|
|
Post by GSC Admin on Oct 31, 2003 20:17:18 GMT -5
GSC News-- Al Gore will give his third major speech blasting the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism. Gore will also speak out against the Bush/Ashcroft gross assault of our civil liberties and how their actions are actually hindering the War of Terrorism rather than aiding it.
The speech will be on Sunday, November 9th at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington D.C.
This event is cosponsored by the American Constitution Society and Moveon.org.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesAquila on Nov 1, 2003 10:31:20 GMT -5
Anyone have any details about this event. According to the DAR Constitution Hall website this event is not on their sked. I've also checked the MoveOn and American Constitution Society websites and they don't list it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Nov 1, 2003 16:12:59 GMT -5
Anyone have any details about this event. According to the DAR Constitution Hall website this event is not on their sked. I've also checked the MoveOn and American Constitution Society websites and they don't list it either. >>>> I couldn't find it either James, so I just sent an e-mail to the American Constitution Society asking them where I could find more information. If they respond to me, I will pass any information along. Jan |
|
|
|
Post by JamesAquila on Nov 1, 2003 16:59:21 GMT -5
>>>> I couldn't find it either James, so I just sent an e-mail to the American Constitution Society asking them where I could find more information. If they respond to me, I will pass any information along. Jan Thanks Jan. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorezilla on Nov 1, 2003 21:16:10 GMT -5
It appears that for now, the event was only forwarded to those moveon members that are in the region for purpose of reservations. Therefore 37,000 people sold out seems unlikely?  Moveon still has to send out the big mailing announcing this event. It's possible that they're keeping it under wraps so that the media or the Bushes can't piss on it too soon.  Denis |
|
|
|
Post by GSC Admin on Nov 2, 2003 19:56:25 GMT -5
Guys, just read this from AGDEMS:
I think those who are planning on going need to get the info on this. I hope we can have troops on the ground there for support.
|
|
|
|
Post by dish1128hotmailcom on Jun 8, 2004 3:10:59 GMT -5
Interesting...
Worst president in history?
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month ofJanuary
That's just one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.
This will put things in perspective:
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
FDR...
led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.
Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
Worst president in history? Come on!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for
less tim than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to
call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
|
|
Julia
GSC Senior Member
GO GET HIM AL GORE!
Posts: 85
|
Post by Julia on Jun 8, 2004 3:27:34 GMT -5
"george w bush is undoubtedly the WORST pResident in history". The records speak the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesAquila on Jun 8, 2004 16:27:58 GMT -5
Interesting... Worst president in history? There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month ofJanuary That's just one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. Totally invalid analogy. I'm sure the friends and loved ones of those 39 could care less about Detroit. A more accurate analogy would be how many police officers were killed in Detroit in January. Or better yet how many US servicemen died during the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. The answer to that one is Zero. |
|
|
|
Post by JamesAquila on Jun 8, 2004 16:34:29 GMT -5
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Yes but Iraq never attacked us. The terrorists on those planes were Saudis and Eygptian. Why didn't we attack those countries? No connection between Iraq & 9/11 or Al Quada has ever been proven. The war in Iraq is comparable to invading Spain in response to Pearl Harbor. |
|
|
|
Post by JamesAquila on Jun 8, 2004 16:48:49 GMT -5
So much misinformation, so little time. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Let's start with FDR: Germany didn't attack us but did declare war on us on December 11, 1941. Truman: North Korea invaded South Korea and the US force was part of a UN authorized coalition. Kennedy: He never sent combat personel to Vietnam just advisors as did Eisenhower before him. Johnson: Can't argue with you there. Clinton: Bosnia was a NATO matter that threatened the security of our NATO allies. It didn't involve the UN at all. Thus, no UN permission was needed. The Sudan offer of bin Laden has been debunked as a phoney many times. You failed to mention Kosvo, another NATO matter. There we got rid of a brutal dictator, who is now standing trial for his crimes without the loss of a single American life. Interesting that you failed to mention Greneda, Panama or the first Gulf War. As far as the Iraq war, we invaded a country that's been contained for 12 years on the grounds they violated UN resolutions and did so with out the support of the UN. |
|
|
|
Post by Alfalfa Male on Jun 9, 2004 3:15:34 GMT -5
Before Al gives his speech, he will need to remove any references to Iraq was a war for their oil. The Iraqi's have control of their oil for the benefit of Iraq, not any one person to build palaces or any other country. snip: Iraqi officials said yesterday that the interim government has assumed full control of the country's oil industry before the June 30 turnover of sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. www.washtimes.com/business/20040609-120347-1308r.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Alfalfa Male on Jun 9, 2004 3:42:43 GMT -5
And while Al is busy vetting his speech, he should recall an event of recent history: www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20040609.shtmlsnip: On Oct. 31, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. In a statement, Clinton said he wanted "to be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region." Clinton said his administration had pursued and would continue to pursue these objectives through "active application of all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership." Clinton also referred to "Iraq's weapons and missile programs," which he said he wanted to eliminate. The language of the resolution is even tougher and more detailed than Clinton's statement. It lays out, like a criminal indictment, a number of "findings" about Iraq's behavior since 1980 when it invaded Iran and used chemical weapons in an eight-year war that killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. In Section 3 of the act are these words: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." President Bush turned those words into action. |
|
|
|
Post by Patriot For Gore on Jun 9, 2004 3:57:32 GMT -5
An Interim govt CONTROLLED AND PICKED BY AMERICANS! Did the IRAQI PEOPLE vote for this Interim Govt.? NO. Who the hell do you think you're fooling? Al Gore is also correct. This is a war for oil. A major Iraqi pipeline was just attacked today. Again, who the hell do you think you're fooling? You think gas prices have nothing to do with these events either? Who is feeding you this tripe you are passing along here? For someone who seems to hate Al Gore, you hang around here an awful lot. Threatened by truth? Most RW mouthpieces are. Oh, and before this board is again closed to guests, let me say that it felt DAMN GOOD to type in Al Gore's name on my primary ballot yesterday. He IS the President, and should be on that ballot now. NOTHING any RW clown can say will change that fact, and the fight to see justice for 2000 will never end. Jan www.patriotsforgore.comALWAYS a Patriot For Gore |
|
|
|
Post by Patriot For Gore on Jun 9, 2004 4:21:28 GMT -5
Sorry to put this here, but I can't respond here to a post written by a member in another thread , or start one as a guest. So I am posting it here. Hopefully, in the spirit of supporting Al Gore, it will remain. From our PFG news page MOST CURRENT UPDATE: June 4, 2004 Would you like to see a fitting tribute to the Peoples' President at the Democratic National Convention this year? Do you believe it is only proper to do so for a man who has advocated for the American people and in defense of this country's very soul? If you do, then this is now the time to write to Mr. Terry McAuliffe at the Democratic National Committee. We at PFG already realize that what we ask of Congress regarding the restoration of Mr. Gore to the office he was elected to will not be easy or quick. We also do not know if it is even constitutionally possible...However, we do believe a fitting tribute to this statesman of our party and a truly great American is in order at this year's convention, and is possible. There will hopefully be more news coming on this issue as our contact with various people involved progresses. All Gore supporters and Democrats, whether they agree with this cause or not, however, can still let their voices be heard at the DNC regarding a tribute to Al Gore at the convention next month. What say you? Will you allow this man to be forgotten after the courage he has displayed, or will you speak out for him as he has for you? DNC Contacts: www.democrats.org/, or: Write to them: Democratic National Committee 430 S.Capitol St. SE Washington, D.C. 20003 Thank you, Jan Moore Chairperson Patriots For Gore |
|
