Wow! This could be quite interesting.
No link because I heard it from Former-President Clinton on the Young Turks show on Air America. (Doesn't count as gossip if it's said during/after an real interview with President Carter himself.)
Apparently, Former-President Carter has been nagging Al GOre to run for the Presidency again. He pushed Gore to run in 04 but Gore opted not to. And he's still nagging Gore to run in 08 too.
This could be interesting now that Bush and the Neocons have done their worst to him. And yet right now, Gore has a higher approval rating then they do! And his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as many recent policy speeches have been reviving his political capital. And after the lies and incompetence of these Republicans, and the positive vibes since 04, is it possible for Al Gore to rev up a campaign and overcome the (at the time effective) smears from 2000?
More people are wiser to the ways of the media. And we've had a nice healthy dose of compassionate-conservatism--some might call it a vaccination. One of those vaccinations that leaves you holed up in bed for a few days, wondering what teh REAL thing is like if this one affected you this badlyAnd we've experienced the affects of REAL LIES and the LIARS who tell them. Makes so- called "exagerations" seem like nothing now, doesn't it?
And with the support of Carter, a respected Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore has many reasons to throw his hat in the race.
But will he?
I sort of hope he will... IT would be nice to have an office where experience doesnt mean "well, i ran that compnay into the GROUND when i owned it" or refer to "experienced drinker". Imagine! Someone in our highest public office who actually KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING!
One things for sure...He won't be picking Lieberman to run as VP again... I think the netroots would revolt.
Hm... Gore may be applauded for "an inconvenient truth", but I think there are better candidates than him out there.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
confrontational.)
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
First I need to clarify that I'm not really a politically minded person--it's definitely not my area of expertise, and frankly I don't know that much about it--it's just I personally am not a big Gore fan. I have heard, however, that Obama, Hilary Clinton, and that one guy from Ohio (who just announced his candidacy...today I think?) are all pretty good choices.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
You just don't like Gore. Any particular reason? Or just what you've heard from the mainstream media? You say you also heard about other candidates that are good choices, but it doesn't sound like you've actually looked into to know for yourself but are simply willing to go on what you've heard. And yet, admiting that you don't know much about politics, you went ahead and made a strong statement involving whose a good political candidate.
This doesn't seem very reasonable to make the first statement. Nor does your second statement sound any more reasonable than the first.
Citizen Press Revolution
and they vote on 'vibes' as opposed to a voting record or ideaolgy record.
That's why the media portrayed bush as a "guy you could have a beer with' (though I personlly would have portrayed him as the town bully.)
And it's why they portrayed kerry's windsurfing as 'elitist' which was an incorrect philosophy anyways since windboards are relatively cheap as far as hobbies go.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
Just because I'm not a politically minded person doesn't mean I'm going to vote based on "vibes" or media presentation. I will be able to vote for the first time in the next presidential election and I intend to do my homework, so I can make an informed decision. That decision probably won't agree with yours, but that doesn't make it any less of a legitimate opinion if I have good reasons for it.
The reason I don't like Kerry is because he's pro abortion and yet calls himself a Catholic. I'm a Catholic, and that's something I have a very strong opinion on. The reason I don't like Bush, although I'd rather have him than Kerry, is because of the way he's handled the war in Iraq since it started.
And I really, really, don't like political campaigns, because of the mudslinging and ways they portray people. Probably most of the American population isn't capable or doesn't care enough to understand the facts of the issues, but I for one would be much happier if they just told us the candidate's stance on an issue, maybe a few of their character strengths, and left it at that. Instead, it's all about some false image. And if I've hesitated to really research my politics so far, it's because the whole idea just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like honesty too much to be enamored of politics and politicians.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
I actually hadn't meant to refer to you for the "vibes" comment. Clearly you're here on this website and soaking in what it has to offer.
By the 'vibes" comment I was referring to those who don't try to learn about candidates or those who don't pay attention to any news outside the latest Britney scandal.
However, regarding your Catholic thing, you can be both Catholic and pro-choice and anti-abortion. Kerry stated quite plainly that he has taught his own children not to chose abortion but that he does not have the right to go into other peoples' bedrooms or other peoples' bodies and tell them what to do. He made it quite plain: it's a discussion between the woman, her boyfriend or husband, her family, her doctor, or her confidants.
