Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

OrnotBitwise said:
I don't believe that Gore is going to run. He's out of the game and glad of it, I think.

Are you old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's presidency? One thing all of us commented on back then -- both people like me who admired him and the lemming horde who bought into Reagan's propaganda package -- was how much younger he seemed six months after leaving the white house. He was a much happier man, by his own admission, a year after losing the election than he was fighting for it. He then proceeded to accomplish more as a private citizen than most presidents ever do.

I think that Gore is of the same mold. He's enjoying his outsider status too much to jump back into the cesspool. Not only that but he's able to do and say things now that he'd never even consider doing or saying as president. He's more effective as an advocate than as an executive, and that, I believe, suits him well.
Click to expand...

I'm old enough to remember Kennedy's presidency.

But you're correct. I believe Gore is mor happy doing what he's doing now.
 
I hope Ornots right and Gore doesn't run depite the fact that he would make me easier money. For people who like jobs and a hot economy a repeat of the Carter total incompetance is very likely under Gore.
The facts of the fantastic economy of Reagan is what I'm hoping for from Clinton.:clink:
 
Voting Green is not an option. Voting green in 2000 did not elect a green candidate. It elected George W. Bush, and started a war, and was responsible for innumerable setbacks on the environmental front.

I agree about the potential Dem candidates, but can't really see another way at this point. I wish I shared topspin's view about Clinton's potential effect on the economy, which has no basis whatsoever in reality, unfortunately...
 
Unlike you party hacks, I'm a moderate dem former repub.
No strong ties, my strong times are to making mucho dinero.
FACT - as posted several times and supported at nausium. Market does much better under dem presidents.
Hillary has Wall Street CEO elbowing each other to get in line to support her.
They make a greedy bastard like me look like goldy locks.
Get in while bush is cooking the gridlock, the launch will come in the months after Hillary's inauguration.:clink:
 
* Make health care affordable and accessible to every American.
* Reduce the cost of energy and make us energy independent.
* Expand access to affordable, high-quality child care.
* Make college more affordable.
* Protect families from predatory lenders and help them avoid foreclosures.
* Increase the minimum wage.
* Create good jobs with good wages to expand the middle class.
* Balance the federal budget so we don't pass today's massive debts to the next generation.
* Reward savings, protect pensions, and provide greater retirement security.
 
Wow; you're really good at cutting & pasting from Hillary's site.

A lot of those look like budget-busters to me, unless she has some secret plan for how to spend more, lower taxes & somehow make it work within the current budget.

I asked what specifically she has proposed that would be a boon to WALL STREET. Wanna have another go at it, this time in your own words?
 
No here energy stance is the best among the dems outside of the longshot Richardson.
Do a little research on markets under dems ie. Cypress linked the info.Hillary is the frontrunner, though I'd take any dem that can win.
 
Topspin said:
* Make health care affordable and accessible to every American.
* Reduce the cost of energy and make us energy independent.
* Expand access to affordable, high-quality child care.
* Make college more affordable.
* Protect families from predatory lenders and help them avoid foreclosures.
* Increase the minimum wage.
* Create good jobs with good wages to expand the middle class.
* Balance the federal budget so we don't pass today's massive debts to the next generation.
* Reward savings, protect pensions, and provide greater retirement security.
Click to expand...

Sounds like utopian gibberish. As a business man you know government created jobs are a temporary fix. A better way to ensure jobs for americans is to close the border and keep out the wage depression of too many immigrants, and to ban goods made in inhumane conditions, so our workers won't have to compete with slaves. Why are these practical, less drastic, less utopian, notions untenable for you?
 
Desh said:
Newt is fat

Thomas is fat

Why is that never mentioned?

Ill tell you why because Dems dont attack people for these idiotic reasons.

Its Rs who attack people for stupid shit like this.
Click to expand...

That's their only substantive criticism of Rush Limbaugh.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's their only substantive criticism of Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...
What was that book? Something about a big fat loser...

Then he lost weight and provided them with a nice drug addiction to replace his "prosperous" visage as the constant criticism...
 
Let's see...

1. He is addicdted to drugs (Shouts of hypocrite will resound here, although in the late 90s Rush had changed his "prison" terms for all addicts stance to a "we should focus on the addiction" view...)

2. He is addicted to drugs (Shouts of liar this time because they believe he is deaf because of the drug's effects, on this one I believe them.)

3. He sent his maid to buy drugs... (Note the repetitive nature of my predictions, it is because it is pretty much all I've heard, although I am purposefully avoiding the "fat" comments although they too have been a regular and constant provisio to the drug addiction. Usually he is a "Fat" Hypocrite)...
 
I could care less about his weight, or his drug addiction on its own; the latter only comes into play when one considers his strong statements about sending drug users "up the river" for lengthy sentences.

No, Rush's hypocrisy, casual disregard for facts, 3-hour spin machine & track record of being wrong on every major issue from global warming to Iraq are much more disturbing. Oh, and his constant namecalling & personal attacks that appeal to the lowest common denominator (i.e. Michael J. Fox).

It's amazing to me that there are people who still proudly call themselves "dittoheads."
 
Onceler said:
Voting Green is not an option. Voting green in 2000 did not elect a green candidate. It elected George W. Bush, and started a war, and was responsible for innumerable setbacks on the environmental front.

I agree about the potential Dem candidates, but can't really see another way at this point. I wish I shared topspin's view about Clinton's potential effect on the economy, which has no basis whatsoever in reality, unfortunately...
Click to expand...

Voting Green may not be an option for you but it most certainly is for me. What (s)elected Bush in 2000 was democratic incompetence. You can bet that republicans would have never stood still for the disenfranchisement of a large number of their voters as the democrats did, nor would they have allowed democratic operatives to burst in and demand a change of rules, not to mention Gore's timidity during the campaign and his selection of Lieberman as a running mate.

THEN, what (s)elected Bush in 2004 was democratic incompetence and the fraud of electronic voting, which democrats never addressed. Activist citizens had to do their work for them and now nearly every state has legislation to address electronic voting fraud. In Florida, they've thrown the machines out. Democrats sat on their asses and allowed the fraud to select Bush again. Republicans would have NEVER allowed democratic owned and operated voting machine vendors to be the sole proprietor of the vote.

The notion that citizens owe their votes to a weak ass Democratic Party is silly. Either they earn the vote or they don't. With your logic why not blame republicans for not voting for democrats? Why not blame libertarians or members of the Constitution Party for not voting for democrats?

Remember ABB? .. what a resounding success that was.

I believe that Americans need to find a way out of the two-party-same-party trap we find ourselves in, but that will never happen as long as voters are too timid/trapped/intimidated to support other political parties.

"It started a war" .. you must be joking. Many democrats, including almost every one of them running for president, went right along with the fake ass war even though the dead could see that it was contrived and unnecessary. NO GREEN POLITICIAN would have supported that horror. Blaming democratic timidity and cowardice on Greens is exactly why the Democratic Party takes you for granted.

Look no further than the failure of the democratic congress today whose poll numbers are constantly sinking along with those of Pelosi. If the Democratic Party doesn't deliver a candidate and platform I can support, I'm going to vote Green with a platform I support 250%.

You can remain trapped if you choose.
 
It's a feel good vote; nothing more. It's a vote so you can say at a cocktail party "I'm not responsible for this mess," and feel above the fray.

Fact is, a vote for anyone who is under 10% in the polls on election day is the same as not voting. Fact is, if the Nader voters in Florida had voted for their choice among the VIABLE options, Gore would have won the Presidency, and there would never be something called "The Iraq War." Not a chance.
 
Onceler said:
Wow; you're really good at cutting & pasting from Hillary's site.

A lot of those look like budget-busters to me, unless she has some secret plan for how to spend more, lower taxes & somehow make it work within the current budget.

I asked what specifically she has proposed that would be a boon to WALL STREET. Wanna have another go at it, this time in your own words?
Click to expand...

Everyone of those positions sound good not only to me, but also to the vast majority of Americans.

What is good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for the American people. Wall Street goes up when people get laid off. Like most Americans, I'm voting for America, not Wall Street.
 
blackascoal said:
Everyone of those positions sound good not only to me, but also to the vast majority of Americans.

What is good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for the American people. Wall Street goes up when people get laid off. Like most Americans, I'm voting for America, not Wall Street.
Click to expand...

I love the positions on that list, but tops was specifically talking about Hillary boosting Wall Street, and I'm not seeing that in what she's proposing.

I would love to hear a Democrat talk as Clinton & Gore did in the 90's about smaller, smarter government, and ways to reform healthcare, education & pursue a variety of beneficial programs in ways that do not expand the bureacracy & increase both the budget & tax burden on America.
 
Onceler said:
It's a feel good vote; nothing more. It's a vote so you can say at a cocktail party "I'm not responsible for this mess," and feel above the fray.

Fact is, a vote for anyone who is under 10% in the polls on election day is the same as not voting. Fact is, if the Nader voters in Florida had voted for their choice among the VIABLE options, Gore would have won the Presidency, and there would never be something called "The Iraq War." Not a chance.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need definition of what the vote is and who owns it.

Fact is that if the democrats had the least bit of courage the election was theirs to be had. The votes were there but the courage wasn't.

If Nader voters had only voted for democrats, if hispanics had only registered and voted for democrats, if old people on their death beds had only gotten the fuck up and voted for democrats .. silly.

94% of African-Americans went to the polls, endured intentionally long lines and intimidation, and voted for Gore .. and Gore promised to fight to the end for their votes .. but he didn't.

But Nader was at fault.

I repeat, stay trapped if you choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top