Is Al Gore a traitor or has he simply lost his mind?

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Speaking frankly about the damage already done probably helps our image. He certainly certainly did better than anybody officially in charge. I imagine "the left" is not the only group in the Western world tired of the garbage about these things coming from official channels.

Al lied and exaggerated (what a surprise). Do you really think he helped our image?? Give me a break.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I don't know what you do for a living Joe, but you would make a wonderful spin doctor. Send a resume to Scotty.

No spin here. Only the truth.

 

[cardaway]

Dawn thinks he is a treasonous nut case and this discussion has provided good conversation for a few days now.

Too bad you haven't supported the treasonous part with anything solid during that time.

Maybe someday soon this fiasco will really hit home and you'll have to think harder about things and not throw around words you can't back up.

This support it or you're a traitor stuff is the sickest thing I've seen in my life. Much worse than anything that happened in the 'nam era.

 

[VSL]

Ahh.. why don't I subscribe to these threads sooner?

And we have taken more positive action (in deeds and financial aid) that any country in the world.

If this is true, I'd venture to say that, proprtionate to the countries' populations, other countries have given more aid.

The US is a very large place. To compare, the UK is miniscule(sp?) in comparison. I would honestly venture to say that, comparatively, we have given an equal (if not greater) amount to aid other countries.

Of course, that really doesn't matter. All that matters is that we do out bit and not get all high and mighty about it

 

[DisDuck]

Dawn... I did not want to read thru all the pages on this thread as I am sure the theme of page 1 carries thru. I am about 3/4 of the way thru reading The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison & Jay. The speech Al Gore gave is in the best tradition of our Founding Fathers. The central theme in these papers is that the PEOPLE are the best check on government. And people includes former members of that government. I just concluded reading one of the papers on the Executive Branch and its point was that the President as Chief Magistrate of the 'Union' was not like the British Monarch. The president CANNOT DECLARE WAR. While the office is commander in chief it has been explicitly left to congress the POWER TO DECLARE WAR. Legally, the 'use of force' resolution was not a Constitutional Declaration of War. So to say that certain nicities should be observed is based on a false pretense. In fact it is at times like these that our Founding Fathers believed the ability to speak out 'against' needs more not less protection if our liberty is to be preserved. Furthermore, Dawn when is this so-called 'war' going to end? Is this going to be a Hundred Year War like in England or a Thirty Year War like in Europe? Is it going to last until every single 'terrorist' has been killed or captured? Then it will never end.

I recommend everyone to read The Federalist Papers. It is very enlightening on the ways and wherefores of The Constitution.

 

[dcentity2000]

And we have taken more positive action (in deeds and financial aid) that any country in the world.

Not the EU

But then again, we're sub human scum who like the UN and would have preferred not to have a war against Iraq. Oh, and we all take bribes, especially me

Good grief - so blinded by fear and anger that you still think a good Government is one that declares war on the wrong places and then proceeds to make a mess of it!



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

No spin here. Only the truth.

WMDs, anyone?



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Then why are we even having this discussion?

Some people don't like freedom of speech.

aybe we should lock him up without trial and torture him for harbouring different and therefore terrorist opinions



Rich::

 

[Charade]

Some people don't like freedom of speech.


Rich::

There is no such thing as absolute free speech. Sure, you *can* say anything you want but that may not actually be "free".

Can you say anything you want in your home country without ANY consequences?

I doubt it.

The point *I* was trying to make is that while "free" speech is a nice thing, people should look at the situation to see if what they are about to say is appropriate.

Would you ask a grieving widow (of course a young HOT one) at her husband's funeral is she would go out on a date Saturday since it's pretty obvious she's available?

 

[dcentity2000]

There is no such thing as absolute free speech. Sure, you *can* say anything you want but that may not actually be "free".

Can you say anything you want in your home country without ANY consequences?

I doubt it.

The point *I* was trying to make is that while "free" speech is a nice thing, people should look at the situation to see if what they are about to say is appropriate.

Would you ask a grieving widow (of course a young HOT one) at her husband's funeral is she would go out on a date Saturday since it's pretty obvious she's available?

Totally agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Another example would be choosing to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded supermarket.

However, freedom of speech operates for the majority. I guess the parameters would have to be based on taste, but sadly this is subjective.



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

Maybe someday soon this fiasco will really hit home and you'll have to think harder about things and not throw around words you can't back up.

.

Could you elaborate???

 

[DawnCt1]

So to say that certain nicities should be observed is based on a false pretense. In fact it is at times like these that our Founding Fathers believed the ability to speak out 'against' needs more not less protection if our liberty is to be preserved. .

Speaking out in one's one country, within one's own shores can be seen by some of the misquided as an attempt to effect change. Dialing for Dollars in Saudi Arabia in front of a paying audience spouting lies and half truths says more about Al than about America.

 

[LakeAriel]

Tsk Tsk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4757866.stm

Gee, guess it is true. Shocking!

 

[dcentity2000]

Speaking out in one's one country, within one's own shores can be seen by some of the misquided as an attempt to effect change. Dialing for Dollars in Saudi Arabia in front of a paying audience spouting lies and half truths says more about Al than about America.

Freedom of speech operates anywhere in the civilised world. Simply not agreeing with the content does not make the speaker a terrorist, or a traitor, or a banana.

Sorry - it's called civilisation.



Rich::

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Freedom of speech operates anywhere in the civilised world. Simply not agreeing with the content does not make the speaker a terrorist, or a traitor, or a banana.

Sorry - it's called civilisation.



Rich::

Good, I hope next time Al says something civilized, instead of lies and half-truths.

 

[dcentity2000]

Good, I hope next time Bush says something civilized, instead of lies and half-truths.

Fixed.



Rich::

 

[LuvDuke]

Fixed.

Rich::

Good grief ..................

 

[Charade]

Tsk Tsk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4757866.stm

Gee, guess it is true. Shocking!

(she says gleefully...)

This is one case. And there were 70 others with unknown outcomes at this point. Widespread? Not IMO. Do you believe all of the alledged accusations claimed by the muslim man?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that it happened but I'm not about to lay claim that the US is the vast evil place that many (including Al Gore) believe. Were mistakes made? Yes. They don't always get it right.

But sometimes they do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4465240.stm

 

[Charade]

Freedom of speech operates anywhere in the civilized world. Simply not agreeing with the content does not make the speaker a terrorist, or a traitor, or a banana.

Sorry - it's called civilization.



Rich::

No, it doesn't. Freedom of speech is determined by the laws of the country you're in. Does this mean that you believe that countries in the middle east are civilized?

I wonder if the citizens (subjects???) of Saudi Arabia have the same freedom of speech as Al Gore does there. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[dcentity2000]

No, it doesn't. Freedom of speech is determined by the laws of the country you're in. Does this mean that you believe that countries in the middle east are civilized?

I wonder if the citizens (subjects???) of Saudi Arabia have the same freedom of speech as Al Gore does there. Somehow I doubt it.

Good point. I guess I'll amend it to "free speech SHOULD operate in the civilised world."

However, there are instances where it shouldn't. Shouting "BOMB" in a 747 mid flight is one such example.



Rich::