Anyone Else Think We Might Be Better Off If Gore Had Won?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as the House and Senate passing stringent immigration bills, it would be because their constitutients demanded it. As is stands GWB is all for amnesty and the party has to go with the boss.
Put a Dem in there and they will listen to their constituents ,regardless to their personal beliefs.
Better yet a term limit of one term, with a stipulation that they can run for a second term providing they are publicly hanged after serving their secoind term.
 
There are lots of things Gore would have done worse. He wouldn't have taken on Bin Laden and the Taliban, and we would have had more attacks in the U.S., an opinion that will be confirmed or rejected after the Dems take the Presidency in 2009.
Click to expand...

Wrong-o. We'll never know if we would have had more terrorist attacks. What happens after 2009 will be in no way indicative of what would have happened had Gore won in 2000, because the giant Charlie Foxtrot that is Iraq, as well as the minor Charlie Foxtrot that is Gitmo, are terrorist-creating factors that were not/probably would not have been around during Gore's hypothetical presidency.

EDIT: This falls under the same logical trap as assuming the Democrats would have taken the House and Senate this year had Gore been elected, as though the last six years of Bush didn't effect anything at all.
 
No I meant Gore.
I truly believe that a Gor victory in 2000 would have paved the way for a true conservative in 2004.
I also belive that no one party should be in control of all three branches{ as we have seen with both Clinton and Bush}
 
We have had more terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, it has just been downplayed to the max by both medias.

There were about a dozen Jewish women shot, some killed, in front of a Temple by an Arab from Pakistan. (Washinton State)

Also (SanFrancisco) an Arab, from Suadi I believe, ran down a bunch of people in his SUV killing lots.

There was also a guy who set some nuns on fire in a church by an arab.

There are a few more but I don't remeber the details.

Also, the arab who fired 50 rounds into the people who were waiting in line for an Isreali plain at LA X.

The whole Anthrax thing that everyone forgot too.
 
"Don't want a lying, lisping, pansy in the White House."

By this statement I assume you are referring to Jeff Gannon, the gay pornstar turne journalist that GWB was rubbing all over after an interview.
 
Care to...elaborate?
Click to expand...
If you have to ask, you just don't get it. You haven't been paying attention to him, either before the '00 election or since that time. Either that, or you just don't understand the point of view of someone like myself, who is a libertarian leaning conservative. In almost all points political, he is 180 degrees opposed to my viewpoints. While I'm not real happy with GW*, I consider him to be much less objectionable than Algore or John Fin' Kerry, the darlings of the moonbat left.

* About GW -- yes, I know that he's not really articulate, but I'd rather have real intelligence than pseudo-intelligent leftist groupspeak that masquerades as intelligence behind a slick talking articulate interface. I don't like GW because he hasn't embraced small government conservatism, he hasn't had the spine to veto spending heavy bills that have crossed his desk. Algore would have been even worse in that respect, he is an opponent of small government conservatism, and a vocal shill for the green wing of the 'Crats -- who I DESPISE.
 
But a GOP House would in all likleyhood not send big spending bills to a Dem pres.
They would have to tow the party line or find themselves replaced in the mid term elections.
The Presiden is only as powerful as the Congress allows him to be.
 
I think America would be better off for a few yrs,
Gore would have been talking to Iran, Syria, Korea. probably would get the same deal N. Chamberlain got from Hitler, but what to hell, we're going to be sold out by someone anyway.
It looks like war with the above can't be avoided even if the nut in the WH hadn't come along. And we may not be all tied up in Iraq now, Might give us time to regroup and let some of these bubble heads that never vote wake up and smell the coffee.

I think the house and senate has their plate full without taking on a large gun controll fight with the people and Gore is leaning more toward cleaning up the planet.
In the end they are all the same and want this-- The New world order..
Listen to the Zionist* banker, Paul Warburg:

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).

Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one

http://www.threeworldwars.com/nwo-timeline1.htm
 
Put a Dem in there and they will listen to their constituents ,regardless to their personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

You mean, like when the Democratic constituents didn't want the assault weapons ban passed in 1994? Is that the kind of "listening to their constituents" you are talking about?

LawDog
 
It is hard to really say what would have happened. I will say this, Gore would have been better than Kerry and Kerry would have been the same as W, maybe worse.

I don't want to list all the things I don't like about Bush and the mitakes made by his admin because I don't have that kind of time, but there are so many mistakes and flaws that it is unexceptible and we will see the conciquences for decades to come.

All the left vs right debats just divides the country even more than it is already. I am guilty of this and I should know better than to post it on a forum and save it for conversations with friends or maybe talk radio.

