otherwise if to ignore all of human history
That said, I am wise enough to know that to believe any politician is going to come in and make the world a better place is naive in the extreme. I dont believe people should support politicians. I think they should be activists and act of their own accord. Putting faith in a politician to end the war or stop global warming or to save the salmon and polar bears puts the responsibility for those important issues on politicians and the pressure is taken off individuals, normal average folks.
Ive said it a thousand times. Pick an important issue or cause or movement, Women's suffrage, environmental justice, racial equality, issues of war, none of those issues were fought for because some president or senator decided to get with the cause and help out. Quite the opposite, things changed and change because people are pissed off and no one in political office is doing anything.
change has never come from the top down. Presidents didnt think up the montgomery bus boycott. Presidents werent getting their heads beaten in on the Edmund Pettis Bridge demanding civil rights. Presidents werent out there during Vietnam demanding the troops come home. Presidents dont care. Its always been the normal person. The person who will never appear in any textbook or history book that changes things.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No, that's not all you have to do. Because you said Bush and Gore were the same. So proving Gore changed between 2000 and 2004 does nothing to prove that Gore was the same as Bush in 2000. I feel like I'm talking to a kindergartner here. No wonder you can't get a job.
Saying Gore changed from 2000 to 2004 makes no difference in my argument. My argument was, Gore and Bush would have attacked iraq and Afghanistan no matter what. And Gore was going to be elected in 2000.
Maybe try your insults again. Pot meet kettle. Try that kindergarten comment again, but this time, look in the mirror and say it.
Gore changed. Still my argument holds. In 2000 Gore would have been elected and would have started wars.
I think schools letting out about now, so you may want to sign up for kindergarten for the fall.
I know its alot of brain power to think these things through soulsinging, but just stay with me...hopefully the logic and facts dont jar you and scare you. I know I have to speak in a slow and deliberate manner as you are going to be entering kindergarten vewy vewy soon little buddy!
Exactly. And you have no proof of that whatsoever. No evidence, not even a lame argument to support it. All you say is that Gore was different by 2004. That doesn't mean a damn thing. It's like saying "he was a butterfly in 04, but a caterpillar in 00, so it's clear that in 2000 it was a bear like the other guy." What sense does that make?
That premise does not lead inevitably to that conclusion. Bush said Iran and Korea were threats... he didn't invade either of them. So just because a given politician calls somebody a threat does not mean we will automatically invade them. Yes, there would have been military action in the wake of 9/11 if Gore had been elected. But there would not have been an Iraq invasion. That was solely Bush's initiative.
Grow up dude. This isn't grade school. I said your REASONING is like a kindergartner's. You aren't going to disprove it by acting like one, only by showing a little bit of intelligent logic in your arguments.
/end discussion
Bush's initiative along with the countless democrats in the house and senate who voted with the president in authorizing the invasion of iraq, as well as the continued funding of it, that remains to this day.
Bush is a big reason why we have the iraq war, but it wouldnt have been possibly without the help of the incompetent Reid and Pelousy. Or the multitude of democrats who were caught on tape for all eternity, saying that iraq and saddam were threats. Or the multitude of democrats who knew torture was going on, and did nothing to stop it. Or the democrats who whined and whined and whined in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and said "we cant end the war because we arent in power". The we they came to power in 2006 and 2009 they have completely squandered it and done absolutely nothing to end the war.
Bush went to war because he had the verbal and nonverbal support of democrats who were too wimpy and scared of being antipatriotic and antiamerican to stand up and say "hell no we wont fund this war".
Gore viewed Iraq as a threat. Its a fact. He also viewed Bosnia as a threat, or clinton did, and clinton used military force there. Gore wasnt running in 2000 on some "lets put flowers in the barrels of guns" platform. He was strong on defense. He wasnt in the debates talking about reducing military spending.
To believe Gore wouldnt have started a war with Iraq is to believe the democrats and republicans are different parties. That they are funded by different corporations. That the democrats dont cower in the face of adversity or hardship and that they as opposed to the republicans are interested in the wellbeing of average people.
I wish it were the truth, but somehow, I dont believe thats true.
The fact is, there has never been a major politician who has run for president who has challenged the basic idea of expansion. Never been a presidential pick from either party who has run on the idea that we should drastically cut the military budget.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No, Gore wasn't running on a pacifist platform. No American president ever has. But once again, that does nothing to indicate he would have invaded Iraq... an initiative entirely conceived of by Bush/Cheney, sold by Powell, and then jammed through Congress. Yeah, everyone else went along with it, but it was entirely a plan hatched by Bush and his admin. And there's absolutely nothing to support your contention that Gore would have undertaken the same initiative.
All you have is your theories about party buying, which isn't even accurate. It's quite clear that some industries and corporations prefer one party to the other. CEO's prefer republicans, labor prefers democrats. Defense likes republicans, schools and pharmaceuticals love democrats. And no doubt, these elected officials favor the special interests that fund them. I agree that neither party is particularly concerned with the well-being of average Americans. But that does not mean they are identical and that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. There's no reason whatsoever to think he would have. We'd probably still be in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. We'd never have gone if not for Dubya.