Hillary won't get the nomination

"You have no understanding whatsoever of the implications of your vote, and the difference between where we are now & where we would likely be under a President Gore. None.

I knew, and many others did as well, what an incompetent, unqualified candidate Bush was. I was incredulous that anyone could vote for him, much less twice. People took an incredible gamble with him, and it has not paid off one iota...."

As for the above.... YOU have no understanding whatsoever of the implications of your vote. None. You keep nominating complete tools and then act as if your tool is better than the tool we currently have in office. Yet you continue to nominate and support other tools and then blame everyone else when your tool fails yet again.

Myself and many others knew what a tool Gore was... not to mention Kerry... we tried to tell idiots like you, but NOOOOOOO.... you had to go and nominate yet another tool. Were you stupid Lorax? Could you not see that there were better Dems to nominate? Why did your party nominate such incompetent idiots TWICE????

Oh thats right... it wasn't because you nominated complete morons, it was because other people DARED to vote for someone else and to you that means they "wasted" their vote.
 
Superfreak said:
"You have no understanding whatsoever of the implications of your vote, and the difference between where we are now & where we would likely be under a President Gore. None.

I knew, and many others did as well, what an incompetent, unqualified candidate Bush was. I was incredulous that anyone could vote for him, much less twice. People took an incredible gamble with him, and it has not paid off one iota...."

As for the above.... YOU have no understanding whatsoever of the implications of your vote. None. You keep nominating complete tools and then act as if your tool is better than the tool we currently have in office. Yet you continue to nominate and support other tools and then blame everyone else when your tool fails yet again.

Myself and many others knew what a tool Gore was... not to mention Kerry... we tried to tell idiots like you, but NOOOOOOO.... you had to go and nominate yet another tool. Were you stupid Lorax? Could you not see that there were better Dems to nominate? Why did your party nominate such incompetent idiots TWICE????

Oh thats right... it wasn't because you nominated complete morons, it was because other people DARED to vote for someone else and to you that means they "wasted" their vote.
Click to expand...


I don't think Gore's a tool. Compared to Bush, he's friggin' Abraham Lincoln.

Good luck sleeping the rest of your life, Freak. Over a million refugees, over 100,000 dead. When you meet their families, let them know how much you didn't like "the sigh"...
 
Onceler said:
Nader voters are idiots if they needed a "better campaign" to show them how disastrous a Bush Presidency might be compared to a Gore Presidency.
Click to expand...

Nader voters are Americans who are fed up with the two-party idiocy and democrats taking them for granted .. AND they are willing to do something about it as opposed to democrats who keep whining while the party plays them for fools.

And, Nader voters and Greens are voters who are sick of hearing democrats blame them for the failures of Al Gore, who couldn't win his own state, picked one of the biggest war-hawks in all of politics for his running mate, who polled and finger-in-the-wind himself into defeat, and who didn't have the courage to meet the republicans head-on while they literally stole Florida right in front of his face.
 
Superfreak said:
My point Lorax is that it is absolutely no worse of an excuse than certain Dem voters spouting off that it was the fault of Nader voters that Bush is President. They voted for whom they thought should run this country. It is their right and they did as they should have.... voted for the best candidate in their eyes.

So when you look for someone to blame, then YES... it is most certainly Gore and those that put Gore up as the Dems nomination. Because ultimately it is GORE that had to convince people he WAS the best candidate. He did not do so.

You can also shout out as much as you want how Gore would have been better for the country. But you do not know that, neither do I. It is pure speculation as to what he would have done. While I agree that he very likely would not have gone into Iraq, that in and of itself does not mean this country would have been better off.
Click to expand...

Oh good God, do the bush-voter excuses never stop? You're boy is going down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. There virtually no speculation about that.

There's no doubt the country would be better, under a president Gore. You're like the football coach who loses a game 73-0, and then proclaims that, well, how do we know for sure if another coach could have done better??
 
Cypress said:
Oh good God, do the bush-voter excuses never stop? You're boy is going down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. There virtually no speculation about that.

There's no doubt the country would be better, under a president Gore. You're like the football coach who loses a game 73-0, and then proclaims that, well, how do we know for sure if another coach could have done better??
Click to expand...
And your party is going down in history as putting forward candidates who lost to the "worst President in history" TWICE.

