Gore/Kerry

Woooah, retro thread. 0_O

I've been having fun reading this, I don't think i'd even joined when this was last active.

My shower's are longer than 20 minutes

I would quote stuff...but it's all old stuff. Nick talking about entertainers is nothing new (I respect the sources they use! why do you think i read Al Franken? his wit is so-so, his sources are pretty solid). I will make a crack about Reagan before i go on: he also removed all common sense from his politics.

Anyway. Kerry was probably not the best choice the Dems could have made, but he was pretty decent. Gore would have continued Clintonomics, which worked like a charm (I don't understand how increasing taxes on the rich and decreasing them on the poor could be bad, um, ever). so i would have loved to have Gore as president, but I supported Kerry as a lesser-of-two-evils kind of thing. But I have nothing bad to say about the man. At least, a lot less bad than I have to say about Bush. Yeah impeachment.

dirtyhippie:

I would quote stuff...but it's all old stuff. Nick talking about entertainers is nothing new (I respect the sources they use! why do you think i read Al Franken? his wit is so-so, his sources are pretty solid). I will make a crack about Reagan before i go on: he also removed all common sense from his politics.

Anyway. Kerry was probably not the best choice the Dems could have made, but he was pretty decent. Gore would have continued Clintonomics, which worked like a charm (I don't understand how increasing taxes on the rich and decreasing them on the poor could be bad, um, ever). so i would have loved to have Gore as president, but I supported Kerry as a lesser-of-two-evils kind of thing. But I have nothing bad to say about the man. At least, a lot less bad than I have to say about Bush. Yeah impeachment.

"I think you just want to see Bush fail more than the Democrates succeed" - Stephen Colbert

if I were old enough to vote, I'd vote for the right reasons
I wouldn't vote against the wrong reasons

see what I'm saying?
if you only look at the bad then yes, Kerry and Gore are better than Bush because they do so little anything to have more bad or good

now, Clinton did screw up the economics for Bush, you have to agree with that
he did stuff that wouldn't go into effect until the next term

now, if Gore were president he would have focused on the environment....and then gone into depression after 9/11
I don't hate the guy, but he isn't too stable and I don't want him handling something that requires stability such as presedency

Kerry is a people-pleaser
whatever the Wallstreet Journal says to do he will do
he would have cancelled the war (leaving us vulnerable), passed the bill allowing gay marriage (which was poorly written anyway, but I won't get into why it wasn't fair), and whenever the magazines call for a filibuster he'll be there the next day to make it official

he also isn't stable
yes, I hate what Bush is doing to the economy, but looking at the overall picture it could be a lot worse, and at least Bush is stable

zdf_jammin:

whoa, twenty minute shower, WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THERE?!?!? lol.

I often spend way over an hour in the shower.
Ya. Anyway. To be honest I'm not really pro-anything in American politics. I think people should give Bush a break sometimes, but apart from that I don't feel like I can give a valuble comment, 'cause I just don't know enough about it. So I'd just end up looking like a fool.

Although saying that, I think I still look lke a fool 'cause I've just chatted on for about 4 lines about how I don't know what to say .

Nine_Inch_Nails:

zdf_jammin:

whoa, twenty minute shower, WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN THERE?!?!? lol.

I often spend way over an hour in the shower.
Ya. Anyway. To be honest I'm not really pro-anything in American politics. I think people should give Bush a break sometimes, but apart from that I don't feel like I can give a valuble comment, 'cause I just don't know enough about it. So I'd just end up looking like a fool.

Although saying that, I think I still look lke a fool 'cause I've just chatted on for about 4 lines about how I don't know what to say .

Oh my gosh I feel guilty when I am in there for 5/10 mins o.O

Of course I am in/was in a really bad drought, and you probably are not.

And yes, I agree with the rest of your statement. I don't really know much about American politics, apart from the fact that they have a president and I don't.

spill_no_sick:

dirtyhippie:

I would quote stuff...but it's all old stuff. Nick talking about entertainers is nothing new (I respect the sources they use! why do you think i read Al Franken? his wit is so-so, his sources are pretty solid). I will make a crack about Reagan before i go on: he also removed all common sense from his politics.

