Gore was a FAR better choice for America.
Posted By: Zauber on 2005-10-09
In Reply to: WHAT was I thinking!!!! - ...
That's why we elected him. It took a crony-packed SCOTUS to act illegally to appoint Bush president even AFTER Repubs tried their best to suppress as many votes as possible to get him elected. It just wasn't good enough, so overwhelming was the vote for Gore.
So, looks like you're in the minority opinion box again. Must be hard having that happen time after time.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
.
By the way, technically Gore did win . . .
in 2000. He was cheated out of that election by . . . oh let's see . . . by the crooked business that went down in Florida which happened to have Bush's brother as governor. Maybe you were sleeping when all that went down and came out as fact! And another thing, 98% of the hate spewing on this board has been by the McCain/Palin fans, but I guess they learned how to be that way from those hate mongerers that they support!! No hatred here . . . just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Gore lies AGAIN!!
Gore criticizes Cheney for answering the scurrilous crap that the Democrats have been piling on Bush, saying "I waited two years before criticizing Bush".
Umm...not quite, Internet Breath. Here's the link to the speech he made in ༾ trashing Bush, Cheney and the cabinet - calling them "un-American". (Bush took office in ༽.)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/15/flashback_gore_calls_bush_policies_un-american_in_2002_speech.html
Gore lying
I am not an AL Gore fan but I am wondering what indicates he lied?
He lost the election of 2000 and was critical in 2002. Please (and I do mean this politely) what I am missing.
popular vote was Gore
Im trying to remember back from 2000..there was a university, I think maybe University of Chicago..which did a recount and Gore won. If all the ballots had been counted and all the registered voters who were turned away were allowed to vote, based on the party they were registered under, Gore would have won. I remember back in 2001, the outrage, so I contacted the university and was assured the public would be allowed a copy of the study on the recount. Geez..seems like centuries ago..I will check back with my political friends and find out the university..Maybe they still are offering their results on the recount.In any case, however, to be fair, when there is a election in doubt, IMHO, you go with the popular vote, which was Gore.
sorry, I meant Gore, not Kerry....(nm)
nm
Gee, he was fine with you when he supported Gore
Reminds me of the line from the movie Dune....
"The sleeper has awoken".
Everybody KNOWS Al Gore won the popular vote
It is awfully coincidental that the state that had the problems counting their votes, which ultimately cost AL Gore the election, was what? Oh thats's right it was....FLORIDA - George Bush's brother's state. You do remember Jeb was governor of Florida during that time, don't you?
Gore is laughable and pathetic anyway.
nm
Al Gore and his "green" attitude
is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen. That fat man preaches to everyone about global warming and then jumps on his private jets and flies off. The kicker is that he is getting rich off of this scam too.
Oh, I know. Al Gore is the biggest phony
nm
Another look at the 2000 Bush v. Gore debate.
I wonder if Bush would still have won if voters knew the extent to which he blatantly lied during this debate. To find the TRUTH, all someone has to do is take just about EVERYTHING Bush said, REVERSE IT (with the possible exception of the comment: "I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." I didn't understand it in 2000 and still don't know what it means. And why did he only focus on "our friends in the Middle East?") I know this isn’t new news, but I found it interesting to take a second look at this. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm amazed at how good Gore is suddenly starting to look!
From www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute.
GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there.
BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
i can remember relatives saying if gore won, he would be antichrist
x
Tennessee Votes for Gore Statue.
I'd give my kingdom to be a pigeon for just one day.
Global warming and the swiftboaring of Al Gore: A timeline
http://scienceblogs.com/drcharles/2006/08/a_timeline_tracing_the_origins.php
Gore's "science" on global warming is flawed....
all one has to do is research the topic. On that basis alone he should not gave gotten the prize, and that has nothing to do with brain washing political propaganda. The fact that so many just buy his theory without looking at both sides is what smacks of political brain washing. No one asked anyone to defend the choice and we are all entitled to our opinions. This is a liberal gimme and has been for years...there was a time when it was a vaulted honor. I don't think many consider it as such anymore...and choosing Gore will not help that downward spiral I'm afraid. And, to be brutally honest...your description "esteemed leader...." and AL Ifoundedtheinternet Gore are diametrically in opposition. Again...in my opinion...to which I am entitled...check the liberal talking points...you are the live and let live people. Right...? Or do you want to just announce that it is liberals live and let liberals live?