One more time. It isn't the R voters he is talking about, if you want to win you have to convince the Independants who thought Gore/Kerry were both worse than Bush.
 
blackascoal said:
Nader voters are Americans who are fed up with the two-party idiocy and democrats taking them for granted .. AND they are willing to do something about it as opposed to democrats who keep whining while the party plays them for fools.

And, Nader voters and Greens are voters who are sick of hearing democrats blame them for the failures of Al Gore, who couldn't win his own state, picked one of the biggest war-hawks in all of politics for his running mate, who polled and finger-in-the-wind himself into defeat, and who didn't have the courage to meet the republicans head-on while they literally stole Florida right in front of his face.
Click to expand...

Nadar voters are premature ejaculaters with pimples, butt, I would take Bush over Nadar any day and twice on Sunday, Nadar is a gun grabber, and maybe an ass grabber for all I know, as for Gore, who could take the sighing, not RJS, sorry dims.
 
Onceler said:
Gore would have been worse than Bush? Are you insane?

You didn't like Gore's personality, or his sigh, or his stand on the issues - whatever. On sheer competence & experience, Gore was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Bush.

I don't have to belabor this point, or argue it to death. I only have to point to the last 7 years. You found Gore so distasteful that you took a gamble on an inexperience, inarticulate & incomptetent flunkie, and look what we have. I woudln't be shocked if Bush shaved 50 or so years off of our shelf life as a superpower, among other "accomplishments."

Idiotic. Absolutely unforgiveable.
Click to expand...

Bill Bradley was light years ahead of Gore. Yet you went with a complete tool instead of the more experienced and better qualified Bradley. Why? Why were you so insistent on putting forth your worst candidate?

In 2004, Clark was light years ahead of Kerry... yet again... you go with the complete tool. Why did you want George Bush to remain President so much? Why couldn't you select your BEST candidate?

I don't have to belabor the point... but AGAIN, you are purely speculating on what Gore would and would not have done. Your speculation is meaningless because neither of us can ever say he definitely would have done "x" or would not have done "y". We also cannot accurately describe what the consequences of his choices would have brought us.

He could have responded to 9/11 in the same manner as Clinton and done nothing. Maybe that would have been good, maybe not. We do NOT know.

So get off your fucking high horse with your "knowing" what would have happened rant. It is laughable at best.
 
Superfreak said:
My point Lorax is that it is absolutely no worse of an excuse than certain Dem voters spouting off that it was the fault of Nader voters that Bush is President. They voted for whom they thought should run this country. It is their right and they did as they should have.... voted for the best candidate in their eyes.

So when you look for someone to blame, then YES... it is most certainly Gore and those that put Gore up as the Dems nomination. Because ultimately it is GORE that had to convince people he WAS the best candidate. He did not do so.

You can also shout out as much as you want how Gore would have been better for the country. But you do not know that, neither do I. It is pure speculation as to what he would have done. While I agree that he very likely would not have gone into Iraq, that in and of itself does not mean this country would have been better off.
Click to expand...

Love how you like to forget Gore got more votes than your man Bush. So, it was a failure of our system, not Gore! It was your man Bush who failed to convince the majority of people he WAS the best canidate, Bush did not do so. Gore did!
 
When all the crying is over .. meet your next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton.

Not because she's the best choice, but because there is no one who can beat her and her running mate, Barak Obama.

Game over.
 
blackascoal said:
When all the crying is over .. meet your next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton.

Not because she's the best choice, but because there is no one who can beat her and her running mate, Barak Obama.

Game over.
Click to expand...

I belive if she gets the nomination it will be Obama as the VP.
 
Onceler said:
I don't think Gore's a tool. Compared to Bush, he's friggin' Abraham Lincoln.

Good luck sleeping the rest of your life, Freak. Over a million refugees, over 100,000 dead. When you meet their families, let them know how much you didn't like "the sigh"...
Click to expand...

In your opinion you don't think so. In mine and the opinion of Nader voters he was not the best candidate. Good luck sleeping the rest of your life Lorax... you of the "i know all" yet still nominated two guys who LOST to Bush.

Side note Lorax... were you crying also for the millions of Iraqis who were starving to death due to the 12 YEARS of sanctions? Did you cry as well for those in Rwanda that were left to die thanks to Clinton and the UN? Are you upset at all about those dying in the Sudan now? How about Burma?

Quit your soap box... your pathetic attempts to blame everyone else for your parties ineptitude is tiring.
 
