Gore endorses Obama - DUH!!!

Email Print posted by bobo1 06/16/2008 09:09:31 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Speaking of deification - why is the newsmedia making such a big deal about Gore's endorsement???

Just wanted your thoughts as to what this means for Obama... I mean really - who else would he endorse? Thanks
< Auntie Habeas Corpus | The media should know better >
 Display:
Gore endorses Obama - DUH!!! | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 hidden)
Speaking of duh (none / 0)

Because Gore would have been a cinch for the Democratic nomination if he had run, that's why.

Everyone now knows what a colossal mistake it was to choose Bush over Gore and many might be influenced by his opinion to some degree.  What about this is hard to figure out?

by bfaul on 06/16/2008 10:04:14 PM EST

Right (none / 0)
That's the best thing Obama gets out of Gore, a reminder to the vast majority of Americans that "elections matter" and that we can't afford another 4 years of this BS.

by ihavenobias on 06/16/2008 10:09:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rethinking 2000 election (none / 1)
Everyone now knows what a colossal mistake it was to choose Bush over Gore...

And Cheney over Lieberman. Does anybody remember Senator Lieberman, the man who would have been vice president on 9/11 if a few oldsters in Florida had been able to figure out their butterfly ballots?

Bush campaigned against nation building because Gore and Lieberman favored it. Do you really suppose that President Gore and Vice President Lieberman would not have our armed forces bogged down in a nation building quagmire somewhere in the Middle East right now?

by Twba on 06/17/2008 10:47:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
memories (none / 1)
"Does anybody remember Senator Lieberman?"

Oh, you mean the guy they all voted for in the 2000 election? Let’s see if they remember him.
Remembrance #1
Remembrance #2
Remembrance #3
Remembrance #4
Remembrance #5
Remembrance #6

Yeah, they also remember Bill and Hillary Clinton. They used to looooove these people back in the 1990s. 

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 11:11:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Always arguing the 'con side, aren't you? (none / 0)

"Do you really suppose that President Gore and Vice President Lieberman would not have our armed forces bogged down in a nation building quagmire somewhere in the Middle East right now?"

Absolutely fucking not.  I don't believe Gore would have had anything to do with this idiocy in Iraq.  Lieberman would be on the sidelines, he wouldn't have controlled the whole government like Cheney did.

I think Gore would have been far more intelligent and thoughtful and effective in his actions than Bush could ever have dreamed of being.  I think there is an excellent possibility that he would have tried to interdict 9/11 after getting the red light warnings from the CIA and from Clarke. 

 

by bfaul on 06/17/2008 08:35:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Interdicked? (3.00 / 9)
I think Al Gore would have hung from the top of the World Trade Center like fucking King Kong, and shooed away the terrorist-flown 767s.
king kong

Here's Al Gore, sucking in his gut to fit into a King Kong sized suit.
big fat al
We'll never know what kind of president he would have been, because he got beat by 537 votes in Florida. If only he hadn't sighed in the first debate.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 10:00:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey (1.00 / 2)
Why does a photo of Al Gore squeezed into an ill-fitting suit merit a score of 1/unproductive? Isn't that totally on topic in a thread about Al Gore's throwing his weight behind Barack Obama?

by Twba on 06/18/2008 10:46:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
useless (none / 0)
You add your usual nothing to the conversation.

by bfaul on 06/18/2008 12:14:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh I get it (none / 0)

Al Gore's fat.

And fat people can't possibly have anything intelligent or interesting to add to society.

Great point, Ken.  You really blew that out of the water.

Hey, McCain is old and has tiny little T-Rex arms and a wierd creepy smile and a Beavis and Butthead laugh.

So I guess we can write him off too.

Maybe we should just let whoever wins America's Next Top Model be the next president. 

by ProfRich on 06/18/2008 12:18:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You forgot (none / 0)
he also turned interdict into interdicked

That changes everything.

by richardshort2001 on 06/18/2008 12:29:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I love (none / 0)

how Ken took all of his other nicknames and rated his own comment to save his ego (?).  So sad...  Good thing twba is here to buck him up.

by Spencer on 06/18/2008 06:37:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Come on (none / 0)
You're just depressed because you discovered that one-third of the regulars are Ken's sockpuppets.

by Twba on 06/18/2008 07:56:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
creating my own friends (none / 0)
Here's how you can tell that a TYT participant is a KenTX sock puppet:

They are polite.

by KenTX on 06/18/2008 08:23:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Always arguing (none / 0)
Always arguing the 'con side, aren't you?