Anyway. Kerry was probably not the best choice the Dems could have made, but he was pretty decent. Gore would have continued Clintonomics, which worked like a charm (I don't understand how increasing taxes on the rich and decreasing them on the poor could be bad, um, ever). so i would have loved to have Gore as president, but I supported Kerry as a lesser-of-two-evils kind of thing. But I have nothing bad to say about the man. At least, a lot less bad than I have to say about Bush. Yeah impeachment.

"I think you just want to see Bush fail more than the Democrates succeed" - Stephen Colbert

if I were old enough to vote, I'd vote for the right reasons
I wouldn't vote against the wrong reasons

see what I'm saying?
if you only look at the bad then yes, Kerry and Gore are better than Bush because they do so little anything to have more bad or good

now, Clinton did screw up the economics for Bush, you have to agree with that
he did stuff that wouldn't go into effect until the next term

now, if Gore were president he would have focused on the environment....and then gone into depression after 9/11
I don't hate the guy, but he isn't too stable and I don't want him handling something that requires stability such as presedency

Kerry is a people-pleaser
whatever the Wallstreet Journal says to do he will do
he would have cancelled the war (leaving us vulnerable), passed the bill allowing gay marriage (which was poorly written anyway, but I won't get into why it wasn't fair), and whenever the magazines call for a filibuster he'll be there the next day to make it official

he also isn't stable
yes, I hate what Bush is doing to the economy, but looking at the overall picture it could be a lot worse, and at least Bush is stable

First, as to the Colbert quote: I did at the time of the Election. My feeling at the time was roughly "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I didn't really care what Kerry would do, but I was optimistic that he couldn't do much worse. (This is, of course, where we part opinions, as usual.) As of right now...when I vote in 2008 (18 just in time!), I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't like doing that, but I felt that this time it was necessary. Unless i actually like the Dem's candidate (which doesn't look likely, as of now...), I will probably vote third party...say, Green.

At any rate! I prefer not to speculate as to what Gore and Kerry would have done, because you're going to say "they'd fuck it up" and I'll say "they'd do us proud" and we'd both be right, because somewhere there's an alternate timeline to please us both.

Looking at both their records, I will say that it's fairly difficult to figure out what tey've done that's good or bad...Gore being vice prez means you have to view the administration as a whole, because it's difficult to isolate a vice president's decisions. Kerry's Senate voting record seemed pretty solidly on the "good" side of my priorities, but that's a matter of opinion and changes for everyone.

Lastly, "it could be worse": It can usually be worse. This statement means nothing to me. The fact that "it could be worse" doesn't mean that things aren't shitty to begin with.

Whenever I post in this forum.. I never give specific details.. so bare with me.

I liked Gore.. would I have been old enough to vote.. (When I was... 12..) I would have voted for Gore..

With the case of Bush/Kerry.... Kerry wasn't anything special.. but if I would have been old enough to vote.. I would have voted Kerry.. simply because he was the lesser of two evils.

I don't know much about Gore, but I just didn't like Kerry. I know it sounds dumb, but he just rubbed me the wrong way. There's something fishy about him. I'm not thrilled with either one of them, but I prefer Bush. He's not as... I don't know the word.

dirtyhippie:

spill_no_sick:

dirtyhippie:

I would quote stuff...but it's all old stuff. Nick talking about entertainers is nothing new (I respect the sources they use! why do you think i read Al Franken? his wit is so-so, his sources are pretty solid). I will make a crack about Reagan before i go on: he also removed all common sense from his politics.

Anyway. Kerry was probably not the best choice the Dems could have made, but he was pretty decent. Gore would have continued Clintonomics, which worked like a charm (I don't understand how increasing taxes on the rich and decreasing them on the poor could be bad, um, ever). so i would have loved to have Gore as president, but I supported Kerry as a lesser-of-two-evils kind of thing. But I have nothing bad to say about the man. At least, a lot less bad than I have to say about Bush. Yeah impeachment.

