Former VP Al Gore on Apple board of directors

[serpicolugnut]

With regards to fact 1, during the first WTC case and trial al Qaeda was not named, and bin Laden's links were not strong enough to bring him into the trial as a name conspirator.

Yes, Al Qaeda wasn't name in the trial, but the CIA had fingered them as the culprits almost immediately. It's funny though - Terrorists attack us and attempt to bring down the twin towers the first time, and all the Clinton admin. does is handle it through the courts.

Now to my favorite fact of your list, the attack on the Cole. When did the attack occur? October of 2000. When did we first suspect that al Qaeda was involved? Mid December 2000. When did we have evidence of al Qaeda's involvement? The end of January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 22, 2001.

Actually, no. We knew within DAYS that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole. There was no doubt. But nice try on dumping it on Bush.

The Clinton administration had al Qaeda very high on it's priority list, and the Bush administration (even in light of the bombing of the USS Cole) put it very low

Really. So the Clinton admin had Al Qaeda "high on their priority list", yet their only action towards neutralizing that threat was to throw a few cruise missles at an Aspirin factory. What an effective leader! And Clinton didn't need any support in the House or Senate. He had the power at any time to launch whatever force he deemed appropriate to take care of Al Qaeda. The problem is Clinton couldn't even buy a dog without a focus group or a poll taken, so doing something politcally risky, while clearly the right thing to do, was never an option.

Bush sleep walked through his first 8 months in office leading up to September 11, 2001. Maybe those 3000 people didn't need to die, Gore would not have treated policies by the Clinton administration as low priority just because they were "Clinton" policies.

I love it! So your assertion is that if Gore were elected, he would have immediately addressed the Al Qaeda threat and prevented 9-11? That's the funniest thing I've heard all year. Even close friends of Gore were relieved after 9-11 that Gore didn't get elected, because they knew he was not the right man to deal with the crisis at hand. But that's a good one - I'll have to remember that for my next party.

Who didn't do a single thing about al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole with full knowledge of who was responsible? At least Clinton tried to respond to the embassies with some show of force. Bush did... what?

Hmmm. Let's see. Number of Al Qaeda operatives captured/killed during Clinton admin = 1 (93 WTC conspirator). Again, remember that the Sudan offered bin Laden on a SILVER PLATTER in 1996, and he refused. Nice call. State of Al Qaeda under Bush administration = Over a dozen high level ops. killed/captured. #2/3 leader captured. Al Qaeda is decimated, and now spends more time looking over their shoulder in fear of reprisals than able to plan attacks. But sure, <sarcasm>Clinton did a great job dealing with them </sarcasm>

And the fact that many Bush administration officials were part of the arming of Iraq in past administrations was a smart move?

Actually, yes. You see, it was the Reagan admin. that were part of arming the Iraqis during the Iranian war. At that time, Iran was a much larger threat. That admin obviously didn't know what a threat Hussein would become on his own. But it's not like Reagan gave Hussein guided missle tech or Nuclear capability, which is what Clinton gave to the North Koreans (Nuclear) and China (guided missle tech).

So you get to save $5K on $80K earned, Cheney is going to save $300+K if the next tax cut goes through. I would not call either of you hurting.

OK, I hate to resort to name calling, but *personal attack deleted* You really think a family of 3 can live comfortably on $80K/year - which after taxes really works out to around $50k/year? Not here in Atlanta pal. But regardless, it's not the Governments job to decide who gets to keep their money and who has to fork it over to the Govt. Cheney, or any other multimillinaire has the right to keep as much of his money just as much as I do, or you do, regardless of how much he has. Who are you (or the gov't) to decide who deserves to keep how much of their money? I work hard for it. I'm sure people who make millions work hard for theirs too. Nice way to encourage success - work your ass off all your life so the Gov't can take more of your money! What a motivational slogan!

Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?

Actually, yes they are. You see, America was founded upon capitalistic principles, not, as you put it collective-ist principles. Now the shroud has fallen and your true, heart felt interests are shown. Sounds a lot to me like you're either a communist, collectivist or socialist. If you are not, I apologize for the allegation, but your above statement frames your argument in that manner.

The Government needs to return to pre-Bush taxation and start investing in internal job creating projects.

The best "job creating project" any government can take part in is to give the small business owner more of their own money, and reduce their tax burden. But that's where we differ - I believe this country works because of the people, you seem to think it works because of the government.

Hardly. Respect is earned, and we haven't earned any respect. We have generated fear and distrust. To the rest of the world 5% of the population is telling the other 95% how to do their business. That is as far from democracy as I think you can get.

Bullsh!t. I think you've got a different view on respect than I do. You probably view respect as "Do these countries beileve we are right? Do they understand why we do what we do?". I view respect from these countries as their understanding that when push comes to shove, we get the job done. If France were attacked, do you think they are going to head to the UN to get permission to fight back? Do you think they are going to enlist help from Belgium? Hell no. They are going to ask for military assistance from the US because they respect US.

Like it or not, we are the world's lone superpower. Certain smaller, insignificant countries (you know who I mean) feel a great resentment towards us because of that. So what? As I've said, when crunch time comes, these countries know who is fair, just, and strong enough to help them out. The left cries that this war is for oil. Yet, we aren't the country with $60 USbillion in oil contacts with the Iraqis. They claim that we are imperilaists. Yet, in every conflict that we have taken part in, we do our job, setup a democracy, and leave. Hardly sounds imperialistic to me.

Next?

[ksv]

Yes, there is a whole lot of cold and unemphatic people out there.

[serpicolugnut]

Yes, there is a whole lot of cold and unemphatic people out there.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I'll espouse some PC mantras...

End Racism Now! No Blood for Oil! Stop Global Warming!

Don't worry KSV, I feel your pain...

[Randman]

Does anyone know if the rumors are true that VP Dick Cheney (who didn't invent the Internet, but has reportedly used it) was also elected to the Apple board, but it's just that most people in the company don't expect him to make many public appearances on Apple's behalf.

[ksv]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
End Racism Now! No Blood for Oil! Stop Global Warming!

Don't worry KSV, I feel your pain...

Nice to hear I was wrong. I'm sorry
But I don't believe you feel my pain - I don't have any. Feel with the innocent people of Iraq and brainwashed American soliders

[banjo_boy]

Originally posted by ksv
Feel with the innocent people of Iraq...

Yeah. Me too. All the innocent men women AND children who have been tortured just because Saddam can. Those who were place on metal bed frames that were hooked up to electric wall outlets. Those women who have been hung upside down throughout their full menstration cycle or hung by their hair. The innocent who have been thrown into industrial brush mulchers. Most of this is done in front of their family. The same thing Hitler did to his people didn't follow him or even slightly disagreed. The same thing Stalin did to his own people. All of this to keep their ideology alive. Saddam has taken to an all time low by involving children unlike any other sadist. Hitler tortured and killed children but only Jewish ones. Anyone who would do this should be wipe from this earth.

So let's all oppose getting rid of someone who would do something like this. Let's all support killing people for killing sake.

Bush is condemned for attacking with a purpose and Clinton got applauded for bombing the Serbs for no reason and bombing an asprin factory in Iraq for no reason but "maybe it's a bomb factory". What! There was a reason for the latter. Move the news of his impeachment to something else.

Serpicolugnut, I guess we would be considered "Mean People". And if the bumpersticker "Mean People Suck" means us, hand me a straw. I would rather fight evil people than let them continue on with their insanity.

[banjo_boy]

Originally posted by ksv
...and brainwashed American soliders

American Soldiers brainwashed? I guess defending our country and other countries is brainwashing. Having terrorists blowing up the towers means we should do nothing.

The military is not the ones I am worried about being brainwashed...

[RacerX]

by serpicolugnut :
OK, I hate to resort to name calling, but *personal attack removed*

If you hate to resort to name calling, and it is against the board's policy, why do it? All it does is show that you don't have what it takes to actually debate the facts. I feel no need to resort to such tactics because I have the facts on my side.

It is sad that you have fallen in this way. You seemed like you thought you had something important to say. I guess you really didn't.

At any rate, maybe you can reply to this without name calling.

Yes, Al Qaeda wasn't name in the trial, but the CIA had fingered them as the culprits almost immediately. It's funny though - Terrorists attack us and attempt to bring down the twin towers the first time, and all the Clinton admin. does is handle it through the courts.

Not true. If this were the case it would have been part of the states case against the people charged. I have the court documents to back up my statement, what do you have?

Actually, no. We knew within DAYS that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole. There was no doubt. But nice try on dumping it on Bush.

This is incorrect again. Actual dates:

• October 12, 2000: USS Cole attacked
• December 8, 2000: first links to al Qaeda in Cole bombing
• January 22, 2001: Bush becomes the 43rd president of the US
• January 27, 2001: al Qaeda links to Cole bombing confirmed
• September 11, 2001: World Trade Center and Pentagon attacked with over 3000 people lost

Please show us where Bush did anything... at all, about al Qaeda after taking office and before September 11, 2001. Even if we assume that Clinton could have done something, that doesn't mean Bush should have done nothing.

I love it! So your assertion is that if Gore were elected, he would have immediately addressed the Al Qaeda threat and prevented 9-11? That's the funniest thing I've heard all year. Even close friends of Gore were relieved after 9-11 that Gore didn't get elected, because they knew he was not the right man to deal with the crisis at hand. But that's a good one - I'll have to remember that for my next party.

Make sure you print this out completely for that party, we wouldn't want you missing any of the facts.

Also, please name the close friends of Gore of which you speak. You must have a list of them, right? That is not just something you made up or are repeating without checking your facts, right? We would hate for you to have the facts wrong.

Hmmm. Let's see. Number of Al Qaeda operatives captured/killed during Clinton admin = 1 (93 WTC conspirator). Again, remember that the Sudan offered bin Laden on a SILVER PLATTER in 1996, and he refused. Nice call. State of Al Qaeda under Bush administration = Over a dozen high level ops. killed/captured. #2/3 leader captured. Al Qaeda is decimated, and now spends more time looking over their shoulder in fear of reprisals than able to plan attacks. But sure, Clinton did a great job dealing with them

Five people were convicted in the the WTC bombing of 93, three more were convicted in later terrorist attempts, an additional two people involved in the embassy bombing were caught, in 98 three more are caught, and the 2000 attempt on LAX was stopped when yet another was taken into custody coming across the Canadian boarder.

Bush had only one al Qaeda terrorist caught between the time he took office and September 11, 2001. The person was one of the people who was supposed to be part of the attacks, but this was not found out until afterwards because evidence was not allowed to be collected while he was in custody.

Actually, yes. You see, it was the Reagan admin. that were part of arming the Iraqis during the Iranian war. At that time, Iran was a much larger threat. That admin obviously didn't know what a threat Hussein would become on his own. But it's not like Reagan gave Hussein guided missle tech or Nuclear capability, which is what Clinton gave to the North Koreans (Nuclear) and China (guided missle tech).

So wait a second here. You are saying that it was a good thing to help Iraq even though it later turned out very badly. Further you are saying that it was not a good thing to help out North Korea (at South Korea's request) even though that has not turned out nearly as bad. So if a Republican administration does something it is always right, while when a Democratic administration does something it is always wrong.

Also Clinton didn't give North Korea any nuclear technology. But I'm sure you have facts that must show this, right? You must because making a statement like that without them would be completely irresponsible. And missing the fact that North Korea had nuclear weapons before the Clinton administration would be just down right embarrassing.

Interesting, and you called me left leaning? You have no perspective at all. At least I take all sides into account. You dismiss anything that doesn't meet with your propaganda.

You really think a family of 3 can live comfortably on $80K/year - which after taxes really works out to around $50k/year?

Most Americans have to make do with far less. But you don't care about other Americans.

Actually, yes they are. You see, America was founded upon capitalistic principles, not, as you put it collective -ist principles. Now the shroud has fallen and your true, heart felt interests are shown. Sounds a lot to me like you're either a communist, collectivist or socialist. If you are not, I apologize for the allegation, but your above statement frames your argument in that manner.

I am not a communist, collectivist or socialist. I'm an American. I have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of this country and protect it citizens. The people of which I speak are citizens of the United States of America. The services of which I speak have been part of this country for most of it's history.

And don't apologize to me, I frame my statements in the manner of which the government of the US has operated for most of it's existence. I would never turn my back on my country to add to my comfort level (specially if it was as far above what others have to survive on as yours is).

Call me what ever you want, but I help out people when ever I can. I am an American, and I stand for what made this country great (and for the things that it is actually respected for).

Like it or not, we are the world's lone superpower.

I have no problems with that. I do have problems with power drunk leaders who forget that being the biggest and most powerful means that we should be humble with our place. We were never the bullies of the world before Bush. No other president had treated the rest of the world with such disrespect as he has. Being the most powerful means taking the responsibility to act with others in mind (something I know you don't understand).


Your turn. Maybe this time you could stick to actual facts and leave out the name calling (unless you find that you really don't have a leg to stand on, then call me what ever you want ).