Let Gore win!

C

Chessman

New member
I think everyone should stop complaining about what the Demokrats are doing and let Al Gore strong-arm his way into the presidency. We would be better off with Al as prez. Here's why:

1. If GWB was prez, he would get blamed for the inevitable economic slowdown that our country will experience in the next 4 years. He didn't get the popular vote this time around, he certainly won't get it in 2004.

2. Her Highness Hitlery will run for president in 2004. This was her plan all along, first gettting into the Senate, then ascending to the presidency (which she's run for the last 8 years anyway).

3. Hitlery would not run in 2004 against an incumbent Demokrat.

Bottom line: If we don't want Hitlery in 2004, we better put Al in power now.

OK, ducking for cover!


------------------
Regards,
Jim, The Chessman
1. e4 c5! 0-1
 
Slowdown is a certainty. Al would really need to dig himself out of a P.R. black hole. If Bush gets in, he will also have to dig himself out of a black hole. Can you imagine how hard it will be to get a Supreme Court Justice ratified after this sort of election? After this, should Gore say that, "light comes from the sun", the Republicans will disagree. We can rely on absolutely nothing getting done for four years. Of course, we do have to worry about Presidential Directives. This election will polarize people and might finally give the Republicans some elephant size balls.
 
1. If GWB was prez, he would get blamed for the inevitable economic slowdown that our
country will experience in the next 4 years. He didn't get the popular vote this time around,
he certainly won't get it in 2004.

Then they would blame the republican controlled congress and if the reps weren't in control of congress they would blame them as being the minority blocking the way of good economic policy. It's a loose, loose no matter which way you look at it in this regard. We need Bush in office to get rid of clinton's executive orders, judge appointments, rid the clintonites out of power, etc. There's too much at stake here than worrying about what the leftists are going to lie about us.

------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
 
Gentlemen,I think you are all off base, and here's why......the part about a slowdown, your are correct, it most certainly will happen.
Strike 1, against Dubyah, or Gore.
More, and most importantly, have you asked yourselves the ultimate reason Gore is fighting this thing to the bitter end?.
It is the Supreme Court nominations..............they are by far more IMPORTANT, than Gore being Pres.
The party that gets to select the 2-4 that will be stepping down, will have the ability to change the course of history in this country for at least the next 30 years.
So goes the Court, so goes our RIGHTS.......ALL of them.
Think about it.........After all, it's ALL about POWER, and this is the Royal Flush of the Coup de'tat.......
 
Mr Hill, que sara, sara, and no one can argue with that. But I, too, feel that a Bush win at this point will be bad for conservatives, since the Dumpo'craps have already succeeded in tainting the election. As I've posted before on the board I frequent (it's down right now), if GW wins, strap yourself in tight, because the Dumpo'craps will be treating us to a wondrous lesson in scorched-earth politics. You think the Clarence Thomas thing was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet. And the Republicans are absolutely clueless as to how to respond to liberalsocialistnazi/leftstream media propaganda--as we're seeing right now in Florida, where the liberals are once again setting the pace.

If GW is elected, expect to see a political guerrilla war waged by the liberalsocialistnazis unlike anything ever witnessed in this country, from the federal level right on down to the state and local levels. Some of their attacks will be overt, most will be covert, via the media. A Bush win will provide them with precisely the impetus and solidarity they've needed since Reagan: nothing like a common enemy to rally the troops. Wish I could feel the same way about the Republicans. Even if they win, they're ineptitude at playing dirty politics will be their downfall. Too bad. If they'd just learn to stand up for a change for the Constitution and refuse to budge, they might actually win the war. But alas, they've already shown us what they're made of: string and sealing wax. Puff, they're gone.

If GW wins, get used to disappointment. If he doesn't, then we may finally see the unifying force that has eluded our side since Reagan called it quits.
 
If Bush does manage to win this thing I fear he will suffer the same fate as his father and be a one-termer. He will be blamed for the economic slowdown. Algore would be blamed also, and will also be a one-termer.

tlhelmer said it, Supreme Court Justices, that's the big picture. If they go Algore's way we will lose much more for years and years to come and may never recover. We cannot afford that.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
Whoever the next President is he will only serve for one term. He will not be able to generate anything approaching a mandate. There has been no groundswell of support for either.