Superfreak said:
In your opinion you don't think so. In mine and the opinion of Nader voters he was not the best candidate. Good luck sleeping the rest of your life Lorax... you of the "i know all" yet still nominated two guys who LOST to Bush.

Side note Lorax... were you crying also for the millions of Iraqis who were starving to death due to the 12 YEARS of sanctions? Did you cry as well for those in Rwanda that were left to die thanks to Clinton and the UN? Are you upset at all about those dying in the Sudan now? How about Burma?

Quit your soap box... your pathetic attempts to blame everyone else for your parties ineptitude is tiring.
Click to expand...

I knew about the suffering under the sanctions & hated them for it. I hated the suffering in Rwanda, but this was not caused by PROACTIVE action by the U.S.

I understand how ashamed you must be of voting for Bush not once, but TWICE...I mean, that's something you have to carry with you for the remainder of your days, possibly past the time that we are no longer a superpower because of his incompetence. It's something that will always come up in a conversation or 2 around election time, and I appreciate you're wanting to hide under a rock rather than explain how Gore was a "tool" because he sighed so much, so you willfully voted for the worst President in American history, twice.
 
Onceler said:
"You can also shout out as much as you want how Gore would have been better for the country. But you do not know that, neither do I."

Gimme an f'in break. That's like me making a batch of cookies with chocolate chips, flour, butter et al., and you making a batch with dog feces, and you telling me that we won't know whose cookies will taste better, and that anything else is "pure speculation."
Click to expand...

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you spit out.... That attempt at an analogy is pathetic and in no way represents what I said.

Or can you list out all of the things Gore would have done differently with facts to back them up? Perhaps also include how the rest of the world would have responded to his actions or lack thereof? Including the terrorists?

Please Lorax.... enlighten us as to how you KNOW all of these things and the reactions they would have caused. Spell them out for us.... or shut the fuck up about "knowing" things would have been better with Gore. Because at the end of the day you and I both know you are simply assuming that you know how he would have reacted.
 
Damocles said:
And your party is going down in history as putting forward candidates who lost to the "worst President in history" TWICE.

One more time. It isn't the R voters he is talking about, if you want to win you have to convince the Independants who thought Gore/Kerry were both worse than Bush.
Click to expand...

"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that a ballot recount being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to Equal Protection issues arising from the lack of a consistent standard across counties. The per curiam opinion found that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount before Florida's deadline for certifying electors.[1]
The decision stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 Electoral College votes, defeating Democrat Al Gore. 270 electoral college votes were needed by either candidate to win.
This is the only Supreme Court ruling to determine the outcome of a presidential election - specifically, the 2000 Presidential election."

"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes,"
Joseph Stalin

This was the first time I realized that there could be a coup in this country. Over the next 6 years and a couple of elections later I am sure of it.

This time Democrats don't have to convince any voter that the neocon party has led this country down the wrong paths, Bush and the neocon congress have already done that.
 
Superfreak said:
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you spit out.... That attempt at an analogy is pathetic and in no way represents what I said.

Or can you list out all of the things Gore would have done differently with facts to back them up? Perhaps also include how the rest of the world would have responded to his actions or lack thereof? Including the terrorists?

Please Lorax.... enlighten us as to how you KNOW all of these things and the reactions they would have caused. Spell them out for us.... or shut the fuck up about "knowing" things would have been better with Gore. Because at the end of the day you and I both know you are simply assuming that you know how he would have reacted.
Click to expand...

It's called an 'educated guess'; try it once in awhile.

The analogy is perfect. You're suggesting that there is no way to know what the difference would have been between the 2 administrations; I'm saying we can make a pretty good guess at it, based on the experience of both men.

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Period. To me, that's enough, even if you discount everything else.
 
I believe if the Independant voters thought he was a halfway decent candidate they would have voted for him over Bush, no matter how many beers they thought they might drink with Bush.
 
RJS said:
Nadar voters are premature ejaculaters with pimples, butt, I would take Bush over Nadar any day and twice on Sunday, Nadar is a gun grabber, and maybe an ass grabber for all I know, as for Gore, who could take the sighing, not RJS, sorry dims.
Click to expand...

"I would take Bush over Nadar any day and twice on Sunday,"

That says about everything need be said about the planet you exist on my friend.

That is comment comes from a planet other than the one most homo-sapiens exist on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top