Al Gore running for the Presidency

[lendaddy]

The addition of Gore will push the Dem primaries even further left. As a Republican I say, thank you Al Gore we need all the help we can get right now.

[andrew15]

Originally posted by sammyg2
IMO Al Gore is a con-man liar who has scammed the modern world into believing the sky is falling.
As long as people are uninformed and gullible enough to buy into his extremist fictional hype, he is dangerous and we should be afraid.

IMO George W Bush is a con-man liar who has scammed the modern world into believing the sky is falling. (Iraq + WMDs)
As long as people are uninformed and gullible enough to buy into his extremist fictional hype, he is dangerous and we should be afraid.

There - I fixed it for you!

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by andrew15
IMO George W Bush is a con-man liar who has scammed the modern world into believing the sky is falling. (Iraq + WMDs)
As long as people are uninformed and gullible enough to buy into his extremist fictional hype, he is dangerous and we should be afraid.

There - I fixed it for you!

There, I fixed it back.

Be original, and come up with something yourself, not messing with other peoples posts!

You are Canadian. Should we dig into Canadian politics here as you have done with our American politics? Yours are as messy if not worse than ours my friend, eh?

[Nostril Cheese]

Originally posted by Joeaksa

Still holding out for Fred...

I accept your nomination.. Hookers and weed for all!

[sammyg2]

Andrew, I see you are from Canada. That explains alot.
It explains your selective memory of the facts. Hey, why should you remember the details, you live in a different country. It's much more convinient to say OUR president made up the WMD. It's easy for you to post something that is untrue. Everyone will just think you are mistaken.
How about you try the truth? It really isn't that hard.
How about you admit that the WMD were there but were moved into Syria before we invaded? Why don't you tell everyone how the democrats in the congress of your neighboring country to the south overwelmingly approved invading Iraq based on the exact same information the US president had? How about you start naminbg all those who fully supported invading Iraq, even thouse form other countries like Great Britain and Canada. Nope, being that honest would not benefit your twisted left-wing socialistic cause. You wanna play the WMD game? Then include everyone who bought into it. Not just president Bush.

It explains your obvious left wing slant, your country is more socialistic than ours, at least for the moment.
It does not however explain one thing, did you intentionally try to mislead the reraders of your post, or did you innocently write about things in a way that was not accurate because you didn't know any better?

[Moneyguy1]

Take it easy on the Canadians. They are the mouse trying to share the bed with the elephant. It makes for a very nervous mouse.

[andrew15]

Joe -
It's not that I was trying to not be original, I was just trying, in a light hearted way (hence the winky thing), to demonstrate that both sides are often have the same sort of mis-perceptions of each other.

What does my being Canadian have anything to do with it? I don't know why you guys get all uppity about your nothern friends, but I'll give you the standard defense some may be probably looking for:
We have hockey , health care for all and don't invade others - we may have no culture of our own, but it won't stop us from commenting on global events that may affect us in the future. (that's a wink for sarcasm)

Back to the subject at hand - Yup, we have misguided politicians as well, but have found they don't necessarily fall into one camp or the other. It's likie apples and oranges - they may be different, but can both be rotten.

As cliched as it sounds, I'm back to the hockey game!

AM

[sammyg2]

I have no problem with people fronm Canada, only left wing people from Canada who quote text from one of my posts about a United States subject and changes the wording and suggests he has it right and i have it wrong. Yes, I have a problem with that.

[Tervuren]

Gore, plays issues with the public, and lives a life in complete reverse, making lots of money off of self created hype. There are enough republicans doing this on a smaller scale already - and I HATE IT! Give him a government position to further his private aims, and it will be much much worse. Gore has shown he will use whatever leverage he can to push his own private financial advancement. Thats a OUT for me. Same for having weapon's manufacturers in charge of foreign policy...

[andrew15]

Actually to set the record straight just a bit, our government is currently a conservative one. One that I helped elect It may not be your brand of consrervative, but it's all we have.

And about Iraq - our Liberal government at the time didn't support it, but did support Afganistan (damned liberals ). We still have a lot of troops there and in essence it frees up some of your resources to persue Iraq.

Regards,
Andrew M

[Moneyguy1]

Andrew:

Quite familiar with your country, having lived a few decades in the Rochester New York area. What you have to take into consideration is the mindset of many on this board that the U.S. can do no wrong and the leadership is somehow guided by the Almighty. This filters the human out of the equation and replaces it with a superiority complex. I doubt that most "average" Americans feel the same way.

[hytem]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Well kids, Fox news just announced that Al Gore has told his election staff to "stand by" as there will be an important announcement shortly.

Just what we need is another "michael moore wanna be" liberal running this election. This is going to be fun to watch...

Gore has never been a liberal. He has always represented the centrist wing of the Democratic Party.

Of course, to some of you guys, anybody who is to the left of Ghenghis Khan is a liberal.

Frankly, I don't have the foggiest idea what a liberal or conservative is these days in American politics. There are just anti-Democrats and anti-Republicans.

[Moneyguy1]

hytem

They are simply labels used by folks without a scintilla of actual knowledge, designed to villify people with whom they do not agree. The idea of "liberal", "conservative" and others have no meaning anymore, having lost their meaning by being used too often and in too many cases. If people actually removed the emotional aspect and non-passionately analyzed an individual on specific issues, they might be surprised to find that some of those they defend are not worth defending and some they dispise are actually worthy of consideration. But, so many people are so ingrained with their own internal image of how things should be, they are incapable of objective thinking. Recent posts by our resident and self appointed "guru" uses the word "liberal" so often the word becomes gibberish. Total lack of objectivity in favor of labeling.

[Tobra]

Gore vs Hillary, tough to pick the lesser of two evils on that one. I could see him winning, can't picture her winning, negatives are too big for her.

[911pcars]

"Ironic that Bush sends Condi to the Mid-East and no one says how stupid or ineffective that is."

What does this signify when a Bush appointee hasn't screwed it up (yet) and this is characterized as "ironic"?

[RoninLB]

Gore's power will make Hillary look worse.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
hytem

They are simply labels used by folks without a scintilla of actual knowledge, designed to villify people with whom they do not agree. The idea of "liberal", "conservative" and others have no meaning anymore, having lost their meaning by being used too often and in too many cases. If people actually removed the emotional aspect and non-passionately analyzed an individual on specific issues, they might be surprised to find that some of those they defend are not worth defending and some they dispise are actually worthy of consideration. But, so many people are so ingrained with their own internal image of how things should be, they are incapable of objective thinking. Recent posts by our resident and self appointed "guru" uses the word "liberal" so often the word becomes gibberish. Total lack of objectivity in favor of labeling.

Well said.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by 911pcars
"Ironic that Bush sends Condi to the Mid-East and no one says how stupid or ineffective that is."

What does this signify when a Bush appointee hasn't screwed it up (yet) and this is characterized as "ironic"?

What?

Everything she's touched she has screwed up and she lies like a rug, WTF!

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/radio/show12/show12.html


http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=74

The Bush administration claims the August 6th, 2001 intelligence briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" was merely "historical" in nature and, in the words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "frustratingly vague." She told the 9/11 commission: "...I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president."

[RoninLB]

better wording would differentiate like

do you want greater gov't control over your life or do you want greater economic growth?

[Joeaksa]

Kach,

Posting things from un-biased sources would help your case a lot. The sources above on the Bin Laden issue are far from being neutral.