Even Al Gore thinks caps and trade is a bad idea!!!
xx
I think Gore has turned off enough people recently that most Dems don't even support him.
Thank God he was not elected.
Gore gave a superb speech today, very inspiring...
...though anyone addicted to Fox wouldn't know it. He really nailed the problem right on the old square head - best speech that's been given in years now. Naturally, the networks are too frightened to utter more than a peep about it, but maybe C-span is re-running it, if you get the chance check it out.
I'd almost forgotten how refreshing it is to see a politician really speak to an unrehearsed crowd without reading from a teleprompter or uttering gotta protect 'mericans and they hate us for our freedom and 9/11 every other line. Nice to know someone sees what's going on and is actually concerned about protecting rule by Constitutional provisions for a change.
Choice
The three posters chose not to post anymore. No one ran them off.
Pro-Choice
I am pro-choice and here is why. My dad was a big city cop before Roe v. Wade. He told me true stories of woman dying from botched illegal abortions. Many times, they found women who had bled to death because they tried to abort the babies themselves with coat hangers. Other times, they found women dead from sepsis. This was in the days before ambulances when the cops answered all the medical calls.
He was anti-abortion but seeing all these dead young woman haunted him. He saw a lot of awful, gruesome stuff where he worked and eventually became somewhat hardened to it, but these cases he could never forget.
I am not pro-abortion but it is going to happen. It can either be legal and somewhat safe, or illegal and dangerous.
my choice
would be change with demonstrated ability to appreciate the complexity of situations and the willingness to listen to all views on the subject. precisely why I am an ardent Obama supporter.
Again, for those of you who are pro-choice...
and against hunting, fishing, etc, could you please explain the difference between killing something for food or because it is a menace to livestock as opposed to killing a child because it's not the right time for a baby, oops I got pregnant by "accident", oops I don't want children, etc. Again, it is rather ironic that one can be selective in their definition of killing.
whose choice?
seriously, where do you draw the line? i mean a 2-year-old is not old enough to make a "choice" of life or death, so you think it's okay to rid of them too?
choice
I do not think there is a person on here who is in favor of 3rd trimester abortion, etc. The thing is folks, that if abortion is abolished, it not only effects those who haven't learned of birth control use (and I don't feel sorry for them) but those in real need such as rape victims, maternal distress, etc. That is the trouble here, you can't do away with abortions entirely, though a lot of people have abused it. We don't need women resorting to butchers as they did in the past. Look, if someone is wanting one, they are going to have it, legal or not. We have to make it the same as any other medical procedure in this country.. you see your doctor, you make arrangements for the procedure to be done in the hospital through a referral.
what choice
When Obama wins, the repubs will no choice but to accept that fact. I cant wait to get out of the Bush admin and have a change. The last eight years has sunk our country.
There is another choice.....sm
for president. Check out Chuck Baldwin and the Constitutional Party. Warning: He is VERY conservative, so all you liberals need not look. ;o)
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Actually under O you will have no choice
The dems are talking about a draft. O has already starting talking about it being a requirment for college students. Yes REQUIRE, not option.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-new-youth-corp-requirement.html
Going to war is your choice...not ours.
Those who choose to elect war-mongers should be the ones sent to battle. Those who choose to elect peace-loving Presidents should not be forced to serve. That is why there are conscientious objectors.
I think you summed it up when you described the lack of intelligence involved in being the first to enlist.
I don't think we will have any choice. (sm)
As you said, people will do whatever they have to feed thier families. I also think before it's over with, we'll have to get a board for gardening on this site...LOL.
Bad choice, but he had to do it (sm)
IMHO, Obama made a deal with the Clintons in order to get elected and now it's pay up time. Look at all the Clintonites he's got surrounding him - the positions have changed, but all the faces are the same. All we need is Madeline Albright in there somewhere.
It is my choice, and I don't believe it.
Scare tactics are a dime a dozen in religion.
