Gore has no plans to run for president

Posted by: ST on October 12, 2005 at 6:59 pm

There has been speculation in political circles about the possibility of Al Gore making one last run for president in 2008. The AP is reporting excellent news on that front:

Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be “a different country” if he had won the 2000 election, launching into a scathing attack of the Bush administration.

“I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again,” Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.

When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush’s policies.

“We would not have invaded a country that didn’t attack us,” he said, referring to Iraq. “We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families.”

“We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people,” Gore said.

ST’s mini-fisking of Gore’s comments:

AG: “We would not have invaded a country that didn’t attack us.”

ST:Gosh – if that’s the case, I wonder how many prior US military offensives against countries that didn’t attack us directly Al would have been against? Likely none, outside of Vietnam and Iraq. Careful Al, your selective pacifism is showing.

AG: “We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families.”

ST: That whole statement is bogus and he KNOWS it. Money is not “taken” from working families and given to the most wealthy families. However, money IS taken from the most wealthy families and given to poor families in what is called “wealth redistribution” – but Al Gore (nor will the other top brass liars in the DNC) won’t come out and admit that he’s full of it on that score.

AG: “We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media.”

ST: That assumes the Bush Administration is. They’re not, but assuming they were, Al Gore (if president) wouldn’t have to “intimidate” the media, considering they are already in the back pockets of the Democrats.

AG: “We would not be routinely torturing people.”

ST: Well not overseas, but here on the domestic front, I can think of at least 62 million people you’d torture everyday with your asinine speeches and public statements.

Get a clue, Al.

(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)

Linked up with Mudville Gazette’s open post and OTB’s Traffic Jam

Update: Jason at Generation Why? is on the same wavelength.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Donkey Stomp trackbacked with No Al Gore for President
  • 31 Responses to “Gore has no plans to run for president”

    Comments

    1. cbank13 says:

      Aw……… Shucky Darns….

    2. Dennis says:

      The media’s in the back pocket of the Dems? Who’d a thunk it? I was trying to remember why the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted and now it comes back to me – the Clear Channel network was so dead-set against the war that anyone with views like Toby Keith just couldn’t get recognized, huh?

      And why it was it that FoxNews, CNN and The Washington Post editorialized so ardently in favor of the Iraq war, and how did all those Judith Miller pieces about WMD make it onto the front pages of the New York Times? Those liberal institutions were bucking the administration big-time on that. They were all over that Iraq / al Qaeda connection, weren’t they?

      If you want to play word games or argue about semantics maybe that’s what vanity blogs are for, but make no mistake – Mr. Bush’s policies do take large amounts of money away from the budget lines that benefit the little people and redirect them to large corporations. His policies indeed benefit the very wealthy over poor Americans. The gap between the wealthy and the poor has grown more dramatically under this administration than at any other time in my life, and I’m old enough to remember when a man could support his family by being a butcher, a barber or an electrician.

      As for the antipathy directed against the man who was the people’s choice for president in 2000, all I can say is, I kinda understand why you think it’s excellent news he isn’t running again. Now that people have seen the real character of the man who floated to the top, Mr. Gore doesn’t seem quite so bad.

      I know, I know, TV is so exciting and those gushy folks over at FoxNews are vastly more colorful and entertaining than suffering saints or prophets of gloom. They felt that way about Jeremiah back in Old Testament times too. When people call Al Gore’s speeches asinine it only demonstrates how a prophet might be without honor in his own country. (No, I didn’t make that one up – I read it somewhere and apply it to Mr. Gore now because it seems an appropriate fit somehow.)

      Don’t forget who took the trouble to charter two jets of hurricane evacuees to safety, arranged hospital care for them in Tennessee and never said a word about it to anyone, while our erstwhile war president was doing cheap photo ops. Al Gore did something that spoke eloquently to the kind of president we might have had, while the president we do have threatens his very first veto in five years to retain the legal wherewithal to torture detainees at his personal discretion.

      Doesn’t that make you proud?

      What makes me proud, Dennis, is the fact that you’ve actually managed to convince me to post on this blog something you have said to me that has not completely insulted my intelligence (not that this post doesn’t come close – and you certainly couldn’t resist patronizing me, something you should have the patent on), which you manage to do to me in email at least twice a week, if not more. Consider yourself lucky! — ST

    3. dennis says:

      Ouch, busted. I had addressed several e-mails to Miss Told-you-so. I thought one Sister Souljah was enough for the world, and somehow thought my adaptation was more genteel.

      Goes to show how little I know about etiquette these days. Kudos to ST for being a good sport and posting me anyway.

