Why Al Gore Will Never Be President

[Kyle]

The way I see him... Gore is more often than not on the wrong side, and when he's not it isn't because he believes something to be right and follows a principle... He just feels he needs to be on that side to look good or gain something.

Kind of like Bubba... Only not as convincing!

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Kyle
The way I see him... Gore is more often than not on the wrong side, and when he's not it isn't because he believes something to be right and follows a principle... He just feels he needs to be on that side to look good or gain something.

Kind of like Bubba... Only not as convincing!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by justhangn



Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

A "stopped" clock is right twice a day - a broken one, say, one that loses a minute a day won't be right again for two years.

Which in Gore's case, might be about right.

 

[Penn]

Gore for President---NOT!!!

Originally posted by Frank


A "stopped" clock is right twice a day - a broken one, say, one that loses a minute a day won't be right again for two years.

Which in Gore's case, might be about right.

You got it right, Frank. I guess a lot of us watched the presidential debates with Gore making a fool out of himself, trying to look dignified then energetic(?), then COOL and dignified; each time only failing miserably. Who can forget the heavy sighs and rolling of the eyes as Pres Bush made a point and Al just didn't agree, but couldn't get in a word.

penncam

 

[jimmy]

Hey,

Al Gore blows as a polititian, you'll get no arguement from me. He stunk in the debates and widely cost himself the election...well, not the popular election, but still

All kidding aside, I was merely trying to point out that Gore has been sticking to a principle (being against the war) recently and you all would have him play politics. Now, I'M NOT saying that Gore is a man of principle. Those are you guys' words about Bush for doing the same thing. And you say GORE is a puppet...please...

Bru,

Oh so you wanna bring up people's past stances and how drastically they've changed them??? Gore '98---I'll give you that. Now, you give me this:

Bush 2000:

In his campaigning, he was asked about how he'd deal with foreign affairs. His response was, and I'm paraphrasing here: "I think the US needs to be humble in our power. I don't think we can just run around the world and say 'hey, we don't like the way you do things here, do them differently or suffer the consequences"....sounds like quite a change of heart to me.

Warranted? Perhaps. But as he is entitled to change his view as circumstances change, so too is Gore. That's all I'm saying. I'm not supporting one over the other but you all are SO quick to criticize and judge without looking at the other side. ANd that's all I'm here for.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by jimmy
... "I think the US needs to be humble in our power. I don't think we can just run around the world and say 'hey, we don't like the way you do things here, do them differently or suffer the consequences"....

I think there may be a tiny difference between "not approving of someones system of government and policies" i.e. Russia, China etc... But not being threatened by them... And having a nation become a credible threat to yours and fight to overthrow the regime.

I'm not one of G.W.'s biggest fans but I think the two situations are different enough that he isn't going back on something he said.

 

[jimmy]

Well, this policy of declaring who is "Evil" and who isnt', who gets to persue nuclear programs and who doesn't, and making decisions to remove people from power with our without international support, regardless of motive, it is STILL extending our reach around the globe for our own interests and is a FAR cry from being humble in our power. It was just a short-sighted attempt for Bush to play to the Doves in the country which he is now having to eat because of his current stance.

It's not really a problem, as circumstances have changed as I said, but it is still reversing a position held in a different time. Plain and simple.

 

[Bruzilla]

Jimmy... you're shameless. Bush's comments that you refer to refer to efforts like Haiti and Bosnia, where Bush complained of "nation building" efforts. He didn't think that we should be using force to resolve long-standing social ills, and that's a far cry from what we're seeing (or saw in 1998) in Iraq. I doubt you'll hear Bush calling for US troops to seize the Ivory Coast (although I think that we should send the troops in to pull our citizens out rather than count on French troops.)

I always look at both sides of the issue as it's folly not to. We're not talking about going into a dirt poor country with no infrastructure and little or no social framework and no exit strategy. Bush is looking at ousting Hussein and his cronies and turning the country over to a democratic government, then basing troops to make sure the government holds. This was tried a couple of times before, specifically Germany, Italy, and Japan in the 1940s. The Iraqi people and economy are in good enough shape to really turn that country around once they get that imbecile and his friends out.

I still think we should "pay" for this effort by pretty much disbanding NATO and moving forces from Japan and Germany to Iraq... but that's just me.

 

[Bruzilla]

Originally posted by jimmy
Well, this policy of declaring who is "Evil" and who isnt', who gets to persue nuclear programs and who doesn't, and making decisions to remove people from power with our without international support, regardless of motive, it is STILL extending our reach around the globe for our own interests and is a FAR cry from being humble in our power. It was just a short-sighted attempt for Bush to play to the Doves in the country which he is now having to eat because of his current stance.

It's not really a problem, as circumstances have changed as I said, but it is still reversing a position held in a different time. Plain and simple.

Well... we've had non-proliferation treaties and polcies in place for a long time and look where it's gotten us. No where. Basically, if you've got the bucks to buy these weapons there will be someone willing to sell them to you.

I still think that you miss the difference between N. Korea/China/Pakistan/India/Israel and Iraq. All of these countries have special weapons but only Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use them. The other countries seem to understand that the only real use of these weapons is deterrance, only Iraq sees them as a viable combat option.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jimmy
Well, this policy of declaring who is "Evil" and who isnt', who gets to persue nuclear programs and who doesn't, and making decisions to remove people from power with our without international support, regardless of motive, it is STILL extending our reach around the globe for our own interests and is a FAR cry from being humble in our power. It was just a short-sighted attempt for Bush to play to the Doves in the country which he is now having to eat because of his current stance.

It's not really a problem, as circumstances have changed as I said, but it is still reversing a position held in a different time. Plain and simple.