"I think you just want to see Bush fail more than the Democrates succeed" - Stephen Colbert

if I were old enough to vote, I'd vote for the right reasons
I wouldn't vote against the wrong reasons

see what I'm saying?
if you only look at the bad then yes, Kerry and Gore are better than Bush because they do so little anything to have more bad or good

now, Clinton did screw up the economics for Bush, you have to agree with that
he did stuff that wouldn't go into effect until the next term

now, if Gore were president he would have focused on the environment....and then gone into depression after 9/11
I don't hate the guy, but he isn't too stable and I don't want him handling something that requires stability such as presedency

Kerry is a people-pleaser
whatever the Wallstreet Journal says to do he will do
he would have cancelled the war (leaving us vulnerable), passed the bill allowing gay marriage (which was poorly written anyway, but I won't get into why it wasn't fair), and whenever the magazines call for a filibuster he'll be there the next day to make it official

he also isn't stable
yes, I hate what Bush is doing to the economy, but looking at the overall picture it could be a lot worse, and at least Bush is stable

First, as to the Colbert quote: I did at the time of the Election. My feeling at the time was roughly "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I didn't really care what Kerry would do, but I was optimistic that he couldn't do much worse. (This is, of course, where we part opinions, as usual.) As of right now...when I vote in 2008 (18 just in time!), I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't like doing that, but I felt that this time it was necessary. Unless i actually like the Dem's candidate (which doesn't look likely, as of now...), I will probably vote third party...say, Green.

At any rate! I prefer not to speculate as to what Gore and Kerry would have done, because you're going to say "they'd fuck it up" and I'll say "they'd do us proud" and we'd both be right, because somewhere there's an alternate timeline to please us both.

Looking at both their records, I will say that it's fairly difficult to figure out what tey've done that's good or bad...Gore being vice prez means you have to view the administration as a whole, because it's difficult to isolate a vice president's decisions. Kerry's Senate voting record seemed pretty solidly on the "good" side of my priorities, but that's a matter of opinion and changes for everyone.

Lastly, "it could be worse": It can usually be worse. This statement means nothing to me. The fact that "it could be worse" doesn't mean that things aren't shitty to begin with.

on a scale of 1-100, we're doing about 80 and Canadia is about 65 and Iraq was just doing about 15
better on scale of "worse''

Your 0-100 scale would be nice if it were an all-encompassing scale...it just doesn't work for everybody. How well the country is doing is mostly a matter of opinion, a matter of where your priorities lie. You may think the country is doing around an 80 out of 100, and you may have a good deal of the population agreeing with you, but the rest of the country disagrees. I don't think we're doing that well, to be honest. At the moment, taking my personal priorities and tandards for my country into account (which I can only assume you did), I beleive this country is doing closer to a60, being liberal with my grading.

If this is a comparative scale, I can agree with you; if we're comparing America to the Third World or Africa or whatever, then we're doing marvelously. You're probably right in your grading, more or less, if you're just comparing notes. But that doesn't mean anything. Just because we're better than a lot of countries doesn't mean we have our house in order.

As for Iraq having a rating of 15 (I believe you mean pre-invasion), all the reports I'm hearing indicate it's down to maybe a 10. Not looking good, comparatively, and for every civilian our military murders premeditatedly (yes, that's a word...maybe), our own standing goes down.

For those who don't know what I mean by murdering Iraqi civilians, here's a link. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml There, now we're back on topic.

I was just being a smartass......
but we have certai things (call them, "extra credit" that other countries don't
despite the hidden non-freedoms (we have the First Amendment, we just can't use it) we have an extrodinary amount of freedom (people obviously guilty still get a fair trial)

no matter what people say about our lower class and upper class growing farther apart, at least our country isn't 3% above poverty, and uncoincidently 3% in government

we have a government that is almost impossible to take advantage of (unless you're a citizen, but we would have to have 100% tyrants and rogues in government to abuse its power to the fullest

yes, we have a lot of things that should be dealt with, but we're doing far better than most people give credit

spill_no_sick:

I was just being a smartass......
but we have certai things (call them, "extra credit" that other countries don't
despite the hidden non-freedoms (we have the First Amendment, we just can't use it) we have an extrodinary amount of freedom (people obviously guilty still get a fair trial)

no matter what people say about our lower class and upper class growing farther apart, at least our country isn't 3% above poverty, and uncoincidently 3% in government

we have a government that is almost impossible to take advantage of (unless you're a citizen, but we would have to have 100% tyrants and rogues in government to abuse its power to the fullest

yes, we have a lot of things that should be dealt with, but we're doing far better than most people give credit

Oh, you smartass you.

I agree completely that we have a great country. I'm a fairly patriotic person; I love my country and what I think it stands for. Our government is, by and large, a fair system by which we can affect change and better lives in our country and abroad.