    4. Zippy says:

      “IF” he had won? Guess he is admitting again to all those out there in moonbatistan that he did actually lose. Done. Can someone please stick a fork in him?

      I just love that old ‘taking money away from working families’ sales pitch. Socialism in any form has no place in a free society.

      Go home Al. That game is over.

    5. PCD says:

      Al Gore is stark raving nuts. He is more proof that Liberalism is a mental disease.

    6. dennis says:

      Really impressed by the depth of critical thinking and analysis above.

      Has anyone actually weighed what the man says? As a relatively new blogger, my impression is deepening that many blogs are symptomatic of a great problem with America now. People surround themselves with others who hold similar prejudices. Anyone with a point of view different from theirs is reduced to a cipher (“liberal”, or whatever) they can revile and demonize. It is so much easier than grappling with issues honestly.

      What does it mean when people like Falwell and Dobson advise our current president on matters of state policy? Does anybody care that America has neighbors in the world, and Christianity compels us to love our neighbor as ourselves? Does anybody stop to think that the treatment of our enemies in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib sets an example to the world as to how they might be justified in treating us? Does anybody care that both in ancient Israel’s (Old Testament) economy and under the New Covenant, Christians are required to provide for the “least” among us?

      Does it matter that we went to war without a factual basis, and that we have taken on our own hands the blood of countless tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who had nothing whatever to do with terror attacks against the US? Does it make you uncomfortable that Mr. Gore at least has the guts to address these issues when so many would rather continue dispensing shock and awe because it stokes their nationalistic egos?

      When is the last time an American president did something really selfless for other people in need, like Mr. Gore recently did for hurricane evacuees, like Jimmy Carter has quietly done for many years with Habitats for Humanity – rather than emptying the national treasury and scheduling huge photo ops to make himself look heroic? Jesus said when you do good deeds to not sound a trumpet before you; your Father which is in heaven sees, and will reward you in due time.

      But I keep forgetting – all this talk about our “Christian” leaders is just that – talk. Christianity means nothing to the power structure in America; nowadays respecting the actual things Jesus taught is a mental disease; it will only make you an object of ridicule. It’s the will to power, baby – get with the program or stay out there in “moonbatistan”.

      I weep for my country.

    7. PCD says:

      Dennis,

      When you can think and write critically, and that is not being critical of Bush, come back. In you I see a person with no regard for our national sovereignity. I see a person who talks in cliches and posts Liberal/Progressive myths as facts with out any critical thinking on your part.

    8. Baklava says:

      Dennis,

      Let’s “grapple with the issues honestly”

      Your third paragraph was one implied (inaccurate) attack after another. Let’s go through them….

      1)“What does it mean when people like Falwell and Dobson advise our current president on matters of state policy?” Please point me to the news story that has Bush taking advice from Falwell.

      2) Does anybody care that America has neighbors in the world, and Christianity compels us to love our neighbor as ourselves? Moving past the hypocrisy of you thinking that America should be compeled by Christianity but yet having a problem with Dobson advising Bush… yes let’s move past that…. Let’s just say sarcastically that NO, nobody cares that America has neighbors in the world except you (and other leftists). Your deaming/paternizing attitude of conservatives is what is the issue is. We congregate here and other places to point out to each other and others who may be newbies to politics this paternizing attitude. If we as conservatives have to explain to you as a liberal that yes we do care about others but we believe better in the philosophy of teaching an able-bodied person how to fish instead of giving him fish… why do you then treat us as non-carers?. I’ll tell you why. Because you hang around with like minded people who reinforce your belief about conservatives and you can’t have the common decency actually believe that we might care but have different solutions to the problems of the world.

      3) “Does anybody stop to think that the treatment of our enemies in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib sets an example to the world as to how they might be justified in treating us?” Again. No we don’t care. We are uncaring idiots in your mind. If you look back at what most conservatives are saying Dennis (who weeps for your country), we were pointing out (which the mainstream media like-mindedly wanted to ignore and not point out) that the military justice system already had the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib problem being prosecuted or investigated. What you and the left continue to do is act like these problems were Bush policy and/or beheadings are now justified (even though they occurred before Abu Ghraib) or whatever ridiculous attack you could make. Yes, some conservatives even pointed out that what American soldiers are being punished for wasn’t much worse then hazing when ships cross the equator or college fraternity stunts. It is the sense of perspective that liberals like yourself seem to be lacking that astonishes us. I don’t know of any one of us who were asking the military not to prosecute the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib. What is an example to the rest of the world Dennis (who is weeping for America) is how we do not tolerate those perpetrators and were punishing them within the military justice system before the evidence hit the media. I’m sorry that you like-minded people that hang around with each other (liberals) can’t see the positive example we set by taking care of the individuals who acted inappropriately at Abu Ghraib. What would finally make you happy about this situation?