However, even without that wedge issue, Kerry is more pro-life in his actions. Fighting to bring troops home even though he was going to get smeared by the other side. Or fighting to help elderly get their prescriptions. Fighting to get roofs over the heads of our returning soldiers. Fighting to provide medical care for those same returning Veterans. Fighting for better healthcare for kids and adults. Fighting to improve our education. And fighting to keep jobs here so that we who live in America can actually LIVE a comfortable life instead of a life on the streets.
Regardless, John Kerry wears his religion in his heart and in his own pocket where he carries a small Bible with him at all times. He doesn' t need to brag about it though, because he lives what Jesus preached: feed the poor, take care of the sick....
Now regarding Bush and the way he's handled the war in Iraq since he started it...well, I'm wondering what you find to approve of. You approve of sending troops with broken down equipment? You agree with sending troops to fight without Kevlar Helmets or proper body armor? You approve of failing to provide blood-clotting bandages to the soldiers in the field--where they then bleed to death when it could have saved their life? You agree with grandstanding on a ship "Mission Accomplished" more than 2500 deaths ago? You agree with Civil War? You agree with torture? You agree with approving the rape of little children in front of their parents so that they can garner a confession --- any confession, real or imagined?
You're right, VOR, you and I will never see eye to eye.
Because in my eyes, Kerry is a better Catholic because of what he does, and Bush does the opposite of any thing Jesus would do. Who would Jesus torture? Who would Jesus rape? Who would Jesus shoot with depleted-uranium?
Sorry...on this, we'll never see eye to eye.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
Wait, wait, wait--I said I don't like Bush because of the way he's handled Iraq!! I will support our troops ardently as long as they're over there, not the least because half my family is, but I do not agree with Bush's policy. I differ from others who disagree with him because I can't hate Bush himself--I think he's trying his best, and really I feel sorry for him. But I don't agree with his policies and he has made a royal mess of things.
As for the Kerry/Catholic thing... I personally am walking on thin ice here because I'm not entirely sure whether I'm a "true" Catholic or a "cafeteria" Catholic, picking and choosing among the Church's teachings, but that's just my personal dilemna. Even with that, I think because the Church has said the Catholic stance is to be pro-life, and Kerry chooses not to support unborn baby's right to life, I just can't support him. Not for disagreeing with the Church, let me emphasize, but because this is one of those issues I think it's terrible to ride the fence on like that. If it's wrong, we need to stop it, and you can't say, well I personally am not a murderer but I won't stand in the way of someone else who is. (And I know, people say abortion isn't muder, etc, etc, but that is how I see it, and I think the analogy applies.)
I'm no fan of Jonathan Sarfati, but I do have to agree with one thing he said. He said, (and I paraphrase,) with all these people who are pro-life but say, well I can't interfere with another's right to choice, I'd like to see a pro-choice person say, well I'm pro-choice but I can't interfere with an unborn baby's right to life.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
I'm so sorry!
Oh, so regarding the Catholic thing, the pope says birthcontrol is wrong; yet many catholics still opt to use it. As a person who knows numerous Catholic families with 12 kids, I can tell you that they don't use birthcontrol But I know Catholics with 2-4 kids who have. That's a smorgasborg (sp) of Catholic theology to accept.
Now regarding the life- or murder thing, most people who call themselves 'pro-choice' don't call it murder if the embrioyo is unsustainable outside the body. Hense, the first 3 months it's not sustainable--much like a virus--outside a women's womb. That's why you see the difference there.
HOWEVER, most pro-choicers would also agree that 'late-term abortions' should ONLY be because the mother's health is at risk or the fetus is severly deformed.
I know many women who opted to keep the child to term even though they knew it would die withing days of birth. I know few who had an abortion. I however know too many who simply had a still birth.
Sorry about misreading the word. I apologize greatly!!!!
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
Just so long as we're clear now. :)
In all honesty, I hadn't heard that argument before, at least not that I remember--that it's not life because it's not sustainable outside the body... So now life is a virus? That makes me sick. An infant's life isn't sustainable outside family care--does that mean the infant isn't alive? You can't say it's not life just because it's not old enough to "look" like it. If it's not life before that, then what is it? Something dead? Something non-human? Then when does it beocme life? If you take away growth of a "something" that, exceptional circumstnaces aside, would become a living breathing human being, it's murder, just as sure as murdering the born baby.
Yes, the birth control issue, that's the best example of "cafeteria Catholics" I think, but, like I said, still working through my own opinion on that. Excluding the morning after pill, which I really am not prepared to comment on right now, I think birth control is okay. Does that make me a bad Catholic? I don't think so, because using a condom isn't murder. It's the same as not having sex at all--no life is made. I think the Church's stance, or part of it, is that such birth control encourages premarital sex and such, but I think the people who came up with that argument are out of touch. People are going to do that anyway.
But I digress. Thanks for the insight about that particular pro-choice argument; give me something new to think about.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
The difference being that it's also a bunch of cells and can not breathe on its own or have it's cells multiply on its own. I probably said it poorly. But regardless, the argument is usually based on when people think life begins. Some say at conception. Others say when it can breathe or survive outside the womb. Nobody is implying that an infant is a virus because obviously once outside the womb we all consider it a life.
But yep...that's why the whole issue will never be seen the same by all. Because people don't all agree on when life begins. After birth...or at conception.
Personally, I'm fairly on the side that would like to limit abortions as much as possible. But I would never force a rape victim to give birth. Or I'd never agree to late term abortions. I would never approve of people getting abortions instead of using birth control. But I feel strongly that sex education and pregnancy prevention is the way to go to prevent abortion. Also, when you have a strong economy, jobs, and healthcare then more women are not likely to have abortions (as proven by statistics alone: during the 2 Clinton terms when they taught sex-ed and had a good economy the abortion was less than 1/2 of either Bush term.)
Anyways, thanks for being understanding about the one word missing. I have a bad eye that sometimes flakes out on me. So I missed it that time.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
Yeah... now that I think about it... It wasn't phrased badly, just uniquely. I'd never heard it put quite that way before. Just--"it's not alive."
I can understand why people think rape victims should be allowed to have abortions, but to me it's not fair to kill the innocent child for the crime of the father. There's a wonderful book on the subject, fiction, but it really analyzes every detail, a rape victim trying to decide whether or not to have an abortion: The Atonement Child. Maybe you've heard of it? I think it's a great read no matter what you're opinion on abortion.
I also think sex education is a great tool to preventing abortions, or early/unwanted pregnancy at all in fact. People often have issues with abstinence education, but when done properly, I think it's quite useful, and effective. Although I guess what most people don't realize is one program or method isn't going to work for everyone. Taking an abstinence course to certain kinds of people and asking them to accept it isn't going to work. You have to teach according to your audience.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
rape victims. And if the victim doesn't want the 9 months of additional H*ll then I believe it should totally be up to her. Rape in itself leaves long term traumas and the pregnancy would be a continuation of it. On rape specifically, my opinion is that absolutely no blame should be placed on the woman for whatever choice she makes. She's lost her initial choice when raped, it's a complete violation of her soul as well as her body, and as such, any repercussions from the rapist's sperm meeting the egg should have nothing to do with other peoples' opinions.
With regards to sex ed, I believe it should be looked at like a toolbox. All of it belongs: abstinence, condoms, bc pills, and yes, even RU2286 (or whatever the number is) because even that pill doesn't mean the embryo is even implanted. It prevents implantation. And nobody knows if the sperm has even 'met' the egg.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
I don't believe a woman has the right to kill her child. What I can't understand is people who say abortions are wrong in every circumstance except rape--somehow it's then okay to commit a murder, just because the child is the product of a crime? If I were raped, I would keep the child. End of story. I would be grealty traumatized, yes, and would go to great lengths to bring my attacker to justice, but I would let the child be born. For women who don't want to keep the child, there's always adoption, after that, and if the woman doesn't have any family to support her, she should have friends, and there are organizations to help women who have nowhere else to turn.
I agree, in part; they should teach about condoms and everything else, including absintence, in sex ed class. On the other hand, I haven't worked out what I think about pills that are being debated, over whether or not it's abortion or preventing conception altogether... So I don't know about those yet. But as for the rest, yes, it needs to be in there--provided it's emphasized condoms and such are not 100% proof. I've heard the statistics to back it up, and seen it happen to my friends. And they were always so shocked. "But we used protection!" Wakeup call, the condom companies lie to you...
Edit: I would reccomend that book though; it's excellent.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
child.
Others call it a fertilized egg.
And having known rape victims, I think the choice should be theirs. And if they don't think of it as a child then it's thier choice.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
While I haven't known any rape victims--correction, rape victims who were impregnated by the crime--I do know girls who have gotten pregnant "accidentally", and were quite freaked out, etc; and I still argued fiercely against them getting abortions.
I think the logic that says 'if they don't think it's a child then they should be allowed to get an abortion' is the same logic that could be used to defend any kind of crime. Well, he didn't see it as a crime, so we can't punish him...
My question to the pro-choicers who call the unborn baby a "fertilized egg" is, well, then what is a "fertilized egg"? What is "embryo" or "zygote" or "fetus" but the name for a stage of development of a growing human child? Where does life begin? When it looks like a baby? When it's born? Either life begins at conception or it never begins at all.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
I would advice a teenage girl or young adult to adopt through an open adoption situation. (If they can handle that.)
A rape victim who was impregnated, I would advise them to think of adoption over abortion. But if she chose abortion she would get my support 100%.
"Who Would Jesus Torture?" I came up with that on an Oct 5 protest sign.
And I thought I was alone in my genius. ;-)
No!!
Citizen Press Revolution
No, I don't have any particularly amazing reasons for my opinions--yet. I am in the process of looking into what politicians I might like and why, and even those I won't like. I'm not "willing" to just "go on what I've heard." That's a place for me to start. I will never be even an amateur political expert, knowing all about all kinds of political topics, but then that's not who I want to be.
I was offering a tentative opinion based on a tentative exploration into politics. Yes, I will have reasons, later on, when I've done some more research. No I don't right now, because frankly I have other priorities, so yes, I will rely on expert opinion to an extent. (And yes that's 'expert', as in more reliable people, from published sources, as opposed to some random person off the street.) Maybe I could have been more clear in my first statement, but I don't appreciate the implication that I'm the kind of person I've always had a problem with--someone who will just blindly repeat what others have said without even the intent of making an intelligent decision for themselves.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
I think the best possible canidate for democratic nomination would be Joe LIberman. As shown in his home state he is very popular because he stands by his words. Though he is a very moderate democrat, this would give him a broarder inteest and voter base. I will admit normally I would vote republican, but if he ran, I would vote for him, just because he stands for what he stands for.
Lieberman isn't a moderate democrat. He isn't a democrat at all.
He finally fessed up to the truth and declared himself a Independent and is considering joining the Republican Party.
Its great for someone to stand by his words, but that doesn't mean squat since he also happens to be an idiot.
Because he stands for what he stands for is a reason to vote? Hogwash. Complete and utter incompetent morons stand for what they stand for too. This type of thinking, I am sorry, is ridicilous. You should vote for someone for more than just standing by their words, regardless of what words they may be, especially if what they are standing for is idiotic.
Citizen Press Revolution
First. Liberman was forced to join the independent party because denocrats kicked him off the ballot. Second, its stupid to vote for someone who just says good things, and looks good. If you vote for what a politician says he going to do, and not what he has done, you need to rethink that. By standing by his word, Liberman, showed to be a strong person. In order for a person to be a strong leader, you must first have a strong resolve. So by standing by his word, he is showing the neccesary trait for being a great leader. And what evidence do you have that says he is an idiot? Do you have his high school transcripts, college transcripts, or and I.Q. test for him? A person is not an idiot because he simply stands by his word or against what you think. In fact I like that trait in any politician that I vote for.
So your saying is that we shouldn't stand by our words, and become a lying coutry. Purgery is okay, you are a moron if you tell the truth. You are a moron if you say your against gun rights, and don't own any guns. You are a moron if you are for aborition, and attend a rally for abortion in Washington.
Your last comments though are complete opinion "This type of thinking, I am sorry, is ridicilous. You should vote for someone for more than just standing by their words, regardless of what words they may be, especially if what they are standing for is idiotic." Basically what your saying is, is that we shouldn't vote for anyone because they tell the truth. But rather vote for someone who sounds good, and looks good.
I think you should vote for a canidate because he stands for what he stands for. In other words his votes in congress or on legislation, showing that he tells the truth, and stands up for what he is for. No matter the opposition. But that's my opinion.
If what someone stands by their words but what they stand for isn't great or what you really agree with, you shouldn't vote for them solely because they stand by their words.
Now, if you are saying that lying is unacceptable in our country and that our politicians should stand for what they say they will do, you must have a lot of qualms with President Bush. Bush said many. many times that Rumsfeld would not resign and would be around until Bush left office. Bush, in fact, literally said this a week before Rumsfeld resigned.
Bush again once said that the capture of Osama bin Laden was the natrion's top priority in one speech and later said that Osama bin Laden wasn't a priority, that he didn't know where he was, and didn't frankly care. And then later, when elections began nearing around, suddenly Osama bin Laden is the center priority in Bush's speech again.
Back to the subject, I don't see Lieberman's annoucement as an independent to be a sign of character, but a sign testified by his voting record under Republican domination, that he will accomodate and change to fit with the current powers on top.
Lieberman's true colors of morality and leadership are questionable. He has been a stern opponent of cleaning up Washington D.C. In 1995, Lieberman opposed a gift ban on lobbyists, as well as a limit on gifts of $100, and also another bill against using campaign funds for personal purposes. Any politician that so fervently defends the greasy lobby culture of Washington D.C. is not a true leader. A true leader doesn't need lobbyist money and doesn't protect a corrupt political culture that greases neck-high with policy and money exchanges.
Citizen Press Revolution
First I would like to address your source. It is on a "My Space" account. Not the most reliable of sources. In fact, its not even a source. It's a place for comments and opinions, just like Progressive U, so it really is not a reliable source.
Now, in 1995, the entire democrat party was in trouble for scandals, according to Newsweek, the magazine. So no Democrats record was safe. Just like Republicans records when the DeLay-Abramoff scandel was around.
Lastly, you always reult to name calling and offensive language. I refuse to debate with anyone like that. So I will no longer reply to any of your comments. Maybe if you grow up and use real sources, and stop name calling. I would once again be willing to debate you.
I think the best possible canidate for democratic nomination would be Joe LIberman. As shown in his home state he is very popular because he stands by his words. Though he is a very moderate democrat, this would give him a broarder interst and voter base. I will admit normally I would vote republican, but if he ran, I would vote for him, just because he stands for what he stands for.
would be a DREAM!!!
Yes get rid of the liars....
Didn't Gore tell the world that he invented the internet?
I think he's gone off a little too half cocked over the past few years to ever be considered for the presidency & no I don't approve of the present office holder.
I don't think the Democrats would ever nominate him again.
Obama is the only real choice for the Dems.
and the media perpetuated that lie.
It's called propaganda. In this case Foley the perverted chairman of the missing and exploited children's dept. was the first to misquote Al Gore.
"Foley was a moderate Republican. He spent most of his tenure in Congress as a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. He was also the first public figure to misquote vice-president Al Gore as having claimed to have "invented" the internet. On March 12, 1999, Reuters reported Mark Foley as saying, ""The vice president is mistaken. The only thing he has ever invented is another tax. He did not invent the Internet but he sure did tax it."[14]"
Foley Gore quote. Bob Somerby (October 2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-03.
also on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6429833
But I think the interesting thing about that rumor is that - it is that Al Gore said he invented the Internet. And if you think about it, the motivation for ...
So there you have it. A rumor based on a lie started by a Republican but attributed to Al Gore-- swiftboating, it's a hobby to Republicans and they don't care who it hurts.
Obama is fine until he gets swiftboated too. Which he will.
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
Clinton and Bahy try to step up support for their run.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_on_el_pr/white_house2008
***The thing is, if you control the Senate meetings, you control the gavel. And the gavel is a very important instrument... an instrument of power. An instrument that establishes the agenda.
Dan Quayle former Republican VP of George Bush Sr***
and so they STILL keep trying to make us believe Hillary is our best leading candidate ever! Silly media...