My concern is that our country's current state is not, shall we say, stellar, from a standpoint of what it's possible we can do and what we've done in that past. Currently, the economy is, for the USA, the worst it has ever been. I base this on the record-breaking national debt (and ignore the hypothesis that deficit means growth is just around the corner. Not if money's handled ineptly!). Our country now finds itself in a war without end, where civilians die in the hundreds of thousands and troops are behind it, themselves dropping in the thousands. Whenever anyone sees fit to criticize the actions of the government, they are met with outrage that they are unpatriotic and do not concern themselves with the security of the American people.

This is not our finest hour. By any strecth of the imagination. We've got it good, man, but by our standards? Man, if you're not outraged...

dirtyhippie:

spill_no_sick:

I was just being a smartass......
but we have certai things (call them, "extra credit" that other countries don't
despite the hidden non-freedoms (we have the First Amendment, we just can't use it) we have an extrodinary amount of freedom (people obviously guilty still get a fair trial)

no matter what people say about our lower class and upper class growing farther apart, at least our country isn't 3% above poverty, and uncoincidently 3% in government

we have a government that is almost impossible to take advantage of (unless you're a citizen, but we would have to have 100% tyrants and rogues in government to abuse its power to the fullest

yes, we have a lot of things that should be dealt with, but we're doing far better than most people give credit

Oh, you smartass you.

I agree completely that we have a great country. I'm a fairly patriotic person; I love my country and what I think it stands for. Our government is, by and large, a fair system by which we can affect change and better lives in our country and abroad.

My concern is that our country's current state is not, shall we say, stellar, from a standpoint of what it's possible we can do and what we've done in that past. Currently, the economy is, for the USA, the worst it has ever been. I base this on the record-breaking national debt (and ignore the hypothesis that deficit means growth is just around the corner. Not if money's handled ineptly!). Our country now finds itself in a war without end, where civilians die in the hundreds of thousands and troops are behind it, themselves dropping in the thousands. Whenever anyone sees fit to criticize the actions of the government, they are met with outrage that they are unpatriotic and do not concern themselves with the security of the American people.

This is not our finest hour. By any strecth of the imagination. We've got it good, man, but by our standards? Man, if you're not outraged...

I'm not outraged...I'm pissed off that Bush can't handle money....but I'm not outraged

and when you say, "biggest national debt", you're forgetting that our dollar isn't worth what it used to be
now when you go to the Dollar Tree you can get two whole candy bars.....back after our first war with England the Dollar Tree can give you a musket for a dollar

okay, I'm not sure on that, but you get my point

and about the war....flying four planes into three buildings....you didn't just hear the leaders going, "c'mon, beat the shit out of us, I dare you! Blow my damn country up, c'mon!"

no you didn't because they speak a different language, but that's what they were yelling

we declared war, but, in the infinite words of every kindergardener, "they started it!"

...Nick, did you just go there? I think you just went there!!

Iraq, mein freund, is not Afghanistan. Nor is it al-Qaeda. Iraq hgad nothing to do with 9/11, nor had it anythign to do with al-Qaeda in general. Saddam and Osama tried to work together a time or two, but they realized, "hey! We're working at different purposes, and we hate each other anyway." The administration CLAIMED to be "taking the fight to the enemy" that had nukes and such, even though Iraq's WMD capacity had been so crippled that they didn't have the ability to launch a rocket that would reach the US. Later, the administration admitted that there was, in fact, no link to Hussein's regime and 9/11 or al-Qaeda. However, the myth remains well-proliferated in the minds of the American people, a reason why some voted for Bush in 04.

See these URLs: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

There you go. Now about Kerry and Gore...

yeah i'm definitely pro-Kerry. i come from a family of hard core democrats. and he's better than bush in every way.

dirtyhippie:

I would quote stuff...but it's all old stuff. Nick talking about entertainers is nothing new (I respect the sources they use! why do you think i read Al Franken? his wit is so-so, his sources are pretty solid). I will make a crack about Reagan before i go on: he also removed all common sense from his politics.

Anyway. Kerry was probably not the best choice the Dems could have made, but he was pretty decent. Gore would have continued Clintonomics, which worked like a charm (I don't understand how increasing taxes on the rich and decreasing them on the poor could be bad, um, ever). so i would have loved to have Gore as president, but I supported Kerry as a lesser-of-two-evils kind of thing. But I have nothing bad to say about the man. At least, a lot less bad than I have to say about Bush. Yeah impeachment.

i agree. yeah, my dad was for howard dean.

dirtyhippie:

...Nick, did you just go there? I think you just went there!!