      4) “Does anybody care that both in ancient Israel’s (Old Testament) economy and under the New Covenant, Christians are required to provide for the “least” among us?” Again moving past the hypocrisy….. in your statement is an implied accusation that America doesn’t provide for the “least” among us or that American Christians don’t provide for the least among us. Whatever your accusation is, it is INACCURATE. This is a pattern among you liberals. Make inaccurate accusations. And what would you like us to do? Apologize to you (which would be acting like the accusation is correct) and change to some other policy? What would that policy be? Communism? We already have the most unprecedented redistribution of wealth going on in this last decade. More than the previous decase. More than the decade before that. 96% of income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. Where does that income tax (paid by the top 50% of income earners) go ? It is spent by government programs. Department of Defense is approximately 20% of expenditures. Most of the rest of the expenditures is providing for the least among us (no matter how many times liberals act like we aren’t). Every year federal expenditures go UP. In CA, every year state expenditures go up (even though liberals act like Arnold is cutting – he isn’t). What do we do about this Dennis (weeper for America)? Do we apologize to you and or the liberals (apologizing would admit guilt when the accusation is inaccurate) who keep making the accusation? Or can you actually do some research and get out of the group of like-minded folks around you and start understanding that we are a VERY compassionate nation and because of our prosperity (due to our economic system – which you probably despise) we are able to be generous to people internally and to other nations.

      I weep for you Dennis. I once was a liberal (in 1991) and know what you are going through. I converted to libertarianism (they want an 80% cut in government and that appealed to me) and now I’ve moved to centrism/conservatism. I’d like to see the government actually freeze spending for 10 years (hasn’t happened in over 6 decades), become more efficient (meaning provide services with lower cost), and reprioritize what we spend on. This would be to the right of most Republicans and WAY to the right of Democrats but I call it centrism/conservatism because it would be a 0 (zero) on the political scale. Advocating for more spending would be to the left on the scale and both major political parties are to the left. Advocating for less spending would be to the right but I’m not advocating for that.

      I hope that you can honestly open your mind to some facts and let go of the obvious hatred for people that you consider conservatives that you actually think are evil (the only explanation for your rant). It was a mind blowing year for me in 1991 as I visited the library 3 times a week for a full year doing research on economics, budgets, environment, history, etc. I hope you can get past my sarcasm (as I’m a crotchety 35 year old man) who is tired of leftist attacks sometimes. And again… what do we do about it? Admit guilt to the inaccurate attack by apologizing? What could we actually do to placate you? Nothing. You’d have to remove yourself from the like-minded people and talk to us like intellectual and moral equals. I hope you can try this for a little bit.

    9. Baklava says:

      PCD, You said it better than I with fewer words. :cool:

    10. dennis says:

      What do you really believe in? I am first and foremost a human being created by God and saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. We are told at the foot of the cross there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female; we are one in Christ. All national boundaries are temporal and should serve only as practical means of administering the needs of other human beings.

      It is my observation that what you call national sovereignty is little more than idolatry for many Americans. We certainly demonstrate no respect for the sovereignty of other nations. As for “liberal/progressive myths,” I take from any school of thought whatever I find of practical worth and is consistent with the values taught by Jesus in the Gospels. I find much to admire in traditional conservatism, but sadly there isn’t much of that left in our country.

      If we cannot be critical of our leaders then of what value is our “democracy”? It is clear that not only standard definition of terms, but most of the values held by America’s founders are being lost by this generation.

    11. PCD says:

      Baklava,

      You made points on Dennis that I didn’t bother to explain to him.

      Dennis obviously thinks condesension in and of itself is a trump card in “debate”. Actually, Dennis wants to dictate, not debate.

      Also, If Dennis thinks he’s a Christian, he’s got it all wrong or is a False Light that Christians were warned about. Christ NEVER said anything about the governement forcing charity as Dennis would have it. Nor did Christ say that his people should use government to spend other people’s money. Christ preached to each person, not groups. Each person was to respond to his message, not the government’s message. Nope, I don’t believe that Dennis is a Christian, nor do I believe he really knows anything about being one other than the myths handed him by other know nothings like Jackson, Lynn, and Sharpton.

      Dennis also has a mental disconnect about Iraq. He bears False Witness about Bush and why we went to war. Dennis doesn’t know what torture really is. He confuses humiliation with physical torture. But, to a Liberal, humiliation and hurtful words are deadly because they are such fragile beings.

      As far as his facts, Dennis is more full of manure than a cattle feed lot.

      No, Baklave, you did a better job.

    12. Baklava says:

      Dennis, You can be critical of our leaders. We conservatives are critical of our leaders. What we object to is your inaccurate (incorrect) accusations.

      If I listed a bunch of questions like this in a paragraph:
      Does Dennis care that Dennis has neighbors, and Christianity compels Dennis to love our neighbor as ourselves? Does Dennis stop to think that the treatment of our enemies in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib sets an example to the world as to how they might be justified in treating us? Does Dennis care that both in ancient Israel’s (Old Testament) economy and under the New Covenant, Christians are required to provide for the “least” among us?

      How would you feel if someone wrote letters like that to you daily for a decade. That’s why I’m a crotchety 35 year old man. I’ve been in debates with liberals (some I’ve converted) for over 14 years now and every one of them have a paternizing elitist hate conservatives and think conservatives are evil attitude and mischaracterize/misrepresent what we believe. You Dennis can’t speak for what we believe. You are FAR off the mark and you would be advised to do alot more research instead of staying in the like-minded areas every day. Venturing on to this web site might change your life around if you let it. I fully understand that you say you are a Christian and that you care. Let go of your “feeling” that conservatives don’t care. Delve into what we think. You’ll find that we believe in solutions that we believe will be MORE EFFECTIVE. And that’s because we care.

      While folks like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry do act like they care more and say that they care more, I really think that this rhetoric by these leaders is just that.. rhetoric. Step away from the attacks. Put down your weapon of words. Soak up the rays of ideas. Let go of our sometimes rant about some of the leftist leaders and mainstream media (we’ll do that) and do some research. We’ll welcome you into the world of different solutions. If you can lay down your word weapons and attacks and listen you might learn(instead of weeping).

    13. dennis says:

      Baklava: “Please point me to the news story that has Bush taking advice from Falwell.”

      From CBS “60 Minutes” June 8, 2003:

      “[In April 2002] President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.”

      LINK

      This of course begs the question of why another nation’s sovereignty seems at times to be placed before America’s own, but should answer Baklava’s essential question.

      PCD, on several occasions George Bush has claimed life would be easier if he were a dictator, but I’ve never understood the appeal of that. Just keeping one little life straight down here (my own) is enough responsibility. Neither do I believe in dictating morality, either through legislative fiat or the selection of religious judges or lawmakers. The idea that mixing the government with anything – especially religion – could possibly make it better is anathema to traditional conservatism, for which I have nothing but respect.

      I’ve never for one second believed religious considerations should drive America’s policy, BUT when an administration comes to power largely based on its claims of Christian piety, one might expect to see more of the actual principles taught by Jesus embodied in its policies – otherwise it’s just another cynical ploy to manipulate the masses. I have no problem with Christian leaders advising the president. But it’s inevitable, if religion and politics are mingled, that religion will be tainted. That’s why Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world.”

      I’m quite content to let the two kingdoms remain separate, but I’m afraid the trend right now is the opposite of that. We’ve been suckered by our enemy into mirroring them and are heading for a theocratic state. Feel free to dispute me, but I’ve been studying the political religious right for over two decades, and predict in three to six years the net will be drawn up. Or sooner. You may remember this exchange when the battle really starts here at home.

      By the way, this 54-year young “liberal” voted for Michael Badnarik in the last election (the libertarian) – most of my friends might be amused by your characterizations of me. But thanks, both of you, for your tender nurturing me toward enlightenment.

      see LINKa>

    14. PCD says:

      Dennis, you are bearing false witness again. Where has Bush talked about being a dictator? Other than in some lefties drug induced dreams, that is.

      Oh, when you start justifying your polemaics based on what you claim to be, you’ve admitted you can’t win on facts or logic and are now appealing to emotion.

    15. Baklava says:

      Dennis went out on a limb and wrote, “Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House”.

      Yes. Bush must be listening to him and him only. You even mentioned the thousands of letters. And I’m sure the president receives letters of protests that near the millions.

      Is this the relationship that you want to continue? You accuse falsely and we put things in perspetive for you. I’ve gotta tell you, you don’t listen. And you are a hypocrate. Voting for a party who wants to cut government 80% and yet lecturing us with FALSE accusations about how you think we want to not provide for the least among us.

      You’re too thick to continue with. Someone else can deal with your false allegations posing as debate.

    16. PCD says:

      Baklava,

      Notice how Dennis makes charges, runs away from proving his charges, then makes new false charges? That’s a typical liberal tactic when they have nothing that stands up to scrutiny. Final piece of dog do-do from Dennis, hh points to a URL that glorifies himself.

      What a colossal flame out, Dennis.

    17. Baklava says:

      Oh yeah. But he’s for cutting government to the tune of 80% ! and then railing on us as if we don’t want to provide for the least among us.

      What a dialog. :roll:

    18. dennis says:

      PCD, it happened not once, but three times. You really should do a little fact-checking before calling someone else a false witness. It would bring more credit to your cause.

      “You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas, Governing Magazine, July 1998

      http://www.governing.com/archive/1998/jul/bush.txt

      “I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked. — December 18, 2000, the president-elect’s first day in Washington

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/trans_12-18.htm

      Associated Press — President Bush conceded yesterday he’s had his struggles with Congress and is bound to have more, joking that “a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier.” July 27, 2001

      http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/32902_bush27.shtml

      As for the Falwell letter and the thousands of emails that followed, who do you think was directing that effort? But whether it’s Falwell, Dobson or lesser-known ministers like Robert Upton, my point stands. This administration takes cues and forms major policies on the counsel and apocalyptic scenarios of evangelical leaders who seek increasing political influence and power.

      Leaving aside the suspect theological beliefs of the dispensationalists who are drawing the political picture for Mr. Bush, it is the power-seeking nature of this religious movement that concerns me the most. Jesus said (I repeat) “My kingdom is not of this world.” Why are his followers so anxious to have a kingdom of this world?

      Here’s a little snippet from a May, 2004 article by Rick Perlstein in the Village Voice (link is at bottom):

      Most of all, apparently, we’re not supposed to know the National Security Council’s top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.

      But now we know.

      “Everything that you’re discussing is information you’re not supposed to have,” barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice.

      The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be “the Christian Voice in the Nation’s Capital,” the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and Solomon’s temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won’t come back to earth.

      Abrams attempted to assuage their concerns by stating that “the Gaza Strip had no significant Biblical influence such as Joseph’s tomb or Rachel’s tomb and therefore is a piece of land that can be sacrificed for the cause of peace.”

      Three weeks after the confab, President George W. Bush reversed long-standing U.S. policy, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank in exchange for Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

      http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0420/perlstein.php

      There is a vast amount of corroborating material out there for everything I’ve said here, but a limit to how much can be posted here. Much of it is from the mouths of evangelical leaders themselves.

      Yes, I offered a link at the bottom of my previous post for an article written over twenty years ago on this same topic. If you actually took time to read it, you might see that all I feared then is being fulfilled today. I didn’t just start studying these issues yesterday, and would respectfully submit that you both, sincere as you may be, have some curtains you need to look behind and some catching up to do to grasp what is really happening in America today. There is a reason I weep and tremble for my country.

    19. PCD says:

      Dennis, you are the usual Liberal bloviator. First off, you only provide LIBERALLY BIASED sources, then you postulate that Bush wants to be a dictator, when you are projecting what YOU want for yourself. You want to be the dictator and tell us what you want us to think and do.

      Again, I DO NOT believe you are a Christian, Dennis. You just masquerade as one for moral cover for your antagonistic viewpoints.

      Also, as I said before, condesension by you is not a trump card in a debate.

    20. Baklava says:

      PCD, I didn’t see Bush saying it’d be appealing to be a dictator. Dennis said he doesn’t see the appeal of being a dictator (insinuating that Bush would fin it appealing). It is more or less factual that it’d be easier as a governor (1998 he was a governor) if he was a dictator because he could implement his solutions without having the legislature have to pass his solutions. That is so strong of an opinion it could very well be fact. Yet. Dennis insinuates that Bush would think it’d be appealing and would be something that Bush would want to be in this country of checks and balances.

      It displays Dennis’s hate and lack of perspective. He sees things his way and nobody elses way. He will think a person is evil period. I disagree with Bush myself a considerable amount on many issues but to jump to the bad motive bandwagon on so many issues shows Dennis as a hater. Thus the condesension.

      And I’ll repeat. I’m not sure what he wants for us to apologize on Bush’s behalf for thinking that it would be easier to be a dictator and the FALSE insinuation that Bush would find that appealing…..

      If we don’t agree with Dennis’s perspective he gets appalled at us and weeps for his country (oh yeah… and trembles too:roll:).

      I picture him a weeping trembling mass about ready to do harm to himself or others because of his LACK of PERSPECTIVE. It is a mental disease. I’ve only seen this kind of behavior and know what is in a conservative’s head kind of mentality from liberals. True libertarians I talk to are logical and have good core beliefs that stem from the constitution and a realization that this country’s government has more than quadrupled in the size and expenditures than it should’ve.

      My centrist/conservativism has been formed years after my libertarianism due to the realism that has set in that you can’t cut the government 80% without huge economic impacts that might bring this country down. Reducing government spending from 2.2 trillion per year to 400 billion per year would temporarily stop purchasing goods and services of 1.8 trillion which would adversely affect our economy. If that many goods and services aren’t purchased any more companies wouldn’t need to produce that many goods and services because there would be much less demand. That would cause deflation and lay offs and a deep recession.

      A more centrist/conservative type approach would be to stop increases in spending for a period of ten years while we reprioritize what is spent on.

      The Republicans are to the left of center because they aren’t voting on those lines. Democrats are even more to the left of center. For instance, Bush was the first president to offer federal spending for stem cell research including remaining lines of embryonic stem cells. While it is a noble goal to find cures with research, Democrats wanted more spending (called it a ban) and my approach would be to have ZERO federal spending on stem cell research because PRIVATE spending on stem cell research has found over 40 uses for umbilical cord stem cells and zero uses for embryonic stem cells but not for lack of trying. Private investment in this research is done to find a SUPPLY for a cure due to the DEMAND for a cure. There is absolutely no reason for:
      1) Federal spending on stem cell research
      2) Democrat and liberal rhetoric on the issue
      3) Mainstream media’s rhetoric about the issue
      4) People (like liberals) to act like conservatives don’t care when we do care we just have different solutions – and to have to justify and say we care is demeaning and it doesn’t help the debate when people like Dennis gets all condescending about whether we care or not or whether people like Bush would actually find it appealing to be a dictator.

      PCD, I’d say that Dennis wants it his way and he’d find it appealing to be a dictator. Then he wouldn’t have to a mental basket case trembling and weeping for his country.

    21. Lorica says:

      I Sooooo Look forward to the coming of Jesus my King. Dennis you too should be looking for His soon return. It is part of your responsiblity as a believer in Christ to tell people the Good News of His coming. I do agree with you that His Kingdom is not of this world, this world is apart of His Kingdom. For although he did say this He created everything, that would include this world. I also like how You Dennis say you are a believer but segregate yourself from other people who say they are believers. Nice Us vs. Them theology.

      As far as Evangelicals setting up a kingdom in this country, I just don’t see that happening. I listen to alot of Evangelical leaders, Dobson especially, and not a single one is saying “Tear up the Constitution, and let’s make Dubya King.” What they would like is the Constitution followed as the Founders desired it to be, thus the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. Which means everytime Steven Breyer looks outside of the temporal bounds of this country for a ruling he is not doing his job properly. It is his job to interpret the Constitution not amend it, that is left to the People. This is one of the things that have stirred up us evangelicals. I find it interesting that You as a believer are not.

      I also find it interesting that for a “joke”, you think we should impeach the President. I have to wonder what it would take for you to believe that a Democrat President should be impeached, or Libertarian or whatever.

      Also, When Jesus was talking about the “least of these”, He was not talking to Governments. He was telling His followers to care for the “least of these”. Which means that We the People are to care, not we the Welfare agency. Don’t be confused about what exactly Jesus said. He could of really cared less about Governments, which really is the heart of what he was saying to Pilate when he said “My Kingdom is not of this world.” What He really cared about is people and how His followers would be able to care and spread the Good News that He Came and died for all of us.

      Lastly Dennis. When Jesus does return, which is apart of your belief system and mine. He would be setting up a Monarchy over His Kingdom. It is mentioned at the end of the Book, where it tells us that we won, and that the world will once again be the paradise God intended it to be. Or at least that is how I read it. But I could always be wrong I reckon’.

      Always – Lorica – Knight of the Lord Jesus, waiting for His soon return in hopeful expectation.

    22. Baklava says:

      Dennis wrote, “have some curtains you need to look behind and some catching up to do to grasp what is really happening in America today.

      If I’ve looked behind the curtain and read the text you provided Dennis. Can you now finally admit that it is possible to have a different perspective about what the transcript shows? Or does it have to be your way that Bush would find it appealing to be dictator even though that isn’t what Bush said in the transcript itself?

      Do I still have to catch up? Does everyone have to catch up to your level of hate and disgust and amount of weeping and trembling? Or… can there actually be another perspective out there that is legitimate and more on target and with much better perspective and respect for the English language and vocabulary?

    23. dennis says:

      Just to recap – your accusations are piling up here but I want to briefly touch on the torture issue, as it is germane to the original conversation (remember Al Gore?)

      Baklava and PCD, you both characterize the torture issue as no big deal – on the order of college fraternity pranks, mere insults, etc. I think Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, knows more about what constitutes torture than any of us do, and he seems to share my concern on this. You apparently dismiss the many first-hand accounts that confirm torture was routine in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the practice of extraordinary rendition), but the Senate took the issue seriously enough to vote 90-9 in favor of the amendment to the appropriations bill outlawing “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

      There was no partisan split on this one. Joining McCain were Sens. John Warner of Virginia (Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee) and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former military lawyer and also a Republican, and two dozen retired senior military officers, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And now Mr. Bush wants to veto the bill, because of that amendment. Do you think he’s threatening that just so he can retain the right to pull college hazing pranks on detainees?

      We have wandered far off the original topic here, but once again I find myself wondering if you’ve even thoughtfully read the transcript of Al Gore’s recent speech, or would consider at least giving him the credit of being a thoroughly decent human being. I can only guess the answer.

      I’ve expressed honest opinions on this blog and backed them by attribution. There is endless corroboration for these things, and to dismiss my links as being from liberal sources doesn’t wash. If any article I cited is unreliable, show me specifics. Of course you cannot. As I said before, much of the material for my position is from the mouths of evangelical leaders themselves, as well as conservative sources. All that matters is truth and verifiable accuracy – the politics of the writer should be irelevant.

      Finally, you have characterized me as being a hater, a liar, full of manure, a wannabe dictator, a hypocrite, a mental basket case and yet again full of hate. You have changed the subject and twisted my words into meanings that originate only in your own minds.

      Baklava: “It displays Dennis’s hate and lack of perspective. He sees things his way and nobody elses way. He will think a person is evil period….to jump to the bad motive bandwagon on so many issues shows Dennis as a hater.”

      Really? In spite of your above words, I haven’t been so rude as to call either of you haters, liars, hypocrites or any other such names. Nor have I indulged the presumption of attacking the characters of either of you, about whom I know nothing beyond your posting on this site. Such tactics, besides being despicable, are symptomatic of weak logic and even weaker evidence with which to back your positions.

      Whether or not you believe me isn’t important – what is important is bearing witness to some semblance of truth, as best it may be found. What you do, say or believe about anything at all is ultimately your own responsibility.

      Thank you for the exchange – it has been fascinating. d

    24. PCD says:

      Dennis,

      The shoe fits. Wear it. Again this isn’t all about you as you try to make it out, but your false assertions. We all notice the throw away charges you made and never returned to when challenged. You added a few things that must have come from your past. Too bad you, like most liberals, are dishonest at your base.

    25. Baklava says:

      Dennis lies again and makes a false allegation by saying, “Baklava and PCD, you both characterize the torture issue as no big deal” You can’t get the English language right so why should we address you? You’ll make anything be what you want it to be because of your hate.

      Dennis wrote the following question, “read the transcript of Al Gore’s recent speech, or would consider at least giving him the credit of being a thoroughly decent human being” I’ve read that transcript and plenty others. I’ve never stated that Al Gore is or isn’t a decent human being. I address what he says as being incorrect or not the truth or without perspective. I can’t know what’s in Al Gore’s head or if he’s good or not. In your question is an insinuation of a false allegation that I say he isn’t a decent human being. Your pattern continues (false allegations)

      Dennis wrote, “I’ve expressed honest opinions on this blog” Your opinions have been one false allegation after another and you can’t back up what you think is in someone else’s head because it’s impossible. You can only state whether or not you disagree or agree with policy I have stated where I disagree with Bush’s policy in the past. It’s easy. It’s not hard. It takes compassion not hate. It takes looking at the policy or direction or proposal and seeing if you like the solution or not and debating on that level. You refuse.

      Dennis wrote, “Nor have I indulged the presumption of attacking the characters of either of you”. Let’s go with the implied attacks of the following paragraph that Dennis wrote:
      “Does Dennis care that Dennis has neighbors, and Christianity compels Dennis to love our neighbor as ourselves? Does Dennis stop to think that the treatment of our enemies in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib sets an example to the world as to how they might be justified in treating us? Does Dennis care that both in ancient Israel’s (Old Testament) economy and under the New Covenant, Christians are required to provide for the “least” among us?” :shock: Oh my I used his paragraph with his name substituted as my point is made even more clearly. The first sentence Dennis was implying that we don’t care or love our neighbor. The second sentence Dennis was implying that we don’t stop to think about the treatment of prisoners. The third sentence was implying that we aren’t compelled to care for the least of us.

      You haven’t apologized or changed your position on your VIEW of US one bit. You continue with your attacks without possibly being able to know what we think about, care about, stop to think about, or not. This conversation is going round and round because your hatred only allows you to analyze what you think we care and feel as opposed to the policies, direction and solutions that we propose.

      It is rude to view us that way and not expect us to wonder why you hate us so much without ever actually having a debate on ideas and solutions.

      I can apologize for saying that you are making false allegations (lying) or being hypocratical if you LIFT all of your previous false allegations and debate ideas and solutions as opposed to what Bush, PCD, or I think about, care about, feel.

      Otherwise, what would I be apologizing for. You are characterizing US FALSELY and we know us better than you. :!:

    26. dennis says:

      I provided attribution for the questions you challenged – three instances of Bush’s quotes, as well as doubly backing my claim of evangelicals’ influence on White House foreign policy, but you sneer at all of it. These things aren’t secrets – why should I dig in my files to provide more links for you when you can find them yourself by the score, if you really cared to?

      Why no serious discussion of the torture issue, which you try to dismiss as a non-issue? How about the Senate vote on the no-torture amendment to the defense bill? Is Senator McCain “full of manure” also? What about Bush’s veto threat? How about Al Gore’s esential decency, digging into his own pocket to help hurricane evacuees while you insult his intelligence? Who’s filled with hate here? Talk about “moonbatistan”…

      You have attributed ideas and motivations to me I do not recognize; meanwhile completely evade the larger issues which began this thread. Who said anything at all about impeachment? PCD, you issue blanket accusations against whole groups of people – anyone who would resort to such generalizations is in no position to accuse anyone else of dishonesty. You’d rather play word games and find insulting things to say than have an actual discourse on topic. Thanks, you’ve helped enlighten me in ways you never intended.

      Have a nice weekend – d

    27. Baklava says:

      Dennis, From Heritage.org (conservative think tank) here is an article for you to stand corrected.

      Let the Evidence Speak

      America is setting an example by punishing those responsible.

    28. Baklava says:

      Dennis lied again with this quote, “Why no serious discussion of the torture issue, which you try to dismiss as a non-issue?”

      False allegation after false allegation. It’s funny that you think we actually believe something we don’t. You’ll learn one day it’s not helpful to discussions.

      Bye

    29. dennis says:

      Baklava: “Dennis lies again and makes a false allegation by saying, ‘Baklava and PCD, you both characterize the torture issue as no big deal’ You can’t get the English language right so why should we address you? You’ll make anything be what you want it to be because of your hate.”

      PCD: “Dennis doesn’t know what torture really is. He confuses humiliation with physical torture.”

      Baklava: “Some conservatives even pointed out that what American soldiers are being punished for wasn’t much worse then hazing when ships cross the equator or college fraternity stunts. It is the sense of perspective that liberals like yourself seem to be lacking that astonishes us.”

      I make my apology here – I got drowned in the flood of words and somehow overlooked that Baklava wasn’t necessarily agreeing with his fellow conservatives cited in the above quote (although it surely sounded like it on the first reading, especially after he had just said, “Again. No we don’t care.”)

      There’s no hate, Baklava, but the problem as I see it is that you want to limit the liability for atrocities to the rank and file troops who were punished and make an end of it. You seem very reluctant to contemplate that such things might have been Bush policy, and accuse “[me] and the left” of trying to pin the accountability there.

      You finally ask, “What would finally make you happy about this situation?” To which I would respond, exactly what has happened in the Senate, for starters. Then I’d like the House to pass what I’m calling the no-torture amendment as well. And then for Mr. Bush to concede that yes, this would really be in America’s best interest.

      If he does not, and continues to object to the amendment, I can only conclude it is (and was) policy of the Bush White House to defy The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the US is a signatory, and the Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the US Senate – and they are willing to advertise that fact to the whole world. And indictments for war crimes should proceed up the chain of command right into the White House.

      Sometimes the only way to excise a cancer is by surgery, and if this is the only way to come clean before the world, I believe it would be worth the trauma.

      Baklava, I apologize for misreading your position earlier – it wasn’t intentional. Would you likewise consider rescinding your accusation of hatred (used multiple times now)?

      Ciao d

    30. Baklava says:

      Dennis up to his pattern wrote, “limit the liability for atrocities to the rank and file troops who were punished and make an end of it.”

      There you go thinking you can speak for what I think. I guess you are God. /end sarcasm. If someone gave the order to those troops they should be punished also. But I should not be in the position of explaining that I care or what I think (I won’t be defensive to folks like you after a few attempts anymore). I’ll listen to you when you change your awful pattern. Bye-