Want to see what the Earth lost on 12/12/00?

[TruthIsAll]

http://www.moveon.org/gore3/webcast.html

Former Vice President Al Gore's speech on global warming at the Beacon Theater will be webcast from this page after the talk is finished. The webcast will begin 2:30 pm, Thursday, January 15, 2004.

In this, his third major speech sponsored by MoveOn, Mr. Gore will issue an indictment of the Bush administration's inaction on global warming, linking the issue to national security. He will show that global warming is not a future threat -- it is happening now. And yet, the President is choosing to help his coal- and oil-company supporters rather than advance modern technologies that can affordably solve this critical problem.

In November 2003, Mr. Gore delivered a MoveOn-sponsored speech in Washington, D.C. exposing the Bush/Ashcroft assault on our civil liberties as a smokescreen that obscures the Administration's fundamental failure to meaningfully protect our national security. And last August, Mr. Gore delivered a speech sponsored by MoveOn describing the Bush administration's deliberate use of false impressions to mislead the nation on war, taxes, the economy and the environment.

Both speeches did nothing less than shift the terms of the national debate, and we expect this speech to have an even bigger impact as Mr. Gore reveals the catastrophic result of current environmental and energy policies pursued by the Bush administration.


more..

[BeatleBoot]

1. And to think that Chimpy sued to get into office...

Bush must love trial lawyers.

Bush is a sissy. I don't vote for sissy's.

[forgethell]

5. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought that it was Gore that sued for additional time and recounts. As I remember it, Bush was ahead after the original vote and the first recount that was mandated by Florida law. Bush simply defended the status quo.

I am not saying that he* should have won, or that the election was rightly decided so don't flame me. I'm only saying that * refused to concede the election in court and fought Gore's suit.

[BeatleBoot]

6. Okay, I'll Correct You...

The Bushies initiated it.

The suit was called Bush v. Gore

In law, the plaintiff is always named first, the defendant second.

The plaintiff (Bush) brought the suit to the courts in order to stop the recount.

No flaming intended, but don't try to re-write history, okay?

It ain't gonna happen here - ever.

And oh yeah, I forgot - Bush is a sissy. A big sissy.

[forgethell]

8. If neither one had gone to court

Bush would have been declared the winner because there would have been NO recount. Hard to rewrite that.

[BeatleBoot]

9. Wrong again.

Fla law states that a recount is required if the election is close enough. Its automatic.

Again, Bush filed the lawsuit called Bush v. Gore. Bush was the plaintiff, Gore was the defendant.

Hard to re-write reality isn't it?

By the way, why am I arguing this on DU?

Moderators take note!

[forgethell]

10. Sorry

* won the automatic recount mandated. Then it went to court. It was automatic, if I recall correctly, and I admit I am not goolging all this up, because the vote was so close, and was done by machine like the first count.

[Enraged_Ape]

11. Machines do not count "overvotes"...

...or those votes where the voter punches the card and writes in a name. Because the ballot was confusing to many people, they punched the card for their candidate and wrote in the name of that candidate as well. Although the majority of these votes were for Gore, the machines didn't count them--not even once. Florida law states quite clearly that ALL votes must be counted wherein the "clear intention of the voter" can be ascertained, and this was never done.

[On the Road]

7. ForgetHell, The SCotUS Lawsuit was "Bush v Gore"

meaning Bush filed the lawsuit. There were many lawsuits filed. Bush filed twice as many.

Gore's request for a recount was a legal procedure in Florida election law that required a court filing. It is not the same as Gore being litigious. (And BTW, at the same time the Bush team was wringing its hands over the unfairnes of selective recounts, they were doing EXACTLY the same thing in NM.)

Florida never followed its own election laws which say: "No ballot shall be ignored which is rejected by a machine and on which the intent of the voter is clear." If it had, there would have no need for Gore to resort to the courts.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered all overvotes and undervotes to be counted. When those are added, Gore wins under all scenarios, according to the Consotium study.

I don't have a link offhand, but David Potvin did a good series in 2001.

[EllieDem]

2. Are you talking about Mr Occidental Al Gore?

He's got some clout on many issues - but this ain't one of them. Sorry.

[BeatleBoot]

4. Actually, I think he was speaking of

Vice-President Al Gore, the guy who got more votes than the sissy chimp in 2000.

The un-inaugurated President of the United States who was stabbed in the back by Ralph Nader et al.

That Al Gore.

[Ksec]

3. is this the one where he called the miserable failure a moral coward?