If Bush wins this election, who, pray tell, will the Democrats run against him in '04? It ain't going to be Gore again.
Gore's nuts, and Bush was unable to demonstrate to the public why a delusional, schizo-affective borderline psychotic is unfit to be President. Hillary will eat him alive in 2004. And that, ladies and gentlemen, WILL be the beginning of the end.

------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
 
If Gore wins we loose the Senate. Lieberman will have the tie breaker in the 50/50 senate.

Gore will get to appoint the Supreme Court vacancies :(

Four more years of the current political climate and I will be ready for the funny Farm.

NO WAY!

Geoff Ross

------------------
I am no expert but I DO have an opinion.
 
As I've said before -

Don't expect Bush to appoint conservative, strict-constructionist SCJs. He won't do it. Any appointments that Bush gets thru congress will be nice, moderate, Souter clones.

If a Bush-picked Supreme Court hears Emerson, they'll probably decline to hear it without comment.

Also, expect Bush to sign most gun control bills that cross his desk. Bush is not pro-gun in any real sense.

Bush is a four-year reprive, nothing more. We need to spend these next few years educating people about the dangers of statism, working to get more Libertarian representives at the state and local levels, and pressing the GOP to give us a real canidate in 2004.

Later,
Chris

------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
 
(Rant mode on)

To hell with that. For over a decade now we have had one sorry monkey-butt of an excuse for a president. It's not our fault that we don't have real men of the caliber of Truman and Kennedy, but it sure isn't going to look good on us if we allow the legacy of the unzippered egomaniac known as "slick" to fester like the unflushed craphole that it is. I prefer someone who'll know that "The Buck Stops Here" instead of some freak gerbil-like imbecile lackey veep who's been sniffing the rear end of a president for eight years lived by the words "The Cigar Goes Where?"

I want a WAR LEADER. The economy will goto crap or boom itself to Mars as it pleases. I do NOT want Gore, the architect of Somalia, Bosnia, etc etc with that lard bucket Secretary of Mis-State as president in the face of threats from militant Islamic groups, communist North Koreans and Chinese, and drug empires in South America. I want a WAR LEADER. Someone we know is not another certified Neville Chamberlin and will NOT sell us out to some nutjob fascists for a 5% cut and campaign donations. Bush might not be perfect but he is a damn sight better than Gore!

Hillary? She can get her licks in 2004. Right now I want to see Gore take the beating he deserves.

(Rant mode off)

Sorry everyone ...
from the ol' dragontooth73

[This message has been edited by Viceroy808 (edited November 16, 2000).]
 
While it pains me to say so, I think that a Bush administration will be doomed from the start. With Al jr.'s ranting and whining, the process of forming a cabinet and other appointments is losing precious time. He'll be behind from the git-go.

He'll also be blamed for stealing the White House from the dems. Bad jou-jou for any bills he'll propose. If GWB lets Greenspan go, the economy will hit gliches and rollercoaster for months. Result will be a do-nothing congress, which will sit poorly in '04. Even worse result will be that Al jr. will be a white knight in the next election. He'll get in without even working up a sweat.

Sadly, I must agree with the topic...let Al jr. win now. With the present division of House and Senate, and his "charisma", the voters of America will be frothing at the mouth for a savior in four years...enter GWB, stage right.

------------------
We deal in lead, friend.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chessman:
1. If GWB was prez, he would get blamed for the inevitable economic slowdown that our country will experience in the next 4 years. He didn't get the popular vote this time around, he certainly won't get it in 2004.
[/quote]

Not everyone thinks the economy is going to tank in the next 4 years.

1. China is going to be open to US goods in a big way in the next 3-6 years. Coke already sells 1 billion cups of Coca-Cola every day. How about we make it 2 billion? How'bout we start selling Levi's to the Chinese (let the commie bastards have each other?!)

2. The dot.com's have hit rock bottom. There isn't much farther down they can go. A turnaround is comming... and soon.

3. If Bush can get is "2%" of Social Security into the stock market, you're going to see a huge growth of capital and the economy will continue to truck along just fine.



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top