Iraq, mein freund, is not Afghanistan. Nor is it al-Qaeda. Iraq hgad nothing to do with 9/11, nor had it anythign to do with al-Qaeda in general. Saddam and Osama tried to work together a time or two, but they realized, "hey! We're working at different purposes, and we hate each other anyway." The administration CLAIMED to be "taking the fight to the enemy" that had nukes and such, even though Iraq's WMD capacity had been so crippled that they didn't have the ability to launch a rocket that would reach the US. Later, the administration admitted that there was, in fact, no link to Hussein's regime and 9/11 or al-Qaeda. However, the myth remains well-proliferated in the minds of the American people, a reason why some voted for Bush in 04.

See these URLs: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

There you go. Now about Kerry and Gore...

I feel that I have to add that we started off going after a single terrorist organization.....we got carried away and said, "let's go after more than one terrorist organization while we're at it."

and a few of them fled Afgahnastan.....and went to Iraq....indeed something that the media "forgot" to tell you.....they also forgot to tell you that we have found WMDs.....and as soon as I find the damn links I'll post them

what about Gore/Kerry?
I'm just saying, Bush made mistakes *cough*economy*cough* but they aren't so bad we should resort to electing people who see the only problems in the world as union benefits and hybrid cars

Oh no, Nick, I know that some of al-Qaeda fled to Iraq. But that doesn't mean we go to war with Iraq. That's just odd. Go to war with the country's government because they have unsavory people in their country?

And yes, we've found WMDs in Iraq. I was thinking about making a thread about this...The fact is, the weapons that were found were weapons that the Reagan administration sold to Saddam in the 80s. The key word in the articles is "degraded." These weapons are not evidence that Saddam had any capacity to make weapons any more.

But back to Gore/Kerry! I don't think that's right at all; Gore and Kerry were not, in fact, idiots, no matter what anyone says. They were not focused so exclusively on domestic issues like you mentioned that they ignored all else. How is that even possible, with the paranoia regarding terrorism that's proliferated throughout the US over the past five years?

dirtyhippie:

Oh no, Nick, I know that some of al-Qaeda fled to Iraq. But that doesn't mean we go to war with Iraq. That's just odd. Go to war with the country's government because they have unsavory people in their country?

And yes, we've found WMDs in Iraq. I was thinking about making a thread about this...The fact is, the weapons that were found were weapons that the Reagan administration sold to Saddam in the 80s. The key word in the articles is "degraded." These weapons are not evidence that Saddam had any capacity to make weapons any more.

But back to Gore/Kerry! I don't think that's right at all; Gore and Kerry were not, in fact, idiots, no matter what anyone says. They were not focused so exclusively on domestic issues like you mentioned that they ignored all else. How is that even possible, with the paranoia regarding terrorism that's proliferated throughout the US over the past five years?

that was a really mixed up arguement, I'm not saying you meant to do that, but that was really choopy

we changed the Iraqi government while we were there - and I admit all the time that we do too much because Bush really does feel the need to fufill this Superman role America puts on him - but terrorist groups were there so we continued fighting terrorist groups as we did in their original countries

it wasn't a war against a country, just the groups in it - which I also admit leaves the country as a whole very much screwed, but we can't say, "al-Qaeda, next time you flee can you just go out in the desert or a mountain range or something?", they don't flee from the innocent and that sucks, but if we make it that easy for them to go into hiding......they aren't stupid enough to not figure out where "base" is (that was a tag reference...it's a game - just so you know

and they aren't idiots and I admire each of them very much...as I also say often - the world would be a better place if Gore was head of a strong association not affiliated with American government, and Kerry was elected for office in Canadia - but American presidency is not for either of them

I don't think Gore would appreciate the power correctly (and it's so much easier to go tryant when you haven't already had a taste.....it's like not trusting some one who drinks with alcohol because they just have that kind of reputation, and then trusting some one who's never had it because their facade of innocence.....it just doesn't work like that) - and Kerry isn't right for the American government but boy have I ever seen anyone who could make Canadia and even better place? no I have not