I think we can all agree that our country is in a sad state of affairs and unless something is done soon the government will have even more absolute power and make descions that only favor their pockets rather than the people. We need to take back our country from big bussiness and government and do what the people want, make goods, make food, make babies, make more jobs and stop supporting China and Asia. We need to make stuff and not send our jobs to China.

Was this Bush's fault? No! Could he have done somthing to prevent it? Yes! Does he give a rat's ass?No!
Do any poloticians? I don't know! What I do know is that if we take the easy way out of anything, Iraq, outsourcing, Political Correctness, it is going to bite us in the ass. I don't believe in the war or anything Bush has done, but if we leave now it will all be in vain.
 
If you have to ask, you just don't get it. You haven't been paying attention to him, either before the '00 election or since that time. Either that, or you just don't understand the point of view of someone like myself, who is a libertarian leaning conservative. In almost all points political, he is 180 degrees opposed to my viewpoints. While I'm not real happy with GW*, I consider him to be much less objectionable than Algore or John Fin' Kerry, the darlings of the moonbat left.
Click to expand...

Ah...that makes sense then. I'm pretty much the anti-libertarian, at least economically...so it makes sense that we might not see eye to eye.

Personally, I believe in global warming (odd that it sounds like I'm declaring faith in some crazy religion, when in fact it is backed up by science...how did that happen?). I also believe that the free market often fails to compensate for negative externalities, especially when those externalities are of a type that won't have any dramatic effects until those in charge of creating them are dead. Hence, I think environmental policy is...somewhat important. Our economy today is just not more important to me than the planet I'll hand to my children/grandchildren.

But yes, I do understand your point of view...regardless of how much I disagree. But when all you do is come in and say "Worst. Person. Ever." it's not like I'm automatically going to read all that into it, especially since I apparently subscribe to the very viewpoint you hate. Guess that makes me a horrible person, too. :D
 
If you are worried about our planet then do not buy any good that are made in China, the world's largerst polluter. I'm not saying you do, just a heads up.

I tell people that I respect the earth, being the desert rat that I am, and they call me leftist. If you aren't a Texen who cuts trees down by the thousands and selling of our national parks, then you are bad, like caring about the planet is a bad thing. I guess my kind is dying off:(
Not many straight and center people left anymore, they are all going left or right rather then straight and center!
 
I truly believe that a Gor victory in 2000 would have paved the way for a true conservative in 2004.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that voting for the enemy is the right thing to do? Uh Huh. No Way. You are trying to say that someone who values personal freedom, property rights and minimal government should vote for a socialist green nanny-stater? Nosiree. I'm NOT going to vote for the enemy.

I also belive that no one party should be in control of all three branches{ as we have seen with both Clinton and Bush}
Click to expand...

Which means that you want gridlock, a maintainence of the Status Quo. That's all fine and dandy if you consider the Status Quo to be satisfactory, but I don't. I feel that .gov is WAY too big and intrusive as it stands right now (or, before the '00 election, and way before that). Voting in gridlock only serves to perpetuate that.
 
I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004.
Did you vote for Bush in 2000 or 20004. if so then you voted for the "enemy"as by your definition.
 
So, you are saying that voting for the enemy is the right thing to do? Uh Huh. No Way. You are trying to say that someone who values personal freedom, property rights and minimal government should vote for a socialist green nanny-stater? Nosiree. I'm NOT going to vote for the enemy.
Click to expand...

Bush would sell the whole country to China if he could. Personal values, the man has no values, if he did he would make speeched to the soldiers and to the people. He is not a leader. Minimal government, he is the image of special interestes and lining his pockets. THat is not the best defense there:barf:
The man has no values, he would do anything to make a buck, like selling anything he can to anyone. He was born filthy rich, but that is what power does, leads to greed. Sell our ports, sell our airlines, who cares what the people want or think.
 
I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004.
Did you vote for Bush in 2000 or 20004. if so then you voted for the "enemy"as by your definition.
Click to expand...
I considered voting for Harry Browne in '00, but decided against it -- he was (and is) too much of a "purist" in that he (and many if not most "Big L" Libertarians) tend too much toward being ideologically pure to the point of being not electable instead of pragmatic realists who build coalitions and as such are electable. The real problem at that time was that I considered Algore to be so objectionable, and the race so close between, that I figured that an "L" vote amounted to half of a "D" vote (remembering what happened in '92 and '96 where the conservative camp was split) and there was NO WAY I was going to lend any sort of support at all for the "D"s.

By the time '04 rolled around and Badnarik was on the ballot, I looked at the platform of the "L"'s across the board, considered it to be even less platable (from an anti-terrorist standpoint as well as a national defense standpoint, which I consider CRITICAL) than the "D"s. And I still do.

In both cases, I did vote for GW, but not out of any love for the guy. I voted for him because he was the least repugnant choice, the choice that did not involve capitulation to our overseas enemies.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top