Jimmy Carter Says Gore won in 2000

Post by **Corey Michael** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:57 pm

First of all, You may want to take a look at the Carter Center which Jimmy Carter founded after his presidency, if I recall correctly. The foundation supports Democracy in countries around the world and they do various things to ensure fair elections, like election monitoring. I remember a story once where someone asked Carter why his foundation doesn't participate in American elections. His response was far from amusing, but I can't seem to find that right now...

Here is a link to Carter Center site:

http://cartercenter.org/peaceprograms/program10.htm

And here is the story:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_sa ... _0922.html

Of course, any right winger's obvious response is...Carter is a Democrat. Welcome to the Divided States of America.[/url]

Post by Ry » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:16 am

Joe Liberman would have been vice. Gore was not any better than Bush and the Democrats are just as Hawkish as the Republiklans

I call then both Republicrats.

Post by **Fat Pat** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:34 am

Just as hawkish? Yes. Sucking up to corporate power just as much as the Republican Party? Why, yes. But would the environment be in such a shambles? I'm not quite sure. And would our domestic social programs be in better shape? That I AM sure of. Democrats LOOOVE social programs. So I wouldn't say that it necessarily doesn't matter. More like a "meh". But they're not carbon copies. Bush and his administration are a very unique kind of corruption, I'd say.

Also.. what about 9/11? You think that would have happened under Gore? Would Gore have let PNAC carry it out? That I'm not sure of either.

Post by **Gyps** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:46 am

i've been there (it's in atlanta so i had to go). a little dry but very interesting. my son enjoyed it too...seeing what went on in this country long before he was born. thanks for this link. carter was a standup guy. still is.

Post by Ry » Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:20 am

We aren't talking about Democrats or Republicnas we are talking about Democrats and Republican Neocons. Gore and Liberman and Hilary Clinton are all neocons.

Now Al GOre like Kerry was good on the environment. This is ture but they would not be able to do much on this issue. PANAC would still have gotten out. Halliburton however would not have. It would be different companies and we would have went to war with Saudi Arabi instead of Iran, but Iraq would still have been before both.

It was Gore's vice presidential pick who wrote up the bill that made the creation of the new department Homeland Security. Of all the poeple on earth Cheney and Liberman have got to be the greatest scum. But it is harder for Liberman to be openly as Zionist as Cheney because Liberan is Jewish.

Social policies are funded better under Democrats. But the taxes are higher too. It's like giving the poor money them taking it back from them via taxes and higher housing cost etc.

its a one party system. I always say its a choice between an ass and an asshole and we got the asshole. Still an ass is not THAT much better.

I'll take any step up at this point.

Post by **Gyps** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:27 am

it's def one party in my view. BUT i still believe if Gore was allowed to serve (as elected) 9-11 would NOT have happened. Wait...Hillary a neocon? Does that mean Bill is too? Gore? I don't know if I agree...yet.

Post by **Fat Pat** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:06 am

Gyps wrote:it's def one party in my view. BUT i still believe if Gore was allowed to serve (as elected) 9-11 would NOT have happened. Wait...Hillary a neocon? Does that mean Bill is too? Gore? I don't know if I agree...yet.

Your buddy Carter can be connected to somewhere in the vacinity of 10,000 to 13,000 deaths in Latin America (due to U.S. funding of paramilitary activity) and also some deaths (whose numbers I am not familiar with yet) in East Timor with his military support of Indonesia. Carter was also a member of Skull and Bones if that ends up having any significance. I'm sure he was funding Isreal, Egypt, Columbia, and tons of other Latin American governments at the time too. That's characteristic of pretty much ALL presidents after World War 2. Carter's a Democrat, so he's going to have a cutsey, hippie, liberal face at home while he builds homes for people and monitors elections. But it seems like no president can escape corruption.

Bill Clinton had Kosovo, East Timor (again), NAFTA, the bombing of a Sudanese pharmesutical plant causing possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result, torture and rendition weren't as common place under Clinton, but weren't unheard of either, there's the famous Madaline Albright saying the sanctions against Iraq that caused thousands of deaths among mostly children were necessary, and I do believe the oil-for-food scandal was going on at this time which we all know the U.S. benefitted from more than any other party involved. Not such a great record. About as Neocon as it gets if you're a Democrat.

And Gore was a party to this. And of course so was Hillary. But I think Hillary and Bill more conspired together for domestic corruption. I've heard a lot about the dirt Republicans in Congress under Clinton dug up on him about state-funded assassinations (WITHIN the U.S.). Maybe it's blown out of proportion. Maybe not. But it seems like if there's one thing we can rely on the Republicans for it's to oppose the shitty policies of the Democrats and vice versa. Like during the Clinton years we had Rick Santorum and Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich all condeming Clinton's foriegn policy asking for a time table, saying it's reactionary, and saying "you can support the military but not the mission" and stuff like that. That sound familiar at all? Yeah, it's a near carbon-copy of the message of the mainstream Democrat-funded Anti-War movement. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying the Republicans (like the Democrats now) were correct to oppose it. But don't get me wrong - let's face it. They opposed Clinton's shitty foriegn policy to gain public trust in them thus handing them an election thus handing them the power. And it worked. They've kept control of Congress & now the White House for 5/6 years.

Post by **Gyps** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:49 am

they all have blood on their hands...from the american revolution on up through the ages. i guess it's a matter of picking the least evil, given the political constrictions.

someone threw the number of 800,000 deaths in the congo under clinton at me recently. what's the point? come back and say, out of 3.5 mill? what's that say for your "boy's" watch? he got right on that didn't he? the priorities are fucked up. have been for a while. maybe if enough people keep marching and making noise, it will help.

i don't know what else to do...or say.

Post by **Fat Pat** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:55 am

That's fine. The solution's the hardest part. I'm just saying we can't find allies in people who are no different than the "enemy". It makes no sense and it's what the U.S. does all the time at the price of violent blowback.

Post by **Corey Michael** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:59 pm

Fat Pat wrote:That's fine. The solution's the hardest part. I'm just saying we can't find allies in people who are no different than the "enemy". It makes no sense and it's what the U.S. does all the time at the price of violent blowback.

Interesting indeed. I certainly agree. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia? Allies?

Russia or China...lets choose between the two evils.