I voted for neither Bush nor Gore. I am a classical liberal and therefore unwelcome in both parties. I am arguing from an outsider's viewpoint.

I think Gore would have been far more intelligent and thoughtful and effective in his actions than Bush could ever have dreamed of being.

I think Gore is an idiot. He is no more intelligent than Bush. Both got in to the Ivy League because of their rich daddies. Gore pretends to be an expert on science though he barely passed the intro class he took.

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

I think there is an excellent possibility that he would have tried to interdict 9/11 after getting the red light warnings from the CIA and from Clarke.

Vice President Gore was head of a commission that studied aviation security in the wake of the TWA Flight 800 crash. If Gore had done a thorough job, the cockpit doors would have been more secure and the cockpit crew would have been armed on 9/11, whether or not he was a current occupant of the White House. Based on that past failure to act, I am unconvinced that Gore would have been effective in thwarting the hijackers on 9/11.

by Twba on 06/18/2008 05:43:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ingenius (none / 0)

"Vice President Gore was head of a commission that studied aviation security in the wake of the TWA Flight 800 crash. If Gore had done a thorough job, the cockpit doors would have been more secure and the cockpit crew would have been armed on 9/11"

Yeah, that would be a logical conclusion after it was determined that an electrical short in a fuel tank caused the explosion.  You got me there. 

by bfaul on 06/18/2008 07:03:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Genius (none / 0)
Upgrading security was a major item on the commission's agenda. The commission studied bomb detection. We had some bomb detection equipment installed in airports, but the cockpit doors weren't toughened and the crews weren't armed.

by Twba on 06/18/2008 07:32:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't get it (none / 0)

So you're going to sit there and argue that they should have boosted cockpit door security as a result of an electrical failure in a gas tank?  That's your argument against Gore?  Personally I would have made them take a hard look at the wiring in those gas tanks but then maybe I'm just as stupid and short sighted as Gore.

So you didn't vote for Bush or Gore?  If you're a Nader supporter then just say it.  Are you ashamed of it?  Is that what a "classical liberal" is?  I don't hear Nader out there arguing for the idiotic neocon talking points.

by bfaul on 06/18/2008 10:48:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Al Gore Vidal (none / 0)
So you're going to sit there and argue that they should have boosted cockpit door security as a result of an electrical failure in a gas tank?

Because TWA Flight 800 crashed into deep saltwater, not enough evidence was recovered to determine with any certainty that the cause of the crash was a bad wire in a fuel tank. It could have been a bomb.

If all the commission was concerned with was a faulty wire in a fuel tank, why did it study bomb detection devices and then recommend their installation in major airports? The commission was worried about jihadist attacks on airliners, but it dropped the ball when it came to securing the cockpit against hijackers. Al Gore did a lousy job.

by Twba on 06/19/2008 07:56:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo Dis' Gores Endorsement - DUH (none / 0)

Even the lord Almighty endorsed Jesus...

Matthew 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

 All those days as a ute in Sunday school finally paid off.

by MRFred on 06/17/2008 02:15:21 AM EST

OMG (none / 0)

Thats Lord Almighty 

Disregard Sunday School comment.

by MRFred on 06/17/2008 02:17:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh what bobo wouldn't give (none / 0)
to have the primary back.

by hazmat on 06/17/2008 04:32:26 AM EST

News (none / 0)
The 24hr news cycle has killed real perspective.

I give Gore credit, as a super delegate, he did his job and remained uncommitted until the race was over.

Gore's endorsement is important.

If you want to talk about diefication, look no further than Tim Russert. I am sure Valerie Plame has a different view of his journalistic integrity. What was it that Cheney said about Meet the Press?


The real story of the weekend was Afganistan.

by LORD FOUL on 06/17/2008 09:30:12 AM EST

special delivery to lord foul (none / 1)
It's not what Cheney said about Meet the Press. It's what Cheney said about Valerie Plame on Meet the Press.

The reason that Pat Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame is because she was no longer covert the moment Cheney declared her declassified. I love this 90 second exchange between Tim Russert and Dick Cheney. Pay particular attention to the last 15 seconds. How do you like Cheney's cute little smile?

