Tipper Gore's pro-censorship history!

[Mirror_Image]

In case you hadn't heard, "Tipper" Gore (Al's chubby wife, in case you didn't know) is considering running for the U.S. Senate from the State of Tennessee. I'm kind of an old man, and I remember "Tipper" before she put a sock in her rabid pro-censorship views to avoid turning young voters off of voting for Al in the 1992 Presidential Race.

However, in the mid-80's, Tipper Gore was in the spotlight as a crusader against "porn rock." She helped organize the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), a group dedicated to clean up the sexually explicit lyrics and suggestive album covers in the music industry. She did an "about-face" (or should we say a "two-face") when her husband was a VP candidate in '92, because they didn't think young adults would vote for those pro-censorship policies of hers (and her husband's, by the way.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Typical politician :saying one thing and doing another.Hey if Hillary C.
can become a U.S senator anybody can.lol

[videoguy79]

It's funny you mention Tipper's past, which seems to have been forgotten as of late. Case in point: I was watching CNN's Crossfire last night and the only thing that either side could conjure up as an argument was the fact the Tipper lacks experience in an elected office. Furthermore, the democratic guest on the panel (can't remember who it was) gloated and gloated about her good qualities. I almost wonder if she (Tipper) hasn't been set up to this by her hubby Al as a way of him testing the waters for a possible '04 presidential bid. Many have said that if Tipper were to lose TN, that would be a signal to Gore not to run again, somehow implying that the home-state vote is a crucial deciding factor in all of this. I personally cannot stand either of them; between Al's sickening environmentalist rhetoric and Tipper's puritanesque censorship ideas, I'm sure that many democrats (and republicans alike) would be happy to see them disappear from the political scene.

PS--Hillary Clinton is the sorriest piece of carpetbagger shit I've ever had the displeasure to lay my eyes on. It made me sick to hear her "New Yorker" warbling after 9-11 when considering the fact that she's lived in NY for what, a year? Our politics in Illinois might be fucked up but at least we vote for people who live here. . .

[Greg12]

i should run on a pro-1st amendment platform of dissin censorship, giving women the choice, cleaning up the enviroment and keepin the US out of foreign politics and see who votes

[videoguy79]

Though I'm a moderate republican, I'd vote for you before voting for Tipper and especially not Hillary

[resnullius]

Well tipper gore does have a legacy and something to remind of her even once she disapears. Does this remind you of anything:
Parental Advisory...lyrics may be offensive....
or if you fell like a laugh downlaod anthrax song about her "startin' un a posse"
I've got to admit had i the possibilityof voting in the states i would have voted for al gore... at least with him we would'nt looking at the possibility of Dessert Storm 2 the son of the other one...

[MOVIEGEEK]

Hey "Resnullis" maybe if the rest of the world would stand up to tyrants the US would'nt have to!

[resnullius]

well here's an interresting statement, i wonder if you actually know the ethymology of tyrant
Tyrant originaly meant friend of the ppl... but became the form we use it now because those so called friends imposed their way of thinking and usually ended up worst than the ppl they put down.
And in the form we use it now it basically means an oppressor (one who forces himself on others)"If your not with us your against us"(read: if your not with us your next)
Oh and by the way it's Resnullius

[Chemcat]

The way I remember it, the movie industry bigwigs were donating big $ to Clinton for the '92 election and weren't too happy about Tippers crusade against the violence and sex in movies, so it was after a meeting/fundraiser between Clinton and Gore in Hollywood that Tipper suddenly and mysteriously was never heard from again on the subject.

[d4n13l]

I would give her more respect if she at least stayed true to what she believed in. But she just pimps herself out to the highest bidder... the key ingredient to being a successful politician.

[Bigswaffo]

hey resnullius, think what would happen if Al had been elected in 2000. we wouldn't have fought back after 9/11 and we would have more attacks. he would say that fighting against them was not nice. i think the man upstairs gave us Bush for a reason.

[d4n13l]

Can you provide us with a quote from Gore confirming this?

[Bigswaffo]

go to http://pub63.ezboard.com/fabouttimefrm1.showMessage?TopicID=661.topic

[resnullius]

but then again it might not have happened had bush not been elected... BTW your link did'nt work. I'm not saying that action in afganistan was'nt warrented allthough they did offer to give Bin Laden up but on reasonnable demmands. The Bush administration refused they were'nt actually interrested in getting him without a fight, they wanted to overthrow the governement over there to get one which will allow the pipeline to go through, as well as maybe getting Bin Ladden.(hey why only get one thing when you can get every thing you want, right?) And i have a hard time seeing how the war on terrorism involves iraq... besides the fact the wont let americans dictate what they might or might not do...
If some one said the us must get rid of ALL nuclear and chemical weapons or else they would see one million ppl die every day.
Would you consider that terrorism?

How would that be different from what was done in afganistan, or what will be done in Iraq if the bush adminastation is left to do what they want.

I think patriotism is good, but blind patriotism is just another name for fanatism.

[videoguy79]

Not to change the subject, but for those of you who haven't heard, Tipper announced yesterday that she will not be running for the senate. Oddly enough, Al Gore also decided to shave his beard yesterday (the one which he donned right after being defeated in the '00 presidential race) . . . . an interesting coincidence, I'd say.

[d4n13l]

I couldnt get the link to work either.
What did it say?

[Bigswaffo]

for those who couldn't get the link to work, the post said that the Clinton administration, specifically Al Gore, did not fight back when terrorist actions occured. two examples were the WTC bombing in 1993 and when Bin Laden tried to assasinate Bush. Guess what the Clinton administration did? they decided to lob 1 cruise missile and hope for the best. i believe clinton and gore were a cause for the 9/11 attacks. if we had taken his al queda when we should've 9/11 would never have happened.

[d4n13l]

So Gore has never actually *said* that he wouldnt have retalliated.

i believe clinton and gore were a cause for the 9/ 11 attacks.

Not true. Perhaps consider US involvement in Saudi Arabia as a more realistic reason. The conflicts between the US and the Arabic countries are believed by some to have started as far back as Iran in 1953, not the Clinton era: US (and British) foreign policy since the 50's is to blame, and today Bush is just carrying on that tradition.

Consider reading some of these articles:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/Perpetual_Crises_2_CTW.html
http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw010914_1_n.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,551971,00.html
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawrep.html#potential
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,556278,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

[Bigswaffo]

THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!! The point is that the Clinton administration wouldn't retaliate therefore letting Bin Laden do whatever he wanted in the future. The Bush administration is doing ABSOLUTELY the right thing in getting Bin Laden. Since Bush is in office, we can all be rest assured that in a couple of years, our kids will no longer have to fight against terrorism.[/quote]

[vitualis]

Or perhaps the more realistic outcome is that the US has created a whole new generation of terrorists by killing hundreds of innocent Afghani civilians when it bombed the crap out of Kabul for the greater "good".

Regards.

[d4n13l]

The Bush administration is doing ABSOLUTELY the right thing in getting Bin Laden

Hardly a revelation...

Bigswaffo, I think that your view is somewhat lacking in insight. What you are saying, that Gore would have done absolutely NOTHING after 9/11, is pure short sighted specualtion. You have no evidence to support what you are saying. Clinton's handling of the 1993 WTC bombing is totally irrelavent to what you are trying to prove. And if CAUSES of terrorism are not the point, then what is?

Since Bush is in office, we can all be rest assured that in a couple of years, our kids will no longer have to fight against terrorism.

And Bush will somehow achieve this Utopia by following in the footsteps of his predecessors? It is not as simple as that I am afraid. What Bush is doing, is no different to what the US government has been doing by and large for the last 5 decades. Policies, that we can judge by todays state of affairs, could again have dire future consequences. What Bush is doing, is adding more fuel to the fire. He is not addressing the cause of the problems, he is just dealing with the symptoms of the problems. Bin Laden is not a cause of a problem, he is a symptom of a problem. If you take Bin Laden out of the picture, you still have the problem of WHY Bin Laden does what he does and thinks the way he thinks - Which is not for kicks. Bringing Bin Laden to justice (although what 'justice' means to who and why could also be questioned) goes without saying, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that - But ANY president would be after Bin Laden like Bush is. Your suggestion that Gore would let Bin laden off the hook is a little more than a joke.
What I am saying is, that instead of playing to the tune of Oil companies, Bush should be dealing with the root causes of these problems (which would not be favourable to the Oil/Weapons companies). Otherwise, the breeding ground for terrorism will remain. I am not saying that Bin Laden shouldnt be brought to justice - that is obvious. But I fail to see that just by removing Bin Laden, it will somehow kill terrorism. He should be brought to justice without question - But why do I seldom hear someone ask the question of WHY these things happen, and then want to address the CAUSES as well as the PROBLEMS, for once? I mean, do you even know what causes Bin Laden to hate America so much?
I hate to say it, but Bin Laden has a few good points (although *most* of what he says is pure crap). Contrary to popular belief, the same few points are not soley shared amongst fanatical Islamic terrorists, but also amongst respectable Arabic citizens. Even many "Westerners" who fully understand the causes of the problems in the Middle East (principally due to the US, and to a lesser extent the British government amongst others) will think along the same lines, that there are some very important issues that need to be resolved; needless to say that Bush is making no real attempt to address these issues. This does not mean that they are terrorists, or sympatisers of terrorists - Terrorists have no excuses for their actions, but the causes of terrorism will remain as they are, unless Bush tries some logical thinking (His "logical thinking" = $'s). You cant kill terrorism by killing terrorists; it has already been tried and tested (and still in testing after decades of trying) by the Israelis. Many right wing Israelis may disagree with that, though I feel the facts clearly speak for themselves. I digress and leave this for you to ponder upon.
To fall victim to the propaganda given to you by your government is a shame: Your government is more of a corporate republic than the true democracy that it claims to be, it has been contaminated by Oil companies (also Weapons companies etc).
Dont believe everything Bush blurts out from his scripts, especially when he has such big links in the Oil industry. Like I said earlier, just another Politician that has pimped himself out to the highest bidder, the 'bidder' here being the biggest there is: It is They who come first and foremost, democracy and freedom take back seat. If catching Bin Laden is all you can think about then I am not surprised; it would just indicate that the Public Play is going to plan. That should be a very little point in this debate, try looking at the wider picture (you certainly wont find it on "Fox News" like you said in the other thread). Why not actually read some of the links that I have constantly given? Unless that is, you are satisfied following the merry dance ("crusade" - NB: a very unwise word used by Bush) that that you are currently being led on. Satisfied in the belief that half the world are murdering terrorists for no other reason besides jealously. People "you" must crush and continue to piss on because you fail to understand anybody elses way of life, other than your own.

BTW,
May I ask how old you are?

[TheInformer]

... Your government is more of a corporate republic than the true democracy that it claims to be ...

Just a nit-picky point, but the government of the United States is a representational republic, not a democracy.

[d4n13l]

Perhaps... but it could still be deemed a Corporate Republic. Principal reason being the huge influence that large corporations have on it. Although, I feel which of the two someone may call it depends on how cynical they are.

Good point.

[ember]

The biggest threat I can see is apathy in the allies' policy making on counter-terrorism. The truth is, unless a nation state is explicitly attacked, home interest in payback is limited. (Pearl Harbor case in point). You can't blame a nation for not wanting to contribute vast resources on counter-terrorism (Europe being a good example) especially if it has limited resources. The resolve is not there. The terrorists are playing their own war and no amount of "Star Wars" defense schemes will help. As d4n says: the root of the problem has to be addressed, but if we all want to see it resolved, we must all contribute. I don't see the resolve in Europe (UK the exception), nor in the Asian countries.

[d4n13l]

A good point. I can also see the situation not being helped by Bush's attitude towards other countries. Frankly, I feel they will become more and more disillusioned as a result of his actions: A trend that has already started rolling.

[Nelson37]

#1. When someone holds a knife to my throat, I am not interested in his motivation, I am only interested in his elimination. If all such punks who contemplated violent acts were absolutely certain they would lie in an unmarked grave within 6 months, both violent crime and terrorism would greatly decrease.

#2. Given that nuclear and biological weapons will exist, can you name a nation other than the U.S. you would rather have take possession of them.

#3. Iraq's possession of such weapons has been specifically prohibited by the closest thing to a world consensus we may ever acheive. It was Clinton/Gore's complete lack of balls which allowed them to begin making such weapons, (again).

#4. Having been the protege of an admitted coward who loathed the military, Al Gore learned to act to benefit himself, not the country. He would have taken extremely limited token military action and then opened negotiations to give them whatever they wanted after several years of useless talk.

#5. If you were to ask some Arabs whether the Jews should be wiped out, every man, woman, and child, only a small percentage would protest.
If you were to ask some Isrealis whether the Arabs should be wiped out, every man, woman, and child, only a few would agree.

[ember]

Bush likes to endear himself to the Europeans by imposing steel tariffs and ignoring global warming theory. That's sorta sh*t when you're trying to convince the world of the need to unite in the face of adversity. Bush is like the kid who hasn't learnt his p&q ettiquette then still expects candy from aunty Mabel.

[ember]

#1. When someone holds a knife to my throat, I am not interested in his motivation, I am only interested in his elimination. If all such punks who contemplated violent acts were absolutely certain they would lie in an unmarked grave within 6 months, both violent crime and terrorism would greatly decrease.

#2. Given that nuclear and biological weapons will exist, can you name a nation other than the U.S. you would rather have take possession of them.

#3. Iraq's possession of such weapons has been specifically prohibited by the closest thing to a world consensus we may ever acheive. It was Clinton/Gore's complete lack of balls which allowed them to begin making such weapons, (again).

#4. Having been the protege of an admitted coward who loathed the military, Al Gore learned to act to benefit himself, not the country. He would have taken extremely limited token military action and then opened negotiations to give them whatever they wanted after several years of useless talk.

#5. If you were to ask some Arabs whether the Jews should be wiped out, every man, woman, and child, only a small percentage would protest.
If you were to ask some Isrealis whether the Arabs should be wiped out, every man, woman, and child, only a few would agree.

I'll reply in sequence:
#1 True- except when the criminal doesn't give a damn about their own life. Then it weakens as a form of deterrent. But if you can sway them by other means, that's fine.
#2 I would rather a unified world organisation - not led by the US.
#3 Bush can take out those chemical weapons sites but that won't stop the whole thing starting again. The Iraqis have funding from wealthier Arab states. BTW - it wasn't Clinton/Gore- it was the UN that pulled its inspection teams out. I think the UN needs to reinforce its role - with military backing.
#4We just don't know that. Maybe he would have sent US troops in to clean up quickly rather than bribe local anti-Pashtun troops to do the dirty work and do an incomplete job at that.
Yep - the US troops see it getting dirty - let's ask the British Marines to go in...
#5 This being the argument to wipe out cultures? On the basis that they differ widely from yours?

[Bigswaffo]

Nelson 37, you're right on target. d4n, I'm 29 years old, and I served as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Marines in the Persian Gulf War. This arguement that we shouldn't wipe out the terrorists, but wipe out their cause is complete bullsh*t. So we're just going to let them sit there and kill us? d4n, if you have ever taken American History, specifically the post-Civil War era, you'll see that corporations are owned by private citizens like you and me. Corporations prevent big men from taking over the U.S. with their money. Our founding fathers built a system in the U.S. that has never failed and will never fail unless altered.

[d4n13l]

Ah, a little Q&A...

#1. When someone holds a knife to my throat, I am not interested in his motivation, I am only interested in his elimination. If all such punks who contemplated violent acts were absolutely certain they would lie in an unmarked grave within 6 months, both violent crime and terrorism would greatly decrease.

#2. Given that nuclear and biological weapons will exist, can you name a nation other than the U.S. you would rather have take possession of them.

#3. Iraq's possession of such weapons has been specifically prohibited by the closest thing to a world consensus we may ever acheive. It was Clinton/Gore's complete lack of balls which allowed them to begin making such weapons, (again).

#4. Having been the protege of an admitted coward who loathed the military, Al Gore learned to act to benefit himself, not the country. He would have taken extremely limited token military action and then opened negotiations to give them whatever they wanted after several years of useless talk.

#5. If you were to ask some Arabs whether the Jews should be wiped out, every man, woman, and child, only a small percentage would protest.
If you were to ask some Isrealis whether the Arabs should be wiped out, every man, woman, and child, only a few would agree.

#1
Although this analogy wrongly leads us to believe that the US is being robbed or held to ransom, it is true to an extent: Whilst someone has a knife to your throat, your immediate thoughts are to eliminate the threat. But after, then what is your course of action?
A) Think about what caused it to happen in the first place and change your future actions accordingly - Especially if you are morally wrong in the first place. Look to the root cause and take steps to bring a fundamental change, bring those who held a knife to your throat to justice. Then dont expect it to happen anymore.
B) Hope that you are just as lucky next time someone holds a knife to your throat. Show those who hold a knife to your throat, that they will only be shown a bigger knife. Teaching them that increasing violence solves matters.

Personally, I would go along with A.
The knee jerk reaction (B), is a short term measure, not in any way a long term fix. You cannot beat terrorism by killing terrorists alone. If you keep kicking a dog (bad use of words), then expect to get bitten once in a while. Adversarial behaviour is not the sole solution here; it will only contribute to a vicious circle of violence. Take the Israel-Palestine conflict as a prime example, living proof that your arguement is flawed.
Not only that, but it could be more accurately argued that they are holding a knife to you, while you have your foot upon their head. I am also sure that suicide bombers know that they will end up in an unmarked grave, making the threat of death irrelevant as a deterrent.

#2
I can name dozens of other countries besides the US. Are you suggesting that only the U.S. should be allowed such weapons? (BTW, I dont really think that you meant that). No, I dont think that Saddam Hussien is the right person to be in possesion of such weapons. But then again, is Bush the kind of person you want to be in possesion of such weapons? Can he be trusted, to use the biggest military force in the world, for the greater good? Or will he use them for more selfish reasons. And remember the countries who made Saddam what he is and why.

#3
Good point. But the basis of it assumes that the US has sole responsibility for world peace. And remember (again =) who it was that turned a blind eye on Saddams past atrocities, when it suited them. The Gulf War should have ended Saddam's dictatorship, it didnt - I agree that Iraq needs to be sorted out, once and for all.

#4
Priceless.
A politician acting to benefit himself. How is that different to what we see Bush doing now? Besides your point about politicians self interest, which ironically is more applicable to a Republican politician, what you are saying only amounts to speculation. Put it this way, you can only speculate about what Gore would be doing now. Besides, we know what Bush is doing, which is not addressing the fundamental causes of terrorism. Not that I care for Gore either, I would probably have issues with his policies too.

#5
Unless you can provide some solid statistics to prove this, this is again speculation. It is also far from a logical arguement, what does this prove even if it was true? It is a loaded question, one that should not be being asked, or even hypothetically being asked. I could provide statisics that show, in reality, the opposite of what you are saying. Not polling statisics on views, but deaths.
Read this, http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html, and follow some of the links at the end. It makes enlightening reading.