Any Iraqi nuclear program and/or biological/chemical weapons is a direct violation of UN Resolution 687. Plain and simple. The world has decided and Iraq, under Hussein, has thumbed their nose at it. What more needs to be done to justify bringing Iraq into compliance?

 

[Christy]

Ken, we must wait until he nukes someone, and then we must wait some more until we get the UN inspectors in there to see if he was simply exporting his nuclear waste outside of his country via projectile, since he wouldn't have any other choice, due to US sanctions restricting him from exporting anything, and he must take into consideration the feelings of the environmentalists.

Sorry, I'm practicing being a member of the UN.

 

[Penn]

Why Al Gore will NEVER get elected to Pres

[QUOTE}

The way I see him... Gore is more often than not on the wrong side, and when he's not, it isn't because he beleives something to be right and follows a principle... He just feels he needs to be on to look good or gain something."]
How apt an expression. It scares me sometimes that there are people who share my feelings, and can
say them as well or better. It's what I was thinking in regards to
Al Gore- my hat is off to you. I think you also said "it sounds like--
"Bubba" - who else did you think he learned it from??!! Good Lord, he HAD 8 years to pick up on it. He only deserted Slick Willie
when it was clear he couldn't run with Bill beside him.
BTW, Jimmy, What in the HELL does that idiotic phrase - "Guess what??? I got a fever... and the only prescription... is more cowbell" - mean? I've tried to look at it from different angles, and cannot make heads or tails out of it. You're not from seventh district, are you? Those folks live in God's country out there, or so's they tell you.

 

[jimmy]

Penncamm,


First of all, if you can't understand my quote and you've been "looking at it from different angles" you've got WAY too much free time on your hands.

Secondly, it's a quote from a SNL skit that I happen to find hilarious. So sorry if you didn't "get it" but to be as abrasive about it as you were really speaks volumes...

 

[jimmy]

Kyle,

Come off it, please. This "wait until he nukes someone" crap is obviously not my position. But you've conveniently jumped over a few steps to make me look silly. Well done.

There's nothing wrong with deciding that Iraq can't have nuclear weapons (and Ken, for the record, my comments were more in regards to N. Korea, Iran, and all the other Axis of Evil countries that Bush has pointed to) and if it's the UNs will then it should be enforced.

However, if the statement from the UN is that Iraq cannot persue or create weapons of mass destruction, then lets get someone in there unfettered (I DON'T like this crap Saddam is currently pulling by the way--he gets NO say in what limitations would be placed on inspectors) and we find ANY item that looks out of place, then by all means go in there.

And, shoot, if you want to just attack him for the previous resolutions he's broken, then get the proper backing (which is slowly happening, don't you worry) and then go in there. That has been my main point all along. Get the support of the international community, show that we've got more to us as a partner in international affairs then an unilateral action would suggest and THEN, yes Bushie, you can let slip the dogs of war or what have you....

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jimmy
There's nothing wrong with deciding that Iraq can't have nuclear weapons (and Ken, for the record, my comments were more in regards to N. Korea, Iran, and all the other Axis of Evil countries that Bush has pointed to) and if it's the UNs will then it should be enforced.

However, if the statement from the UN is that Iraq cannot persue or create weapons of mass destruction, then lets get someone in there unfettered (I DON'T like this crap Saddam is currently pulling by the way--he gets NO say in what limitations would be placed on inspectors) and we find ANY item that looks out of place, then by all means go in there.

Jimmy,

Well, as we were discussing Iraq I guess I would have to be a mind reader to get to your intent. I take it from your post that you haven't even bothered to read any of the Resolutions that Iraq is violating. Maybe you should read them and then come back to this. I find it usually helps to know what it is we are talking about before engaging in the discussion.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by jimmy
Kyle,

Come off it, please. This "wait until he nukes someone" crap is obviously not my position. But you've conveniently jumped over a few steps to make me look silly. Well done.

There's nothing wrong with deciding that Iraq can't have nuclear weapons (and Ken, for the record, my comments were more in regards to N. Korea, Iran, and all the other Axis of Evil countries that Bush has pointed to) ....

Jimmy... What the hell are you quoting???

It's not me... I did a little reading back and remember discussing Al Bore and G.W. and reversing positions on credible threats with you...

I believe you are redirecting a quote, to me, that is Christys!

Throw away the decaf man... Pick up a Jolt!

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by jimmy
Penncamm,


First of all, if you can't understand my quote and you've been "looking at it from different angles" you've got WAY too much free time on your hands.

Secondly, it's a quote from a SNL skit that I happen to find hilarious. So sorry if you didn't "get it" but to be as abrasive about it as you were really speaks volumes...

But, Jimmy, you only halfway answered the the query; It's a kick that you find this little saying "hilarious", however are you indeed saying YOU don't know the relevance
of the phrase, but just like the ring to it? That's sad Jimmy, sad.
I fear you've been watching Al Gore WAY to long,
and may have copied his style, which is the lowest form of admiration.

penncam :

 

[tater]

Originally posted by penncam
It's a kick that you find this little saying "hilarious"

Not trying to get in the middle of a "match" or anything, but the quote is from a Saturday night live skit where Will Ferrell and company are singing "Don't fear the Reaper". I won't give the play by play, but it IS pretty damn funny.

 

[tater]

Originally posted by Kyle
To anyone who is really p****d-off by something I wrote in a post...

Please send me your mailing address and I’ll be happy to mail you a quarter so you can buy a sense of humor

Just the opposite.... seems like your views on things are EXACTLY like mine (only you are a lot smarter than me so I just let you do the talking and I sit back and laugh)

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by tater
... (only you are a lot smarter than me so I just let you do the talking and I sit back and laugh)

Got'chu fooled!!!