Gore wins Nobel...Follow

The only people that can say this are the top 1% richest people in America. For them, the streets are paved with cheese. For everyone else:

• We have borrowed $450 billion dollars to pay for the war occupation of Iraq. This is money that we and our children and our children's children are going to have to pay back.
• We now live in a country where our government can listen in on our phone calls, emails, and instant messages at the slightest whim.
• It is no longer against the law for our military to fire on Americans on American soil.
• Countless thousands of jobs have been lost due to outsourcing.
• Americans now have a negative savings rate.
• 50 million Americans have no health insurance.
• Our infrastructure is falling apart.

I'd take my chances with the other guy.

Note: Ugly is not "American". He's a canuck, and therefore his opinion of Gore as a potential president, while not unwarranted, is particularly irrelevant.

I was wondering how long it would take for me to get rated down for not saying that anything would've been better than Bush.

Fact of the matter is, had Gore won, 9/11 would've still happened and you'd all still be in debt because instead of fighting in Iraq, you'd fight your own war (instead of the rest of us) in Afghan. You'd be no better off financially.

Well... As to the OP, my only comment is that it's equivalent to getting a Nobel Peace Prize for raising the the publics awareness about the vast amount of money stuck in Nigeria just needing people to help get it out safely.

I suppose the difference is that people know that the Nigerian thing is a sham.


As to your "list". First off, what amazes me is how quickly people will point to some evil brainwashing of Americans to get the to associate Iraq and 9/11, and then turn right around and parrot all the false information they've been brainwashed with...



Not really. "Borrowing" is a questionable word to use when talking about government level economics. The reality is that the US debt as a percentage of GDP is almost exactly the same today as it was in 2003 when the Iraq war started. Clearly, whatever borrowing we did was offset in some way by either economic growth and/or reductions in spending elsewhere.

Over the last 15 years, it's highest rate has been 49%. It's lowest has been 33%. It's sitting at 37% right now.




Patently false. The government can obtain your phone and email records without a warrant (which they didn't need before either). Records aren't the same as the content. "Listen in" implies actually being able to obtain the content of your communications. Not the same thing.

This misconception is the result of about 3 or 4 completely different programs being conflated into one. Not surprising really. That's how alarmism works.



Huh?! Where'd you get this one? The law hasn't changed. It's never been "illegal" for the military to fire on American's on American soil. It's always been legal under national security guidelines. Policies have put strong barriers between this happening in practice is all.



And many more countless thousands of jobs have been created. Not sure what your point is here.



I'd need a source for this. This also says far more about US consumer habits then anything the government does. Are you suggesting that the government should regulate people's personal spending somehow?

There are many things that could impact this.



IIRC, that numbers closer to 40 million, but whatever. Um... How many Americans had no health insurance when GWB took office? Your quoting a number out of context. Did that number increase as a percentage of the total population? Do you even know? You may very well think this is an alarming number, but then why assume that it's GWB's fault?



Could you be a bit more vague? In what way?

Let's put some real facts on the table. During GWB's presidency, we've had a long period of sustained high GDP growth. We've sustained a low unemployment rate (pretty much optimal unemployment really). During that time, inflation has stayed at a healthy level, CPI values have risen lower then inflation (meaning the domestic purchasing power of dollar has increased), and wages have risen faster then inflation (meaning that the average person has more dollars to spend).

These are the kinds of economic indicators that most presidents would dream about having. Yet somehow many people still insist that our economy is "broken" or not working and find oddball numbers to back up their claims. The *only* negative we've seen economically since 2002 (after the initial effects of 9/11 passed) is the sub prime mortgage issue, which is incredibly small compared to the tech stock bubble that occurred during Clinton's term.



I wouldn't. Gore's favorite economist held the same sorts of views towards managing inflation and recession that Carter's economist held. Had Gore been President when 9/11 happened (which I think we can all agree would have happened regardless of who won in 2000), his economic plan for recovery would have failed in just the same way that Carter's failed to recover from a relatively minor gas shortage back in the 70s. If he'd been president we might *still* be sitting at the bottom of a recessionary well, looking up and wondering how to get out.


The grass is always greener, I suppose...

I don't really care about the cost of the war in Afghanistan - well, I do, but I accept it. At least it would be the right war, and only one front at a time.

My sympathies.

Every other war time president has raised taxes to pay for war. George Bush refuses to do this.



Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts



I'm going to have to find a reference for this; I don't know what the law was called. Soon after the Revolutionary War, a law was set in place that said our military would never again fire on the general populous. This is why we have police and National Guard. George Bush rescinded this law earlier this year.



My point is that George Bush has supported a terrible trade policy that is gutting the American middle class. After WW2, the United States was the largest consumer of raw materials and the largest exporter of finished goods. We are now the largest consumer of exports and one of the largest exporters of raw materials. This is characteristic of a third-world country, not the United States.



Just Google 'negative savings rate', or see U.S. savings rate hits lowest level since 1933

I wouldn't attribute this all to consumer spending habits; I think this is more due to the fact that wages aren't keeping up with inflation. People are still buying cars and crap they don't need like they always have, but their buying power is diminishing.

But what about all those pretty graphs showing that wages are increasing? It's true that over all Americans, wages are going up. Remove the top 1% and the average salary has actually decreased. It's been declining ever since Regan was president.



I never said that it was George Bush's fault, though he certainly isn't helping with this. The majority of Americans want national health care, and Bush rejects all forms of it.



Could you be a bit more vague? In what way?
[/quote]

We've got bridges falling apart during rush hour. ASCE estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed to bring the nation's infrastructure to a good condition.

[quote=gbaji]
Let's put some real facts on the table. During GWB's presidency, we've had a long period of sustained high GDP growth. We've sustained a low unemployment rate (pretty much optimal unemployment really). During that time, inflation has stayed at a healthy level, CPI values have risen lower then inflation (meaning the domestic purchasing power of dollar has increased), and wages have risen faster then inflation (meaning that the average person has more dollars to spend).

These are the kinds of economic indicators that most presidents would dream about having. Yet somehow many people still insist that our economy is "broken" or not working and find oddball numbers to back up their claims. The *only* negative we've seen economically since 2002 (after the initial effects of 9/11 passed) is the sub prime mortgage issue, which is incredibly small compared to the tech stock bubble that occurred during Clinton's term.
[/quote]

You may be right about that over all Americans, but if you factor out the top 1% the numbers tell a different story. The American middle class is getting squashed and pummeled. The super rich are just getting super richer.

Looks like the quotes got all screwed up at some point.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Are you saying you believe the information in the documentary is untrue, or exaggerated to the point of not being useful?

Localized weather patterns are affected by global changes. While it is unreasonable to say that because Texas had a cool summer, that global warming must be a hoax, it is also unreasonable to say that warmer than average in most of the country and cooler than average in the south is just "weather always changing". We should always strive to recognize and understand drastic changes in our weather, especially with relationship to global climate change, given the knowledge we now have. It's neither your place nor mine to be dismissive about such things. Leave that to the scientists and weather people, please.

And newsflash: Global climate change over the next 100 years could have a far more profound impact than even AIDS. It's well within your right to assume one has priority over the other, but let's not confuse opinion with fact, and on the other side of the argument, let's not confuse fact with theory.

Too many absolutes get tossed around regarding this subject. Everybody wants concrete answers or concrete dismissal. Why is it not enough to say "We don't know.. it could be hell, or we could be looking at a red herring", and proceed like we always have... with inquisitive minds and open ears/eyes?

If you couldn't tell this might possibly be a political thread just by the title, then I'm sorry you're a dumbass beyond belief.




As far as the vapid twats putting words in my posts. I didn't say dick shit about 9/11. Could have 9/11 been prevented? Absolutely, however due to a failure of both the Clinton administration (Which he[Clinton] admitted to said failure which I find commendable) and a failure of the Bush administration to take proper measures to prevent such a terrible tragedy that the Bush administration has only used, like an AIDS-ridden, dirty Singaporean *****, to push fear, and it's agenda unto the American populace. In doing so, has made the United States, and all it stands for, to look like complete assholes.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/gore_against_fu.html





I think it is pretty fucking safe to say if Gore were in office, Iraq War would have not taken place. Some of you are complete idiots and why I spend my time refuting your unsubstantiated allegations is beyond me.

Well of course it subjective, as would anything else that anyone is trying to promote, not just Gore.


Do I believe human beings are the sole reason of Global Warming, changes in climate, melting ice caps, desalination of the oceans, increasingly more powerful, and more frequent storms, or seismic activities? Absolutely not, you'd be hard pressed to find a logical person that believes that we are. I do know the Earth has gone through minor Ice Ages and major Ice Ages. I believe that we aren't the sole cause, but I don't deny that it is quite possible that we are contributing to it on a significant level. I also believe that if we take even the simplest of measures now, we can lessen, if not eliminate the extent of the next inevitable Ice Age.

Even being a supporter of Gore and his campaign on Global Warming, watching his video also means taking what he is representing and plugging it in to my own personal views on it, however that doesn't mean I agree with it 100%. I think most people do this. In fact, if you asked the common, non-political Joe, most people have no problems with the concept of getting off the Oil-nipple, and conserving our natural recourses. This concept has become not on a big issue in the United States, but the world entire which is why I believe Gore deserved the award. He is educating (regardless of how biased it may or may not seem to you) the general mass on things that are actually happening, such as ice shelves melting, and the effects melting polar ice has on not only our ocean levels, but the chemical balances in the oceans. These things are not only fact, but quite evident, and these aren't the things people are arguing. Where the debate comes in is because of "Why are they melting?" Some believe it to be a natural phenomenon of the planet, while others believe it to be man-made phenomenon such as green house gases.

Edited, Oct 13th 2007 11:03am by Rimesume

Quite the contrary. It was absolutely expected, but not undeserving of a snide remark, thus... my comment.

That's a pretty hollow statement and loaded with opinion. You make it sound like troops in both regions are clamoring for resources the other is currently using. I have heard no supporting evidence for such a scenario.