Re/Max, Bay, Whizzer:

What are your comments about your party's recent presidential candidate and his speech in Saudia Arabia?



http://www.dawn.com/2006/02/13/top17.htm

Bay Area Cat actually isn't a Democrat, I'm pretty sure he's Libertarian.

Anyways, 1st take into account this is from the guy that "invented the internet."

OK now that thats said, lets move on.

What I can only believe he's referring to is the profiling that took place after 9/11, basically if you're Muslim, or from a country that could be considered to be a muslim country, then it's guilt by association.

I believe Al overstepped what he was saying, but it could be because he was "playing to the crowd" which was listed as a majority of Arabic individuals. The point it seems he was trying to make was that he believes that the profiling and denial of passports & visas was unjust, which it is.

This is just more evidence of the US stomping on its foreign relations, and I think thats what Al was trying to say.

ponezone wrote:Re/Max, Bay, Whizzer:

What are your comments about your party's recent presidential candidate and his speech in Saudia Arabia?



http://www.dawn.com/2006/02/13/top17.htm

I'm not a Democrat, p-zone. Never have been, and never will be.

And I'm sure what he is saying has some merit (but without reading the full speech, it's hard to tell exactly the context of what he said). Some Arabs were certainly treated unfairly, especially legitimate students. I don't see the harm in admitting that. It might even open up some channels of communication between various countries, and maybe even reduce the conflict we now have.

Of course, we much prefer to pretend like we are never wrong ... even when it is glaringly obvious.

Several Muslims that I know (and even Sihks, who are nothing at all like Muslims, but do wear turbans, and thus get lumped in with Muslims by ignorant folks) definitely avoided flying at all (including not visiting family) due to the level of harrassment they faced. I'm not going to say that it isn't necessary (as I don't think that inconvenience while flying rises to the level of something that we can't tolerate), but our government and our citizens definitely did go overboard at times in the post-911 panic (and some still do).

I agree with Bay & Remax regarding Gore's comments. The article was an extremely brief synopsis of the speech. I also think Gore was wise to advocate that Arabs reject the current Iranian regime and it's nuclear program. I don't think Gore is planning another run at the presidency although I'm sure winning the popular vote and then losing the election still grates on him. The Dems will probably need a fresh face (and someone other than McCain as the opposition) in order to win in '08.

Al might be another decent VP prospect, you know a lot of the people who voted for him 6 years ago would probably do the same.

Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

AMEN

Or as the leader of the Dem party would say

YYYYYEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

yeah there is free speach then there is using your speach to inflame another country against us. what makes it worse is that this guy is a former vp.

oh well..after this i am sure that we wont ever have to worry about al running any form of federal goverment again

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

Huh? Admitting that America made some mistakes is "talking shit" about America? So you are saying that no U.S. citizen should ever be allowed to criticize a U.S. President while overseas, and no people in the U.S. who aren't citizens should be allowed to criticize our President?

I honestly don't understand the justification for any of your assertions. When I leave the country, I can say whatever the hell I want to say about GWB, and there's no justification whatsoever for punishing me for it.

And when I criticized Clinton when I was in France (an ally, but so is Saudi Arabia), I don't think Bill had the right to lock me out of the country.

Gore is not a traitor ... I think that is yet another term that has lost all meaning in this era of partisan hyperbole.

Hells bells wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

yeah there is free speach then there is using your speach to inflame another country against us. what makes it worse is that this guy is a former vp.

oh well..after this i am sure that we wont ever have to worry about al running any form of federal goverment again

We might not understand this concept, but what it appears Gore was doing was called DIPLOMACY. He was admitting mistakes we have made as peace offering, talked about commonalities our people have, and then proceeded to warn about the dangers in Iran. You can't go into a Muslim nation and declare "We're perfect, shut up and do what we tell you, and then we'll spare you from our bombs."

Good lord, people. I'm seriously depressed by the mindset I keep reading on this board. Is it possible to view things with even the slightest amount of objectivity? Or, rather, is seeing the world in black and white and not letting any degree of nuance get in the way of that simple vision the only option?

And even just reading the blurb linked on this thread, there is NO WAY you can say that he was trying to inflame people against the U.S. In fact, his tone was exactly the opposite. He was stressing that most Americans DO NOT agree with the policies (that they already knew about -- he wasn't exposing them to anything new) that were unfair to Arabs.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

Do you think that the Bush Administration (and family) would refer to Saudia Arabia as a "hostile country"? Also, what exactly did Gore say that is untrue? Why is he a traitor?

Huh. This article in Arab News really doesn't make it sound like he was inflaming the locals or riling up hostility towards the U.S. Gosh, it sounds like he might have been trying to mend fences. If only we'd have some Republicans doing the same thing....

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=77743&d=13&m=2&y=2006

Did a searech for the transcript on the internet and could not find it... kind of makes you think... Are the dems hiding it?


REALLY I WON- I'M JUST UNDERCOVER FOR BILL CLINTON

BAC

I dont know if you heard of this but....

Rumor has it that it is the whitehouses job to be dipolmatic to other nations

treason

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Dosent his words AID OBL? Our enemy... The one who called for Jihad against us...

Bay Area Cat wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Just for arguments sake, and since I like going back and forth with many of you on here......what if?

What if the Bush administration looked at Gore speaking out against the USA in a FOREIGN country as a hostile act towards the USA and decided not to let him back into the country?

What are your thoughts about free speech in this case? Does the definition of this change when your not in america? Should it?

I am of the camp that you can say damn near anything you want in our country about our country. However if you go overseas to a hostile country (towards us) and talk shit about america, we should consider you the enemy. The rights granted to us in the constitution are for citizens IN this country. Our rights should not EVER be granted to people in this country that are not citizens illegal or legally.

Gore was a traitor before he left this country and I would support him not being allowed back.

Huh? Admitting that America made some mistakes is "talking shit" about America? So you are saying that no U.S. citizen should ever be allowed to criticize a U.S. President while overseas, and no people in the U.S. who aren't citizens should be allowed to criticize our President?

I honestly don't understand the justification for any of your assertions. When I leave the country, I can say whatever the hell I want to say about GWB, and there's no justification whatsoever for punishing me for it.

And when I criticized Clinton when I was in France (an ally, but so is Saudi Arabia), I don't think Bill had the right to lock me out of the country.

Gore is not a traitor ... I think that is yet another term that has lost all meaning in this era of partisan hyperbole.

BAC go sell diplomacy to someone else I am not buying. Gore is over there to bash the Bush administration first and last. He's even making money doing it, since he's such a classy guy.

Also If you were over seas bashing Clinton I disagree with that action as well. Not that you give a damn one way or the other, but ALL presidents should be shown respect. You can disagree with them but you don't have to say things about them out of this country.

In some very small ways I believe Gore wants this country to fail, and he shows me a little more of this every time he opens his piehole.

Hells bells wrote:BAC

I dont know if you heard of this but....

Rumor has it that it is the whitehouses job to be dipolmatic to other nations

It's ALL of our jobs to be diplomatic to people around the world (including those in other nations).

He was speaking to an economic forum to the business leaders of the country. It's perfectly fine to do what he did (you know, trying to build bridges between our countries culturally and economically).

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Also If you were over seas bashing Clinton I disagree with that action as well. Not that you give a damn one way or the other, but ALL presidents should be shown respect. You can disagree with them but you don't have to say things about them out of this country.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, and if you ever travel outside of the U.S., I expect that you will never say a negative word about any President. I, however, kind of like my freedom of speech and not living under a totalitarian regime. It's not the President's right to ever tell me what I can or can't say.

Paytonlives, read up on the alien and sedition acts in American history. You will learn why the government cannot stifle free speech in the manner you are advocating.

That said, I am certainly no Al Gore fan. I have always felt he is an opportunistic, self-serving phony. The cigarette speech, juxtaposed with his acceptance of big tobacco money, is one example. The anecdotes making him sound like he grew up in rural Tennessee, when he really grew up in an expensive Washington, D.C., hotel, is another example. Plus, and I admit, I'm just average or slightly below when it comes to intelligence, but I never felt Gore was smart enough to lead our country.

In spite of all this, I read the accounts of his speech, and I honestly don't see where they are off base. I mean, it looked very factual. Government isn't perfect. We made a lot of mistakes after 9-11, even though we didn't have evil intentions.

The hullaballo over Gore's comments is just another example of blind partisanship. He could say the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and half the country would say, "Nope, it will rise in the west."

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Hells bells wrote:BAC

I dont know if you heard of this but....

Rumor has it that it is the whitehouses job to be dipolmatic to other nations

He was speaking to an economic forum to the business leaders of the country. It's perfectly fine to do what he did (you know, trying to build bridges between our countries culturally and economically).

It is not possible for me to disagree more, and that's cool.

Paytonlives wrote:treason

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Dosent his words AID OBL? Our enemy... The one who called for Jihad against us...

How do his words aid OBL? Specifics please! You haven't answered one of my questions yet. Try this one and before you start, read what he actually said. It can't hurt!

Paytonlives wrote:treason

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Dosent his words AID OBL? Our enemy... The one who called for Jihad against us...

[Sigh] Yeah ... anyone who says anything other than "President Bush sure is a swell and smart feller" is committing treason because if we're either with Bush or we're against Bush, and since OBL is against Bush, we have to agree with Bush or else we're on the same side as OBL.

Is that about the level at which we're operating? Although, you know, OBL didn't like Clinton either, so I guess everybody who didn't like Clinton and spoke out against him committed treason as well ... especially during the impeachment. That emboldened OBL and gave him ammunition to tell his people that the U.S. was immoral, and that aided his terrorist activites. So I guess most of the House Republicans, and certainly most of the posters on this board, are also guilty of treason.

This whole conversation is just stupid. Seriously. Are you guys trying to be obtuse, or are you really this far gone?

It's probably mentioning that I can't stand Gore, either (I voted for Bush in that one because Gore pissed me off so bad). However, I can't stand mindless partisan criticism of anyone, no matter how little I care for them myself. This whole culture of soundbites and coughing up talking points that don't even make sense just pisses me off.

I yearn for an age of enlightenment. Oh won't somebody please give our country some enlightenment!

Of course, I'm getting nostalgic for an era that never existed -- politics has always been ugly and mindless, for the most part. The difference is that today so many people have so much more access to expressing their opinions (and what others have told them are their opinions) online and on the radio, so we are all just much more aware of it.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Hells bells wrote:BAC

I dont know if you heard of this but....

Rumor has it that it is the whitehouses job to be dipolmatic to other nations

He was speaking to an economic forum to the business leaders of the country. It's perfectly fine to do what he did (you know, trying to build bridges between our countries culturally and economically).

It is not possible for me to disagree more, and that's cool.

I'm sorry that you disagree ... but I'm happy that I'm an American and have the freedoms that we do ... including the freedoms guaranteed to us that cause me to be right and you to be wrong on this point. And next time I travel overseas, I will freely express my opinions to people as I see fit, and nobody will yank my passport as a result. And that is very cool.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Paytonlives wrote:treason

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Dosent his words AID OBL? Our enemy... The one who called for Jihad against us...

[Sigh] Yeah ... anyone who says anything other than "President Bush sure is a swell and smart feller" is committing treason because if we're either with Bush or we're against Bush, and since OBL is against Bush, we have to agree with Bush or else we're on the same side as OBL.

Is that about the level at which we're operating? Although, you know, OBL didn't like Clinton either, so I guess everybody who didn't like Clinton and spoke out against him committed treason as well ... especially during the impeachment. That emboldened OBL and gave him ammunition to tell his people that the U.S. was immoral, and that aided his terrorist activites. So I guess most of the House Republicans, and certainly most of the posters on this board, are also guilty of treason.

This whole conversation is just stupid. Seriously. Are you guys trying to be obtuse, or are you really this far gone?

BAC- You are truly crazy!!! Clinton was impeached because HE LIED UNDER OATH!!!

What Gore has done IS HELPING THE TERRORISTS!!!!

The differnce in Reps and dems is that during Clintons trials MOST reps said lets wait and see what happens. Dems on the other hand, have decided that they are the JURY AND JUDGE. They just keep throwing crap against the wall and hoping it sticks!!!

It fine with me- that tactic just makes people mad, and then they vote against it.

PS Hey BAC. When did ANY Rep during the Clinton yells EVER do any of the things the Libs are doing now?. ANSWER NEVER.

So yes the Libs are going to lose in 2008 and it dosent matter who they run. All it takes is ONE Cindy Shehan/ Al Gore/ Hillary/Durbin/ moment and all is lost.