GOP strategist Tantaros falsely claimed Al Gore "said ... he invented the Internet"
SUMMARY: On Fox News, Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros repeated a long-debunked media falsehood, asserting, "[W]e saw with Al Gore -- he said, you know, he invented the Internet." But Gore did not say he "invented the Internet"; in an interview on CNN, he said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
During the March 25 edition of Fox News' Studio B with Shepard Smith, Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros asserted, "[W]e saw with Al Gore -- he said, you know, he invented the Internet," repeating a long-debunked media falsehood. Tantaros continued: "Eventually voters start to question candidates when they start to make a series of inaccurate statements." Contrary to Tantaros' characterization, Gore did not say he "invented the Internet." During the March 9, 1999, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that gave rise to the myth, Gore said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Guest host Trace Gallagher did not challenge Tantaros' inaccurate statement.
Definately no 9/11 and therfore no war. Where else could he do more to advance the Global Warming cause than from the White House? He already won once - he would be a shoe in this time around. Instead we are left to choose from between three of the emptiest candidates ever assembled for a presidental election.
While they did recount all the undrevotes they never counted the OVERVOTES. The Supreme court stopped the counting before all the votes of the disenfranchised felons and people who tried to vote twice were really counted.
1. But what about your claim that 9/11 would never have happened?
2. It has also been well establishd that the two biggest things that cost Gore votes were #1 the butterfly ballot....(designed and approved by the dems), and #2 voter backlash over the stance taken by Gore in the Elian Gonazlez case. You change either one of those events and then Gore wins.
(PSSSST - Do you remember to old "nudge-nudge-wink wink" skit from Monty Python?)
Wow, I would have thought they would have gotten the nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more of your posts Dems_Sol, but I certainly got it.
No one can claim 9/11 wouldn't have happened had Bush not been in office, but you can claim that Gore would have spent more time catching Bin Laden
And as for the Florida recount, I seem to remember an angry mob almost knocking down the doors of the election center to get the votes stopped. Anyone else remember that?
*A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh governor?*
I understand your sentiments, but you still can not logically conclude that it would have never happened. It's a pretty good possibility that under a Gore administration, the links would have been tied together before 9/11, but there's no way to know that.
"I can understand your sentiments, but you still can not logically conclude that it would have never happened. It's a pretty good possibility that under a Gore administration, the links would have been tied together before 9/11, but there's no way to know that." - Dbeden
Well, there's a deeper aspect I've not seen considered, let me see if I can give you a quick summary. But first, two things to note:
1) bin Laden is no random dummy. The CIA has concluded that via the release of his pre-election videotape, he intentionally tried to give Bush an election boost. (And, by the way, Bush picked up 6 percentage points as a result.) He understood how the U.S. citizenry and talk radio would react to the suggestion that the country would be better off voting for Kerry. Talk radio was in his pocket.
The CIA belives *everything* bin Laden does is for a purpose.
2) I read long ago that those who read bin Laden's writings noted that a mission of great importance to him was for there to be a "holy war" between Islam and the West (read, U.S.).
I would say that a holy war is more likely with increased polarization, less likely with decreased polarization. So the thing to do is to manipulate polarization.
Here we go...
A thing to note is that early in 2000, 2001 the economy was suffering. Given voting patterns, without 9/11 either Bush or Gore was very likely to be a one term president...with the White House switching to the opposite party next term.
Say Gore became the president: Gore is a policy wonk. If 9/11 occurred on his watch, Gore would have worked to moderate polarization between Islam and the U.S. However, while there is still increased polarization, given what talk radio would have done to Gore, the polarization is significantly U.S. internal. Gore may well have been impeached. But whether he was or not, he still would have been a one term president...and not very effective given what the countries mood would have been like. So, the next term goes to a Republican, but bin Laden's main gambit would have been shot and most likely could not be used again. Since the Republicans would be coming into the White House in 2004 anyway, why not wait a bit for "9/11"? Given those circumstances, that maximizes the Islam/West polarization effect of "9/11" (which was a *primary* effect of 9/11).
Bush presidency in 2000: Bush is no policy wonk. In fact, the government was becoming much more isolationist during the early stages of his presidency. Then there was "The Project for a New American Century" which worked to put Bush in place...and which *really* wanted to invade Iraq. But Bush was only going to be in for one term, with the next president a Democrat. (It's the stupid economy, once again.) "Okay, we can play this, how about a little WTC action? Man, we can get polarization out the wazoo!"
