MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” devoted nearly seven minutes of air time Friday morning to one question: What if Al Gore had won the 2000 election?
“What if Democrats did it over again, and what if they had won?” host Chuck Todd said in his introduction. “In today’s deep dive, we’re looking at how history happened in an alternate universe.”
The segment ultimately goes on to interview Jeff Greenfield, the author of43*, an e-book exploring the alternate history of Gore’s presidency that hinges on the Elian Gonzalez case.
--
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a
problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have
an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,
as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the
solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this
crisis."
-- Al Gore acknowledges exaggerating the dangers of "global
warming"
The country would still have been bankrupted, thanks to Bill
Clinton's policies enacted before 2000 and all Americans would be on
public transit, and on power rationing because they'd be running of
solar and wind. Al Gore is a plague on mankind.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:10:05 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” devoted nearly seven minutes of air time Friday >morning to one question: What if Al Gore had won the 2000 election?
>“What if Democrats did it over again, and what if they had won?” host >Chuck Todd said in his introduction. “In today’s deep dive, we’re >looking at how history happened in an alternate universe.”
>The segment ultimately goes on to interview Jeff Greenfield, the author >of43*, an e-book exploring the alternate history of Gore’s presidency >that hinges on the Elian Gonzalez case.
Given that Clinton et al had already put trailer park residents on the
road to the American Dream of owning their own homes, Gore wouldn't
have made one damn bit of difference.
Gore being elected President wouldn't have stopped 9/11 from happening
either IMO. The Al Qaeda operation was well underway by election day
2000 and there were so many gaps in our National Intelligence
infrastructure that it would have happened regardless of who was in
the White House. Any any attempt of the Federalis to question or
investigate why foreigners were going to pilot training schools in the
US and not wanting to learn how to take off and land jumbo jets but
instead just wanted to learn how to fly them while the planes were
already in the air (which actually did happen) would have been
interpreted as racist and insensitive toward Muslims.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:23:51 -0500, trotsky wrote:
> On 9/26/12 5:53 AM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>> Gore being elected President wouldn't have stopped 9/11 from happening
>> either IMO.
> Perhaps you need to go back and review the PDB that Bush ignored.
Perhaps you need to shut the fuck up, you braindead, bootfucked ko0k.
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a
problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have
an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,
as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the
solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this
crisis."
-- Al Gore acknowledges exaggerating the dangers of "global
warming"
Further proof that climate change deniers don't know what they hell they are talking about. The phrase "overrepresentation of factual presentations" doesn't mean lies or exaggeration. It means spending a lot more time explaining the dimensions of the problem than discussing the solutions. People who can't even parse this statement correctly don't have the intellectual capacity to make an informed decision.
And of course the Gore statement was taken out of context by Right Wing propagandists to make it easier to lie about what it means. Here's the context:
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
> The segment ultimately goes on to interview Jeff Greenfield, the author
> of43*, an e-book exploring the alternate history of Gore's presidency
> that hinges on the Elian Gonzalez case.
Just bought the kindle edition will have more to say once I get a chance to read it.
-- ~Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly.
It is when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention. ~
"Barb May" <barb...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a
>problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have
>an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,
>as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the
>solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this
>crisis."
> -- Al Gore acknowledges exaggerating the dangers of "global
> warming"
>Further proof that climate change deniers don't know what they hell they >are talking about. The phrase "overrepresentation of factual >presentations" doesn't mean lies or exaggeration. It means spending a >lot more time explaining the dimensions of the problem than discussing >the solutions. People who can't even parse this statement correctly >don't have the intellectual capacity to make an informed decision.
Translation: I simply won't speak to anyone who doesn't agree with me
and dismiss them and anything they have to say out of hand. Here,
have some kool-aid.
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a
>> problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to
>> have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous
>> it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what
>> the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve
>> this crisis."
>> -- Al Gore acknowledges exaggerating the dangers of "global
>> warming"
>> Further proof that climate change deniers don't know what they hell
>> they are talking about. The phrase "overrepresentation of factual
>> presentations" doesn't mean lies or exaggeration. It means spending a
>> lot more time explaining the dimensions of the problem than
>> discussing the solutions. People who can't even parse this statement
>> correctly don't have the intellectual capacity to make an informed
>> decision.
> Translation: I simply won't speak to anyone who doesn't agree with me
> and dismiss them and anything they have to say out of hand. Here,
> have some kool-aid.
> D.
Oh, here's a shock. Someone who can't parse Gore's statement correctly thinks he is able to translate my statement.