The real story this weekend was indeed Afghanistan. The Taliban arranged a jailbreak for 400 terrorists. This would never have happened in Gitmo.

But wait a minute! Didn't five Supreme Court justices just rule Gitmo illegal, while the other four justices screamed OUTRAGE? Maybe this is what they were talking about?

So now American forces can no longer detain enemy combatants like we did during WWII, and our allies are not strong enough to guard the detention centers.

But don't worry, because I've got an idea. What if American forces set up a perimeter around detention centers controlled by the Afghanistan goverment? Then we are not really controlling the detention centers, so we don't have to give constitutional rights and jury trials in American courts to foreigners who have never even visited America.

Lord Foul, you used to work in law enforcement. Can you imagine reading Miranda rights to a guy who was shooting at you in Afghanistan?

I know you're smart enough to see through all of the Barack Obama nonsense. But are you smart enough to recognize what liberalism does to the freedom and security of American citizens?

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 10:03:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Return to sender (none / 0)
Hi Ken,

  I wasn't referring to his comments about Plame. I was referring to his comments about using Meet the press to spread the gospel.
  I am glad you like Cheney's smirk, personally I call it treason. Had a Dem VP done this you would be screaming (and you would be right)
  You refer to WWII? wasn't FDR the Presdient back then? He was so liberal that people like Prescott Bush tried to oust him though a military coup? Unfortunately the military actually had some people of character working for it at the time.
  I believe in Miranda as a matter of course. We are the good guys (we are good guys because we follow the rules). Nobody ever said that being a good guy was easy! As we see, in Afganistan, the taliban has grown in stregnth. We aid their recruitment by using the tactics that you endorse. We blew our chance in Afganistan on several levels and the blame lies squarely at the feet of your Pub President.
   Last time I checked people were tried and convicted after WWII and their was a Liberal President in charge.
   We can have freedom and security, you have simply bought into the propaganda spewed from the WH. Just because Dems are against Bush's policies doesn't mean they are against security.
   I, for one, do not believe enough has been done in this country to prevent another 911. The Dept. of Homeland security is a joke. Funds aren't distributed in accordance to threat but in accordance to pork barrell politics (pub style). Our borders are still open, as is our ports. Everyone seems to forget that there was 7 years between the first WTC attack and the second.

   Let's see 7 years without being hit, without 2 wars, without spying and without a Dept. of Homeland security. Clinton even came closer to killing Bin Hiden than Bush did. Talk about being cost effective. Now I know why you hate clinton so much

by LORD FOUL on 06/17/2008 10:37:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You want to talk FDR? (none / 1)
You just walked into the meat grinder.
FDR was responsible for more serious attacks on the Constitution than any other president in modern history.

Court Packing.
Military Tribunals.
Internment of American citizens.

But I admire how FDR treated Nazi saboteurs captured in America. He didn’t Mirandize them. He didn’t give them a jury trial. He didn’t give them constitutional rights.

He gave them a swift military tribunal, and an even swifter execution. Compare that with how we handle al Qaeda saboteurs today.

Hey Lord Foul, when you go up against me, it’s not like debating one of the liberal goobers. Can you feel the difference?

Let's see you keep this topic going.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 10:54:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I never (none / 0)
considered you a liberal

I do not have a problem with military tribunals

Miranda did not exist

I do not agree with court packing (by either side)

Internment of citizens was also wrong.

Different times and different circumstances. We were at war with countries that were a direct threat to the survival of this nation (Bin Laden cannot invade us).

As you have seen I do not always agree with my liberal friends. But this war on terror is a joke. How many have been arrested on trumped up charges only to later have those charges amended or reduced?

Why does it always seem that each arrest or each threat was treated like a photo op at the emmys? Getting it right or simply applying true justice took a back seat to politics. Gov. Ridge admitted that terror alerts were made unecessarily (to benefit the Bush campaign).

by LORD FOUL on 06/17/2008 11:50:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't agree entirely (none / 0)

First, he did not pack the court.  He just threatened to.  It worked.

He did intern the Japanese and that was wrong but certainly you don't elieve that because to attack that would contradict almost everything else you have said for the last few weeks so WTF?

Nice to see Lord Foul bitchslap you on the Miranda thing.

FDR did excercise extraordinary power in a time of war and some of those decisions were cleraly mistakes but to pretend he violated the Constitution as seriously, often or a flagrantly as Bush is silly.  And Reagan was WAAAAAAY more flagrant and probably equally dangerous.