"Oh, and given such things as talk radio, there's looking to be a good chance for an eight year Bush White House residency as a result of our little gambit. Yowza! Holy war here we come!!"
Parsing anyone?
OK, MM. Al Gore didn't say he "invented the Internet." He said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
What a huge difference! Thanks for that great clarification! </sarc> (roll eyes)
A dumb post by MM, IMHO.
You don't recognize the difference between different words. What a shock <rolls eyes>.
Gee what a shock, Mis-Info Guy.
Has there ever been a smart post my MM in your opinion??
Another lame post from one of our favorite trolls, IMO.
So because Bin Laden hated Bush (not America?) we had 9/11??? This makes it Bush's fault that we were attacked? This line of thinking makes my head hurt.
"Bin Laden was obsessed with 'Bush the father.' So he had it out for Bush the son. The case can be made that Bin Laden was motivated by the Bushes and his view of their power." - Carlileb5935
Bin Laden may have been obsessed with "Bush the father", but you need to ask yourself how 9/11 possibly reduced Bush the son. It didn't reduce him after all. Without 9/11, Bush was on his way to being a nonentity of a president. Though there may be exceptions, wartime footings tend to make a president far more prominent. Bin Laden really is no dummy. He is educated as an engineer, and all the evidence points to him having the ability of thinking of global politics as a system. (Something seemingly beyond the neocons, who act as if global politics is a simplistic self-fulling fantasy.)
9/11 put the Bushling in his glory. 9/11 was important in a horrific way, but bin Laden is not such a simple man as to believe that the U.S. would cave because of it. People started driving around with flags on their cars and their fists in the air, Bush got to stand on Ground Zero and look presidential...and it was all *exactly* what bin Laden had hoped for.
Because the U.S. media environment is part of the U.S. aspect of the geopolitical system, during a hypothetical Gore presidency, things look much different following a 9/11. The media, and both houses of Congress, start eating Gore alive after such an event. This is entirely predictable to anyone who sees things clearly and is not engulfed in spins. Bin Laden is not engulfed in spins, he uses them...witness the effects of his pre second election videotape. (And, he needed Bush to continue.)
And for the note of some other respondents... Sure the overall planning takes a while, but you start it with pilot training and other things that may help support the overall mission. The final step, boarding the planes, is entirely interruptible and can be deferred as long as needed as long as you maintain sufficient silence and are prepared to bring fresh players in if some of the original ones are dropped out.
Is it all Bush (junior's) fault? No, he's a nonentity that just happened to fit the optimal pattern of the system. His "gifts" maximized the potential for polarization (thus the potential for Islam/West "holy war"). Gore's most certainly did not.
I live in Atlanta. We have a decent police force in Atlanta and in the surrounding suburbs. They go to work every day knowing that crime will be committed. They have a plan to prevent crime and minimize the affect on us all. Guess what? People still get murdered, banks are still robbed, prostitutes still walk the streets and there is a ton of drugs.
Having knowledge of something- and even having a plan to deal with it- does not guarentee that it won't happen.
And as for the Florida recount, I seem to remember an angry mob almost knocking down the doors of the election center to get the votes stopped. Anyone else remember that?
Yes, an angry mob of Republican political operatives. There was one photo readily available by google search showing:
1. Tom Pyle, policy analyst, office of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
2. Garry Malphrus, majority chief counsel and staff director, House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice.
3. Rory Cooper, political division staff member at the National Republican Congressional Committee.
4. Kevin Smith, former House Republican conference analyst and more recently of Voter.com.
5. Steven Brophy, former aide to Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), now working at the consulting firm KPMG.
6. Matt Schlapp, former chief of staff for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), now on the Bush campaign staff in Austin.
7. Roger Morse, aide to Rep. Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).
8. Duane Gibson, aide to Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) of the House Resources Committee.
9. Chuck Royal, legislative assistant to Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
10. Layna McConkey, former legislative assistant to former Rep. Jim Ross Lightfoot (R-Iowa) now at Steelman Health Strategies.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blfloridagopmob.htm
Disenfranchised FELONS? I wonder what you mean by that. Florida got felony rolls from other states. They then took those names and flushed them from the roles. Now if your voting rights have been reinstated by another state Florida CANNOT take them away. That is in the fair faith clause of the constittuion. The FLORIDA Supreme Court sent two letters to Harris telling her it was unconstitutional and she had to stop but she didnt. They also made it so that if your NAME was similar to a felon from another state YOUR name was stricken from the roles the information had to be only 90% the same. The company DOING the scrubbing sent a letter SAYING they knew they were getting people who were not voting illegally. The response to them was that Harris didnt care it was more important to scrub the roles and she didnt care that much that valid voters would be scrubbed also and that she wanted them to change the criteria so that the information only had to be 80% the same to be scrubbed. They were going after minority voters. Overvotes arent about people trying to vote twice but doing things like checking off Gores box then writing his name in. Now according to Florida law if the intent of the voter is clear it is a valid vote. In the above case the intent of the voter couldnt be clearer yet that vote wouldnt be counted by the machine. Nice attempt at portraying overvotes as fraud but its ludicrous. I KNOW you are a wingnut trying to make liberals look bad with your sad attempts at satire apparantly point of view didnt get it.
OK, I'll explain this one to you -
A larger percentage of felons are minorities (than in the overall population). Minorities tend to vote democratic. Therefore, purging these voters guarantees fewer Democratic votes.
And Katherine Harris gets rewarded with a (thankfully short term)congressional seat.
Ahh but we'd never know would we? Because they stopped the counting.
BTW, the overvotes/undervotes thing was a joke, I hope all you guys know.
You dont know what you are talking about if ALL VALID VOTES are counted Gore won by ANY COUNTING SCENARIO. The ONLY counting scenarios under which Bush wins are by excluding overvotes. I read the article about the NORC vote myself and it said this directly also when we had this argument before I LINKED to the NORC site and showed the raw numbers. For EVERY scenario, when overvotes are included, and there is NO QUESTION some of the overvotes are valid by Florida law, no matter WHAT your criteria is concerning the chads GORE GOT MORE VOTES. You are just wrong about this. I saw for myself from the source. Fully punched chads or limited marks on optical ballots Gore won by 115, dimpled chad or any mark on optical ballots Gore won by 107, one corner of chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60, county by county standard Gore won by 171. THAT is what the NORC website said. You are just wrong.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/12/politics/main317662.shtml
Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
If there had been a recount in 2000, Gore would have won. How do you know? Because Bush and his allies fought the recount all the way to the Supreme Court. If they REALLY thought they'd won, why would they be against counting the ballots?
Gore would have won a recount no matter what standards and methods were used. See here, here, here, and here.
I agree with you that if all overvotes and undervotes were counted, Gore was the winner according to NORC. However, overvotes are not valid so when you say "all valid votes were counted then Gore wins", I don't agree with that statement.
According to CNN: ...the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law.
I agree, and it is still not that simple. But if anyone wants a good refresher, check out this NY times article. When even the NY Times says Bush won, it makes Solon's argument a little hard to accept on face value.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=09afeceba91f9356&ex=1206676800
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
Actually no it isnt. I read that article AT THE TIME. Did you in fact READ the article or just the headline? For instance there is this paragraph FROM THE VERY ARTICLE YOU LINK TO
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.
Here is another quote from that article. Funny how it says "might"...kind of a long way from the standard you claim.
"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes.""
As soon as you can describe a VALID vote you will begin to make a case. But you can not. The article I showed was just one source, one view. We can talk about plenty more which state that Bush still wins. You are going under an assumption that a valid vote is a valid vote no matter who is making the determination. That is simply not the case.
Also, your so called point about Florida law and intent of the voter is not worth the paper it is written on. News flash SOLON, we have something called the US Constitution, and we even have in it something called the equal protection clause. Let me know If I am going to fast for ya. A valid vote in one county that would not count in another county lacks "equal protection" That is why the recount was stopped. Gore never wanted a recount of all of Florida. he wanted to cherry pick the vote, and have dem precinct captains all with diff standards "invent, create, or make" votes for him. Kind of like he "created, invented, or helped make" the internet.
this makes a good point. the supreme court, which was so concerned with equal protection of voters, told voters we aren't going to even attempt to count any votes, or devise any plan, or make any standard that would cover the whole state. their only concern was stopping the voting, supposedly because there was no time. but every ballot did not have to be counted, just the ones in dispute. they handed the election to bush.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi
Do you two really believe that there would have been no 9/11 had Bush not been in office????? I came to check out this site because I heard some intelligent conversation about the site at work- but the post by you 2 about 9/11 makes me realize that I came to the wrong place to find intelligent people discussion the realities of today's world.
But while I am here, please enlighten me on just how you logically arrived at that idea? If this site is not educational and intellectual, it might at least turn out to be entertaining.
makes me realize that I came to the wrong place to find intelligent people discussion the realities of today's world.
You're free to leave this site and never come back - trust me, we won't miss you.
Did Gore "take the initiative" in censoring music?
And your point is.....?
Thankfully, no one here seems to still believe what Tantaros claimed, so they have to argue about 911 and a myriad of other issues.
Stupid journalist repeated falsehoods nobody believes anymore. This one was just too easy for MMFA. You all get an extra coffer break.
Gore quoted a newspaper article about Love Story. He didn't make anything up, but this is another example of "look over there", as Solon would say.
This media personality was wrong about Gore and her smear of him in regards to the Internet creation remark he made.
Eight years later and these conservatives still can't stop lying even though they've been corrected many times.
Think about that.
Yes, that Tommy Lee Jones.
Tipper was never part of the equation
Al Gore never made the claim, but merely confirmed that Segal had said something of the sort in a newspaper article.
The reporter for that article was the one that exaggerated the claim.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052500_1.shtml
But that's the War Against Gore: spout the lie, and it gets corrected because it's a lie. But now it's out there, and gets repeated and repeated months and years later.
Jesus H. Christ.... some Right Wing lies are harder to kill than others.
From Haughton Mifflin dictionary.. Insure: 1. To provide or arrange insurance for: 2. To make sure, certian, or secure.
Please let me know how they respond to your correction.
2. To make sure, certian, or secure.
I'm pretty sure the dictionary folks did not spell that word "certian". :-)
(that one was done on porpoise to further the silliness of the thread)
BTW, here's a passage on usage from a Style Guide I wrote for my employer:
To assure generally means to inform (someone) confidently; to ensure generally means to make certain; to insure generally means to protect with insurance.
I love it when you prove your oppositions posts with your own posts. ;)
However, ya'll need to get off the "spell this correctly" kick. To quote Tom Robbins "Don't trust anybody who'd rather be grammatically correct than have a good time"
You too are now guilty of age discrimination for your slur of Gramps, oops, I mean Senator McCain.
The "H" stands for Harold.
You know, "Our Father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name..." :-)
but deliver us four boll weavels.
ahem.
But you're wrong, his middle name is Hussain. Think about it. Long hair, a beard and sandals. And you'll notice from the pictures of him that he clearly lightened his skin to appeal to a different crowd.
Are we talking about Michael Jackson now????
"typical white person" response.
I'm not your typical white person. :-)
Nerzog, I have heard that ham sandwich analogy before and it doesn't wash, in my opinion. If there had been no ham sandwich before you created it, then you would actually be creating or inventing it, the words are interchangeable.
When someone says they helped create something that did not exist before, then they are implying they invented it as well.
Al said it.......as if anyone really cares anymore anyway.
"When someone says they helped create something that did not exist before, then they are implying they invented it as well."
Bull! If I hand you the bread, the ham, the condiments...I helped you CREATE the ham sandwich, I still did not INVENT IT. Gore helped push the project and get funding...he handed the INVENTORS some of the pieces. He did help create it...he didn't help invent it.
"Creating something that never existed before is the same as inventing it"
Stretching, aren't you? If you are in the process of INVENTING something and you ask me to hand you a tool, I have helped you create it...but *I* did not invent it. I can reasonably say "I helped create it" I can't say I invented it. And Al Gore did NOT say he invented the internet, he didn't even say he HELPED invent it...but he did say, truthfully, that he was instrumental in helping CREATE it.
"Or at least I hope he understands the difference."
I don't think he does.
You are inserting the word "help", why? Gore never said he "helped", at least not in the quotes provided by MMFA, he said he took the "initiative in creating the internet".......nowhere does he use "help", bu you do. Why?
The ham sandwich analogy is incorrect, my original post stands.
I'm sorry about that, but do you see the word "help" in Al's statement?
Why you have more respect for someone who adds words when they are not there is beyond me.
Tommy,
1. Did I say I have respect for him? No. I said nothing to the effect either way, I was talking about you and you alone.
2. Does it really matter if he added help or not? Either way, you are flat-out wrong about the larger issue, which is Al Gore didn't say he "invented" the internet, which is the title of this post, and which is what is being refuted by MMfA, and for a very good reason. Read my post below about the Snopes article of you care to.
"You are inserting the word "help", why? Gore never said he "helped", at least not in the quotes provided by MMFA, he said he took the "initiative in creating the internet".......nowhere does he use "help", bu you do. Why?"
Ummm...where do you see quotation marks around what *I* said? I was not quoting Gore, I was using my own words as explanation of the FACTS...which you seem determined to ignore. As best I can tell...at this point...you think it's OK for a media talking head to MISQUOTE Al Gore by saying inventing, when Gore said creating, but it's not OK fore ME to use MY OWN WORDS to describe what actually happened.
And I create pages for a magazine every day, but I didn't invent the magazine.
Tommy, he took the initiative in creating the internet. He never said he invented it. And if you had looked at that snopes link above, you would have seen this:
"To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he said were readily available"
and this:
"If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960's that he, while President, "created" the interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system"
IT ALREADY DID EXIST. The technology was already being used in a more limited version by the defense DEPT. It was called the Arpanet. Gore helped create what WE use by pushing the research to bring THAT TECHNOLOGY into our homes.
Your condescending attitude aside, yes, I remember........the point is in this context, the context that Al Gore was referring to had nothing to do with the arpanet, that is flat out absurd. He was implying that he created, or invented the internet, or that he was responsible for it getting off the ground....whatever you want to say, it doesn't matter.
To use as a defense, well he couldn't possibly have meant inventing the internet because the military already had it, is laughable.
Liberal word parsing in its most artful form can't change the exact implication that Al Gore wanted to leave.....but nice try, all of you.
He was responsible for getting it off the ground.
What do you mean his comment had nothing to do with the arpanet? What he said is completely consistent with what he did. So your argument seems to be that even though what he said makes sense, he wasn't thinking about the arpanet when he said it, and made his accomplishment sound like...an accomplishment. Is that about right?
Considering the arpanet wasn't exactly a hot topic of discussion at that time, and its knowledge was very limited outside of military insiders, saying he took the initiative in creating the internet was for the express purpose in leaving the impression that he invented it, or was responsible for it.......as very few people listening to that comment were aware of the arpanet, much less its existence......therefore they would assume that Gore invented it. Simple.
So what do you expect him to do, precisely? He's not supposed to mention a visionary action on his part, or he's supposed to give people a lecture on the history of the Arpanet if he does?
I don't know of any better way to phrase what he said. He did what he said he did, and if people think he "invented" it then they're mistaking one form of accomplishment for another. How is that a problem?
He could have phrased it exactly the way many of his rabid defenders on this very thread have done so eloquently, instead of starting his presidential campaign a year early by touting his own resume' and puffing up his own importance. Yet he chose to let those unfamiliar with this arpanet nonsense assume that he created/invented the internet, thereby saying to themselves "wow, that al gore is sure some visionary, we need him in 2000!"
Or maybe it was just his own ego leading his words over the preverbial edge.
Sorry Al, either way, it didn't work.........
No, what I find arrogant are politicians, on the cusp of running for office, intentionally and vaguely leaving a misleading impression of some lofty achievement that they may have been involved in, by overinflating their importance with just enough wiggle room for partisan lapdogs to jump in and parse words in their defense.
Now that is arrogance.....
To say that he's intentionally trying to create a false impression not only relies on mind-reading but also relies on the premise that there's some significant distinction here. What he said was accurate. You're not disputing that, nor are you disputing that it's an accomplishment. So even if the subject material is not common knowledge, that isn't Gore's fault. If some people don't know the difference between "invent" and "create" then they get a positive impression just as they would if they fully understood what he meant.
None of this logically leads to some deceptive plot by Gore.
Well, considering the entire discussion was about the vision that he would bring to the White House as opposed to his chief rival, Bradley - and he says through his initiative he created the internet, if you think he was being a stickler for accuracy and wasn't trying to puff up his importance in that regard, then you are either naive to the way politicians operate, or just blinded by some Gore love affair, I have no clue which it is for you.
It doesn't take the inventor of the Internet to deduce the impliciation that Gore was looking to leave out there.
"if you think he was being a stickler for accuracy and wasn't trying to puff up his importance in that regard..."
How is accurately describing what he did "puffing up" his importance? Again, you're not explaining how what he did isn't an accomplishment. You are relying on mind-reading to criticize Gore, but anyone who points out that what he said is accurate is a mindless apologist. Is that supposed to make sense?
A fact is irrelevant and meaningless unless it's in proper context, especially when a politician brags about some achievement of theirs. There is always more to the story, and more about the details of that achievement, which when selective tidbits are left out, or put in, changes the impression that people are left with.
Gore took credit for the internet's creation, and when one takes credit for something that is created, it is not a stretch to say that person is essentially saying they invented it. Don't blame the media if they extrapolate what Gore did or didn't say based on the words he used. If he was so concerned about not leaving a false impression, he would have chosen his words more carefully, and said exactly what you and Solon and the rest here are rushing to his defense to explain now. But he knew exactly what he wanted most people, or at least the few dozen who weren't familiar with the arpanet...(eye roll)....to think.
If you can't see that, sorry.
And if he had gone into some history lesson on the Arpanet he would have been called condescending and long-winded. How many times have you argued that an item on here is irrelevant because the public should know better, that FOX is biased or O'Reilly isn't really independent, etc? But here it's Gore's fault for misleading people because they don't know better.
You've actually stooped to the point where you're defending media "extrapolation" of what he said. They should know what he said was accurate, and they should treat it that way. Your argument has now boiled down to "the media can lie about Gore because people didn't know about the Arpanet". Seriously, do you have any control over your thought process whatsoever?
Well, Tommy, too bad for Al that he didn't have a copy of "Tommy Explains It All" handy when he made that statement. I'm sure he would have seen it your way. :)
It amazes me that the right-wing echo chamber still can't let go of this. Nobody who matters thinks that Al was saying he "invented the Internet." But it feeds the right-wing's knuckle-dragging base and makes them feel good about themselves ... They have so little to be positive about these days.
And hey, at least if we'd elected Al, we'd have a president who could say "internet."
"Considering the arpanet wasn't exactly a hot topic of discussion at that time, and its knowledge was very limited outside of military insiders, saying he took the initiative in creating the internet was for the express purpose in leaving the impression that he invented it, or was responsible for it.......as very few people listening to that comment were aware of the arpanet, much less its existence......therefore they would assume that Gore invented it. Simple."
Tommy, your little ruse has started to expose its cracks. (not that it needed to expose any, mind you.)
You said 1. Considering the arpanet wasn't exactly a hot topic of discussion at that time.
Right, in 1991, when Gore introduced this Bill into office, the Arpanet was not widely known (Gore knew about it since the 1970's though. Just shows you how ahead of the times he was.)
Then you said 2. as very few people listening to that comment were aware of the arpanet, much less its existence.
Yes, people were not widely aware of the Arpanet in 1991. However, in 1999, when Gore made this comment, a lot of people were aware of the Arpanet. I know I was, and I bet if you go back, you probably were too.
Unless you believe that this post was transmitted through tubes that is (and I'm starting to believe you do.)
From wiki:
<quote>
According to Campbell-Kelly and Aspray (Computer: A History of the Information Machine), up until the early 1990s public usage of the Internet was limited and the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s." [1]
Of Gore's involvement in the then-developing Internet while in Congress, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that,
As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" [3]) after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network[4] submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet). [5]
Indeed, Kleinrock would later credit both Gore and The Gore Bill (High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991) as a critical moment in Internet history:
The bill was passed on Dec. 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)[7] which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway". President George H. W. Bush predicted that the bill would help "unlock the secrets of DNA," open up foreign markets to free trade, and a promise of cooperation between government, academia, and industry.[8]
Text of the bill can be found here [9]
Prior to its passage, Gore discussed the basics of the bill in an article for the September 1991 issue of Scientific American entitled Scientific American presents the September 1991 Single Copy Issue: Communications, Computers, and Networks. His essay, "Infrastructure for the Global Village", commented on the lack of network access described above and argued: "Rather than holding back, the U.S. should lead by building the information infrastructure, essential if all Americans are to gain access to this transforming technology" [10] [...] "high speed networks must be built that tie together millions of computers, providing capabilities that we cannot even imagine." [11]
Perhaps one of the most important results of the Gore Bill was the development of Mosaic in 1993. [12][13] This World Wide Web browser is credited by most scholars as beginning the Internet boom of the 1990s:
Gore's legislation also helped fund the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, where a team of programmers, including Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, created the Mosaic Web browser, the commercial Internet's technological springboard. 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.'[14]</quote>It appears to me that his statement was completely factual and not misleading in any way. If anything, it was an understatement.
Okay, no condescending attitude, thank you very much, I usually try to keep it civil. I was honestly asking if you knew your original point, because you are soooo far from it.
"Liberal word parsing in its most artful form can't change the exact implication that Al Gore wanted to leave.....but nice try, all of you."
So now you're the master of Al Gore's implications? So I'm assuming you can read minds? When did this happen, and why can't you tell us the secret?
See, now you're making two different points, and neither of them you can back up, while we have articles, and video, and an actual initiative "created" by Gore as evidence that he was correct in saying he took the initiative to create the internet (Just like Ike took the initiative to create the Interstate Highway System.) Once we showed you this, you tried to tell us that his intention was to make us all believe that he created the internet. Are you that naive? Are you actually 10?
Face it, you still believe this because you want to believe this, and for some reason, you need to believe this. Maybe it gets you through your day, where you can have a little chuckle and say "wow, I can't believe he said he invented this thing." Maybe you're part of some twisted secret society where the more you make Al Gore seem like he's lying, the more puppies go to heaven. Or hell.
I don't know.
I do know this. I know that since the mid-70's the military had had a file-sharing system that became known as Arpanet, and that Al Gore saw the commercial implications of this communication and decided to introduce a bill to bring this technology to the commercial sector, and the result is this wonderful little thing we call the internet, which, thanks to Al Gore, you can now enjoy.
In your 5:09:33 post you said THIS
........the point is in this context, the context that Al Gore was referring to had nothing to do with the arpanet, that is flat out absurd.
I am NOT spinning in ANY circles. I am making perfect sense. YOU are spinning like a demented top and making NO SENSE. Just trying to help here.
See, Tommy, this would be a great spot for you to actually admit you made a mistake. Ya know unlike what you usually do, which is either continue to argue when you are hopelessly wrong and/or outmatched, or disappear, never to return to the thread in whcich you got your behind handed to you. You often have valuable insight and debating on a lot of threads, but about 20-25% of the time, your performance is like this, where you can't admit you're wrong. A lot of posters here are capable of doing that, and it's not something I've seen from you.
It would go a long way.
And, not surprisingly, he fails to acknowledge his errors on this topic either. He just goes away to return on another day with the same lame arguments that don't hold water.
(I know, I know, I sound like HistoryBuff or rumplewhater he calls himself now.)
I would venture to guess that anyone who has had any college computer courses would be familiar with ARPANET. I would also bet that anyone who is a computer hobbyist, hacker or systems person knows about ARPANET.
In my opinion, the anaology does wash.
There were, in fact, a few ham sandwiches that predate Al's "creation," the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991.
Prodigy and Compuserve both began in the early 80's.
The World Wide Web dates back to the late 80's.
Then you really need to read what they have on the Snopes web site, Tommy. It effectively debunks everything you've said:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
"we all know the impression Al wanted to leave."
Nope again. We know the impression the media WANTS us to THINK he wanted to leave...which is 180 degrees around from what HE intended.
Apparantly not all of us. For instance YOU dont seem to understand at all. Al did exactly what he said. He took the initiative to create what we now know as the internet. What he said was correct. We most likely would not have had the internet as we know it using it like we do as early as we did without Al Gore he took credit for something he deserved credit for and you are FALSELY trying to say he didnt deserve such credit.
CompuServe was actually founded in 1969.(!)
Nope, really.
I'm right and you're wrong.
WOAH!
WZ's didn't exist a moment ago and it looked like you were replying to me!
Sorry!
Not really, my post stands, but thanks for your always invaluable input.
Yep. Your posts stands as yet another shining example of how you are 180 degrees away from the truth on yet another subject.
Let's be honest, here. The "invented the internet" talking point was part of a concerted effort by the GOP Big Lie Machine to portray Gore as a "serial exaggerator", just like they are now trying to implant the image of Obama as a "black militant" in the feeble minds of their gullible base.
Golly, this is why I have to take my laptop with me when I canvas. (you all are contacting 25 neighbors 3 times before Nov. right?) My feeble old brain cannot keep all these lies and the truth in memory very well. I have CREATED my own little snopes.com so that when somebody says something like "Gore claimed to have INVENTED the internet" I will have the exact quotes and references to educate folks with. I hear the "Obama is a muslim" lie still. I did not INVENT my laptop, but I did CREATE the folders and file structure that contains the many documents I use to influence my nieghbors with the TRUTH.
Isn't it ironic that this Fox News segment in question is all about Hillary Clinton exaggerating her Bosnia trip, while MMFA slaps the GOP strategist for exaggerating Gore's assertion.
You can't make this stuff up.
Pretty simple, Tommy. Hillary lied, so there's no misinformation in saying so.
The part about Gore, though, is false.And I'm not making anything up.
they should, and have. I've heard it plenty of times, though of course I'm a news junkie.
NEWT GINGRICH: "In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen."
Fairness and truth, now there's a couple of concepts you right wingers ought to consider before you post.
"You Media Matters folks really love to split hairs. Is saying that you "created" the internet really that different from saying you "invented" the internet? Come on. You are making yourselves really look foolish."
Have you actually READ this entire thread? I would say no, you didn't...because if you HAD you would not have made yourself look so foolish as to make such an stupid statement.
It's just ridiculous to get this deep into a subject and STILL have to haul out the dictionary:
Invent: to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph.
Create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
In the context of this subject of what Gore said, those are the relevent meanings. Gore said he was instrumental in CREATING the internet...he NEVER said he INVENTED it. And anyone who says that is what he said (in particular) or that is what he meant (in general) is flat out LYING.
As someone else pointed out, up thread, he was responsible for getting the internet created in exactly the same way that Eisenhower was instrumental in creating the interstate highway system. Neither was responsible for INVENTING either internet or highway system...but they can rightly take credit for CREATING them each.
You Media Matters folks really love to split hairs. Is saying that you "created" the internet really that different from saying you "invented" the internet? Come on. You are making yourselves really look foolish.
- - HotWings / Wednesday March 26, 2008 8:40:52 PM EDT"
So artists who create songs are tacitly claiming to have invented the song form? Hmmmm, interesting. Or should I say foolish?The point is Al Gore EMBELLISHED the story by using the terminology "creating the interent" As usual more word games and semantics from the Left.
Regardless of the Newt quote I have read, Gore is pumping himself up here when he doesn't need to. He should have just stated what he did.
Actually, that's all he did. He stated what he did in brief summary. This was a conversation, simple extemporaneous speech. He was listing a set of his accomplishments and was not about to give details in that format as to what specific steps he took that contributed to the early development of the internet. He summarized, and his summary contained absolutely zero embellishment.
What's most interesting is that the interviewer and no one listening actually misunderstood what he said. No one at the time thought he had claimed to have invented the internet. It wasn't until a couple of days later that republican functionaries were reading the transcript and cherry-picked that line for the sole purpose of spinning it dishonestly.
It amazes me that there are still liars and idiots who actually continue to claim Gore had claimed to have invented the internet. The truth means so little to some.
You do realize, don't you, that Bill Clinton has already BEEN elected... TWICE?
And Gore WAS elected in 2000?
Now go check with Rush, and find out what your answer is.
True enough.
His main point seems to be that only people who have been consistently REJECTED by the voters have any hopes of being elected in the future (see McCain, John). Weird on THIS planet, but there's a whole other set of imaginary variables to consider on Planet Wingut.
Still, to give the devil his due, Ed WAS right about Bill Clinton being currently unelectable.
F*cking constitution!
Mind the verbs, people.
This argument over "invent" and "create" tends to lose sight of the fact that what Al Gore said was that he "took the initiative...".
Does anyone have a serious challenge to his statement?
Very important to look at what is actually said.
Very true. Here is the statement in full context:
BLITZER: Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
There it is, an attempt by Gore to briefly summarize several of his accomplishments. There is NO claim to have invented the internet. There is NO embellishment of his role.
People who assert that Gore claimed to have invented the internet are either ignorant or lying. Those are the only possible alternatives.
Perhaps you should take the initiative in translating your post above into something intelligible. I know it probably looked better when you scribbled it onto your bib in crayon, but perhaps the transfer to pixels garbled it up.
Or maybe it didn't.
tommy,
gotta go with our lib friends here... man invents - God creates. gore is internet god. put your hand on the screen and feel his presence.
they should have made the florida quarter a nickel- that way you could count it five times.
Yes, man doesn't "create", only God creates. That's why every work of art or literature is typically referred to as an "invention". Oh, that's not true, is it? Maybe it's when man creates it's always because God is working through them. But authors disagree with each other, so if God is speaking through them he's arguing with himself, so he would have to be wrong in one way or another. And what about Christopher Hitchens? God used him as a vessel in order to question His own existence? That is one messed-up deity there. But it's good to know that free will exists at least for people who never create anything.
In fact, writing posts is in itself an act of creation if you think about it, since it wasn't here before my actions, but it exists after my actions. I guess God must be working through me right now.
I KNOW ABOUT ALL THE GAY PORN ON YOUR COMPUTER. PLEASE DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY. LOVE, GOD.