Gore would kick ass if he threw his hat in

blackascoal said:
I hear ya' .. but I doubt it. Democrats are fairly content with their field of candidates now. It is the republicans who are scrambling to find a messiah.

However I would like to see Gore run as a 3rd party candidate. That would make it interesting. Perhaps as a Green .. global warming .. Green .. c'mon you gotta love that.
Click to expand...

:)

I'm not content with who is running though. I know that Kucinich isn't going to get the nomination. If you look at the money and the polls, you have Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, in that order. Out of the three, I have to go with Edwards, right now, but I'm not thrilled.

On the R side, I watched one of their debates, and it was a stomach-churning spectacle. Ten white men, one scarier than the next. All trying to impress Republican primary voters with claims of who would bomb Iran faster, and who would torture someone harder. I guess old habits die hard, because even though I haven't gone to a Catholic church in years, I had an overwhelming urge to make the sign of the cross. That's what the nuns tell you to do in the presence of evil.
 
bob said:
get over it.. gore wont be a pres

more people hate him then like him.... id be will in to bet people would vote for hommer simpson before they vote for gore
Click to expand...

I guess that's why he won the popular vote in 2000.

Because more people hate him than like him.
 
bob said:
get over it.. gore wont be a pres

more people hate him then like him.... id be will in to bet people would vote for hommer simpson before they vote for gore
Click to expand...

well the way I see it I will vote for whomever the demoncratic candidate is. I sure cannot vote Rebutlickin next time around.
If the candidate is Homer Simpson, so be it.
 
"more people hate him then like him"

That's much more true of Hillary than Gore, and she's considered a shoe-in right now if she gets the nomination.

I think the idea of "what might have been" is in the back of a lot of minds now, when they go back and look at the 2000 election. Bush's gross incompetence has elevated Gore...
 
Darla said:
I guess that's why he won the popular vote in 2000.

Because more people hate him than like him.
Click to expand...

sure... he fixed it... he had it all planed out .... lol

gore is a loser...

he wouldnt have even got close to a populer vote winner if the right had any decint cannidates around... but who cares... gore, bush... not much diffrence there.

both seem to be controled by their party
 
"gore, bush... not much diffrence there"

There are anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 dead people (depending on which report you're using), as well as roughly a million refugees, who might disagree with you on that one...
 
Onceler said:
"more people hate him then like him"

That's much more true of Hillary than Gore, and she's considered a shoe-in right now if she gets the nomination.

I think the idea of "what might have been" is in the back of a lot of minds now, when they go back and look at the 2000 election. Bush's gross incompetence has elevated Gore...
Click to expand...

Good point about Hillary.

What you say about Bush's incompetence elevating Gore is part of it, I'm sure. But it's also that, in 2003 when the Clintons and all the Dems were being "careful" about Bush and the Iraqi war, Gore was out there giving very strong, passionate speeches about Bush and the Iraqi war. In fact, he was called "insane" and "rabid" by Joe Klein, who is supposed to be a "liberal" for that. He took real beatings from people like David Brooks who said he was off his meds. He was ridiculed in the MSM.

But, he was right. And for people who couldn't believe that some Nationally prominent Dems were going along with that war, Gore gave them something with those speeches. I don't think they've forgotten that.
 
And because many of us were right about the war, those that were wrong now hate us. After all it was our fault they were wrong. It could not be their fault.
 
Onceler said:
"gore, bush... not much diffrence there"

There are anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 dead people (depending on which report you're using), as well as roughly a million refugees, who might disagree with you on that one...
Click to expand...

well if they are dead it might be kinda hard to have an opinion...

so your saing that gore wouldnt have gone to war givin the circumstances...

if i remember correctly he was one of the people in the clintion admin that was loud about fighting terror, and dealing with saddam with use of force
 
bob said:
well if they are dead it might be kinda hard to have an opinion...

so your saing that gore wouldnt have gone to war givin the circumstances...

if i remember correctly he was one of the people in the clintion admin that was loud about fighting terror, and dealing with saddam with use of force
Click to expand...

yeah, but he realized that invading iraq was not the best way to do that. He might have even realized it was all about oil.
 
bob said:
well if they are dead it might be kinda hard to have an opinion...

so your saing that gore wouldnt have gone to war givin the circumstances...

if i remember correctly he was one of the people in the clintion admin that was loud about fighting terror, and dealing with saddam with use of force
Click to expand...

Of course you are assuming that 9/11 would have occurred under a Gore adminstration.

I make no such assumption.
 
uscitizen said:
And because many of us were right about the war, those that were wrong now hate us. After all it was our fault they were wrong. It could not be their fault.
Click to expand...

honestly, i blame both partys contrling our gov right now. the right went to war thinking they had support from the left, and planned it varry porely.
the left didnt do anything besides use this war as a political ploy to get an advantage in the politics of the US, revenge for gores election loss, basicly all the input they gave was unconstuctive criticissim.

after loosing my cousin in this war, its change alot of they way i see things.
witch i am still tring to figure out
 
Darla said:
Of course you are assuming that 9/11 would have occurred under a Gore adminstration.

I make no such assumption.
Click to expand...

i belive it would have. and from the intel that was missed, ignored or what have you, it wouldnt have mattered who was pres
 
bob said:
well if they are dead it might be kinda hard to have an opinion...

so your saing that gore wouldnt have gone to war givin the circumstances...

if i remember correctly he was one of the people in the clintion admin that was loud about fighting terror, and dealing with saddam with use of force
Click to expand...


Sorry. Under NO circumstances would a President Gore have gone to war with Iraq. If Cheney wasn't VP, I'm not even sure Bush would have.

That's kind of a stupid thing to say. Fighting terror & going to war w/ Iraq are 2 different things entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top