Perhaps you could simplify it for me.

"...talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening." is terrific. When he "promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system.", I am sure many people took notice.

But first you said it was an imaginary quote. When I showed you were lying about that, you changed your tune and started saying the quote was not a falsehood. Now you are quoting some vague generalities about his cheerleading efforts for something THAT ALREADY EXISTED.

So, I'm asking again. In your own words. What "initiative" did Al Gore take to "create" the internet?

But I know that is asking too much. You'll respond with some name calling and suggest I'm not smart enough to get it. But I think everybody sees what is really going on here.

Quote:What exactly Al Gore do to "initiate" the "creation" of the internet?

What does the invasion of Iraq have to do with fighting terror? :angel:

Typical liberal obfuscation. Can't defend the indefensible, so change the subject. I bet no one's gonna see through that.

But what the heck, I'll play. Let's let some old friends answer your question:

Quote:"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

-- Bill Clinton in 1998

Quote:"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

-- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry et. al. on October 9, 1998

Quote:"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

--John Kerry, October 2002

Quote:"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

-- Robert Byrd, October 2002

Quote:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Quote:Typical liberal obfuscation. Can't defend the indefensible,

Claiming a Saddam-Qaeda connection is at least as much of a stretch as Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

And a more serious one at that.

Road Warrior Wrote:

Quote:"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Really? And you are going to do an article in your paper calling her on this?

Still waitin' on you, tinfoil. I can see you lurking down there...

As the quote itself says, and the following quote from two Internet pioneers clarifies, your contention that Gore claimed to invent the Internet is hogwash...as are all of the smear campaigns that the extreme right uses to hide the fact that they are nothing but corporate puppets with dangerous, extremist views. Speaking of obfuscation... :rolleyes:

Road Warrior Wrote:Still waitin' on you, tinfoil. I can see you lurking down there...

Sorry, my opinions take a bit more time to type out than your cut and paste ones. I'll try and type faster next time, Cletus.

Name calling and dodging the issue. As I predicted. Because you say it's hogwash doesn't make it so. Point me to the relevant quotes from those two men where they confirm that Al Gore "took the initiative in creating the internet."

Pretty please.

Just ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

<span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>What exactly did Al Gore do to "initiate" the "creation" of the internet? </span>

What legislation did he propose? What technology did he develop? It's a simple question. If it is hogwash, then give me something, ANYTHING that proves his statement was anything other than him trying to take credit for something that was "created" when he was still in college. When he "took the initiative in creating the internet," what exactly was that initiative?

Cutting and pasting here from Al's biography:

Quote:In 1989, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act, a five-year, $1.7 billion program to expand the capacity of the information highway to connect government, industry, and academic institutions. Signed by President Bush in 1991, the bill supported research and development for an improved national computer system, and assisted colleges and libraries in connecting to the new network. While Gore is not, as he suggested in 1999, the father of the Internet, he can credibly claim credit as the wealthy uncle who stepped up to provide funds at an important moment. In 1989, when few public officials grasped the profound changes that new information technology would bring, Gore saw them plainly. "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses," he told a House committee in the spring of 1989.

From what I understand, the legislation helped prepare the Internet for the World Wide Web and broad consumer use.

To appreciate the importance of that bill, think back to 1991 -- to say nothing of 1989.

I attended college then. I first heard of the Internet in late 1991, during a discussion on trying to develop a wire service that would connect Bowling Green's student paper with a few others in Ohio. (I was a little ahead of my time on this; someone somewhere is probably making a lot of dough now off U-Wire, which didn't exist then).

Our resident computer geek explained -- and re-explained, patiently -- how we could do it either through a listserv or a newsgroup. I wasn't getting it, to say the least, because I had never really heard of e-mail. Unless you were in the CS department, you didn't know about it.

The World Wide Web did not exist as we know it today, although I'll allow that text-based browsers may have existed at that point.

Again, from what I understand, this bill helped make the Internet ready for much broader use. I could be wrong about that, but that's my understanding.

(FWIW, I was a touch ahead of the curve on this, thanks to the resident computer geek at the school newspaper. I got my first e-mail account in Jan. 1994, and I've been annoying other football fans every since. :) )

Anyway, as for Hilliary Clinton: I think she was a chump to vote to go to war. And the aid-and-comfort bit is an exaggeration.

Back to Gore: Yes I do agree that Al Gore exaggerated.

But I'd suggest it was at least somewhat inadvertent. He was leaning ahead of the facts, and he leaned a little too far.

Still, this is hardly the gross lie Republicans make it out to be. The supposed "lie" caught fire mostly because journalists had already developed a theme about Gore -- that he tended to stretch the truth.

I think the same theme could be developed around an awful lot of politicians. It just sort of spontaneously happened to Gore -- journalists and comedians are always searching for themes -- and he had a hard time recovering.

We saw the same thing happen with the idea that Quayle is an idiot. He's not, of course, but people looked at him and just refused to take him seriously -- David Letterman perhaps most of all.

I firmly believe that if it weren't for 9/11, G.W.B. would have the same problem as Quayle -- with people just assuming George W. Bush is a flat out idiot.

With liberals, G.W.B. does have that problem.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Cutting and pasting here from god-knows-where:

Quote:In 1989, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act, a five-year, $1.7 billion program to expand the capacity of the information highway to connect government, industry, and academic institutions...{SNIP}

From what I understand, the legislation helped prepare the Internet for the World Wide Web.

I had a UNIX shell account through the local community college to access the internet in 1986. So three years later Al Gore works on an upgrade to the infrastructure and now he gets to say he "took the initiative in creating the internet"?

OK. Just so you all know, I took the initiative when I created the Voice over Internet Protocol.

And now that you're aware of the source of that quote we have gone from this:

Quote:Claiming a Saddam-Qaeda connection is at least as much of a stretch as Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

And a more serious one at that.

to this:

Quote:the aid-and-comfort bit is an exaggeration.

And then you all wonder most Americans don't take liberals seriously? Sheesh.

Quote: had a UNIX shell account through the local community college to access the internet in 1986. So three years later Al Gore works on an upgrade to the infrastructure and now he gets to say he "took the initiative in creating the internet"?

Yeah, but having a UNIX shell account at a community college in 1986 makes you a complete geek and way ahead of the curve. Was there a WWW then? If so, it was, at best, text-oriented.

Quote:OK. Just so you all know, I took the initiative when I created the Voice over Internet Protocol.

Did you?

Quote:And now that you're aware of the source of that quote we have gone from this:

Quote:Claiming a Saddam-Qaeda connection is at least as much of a stretch as Al Gore taking credit for the Internet.

And a more serious one at that.&nbsp;

to this:

Quote:the aid-and-comfort bit is an exaggeration.

And then you all wonder most Americans don't take liberals seriously? Sheesh.

Where is the contradiction. In the first quote, I'm basically acknowledging Gore stretched the facts. Stretch is a synonym for "exaggerate."

I also believe the Bush administration has exaggerated the Qaeda-Saddam connection. My understanding is that a UN committee concluded two months ago it could find no connection whatsoever.

Given that both are exaggerations, which is more serious? In one case, we have a politican trying to get elected. On the other, we have a president trying to get us into a war.

The answer is obvious to me.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Given that both are exaggerations, which is more serious? In one case, we have a politican trying to get elected. On the other, we have a president trying to get us into a war.

The answer is obvious to me.

I usually stay out of these political debates, but for some reason the bird boy's quote makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote:When President Bush starts his second term, feel free to believe that the inventor of the internet won that one, too.

Quote:What exactly did Al Gore do to "initiate" the "creation" of the internet?

One comment was shown to be a flat out lie, so you switched tactics and that one has been answered pretty fully, as well, but I'm guessing that you will repeat both comments again and again no matter how many times they are refuted. It's like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness on your doorstep. You can score points off of them all day long and they still grin vacantly at you, rock solid in the knowledge that they're "right".

football???? anyone want to talk football?

the original topic was EMU selling out their stadium for their game against Maryland, I believe. Can we get back on track here, kids?

My apologies to EMU fans. I didn't mean for my tagline to hijack this topic. It's not often that EMU and Football are mentioned together in a positive way these days.

Congrats on the ticket sales, and good luck against the Terps!

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll
find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend
themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate
gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and
tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China
is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are
sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other
hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-******.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam
Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a
legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a
country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by
forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an
illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he
helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - Fifteen of them Saudi
Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban t hose bad radical Islamics who chopped off
people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off
people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars
back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing
opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban
would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off
people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's
hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy
that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very
bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald
Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We
call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years
after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French
fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him
our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked
the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically
becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can
profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because
George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your
eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy.

ONCE AGAIN THE HERDIBAN CANT SEEM TO LET CRAP GO!

Despite those who hijacked this thread to blabber completely topically unrelated political views, (mostly because their friends, wives/girlfriends/boyfriends, and coworkers have already told them to shut up so they came here instead)...,

I just want to say congrats to EMU. Hopefully the sellout is being done without selling out your souls. Living close to Maryland, we usually get all of their games on TV so, hopefully, this one will be broadcast. Love to see EMU with people in the stands.

Just, PLEASE, don't get blown out! There's barely anybody left uninjured on MD's squad so you should be able to stay within 20.