No, I think the choice was hers...(sm)
but that's the point. She had the choice of either having the baby or not, as opposed to being forced into having the baby, which is exactly what outlawing abortion would do.
What exactly do you think Pro Choice is?
Pro Choice means you believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body - exactly how do you figure Obama is not Pro Choice?
And he is not saying that women are going to be required to abort their unborn - he is saying they are going to have the right!
That's your choice
and God gives you that right.
Christianity is very much based on fact just as it is on faith. The faith comes from having faith that Jesus' death was sufficient for all. The facts have been shown through archeology and even science.
If the Bible was scrutinized the way other ancient literature has been, it would be found to be true and consistent within itself, but because there is preconceived notions held by those who scrutinize, such as the "fact" that miracles cannot happen, it is believed to be incorrect, myth if you will.
I used to be just like you. I used to think that Christians were rude Bible-thumping bigots who tried to take the corner on Heaven. But when I finally dropped my bias and read the Bible as I would any other book and once I let people actually speak their peace to me, I came to the logical conclusion that Jesus was real, He was the Godman, and He was the Lord. Reading the Bible through you cannot help but notice the consistency and fluidness that runs through it. The OT is the story of the promise God made, and the NT is God fulfilling that promise.
I was not raised in a church, I was not taught about Jesus by my parents. I was not forced to go to Sunday School and I was not forced to be baptized. I made a decision. A decision has to be made with your mind, your emotion and your spirit. It's a three part deal. Many people make emotional decisions and once the emotion is gone, so is the decision. Many people make logical decisions, but the decision is never personal for them, so neither is the relationship with God. Many times the spirit tries to guide someone to the decision, but the person feels logically or emotionally that they cannot.
I may come off as brash because I don't take the "we are all on the same path route" as some do. I would be wrong in doing so, and I would be denying what my Lord explicitly said. To do so would have serious repercussions for me. Therefore, I choose to do what He says and have people not like me, rather than do what people would have me do and deny the One who died for me.
And that is your choice
You choose that belief; I don't. If you want to lead a life ruled entirely by Biblical law, maybe you could all band together and buy an island or something and call it Christganistan. This is a secular country, founded to get away from the idea that there is one true way to live one's life.
The more the so-called tolerant Christians write here, the less difference I see between Radical Islam and Fundamental Christian. It's two sides of the same coin, and it saddens me that this country, founded on principles of individual choice, has seemingly regressed in that regard.
It is NOT a choice.
You keep on with this ridiculous choice bit, but homosexuality is not a choice anymore than being blond or tall or having blue eyes is a choice. It is what the individual is born as.
Sure it's a choice.
God says it is. I believe Him not you. Sorry...
thank you and I like #2 choice. nm..
x
I don't know where they want to go with it, but abortion is a choice..sm
and last time I checked it was not limited to one race. Can that same one prove that more blacks abort than whites? There goes that theory.
A word about choice
I think we have probably said all that we can say on that matter, and we won't agree, but I enjoyed speaking with you.
I just want to add a word about women who support choice. It seems that many people are quick to judge a woman that supports choice, stating that she must have had an abortion or would be willing to have one. I can only speak for myself, a few friends, and family members, but I can tell you that in our case, this it entirely not true. My sister always states that she is, Personally conservative, but politically liberal. I do have a few friends who had had abortions, but I do not believe that I could ever have one myself, and though I would stand by my daughter if that was a choice she made, I would be devastated inside. So, while this is not a choice I would make, I will still support the right to choose for other women. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but until there is, I will always stand for choice.
Peace.
A word about choice...
And I enjoy talking with you. It is good to discuss opposing viewpoints without anger and condescencion. We will have to agree to disagree. There is so much more to this than just abortion. As I have said, and as I will continue to say, when we as a nation begin to devalue life at any stage, we are on a slippery slope headed downward. And to start that devaluation with the most innocent and helpless among us...is horrifying to me. The idea of murdering captive child in utero is absolutely horrifying to me. As I said, I will follow the law of the land, and just because some wingnuts have blown up clinics and shot doctors does not mean that all people of faith believe that. I believe it is wrong to do that and I would have no part of that. However, I will continue to call it what I believe it is, and that is murder. And in the end, the women who choose abortion and the doctors who perform them will have to answer for that one day, not to you or me, but to God.
God bless!
It is not our choice who becomes president
Whether we like or dislike someone, vote or not vote for them, they are not elected by the people. I totally understand when people say "so'n'so is not my President. I felt that way when Bill Clinton was in. He campaigned as one person and once he got in the office all the promises he made, all the "changes" he said he'd bring never happened. He was a totally different person than what he campaigned as and therefore he was "not my president". The same was with Hillary. All I kept thinking was great, here we go again...this country is going to be without another president for 4 years. I was hoping for the best and luckily it worked out for the country's best to not have her in there. In actuality the people who have the money control who is put in there. We saw that with the Bush/Gore campaign (even though I'm thankful Gore didn't get in). I highly doubt all of Obama's donations are from people who send in $5 and $10. Although I leaning more towards him over McCain. To call someone names (retarded, hillbilly, etc) is childish and an insult to the people who are actually "special" and hillbillies. Also calling them the antichrist is also another stupid remark put out by people who don't understand. Sure Bush is not among the brightest who have held the office. He should have been impeached a long time ago (but we have the dems Pelosi and others) who stopped that (why I don't know). So, no Bush is not the brightest, he has committed war crimes (IMO). But Clinton was no better. If there was a contest in the worst President I would not be able to decide between the two. Neither of them know or care what the regular person (me and my family and friends) are going through. They don't know we're struggling with paying bills, grocery shopping, paying for gas, etc. Hillary Clinton fortunately is out of the race. I sweated that one. We won't even begin to go into all the lies and crooked campaigning she did. Why people don't remember what it was like when she and Billy were in there I can't understand. Clinton's presidency was the worst ever. Each time a President gets in their the economy gets worse. We end up more in debt as time goes on. So to say its worse with Bush than Clinton, you also have to say it was worse with Clinton than Bush Sr, worse with Bush Sr than Regan, etc, etc. We just go further and further into debt and each campaign are promised that they have a solution to get the debt down. I'm no Bush fan, but one thing that is a fact is that people have been paying lower taxes with Bush than Clinton. I found a fact sheet that showed what people paid for taxes under Bush and what they paid under Clinton. Clinton was awful. It was a dark time for our country. He misrepresented our country and made us look like fools. I counted every day until he left office and then in those last few hours was rewarded with learning how much more crooked he was by giving out pardons like it was candy at a halloween party. I also think Bush is awful, but the country would have been worse off with Gore (the Bore), and Kerry (Mr. Lerch). John McCain would be the worse thing that happened to this country, but I always have to remember...my vote doesn't count. Whoever "big brothers" want in there they will put in there.
I approve of his choice. I also was...sm
impressed by Obama's statement that he did not want to choose a yes man.
I think that was a good choice also.
Biden has over 30+ years experience and isn't afraid to voice his opinion if he disagrees with an issue. Great choice and can't wait for them to WIN!! Be real people - can you see Cindy McCain (druggie) as a first lady? She's afraid of her own shadow and it's like watching paint dry when she talks! Okay, Michele needs to spruce up that wardrobe but she's got more brains then McCain and Cindy put together.
it was an insane choice
I certainly do not want to wake up every morning in a country where such mind-boggling choices are foisted on us by the president out of the blue.
not even john's first choice
ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.
So the man McSame thought would make the best vice president was vetoed by his fundie base. And he caved.
But he's very Mavericky!
That's her business and choice if she does, not yours.
Just because YOU wouldn't be able to handle children plus a job doesn't mean another woman wouldn't. Perhaps your energy or patience level isn't up to it, but I know plenty of women that have high-profile careers and young children and handle both beautifully. It's all about balance. Again, just because you might not be able to find that balance doesn't mean others can't.
Nothing wrong with his choice....and so far...
no Marxists have given her a rousing endorsement either. Another point in her favor.
Definition of choice
Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.
You choose your path, I'll choose mine.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
Are you pro-choice? Just askin', cause...
I always find it ironic that people against hunting, etc, don't mind abortion at all....killing is killing.
|
