We need to be zeroeth!!! [Archive]

Boom

05-14-2004, 04:08 PM

Lets start off every statement with "Wrong!!!!" or "BZZZZZT!! Sorry!!" Then make statements we can't back up because they aren't true.

It didn't start with the late night talk shows, it started with Declan McCullagh, a conservative journalist who misrepresented Gore's statement in Wired News, making it sound like Gore was taking credit for the actually technical building of the internet. Then, as Ailia pointed out, Dick Armey made up the "invented" part. The McCullagh article preceeded any talk show commentary on the issue. So BZZZZZZT right back at you.

But back to the original topic, once again, you are backtracking and trying to change what you said. I said that Gore never said the word "invented," that he said something about supporting its development. You responded by saying "So the clip of Al Gore saying he invented the internet was faked?" Obviously, you believed he said "invented." Now you say, "I did see a clip of Al Gore saying what he said, I didn't make it up." So now you claim to remember his real quote, where he didn't say "invented?" But at first you said I was wrong that he never said "invented" because there was a clip of him saying it. Tenacity is an admirable quality, but so is admitting when you were wrong. Also, you say you didn't make it up, noone said you made it up. I said you remembered it wrong. You remembered him saying "invented" because of the successful republican anti-Gore lie machine. You can't now claim you never thought he said "invented." We all have read what you wrote. You can't backtrack now. You thought he said "invented." You remembered it wrong. Just like the scientists who said we were cooling the planet.

You keep saying you won't support any of your statements because I will claim its oil company propaganda. This is totally unfair. The only thing I've claimed is oil company propaganda is your link to the most famous shill of the oil industry. I didn't link to Greenpeace because I wouldn't expect you to take their word seriously, how can you expect me to take the NCPA seriously? But the fact is, I did take it seriously, I read every word of it and explained why I thought the EPA position was more credible. The EPA showed the data to support their conclusion. Its totally unfair to say that I will wave off any support you give me as oil industry propaganda. And you totally ignore that fact that I read every word of every link you posted, considered them carefully, and decided that since that had no references for where they got any of their data that they were less reputable than the studies referenced by the EPA, which not only could point to their data, but published the data itself on the web. You admitted you didn't read my links because it was "junk science from liberal whiners" even though its the official position of the Republican controlled EPA. I read your links, I gave reasons why they were less reputable, based on not only the source of the links, but on their lack of foundation and supporting data. You did not read my links, you dismissed them as junk science with no support for why, and then you claimed I am close minded and you are open minded.

PoxTheSmall

05-14-2004, 04:18 PM

None of you guys like Family Guy, obviously :(

Boom

05-14-2004, 04:35 PM

"According to Kenneth Watt, at the University of California at Davis, increased levels of carbon dioxide cause an initial rise in temperatures. This rise evaporates tropical oceans which leads to increased cloud condensation at high elevations. This cloud cover then blocks sunlight from heating the earth, resulting in cooler global temperatures."

You said that the scientists of the time were predicting an ice age was coming without ANY MENTION of global warming. I was waiting for you to bust out that often misused out of context Watt quote. Yes, he was wrong (thank god) in predicting the change would occur so fast.

Btw, I got my quote from this site. http://www.chem.umn.edu/class/1031/stein02f/envpages/badscience.html

Please check out this link. It does what you failed to do. Give a very well reasoned argument that global warming is not a problem, not necessarily caused by humans, and not necessarily a doomsday scenario. It makes its case without dismissing the data that is accepted by the scientific community as "junk science." It admits that the CO2 has risen drastically since the industrial revolution and that indicates that man has made a contribution. It admits that temperatures appear to have risen slightly over that same time period. But then it gives reasons why despite accepting these facts, it doesn't think global warming is necessarily a problem, such as the fact that there could be other causes then CO2 for the warming.

I disagree with the ultimate conclusion of the link I just posted, but I respect it as a fair argument. I would not say it is "wrong," as you do whenever you disagree with something. I would say its well reasoned and a highly valid argument but I disagree with it. I would suggest that next time you get in a global warming debate you merely cut and paste this argument, rather than quote the NCPA and dismiss the EPA science as liberal whiner junk science.

Noleader

05-14-2004, 05:07 PM

Why in gods name would anyone debate environmental shit with booms?

Kinda like telling a programmer how to turn on a computer.

Booms does this shit for a living and as long as none of you produce proof I would think we can all assume boom is the authority on this.

Boom

05-14-2004, 05:31 PM

Naw, people can totally debate with me. Like that link I posted in my last post above this one. The guy who wrote that disagrees with me, but if we were to debate and be judged I think it would be a very close call. Hell, it would be too close to call. We both have sound foundations but just interpret the data differently. I am more willing to see the correlation between the rise in CO2 and the industrial revolution as evidence that it mostly caused by man, he is more willing to accept that other factors had a greater influence. But we both see the other side, just weigh the factors differently. Both are very reasonable positions. Both positions accept the data which has been determined to be "beyond debate" by the scientific community and use that data to support their conclusions. Its a very good debate.

Calling the background data "junk science" is not good debate. Its not even a correct usage of the term "junk science." Junk science is misapplying data. Swifty isn't just dismissing the EPA's conclusions as "junk science" he is refusing to acknowledge the validity of the actual data itself, with no justification for doing so. Saying that you won't look at the data because its from liberal whiners, when its data not collected by environmentalists, but by meteorologists, and then published by the republican run EPA, is not good debate.

Boom

05-14-2004, 05:33 PM

And now we are totally off topic from the original point, which was that Gore never said he "invented" anything. Swifty said "So the clip of Al Gore saying he invented the internet was faked?" Then tried to play it off when he was shown that there is no such clip because Gore never said it.

Swifty_Johnson

05-14-2004, 06:26 PM

Invneted, created, whatever.

The fact is Al Gore tried to claim credit for the creation of the internet and got called on it.

Just like Al Gore said he and his wife were the subject of some famous love story.

Just like Al Gore said it cost him less to buy medication for his dog than his mother.

ect. ect. ect.

Swifty

Canidae

05-14-2004, 06:35 PM

My head aches just from reading the debate. There is no way on (heh) God's Green Earth that I would try and debate with a lawyer. Heheh

Rooster

05-14-2004, 06:36 PM

A) yall jump our shit for making fun of Gore about the internet thing...

B) but yall are sure as shit gonna jump on Bush's ass for "Iraq is an imminent threat"

When A is just as much of a misquotation as B is. But B is okay for liberals.

Allison

05-14-2004, 06:42 PM

A) I never claimed Bush said "Iraq is an imminent threat."

B) Al Gore's exaggeration didn't take us to war. :p

Boom

05-14-2004, 07:40 PM

I never claimed Bush said "Iraq is an imminent thread." So I am not "sure as shit" going to jump on anyone's ass for it. You forget, I'm the guy who says something is wrong no matter which side does it. I'm the one who said it was just as wrong for Kerry's supporters to use 9/11 victim's photos for partisan politics as it is for Bush to do it. I will be first to say that liberals are being unfair if they misquote Bush to make him look bad (like you need to misquote Bush to make him look bad).

Besides, we are talking about the Gore quote here. If you want to start another thread about unfair Bush attacks, fine. That has nothing to do with the fact that Gore never said he invented anything. Typical conservative ploy. When faced with the facts that their party LIED to them, they would rather change the subject and then admit it was wrong.

Swifty just can't admit he was wrong. He thought Gore said he "invented" the internet and the fact is he never said it. The conservative media spread it around to make Gore look bad and it worked. He also never claimed that he "created" the internet, like Swifty just accused him of doing. And now Swifty is doing what all conservatives do when confronted with the fact that they were lied to. Instead of just admitting that Gore never said that and it was a lie made to make him look bad they change the subject and say, "Well whatever, same difference, he basically said he invented it but with different words." This is not a sincere argument. Gore was talking about his initiatives in Congress and what he said was true.

Gore, claimed to create the internet and got called on it? No, that isn't what happened. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet. That is not the same thing AT ALL as saying "I created the internet." And althought it sounds a little blustery, there is some truth to it. Have you heard of Vincent Cerf, aka the father of the internet?

Vint Cerf responded to MSNBC's questions about the Net's origins with this e-mail:
VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.

As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.

While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.

We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit.

Vint Cerf is the true "father of the internet." I'm sure that since he is saying something you don't want to hear that you will write him off as a liberal whiner. Let me find a source you can't possibly complain about.

How about a quote from Newt Gingrich, or are you going to say he is liberal whiner Gore supporter?

In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

Newt Fucking Gingrich said that. "Gore is the person who, in the Congress most systematically worked to make sure that we to an internet." Sounds like he is saying that Gore initiated the creation of the internet in Congress. Just like Gore said. I could list some of the specific legislation that Gore initiated. Or would you say that my sources (Congressional Records) are liberal whiners and junk science.

So what did Gore get called on? He got called on saying something he NEVER said. Something that Swifty claimed he said in this very thread and can't admit he was wrong about.

How about a quote from David Maraniss, the associate editor of the Washington Post, the most conservative newspaper in the country.

Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s.

Another liberal whiner? David Maraniss is one of the foremost conservative journalists in the country. He is no Gore fan, he is no liberal.

No, Gore never said he invented the internet. He only said he did what Newt Fucking Gingrich and David Maraniss and Vincent Cerf give him credit for.

But fuck it. You don't like Gore. So lets just continue to say that he took credit for inventing the internet and got what he deserved. :rolleyes: Fuck the truth.

And what about your lie that the "internet" quote started with late night talk shows. Are you going to take that back now? It sure sounded good, why bother to find out if its true or not when you can just post it here regardless. Just say whatever sounds good and if you are proven wrong just ignore it.

Ah, you brought up the love story issue. I don't know how to break this to you but guess what. You were lied to on this one too. I would be starting to get pissed at the conservative media if I was you, they are really making you look bad. Did Gore say that he was the basis for the character in Segal's book. Or did he say that he had read a newspaper article (in The Tennessian) which claimed he was the basis for the character? Or are you going to say its the same thing? Not only that that, but Erich Segal, author of Love Story, corroborated that Gore and his Harvard roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, were indeed the models for the story's main character. So, A: Gore never claimed it. B: It was true anyway.

When the author, Erich Segal, was asked . . ., he stated that the preppy hockey-playing male lead, Oliver Barrettt IV, indeed was modeled after Gore and Gore's Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones." (NY Times, Dec. 14, 1997).

Damn that Gore for.. umm.... telling the truth!! And damn the conservative media for making Swifty look bad.

Speaking of Love, how about the big Love Canal lie about Gore. When talking about Love Canal he mentioned a polluted well that was discovered right before the Love Canal issue. He stated, ""that was the one that started it all." He was clearly talking about the well. The conservative media quoted him as saying "I was the one who started it all." and claimed he was talking about love canal. So now that lying bastard Gore has claimed to invent the internet, claimed to be a basis for a character in a move, and claims to have started the whole Love Canal cleanup! OMG, we gotta make sure this nut doesn't get elected! Again, the way the conservative media LIED to us about this is shameful.

I don't recall the pet/drug issue. I'll research that one later. Its time to go home and play my ranger.

Swifty_Johnson

05-14-2004, 07:57 PM

And now Swifty is doing what all conservatives do when confronted with the fact that they were lied to.

You are doing what all liberals do when they want to cover the truth up, keep the lie going so it becomes the truth.

Okay, what did Al Gore say in that clip that was shown over and over and over again?

"Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, the Vice President came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force Two. Sliding in behind a table with the two reporters covering him that day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story; and Gore's Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones, who played the roommate of the Gore-like character in the movie version of Segal's book." (Time, 12/15/97)

Time isn't the conserative media.

The truth.

"The author, Erich Segal, told The New York Times he was 'befuddled' by the comments in the first place. He said he called Gore, and the vice president said it was a misunderstanding."
(Sources: The Des Moines Register, 12/15/97

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (Al Gore, CNN’s "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," 3/9/99)

So yes, Al Gore did claim he created the Internet. While he didn't use the exact term invented, the meaning is the same.

Swifty

Allison

05-14-2004, 08:13 PM

Lol, Swifty ... keep clutching at straws. All of the quotes you posted are correct. But, everything Boom posted is also correct. If you'd spend 5 minutes reading, you'd know that. But instead of looking for the whole truth, you're looking for snippets to try and prove your point.

This is hilarious. :laugh:

Rooster

05-14-2004, 09:01 PM

But, it does prove that he can be made fun of for saying those things.

Allison

05-14-2004, 09:14 PM

Lol, true dat, Roo. :yes:

Boom

05-15-2004, 12:51 AM

So Swifty still won't admit he was wrong for thinking there was a clip where Gore used the word "invented." You can change the subject and try to say that what Gore said is the same thing as saying "I invented the internet" but the fact is, you thought he used the word "invented" and you were wrong and for some reason you just can't face that.

And what Gore said is not the same as "invented." It isn't the same at all. If it was, the conservatives wouldn't have had to spread the lie to make him look bad. Come on, saying "I invented the internet" is ludicrous. Its absurd. What Gore really said is supported by your own people! Newt Gingrich saying that "Gore is the person who, in the Congress most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an internet" isn't enough to justify Gore saying that while he was in Congress he initiated the creation of the internet? Is Newt Gingrich lying to help Gore? Newt was there. And he is your boy, not mine.

Is it that hard to admit you were wrong? Is it that hard to say, "well, I really thought he said "invented" because it was spread around so much. I guess he didn't say it. I guess his words were taken out of context, and I guess even the conservatives who were with him in Congress and know the truth verify that he did take the initiative in Congress in creating the internet."

You are doing what all liberals do when they want to cover the truth up, keep the lie going so it becomes the truth.

What lie am I covering up? That Gore never said he "invented" the internet? That isn't a lie. Point to one thing I said that is a lie. Speaking of lies, you still haven't responded to what I said about your claim that the talk show hosts started the "invented the internet" lie. You were wrong about that. You just made it up because it sounded good. When you were shown to be wrong you just ignored it instead of admitting to it. And you say liberals keep the lie going so it becomes the truth? You mean like the conservatives who kept saying that Gore said "I invented the internet?" The conservatives who insisted those exact words came out of his mouth even though they never did? They kept that lie going until most of the country believed he actually said it. Until today YOU believed he actually said it. Pot, Kettle...

You know, if you post some examples of people misquoting Bush to make him look bad, I would say its disgusting for them to do that, just like you would. But if someone misquotes a democrat to make him look bad, I would still think its disgusting but you would say he deserves it. That's the difference between us.

As for Segal being "befuddled" it was because Tipper wasn't a model for any of the characters in his book, so he didn't understand why Gore would add that part. Of course, Gore never said that. All Gore did was reference the article in the Tennessian, which was an interview with Segal. The Tennessian misquoted Segal and said that Gore and Tipper were models for his story. That's where it came from. An interview with Segal BEFORE the interview with Gore. The inteview with Segal made that mistake. That was the misunderstanding. Gore mentioned the article to those reporters, they misquoted him, everyone laughed at him for making this up out of the blue, then Segal confirmed that Gore (and his roommate) were the models for one of his characters but that Tipper was not.

Time, like all the media, just repeated what had been spread around (the lie that the conservatives repeated till it became true). Segal did say that Gore was the model for his character. You thought it wasn't true. You were wrong again.

Allison

05-15-2004, 01:11 AM

Too bad for Gore that the liberal media were all on holiday in 2000. ;)

Rooster

05-15-2004, 01:18 AM

Don't get me started on Tipper... $$#(W*$%*#WQ$%WI#%&W#(%

Noleader

05-15-2004, 06:34 AM

One you got to watch out for is hillary... He was the brains to the clinton administration :)

(yea I intended to say HE)

Swifty_Johnson

05-15-2004, 10:02 AM

So I wrong on the use of the term, the meaning is the same.

All the ads played the Al Gore clip where he claimed to have created the internet. Created/Invented same thing. He lied, and he was called on it.

IF it were to be a lie, the ads would have had to have dubbed in invented over created, they didn't, they played his exact words. No lieing at all.

Next thing you'll be trying to tell us Bush lied in his State of the Union address.

Swifty

Boom

05-15-2004, 01:58 PM

All the ads played the Al Gore clip where he claimed to have created the internet. Created/Invented same thing. He lied, and he was called on it.

He didn't say he invented or created anything. The verb in the sentence was "initiated." He initiated the process. And you are saying he was lying. So Newt Gingrich lied to support him? And what about the statement by the real father of the internet? You just dismiss that as well? Maybe I will have to drag out the list of Gore's initiatives in Congress to create the internet so you can see that his statement wasn't a lie. Not that it will change your mind at all, God himself could come down and say that Gore didn't lie and you will still say "Gore claimed to invent the internet and he is a liar and got what he deserved."

IF it were to be a lie, the ads would have had to have dubbed in invented over created, they didn't, they played his exact words. No lieing at all.

The problem is, they didn't EVER play the clip of him saying it. They misquoted him, in print, on radio, and on TV. The ads showed a picture of Gore and a sarcastic voice would speak over it saying "Al Gore said 'I invented the internet.'" That is lying. They didn't play the clip, they said "Al Gore said he invented the internet." That is lying. I can't link you to thousands of sources where the media LIED and said that "Gore said he invented the internet." And when called on it, they just continue to do it. Do you know your reaction to this is EXACTLY the same as Ann Coulter when she was called on it? "Invented and created are the same." So its ok to mix up words when you quote people to make them look bad? "Whatever!"

He said he "initiated" something. Its not ok to switch words around when quoting someone to make them sound ridiculous. It's ok with you though, but God forbid someone does it to Bush. That would be unacceptable. That's called being blinded by partisan politics. I think its wrong if either side does it, thats called being fair.

Next thing you'll be trying to tell us Bush lied in his State of the Union address.

Huh? Where is this coming from? Where did I accuse Bush of lying? I'm accusing the conservative media of lying, and doing such a good job of it that they had you fooled. Saying that I will accuse Bush of lying in the State of the Union, with no support or reason, is making stuff up to make me look bad. Kinda like accusing Gore of claiming he invented the internet. I mean seriously, where is this coming from? Don't try to assume the next thing I will be telling you. And make it something ridiculous while you are at it. Can I do that back at you?

The next thing you will be trying to tell us that Gore sprinkled angel dust on his breakfast cereal.

Is that fair?

Allison

05-15-2004, 04:12 PM

The next thing you will be trying to tell us that Gore sprinkled angel dust on his breakfast cereal.
He did. I remember seeing a late night talk show host talking about it once a few years ago. :yes: :rolly:

Give it up, Boom. Swifty is either messing with you (my guess, because I think he's smarter than this), or he's incapable, for whatever reason, of accepting anything that doesn't support his position. Either way, you're just wasting your time.

Swifty_Johnson

05-15-2004, 04:29 PM

The verb in the sentence was "initiated." He initiated the process. And you are saying he was lying. So Newt Gingrich lied to support him?

His exact words are "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Humm, looks like you also have a memory lasp there, he never said "initiated". Look there it is, his claim about creating the internet.

Maybe I will have to drag out the list of Gore's initiatives in Congress to create the internet so you can see that his statement wasn't a lie.

The internet was already well on the way to being extablished before Al Gore or the goverment got involved.

Not that it will change your mind at all, God himself could come down and say that Gore didn't lie and you will still say "Gore claimed to invent the internet and he is a liar and got what he deserved.

And God can come down to you and say Gore did lie, and you'd still fight tooth and nail with him.

The problem is, they didn't EVER play the clip of him saying it.

Umm, yes they did, there is a very famous Bush campaign ad that ended with that clip, much like the Kerry one now.

Huh? Where is this coming from? Where did I accuse Bush of lying?

I stole a page for the Noleader play book, have him sue me and take his case.

So, I'll ask your directly, did Bush lie in the state of the Union address?

Swifty

Boom

05-15-2004, 09:16 PM

When did I ever say he did? Ever???? I've never even thought that Bush lied in his State of the Union. Maybe I might have thought that he put a little spin on some stuff, but really no worse then any other politician. I never thought (and certainly never said) that he lied. I would never make such a claim without doing the research and being thoroughly convinced. What makes you think that I think Bush lied in his State of the Union?

Anyway, you are right, the active verb in the sentence wasn't initiated. I was wrong. See that's how you do it Swifty. That's how you maintain your credibility. When you are directly shown to be mistaken you type these words "I was wrong." Otherwise you are seen to be someone who will just keep arguing regardless of the facts. You lose all credibility. Anyway, I was mistaken, his quote wasn't "I initiated the creation of the internet" It was "I took the initiative in creating the internet." The active verb was "took," not "created" and certainly not "invented." His claim was that he "took the initiative" in Congress. Which is true.

And Newt Gingrich agreed that he took that initiative, more than any other member of Congress. You still haven't responded to this. Is Newt a shill of the democrats, lying to make Gore look good?

And, like most conservatives, you are changing the subject. My original point was that Gore was heavily misquoted to make him look retarded. You at first claimed that Gore wasn't misquoted, that he actually did make that dumbass statement. When you were proven to be wrong, that should be the end of the discussion. I don't see why you can't admit his words were twisted to make him look bad. Instead you want to discuss whether or not Gore created the internet, which he never said he did. If you want to discuss Gore's role in taking the initiative in Congress regarding the internet, fine. But one issue at a time. Did the conservatives misquote Gore to make him look retarded, yes or no?

Rooster

05-15-2004, 09:41 PM

I think anyone looking to poke fun at a political figure intentionally looked at the statement in a way to make him look retarded (or at least mentally deficient).

Regardless of political vein.

Kegg OBeer

05-15-2004, 10:03 PM

You guys are all just talking semantics here anyhow.
The fact is that gore claimed to have "created" the internet.
If you look it up, the two words have similar, nearly identical meanings.

If you think for one minute that Gore didn't do this on purpose, you're intentionally looking the other way. Too bad for him everyone knew it was really bullshit. He just wanted to take credit for actually doing something rather than looking like the puppet he really was.

There's no shame in that though. The fact is, most vice presidents (corporate or political) ARE puppets. So what? Unfortunately for Gore, he was really just a bag of wind.

People do the same thing to every other president, especially George W. Bush. It's all the same thing, just different topics.
People knock him for saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Ok, so we didn't find any... We KNOW that Iraq had them because Iraq used them on it's own people. So they got them out of the country, hid them, whatever... it's all just political posturing. By turning on Bush for it, you're only supporting what Saddam Hussein intended to do by hiding them or moving them. Make Bush look bad.

Allison

05-15-2004, 10:49 PM

You guys are all just talking semantics here anyhow.
Actually, Kegg, it's Swifty, and now you, who are arguing semantics. Boom is talking about comprehension. You guys are running around looking up words in the thesaurus, taking a sentence out of context, and replacing this word with that synonym ... all in an effort to avoid saying, "Yeah, I guess he didn't really say that, after all." It's laughable.

But, hey, I'll play along. Using my trusty thesaurus, here's what Gore really said:

During my service in the Like-Minded Kingdoms Brotherhood, I grappled the appetite a la mode parenting the Internet.

:rolly:

Swifty_Johnson

05-15-2004, 11:50 PM

I would never make such a claim without doing the research and being thoroughly convinced. What makes you think that I think Bush lied in his State of the Union?

I never said you did, I wanted to get your take on it.

You want to know what's funny. Someone in CO has that reboot virus, the following took place.

CO1 - My computer keep rebooting.
CO2 - You have a virus, get the patchs
CO1 - How did that happen?
CO2 - Blame Al Gore as he invented the Internet.

I was chuckling so hard. It was nice to hear something funny after the Dragon raid loot debacle.

Swifty

Boom

05-16-2004, 02:41 AM

The fact is, Gore was clearly talking about his work in Congress, legislating. He wasn't claiming to have ever programmed anything. His quote started with, "During my service in the United States Congress." It didn't start with "During my time in the computer lab."

That part about his service in Congress is totally left out of the misquote. Do you really think he meant to imply he programmed any code or anything like that? Reading the entire sentence in context it is clear he is saying that as a Senator, he pushed through legislation that gave funding to the computer people who made the internet.

If a Senator (Democrat or Republican) said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the new laser guided missles." Would you say, "Omg! What a liar! He is claiming to have invented laser guided missles!! LOL what a buffoon!"

Of course not. You would know he was claiming to have pushed forward legislation funding the work of the people who made the missles. And if the media said "Senator so and so claimed to have invented laser guided missles." You would say, "Huh? That's not what he said. He was talking about legislating, why is the media lying to me?"

Seriously Kegg and Swifty. Read the statement again. "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Read it a few times. Think about it. Do you think he was talking about legislating or about programming? Do you really honestly think he was trying to make people think he was a computer programmer who worked on the early internet codes, or that he was a senator who worked on legislation? He wasn't lying to anyone. But you guys have been fed the lie that Gore claimed to invent the internet, for so long, you are still having trouble letting it go. The man was a Senator. He was talking about legislation he worked on. Legislation that Newt Gingrich, and Vinc Cerf, say was key in making the internet what it is today.

You want to know what's funny. Someone in CO has that reboot virus, the following took place.

CO1 - My computer keep rebooting.
CO2 - You have a virus, get the patchs
CO1 - How did that happen?
CO2 - Blame Al Gore as he invented the Internet.

Yes, its hysterical that 5 years after the conservatives started spreading that lie about Gore, people still believe it. Its just so funny that the man is still being ridiculed for something he never said. I'm not even a huge Gore fan or anything. I just think this is unfair. Judge people by what they really said and what they really meant, not by lies that are unfairly spread about them.

Boom

05-16-2004, 03:02 AM

Oh, earlier on in this thread Swifty said that noone lied about Gore, they just played the clip of what he really said. I responded that they didn't, they stated that Gore said, "I invented the internet." I should clarify. I'm sure the true clip was on TV at least once. But the lie was on TV thousands and thousands of times. I heard SO many TV and radio people say, "Al Gore said he invented the internet" and read it SO many times in print that EVEN I BELIEVED IT FOR YEARS!!! I didn't find out myself till about a year or two ago that Gore never said it.

IF it were to be a lie, the ads would have had to have dubbed in invented over created, they didn't, they played his exact words. No lieing at all.

As Swifty would say BZZZZZZZZT WRONG!!!!! If they just played his exact words, with no lying at all, then how come the entire country believed that Gore said "I invented the internet." How come most of the country STILL believes he said it? We all have the same crazy imagination and bad memory? We all remembered it wrong? No, the media did lie and repeated the lie over and over and over till we all believed that Gore actually said, "I invented the internet." I believed it till a few years ago. You believed it till a few days ago. Someone in your guild still believes it. I'll bet a million dollars that when your guildy said that you didn't say, "Actually, he never said that, its a big urban myth." My guess is that you said, "ROFL!!" Why not let the lie continue? Its only hurting a democrat. Truth isn't important or anything.

IF it were to be a lie, the ads would have had to have dubbed in invented over created, they didn't, they played his exact words. No lieing at all.

Again BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!! Swifty, if they didn't lie to us, where did we get it from? Why did we all believe that the words, "I invented the internet" came out of his mouth. Did aliens abduct us and implant it in our brains? We all believed he said those words because we were lied to. You say there was no lie, they just played the clip. They didn't just play the clip. They hardly ever showed the clip. I watch a ton of TV and don't remember ever seeing it because if I had I would have thought, "Hey, I thought he said he invented the internet, he is talking about legislation in that clip, wtf." If you so clearly remember seeing the true clip, why were you so positive he used the words, "I invented the internet." I guess you didn't see the clip nearly as many times as you heard the lie.

You say they never lied to you, they just played the clip. Sorry, they lied to you. They just told you that Gore said "I invented the internet." A totally, out of context, misquote. The guy was talking about legislation and the media made it sound like he claimed to be hand-building microprocessors. THEY FUCKING LIED TO US AND YOU DON'T CARE!!!!

Boom

05-16-2004, 03:09 AM

I was chuckling so hard. It was nice to hear something funny after the Dragon raid loot debacle.

If someone makes up a lie about George Bush and it totally ruins him, I won't chuckle at it. I won't think its funny. I will think its sick and unfair, and I will be pissed that I was lied to. Just like you would. Its not cool when it happens to anyone, whether they are in your political party or not.

Yes, I laugh at George Bush. Alot. But I laugh at the exact words that come out of his mouth, taken in perfect context. I would be pissed to find out I was trashing George Bush based on a lie.

Like the quote that started this whole thread. I think its funny that GWB said, "Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned." It makes him look dumb, and its funny. If I find out I was lied to, and he said something different then that, I will be pissed. I won't try to justify it and say, "Oh, its ok that I was lied to because Bush is dumb anyway." I will be pissed that I was lied to.

Kegg OBeer

05-16-2004, 04:16 AM

The problem here is the assumption of innocence. I was watching that interview when he said that, and I believed it then as I still do that he was using a carefully worded statement intended to imply that he was directly responsible for "creating" or "inventing" (or however you want to put it) the internet without "actually" saying it so he couldn't be held responsible in case it blew up in his face.

Ironically, I overheard several very left-wing persons in my (then) office during the election trying to convince others that if it weren't for Gore we wouldn't have an internet. So while us intelligent people either saw right through his BS or chose to give him the benefit of the doubt, there was undoubtedly thousands (if not more) of his blind followers swearing it was true.

Gore, much like his predecessor Dan Quayle, has a knack for saying stupid things. He may or may not be stupid for real, but it gives people that perception. If Gore didn't want what he said blown "allegedly" out of context, he should have done something unprecedented for a politician and kept his big mouth shut. Had he just shut up, he may have actually won that election. (Without cheating!)

I admire your ability to give this moron the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time, I urge you to not give a politician so much credit. Especially given one with a track record such as Gore's for saying things to get himself in trouble. If anything.... why do you think Clinton chose him? Because all they needed him for was to smile for the cameras. Do you think Bill and Hillary would actually want someone that had a brain at their backs? If so, then perhaps you're giving way too much credit again. The Clintons weren't good at sharing power.

Allison

05-16-2004, 01:51 PM

I agree, Kegg. Gore did say some silly things. This was one of them. He boasted a little too much and didn't choose his words carefully enough. But where you fault us for giving him too much the benefit of the doubt, I would fault you for not giving him enough.

I don't care what other people in your office told you about Gore. If someone said that the internet wouldn't exist without him, they were as wrong as the people who say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet.

And that is the absolute last minute I"m spending on this absurd topic.

Boom

05-16-2004, 03:23 PM

Had he just shut up, he may have actually won that election. (Without cheating!)

He did win the election. The Supreme Court just gave the job to GWB anyway.

And its amazing that Gore managed to win the election considering how successful the Republicans were at spreading lies about him.

But seriously Kegg, answer these two questions.

1. In Gore's statement, the complete statement taken in context, was he talking about legislating or programming?

2. In the misquote, that was spread so well that even I believed it for years, does it sound like he is talking about legislating or programming?

Swifty_Johnson

05-16-2004, 03:56 PM

He did win the election. The Supreme Court just gave the job to GWB anyway.

UUUmmm, no Gore lost.

There was no recount that ever indicted that Gore had more votes than Bush in South Florida, therefore he loosed Florida and the election.

I'm surprised you'd say something like this Booms.

Swifty

Rooster

05-16-2004, 04:43 PM

Bush actually did have more votes than Gore in Florida (according to the Florida media), after they did the count AFTER the court decision.

Gore was the one that started the lawsuit, not Bush.

Sparky

05-16-2004, 06:47 PM

How did the media get ahold of the ballots?

Swifty_Johnson

05-17-2004, 10:21 AM

After the election was certifyed the media outlets paid some accounting firms to do recounts on the ballots. So these firms went to the counties and re-counted under the counties supervision.

Swifty

Rooster

05-17-2004, 11:40 AM

Exactly.

Boom

05-17-2004, 12:26 PM

LoL, I knew you would take the bait to change the subject rather than answer my questions. You are welcome.

Swifty_Johnson

05-17-2004, 12:48 PM

Boomy, you are the one who sidetracked with a false statement, but to answer your questions.

Al Gore was trying to hype up is involvemet in the "creation" of the internet more than he was really involved.

Saying the truth, I got some legislation passed that helped contribuate to the internet as we know it today isn't as sexy as saying he created the internet.

I can pull an Al Goreism too, "While Working at Motorola, I took the initave and helped create web browsers."

Wow, ain't I leet.

Swifty

Eiru

05-17-2004, 02:02 PM

Forget it, Boom. Swifty's right. Might as well shut down the forum cuz he has all the answers anyway.

Boom

05-17-2004, 03:07 PM

I still want answers to those questions. I have always answered yours. My comment was tongue in cheek (that's why after making the statement I got back on topic by saying "but seriously" which clearly indicates I was being tongue in cheek). Perhaps I was actually referring to the fact that Gore undisputedly won the popular election by 1/2 a million votes? But even though I was being tongue in cheek, and I regret the fact that I have now given you this opportunity to change the subject and avoid admitting the truth (Gore was unfairly distorted by that misquote), I can't help but respond to this.

There was no recount that ever indicted that Gore had more votes than Bush in South Florida, therefore he loosed Florida and the election.

You really have to start doing your research before making such sweeping statements. Again, I will go to the WashingtonPost, the most conservative mainstream newspaper in America for my first link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53804-2001Jan26

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3698-2001May31&notFound=true

There are billions of liberal links, but I really get a kick out of getting my information from the conservatives. Here are a few more links.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11F9385F0C768DDDAE0894D94044 82

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=4&row=2

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=33&row=2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=9137

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/opinion/3973122.htm

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?011224ta_talk_hertzberg

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011217&s=vidal

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200111\ \POL20011113a.html

http://consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

http://makethemaccountable.com/coverup/Part_04.htm

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4623

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4224

http://onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Jordan-Dawshed072501/jordan-dawshed072501.html

http://www.sptimes.com/News/071701/State/Vote_controversy_turn.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/opinion/16MON1.html?ex=1084939200&en=29bfc522d9b25f76&ei=5070

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11F9385F0C768DDDAE0894D94044 82

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2793

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-asec-ballot012801.story

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=2678

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asec-vote-050601.story

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/floridafelonvote_010321.html

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/05/military/index.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010226&s=alterman

http://earthside.com/commentary/chandler-commentary-2000.html#anchor233553

http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/ElectionIrregularities.htm#GoreWon1224

http://www.midtod.com/election.phtml

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

There are a ton of additional cites, but I think I made my point. And just to clarify, my point is NOT that Gore actually won the election. My point is that Swifty makes sweeping incorrect statements because they sound good. Like his statement that NO count favored Gore, like his statement that the "I invented the internet" lie was started by late night talk show hosts, like the statement that Gore actually said, "I invented the internet," like the statement that scientists used to claim we were cooling the planet with no reference to global warming (nice job finding the Watt quote, too bad his theory was that the cooling would be after a period of warming, like I said, and like you denied), like his statement that Gore wasn't the basis for a character in that movie. I think I may have forgotten a few but do I really have to go back through all these threads? Hey lets add his most recent statement about that accounting firm. Funny how that accounting firm did all that work but refuses to publish the results. Funny how insiders at that accounting firm state that the results favor Gore. Funny how that accounting firm is being paid by conservative sources. The full story on that is on many of the links I have cited. Be nice if that accounting firm would release the results huh?

Don't bother quoting cites that show Bush would have won the election. I admit those sources exist. I excuse you from doing that research. Also, don't bother responding to the cites I listed one by one, I freely admit that many of them (but not all of them) are from partisan sources. It is not necessary for you to do that because this isn't a discussion about who won the election.

This is a discussion about Swifty making incorrect statements because they sound good and then when faced with the facts he either A: dismisses the facts as being from liberal whiners, even when they are from conservatives sources, B: ignores the facts and changes the subject. I've caught him at it so many times it is absurd. I don't see how anyone who reads these forums will be able to read anything Swifty writes now without wondering if Swifty is saying something that sounds good, or actually researched his facts. I have supported everything I have ever claimed. And I have had the credibility to quickly and freely admit when I have been mistaken or misremembered something.

Gore was the one that started the lawsuit, not Bush.

Yes, Gore won a right to a full recount in the Florida Supreme Court. Then Bush took it to the U.S. Supreme Court which decided to give the presidency to Bush rather than allow the votes to be counted.

Boom

05-17-2004, 03:08 PM

These questions have yet to be answered.

1. In Gore's statement, the complete statement taken in context, was he talking about legislating or programming?

2. In the misquote, that was spread so well that even I believed it for years, does it sound like he is talking about legislating or programming?

Boom

05-17-2004, 03:14 PM

I can pull an Al Goreism too, "While Working at Motorola, I took the initave and helped create web browsers."

Can you list a number of projects you headed that contributed to web browser development? If not, you would be lying. Gore can easily make such a list and it is an impressive one. If Gore was simply a member of Congress while all that was going on, then your analogy would be correct. But he wasn't simply a member of Congress. As Newt Gingrich said, Gore, more than any other member of Congress, was actively pushing this type of legislation. Is this the fourth or fifth time I have brought up Gingrich admitting that Gore was correct without you acknowledging it?

Would you like me to list the legislation contributing to the development of the internet where Al Gore "took the initiative?" I am willing to do it, but it will just make you look bad.

Boom

05-17-2004, 03:19 PM

Dammit, you got me! You changed the subject on me once again without me realizing it. Now you have me arguing whether or not Gore really did take the initiative in creating the internet through legislation. Kudos to you.

I am willing to discuss that but not till we finish the first discussion. My argument is that conservatives twisted Gore's words to make him look retarded. Saying that he deserved it because he was blustering is not an answer.

Its a simple yes or no issue. Was he talking about legislation, yes or no? Did the misquote make it sound like he was talking about actually hands-on "inventing" something, yes or no?

Swifty_Johnson

05-17-2004, 03:43 PM

Your right booms, if you only recounted ballots from those who's last names ended with a y, and were cast after 5:00 PM EST on voting day, than Gore would have won the election.

Let me correct the statement becasue you seem to want to nitpick everything.

Al Gore was never ahead on any recount that didn't use BIASED criteria.

Shure, Al Gore was ahead on recounts that wanted to grant him some votes from Ballots that had more than one canidate punched, but you know what, how in the hell someone can look at a ballot with Al Gore and Pat Buchannon puched as president and tell that the voted really wanted to vote for Al Gore is beyond me.

So are you going to tell me that you are more than willing to throw away all election laws so your guy can win?

Oh, and if the democrats didn't try to mess with the election laws of Florida, chances are they would have gotten the recounts that they wanted. Instead they messed with the process and got burned, good for them.

The most disgusting act of the Democrats during the election was getting the votes of men and women serving in the armed forces thrown out because they felt those voters wouldn't vote for Gore.

Its a simple yes or no issue. Was he talking about legislation, yes or no? Did the misquote make it sound like he was talking about actually hands-on "inventing" something, yes or no?

While I am not Mrs. Cleo, Al Gore was prob trying to talk about legislation. The miss quote did look like he had more hands on inventing. Fortuantly for the world he botched that interview up and lots of others.

Yes, Gore won a right to a full recount in the Florida Supreme Court.

Yes, and the Florida Supreme court trampled over the civil rights of the voters in South Florida so bad, even the Cheif Justice of it said so before the U.S. Supreme Court finally slapped them down.

My point is that Swifty makes sweeping incorrect statements because they sound good.

And you like to nit pick everything to death. I really don't feel like saying,

When using standard methods of account and adhearing to the voting laws of Florida in the recounts, Al Gore was never ahead of G.W.B.

Are you happy now?

Can you list a number of projects you headed that contributed to web browser development?

My department funded NCSA and NCSA Mosiac. Some jackass (who will go unnamed) felt that there wasn't a market for something like Mosiac, so we lost some key people from NCSA who left and formed ....... Netscape.

Swifty

p.s. Gingrich isn't a credible source.

Eiru

05-17-2004, 04:49 PM

See, Boom? Swifty changes the terms of the debate, gets off topic and STILL manages to cover all his bases because you are wrong. Roo, time to close down the political form and open up a forum only Swifty can post on because he has all the answers.

Rooster

05-17-2004, 04:51 PM

For the record: Gore ONLY wanted a recount in the core democratic counties. He did NOT want a statewide recount, or allow the mail-in ballots from servicemen & women overseas.

Boom

05-17-2004, 05:32 PM

LOL. Omg. I was talking about Swifty making sweeping statements with no support and he just buries me in a ton of them! I don't even know where to start with that last post. Biased criteria? LOL, why do I bother getting my information from conservative sources like the Washington Post if you are still going to say they are liberally biased?

There are so many false statements in Swifty's last post, I'll just have to pass on most of them. But one I simply can't pass on. No, democrat ever, ever stopped a soldier from voting, or stopped a military vote from happening. I can see why you think its so disgusting, but it never happened. Democrats did have a problem with the Florida Governer's office illegally directing election officials to count absentee ballots even if they weren't filed in accordance with the law. But the fact is, those votes were all counted. Even though counting some of them was in violation of state law (like absentee ballots without signatures). They were all counted. Period. No vote was thrown out. Swifty again lies for the win.

So are you going to tell me that you are more than willing to throw away all election laws so your guy can win?

No, that's what Bush did. Counting illegal votes was just one of countless criminal acts committed by Katherine Harris.

Al Gore was prob trying to talk about legislation. The miss quote did look like he had more hands on inventing.

So you concede my original point that the conservatives twisted Gore's words to make him look retarded. Thank you. I have no idea why you spend so many days and so much time trying to deny this, but at least you are willing to admit it now. Of course, then you go on to say you are ok with it. What's it like to not mind being lied to by your own party? I am furious when I find out a democrat pundit is spinning things.

Gingrich isn't a credible source.

Ok, so you are saying that Newt Gingrich, one of the most powerful Republicans in the country, and perhaps the most hard-core, right wing, rabidly anti-Democrat, anti-Gore politicians, lied to make Gore look good.

*ring ring* *ring ring*

"Hello? Yeah, he is here... sure, I'll let him know"

Swifty, that was your credibility calling. It wanted you to know it left this forum and won't be back for some time.

Swifty_Johnson

05-17-2004, 06:41 PM

Booms, the only person with a credibilty problem is you.

No, democrat ever, ever stopped a soldier from voting, or stopped a military vote from happening. I can see why you think its so disgusting, but it never happened.

You are about to get an education than Booms. When someone in the militarty requests an absentee ballot, they are given an international absentee ballot. When the military processes mail, they collect it from overseas and bring it home to process and send. There it is postmarked. The Democrats had many military ballots thrown out beasue they were international ballots with domestic postmarks. A Gore team of lawyers actually high-fived when they were successful.

No, that's what Bush did. Counting illegal votes was just one of countless criminal acts committed by Katherine Harris.

The only people counting illegal votes were democrats. A convicted felon has to reapply to have their voting rights restored. The democratic counties let these people vote, eventhough they had not gone through the process. Also please cite any sources for criminal acts comitted by Katherine Harris.

Ok, so you are saying that Newt Gingrich, one of the most powerful Republicans in the country, and perhaps the most hard-core, right wing, rabidly anti-Democrat, anti-Gore politicians, lied to make Gore look good.

*ring ring* *ring ring*

"Hello? Yeah, he is here... sure, I'll let him know"

Swifty, that was your credibility calling. It wanted you to know it left this forum and won't be back for some time.

I'm sorry Booms, but your insentance on using suspect sources has shot your credibility to hell. Newt credible? You mean the man who when his wife was fighting cancer started to have an affair on her, than when she's laying in the hosiptal bed servs her with divorce papers.

I'm not like you, (you thinking every liberal is a credible source no matter what they say/do) and I judge people on what they do, not what party they belong to.

Swifty

Boom

05-17-2004, 08:19 PM

Wow, more sweeping statements without any support. Ok, you have proven my point, you can stop now. Seriously. I appreciate it but you have done enough for me. I've posted a TON of links documenting illegal military votes being counted. You don't have to post a single one showing that legal military votes were not counted, or that illegal felon votes were counted. You can just continue to make bald unsupported statements. Every time you do, it just proves my point.

Cite Katherine Harris's criminal acts? I already did. At least a dozen of the cites I listed detail her criminal acts in lurid detail. How about when she had nearly a hundred thousand voters put on a list and prevented from voting because they were ex-felons. How about the fact that the list was shown to be 98% incorrect. That's right, 98% incorrect. People who were related to ex-felons were on the list. People who had the same last names (but weren't related) to ex-felons were on the list. There is a funny story about a Priest who was on the list. He admitted to having had a parking ticket, but didn't think he should be prevented from voting because of it. I've already given numerous cites to this story.

And you have to be kidding about the Newt Gingrich thing. Of course I don't think for one minute he is credible. He is a typical shifty, lying, manipulative, dirty pool playing, republican politician. He is almost as bad as Karl Rove. He has an affair on his dying wife and condemns Clinton for having an affair. Fucking hypocrit. But you totally missed the point. If even this lying scumbag, who will say ANYTHING to make democrats look bad, has to admit that Gore really did take the initiative "more than any other member of Congress" to create the internet then that is really saying something, isn't it? Think of it this way. If I say that GWB is doing a good job to fight terrorism, that would carry a lot more weight then if you said it, wouldn't it?

I think that every liberal is a credible source? Where do you get this stuff from? You can't just make stuff up stuff and say its what I am thinking. Its as bad as saying that Gore claimed to invent the internet. Where do I say every liberal is a credible source? I freely admitted that some of the links I posted were liberal sources and should be afforded less credibility. Isn't that the exact opposite of saying that every liberal is a credible source? But I did include a large number of conservative sources as well. You talk about my insistance (insentance???) on suspect sources. What sources would satisfy you? I majorly have been relying on the most conservative mainstream newspaper in America. When did the Washington Post become a suspect source? I've relied on dozens of newspapers across the spectrum of conservative to liberal. I relied on the Republican run EPA. When I did list a liberal source, I was absolutley upfront and fairly stated that it was a liberal source. You had the audacity to cite the NPCA, the most infamously biased conservative propaganda machine in the history of American politics and you say that I have lost credibility by using suspect sources? When you cited the NPCA were you upfront about what kind of source that was?

You have got to be kidding me. You cite the NPCA, and I cite the Washington Post and I am the one who is using biased and suspect sources. Sure I have been using biased sources, CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN BIASED SOURCES.

Seriously, I think Ailia was right when she said that you must be just messing with me because you have to be smarter than this.

And now you say I think every liberal is a credible source? I'm starting to feel like Gore here. Tell me what else I said and what else I think.

Rooster

05-17-2004, 09:06 PM

56% of Americans prefer Swiss cheese. Boom, you have to like Swiss cheese now.

That would be the Clinton/Gore style :)

Eiru

05-17-2004, 09:06 PM

Hey, who DOESN'T like swiss cheese now?

Figtoria

05-17-2004, 09:11 PM

Booom for President!!!

Swifty_Johnson

05-17-2004, 09:58 PM

Seriously. I appreciate it but you have done enough for me. I've posted a TON of links documenting illegal military votes being counted. You don't have to post a single one showing that legal military votes were not counted, or that illegal felon votes were counted. You can just continue to make bald unsupported statements. Every time you do, it just proves my point.

You have no point, unless you want to keep spreading lies about me, you are appearently good at that. Silly me, living in South Florida and PERSONALLY seeing some of the election recount mess and having Booms run to a bunch of partisan and heavly biased websites and telling me I didn't see that I saw is classic.

I mean, I like explained to you what happened with the military votes in great detail, and it appears you didn't even read the sites you posted.

from http://www.midtod.com/election.phtml

The Bush minions have been harping about the military ballots which they claim the Gore team got thrown out. Ironically, the election officials who passed judgment on these ballots used criteria established weeks ago by Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

Which is incorrect, the guildlines were set way before this election.

And little more info.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/25/cst.26.html

Cite Katherine Harris's criminal acts? I already did.

Actually no, you didn't. You posted links to highly partisan websites.

How about when she had nearly a hundred thousand voters put on a list and prevented from voting because they were ex-felons.

How is that criminal? That's required by Florida LAW. Appearently you have a problem with people following laws when they go aginst your man. When is obeying the law a criminal act?

How about the fact that the list was shown to be 98% incorrect. That's right, 98% incorrect. People who were related to ex-felons were on the list. People who had the same last names

Grossly overstated, there were lots of names, but it was not 98%. It's also up to the counties to sort and apply the list, not the state. Some counties were good and caught the errors (Republican) and some weren't. (democratic)

And you have to be kidding about the Newt Gingrich thing. Of course I don't think for one minute he is credible. He is a typical shifty, lying, manipulative, dirty pool playing, republican politician.

Wait a minute. I said Newt was credible and you jump all over my ass and said I wasn't credible anymore.

Now you saw Newt isn't credible? Hello?? You don't see a problem with this?

A person can't be credible when they agree with you, and un-credible when they don't. Thanks for proving my point that you use highly suspect sources as your "proof".

Unlike you, when a source isn't credible, I don't use them when they agree with me. I would never use Newt as a source, and if you feel the way you do, neither should you.

I think that every liberal is a credible source? Where do you get this stuff from?

It stems from the whole Newt thing and the way you try to mislable the EPA as a conserative source. (really funny.) Appearently you think that the only sources credible to a conserative is other conseratives, therefore the only sources credible to you, are other liberals.

When you cited the NPCA were you upfront about what kind of source that was?

You are assuming that I care about affilation when I look at sources. I don't.

Swifty

Rooster

05-17-2004, 10:43 PM

I actually think that was Swifty's best reply yet (seriously).

Swifty_Johnson

05-17-2004, 11:18 PM

I wuz just lulling Booms into a false sence of confidance before. :)

Swifty

Noleader

05-18-2004, 01:50 AM

He did win the election. The Supreme Court just gave the job to GWB anyway.

Booms I do not have a link (Please don't hurt me :D ) but I did read a study a while back that did a full recount of the FL votes and when it was all said and done Bush would have still carried the state with a margin of 100 votes or some dumb number like that. Yes the Supreme Court put a end to the recount but even if it were to continue there was still a good chance (being ppl did not hide votes) that Bush would have been elected.

Wish I had the link to the study, it was done by Harvard or Yale or something :cheese:

I do know it was one of the trusted schools. Thing that confuses me is all schools are liberal scum holes so they should have projected Gore the winner :)

Boom

05-18-2004, 03:51 AM

No problem at all Noleader. I agree that there were studies which concluded Bush would have won. But there were also numerous ones that concluded Gore would have won.

Swifty said there were NO counts that concluded Gore would have won. My only point was that he was completely talking out of his ass again, not that Gore won, or that the pro-Gore studies were better than the pro-Bush studies. Just the fact that there were studies (and not just by liberal sources) that came out with Gore as the victor. And there were lots and lots of these studies. But of course, Swifty won't consider any of them since they all come from liberal whiners (even the ones that don't) despite his claim that he doesn't care about affiliation when it comes to sources (that has to be the lie of the day).

If you don't understand the Newt thing, there is probably no point in explaining it again. But I will try one more time. If a man who would kick his own mother to make a democrat look bad, has to admit that Gore deserves credit for his internet legislation, that should say something. Does that make sense to you?

You have no point, unless you want to keep spreading lies about me, you are appearently good at that.

What in God's green earth are you talking about? What lie have I spread about you? You can't just say stuff because it sounds good. Words have meaning. Your statements have to be true. If you are going to claim I have been spreading lies about you, you better be prepared to list these lies and show where I stated them, and prove that they are, in fact, lies.

Roo you really think that was Swifty's best post? It is chock full of unsupported statements and even some that don't make any sense. Its 1am here, so I won't spend too much time on it. But I noticed that the link he posted contradicts one of his own claims. He claimed that Gore was trying to get military ballots kept out of the count because of postmarks. Here is a quote from one of Swifty's own links.

DOUG HATTAWAY, GORE CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: I think our position has been clear that lawfully cast ballots should be counted. And in the case of military ballots that don't have a postmark, if it's signed and dated, that should be counted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So even though the election rules said to not count those votes, the democrats did want those counted. Isn't that the exact opposite of what Swifty claimed? Swifty, why would you cite something that proves you wrong? Oh, I guess that guy MUST have been lying since he is a democrat. He is publicly stating that the democrat's position is that if a military ballot has no postmark it should still be counted if its otherwise in order, but the real democrat position is to not count any military votes because that is what Swifty says it is, without ANY support of course.

Ok, I understand now that when I quote the most conservative newspaper in the country I am still somehow citing liberal biased sources, and you won't accept those sources based on their affiliation, and when I cite the Bush administration I am still citing liberal biased sources. Now I am using Swifty's own sources. Are my cites still unacceptably liberally biased? I'm running out of sources here Swifty. The most conservative newspaper in the country is apparently too liberally affiliated for you to accept, the Bush administration is apparently too liberally affiliated for you to accept, I seriously hope that your own cites are not to liberally affiliated for me to cite. Otherwise I am left with just the NPCA, and they have been caught in too many lies for me to trust them.

Anyway, back to Swifty's completely unsupported statements that somehow managed to impress Rooster so much.

Grossly overstated, there were lots of names, but it was not 98%. It's also up to the counties to sort and apply the list, not the state. Some counties were good and caught the errors (Republican) and some weren't. (democratic)

No support, no cites, nothing. Just saying whatever sounds good. You really think this is good stuff Rooster? Do you actually believe what Swifty is saying in that quote to be true?

This next one is my favorite, he puts up a quote about rules Katherine Harris set up a few weeks before the election and then says this.

Which is incorrect, the guildlines were set way before this election.

No cites, no support, nothing. It just sounds good. Bad enough when Swifty just says whatever sounds good with no support. This time he not only made stuff up (guidelines being set up way before the election) he actually posts a quote saying he is wrong. I thought this was getting bad when I was finding quotes that proved Swifty wrong. Now he is finding them himself. This impresses you Rooster? I mean come on. Its bad enough to just make stuff up for the point of argument and not support it, but to have the balls to cite to a source that disagrees with you, and just flat out say that source is wrong and you are right and NOT show any source that supports you? You have to be putting me on. When does the guy jump out from my closet and tell me I am on Candid Camera?

This last one is the ultimate. I'm at a loss here.

You are assuming that I care about affilation when I look at sources. I don't.

Huh??? You don't care about affiliation when you look at sources? You refuse to even read most of my cites because you claim they have liberal affiliation (whether they do or not). How can you possibly say you don't care about affiliation when it comes to source? How many times have you said a source is no good because of its affiliation? How many times have you done it in this thread alone? You specifically said that you disregard ANY study that shows Gore may have won the election because they come from liberal sources. Not because you find their statistical methods were faulty, but because of their affiliation. You disregard every source I post based SOLEY on its affiliation. You don't disregard them because you find their research faulty, or their facts questionable, you disregard them because they are from liberal whiners (like the Bush administration and the Washington Post). The only source you seem to trust is the most extremest right wing propaganda machine in the country but you don't care about affiliation when it comes to sources? Meanwhile I have been very careful to use conservative sources MORE than I use liberal sources, but you state that the only sources credible to me are liberal sources? This is beyond absurd.

You are assuming that I care about affilation when I look at sources. I don't.

I'm sorry, but you just lied to me there. That is not cool. Do I have to go through all the threads and quote every time you complained about a source based on nothing more than its affiliation? If I did, that would be a loooooong list of quotes because you have done it alot. I honestly cannot believe that you actually said you don't care about affiliation when it comes to sources.

I just realized what Rooster must have meant when he said this was Swifty's best post. The rest of them were just that bad huh?

Rooster

05-18-2004, 09:11 AM

A) The election rules were set up by Dem's years before. That was never even contested during the election fiasco.

B) He did provide a link (I didn't visit it).

C) I did look back in this thread and didn't see where he discounted a source based on it's political affiliation, but on his feeling they were not credible regardless of affiliation.

D) Your last sentence; that would not neccessarily be an inaccurate statement.

Boom

05-18-2004, 12:28 PM

Roo, you just made my day.

Swifty_Johnson

05-18-2004, 12:30 PM

Swifty said there were NO counts that concluded Gore would have won. My only point was that he was completely talking out of his ass again, not that Gore won, or that the pro-Gore studies were better than the pro-Bush studies.

OMG, tell me you must be joking. The only counts that had Gore win grossly violated election laws by granting Gore votes from ballots which had 2 presidental canidates marked. You must be joking that you consider these "recounts" vaild as they grossly step on the Constitution of the United States of America. I guess you'll do anything in your power to put you man into office, even throw away the document that defines this country.

So even though the election rules said to not count those votes, the democrats did want those counted.

You have to be kidding, I live in Florida remember, I was here for the recount. Bush actually had to file a lawsuit in an attempt to get those votes counted. Just because Gore's mouth piece said he wanted those votes counted, doesn't mean Gore's foot soldiers were getting them disqualifed. Like I said before, his lawyers high fived after getting a military vote disqualifyed over the postmark.

I have a good book on the subject, when I get home I'll look for it and post the info. Altohugh you are so closed minded I doubt it would do any good.

Huh??? You don't care about affiliation when you look at sources? You refuse to even read most of my cites because you claim they have liberal affiliation (whether they do or not).

Really, you have any proof of this? If I didn't read the sites you posted, than how come I throw back information from them? You are the one who lists everything with affilations.

Quote:
Which is incorrect, the guildlines were set way before this election.

No cites, no support, nothing. It just sounds good. Bad enough when Swifty just says whatever sounds good with no support. This time he not only made stuff up (guidelines being set up way before the election) he actually posts a quote saying he is wrong.

Actually I posted the quote as proof the military ballots were discarded, and I corrected it. Now it's time for you to stepup to the plate. Please prove that the secatary of state in Florida changed election laws right before the election. Cite the evidance, becasue I say she didn't.

Do I have to go through all the threads and quote every time you complained about a source based on nothing more than its affiliation?

Of so when I look at a source and see that it's slanted heavily to the left and extreamly biased, I cannot point that fact out?

As a matter of fact if you dig deep enough you'll see where I say I avoid using sources like salon and newsmax as they are too slanted to get a honest opinoin.

Unlike you Booms, who believes a source is credible when they agree with you, and not-credible when they disagree, if a source is not credible to begin with I don't use it, even when they agree with me.

Swifty

Allison

05-18-2004, 03:59 PM

The only counts that had Gore win grossly violated election laws by granting Gore votes from ballots which had 2 presidental canidates marked. You must be joking that you consider these "recounts" vaild as they grossly step on the Constitution of the United States of America.
The studies you guys are talking about attempted to determine the outcome of the election based on intended votes... That may include overvotes as well as illegal absentee ballots. Neither has anything to do with the Constitution of the United States.

What's really funny here is that Florida election law would have specifically disallowed many of the absentee ballots that were included in the official count, and it specifically requires the hand-counting of many of the overvotes that were disallowed.

Being in Florida at the time Swifty, you should know that a good number of these overvotes were not cases of people actually voting for two different candidates. I"m not talking about the confusing butterfly ballot, in which the 2nd candidate from the top did not go with the 2nd punchole from the top. I'm talking about the ballots on which the "voter intent" was clear. Some of the ballots that had a punch next to a candidate A's name, and also Candidate A's name written in next to "Write in candidate here," were disallowed, in direct contradiction to Florida election laws which not only require the manual examination of write-in votes, but also require that votes not be disallowed when the voter intent is clear: For each ballot or ballot and ballot envelope on which write-in votes have been cast, the canvassing board shall compare the write-in votes with the votes cast on the ballot card ... No vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board.

One example, in Lake county, more than 600 "overvotes" in which the same candidate (one candidate) was both punched and written in were completely disallowed by the local election board. The voter intent was clear on these ballots. The law required they be counted. They were not.

Florida election laws were violated in many cases around the state. I'm not saying that Gore would have won the election if every person's vote had been counted in the way that they intended. But it is dishonest to claim that Gore was the only one doing anything wrong here. And it's absurd to claim that the U.S. Constitution was being violated in any way.

Swifty_Johnson

05-18-2004, 04:25 PM

And it's absurd to claim that the U.S. Constitution was being violated in any way.

Nope it isn't.

If someone punchs choices for two canidates and that vote is counted in some counties in Florida, than it violates the constitution. You cannot have someone who pucnhed two choices in one place not counted, and in the next place counted.

Being in Florida at the time Swifty, you should know that a good number of these overvotes were not cases of people actually voting for two different candidates.

Actually, yes it was.

One example, in Lake county, more than 600 "overvotes" in which the same candidate (one candidate) was both punched and written in were completely disallowed by the local election board.

Lake county Florida used optical scanners where people filled in the ballots with penciles, and than some of them also wrote the choice of president on the ballot. A majority of the overvotes were cases where there was more than one hole punched.

Swifty

Allison

05-18-2004, 04:55 PM

If someone punchs choices for two canidates and that vote is counted in some counties in Florida, than it violates the constitution. You cannot have someone who pucnhed two choices in one place not counted, and in the next place counted.I was talking about ballots on which the "overvote" was a case of punching/marking a vote for a candidate, and then also punching and/or writing in that same candidate. If those votes were not counted, and many were not, it is in direct violation with Florida election law. Please show me where the U.S. Constitution contradicts this.

Lake county Florida used optical scanners where people filled in the ballots with penciles, and than some of them also wrote the choice of president on the ballot. A majority of the overvotes were cases where there was more than one hole punched.
Forgive me. Lake county did not have punch-holes. But, it is as I said: Some of the Lake County overvotes were the result of voting twice for the same candidate. According to Florida law, they should have been counted. And although Lake county didn't use punch-holes, some of the counties who did, like Duval county who registered more than 20,000 overvotes, allowed for a punchole next to the write-in cadidate, which caused the same problem: voting twice for the same person. Again, under Florida law, these votes should have been counted. (Important to note also, but not really relevant to the recount, is that the Duval County ballot listing of presidential candidates spanned 2 pages, and included instructions to "vote on every page." An easy thing for an inexperienced voter to do would be to punch the hole next to Bush or Gore's name on the first page, and then on the 2nd page (I'm supposed to vote on every page, right?) to also punch the hole next to "Write in candidate," and duplicate the vote you made on the first page. )

Again, I don't know what a full counting of these overvotes would have found. But, it's clear that at least some of them showed a clear intent by the voter to vote for one candidate in particular. Florida law required they be counted, and they were not.

Swifty_Johnson

05-18-2004, 05:18 PM

I was talking about ballots on which the "overvote" was a case of punching/marking a vote for a candidate, and then also punching and/or writing in that same candidate. If those votes were not counted, and many were not, it is in direct violation with Florida election law. Please show me where the U.S. Constitution contradicts this.

I'm talking about votes where there are 2 differant canidates punched.

Also, if one county counts a vote where a person who punched, than wrote in the same canidate, and a differant county did not count this. Than that would also be inviolation of the Constitution.

Swifty

see

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Eiru

05-18-2004, 05:30 PM

Roo, when are you going to create the section that this forum desperately needs?

Allison

05-18-2004, 06:28 PM

I'm talking about votes where there are 2 differant canidates punched.Yes, and I didn't dispute the invalidity of counting those votes. But let's be clear. Is it true you're not disputing my original point: It is a violation of Florida election law to disallow overvotes in which the voter intent was clear, namely when the same candidate was voted for twice. Is that correct?

Also, if one county counts a vote where a person who punched, than wrote in the same canidate, and a differant county did not count this. Than that would also be inviolation of the Constitution.

see

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

Okay, I read that entire article. It says nothing about the Constitution. I double checked the Constitution, and I can't find anything that comes close to what you're saying. Can you or can you not back up your statement?

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's say the Constitution states that all counties must use the same standards for validating votes. (Personally, both I and the state of Florida agree they should. That's why the state of Florida has laws that require they do. ) Now, let's also say that County A properly counts their overvotes where the voter intent is clear, as required by state law, and that County B disallows theirs. Under this scenario,you'd be right; the state of Florida would be guilty of violating the Constitution for not forcing County B to adhere to the law. Is that not correct? Or are you suggesting that instead of requiring all counties to follow the law, that the state should force County A to break the law?

Boom

05-18-2004, 07:25 PM

You are assuming that I care about affilation when I look at sources. I don't.
why should I even look at the "liberal whiners who can't get a real job's data?
You just asked me for proof that you refuse to read my sources. How about you saying that you shouldn't even look at them?
Al Gore was never ahead on any recount that didn't use BIASED criteria.
I'm sorry Booms, but your insentance on using suspect sources has shot your credibility to hell.
having Booms run to a bunch of partisan and heavly biased websites and telling me I didn't see that I saw is classic.
You posted links to highly partisan websites.
Like the Washington Post. LOL!
Also, the EPA isn't a solid source as you claim, they are highly vulmerable to junk science as anyone else.
Anyone except your sources.
please spare me the garbarge that the EPA is conserative run.
This is your justification for ignoring any data I linked from their website.

I know there are a ton more. But its really hard to use the forum search to find Swifty quotes due to his atrocious spelling.

Swifty_Johnson

05-18-2004, 09:17 PM

You just asked me for proof that you refuse to read my sources. How about you saying that you shouldn't even look at them?

Except that several times I've posted data from your sources, so if I didn't read your sources, how did I post data from them?

Quote:
You posted links to highly partisan websites.

Like the Washington Post. LOL!

No like when talking about the Florida recount, you posted several links to democrats.com, an extreamly biased source.

You also when on to claim the military ballots were never disqualifyed, and I found statements in one of your sources saying they were. Do you even read them?

Also, you said you were going to look into Al Gore's Lodine statement and get back to us with the truth, appearently you didn't like the truth.

Unfortuantly Booms, until you start using solid sources, your credibilty is zero. You backup your claims with a source that a few posts later you claim isn't credible. A source doens't magically become credible when it agrees with you, than looses all credibilty when it disagrees with you. You post information from "conserative" sources and act like I should take it as gosphel. Sorry, I like to think for myself. You can post what you want, from any source that you want, and I'm not going to believe it or dismiss it based on it's political leanings.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-18-2004, 09:21 PM

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Let's say the Constitution states that all counties must use the same standards for validating votes. (Personally, both I and the state of Florida agree they should. That's why the state of Florida has laws that require they do. ) Now, let's also say that County A properly counts their overvotes where the voter intent is clear, as required by state law, and that County B disallows theirs. Under this scenario,you'd be right; the state of Florida would be guilty of violating the Constitution for not forcing County B to adhere to the law.

Correct, County B would be in breech.

All votes must be treated the same. This is why the Florida election was such a mess. Differant counties were sing diffeant standards, some had highly accurate voting devices, others highly inaccurate. Some has loose standards on how to treat a hanging chad, some had more strict standards. What basically came down the pipe was treat all votes the same. So instead of only recounting 4 counties the whole state had to recount, and the state had to adapt a uniform standard.

All this was handled under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Swifty

Eiru

05-18-2004, 09:40 PM

I know it's spam, Roo, but we really need that new forum.

Boom

05-18-2004, 11:45 PM

So now Swifty is saying my sources are incorrect when I cite him as my source.

Allison

05-19-2004, 12:57 AM

Lol, Swifty .. you gotta read this link I came across. I was looking for something I remembered about how the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2000 specifically stated that their decision applied only to this particular case. (Because if they didn't, votes all over the country could be invalidated.) Anyway, I ran across this link. It's pretty funny. :laugh:
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm

Rooster

05-19-2004, 01:04 AM

Funny, but BS. :)

Allison

05-19-2004, 01:50 AM

Funny, but BS. :)

No, no ... it's funny because so much of it is true! :p

Swifty_Johnson

05-19-2004, 10:12 AM

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.

This is one of the most hysterical statements this goof made.

Who's responsible for the voting systems in a county?

The county buys and maintains the systems. So who's to blame for the problems when a democratic county buys and maintains a poor voting system, and designs a ballot that is confusing?

Republicans

Swifty

Boom

05-19-2004, 11:35 AM

Also, you said you were going to look into Al Gore's Lodine statement and get back to us with the truth, appearently you didn't like the truth.

Thank's for reminding me. I totally forgot about that. Ok I found the truth on this but you aren't going to like it. Gore said that both his dog and his mother-in-law take this medication. This is true. He said, "While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog." These numbers were accurate wholesale prices taken from a Congressional Report. Where is the lie? Apparently he lied when he said his mother-in-law pays $108 a month without looking through her purse at her bills. But did he lie? Did he say "My mother-in-law pays $108 while my dog pays $37.80? No, he said, "While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog." Is this true? 100% accurate information from a Congressional Report. Was he misleading anyone? Absolutely not. While those were wholesale prices and retail prices will be higher, the fact is that Lodine cost several times more to buy for a person then for a dog. Where was he misleading anyone? Where was he lying? I'll tell you where the lie was. The lie was conservatives twisting it, but still having to admit his basic point is right. This quote is from a cite called Stupid quotes and lies of Al Gore.

Vice President Al Gore, reaching for a personal example to illustrate the breathtaking costs of some prescription drugs, told seniors in Florida that his mother-in-law pays nearly three times as much for the same arthritis medicine used for his ailing dog, Shiloh. "That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break" he stated. Gore's mother-in-law does pay more for her medication, but the generic brand of the drug, which 85% of Americans now use as a cheaper alternative, costs half as much, or one and a half times what it costs for the pooch - not three times.

Oh, so if she gets the generic (which they don't know if she does) it would only be 1.5 times as much, not 3 times as much. Damn that lying SOB Gore! He totally misled me into thinking the same pill cost more for people then for dogs! Oh wait, it does cost more for people? Well, damn him anyway he is creepy and stuff!

The lie was from the conservative LieAboutGore machine that said he made up stuff about his dog and said that he claimed to invent the internet and claimed that he wasn't the basis for Segul's book and claimed that he said "I was the one who started it all," referring to Love Canal when he really said, "It was the one that started it all," talking about a polluted well in another state. I'm still waiting on your response to the Love Canal story. My guess is you will say, "So what if they lied to make him look bad? He is a big fat liar anyway and deserves it." or you will say, "So what if they lied about that? I don't mind when my party lies to me, besides, liberals do it way worse." Then you will fail to support that in any way.

Swifty_Johnson

05-19-2004, 12:01 PM

In August, Gore told a group of Florida senior citizens that his mother-in-law, Margaret Ann Aitcheson, has to pay three times as much for the prescription drug Lodine than he pays for his dog Shiloh's (14-year-old black Labrador Retriever) almost identical medicine. Gore he pays $37.80 per month for Shiloh to take Etogesic, the animal version of Lodine, but that his mother-in-law's monthly bill is $108. Gore concluded, That's pretty bad when you have got to pretend to be a dog or a cat to get a price break.

It's a lie becasue he never checked with his mother-in-law, and also the pet version is not the same dosage, nor goes through the same testing as the human version. You claim he never said his mother-in-law paid that much, others say he did.

So not only does he not have a clue as to what his mother-in-law paid, but he also lied in saying it was the same medicine, which it isn't.

But appearently that's okay with you. Liberals can lie and bend the truth to their hearts content and that's a-okay. A liberal can do anything in their power to get elected as they are the good guys.

Waht does Love canal have to do with anything?

Swifty

]LoL[Harm

05-19-2004, 12:05 PM

Animal medication does have less regulation than human medication. Trials/testing for human medication is one reason they increase the cost of the medication so they can recoup the investments made for testing.

There are a gazillion reasons why our medication costs so much and just as many ways at fixing it. Corporate greed not exempt.

Boom

05-21-2004, 04:38 PM

You claim he never said his mother-in-law paid that much, others say he did.

No, I quoted his actual statement which was, ""While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog."

This is true, according to the congressional report.

Waht does Love canal have to do with anything?

I want to know your opinion on it. Like you wanted to know if I thought Bush lied in his SOTU address and how you wanted to know if I support Koyoto. I answered those questions just be cause you wanted to know my opinion.

Boom

05-21-2004, 04:44 PM

But appearently that's okay with you. Liberals can lie and bend the truth to their hearts content and that's a-okay. A liberal can do anything in their power to get elected as they are the good guys.

Right, like how the Bush campaign lied over and over saying that Gore said, "I invented the internet" (remember you admitted, after 5 pages of argument, that this does twist his words to make him sound bad, no taking it back now), and how they lied about him not being the basis for the character in that movie, and how they lied about love canal and how they downplay Bush's involvement in the oil-industry (WhiteHouse official website has a Bio for Bush and there is a single statement that he worked in "energy." They downplayed it so well that even Rooster, a HUGE Bush supporter didn't know that the Bush family had ANY involvement in oil.

But you say liberals can lie and bend the truth and that is ok. You haven't yet proven one lie. Not one. Sure, if you twist around Gore's words and claim he is making statements that he never made, then he is a big fat liar.

And if you do convince me that he lied, I will condemn him for it. Saying that I am ok with lying is untrue and unfair. You are the one who is ok with your party lying to you. You admit the "invented" quote was distorted to make him look bad and you are fine with it because Gore is a dick and he deserves it.

Swifty_Johnson

05-21-2004, 04:58 PM

Gore he pays $37.80 per month for Shiloh to take Etogesic, the animal version of Lodine, but that his mother-in-law's monthly bill is $108.

That is what Gore said, it's a lie.

Al and Tipper were not the subject of Love story, another lie.

From Meet the Press 12/19/99
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, what did you think of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign's approach to fund-raising?
MR. BRADLEY: I thought that a lot of people in politics were embarrassed by it, quite frankly. I think Republicans and Democrats were disgraceful in that fund-raising program in 1996. Now, I think Al had the right point. It's the lessons that you learn. In 1990, I raised a lot of money for my Senate race. I raised too much money. I discovered that you can have too much money in a political campaign. I think that's what George Bush is going to discover. Now, in Al's case, the attorney general investigated it fully and determined that an independent counsel was not needed. And so - and the Republicans might make that an issue, but that's the reality. But I think the question is what you learn from this. And what I learned is that you've had seven years to actually do something on campaign-finance reform, and nothing has happened. I remember visiting the White House in 1993, Democratic Congress, both Senate and House, and urging the president to act on campaign-finance reform. Now, I don't know if you were in the loop or not, but the fact of the matter is that no action took place. And when we say what we...
VICE PRES. GORE: Because all the Republicans voted against it.
MR. BRADLEY: ...what we need to do...
VICE PRES. GORE: And they controlled the Senate.
MR. BRADLEY: ...what we - where was the effort made, Al, in 1993?
VICE PRES. GORE: We got every single Democratic senator to vote for it.

(Republican's didn't get controll of the Senate until 94)

Pete Talek, a U.S. Steel employee speaking with Al Gore: "I am a few credits shy of earning a master's degree and could use federal funds to help defray tuition costs because he also is putting a daughter through community college. "I worked with a 14-inch pipe wrench for years and a coal shovel." Adding that he since has added a computer keyboard to the list of tools he can now use. "Gore smiled and admitted that he, too, has trouble turning on a computer - let alone using one."

The man who claimed he created the internet has problems turing on a computer!

The list goes on and on and on.

Allison

05-21-2004, 05:21 PM

Al and Tipper were not the subject of Love story, another lie.

If Gore had said that they were, then it would have been. But, what he said was that the author was quoted in a Tennessee paper as saying they were. And he was. The paper had mis-quoted the author. Gore did not lie.

Didn't we cover this already?

Sparky

05-21-2004, 05:24 PM

http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/wireless/spy_1.jpg

Boom

05-21-2004, 05:38 PM

The man who claimed he created the internet has problems turing on a computer!
Wow, you can't stop saying that lie. Even after you admitted it was a lie you can't stop saying it. And you accuse others of lying. He created legislation. Remember? Say it slow with me Leh----gis----lay----shun.

Show me the cite to where he said his mother payed $108 for lodine and not "people pay $108 for lodine." It has to be a cite where someone is directly quoting his exact words, not just saying "he said that his mom pays..." Paraphrasing is not good. I can show you 1000 cites that say "Gore says he invented the internet." and we know that isn't true. I need an exact quote please.

Al and Tipper were not the subject of Love story, another lie.
How many cites have I shown you (and not from liberal whiner sources) to explain this? He referred to an interview with Segul and there was a mistake in the interview. He did say that he was a basis for one of the characters, and that was true. He didn't say that Tipper was the basis for anything, the incorrect Segul interview in "The Tennesian" said that. I guess the facts don't matter, once you are fed the propaganda you are done. Man, what was that you accused liberals of? Repeating a lie over and over till it becomes true? Al Gore said he invented the internet, Al Gore said he invented the internet, Al Gore said he invented the internet. Is it true yet? In the eyes of most of America it is.

As for that Bradley-Gore debate, Gore's point was that Bradley just tried to blame the democrats for the lack of campaign fund raising reform. The fact was every democrat voted for it and the republicans stopped it. Yes, Gore was mistaken about the fact that the repubs were in control of the Senate at the time. Was he lying? It sure sounds like more of a mistake then a lie to me. But anyway according to you I am ok with it. Guess what, I'm not. Dumbass Gore should have his facts straight when going into a debate or it makes us look bad. I'm pissed at him about this. Even so, if that's the best example of a "lie" you can come up with, then you really have come up short. I can list over 100 Bush mistakes that are worse then that.

Btw, you know I am praying for your girlfriend and I hope she comes back soon and safely. But you just learned for a fact that she is definitely going to Iraq, but ever since you found out she was being deployed you have been posting that she is going to Iraq. In tells you would say that she can't tell you where she is going but you think it is Iraq for one reason or another, but on the forums you just stated that she is going to the Gulf. Isn't that the same kind of embellishment that makes you think Gore is a lying, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, shifty, person? Of course, Gore's embellishments are based on misquotes of what he actually said.

Figtoria

05-21-2004, 05:54 PM

That is what Gore said, it's a lie.

Prove it.

You saying it doesn't make it a lie.

I'd like to see a direct link to a quote, please.

Swifty_Johnson

05-21-2004, 07:53 PM

I admitted he didn't use the word invented, Al Gore still claimed he created the internet. His words, not mine.

His was totally lying in the debate, as at the time the Republicans did NOT have controll of the Senate, it wasn't until 94 that the democrats lost controll of the Senate.

“Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, the Vice President came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force Two. Sliding in behind a table with the two reporters covering him that day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story; and Gore’s Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones, who played the roommate of the Gore-like character in the movie version of Segal’s book.” (Time, 12/15/97)

There is in, from Time. Al Gore claimed he AND Tipper were models for Love story.

You haven't yet proven one lie.

I have, several times, you are just so caught up into thinking Al Gore is a Saint, that you will refuse to acknowledge that he has lied. I didn't even bring up him accepting campagin donations at a Buddist Temple ( aginst campaign laws) and him claiming he didn't know it was a Temple. He's either a liar or extreamly extreamly stupid.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-21-2004, 07:57 PM

But you just learned for a fact that she is definitely going to Iraq, but ever since you found out she was being deployed you have been posting that she is going to Iraq. In tells you would say that she can't tell you where she is going but you think it is Iraq for one reason or another, but on the forums you just stated that she is going to the Gulf. Isn't that the same kind of embellishment that makes you think Gore is a lying, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, shifty, person?

Umm, no. I've drawn conclusions from what I've read in the media, and what she tells me. I may get a plesant surprise and she doesn't wind up in that hell hole, but I am playing the worst case scenario. Unlike Gore, I don't know the real truth and I am not spiceing things up to get elected.

Swifty

MickeyFinn

05-21-2004, 09:25 PM

"He was co-chair of the congressional committee that appropriated the money to create the NSFNET that was the predecessor to the modern internet."

Beaurocracy in action BABY!

Boom

05-21-2004, 09:45 PM

I admitted he didn't use the word invented, Al Gore still claimed he created the internet. His words, not mine.
No those are your words. His words were "took the initiative in creating the internet" in response to a question about legislation. You admitted he was talking about legislation and now you are back to claiming he said he created the internet.

You claimed that he stated his mother pays $108 for Lodine. Not true. I showed you the exact quote of what he said "People pay..." and challenged you to find any source that actually quotes him saying "My mother pays..." and you can't. You can only find sources of people interpreting what he said, "Al Gore said that his mother pays.." Until you can quote him, his exact words, you can't call him a liar.

Same with the Love Story thing. You show that article from Time which repeats the LIE that was spread around the media but fail to find a quote of the exact words that came out of Gore's mouth. Until you can do that, show the words that came out of his mouth, an exact quote of them, you cannot say he lied. Gore was talking about an article he read in The Tennesian and in that article the reporter made a mistake in his interview with Segul. What part of that do you not understand?

I think Gore is a Saint? Now you are putting words in my mouth too. I don't think he is a saint, but I think it sucks the way the media distorted things to make him look like a liar. You have no problem with the media and conservative propaganda machines doing that. You don't seem to see it as dirty politics. That's why I keep asking for your opinion on the Love Canal incident. Why won't you respond to that?

So do you, or do you not know for a fact that your girlfriend is going to Iraq? Earlier today you made it sound like you now know for a fact and now you seem to be saying you don't. Regardless, for weeks now you have been using the "fact" that she is going to Iraq to bolster your arguments here.

Unlike Gore, I don't know the real truth and I am not spiceing things up to get elected.
No, you aren't running for office, but if you don't know the real truth and are stating things as fact anyway, then you aren't being truthful in your discussions here you are on really weak ground calling other people liars.

Researching the buddist temple issue now....

Even though I shouldn't have to research it to defend it since you have no source to back up the allegation.

Boom

05-21-2004, 10:12 PM

LOL, he never claimed he didn't know it was a temple! OMG. Talk about making stuff up. Even the most biased right wing liars I could possibly find on the internet don't say he claimed he didn't know it was a temple! Hahahhhaaa.

He had a fund-raising event at another location, followed by a rally at the temple scheduled that day on his calendar. The fund-raiser was cancelled. He appeared at the rally, and gave a speech. It was not his "fund-raiser" speech where he thanks people for their donations, it was his "rally" speech, you know, go go USA. Later it was found that people in his campaign did take donations at the rally. Those people are idiots and piss me off. I hope they got in a lot of trouble because its illegal to take donations at churches. And I'm expecially pissed because I hate it when my side does wrong. Unlike you who just won't admit when his side just does wrong. The money was returned. When Gore said he had no idea that it was a fund-raiser (which he didn't), Republicans said, "Omg it says fund raiser right here on your calendar!" But they neglected to mention the fact that the fund-raiser was a totally different event at a completely different location. On his calendar the event at the temple was listed as a rally. On his calendar fund-raisers are listed as fund-raisers. Since it wasn't listed as a fund-raiser, and noone tried to give him any money, he had no idea donations were given. I'm sure he must have been as pissed as I was when he found out that money changed hands that day.

I've responded to everything you have asked. I still want to know what you think about the Love Canal incident, which I have described in depth with cites to my sources. Do you agree his comment was totally and unfairly twisted out of all context and meaning to make him out to be a liar? Or is this one of the occasions where the facts don't support your opinion (that conservatives never lied about Gore) so you will just ignore it?

Rooster

05-21-2004, 10:54 PM

"He was co-chair of the congressional committee that appropriated the money to create the NSFNET that was the predecessor to the modern internet."

Beaurocracy in action BABY!Eh? ARPNET was the predecessor to Internet, I've done some CCNA & other stuff, and never heard of NSFNET.

Swifty_Johnson

05-21-2004, 11:19 PM

Whatever Boooms,

No matter what proof I come up with you always try to twist things around and make poor Al out to be some sort of victum of an evil lying right wing conspiracy.

Fact his, he was lying his pants off to make himself look better and got caught many times.

So that's it, I'm out. I am done with this. Keep your blinders on and keep backing Saint Gore.

Swifty

Allison

05-21-2004, 11:22 PM

Lol, Swifty, it's so funny to see you accuse Boom of exactly the thing you're doing. Gives me a little chuckle. :)
I'm sure this has been posted before, because we've hashed this to death ... but I can't help myself.

Swifty, that Time article was written by Karen Tumulty. You'll notice the article doesn't directly quote Gore. Here's what Karen Tumulty said later when asked about the specifics of Gore's statement: He said, "all I know is that's what he [Segal] told reporters in Tennessee."

Your own source backs him up on this issue.

Was he trying to puff himself up? Sure. Does it display an annoying amount of bloated self-importance? Yes. Was he lying? No.

Boom

05-22-2004, 01:33 AM

What proof you come up with? Like when you came up with the clip of Gore saying "I invented the internet" that you claimed existed? Or when you came up with a site quoting Gore as stating, "my mother payed..." to counter the one that I came up with that said "people payed..." Or when you came up with a site that quoted Gore's exact words when he made the claim about A Love Story?

I don't recall you coming up with any of those things. You can cite to people saying, "Gore said he invented the internet" or "Gore said this and Gore said that." But those are interpretations of what he said, not quotes of what he said.

And dammit, it is insulting when you put words in my mouth. I am not a huge Gore supporter. I just think its bad the way that they lied about him. Saying I think he is Saint Gore is fucking insulting bullshit. If you want to discuss the issues here fine, if you want to try and antagonize me that is not cool.

Show me where Gore said he didn't know it was a temple. I am flat out saying you fucking lied about that. I am calling you on it. Prove it or take it back.

My blinders? Could you be more of a hypocrite? I show you quotes of what Gore said and you still chose to believe the second hand interpretations of what he said. I give a perfect example of how he was totally misquoted and made out to be a liar (the Love Canal issue) and you REFUSE to respond to it.

I've responded to every thing you have said. You refuse to respond to my questions if you think they will make you agree that your side ever did anything bad. I have agreed with you when your sources were right and Gore, or his staff, did something dumb. I said I was furious at Gore, or his staff, for doing those dumb things. How could I say that if I thought he was a Saint? When will you ever admit that Bush did anything wrong? Take a look in the mirror man, see who is wearing the fucking blinders.

Rooster

05-22-2004, 01:53 AM

I really don't like Bush's BLOATED budget... he should have stuck with lower taxes and a new, leaner consolidated Dept Homeland Security, he'd have been fine.

He can do wrong.

But, I trust his heart. I don't trust Kerry's.

Figtoria

05-22-2004, 02:05 AM

Whatever Boooms,

No matter what proof I come up with you always try to twist things around and make poor Al out to be some sort of victum of an evil lying right wing conspiracy.

The point is, Swifty, you have yet to come up with ANY proof of what you say. All we are asking for is a direct quote - not your paraphrasing of one.

Don't you see the difference?

Swifty_Johnson

05-22-2004, 09:35 AM

Well Booms, you just posted pass three at Al Gore's attempts at explaing the mess at the temple. You want to know more,

"Gore Says He Erred Attending Fund-Raiser," (from AP), San Francisco Chronicle, January 25, 1997 pA6
"Gore Says he Realized Gathering at Temple Was 'Finance-Related'", Boston Globe news service, San Francisco Chronicle,January 15, 1997 pA2
"Gore Saw Sect Leader, Memo Says," (from AP), San Francisco Chronicle, December 24, 1996
"Donors: Warnings", Los Angeles Times, February 15, 1997 pA19
"Former Top Aide Defends Gore,", by Los Angeles Times News Service, San Francisco Chronicle, September 6, 1997 pA4
"Was Gore an Innocent Victim in Temple Affair?" Robert Novak's syndicated editorial column, San Francisco Chronicle, August 13, 1997 pA21

"my mother payed..." to counter the one that I came up with that said "people payed..."

Yours said "people payed", mine say differant. Don't have an audio clip do you? How did all these misinterpations come about if Al Gore never talked about his monther-in-law or his dog? I mean if Al Gore really said "According to this report people pay more for lodine than dogs do" than how can he be so misquoted. How could evil Republican operative slip in the story about his dog and mother-in-law if Al Gore never said it?

I am not a huge Gore supporter. I just think its bad the way that they lied about him.

Really, can't tell by your actions. You are so willing to twist and distort to cover for him. His claims about creating the internet is a perfect example. Yes, you are right, he didn't claim to have INVENTED it, he claimed to have CREATED it. Than you go off on an tangent about legislation, ignoring the truth that he didn't even create the internet though legislation. He could have said,

In congress I took the initative and I expanded the internet!

So not sexy. You don't get elected expanding things. He lied and spiced it up.

My blinders? Could you be more of a hypocrite? I show you quotes of what Gore said and you still chose to believe the second hand interpretations of what he said.

No, you show me someone else's interpretations of what he said and expect me to take than over someone elses. Can you produce audio clips?

I give a perfect example of how he was totally misquoted and made out to be a liar (the Love Canal issue) and you REFUSE to respond to it.

I did respond it to, I said I have no idea about Love Canal. I'm shure I can find plenty of sources that said he lied, and others that said he didn't. I'm not going to waste my time on it.

My blinders? Could you be more of a hypocrite?

I posted about Al Gore and the temple and you run out and instantly assume the first tidbit of information clearing him is the truth. Yup, blinders.

I said I was furious at Gore, or his staff, for doing those dumb things.

Saying I am a liar and than going on and saying how furious you were at Al Gore's staff for accepting donations at a temple isn't going to cut it. You are covering up for the fact that Al Gore went to a fundraiser at a temple by trying to blame it on underlings, thereby deflecting the blame from Gore to someone else.

I've responded to every thing you have said.

By sometimes posting ever more biased information. This is going to go nowhere. I will not accept the sources you use, you won't accept the sources I use. There is no point to this.

When will you ever admit that Bush did anything wrong?

I have, I said I wasn't too keen on his expansion of the federal goverment.

Swifty

Figtoria

05-22-2004, 09:58 AM

Yours said "people payed[sic]", mine say differant[sic].

Swifty, you STILL don't get it. Those are not quotes made by Gore - those are headlines from papers.

Here I will quote you dictionary.com's definition so you understand -

"To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source."

Don't have an audio clip do you?

Now, the audio clip challenge is a fair one IF you have already met Boooms text quotes with one of your own.

But you haven't.

You are so willing to twist and distort to cover for him.

Not at all - he is only not willing to let lies stand as truth, no matter who it is.

Truth is more important than political rhetoric.

No, you show me someone else's interpretations of what he said and expect me to take than over someone elses.

Sorry bud, but that's what you just did. Booom gave quotes from the man himself - you gave us newspaper headlines.

Saying I am a liar

For what it's worth - I don't think you're a liar in that you intend to put out disinformation. I just think your thinking is fuzzy.

Swifty_Johnson

05-22-2004, 10:03 AM

He's playing the liberal game of keep drilling something until it sticks and the truth will go away.

Clinton missed getting Bin Laden in 1996 from the Sudan, now there is an effort on to coverup and say that never happened.

Swifty

Rooster

05-22-2004, 11:40 AM

And honestly, I wasn't aware ANYONE really took Gore seriously when he said what he did.

All the smart people laughed at him for saying such a thing (to be interpreted that way)... all the stupid people believed him.

Boom

05-22-2004, 03:40 PM

Yours said "people payed", mine say differant. Don't have an audio clip do you? How did all these misinterpations come about if Al Gore never talked about his monther-in-law or his dog? I mean if Al Gore really said "According to this report people pay more for lodine than dogs do" than how can he be so misquoted. How could evil Republican operative slip in the story about his dog and mother-in-law if Al Gore never said it?

Jesus Swifty, If I was in the same room with you I would be talking reaaaaally slowly now. It just seems that you aren't getting it. I didn't say he never mentioned his mother-in-law or his dog. He did say that his Mother-in-law and his dog both take lodine. They do both take the drug. Its true. Then he said (exact quote) "While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog." Understand? The republicans mushed the two comments together to distort it. Does that make sense to you?

how can he be so misquoted. How could evil Republican operative slip in the story about his dog and mother-in-law if Al Gore never said it

Same way that thousands of Republicans said that "Al Gore said he invented the internet" when he never said it. Or are you going to say that never happened now. How could the evil Republican operative slip in the word "invented" if Al Gore never said it? You tell me. You are seriously asking how the lodine story could possibly have been distorted? Maybe the same way that thousands of Republicans say that he said, "I was the one who started it all." talking about Love Canal when he said, "It was the one that started it all." Its called dirty politics. I'm sure (not shure, but sure) that both sides do it, but you seem to think Republicans don't do it.

No, you show me someone else's interpretations of what he said and expect me to take than over someone elses. Can you produce audio clips?

No, I showed you quotes, you showed me interpretations. Like "Gore said he invented the internet." I think we have to agree interpretations can be wrong. Show me quotes. I don't know if there was audio when he made the lodine speech. I'll look, but like the internet thing you will still somehow say he was lying.

I did respond it to, I said I have no idea about Love Canal. I'm shure I can find plenty of sources that said he lied, and others that said he didn't. I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Funny, the one, most undeniable, most outrageous example of Gore's words being distorted is the one you don't want to waste your time on. I have a feeling you did look it up and didn't like what you saw. Is it so hard to admit your party might occasionally play dirty politics?

posted about Al Gore and the temple and you run out and instantly assume the first tidbit of information clearing him is the truth. Yup, blinders.
No, you made up some fucking bullshit lie about Al Gore claiming he didn't know it was a temple. That is almost as dumb as him claiming he invented the internet. But who cares if it isn't true, it makes him look like a jackass so lets spread it around. I'm calling you out Swifty. You made up a lie, just exactly like I was accusing conservatives of doing. I can add this to the list of lies conservatives made up about Gore to make him look like a Jackass. Gore never said he didn't know it was a temple. You flat out lied. Just like when you said there was a clip where Gore said, "I invented the internet."
you run out and instantly assume the first tidbit of information clearing him is the truth. Yup, blinders.
Excuse me while I look around my apartment for Swifty's spy cameras.... Ok, I'm back, couldn't find any. So how do you know what information I looked at? More lying and making stuff up to make it sound good? Al Gore said he didn't know it was a temple, bullshit lie. Boom assumed the first tidbit of information he found was true, bullshit lie. I looked at tons of cites on this. When I saw that money did change hands I became ten times as interested because, unlike you, when I think my party did something wrong I want to get the the bottom of it and condemn them for it, I don't want to ignore it. When your party may have done something wrong, you don't want to look into it and you say "I'm not going to waste my time on it." because it would hurt you somehow to admit they did any wrong. My conclusion after reading several DOZEN accounts was that yes, money changed hands that day, yes it was illegal, yes some people should get in trouble, but no, Gore himself did not know it was a "fundraising" event, he thought it was a rally luncheon at a temple, like all candidates have, constantly.

By sometimes posting ever more biased information. This is going to go nowhere. I will not accept the sources you use, you won't accept the sources I use. There is no point to this.
I am getting sick of this Swifty lie too. I complained about ONE of your sources in all of our discussions. You have accused me of not accepting your sources several dozen times, but you are fucking lying. I complained ONE time about ONE source. You cited to an oil-industry statement in an environmental discussion and failed to mention that it was an oil-industry statement. I felt that was worthy of being mentioned. And even so I didn't dismiss the information offhand (like you do with my cites). I read every damn word of it and explained how they did not provide the background data, the studies, the research, to support their claims. The sources I found on that matter had not only cites to the actual research but published the raw data itself up on the web. I found that to be more convincing. I did a lot of work before I decided that your source was less convincing then other sources. I never simply decided not to believe something because it came from a republican source. Funny, you have stated over and over and over and over and over and over again that you will not believe something because it comes from a "liberal" source, yet you are the one who said, "You are assuming that I care about affilation when I look at sources. I don't." Even if every allegation about Gore lying was true, at this point you have far surpassed him.
When will you ever admit that Bush did anything wrong?
I have, I said I wasn't too keen on his expansion of the federal goverment.
Congratulations. You have made a step towards integrity. A baby step, but a step nonetheless. I applaud you.
He's playing the liberal game of keep drilling something until it sticks and the truth will go away.
LOL, you are killing me here. The liberal game of repeating a lie till it becames the truth???? Like saying that Al Gore said "I invented the internet" over a thousand times till everyone in this country took it to be a fact, including you. Liberal game indeed.
Clinton missed getting Bin Laden in 1996 from the Sudan, now there is an effort on to coverup and say that never happened.
This is a new one to me. Can you back this up, or is it more bullshit?

Allison

05-22-2004, 04:39 PM

Clinton missed getting Bin Laden in 1996 from the Sudan, now there is an effort on to coverup and say that never happened. This is a new one to me. Can you back this up, or is it more bullshit?Funny, but the last time Swifty brought this up, he claimed that Richard Clarke was the one responsible for this.

Anyhoo, the story goes that in 1996, in an effort to improve Sudanese relations with America, Sudan officials, through back-door channels, offered to arrest Bin Laden and turn him over to us. We didn't have enough evidence at that time against Bin Laden to hold him, so we pleaded with Saudi Arabia to take him so they could just behead him or something. They wouldn't, so we had no recourse but to allow Sudan to expel Bin Laden with no restrictions on his movements, which they did.

I've looked into these allegations as much as I can., and the specifics of this story vary wildly across the spectrum. This is the only thing I've found that's reasonably credible. It's an excerpt from a staff report of the 9-11 Commision in March of this year, who investigated the above claims.During the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan's defense minister visited Washington and had a series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government.

To test Sudan's willingness to cooperate on terrorism, the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact.

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy.

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Laden to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions certainly by March 1996.

The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted bin Laden expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want bin Laden back in their country at all.

U.S. officials also wanted bin Laden expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency counterterrorism security group, CSG, chaired by Richard Clarke, had a hypothetical discussion about bringing bin Laden to the United States. In that discussion, a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here absent an indictment.

Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said bin Laden was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting bin Laden, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to senior policy-makers during 1996.

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead, they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn bin Laden over to a hostile country.

If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and bin Laden about whether they would take bin Laden. One was apparently interested. No handover took place.

Under pressure to leave, bin Laden worked with the Sudanese government to procure a safe passage and possibly funding for his departure.

Swifty_Johnson

05-22-2004, 06:25 PM

He did say that his Mother-in-law and his dog both take lodine. They do both take the drug. Its true. Then he said (exact quote) "While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog." Understand? The republicans mushed the two comments together to distort it. Does that make sense to you?

That doesn't sould like an exact quote to me, sounds like your interpretation of what he said also. What were his exact words about his dog and his mother-in-law. There still is a transferance that his mother-in-law pays 108 dollars for Lodine, as last time I checked his Mother-in-law isn't a dog.

No, you made up some fucking bullshit lie about Al Gore claiming he didn't know it was a temple. That is almost as dumb as him claiming he invented the internet. But who cares if it isn't true, it makes him look like a jackass so lets spread it around. I'm calling you out Swifty. You made up a lie, just exactly like I was accusing conservatives of doing.

I lied, I posted SIX fucking sources to the story, and you are telling me I lied. Your blinders are getting thicker and thicker. When first asked, Al Gore's responce was "I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist temple."

want another source

http://www.gargaro.com/algore2.html

(Oh look, they also claim he didn't claim to have started love canal.)

I'll let Mr Clinton chime into the debate with his own words in his own voice.

http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Swifty

MickeyFinn

05-22-2004, 07:41 PM

What I posted was a quote from Boomy way back in the first page or two of the thread Rooster :)

Rooster

05-22-2004, 09:00 PM

What's that in response to Mickey?

Boom

05-22-2004, 10:17 PM

Hey look what I found on Swifty's site.
No, he didn't claim he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story.
That's from a site SWIFTY found called "Stupid quotes and lies by Al Gore." Your own source says you are wrong Swifty.

So are you willing to admit that Gore didn't make that claim and it was a distortion by the conservatives to make him look bad? Now that you have been saying I am blinded for believing that he didn't say it, for 7 pages.

And yes, that site you listed does correct the LIE that Gore claimed to have started Love Canal. Thank you for proving me right on that. I was thinking you would find a site that said he was lying about Love Canal. You found a site that says he wasn't lying and conservatives should stop saying that he said that. Thanks. The guy running that incredibly biased anti-Gore site is willing to admit the conservatives were lying about that (and the Love Story issue), are you?

You didn't post 6 fucking links to anything. You listed the titles to 6 articles with no links. How am I supposed to read them? I've read dozens of accounts of the buddist temple deal, the link you just cited was the first time I've seen him quoted as saying it wasn't a temple. Be nice if they had a source for that quote. A website called "Stupid quotes and lies by Al Gore" should list its sources, rather than just saying, Gore was quoted as saying.... Its very strange when you consider the fact that the guy posts his sources for every other Gore quote on the page. But no source for that one. Weird...

Btw, I find it incredibly hypocritical that you complain about me using biased sources and then show me a site called "Stupid quotes and lies by Al Gore." But despite your LIES that I won't accept any of your sources, I did check out that website. I do accept the things on that website where he lists his sources, I question the things on that website where he doesn't. That website is biased, but nonetheless I accept a lot of the things on that website, as they are sufficiently supported. That website basically says what I have been saying all along, Gore said some really dumb things but many of the famous "Gore lies" are total myths, distortions by the conservatives.

My point from the very beginning was not that Gore never lied. My point was that he said many things that were distorted by the conservatives in unfair ways. You yourself have now admitted that the "invented" quote was a distortion, you cited to a source that says the "Love story" event was a distortion, and that the "Love Canal" event was a distortion. I am more than willing to say that Gore has said many stupid things and he definitely has a tendency to exaggerate. Are you willing to admit that on many occasions his statements were distorted or completely made up by conservatives to make him look bad, and that its pretty dirty politics to do that?

Boom

05-22-2004, 10:28 PM

Oh, I love the section on that anti-gore site where the guy yells at conservatives to stop listing stupid Dan Quayle quotes and saying that Gore actually said them. That's some pretty funny stuff. But conservatives don't ever lie about Gore to make him look bad, huh?

Boom

05-22-2004, 11:00 PM

http://www.gargaro.com/notgore.html

From the website Swifty cited. A HUGE page of corrections regarding distortions and unfair lies about Gore. Some of the stuff on that page says exactly the same things I have been saying here for 7 pages. Keep in mind, this is written by an incredibly anti-gore person. Back in the year 2000, this anti-gore person is saying that conservatives should stop saying these anti-gore myths because they aren't true. Four years later, in this very thread, Swifty is still repeating these very same discredited myths as fact, and accusing liberals of repeating lies over and over and over.

Yes, the website Swifty linked does list a few really dumb things that Gore said, but its list of the things he DIDN'T say (but has been accused of saying) is about 3 times as long. Which was my point all along.

And to be honest I don't think some of the examples of Gore's dumb statements are all that impressive. Although I must say, I agree that his letter (if it is true) to a Texas lady where he talks about her concern for protecting the Texas eagle, and the importance of saving endangered species, is hysterically stupid since the Texas Eagle is a trainline and not a bird. If you want to point out how dumb Gore is, I recommend using that story. He totally embarrassed himself there. Oh wait, I shouldn't be saying that because Gore is a Saint to me? Oh that's right, Gore isn't a Saint to me, that's just a lie Swifty made up. I hope he doesn't repeat it over and over till its true.

But other examples of Gore's stupidity are not quite as compelling. Such as this one.

At the opening of the new Gore 2000 HQ, Gore said something about a "rip-tootin'" campaign.
Maybe he meant "rip-snortin'" or "rip-roarin'" or "rootin'-tootin'"?
(Source WTVF (TV) News, Nashville, Tenn. 10/6/99)

That's it? Kinda disappointing. I can come up with probably close to 50 GWB quotes that are way funnier and stupider than that one. But at least this one is true and not a conservative propaganda lie about Gore, so go ahead and use it if you think it does any good.

Boom

05-22-2004, 11:37 PM

Now this is how you make fun of Al Gore. The following jokes are from Al Gores upcoming comedy album...
1. Why did Al Gore cross the road?
- To get to the other side.

2. What's Al Gore's Secret Service name?
- Warren Christopher.

3. Knock, knock.
- Who's there?
- Al Gore.
- Al Gore who?
- Al Gore who, you know me, Al Gore.

4. How many Al Gores does it take to change a light bulb?

- Solar power - as a clean renewable energy source - can provide for a home up to 80,000 watts of energy, without the pollution of a coal-burning electrical plant, and if solar energy acquired the economies of scale . . .

That cracked me up. Al Gore does come off as a humorless, overly stiff guy. I don't know who wrote that "Al Gore comedy album" bit, but I've seen it around the internet and its pretty funny.

Swifty_Johnson

05-22-2004, 11:44 PM

And yes, that site you listed does correct the LIE that Gore claimed to have started Love Canal. Thank you for proving me right on that.

I find it kinda funny the guy who is always asking for proof sees someone post on their website "No, Al Gore didn't lie about Love Story" and you are all over that as the gosphel truth. No evidance, no facts, just him saying it didn't happen. So I'm supposed to take it at face value without any supporting evidence?

Btw, I find it incredibly hypocritical that you complain about me using biased sources and then show me a site called "Stupid quotes and lies by Al Gore." But despite your LIES that I won't accept any of your sources, I did check out that website. I do accept the things on that website where he lists his sources, I question the things on that website where he doesn't. That website is biased, but nonetheless I accept a lot of the things on that website, as they are sufficiently supported.

This is where Admiral Ackbar walks in and proclaims "It's a trap."

Normally I wouldn't have posted that website, but I saw him post about Al Gore not laying about Love Canel and Love Story without ANY supporting evidence at all. Not ONE shread of evidence. Enter Boooms and he's all over it. Tells me there is the proof that conserative were lying. Intresting one guy backing Al Gore and it's the Gosphel truth, even without 1 shread of evidance.
Meanwhile, you call into suspect other anti-Gore items on that webpage becasue of lack of evidence. So why do you question the anti-Gore items without sufficant evidence, and accept the pro-Gore items without evidance.

You didn't post 6 fucking links to anything. You listed the titles to 6 articles with no links.

So the only sources on this earth are links? All the info is there, but your blinders will prevent you from seeking the truth.

I'm not lying, if you want to keep maintaining this hostile tone with me, go ahead.

Swifty

Boom

05-22-2004, 11:51 PM

"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." - Dan Quayle
Lets get a little perspective here. Now that is dumb.

Allison

05-23-2004, 12:40 AM

Swifty, I've heard that Clinton audio. Nowhere in it does he say that Sudan offered Bin Laden to us. He does explain how we didn't have any legal means to bring him here, though.

Rooster

05-23-2004, 01:01 AM

Legal? Snipe his ass. Done. World a safer place.

Boom

05-23-2004, 02:34 AM

So the only sources on this earth are links? All the info is there, but your blinders will prevent you from seeking the truth.
Yes, when you list the title of an article all the information is there. Without the link I can magically read the whole article.
I find it kinda funny the guy who is always asking for proof sees someone post on their website "No, Al Gore didn't lie about Love Story" and you are all over that as the gosphel[sic] truth. No evidance[sic], no facts, just him saying it didn't happen. So I'm supposed to take it at face value without any supporting evidence?
I guess you didn't click on his link to his "NOT GORE QUOTES (and quotes taken out of context, etc...)" page where he has evidence, facts, links, cites, and proof for all the stuff I believed. http://www.gargaro.com/notgore.html
Normally I wouldn't have posted that website, but I saw him post about Al Gore not laying[sic] about Love Canel[sic] and Love Story without ANY supporting evidence at all. Not ONE shread of evidence. Enter Boooms and he's all over it. Tells me there is the proof that conserative[sic] were lying. Intresting[sic] one guy backing Al Gore and it's the Gosphel[sic] truth, even without 1 shread[sic] of evidance[sic].
Again, I refer you to his notgore page. http://www.gargaro.com/notgore.html Links, direct quotes, evidence, facts, proof. All the stuff that I like. Not one shred of evidence, heh.
Meanwhile, you call into suspect other anti-Gore items on that webpage becasue[sic] of lack of evidence. So why do you question the anti-Gore items without sufficant[sic] evidence, and accept the pro-Gore items without evidance[sic].
Not true Swifty, I accepted the pro AND anti gore stuff that he had evidence for. I noted the fact that he didn't have a source for the temple comment. Unless you think that the Texas Eagle story is somehow pro-gore, you can take back that comment about me not accepting the anti-gore stuff that he had sources for.

Admiral Ackbar. Please.

As far as the hostile tone goes, you have been talking down to me, making wild accusations against me and insulting me for days. At some point I am going to act insulted.

You have no point, unless you want to keep spreading lies about me, you are appearently[sic] good at that.
You are doing what all liberals do when they want to cover the truth up, keep the lie going so it becomes the truth.
Let me correct the statement becasue[sic] you seem to want to nitpick everything.
You are about to get an education than Booms.
I'm sorry Booms, but your insentance[sic] on using suspect sources has shot your credibility to hell.
I'm not like you, (you thinking every liberal is a credible source no matter what they say/do)
I guess you'll do anything in your power to put you[sic] man into office, even throw away the document that defines this country.
Altohugh[sic] you are so closed minded I doubt it would do any good.
But appearently[sic] that's okay with you. Liberals can lie and bend the truth to their hearts content and that's a-okay.
So that's it, I'm out. I am done with this. Keep your blinders on and keep backing Saint Gore.
You are so willing to twist and distort to cover for him.
I posted about Al Gore and the temple and you run out and instantly assume the first tidbit of information clearing him is the truth. Yup, blinders.
Damn right that made me feel hostile. You totally made up a lie about me. I looked at tons of sources... bah!
He's playing the liberal game of keep drilling something until it sticks and the truth will go away.
Your blinders are getting thicker and thicker.
So the only sources on this earth are links? All the info is there, but your blinders will prevent you from seeking the truth.
Stop reading the crap the liberal media keeps throwing out.
you seem to have political blinders on to the good stuff.
Put down the crack pipe for once, K? You're starting to look like an idiot.
You don't expect me to get hostile when you talk to me like that?
Please point out one place where I disputed that more minorities died as a percentage of the population? Can't? Than please STFU.
Sounds pretty hostile to me. I guess I should just let to talk to me like this day in and day out and never get insulted. Of course, I did point out where you appeared to be disputing that fact and you admitted you weren't being clear. All these quotes are from a couple of recent threads. I could go back farther and find many more quotes of you talking down to me and stuff. How many times have you started a post by saying WRONG, or BZZZZZZZT! Do you know how insulting that is? Considering the way you have been talking to me on this forum I would say I have been very restrained. Most people would have been a hell of a lot more hostile by now.

Swifty_Johnson

05-23-2004, 02:47 PM

Swifty_Johnson

05-23-2004, 02:48 PM

Nice list booms, those we in responces from attacks by you aginst me. Two can play this game.

Swifty

Allison

05-23-2004, 04:02 PM

I guess you missed this part Allison,

At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him,

So if the Sudan didn't offer him, than why was Clinton explaining why he didn't bring him here? His next passage he said he asked the Saudi's to take him. Again, if Bin Laden wasn't offered up, why would he be asking the Saudi's to take him.

You're making quite the assumption there, Swifty. "I did not bring him here" does not translate into, "Sudan offered him to us." From that one assumption, you're going to continue stating this Sudan thing as fact? Completely disregarding the findings of the only investigative body that's looked into these claims?

Even if we were to assume that Sudan did make a legitimate and sincere offer to give Bin Laden to us (which is a stretch), tell me, by what means would we have accepted him?

In 1996, Bin Laden had only been "linked" to Anti-American events ... meaning we suspected his organization either financed, facilitated, knew of, someone from his organization took part in, or had any number of other associations to these acts. But, we didn't have enough direct evidence against Bin Laden himself to bring him to the U.S. Even now, he's not wanted for anything prior to 1998.

If you want to make the argument that we should have just put a bullet in his head in 1996, then go ahead and make that argument. Hindsight is 20/20. But, I dare you to come up with any scenario whereby, in 1996, we could have forcibly brought Bin Laden to the United States, and what in the world we could have possibly done with him once he was here.

Kegg OBeer

05-23-2004, 04:36 PM

I would have been happy to put a bullet in his head in 1996... :hump:

All of the arguements here notwithstanding, I still think Gore worded his statement that way on purpose so he could "imply" his being responsible for creating the internet. All the links and arguing points will never prove or disprove that.

The fact is... he never really did anything worthwhile and he needed to try and make himself look better in the eyes of the voters. Most of the intelligent laughed it off as another of his stupid comments, but sadly, most of the voters "are" stupid, so I'm thinking that he was just playing the odds...

Allison

05-23-2004, 07:07 PM

...he never really did anything worthwhile
A lifetime of service ... none of it worthwhile? Riiiight .... :laugh:

Rooster

05-23-2004, 07:09 PM

Kegg's probably right on that quote. :p

Allison

05-23-2004, 07:23 PM

Lol, you know better than that, Roo. :p

Rooster

05-23-2004, 09:23 PM

Okay, he's probably never accomplished anything *I* would support.

Boom

05-24-2004, 01:36 AM

S 272 High Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991
Summary and Status Sponsored by Sen. Al Gore. Passed. "This 'Gore Act' supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science." - Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn.

Would you support that Rooster? Vinton Cerf was the real father of the internet, he seems to think it was a good idea.

Boom

05-24-2004, 02:08 AM

Swifty, you made a big deal out of me accepting the stuff on that website that didn't have any support. Now, I have showed you it was supported (by citations to the New York Times and with actual audio clips) on that second page of the website. So will you take back what you said about me believing pro-gore stuff and not believing anti-gore stuff regardless of support? I seem to have accepted both the pro and anti-gore stuff that was supported, didn't I? I seemed to have only questioned the one quote from that entire website that had no source, didn't I?

And are you still not willing to admit that conservatives distorted and lied about Gore? I was willing to admit he made a lot of stupid comments. Your own source showed a list of Quayle quotes that conservatives were spreading around as Gore quotes. Can you admit this happened? Yes or no? Can you admit the Love Canal incident happened? Yes or no?

Boom

05-24-2004, 02:42 AM

More from Vint Cerf

NSF's interest in high-bandwidth attachment was ignited in 1986 after the start of the Supercomputer Centers program. NSF paved the way to link researchers to the Centers through its sponsorship of NSFNET, which augmented ARPANET as a major network backbone and eventually replaced ARPANET when ARPANET was retired in 1990. Then-Senator Gore's 1986 legislation calling for the interconnection of the Centers using fiber optic technology ultimately led the administration to respond with the High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Initiative.

I found that at http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/cra/networks.html if you wish to read it in its full context.

Please don't misunderstand me and think I am posting this stuff to show that Gore did take the initiative in creating the internet. I am just trying to show that Gore accomplished things that Rooster would support.

Rooster

05-24-2004, 09:23 AM

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 10:36 AM

You're making quite the assumption there, Swifty. "I did not bring him here" does not translate into, "Sudan offered him to us." From that one assumption, you're going to continue stating this Sudan thing as fact?

You are really grasping at straws trying to protect Clinton.

To those who don't have Clinton protection blinders it's appearent that Sudan wanted to get ride of Bin Laden, and neither the U.S. nor Saudi Ariaba wanted him.

While he may be correct that we did have no legal standpoints to bring him to the U.S., just how much pressure did he use with Saudi Ariaba to try and convicne them to take him?

Shure I am stateing it as a fact, are you going to question the words right out of Clinton's mouth? Why would he be talking about who's going to take Bin Laden if Laden wasn't offered up?

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 10:44 AM

I seem to have accepted both the pro and anti-gore stuff that was supported, didn't I?

Depends, are you willing to admit Gore was trying to overstate what he did with the creating the internet comment and accept he accepted illegal campaign donations at the temple?

And are you still not willing to admit that conservatives distorted and lied about Gore?

Oh, so when conservatives pickup a newspaper atrical that said "Gore said this.." and they use it, they are lying? Most of the problems with Gore seemed to be misquotes in the papers. It's funny, Al Gore getting misquoted by the liberal media and than getting hammered on it.

So are you willing to admit that conseratives were just using what they were given by the media and they ran with it.

The whole love story mess was just misquotes by the MEDIA, unless you are going to imply evil conseratives were behind all the misquotes in the liberal media.

Swifty

Boom

05-24-2004, 11:16 AM

Fair enough -- but... it would have happened regardless... perhaps not as quickly though. Did the US Fed Gov't contribute to getting the fiber laid to interconnect the main "hubs" ?
I agree it would have happened regardless. That's why I made sure to state that my quote was not meant to suggest or imply in any way that gore initiated the blahblahblah. Was just an example of a Gore accomplishment that I thought Rooster would think was a good thing.

Boom

05-24-2004, 11:55 AM

Oh, so when conservatives pickup a newspaper atrical[sic] that said "Gore said this.." and they use it, they are lying? Most of the problems with Gore seemed to be misquotes in the papers. It's funny, Al Gore getting misquoted by the liberal media and than getting hammered on it.
Swifty, we have shown you, over and over, that the vast majority of these lies were not started by the media. Certainly not by liberal media sources. Dick Armey was the first one to say that Gore said that he "invented" the internet. Is Dick Armey the liberal media now? When Gore said "That was the one that started it all" (referring to a polluted well in Toone Tennessee) it was the Republican National Committee who first misquoted him as saying "I was the one who started it all." and claimed he was talking about Love Canal. Is the Republican National Committee now the liberal media? The media did run with it (the conservative Washington Post being one of the first snatch up this lie), and later printed retractions correcting the lie. However conservatives still continue to repeat it. I can easily find a dozen conservative websites which still repeat these lies. I think that is wrong. Are you ok with it?

Depends, are you willing to admit Gore was trying to overstate what he did with the creating the internet comment and accept he accepted illegal campaign donations at the temple?
Didn't I say it was a stupid blustery statement when I first addressed this issue? Are you asking me to admit something I have been saying all along? Despite your claims that Gore is my hero and I see him as Saint Gore who can do no wrong, I have been saying all along that he has said plenty of dumb things. I don't know where this Hero and Saint stuff is coming from, unless its just rude attempts to antagonize me, so you can later accuse me of being hostile. I have never once stated I support Gore or that I even like Gore. My only issue is that conservatives have lied about him (and repeated these lies for years after being corrected) and I don't think that's fair. If I find out that someone is spreading lies about GWB I think that is wrong too, are you going to say that GWB is my hero now?

As far as the temple thing is concerned, I am not convinced that Gore himself actually knew any money was changing hands. It was listed on his schedule as a luncheon rally. Fundraisers are listed on his schedule as fundraisers. And no, my feelings on this aren't because of any "blinders." My opinion is based on the fact that I have yet to find one source from anywhere with any proof that Gore knew it was a "fundraiser."

Where do you stand Swifty? At first you were claiming that these lies about Gore were true and you felt I only thought they were lies because of my blinders. Now that I have shown you countless cites to exact quotes, (and even audio of some of the statements) from conservatives sources, you seem to be willing to admit that they are lies but you are saying the liberals spread them, not the conservatives.

The worst part is you apparently have no problem whatsoever with conservatives spreading these lies and repeating them over and over again till all of America believes them (didn't you say that was a liberal game? repeating lies till they become the truth). Both of us believed that Gore said the exact words, "I invented the internet." I believed it until a few years ago, you believed it until a few days ago. I resent the fact that I was lied to. You seem to have no problem with it because Gore was exaggerating anyway.

I show you that Gore was talking about a well in Tennessee and said, "That was the one that started it all." and the RNC quotes him as saying, "I was the one who started it all." and says he was talking about Love Canal. I think it is wrong of them to do that. That is my one and only point. I want to know if you agree with me in thinking this was wrong. I've asked you this countless times and you refuse to answer. Would it kill you to say it was wrong?

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 12:34 PM

Where do you stand Swifty? At first you were claiming that these lies about Gore were true and you felt I only thought they were lies because of my blinders. Now that I have shown you countless cites to exact quotes, (and even audio of some of the statements) from conservatives sources, you seem to be willing to admit that they are lies but you are saying the liberals spread them, not the conservatives.

Funny, they are all lies now. Intresting choice of words. In order for it to be a lie, you have to show the person intended with full knowledge to pass on something that was untrue. You even pointed out that the Washington post printed a retraction when the mistake was point out to them. Lies, hardly.

I see no big deal over the invented/created, can hardly call that a lie unless they knowling changed his quote from created to invented which they never did.

Other issues like the love story were PRINTED in TIME magizine. You calling Time magizine a conserative publication? So you are asccusing people who saw what was printed in TIME and used it all liars? You keep whining about the Love Canal story. It was the media who only printed a part of what Al Gore said, so all conserativies are evil liars becasue they took information from the media and dare repeat it! My god, execute all the evil conservatives!!!!

You use the work lie too much ,esp after you have zero knowledge of what the other parties knew at the time.

I show you that Gore was talking about a well in Tennessee and said, "That was the one that started it all." and the RNC quotes him as saying, "I was the one who started it all." and says he was talking about Love Canal. I think it is wrong of them to do that. That is my one and only point. I want to know if you agree with me in thinking this was wrong.

If that was true than it would be wrong, and only if the people knew the truth than tried to pass it off as something else. People make mistakes, and you are implying that they knew the truth and passed it off as something else. I can be like you now.

Boooms, you are lieing about them lieing, it was all just a simple mistake.

How do you like it now?

Swifty

Boom

05-24-2004, 01:09 PM

Boy, those are a lot of simple mistakes. Maybe at some point they should start to be more careful when accusing Gore of lying, if they make that many mistakes.

Why is it when Gore is wrong it is a lie, when the RNC directly misquotes him and never apologizes for it, its a mistake.

When conservatives continue to make these accusations, after they are given the facts, it is no longer a mistake, it is a lie. I can link you to several dozen conservative websites that still accuse Gore of claiming he started it all with Love Canal, and still claim he lied about Love Story, and still claim that he said "I invented the internet." Are these websites making mistakes, or are they lying?

You keep whining about the Love Canal story. It was the media who only printed a part of what Al Gore said, so all conserativies[sic] are evil liars becasue[sic] they took information from the media and dare repeat it! My god, execute all the evil conservatives!!!!

You only insult me and antagonize me in response to me attacking you huh? Where did I attack you just now so that you can call me a whiner. And again, you are incorrect, it wasn't the media that started the Love Canal lie, it was the RNC. They didn't take information from the media and repeat it, they made up a complete lie and presented it to the media. I'm not saying conservatives are evil for believing what they read in the papers. I am saying it is wrong when conservatives (or liberals, or anyone) make up lies and give them to the newspapers to print as fact.

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 02:10 PM

I can link you to several dozen conservative websites that still accuse Gore of claiming he started it all with Love Canal, and still claim he lied about Love Story, and still claim that he said "I invented the internet." Are these websites making mistakes, or are they lying?

When were the websites last updated? Did you inform the webmasters of the error? Seeing this is a dead issue, I don't expect them to move post haste to fix it. I'm surpised many of those pages are still up there.

You only insult me and antagonize me in response to me attacking you huh?

what insult?

Where did I attack you just now so that you can call me a whiner.

Where did I call you a whiner?

And again, you are incorrect, it wasn't the media that started the Love Canal lie, it was the RNC. They didn't take information from the media and repeat it, they made up a complete lie and presented it to the media.

Not according to that Al Gore website.

http://www.gargaro.com/notgore.html

You told me this was good info, I guess it isn't now that it doesn't back you up?

Swifty

Boom

05-24-2004, 03:53 PM

Where did I call you a whiner?
You keep whining about the Love Canal story.
A whiner is one who whines, correct?

Not according to that Al Gore website.
Incorrect. That site does not mention where the misquote was started. It certainly does not say it started with the liberal media like you said. It doesn't mention the source of the misquote at all. I had to do further research to find the source of the misquote.
You told me this was good info, I guess it isn't now that it doesn't back you up?
Again, incorrect. I said that I found some of the information on that site to be well supported, and despite your lie about me that I only believe stuff that is pro-gore, I was willing to believe whatever seemed to have sufficient support. That site does not make a claim either way regarding the source of the Love Canal lie. It does not support me or disagree with me on that issue. I'm not saying at all that I disagree with what that site says on this. I'm saying that site doesn't address it at all.

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 04:20 PM

Please get your facts straight about the Love Canal story.

First you say,

I show you that Gore was talking about a well in Tennessee and said, "That was the one that started it all." and the RNC quotes him as saying, "I was the one who started it all." and says he was talking about Love Canal.

The other websites says,

The media, for the most part, was not mentioning the full quote. Relevant parts were removed, which changed the interpretation. Can anyone explain HOW one is supposed to know the media botched a quote if all the mainstream media outlets are publishing the same incorrect info over and over? I always tell people to check sources, but in this case, that didn't do much good since the media botched this one.

No mention of the RNC, and the RNC isn't the media. I've seen the clip, and from the stuff I am seeing, stuff was left OUT, not changed to make him look bad.

Swifty

Allison

05-24-2004, 04:47 PM

You are really grasping at straws trying to protect Clinton. To those who don't have Clinton protection blinders it's appearent that Sudan wanted to get ride of Bin Laden, and neither the U.S. nor Saudi Ariaba wanted him.
If I'm grasping at straws trying to protect Clinton, then you are on a straw-hunt, the likes of which has never been seen, in an effort to bash Clinton. :laugh: You are the one who is totally diregarding the findings of the 9/11 Commission on this matter, stating this Sudanese rumor as fact because it suits your purpose. I'm not saying it's untrue, just that there is no credible evidence to support it.

And thanks for the "blinders" insult. I spend hours researching this, give you my opinion based on facts which I cited to you ... and you insult me. Thanks. And yes, it IS apparant that Sudan wanted to get rid of him. Yes, it's apparant that Saudia Arabia wouldn't take him back, and they certainly wouldn't take him back and pardon him like Sudan wanted. But, I don't know by what stretch of the imagination you would assume that the United States didn't want him. Unless by "didn't want" you meant "didn't have any mechanism by which to bring Bin Laden to the United States."

While he may be correct that we did have no legal standpoints to bring him to the U.S., just how much pressure did he use with Saudi Ariaba to try and convicne them to take him?
Okay, so you're admitting that we had no way to bring Bin Laden here? Now your problem with Clinton on this matter is that he didn't put enough pressure on the Saudis to take him? Is that your position? If so, I hope you will be more clear in the future, instead of making unsubstantiated claims like, "You all know this is the same Clarke that is responsible for the U.S. not getting Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up on a silver platter to us right?", and "Clinton missed getting Bin Laden in 1996 from the Sudan," ... I hope you'll be more honest about your claims, saying instead, "I don't think we put enough pressure on Saudi Arabia to take Bin Laden in 1996."

Shure I am stateing it as a fact, are you going to question the words right out of Clinton's mouth? Why would he be talking about who's going to take Bin Laden if Laden wasn't offered up?
I believe I answered this before. But I'll do it again, more clearly.

We were examining the options for Bin Laden. One of those options was bringing him here to the U.S. That option may or may not have required the cooperation of the Sudanese, who had recently been trying to prove themselves the U.S. None of this is in dispute. But it it was a moot option, because whether we had gone in and grabbed Bin Laden in the middle of the night, or whether the Sudanese arrested him and handed him to us on a silver platter, we had NO authority to hold him. Sure, post-9/11, we can hold people for years with no evidence. But pre-9/11, we couldn't. The words "I didn't bring him here" don't require a credible offer from Sudan to have existed.

And you know what? It doesn't even matter if Sudan had sincerely offered him to us. It doesn't matter who had been in office in 1996, we wouldn't have been able to take him. You mentioning it time and time again only serves to imply that the Clinton Administration did something wrong. And when pressed, the best you can come up with is that they didn't pressure the Saudis enough to take him. How do you know this? What is the basis for this assumption? You are going out of your way to bash anyone you can on this issue, first blaming Richard Clarke, then Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if, had we been talking about Madeleine Albright or Tony Lake, you would have disparaged them on this, as well.

First, you can't decide who you want to blame. Then, you can't substantiate the rumor that Sudan even offered him to us, disregarding findings that say there is "no credible evidence" to support it. And, even if you could substantiate the rumor, you STILL can't find any wrong-doing on the part of the adminstration, other than you THINK we didn't pressure the Saudis enough.

Good lord, who did you say is grasping at straws?

What I don't get is this: There are a TON of legitimate, credible issues out there for which the Clinton administration can be faulted. I don't understand why you insist on rumors and half-truths on which to hang your hat. Are you just trying to be inflammatory?

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 04:58 PM

So the words out of Clinton's mouth aren't enough to dispell the fact that we had a chance to get Bin Laden in 1996, that's where the blinder's comment comes from.

You think Bill Clinton made this decision alone? Someone said it was Richard Clarke that advised the President not to take him.

Now we are on the grounds, was Clinton right? Did we have no legal grounds to bring Bin Laden to the U.S.A.? Were there any terror attacks before 1996 that Bin Laden was impliacted in?

We'd like to know more, but appearently the 9/11 commission and the media isn't too intrested in persuring this story. Shure, he may be right, but the gloss over just points to something amiss.

Did we have a crack at Bin Laden in 1996? Yes.

Did we have legal gounds to bring him to the U.S.? Don't know, and we will prob never know as the players involved don't seem to be too keen on talking.

Swifty

Allison

05-24-2004, 05:37 PM

So the words out of Clinton's mouth aren't enough to dispell the fact that we had a chance to get Bin Laden in 1996, that's where the blinder's comment comes from.
Good grief, for the third time, "I didn't bring him here," does not equal "Sudan offered him to us." Jeebus, maybe he was talking about a legitimate offer from Sudan, or maybe we were considering asking Sudan to turn him over, orrrrr .... maybe he was talking about a covert plan to go in and grab Bin Laden. The point is, YOU don't know which, and neither do I. The point is, YOU are making assumptions about which it is because it puts Clinton in a bad light. And I'm the one with blinders on?

We'd like to know more, but appearently the 9/11 commission and the media isn't too intrested in persuring this story. Shure, he may be right, but the gloss over just points to something amiss.
So, their investigation didn't prove your rumor, so it was just "glossed over?" Is there anything that will convince you to stop stating your rumor as fact? Anything? How about if Sudan issues a statement saying that they never offered him. Would you take their word over the word of the 9/11 Commision?

Did we have legal gounds to bring him to the U.S.? Don't know, and we will prob never know as the players involved don't seem to be too keen on talking.
So, you admit there's something you don't know? A lot of people are talking. But again, there is "no credible evidence."

Let me try this one on and see how it fits: George W. Bush is a closet homosexual. It must be true, because he's spoken out against homosexuality, and yet he has appointed numerous homosexuals to prominent positions. That sounds like a closet homosexual to me. And I read it somewhere once, too ... in some book, I think. And well, no one is talking about it, and the media isn't covering it, so I guess we'll never know for sure. So, until someone can prove to me he isn't, I'm just going to go around stating it as fact. George W. Bush is a homosexual.

Sounds like your logic to me.

Swifty_Johnson

05-24-2004, 05:42 PM

In order for your "logic" to be correct, you'll need to produce an audio clip of G.W.B. saying he was a hemosexual.

Jeebus, maybe he was talking about a legitimate offer from Sudan, or maybe we were considering asking Sudan to turn him over, orrrrr .... maybe he was talking about a covert plan to go in and grab Bin Laden. The point is, YOU don't know which, and neither do I. The point is, YOU are making assumptions about which it is because it puts Clinton in a bad light.

The fact still remains we had a shot and Bin Laden in 1996, all you have done is try to confuse the issue and cover up the facts. Clinton himself even indicated we had a shot at him in 1996, so why do you still argue?

Swifty

Allison

05-24-2004, 06:16 PM

In order for your "logic" to be correct, you'll need to produce an audio clip of G.W.B. saying he was a hemosexual. That would be true, IF you had an audio clip from Clinton saying that Sudan offered Bin Laden to us, which you don't. Answer me this: Are you NOT assuming that he was talking about an offer from Sudan instead of, for example, a covert operation to go in and nab Bin Laden. Wouldn't his remark, "I did not bring him here because ..." fit both of those scenarios? So then why do you assume one over the other?

The fact still remains we had a shot and Bin Laden in 1996, all you have done is try to confuse the issue and cover up the facts. Clinton himself even indicated we had a shot at him in 1996, so why do you still argue?I'm not covering up facts. I'm pointing them out, and you're ignoring them. I'm not arguing that we didn't know where Bin Laden was in 1996. I'm not arguing that we couldn't have gotten him by some means, whether it be a covert operation, or with the cooperation of the Sudanese. What I'm saying is what I've said all along:

1. There is no credible evidence to suggest that a legitimate offer was made by Sudan, and yet, you claim it as fact.

2. Even if there had been a credible offer made, there is NO evidence to suggest that the administration could have possibly accepted him, and yet, you claim some wrong-doing on their part when the best you've been able to come up with is that you THINK we probably didn't put enough pressure on the Saudis to take him. (How you came to that conclusion I have no idea, but it's still a far cry from your implications that Clinton missed an opportunity that would have prevented 9/11.)

The facts:

We knew where Bin Laden was in 1996. That is undisputed.

We considered options and tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him. That is undisputed.

We determined we had no legal means to bring Bin Laden to the U.S. That is undisputed.

If you want to argue that we should have had him assasinated in 1996, that's a perfectly viable argument. And it would support your claim that we "had a shot" at Bin Laden, because the evidence suggests that's the only shot we had. But you err in making de facto claims outside of the available evidence. You claim fact from assumption. And you lay generalized blame where you cannot articulate or substantiate what that blame is for. And that is why, dear sir, I "still argue." I am not defending anyone here. I am simply asking that you either substantiate your claims, or identify them as rumor, which thus far, you have been unable to do.

Boom

05-24-2004, 06:26 PM

LOL. This is getting ridiculous. Swifty that one website does not say where the lie started. Do you understand that? It corrects the mistake but doesn't say where it came from. It came from the RNC.
I've seen the clip, and from the stuff I am seeing, stuff was left OUT, not changed to make him look bad.
So you are saying that noone ever said that Gore said, "I was the one who started it all." I just made that up? Yes or no, am I making this up, or was the story spread that Gore said "I was the one who started it all."

And was I right that a whiner is a person who whines? Or are you going to claim that you accused me of whining but you weren't insulting me and calling me a whiner? That really confuses me. You accuse me of whining, I ask why you are insulting me and calling me a whiner and you say, "Where did I call you a whiner?" So I show you where you did it and you drop the subject.

Boom

05-24-2004, 06:33 PM

Hmmm, Ailia has blinders too.

But Swifty only insults people in response to attacks on him. In response to that loooooooong list of quotes of Swifty insulting me his response was basically, you insulted me first neener neener! Ailia were you insulting Swifty in some other forum, because I can't find it here, and we know Swifty is only rude in response to when he is insulted.

And where did you get your blinders Ailia? I hope I didn't overpay for mine. I got mine at Crackhead Idiots Who Should Shut the Fuck Up Retail Discount Blinder Supplies.

Allison

05-24-2004, 06:43 PM

And where did you get your blinders Ailia? I hope I didn't overpay for mine. I got mine at Crackhead Idiots Who Should Shut the Fuck Up Retail Discount Blinder Supplies.
:rolly:

Rooster

05-24-2004, 06:45 PM

Fine, just to settle this:

I started the rumor about Gore's internet remark. I took a very small amount of liberty regarding this statement to make him look a fool.

There. Can you prove me wrong?

Boom

05-24-2004, 07:00 PM

Yes. We have already shown where that statement came from. :p

I know your real name and it isn't Dick Armey (lucky for you, man that is an unfortunate name to carry around).

Allison

05-24-2004, 07:12 PM

Hehe, Rooster. :)

Rooster

05-24-2004, 08:41 PM

And just because Dick Armey makes a funny off of something so easily made fun of, is it okay to blame it on the RNC? Or just Mr. Penis Military?

Boom

05-25-2004, 04:43 AM

No, I didn't blame the RNC for that one. Just Mr. Vagina Coastguard. (Joke from Family Guy tv cartoon show)

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 03:30 PM

Hey Boooms, is this a fabriaction of the conseratives?

"Gore noted that he had backed a sweeping campaign finance bill sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. ‘Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a co-sponsor of it,’ Gore said, ‘and I feel that it’s very important to get the influence of special interest money out of our politics.’" (The New York Times, 11/24/99)

"Gore not only did not, but could not have cosponsored McCain-Feingold. Russ Feingold was not elected until 1992. Al Gore quit the Senate in 1992 to become Vice President. Feingold and Gore never served together."

Swifty

Boom

05-25-2004, 04:11 PM

I have no idea Swifty, do you want me to do the research on it? Maybe that is 100% true. Again, I never said Gore has never lied. I never said Gore has never said anything stupid. I said that there were some lies spread about Gore and I felt that was wrong. If I find out that last quote you posted is 100% correct and Gore was full of crap, or if that is was somehow another distortion, it makes no difference. My only point is that some lies were spread about Gore and that isn't cool. You can post a million lies that Gore said and it still doesn't prove me wrong. I never said he never lied.

Actually my only real point was that Gore never said, "I invented the internet." You seemed to think he did say it. But when I showed you his real quote instead of simply acknowledging the distortion you responded by going, Oh yeah! What about these other lies Gore said huh? Many of the ones you listed were also distortions and I felt compelled to correct them as well. I never, ever, ever, claimed that every story about Gore lying was untrue. My only point were that some of the stories were untrue.

But if you want me to research this particular quote I will be happy to. If Gore was lying I will be more than happy to admit it.

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 04:13 PM

I'll save you the time, yes it happened and the responce was from the Bill Bradly campaign, not any conseratives. :)

Swifty

Figtoria

05-25-2004, 04:24 PM

I'll save you the time, yes it happened and the responce[sic] was from the Bill Bradly[sic] campaign, not any conseratives[sic]. :)

Swifty

Who gave you your nickname?

Had he or she met you?

One more time -- more slowly -- You saying something is so - doesn't make it so!!!!

Boom

05-25-2004, 04:43 PM

Doesn't matter if it is true. I never said Gore never lied. Ever. Ever. Never even thought it. All I said was that he never said "I invented the internet." For some reason Swifty thinks this somehow proves that I think he is Saint Gore and never lied, and we now have to parse every comment Gore ever made. You can prove that Gore lied a million times, it doesn't prove me wrong. My only claim is that some of the Gore lies are in fact not true. Some of them are unfair lies about him spread by his opponents. Even some of Gore's harshest critics agree with that. I have a feeling Swifty actually agrees with it, but he just has this need to keep the argument going.

In another thread Swifty said something about being kinda tense lately. I would ask that you please find another source for relieving this tension. This forum was meant for meaningful political discussions, not for personal attacks and flame wars to relieve your personal tension.

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 04:56 PM

Well Fig, if you want to see the sources, go ahead and look, there are plenty out there.

Swifty

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 04:56 PM

This forum was meant for meaningful political discussions, not for person attacks and flame wars to relieve your personal tension.

Than don't attack me and I won't respond in kind? K?

Swifty

Boom

05-25-2004, 04:58 PM

Yeah, I know. That huge list of your attacks on me was all in retaliation to my hostile nature. I'm well known for being a mean and hostile person.

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 04:59 PM

You called me a liar.

Swifty

Boom

05-25-2004, 05:00 PM

And how many times have you called me a liar?

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 05:08 PM

Well if Boooms will stop telling lies about conservatives, I'll stop telling the truth about Boooms. :)

Just as many times as you've called me it.

Swifty

Figtoria

05-25-2004, 05:31 PM

Well Fig, if you want to see the sources, go ahead and look, there are plenty out there.

Swifty

The onus is on you when making a statement to back it up.

Boom

05-25-2004, 05:46 PM

It doesn't matter Figgy. Maybe Gore did say co-sponser when he should have said "supporter." The fact is he did support the legislation and promise that it would be the first bill he presented to Congress if he won the election.

And even that doesn't matter. Maybe he totally 100% lied. Maybe he woke up that morning and said, "I am going to lie on TV and claim to have co-sponsered legislation that I didn't co-sponser. It doesn't help Swifty's argument at all. Noone here is saying Gore never lied. Noone. Not me, not Ailia, not anyone. If Swifty wants to argue that Gore lied, he can stand in an empty room and argue it all he wants. Noone here is going to disagree with him.

My only point was that some conservatives distorted some stories and Gore quotes to make him look retarded. In the other thread Swifty has finally admitted this. After calling me all kinds of names and insulting me countless times for thinking this, Swifty finally admits that he agrees with me. This argument is finally over.

Swifty_Johnson

05-25-2004, 06:14 PM

Well Figgy, if you looked,

"Gore noted that he had backed a sweeping campaign finance bill sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. ‘Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a co-sponsor of it,’ Gore said, ‘and I feel that it’s very important to get the influence of special interest money out of our politics.’" (The New York Times, 11/24/99) <---- source

You'll see the first part has the source listed.

This one lists the press release from Bill Bradly,

http://www.ameripac.org/goregaffes.htm

Swifty

Boom

05-25-2004, 07:00 PM

But as an interim step, I strongly support the McCain-Feingold legislation, and over the last quarter century I've sponsored or cosponsored more than a dozen major campaign finance reform bills.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/candidates/gore_3-14a.html

In the NYT quote he was trying to repeat this statement and should have been more clear. While talking at length about campaign finance, he said that he "backed" (not co-sponsored) the Feingold/McCain bill then went on to say "Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a co-sponsor of it." Clearly "it" means campaign finance reform, which he was a co-sponsor of on many occasions. The subject of the conversation was campaign finance reform, not the Feingold bill.

Besides, it makes no sense to think he was claiming to be a co-sponsor of the Feingold/McCain bill when just the sentence before he listed to the two sponsors of it. Anyway, he wasn't clear and his sentence could easily be interpreted as him claiming he was a co-sponsor of that particular bill and not of campaign finance reform in general. I can't blame the anti-gore democrats or republicans for running with this. If you want to say you still think he was talking about that bill, and he was lying and claiming to have co-sponsored it, I disagree, but I can see how you think that. I won't accuse you of being a liar if you think that. Although if you read it in its full context as a part of a larger statement about campaign finance reform it does become more clear.

But whatever. Even if he 100% lied on purpose it really has nothing to do with this discussion. My only point was that some conservatives distorted and misquoted Gore to make him look bad. After insulting me for pages and pages for daring to think this, Swifty finally agrees that it is true. The discussion is over. Some conservatives distorted and misquoted Gore to make him look bad. We all agree I was right about this and we can all move on with our lives now.