And it seems there was a president had to resign over his treatment of our rights....

Did FDR violate the Constitution some?  Sure.  Is he the worst violator in modern history?  Please.

Depending on when you start modern history ticking, he is at absolute worst, 4th. 

by ProfRich on 06/17/2008 01:56:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just would like to point out (none / 0)

That this whole Saboteur-line Ken keeps spewing is utter BS.

The German infiltrators in WWII were trialed for violating the laws of war - that is, the Geneva Conventions. That's why the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal; the laws of war applied rather than the Constitution.

The entire point of the Bush administration's policies on trialing "Enemy Combatants", however, has been not to apply the Geneva Conventions, mostly because that would mean most of their cases against the "Bad Guys" would fall through as too weak when judged by real law (military tribunal working by Geneva Conventions would provide more protection for defendants than the current military tribunals established by the Military Comissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act - see: "A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states: The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel"). 

So I take it from this you disagree with the approach this administration has been taking, since you obviously do want to apply the Geneva Conventions to "Enemy Combatants", giving the evil-doers more protection, in contrast to Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales?

 

by Cogitor on 06/17/2008 08:50:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cogitor can debate history. (none / 0)
Read the history of FDR and Quirin.
Almost immediately, Biddle, the attorney general, sought authorization to try the Germans in a secret proceeding -- in part, some historians assert, to avoid having to reveal that Hoover had embellished the story of the capture. Biddle also wanted to secure death sentences for the saboteurs, which would not have been available in civilian courts.

President Roosevelt issued an order authorizing the military commission and closing civilian courts to saboteurs and spies who entered the country on behalf of "any nation at war with the United States." Bush's order, by contrast, appears to apply to any noncitizen with terrorist connections, no matter what the country of origin.

The saboteur trial was quickly convened at the Justice Department, presided over by a panel of military officers who were apparently not lawyers. Biddle himself led the prosecution.

Noted lawyer Lloyd Cutler of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering was the youngest member of the prosecution team, and last week recalled moments from the trial. Procedural rules favored the prosecution, Cutler said.

"You didn't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt," Cutler said. Instead, a "reasonable man" standard was used. "It was very different from a civilian trial," he noted.

As soon as defense lawyer Kenneth Royall indicated he would challenge the constitutionality of the process, Biddle went to Roosevelt. The president reacted angrily, according to a 1996 article in the Journal of Supreme Court History.

"I want one thing clearly understood, Francis," Roosevelt said, according to Biddle's memoirs. "I won't hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus." Biddle agreed, telling Roosevelt, "We have to win in the Supreme Court, or there will be a hell of a mess."

Read the Quirin opinion
In his draft opinion, Jackson grants sweeping powers to the President. He concludes that (1) the President has the inherent authority to create military tribunals, (2) this authority could not be regulated by Congress, and (3) this power was by virtue of the President’s power as commander in chief.
Jackson states, “ I think the Court’s decision of the question whether it complied with the Articles of War is uncalled for. The history and the language of the Articles are to me a plain demonstration that they are clearly inapplicable to this case, and it is abundantly clear to me that it is well within the war powers of the President to create a non-statutory military tribunal of the sort here in question." He further states "The right to convene such an advisory committee of his staff as a ‘military commission’ for the discharge of his duties toward prisoners of war is one that follows from his position as commander in chief."

Now that’s what I call a “Unitary Executive”.

So what do we do with non-uniformed, terrorist saboteurs who are waging war against America, but are not signatories to the Geneva Convention?

Answer: Henceforth, we will try to kill as many as possible, and take as few prisoners as possible. Those terrorists who are taken prisoner will be turned over to “host governments” for harsh interrogation, brutal detention, kangaroo trials, and swift execution.

All of this was the result of ACLU lawyers who were concerned with the plight of a few hundred detainees who were being well treated in Gitmo. The days of good treatment for detainees are over.

by KenTX on 06/17/2008 10:49:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yuk-guheee! (none / 0)
Bobo, you don't have to type those involuntary vocalizations you tend to make.  These include but are not limited to "DUH!" and "ARP!"  By editing those out before you click POST, you may succeed in putting on the appearance of relative intelligence.

by OneHitKill on 06/17/2008 12:34:44 PM EST

Gore endorses Obama - DUH!!! | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: