Originally Posted by Andy '85

He has my nod. Should he run I would vote for him on the issues presented in his speech (I'm still skeptical about his environmental platform, but that's a small issue). But I am amused to see how those a bit towards my left from all sorts of places are falling over themselves in reaction to this. Coat him in bronze and put him on a pedestal!

Like I said, people are starving for leadership in a country that has none. :wink:

And how did I get on the "Left"? (I presume you are referencing me and others). I used to socialize with socialists, but I think they are mostly dumb and/or marginal/unimportant. But I also socialized with libertarians, who I think are just plain nuts.

I just think all Americans should have health care and access to higher education. I didn't say the government had to do it, but it's an ideal we shoudl work towards. I believe in investing in America's capital.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

He has my nod. Should he run I would vote for him on the issues presented in his speech (I'm still skeptical about his environmental platform, but that's a small issue). But I am amused to see how those a bit towards my left from all sorts of places are falling over themselves in reaction to this. Coat him in bronze and put him on a pedestal!

Like I said, people are starving for leadership in a country that has none. :wink:

And how did I get on the "Left"? (I presume you are referencing me and others). I used to socialize with socialists, but I think they are mostly dumb and/or marginal/unimportant. But I also socialized with libertarians, who I think are just plain nuts.

I just think all Americans should have health care and access to higher education. I didn't say the government had to do it, but it's an ideal we shoudl work towards. I believe in investing in America's capital.

Like I said, people are starving for leadership in a country that has none

We (I) talk a lot about who will lead us. But I am beginning to so little admire leadership that I am caring less and less about "who" will be at the top. The fact is that the "top" has failed us. Over and over and over again. American democracy is about leadership from the bottom. As Gore said, the narrower the group at the top, the greater the incompetence.

There was an interesting piece on Sunday Morning this week. Someone has written about how crowds get it right more than individuals do. They said that the audience on The Millionaire gets it right 91% of the time and the experts only 60%. They took a jar of jelly beans to times square and asked folks to guess how many were in the jar. The average of their guesses was the closed to the number. Just a metaphor for how narrowness of vision is not a good thing.

So what is more important is what is happening with us. "The little people." If you want to hear what is really happening, you have to go to the blogs and the internet. Getting your information from the MSM is like getting it from People Magazine or the Enquirer. Watching the talking heads play "hardball" is a joke. No one speaks about what is really happening. Like talking about how we are fighting this war because saddam is a bad man. It's crazy making. It is schizophrenic.

Do these people come to believe the stories they tell us? How can we put our trust in them? Whether you are liberal or conservative, you know they are NOT speaking truth. That is why I said that Gore was "the man". Not because I see him as the GC, but because he is speaking truth. I don't want a grey champion yet Not until the american people wake up from their trance. We must be own champions for now. Only we can save ourselves.

Like I said, people are starving for leadership in a country that has none

We (I) talk a lot about who will lead us. But I am beginning to so little admire leadership that I am caring less and less about "who" will be at the top. The fact is that the "top" has failed us. Over and over and over again. American democracy is about leadership from the bottom. As Gore said, the narrower the group at the top, the greater the incompetence.

There was an interesting piece on Sunday Morning this week. Someone has written about how crowds get it right more than individuals do. They said that the audience on The Millionaire gets it right 91% of the time and the experts only 60%. They took a jar of jelly beans to times square and asked folks to guess how many were in the jar. The average of their guesses was the closed to the number. Just a metaphor for how narrowness of vision is not a good thing.

So what is more important is what is happening with us. "The little people." If you want to hear what is really happening, you have to go to the blogs and the internet. Getting your information from the MSM is like getting it from People Magazine or the Enquirer. Watching the talking heads play "hardball" is a joke. No one speaks about what is really happening. Like talking about how we are fighting this war because saddam is a bad man. It's crazy making. It is schizophrenic.

Do these people come to believe the stories they tell us? How can we put our trust in them? Whether you are liberal or conservative, you know they are NOT speaking truth. That is why I said that Gore was "the man". Not because I see him as the GC, but because he is speaking truth. I don't want a grey champion yet Not until the american people wake up from their trance. We must be own champions for now. Only we can save ourselves.

Originally Posted by jadams

There was an interesting piece on Sunday Morning this week. Someone has written about how crowds get it right more than individuals do. They said that the audience on The Millionaire gets it right 91% of the time and the experts only 60%. They took a jar of jelly beans to times square and asked folks to guess how many were in the jar. The average of their guesses was the closed to the number. Just a metaphor for how narrowness of vision is not a good thing.

You may be talking about The Wisdom of Crowds.

Originally Posted by jadams

There was an interesting piece on Sunday Morning this week. Someone has written about how crowds get it right more than individuals do. They said that the audience on The Millionaire gets it right 91% of the time and the experts only 60%. They took a jar of jelly beans to times square and asked folks to guess how many were in the jar. The average of their guesses was the closed to the number. Just a metaphor for how narrowness of vision is not a good thing.

You may be talking about The Wisdom of Crowds.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Originally Posted by jadams

There was an interesting piece on Sunday Morning this week. Someone has written about how crowds get it right more than individuals do. They said that the audience on The Millionaire gets it right 91% of the time and the experts only 60%. They took a jar of jelly beans to times square and asked folks to guess how many were in the jar. The average of their guesses was the closed to the number. Just a metaphor for how narrowness of vision is not a good thing.

You may be talking about The Wisdom of Crowds.

Hie away at greatest speed if the Wise Crowd has a long length of rope and a rather elaborately tied knot. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

The Minnesota Mobility upon Due Consideration Decides




Their Wisdom Recalled and Recorded

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Originally Posted by jadams

There was an interesting piece on Sunday Morning this week. Someone has written about how crowds get it right more than individuals do. They said that the audience on The Millionaire gets it right 91% of the time and the experts only 60%. They took a jar of jelly beans to times square and asked folks to guess how many were in the jar. The average of their guesses was the closed to the number. Just a metaphor for how narrowness of vision is not a good thing.

You may be talking about The Wisdom of Crowds.

Hie away at greatest speed if the Wise Crowd has a long length of rope and a rather elaborately tied knot. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

The Minnesota Mobility upon Due Consideration Decides




Their Wisdom Recalled and Recorded

Originally Posted by Andy '85

The speech made was refreshing. Good to see him cool down so his mind is clear of distractions, and even better to see a hand extended across both aisles. He knows everyone has a stake in this nation. Maybe we'll see some new direction yet. A shakeup of the current arrangement is in order.

He has my nod. Should he run I would vote for him on the issues presented in his speech (I'm still skeptical about his environmental platform, but that's a small issue). But I am amused to see how those a bit towards my left from all sorts of places are falling over themselves in reaction to this. Coat him in bronze and put him on a pedestal!

Couldn't agree less, Andy. Gore's speech should be used in the next Vonage commercial - there is nothing to be gained for the Democrats on this wiretapping issue; it only reinforces the McGovern stereotype that has made the party essentially unelectable for more than three decades now.

So I would coat Gore in silver, not bronze - because with his approach he's sure to come in second again.

And any stand on any issue that smacks of libertarianism - whether it comes from the left (on homeland security or gay marriage etc.) or the right (tax cuts and all the other laissez-faire nonsense) - is postseasonal poison, saecularly speaking.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

The speech made was refreshing. Good to see him cool down so his mind is clear of distractions, and even better to see a hand extended across both aisles. He knows everyone has a stake in this nation. Maybe we'll see some new direction yet. A shakeup of the current arrangement is in order.

He has my nod. Should he run I would vote for him on the issues presented in his speech (I'm still skeptical about his environmental platform, but that's a small issue). But I am amused to see how those a bit towards my left from all sorts of places are falling over themselves in reaction to this. Coat him in bronze and put him on a pedestal!

Couldn't agree less, Andy. Gore's speech should be used in the next Vonage commercial - there is nothing to be gained for the Democrats on this wiretapping issue; it only reinforces the McGovern stereotype that has made the party essentially unelectable for more than three decades now.

So I would coat Gore in silver, not bronze - because with his approach he's sure to come in second again.

And any stand on any issue that smacks of libertarianism - whether it comes from the left (on homeland security or gay marriage etc.) or the right (tax cuts and all the other laissez-faire nonsense) - is postseasonal poison, saecularly speaking.

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul Craig Roberts

With the US media now highly concentrated in a few corporate hands, has the Democratic Party reached the conclusion that opposition is no longer possible?

"Former vice president Al Gore gave what I believe to be the most important political speech in my lifetime, and the New York Times, 'the newspaper of record,' did not report it. Not even excerpts." writes PCR

I think that the NYT may be a S.W.O.T.E.-ish broadsheet these days and would wish no difficulty in her path to higher office.

WWWDD?

Originally Posted by PCR

So much for "the liberal press" that right-wingers rant about. If a "liberal press" exists, the New York Times is certainly no longer a member.

The Washington Post had a short report on Gore’s address at Constitution Hall, but the newspaper, if that is what it is, managed to water down the seriousness and urgency of the message that Gore brought to the country with sneers.

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The Möbius was not amused.

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul Craig Roberts

With the US media now highly concentrated in a few corporate hands, has the Democratic Party reached the conclusion that opposition is no longer possible?

"Former vice president Al Gore gave what I believe to be the most important political speech in my lifetime, and the New York Times, 'the newspaper of record,' did not report it. Not even excerpts." writes PCR

I think that the NYT may be a S.W.O.T.E.-ish broadsheet these days and would wish no difficulty in her path to higher office.

WWWDD?

Originally Posted by PCR

So much for "the liberal press" that right-wingers rant about. If a "liberal press" exists, the New York Times is certainly no longer a member.

The Washington Post had a short report on Gore’s address at Constitution Hall, but the newspaper, if that is what it is, managed to water down the seriousness and urgency of the message that Gore brought to the country with sneers.

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The Möbius was not amused.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by PCR

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The Möbius was not amused.

I find it terribly ironic that Feinstein, of all people, was in the audience. Just the other day she all but ruled out a filibuster against Sam Alito.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by PCR

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The Möbius was not amused.

I find it terribly ironic that Feinstein, of all people, was in the audience. Just the other day she all but ruled out a filibuster against Sam Alito.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by PCR

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The Möbius was not amused.

I find it terribly ironic that Feinstein, of all people, was in the audience. Just the other day she all but ruled out a filibuster against Sam Alito.

Strategically, having Alito on the bench may be the only way to get the lackidaisical Progressives back in the political game. People respond to threats. Fear motivates. Just ask our GOP friends how well it works. I also admit that, as Pro-Choice as I am, this issue has less impact on me personally than others. I'm much more concerned about the Imperial Presidency. I doubt that Empire will make a good filibuster subject, though.

In any case, we're getting Alito. Making a show of opposing him would just make the Dems look as weak and disheartened as they really are. Do they need any more negatives? Actually mounting a fight may be seen as anti-democratic - a monumental irony, don't you think?

Perhaps the best argument against Alito is hiring him, and letting him do his thing, then focusing on stopping the bleeding at four votes. In which case, I guess Anthony Kennedy will be the new Sanda Day O'Conner.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by PCR

Gore’s address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (CA) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore’s challenge to Bush’s extraordinary claims of power.

The Möbius was not amused.

I find it terribly ironic that Feinstein, of all people, was in the audience. Just the other day she all but ruled out a filibuster against Sam Alito.

Strategically, having Alito on the bench may be the only way to get the lackidaisical Progressives back in the political game. People respond to threats. Fear motivates. Just ask our GOP friends how well it works. I also admit that, as Pro-Choice as I am, this issue has less impact on me personally than others. I'm much more concerned about the Imperial Presidency. I doubt that Empire will make a good filibuster subject, though.

In any case, we're getting Alito. Making a show of opposing him would just make the Dems look as weak and disheartened as they really are. Do they need any more negatives? Actually mounting a fight may be seen as anti-democratic - a monumental irony, don't you think?

Perhaps the best argument against Alito is hiring him, and letting him do his thing, then focusing on stopping the bleeding at four votes. In which case, I guess Anthony Kennedy will be the new Sanda Day O'Conner.

My, oh my. :shock:

This from a paper that endorsed Bush, and from a state that has the highest approval rating for Pres. Bush in the USA.





Al Gore's Speech: Special counsel should probe NSA's warrantless eavesdropping
The Salt Lake Tribune January 18, 2006


History has a funny way of tapping someone on the shoulder. For Al Gore, that moment came on Monday.

In a passionate - yes, passionate - speech, the former vice president indicted George W. Bush for arrogating to himself powers that the Constitution does not confer on him or any other president. Gore accused the president of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, of torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of imprisoning Americans as enemy combatants without a charge.

Gore called for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping, and he called on Congress to find the backbone to fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch of government and check its power.
We believe that Gore is right, both in his analysis and in his proposed remedies. We second his call for a special counsel to investigate his claim - an absurd claim, in our view - that Congress' authorization of the use of military force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 gave the president the inherent power to violate the Bill of Rights and the FISA statute.

We also believe it is time for the members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, to stand up to the president and investigate in thorough hearings these abuses of presidential power in the name of the war on
terror.

Like Gore, we do not for a moment discount the threat that radical Islamist terrorism poses to this nation, nor do we question that the Constitution confers on the president the inherent power to take unilateral action to protect the nation when it is attacked. But we do question this president's overly broad interpretation and misapplication of that power.

Gore also argues for new protections for members of the executive branch who report evidence of wrongdoing, particularly in national security matters, and he cautions against awarding the president new powers under the Patriot Act. We have made virtually the same plea where the Patriot Act is concerned. He also urges that telecommunications companies should not provide the government with access to private communications information without a warrant. Here we might differ with Gore in exigent circumstances.

But judge for yourself. Look up his speech at http://www.acsblog .org and read it. We do not believe he exaggerates.

My, oh my. :shock:

This from a paper that endorsed Bush, and from a state that has the highest approval rating for Pres. Bush in the USA.





Al Gore's Speech: Special counsel should probe NSA's warrantless eavesdropping
The Salt Lake Tribune January 18, 2006


History has a funny way of tapping someone on the shoulder. For Al Gore, that moment came on Monday.

In a passionate - yes, passionate - speech, the former vice president indicted George W. Bush for arrogating to himself powers that the Constitution does not confer on him or any other president. Gore accused the president of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, of torturing prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of imprisoning Americans as enemy combatants without a charge.

Gore called for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping, and he called on Congress to find the backbone to fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch of government and check its power.
We believe that Gore is right, both in his analysis and in his proposed remedies. We second his call for a special counsel to investigate his claim - an absurd claim, in our view - that Congress' authorization of the use of military force in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 gave the president the inherent power to violate the Bill of Rights and the FISA statute.

We also believe it is time for the members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, to stand up to the president and investigate in thorough hearings these abuses of presidential power in the name of the war on
terror.

Like Gore, we do not for a moment discount the threat that radical Islamist terrorism poses to this nation, nor do we question that the Constitution confers on the president the inherent power to take unilateral action to protect the nation when it is attacked. But we do question this president's overly broad interpretation and misapplication of that power.

Gore also argues for new protections for members of the executive branch who report evidence of wrongdoing, particularly in national security matters, and he cautions against awarding the president new powers under the Patriot Act. We have made virtually the same plea where the Patriot Act is concerned. He also urges that telecommunications companies should not provide the government with access to private communications information without a warrant. Here we might differ with Gore in exigent circumstances.

But judge for yourself. Look up his speech at http://www.acsblog .org and read it. We do not believe he exaggerates.

Gray Champion? Gore is well on his way to being a Gray Runner-Up in 2008 if he does run!

Hey, they can tap my phone any time; since I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to be afraid of (unless the feds think that sympathizing with Terrell Owens in his recent tiff with the Philadelphia Eagles is somehow "subversive"). Why don't these left-liberals get it? This ain't the Watergate era, you know.

Gray Champion? Gore is well on his way to being a Gray Runner-Up in 2008 if he does run!

Hey, they can tap my phone any time; since I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to be afraid of (unless the feds think that sympathizing with Terrell Owens in his recent tiff with the Philadelphia Eagles is somehow "subversive"). Why don't these left-liberals get it? This ain't the Watergate era, you know.

I have nothing to hide either, but I still don't want strangers listening to my calls. It's none of their business, and it's just plain creepy.

I think Gore is right in helping make this a big issue, because the Bush administration needs to be held accountable for SOMETHING. The Republicans can kick and scream about it being partisan bickering, whatever. It's an important issue regardless, just as long as it's treated with the weight it deserves.

I have nothing to hide either, but I still don't want strangers listening to my calls. It's none of their business, and it's just plain creepy.

I think Gore is right in helping make this a big issue, because the Bush administration needs to be held accountable for SOMETHING. The Republicans can kick and scream about it being partisan bickering, whatever. It's an important issue regardless, just as long as it's treated with the weight it deserves.

But don't the Democrats realize if they just STFU about this that they'll probably be the ones doing the eavesdropping themselves three years from now?

They should not make the same mistake the Republicans made when they shoved the no-third-term amendment into the Constitution because they were mad at FDR's being elected four times - a mistake that could very well come back to haunt the GOP in 2008 since they may not be able to find a candidate who would do as well as Bush if he were allowed to run again.

But don't the Democrats realize if they just STFU about this that they'll probably be the ones doing the eavesdropping themselves three years from now?

They should not make the same mistake the Republicans made when they shoved the no-third-term amendment into the Constitution because they were mad at FDR's being elected four times - a mistake that could very well come back to haunt the GOP in 2008 since they may not be able to find a candidate who would do as well as Bush if he were allowed to run again.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Gray Champion? Gore is well on his way to being a Gray Runner-Up in 2008 if he does run!

Hey, they can tap my phone any time; since I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to be afraid of (unless the feds think that sympathizing with Terrell Owens in his recent tiff with the Philadelphia Eagles is somehow "subversive"). Why don't these left-liberals get it? This ain't the Watergate era, you know.

Obviously spoken by one who's never had the pleasure. You should remember that innocence, in and of itself, is not a protective shield. Ask anyone that's been wrongly accused, convicted and incarcerated. :evil: