Gore Assails Bush's Policies, Reiterates Not Running in 2004

Former Vice President Al Gore speaks to an audience at New York University, August 7, 2003.

Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq and reiterated that he would not run for president in 2004 against George W. Bush.

Speaking at New York University at an event sponsored by liberal political advocacy group MoveOn.org, Gore said Bush deserved credit for removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power but said the war had no effect on al Qaeda except to boost the group's recruiting activities.

Yahoo

Gore sees the parade of the Nine Dwarves is a weak one at best and sees his possible rebirth in world history.

Like I said.................Gore/Dean In '04

I would actually really like to see Gore/Dean. That would be a tough ticket I think.

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by observer]

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Gore sees the parade of the Nine Dwarves is a weak one at best and sees his possible rebirth in world history.

Like I said.................Gore/Dean In '04

Its not gonna happen.

Of course it is not, the Democratic Party is thankfully, dying.

You'll see, in 2004 Bush will be re-elected.

And in 2006 the Congress will enlarge its majority of Republicans.

Good ridance to those liberals anyways, destroying our country.

It's nice to see that finally an Alabama Chief Justice is refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from the Court House, per Federal Court order.

You go Alabama!

Judicial dictatorship is going to throw this country into another Civil War, all because of religion and gay issues...you can thank the Democrats for allowing the Judicial Dictatorship to happen.

But FM

Best example of your 'judicial dictatorship' to date is the intervention of the Supreme Court, after all other avenues for the Gore campaign to legally pursue, in the stoppage and verdict on Florida, 2000.

The corrupt Bush administration relies on its manufactured majority and complicit officials in the judicial system for everything.

No masked avatar, the supreme court in Florida was Constitutional.

the "Judicial Dictatorship" is the Courts telling a state that they can't make a law for instance...banning Gay sex, because that harms other people's "rights".

In such issues, it is the majority of the people that decide, not the Courts.

In such a case as Gay Marraige, Judicial Dictatorship would be when 51% or more of the people do not want Gay Marraiges allowed, but the Courts tell them they have to put up with it.

Talk about minority rule.

FM

If the Supreme Court tells a State it can't interpret a law to continue counting votes in order to protect the constitional right of voters, then that is as much judicial dictatorship as any 1,000 examples you would care to mention.

Ahh but see MA there was no law telling them to count votes.

Basically there was some "Screw up" in the voting, and Gore decided...."ok ok...let's just recount all the votes........in that district over there!" Which just so happend to be something like 95% democrat.

The truth is no one knows WHO won the popular vote because many possible democrat//republican votes were completely ignored.

This is because the Supreme Court basically said, "no recount by any side, whoever won without those districts won".

That happend to be bush, and that is a fair judgement...how many recounts do you get in Lodge MA

FM

Poor analogy. Bush has billions of black balls already.

The Supreme Court over-ruled the State. It did so because of an entirely corrupt agenda, not out of fairness.

Originally posted by FreeMason
No masked avatar, the supreme court in Florida was Constitutional.

the "Judicial Dictatorship" is the Courts telling a state that they can't make a law for instance...banning Gay sex, because that harms other people's "rights".

In such issues, it is the majority of the people that decide, not the Courts.

In such a case as Gay Marraige, Judicial Dictatorship would be when 51% or more of the people do not want Gay Marraiges allowed, but the Courts tell them they have to put up with it.

Talk about minority rule.

Supreme Court decisions are not supposed to be popularity contests. They're supposed to be based on Constitutional Principles reguardless of popular opinion.

The founders of our republic understood that our freedoms could be lost just as fast through a democratic vote as they could by a dictator comming to power.

Unrelated: FM, I don't agree with Democratic policy either but at the same time Republican Policy is in my opinion, way skewed as well, and not at all upholding the ideas of what it's name stands for, ie, "REPUBLIC".

Plus I thought Religion and Politics were not supposed to be mixed, wasn't that the whole idea behind Religious Freedom? Since Marriage is a Religious or Personal thing anyway, there should be no Politics involved, other than whether or not the state recognizes it legaly, but law should have no say over someone's marriage CAN or CANNOT take place. This also goes for SEX between consenting adults. A couple dudes wanting to shag each other is NASTY in my opinion too, but what they do in private is not mine to decide because what I do in private with my woman is our business alone, and I want to keep it that way!! I do not want any laws telling me what kinky or kooky things I am allowed to do in the privacy of my own home, so to be fair and equal that has to apply to everyone else too, or you have hipocracy.

Topic Related: I am glad to see effort gearing toward corruption within the system and a call for better Administrative actions, even though it's still the same old sqawble between a 2 party system that will never be solved. Also, Gore has no business as pres. any more than Daddy Bush does. I really hope Bush doesn't get another 4 years at bat cause I'm not sure if the world can take it, but I'm not sure what other choices any voters really have. Just once before I die I would like to see a real leader in the highest seat of this country and for a break in this 2 party system that has and will continue to fail. But I might as well be wishing to be captain of a Galactic Star Ship with a crew of "Perfect 10" magazine models who all love me....For I think I will see that before I see the Gov. Policy changes....

The Founders of our Republic, never expected it would come to "Should we allow Gays to Marry".

They believed in man's rights from God, they did not in any way see Homosexuality as a "right from God".

All of them, took Marraige scrosanct.

The Founding Fathers, knew that a state has the right to determine its own code of ethics and morality.

There fore the state is allowed to judge such an issue as homosexuality, by vote, as the 10th amendment allows.

For no where in the Constitution does the Government derive the power to determine the morality of the nation.

This really is not the place for THIS particular argument.

But I suggest you spend a little more time studying the founding fathers, the constitution, and the powers of the States...and most of all the Rule by Law that is being walked all over by both parties.

As for blackballing, MA that's a great analogy as even if you accidentally blackballed, it'd be hard to recount

It's only so easy because there are so few voting, try with 30,000

FM

The proof of the pudding lies in the question,

"Has any B____ voted in error?"

Maybe you have never been asked it.

Technical difference between democracy and quasi-democracy perhaps.

I don't know what a "B____" is...lol

But to try and answer your question...Republicans and Democrats both had voting errors of the same type all over, but the country put into question was hand selected by the Democrats. And was a near completely democratic county.

And am I the ONLY one who remembers the fact that DEMOCRATIC CHAD COUNTERS! Were EATING THE CHADS?

What the HELL???

Yeah...talk about scandalism.

"Oh, this card is unpunched...I'll just poke a hole near gore...and eat the evidence".

Yeah uh-huh...no everything about that election was completely fine, believe me...I'd be the first to jump on it if it weren't, as I'm convinced Civil War is coming.

But it was completely Constitutional.

Accusations of chad eating are a whole other topic.

You will be pleased obviously when there are no chads, when hardware and software are implemented that allow the result to be calculated 'transparently' before the first vote is cast, and to enable database calculations on voting segments that make it look like a count is in progress, and worse.

A pencil on paper system is better than a punchcard system or a push button system.

The US is hopelessly anachronistic in vote counting.

Well here it is a pen...blame Florida if you want to complain about the voting system.

As for eating chads, no it's quite the issue, you are trying to support the ideas of a dirty wrotten people

They have blinded you to thinking Bush is bad, when they did everything possible to circumvent the constitution and get Gore elected.

New computerized or electronic voting totally reaks with the stink of fraud. If this isn't a move to aid voter fraud I don't know what is. No possible way to have reliable checks in place. No physical evidence or anything because in reality individual votes will not exist, they are a blip of electricity, a pulse of electrical information. Oh sure, that's safe and secure?!?!?

Well voting is already all electronic anyways...face it if you want freedoms stop giving a rat's butt about the Federal government and vote well for your state government.

The Federal Government raises an army and keeps things in ship shape, they don't make ALL the policies.

And the president is such a universal figure, it is impossible to vote for him without some kind of problem of possible fraud.

So vote for your Governor with the passion as you'd vote for your President, and you'd see a much better improvement in the USA.

What do chads taste like?

Who exactly was responsible for making sure innocent chads were not shoved in mouths, and why did they fail in their duty?

Were they from the same security company as National Security Failure 9/11 Inc?

Where on earth do you get your mythology from?

Why do you defend the fact that people were denied their voting rights in Florida, where they were struck off, where the cards were manipulated to make them unreadable for too many voters, and where the Governor and complicit criminals acted to manipulate the result at every step possible?

At what point after you are wrongfully incarecerated for something you have said here which might have been misunderstood, will you accept that you abrogated your rights as a US citizen in the past 24 months?

Why are you so adamant that Bush will even make it to election time 2004?

What exactly will you be saying when he is gone from office, months before then?