Gore's speech

serious black · Aug 9, 2003

That's my big fear on Dean, that he may have peaked too soon.
BUT, with the primaries being as frontloaded as they are, that may not be a bad thing. Man, I had no idea how soon all this is.
A frontrunner should be established by Feb 4th, maybe a nominee by March 3rd. Dean really doesn't have to hold on too long. (Edwards really needs to get cooking, if he wants a chance).

JANUARY 19, 2004:
Iowa - Presidential Caucuses

JANUARY 27, 2004
New Hampshire - Presidential Primary

FEBRUARY 3, 2004
Arizona - Presidential Primary
Delaware - Presidential Primary
Missouri - Presidential Primary
New Mexico - Presidential Caucuses
North Dakota - Presidential Caucuses
Oklahoma - Presidential Primary
South Carolina - Presidential Primary

FEBRUARY 7, 2004
Michigan - Presidential Caucuses
Washington State - Democratic Presidential Caucuses

FEBRUARY 8, 2004
Maine - Presidential Caucuses

FEBRUARY 10, 2004
District of Columbia - Democratic Presidential Caucuses
Tennessee - Presidential Primary
Virginia - Democratic Presidential Primary

FEBRUARY 17, 2004
Wisconsin - Presidential Primary

FEBRUARY 24, 2004
Idaho - Presidential Caucuses

FEBRUARY 27, 2004
Utah - Presidential Primary

MARCH 2, 2004
California - Presidential & State Primary
Connecitcut - Presidential Primary
Georgia - Presidential Primary
Hawaii - Presidential Caucuses
Maryland - Presidential & State Primary
Massachusetts - Presidential Primary
Minnesota - Presidential Caucuses
New York - Presidential Primary
Ohio - Presidential Primary
Rhode Island - Presidential Primary
Vermont - Presidential Primary
Washington State - Presidential Primary

MARCH 9, 2004
Florida - Presidential Primary
Louisiana - Presidential Primary
Mississippi - Presidential Primary
Texas - Presidential & State Primaries

MARCH 16, 2004
Illinois - Presidential & State Primaries

APRIL 27, 2004
Pennsylvania - Presidential & State Primaries

MAY 4, 2004
Indiana - Presidential & State Primary
North Carolina - Presidential & State Primaries

MAY 11, 2004
West Virginia - Presidential & State Primary

MAY 18, 2004
Arkansas - Presidential & State Primary
Kentucky - Presidential & State Primaries
Oregon - Presidential & State Primary

MAY 25, 2004
Idaho - Presidential & State Primary

JUNE 1, 2004
Alabama - Presidential & State Primaries
New Mexico - Presidential & State Primary
South Dakota - Presidential & State Primary

JUNE 8, 2004
Montana - Presidential & State Primaries
New Jersey - Presidential & State Primaries

Week of JULY 26, 2004:
Democratic National Convention (Boston, MA)

Deuce Rings · Aug 9, 2003

There are two ways to look at the 2000 election controversy. You can take the most popular approach and say that Bush stole the election from Al Gore (some would even say rigged). It's funny to me how this point of view has gone from speculation to fact in the short three years since the election among many of our constitents. If it's true, then obviously Bush has no business serving as our president. The other point of view is that Gore was trying to connive his way to the presidency by trying to cook up a "conspiracy theory" where there wasn't one. If that's true, I think that's equally if not more terrible than Bush rigging the election because in that case (1) Gore made of mockery of the American political system for the whole world to see and (2) Gore divided the America public right down the middle at that point. The election was very close, there seemed to be two sides close to equal in number, and now these two sides had a reason to defend their candidate and party to the grave. I'm willing to bet that many people's opinions on the Iraq war were based solely on their party affiliation regardless of the facts. The 2000 election fiasco was ugly and it created two equal sides of the American public and put them in a war against one another. Think about how passionate office discussions on the subject were at the time and for how long they lasted. I think they're still going on, only manifested into points of view on the war in Iraq.
So be fair when analyzing the 2000 election. NONE of you have the facts on the situation to be as sure about things as some of you express on these message boards. Also realize that one of these two men is the bad guy making one of them extremely terrible for this country's well being.

Batman Jones · Aug 9, 2003

Deuce Rings, you are as partisan as anyone on this board. I think it's hilarious when you try to play the objective observer. Usually you lean entirely on your time in the ME to try and fake around your affiliation (much as TJ tries to use his job as ultimate, unquestionable credentials). This post though is sillier than most since the main premise is so plainly wrong.

The number of people who think Bush 'stole' the election has done nothing but shrink, by any poll or other source you can find. I defy you to prove your entirely invented premise that the trend is toward thinking Bush is an illegitimate president.

To address this one more time (pointless as it is since it's played out and has ZERO to do with relative support or non-support of Bush at this point), both sides had good justification for fighting to the finish. Bush appeared by the latest counts to have won the electoral vote (remember, by the way, that there is no controversy whatsoever about the popular vote. It is a fact that Gore received more votes.), so of course he was going to fight. The irregularities in Florida were vast and many, and included both very bad behavior by election judges (in poor, black neighborhoods) and also a clear situation in which elderly Jewish voters apparently voted for Pat Buchanan, which we all know they didn't. By most counts, the butterfly ballot fiasco alone, if corrected, would have given Gore Florida. It doesn't jibe with election laws, and it probably shouldn't, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that more Floridians intended to vote for Bush than Gore. Any of the various problems in Florida would have been justification for Gore to fight on, but there wasn't just one, there were many. Whoever would have lost this fight would have looked like a sore loser. Trying to say that one of them is a very bad man in the face of all that is just stupid as hell. And, again, it's also entirely irrelevant to your point about partisanship.

Trying to say that the numbers have changed to reflect more people thinking Gore stole the election though is either the most ignorant thing you've said on this board or a willful lie.

Bush started his presidency with about a 53% approval rating. Considering more people voted for Gore than for Bush, he was obviously given the benefit of the doubt. 9/11 united the country (and the world) behind Bush in an unprecedented fashion. Anything that's happened to his numbers or support since then is the fault of his radical policies. I'd half understand it if you used the simpleminded spin that the White House does as to why his numbers are dropping, but even they aren't cynical enough to blame it on Gore, his supporters or the 2000 election. And since the Supreme Court made their decision, Gore has never once complained or insinuated he was treated unfairly.

I've never been a great fan of Gore and I didn't vote for him, but this speech is right ****ing on and expresses the frustration a great many Americans feel with Bush's radical, dangerous agenda. For you to insinuate it's bad behavior or that Americans who opposed and oppose the Iraq thing or any of Bush's other outrageous policies strictly due to opinions formed during the election fiasco is stupid and wrong. The only source for that theory is your incredibly partisan imagination. Project much?

Deuce Rings · Aug 10, 2003

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Deuce Rings, you are as partisan as anyone on this board. I think it's hilarious when you try to play the objective observer. Usually you lean entirely on your time in the ME to try and fake around your affiliation (much as TJ tries to use his job as ultimate, unquestionable credentials). This post though is sillier than most since the main premise is so plainly wrong.

The number of people who think Bush 'stole' the election has done nothing but shrink, by any poll or other source you can find. I defy you to prove your entirely invented premise that the trend is toward thinking Bush is an illegitimate president.

To address this one more time (pointless as it is since it's played out and has ZERO to do with relative support or non-support of Bush at this point), both sides had good justification for fighting to the finish. Bush appeared by the latest counts to have won the electoral vote (remember, by the way, that there is no controversy whatsoever about the popular vote. It is a fact that Gore received more votes.), so of course he was going to fight. The irregularities in Florida were vast and many, and included both very bad behavior by election judges (in poor, black neighborhoods) and also a clear situation in which elderly Jewish voters apparently voted for Pat Buchanan, which we all know they didn't. By most counts, the butterfly ballot fiasco alone, if corrected, would have given Gore Florida. It doesn't jibe with election laws, and it probably shouldn't, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that more Floridians intended to vote for Bush than Gore. Any of the various problems in Florida would have been justification for Gore to fight on, but there wasn't just one, there were many. Whoever would have lost this fight would have looked like a sore loser. Trying to say that one of them is a very bad man in the face of all that is just stupid as hell. And, again, it's also entirely irrelevant to your point about partisanship.

Trying to say that the numbers have changed to reflect more people thinking Gore stole the election though is either the most ignorant thing you've said on this board or a willful lie.

Bush started his presidency with about a 53% approval rating. Considering more people voted for Gore than for Bush, he was obviously given the benefit of the doubt. 9/11 united the country (and the world) behind Bush in an unprecedented fashion. Anything that's happened to his numbers or support since then is the fault of his radical policies. I'd half understand it if you used the simpleminded spin that the White House does as to why his numbers are dropping, but even they aren't cynical enough to blame it on Gore, his supporters or the 2000 election. And since the Supreme Court made their decision, Gore has never once complained or insinuated he was treated unfairly.

I've never been a great fan of Gore and I didn't vote for him, but this speech is right ****ing on and expresses the frustration a great many Americans feel with Bush's radical, dangerous agenda. For you to insinuate it's bad behavior or that Americans who opposed and oppose the Iraq thing or any of Bush's other outrageous policies strictly due to opinions formed during the election fiasco is stupid and wrong. The only source for that theory is your incredibly partisan imagination. Project much?
Click to expand...

I simply think you labeling me a partisan helps you make the partisan post that you made above. Plain and simple. When you have to resort to labels to make your arguments, you never had much of an argument in the first place. My posts on this board have not been partisan. The reason I seem so angry in my posts is I'm sitting here with firsthand information on the way the middle east exists today and I'm listening to a bunch of people like yourself who are simply confused because they lack the firsthand knowledge to objectively analyze the middle east. Their leaders and their media are NOT giving them the information and that pisses me off. I think Americans need to know the truth about what the middle east thinks about us and why and it's not because of the U.S.-Israel issue. It's about their religion preaching intolerance and that minority population of their society that would allow that tolerance to manifest itself into terrorist protest. I certainly have my own point of view, but that does not make me a partisan. I challenge you to prove your ridicuous allegations. At what point in my post did I say that the MAJORITY thinks Bush stole the election. I didn't say that at all. The way you twist the facts to help your own argument would make you a perfect fit on one of the cable news networks.

dc sports · Aug 10, 2003

The speach is vintage Gore though. I fell asleep twice just trying to read it.

Batman Jones · Aug 10, 2003

DR: I don't know why you even bother talking to us plebes (here in America or anywhere else in the world) given your incredibly arrogant position that having lived in the Middle East means you have all the answers and the rest of us are naive and wrong. How you know more than others who've lived there and oppose the war (rezdawg, though we disagree on so much else, comes to mind), is another matter entirely, but I know your superior knowledge of this dark black and bright white situation doesn't attend to logic.

Here are some of the stupid quotes from your first post and my direct response to them.

Originally posted by Deuce Rings
There are two ways to look at the 2000 election controversy.

First you bring the 2000 election back into it. YOU brought it into it. Gore didn't and no one else in this thread did. If 2000 continues to color the debate, it is because you insist on it. Don't bring that stuff back in and then blame those you disagree with for obsessing on it. That's textbook projection and textbook hypocrisy.

It's funny to me how this point of view has gone from speculation to fact in the short three years since the election among many of our constitents.

Then you invent this allegation from whole cloth. Show me one piece of supporting evidence. Show me even one compelling OPINION piece that backs up your imaginary thesis. The most radical Gore haters don't suggest this.

I'm willing to bet that many people's opinions on the Iraq war were based solely on their party affiliation regardless of the facts.

Here you seek to dismiss any criticism whatsoever of any extremely controversial war by calling it purely partisan. This really pisses me off. MacBeth supported Bush and opposed the war. Many officials from the first Bush administration supported Bush and opposed the war and the way it was handled on the same grounds that I and others here did. The majority population in virtually every other country in the world (including the vast majority of our allies) opposed the war. I guess you'd say that's because they hate Republicans. I guess you'd ignore the fact that they supported the action in Afghanistan.

First you warm up your imaginary audience by pretending we're all still fighting over the 2000 election, even though Bush enjoyed nearly universal support in this country and around the world after 9/11. Afghanistan is proof that the relative support of wars waged by Bush does not rise and fall on partisan interests. But apparently your time in the Middle East now extends your expertise to all issues of American politics and allows you to read the minds of every American citizen. It must be a great burden to be so arrogant.

Also realize that one of these two men is the bad guy making one of them extremely terrible for this country's well being.

And here, it is clear (regardless of your transparent imitation of objectivity) that you seek to not only dismiss anything Gore EVER says publically again, but actually seek to cast him as a bad guy who is extremely terrible for the country, all based on the idea that he somehow subverted our Democratic process. GIVE ME A BREAK! Rush Limbaugh would not make this argument. Ann Coulter wouldn't make this argument. So, yes, it is hilarious when you criticize partisan behavior, since you cast yourself here in the role of the most extreme partisan. In the past I've ignored your posts as I don't like talking to walls, but when you come in my thread and make bold, ridiculous accusations, you can expect to hear from me. Sorry to hurt your feelings, oh wise master.
Click to expand...

Deuce Rings · Aug 10, 2003

Originally posted by Batman Jones
DR: I don't know why you even bother talking to us plebes (here in America or anywhere else in the world) given your incredibly arrogant position that having lived in the Middle East means you have all the answers and the rest of us are naive and wrong. How you know more than others who've lived there and oppose the war (rezdawg, though we disagree on so much else, comes to mind), is another matter entirely, but I know your superior knowledge of this dark black and bright white situation doesn't attend to logic.

Here are some of the stupid quotes from your first post and my direct response to them.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming to know everything jackass, you are. I have simply given this message board my personal views on the middle east for discussion. You are saying there is your way and te highway. So stop playing the pot that called the kettle black. You can make up whatever you want from a set of words. Are you at all interested in discussion or just smashing posters and talking trash. Judging by the majority of your posts I think it's the ladder.

Batman Jones · Aug 10, 2003

Originally posted by Deuce Rings
I'm not claiming to know everything jackass, you are. I have simply given this message board my personal views on the middle east for discussion. You are saying there is your way and te highway. So stop playing the pot that called the kettle black. You can make up whatever you want from a set of words. Are you at all interested in discussion or just smashing posters and talking trash. Judging by the majority of your posts I think it's the ladder.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the ladder. Climb it to a higher debate.

I see you've learned well from Trader_Jorge and his like: Ignore any and all substantive arguments and focus on style instead. When you can't win on the merits, tell the guy he's yelling too loud and hurting your poor ears. You made a series of outrageous claims in your first post in this thread, I refuted all of them (it wasn't hard) and you started crying. You've yet to answer any of my actual points, but I don't expect that from you. Regarding claiming to know everything, my arguments in this thread are not opinions elevated by inexplicable arrogance to the level of fact. Your weird assertions are. You're not very much fun to argue with, since I obviously can't expect any response to my actual points. So, bye.

Forums

Gore's speech

serious black Member

Deuce Rings Member

Batman Jones Member

Deuce Rings Member

dc sports Member

Batman Jones Member

Deuce Rings Member

Batman Jones Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!