|
Post by dapper on Jun 19, 2007 11:33:24 GMT -5
Gore's insincere. If he's not, then his hypocritical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach to conservation is evidence that he's clinically insane. Even if you are down with his selective psuedoscience, he doesn't have a good reputation: a loser VP who failed to cinchly win in 2000 off the coattails of a popular President Clinton during peace & prosperity. Al Gore knows he's too awkward to win a national election and I'm sure he's more than happy to be peddling the stuff he is now, free from real scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 13:22:00 GMT -5
Gore's insincere. If he's not, then his hypocritical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach to conservation is evidence that he's clinically insane. Even if you are down with his selective psuedoscience, he doesn't have a good reputation: a loser VP who failed to cinchly win in 2000 off the coattails of a popular President Clinton during peace & prosperity. Al Gore knows he's too awkward to win a national election and I'm sure he's more than happy to be peddling the stuff he is now, free from real scrutiny. First off, he repeatedly denied any intention to run for election. He lost by a slim margin, thanks in part to the country-bumpkin redneck Florida neighbors of yours. Makes one wonder whether it wasn't a planned bungle, after all, being that his little brother was and still is the its gov. - unfortunately. Also, wth r u talking about?! Give some examples to back up your accusation that he's a hypocrite w.r.t. environment. Is he one because he won't go back to living the life of a hunter and gatherer? Look, when we come right down to it, ALL politicians are hypocrites, including and especially GWB. At least you gotta give Gore credit for making people aware of the problem or thinking about it more than otherwise, unlike GWB who refused to even acknowledge the possibility of problem existing until very recently when he finally grudgingly began to do so - too little, too late. One can only wonder how much he added to the problem with all the pollution from the U.S. military arsenals and equipments that were used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by chinesejewfool on Jun 19, 2007 13:29:04 GMT -5
You can't convince retards that Bush is a bad president, because they had to be retarded to vote for him in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 14:05:03 GMT -5
You can't convince retards that Bush is a bad president, because they had to be retarded to vote for him in the first place. An excellent point.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jun 19, 2007 14:06:51 GMT -5
I'm an Independent - meaning I'm a swing-voter - although I do lean somewhat on the Dem side. Anyway, my choices, in order, are 1) Barak 2) Hilary 3) Rudy I want Barak, just because I wanna see a black (or half-black, in his case) or any other non-Anglo finally become the U.S. prez. Now, if anyone object that the most qualified candidate should be elected, regardless of gender and race, then my reply is... BULL F**KING SH!T !! Is that why dumbazz King George W of Fools was elected twice to lead the country into a big mess?! Those who voted for him ain't got no case to make against Barak Obama for his so-called lack of experience. Lotta good GW's experiences did for the country and the world. Besides, the U.S. with all the checks and balances, plus a big bureacracy, is one country that can afford to elect a president without worrying about his experience - unless he abuses his power, like....., yup, you know who. So, it's high-azz time that America elected someone other than just another overrated anglo white male as its prez. Even France just elected an Italian descendent as its prime minster, even though it has a reputation (bum rap?) for being th most snobbish and choosy bigots in Europe - if not in the world. So, it's Obama for me. Hilary, because she's a woman (or is she? ), she's got more political experience, and, also, she's been in the White House and know what it's like inside - thanks to her hubby, of course. Rudy, because, to me, he's the least Republican of all the Rep candidates - which kinda like saying he's the least evil among the Rep cands. Interesting. Wondering if you would vote for Condi Rice then. Since most see her as nothing more than a Bush sock puppet, yet she meets the criteria quite nicely for non-Anglo and some of the other criteria you laid down. Not male either (or so they tell me). She has a great deal of experience at the (almost) highest level. Well educated. She isn't running from all info available. Why would she, given the clusterf*ck that is this administration? Just curious if you would vote for her hypothetically to stick it to the man, or is the fact that she is a Republican enough to turn you off. Or maybe she is "the man", just doesn't look like it. If you prefer, substitute Colin Powell. Just trying to gauge how important the race factor really is to you. It COULD be as problematic as voting based on pro-life/ pro-choice platitudes. I might submit to you that GWB is not bad because he is white, but rather because he is the most closeminded stubborn stupid ignoramous that has ever entered the oval office.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 19, 2007 14:58:00 GMT -5
Please...if Gore were sincere he would not only being preaching about it and buying those bogus carbon credits from the company he happens to have to co-founded (lmao), but he wouldn't also have a house that consumes 20 times the national average national gas and 12 times the national average electricity. Granted, his home is larger than the average home, but only by 4 times. So, for wannabe Cal grads, you can see he is consuming way more than what could be expected to be normal or even higher amounts of energy. Gore is a glutton in more ways than just what he shoves down his face.
And drop your act Eaob; no one believes you're a moderate, roflmao.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 15:21:10 GMT -5
Interesting. Wondering if you would vote for Condi Rice then. Since most see her as nothing more than a Bush sock puppet, yet she meets the criteria quite nicely for non-Anglo and some of the other criteria you laid down. Not male either (or so they tell me). She has a great deal of experience at the (almost) highest level. Well educated. She isn't running from all info available. Why would she, given the clusterf*ck that is this administration? Just curious if you would vote for her hypothetically to stick it to the man, or is the fact that she is a Republican enough to turn you off. Or maybe she is "the man", just doesn't look like it. True, it's difficult to want her to run, since she's a Bush Puppet. But, I find wanting to see a non-Anglo finally sit in the Oval as "sticking it the man", as in a white man - as you imply - intersting, as well. So, does that mean wanting to see anyone other than a white man is to be considered as such? I hope that's not what you meant, doc. He would definitely qualify as well as any one of the current candidates, no matter his race. Well, sooner or later people need to decide on one side of the issue or the other, but I don't see how that's similar to voting for a non-Anglo candidate who may be just as well qualified or, put another way, jus as unqualified as any of the white male who ran and got lucky enough to win, like .... who else? True, again, but the fact that the white majority would still vote for a t*** like him, twice, rather than an equally or more qualified female or minority candidate speaks VOLUMES about how much race concientious it is.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 15:25:08 GMT -5
And drop your act Eaob; no one believes you're a moderate, roflmao. When did I ever say I was? Anyway, you are just another Redneck, Conservative, Young Republican - which is glaringly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Jun 19, 2007 15:55:26 GMT -5
Don't worry, there won't be need for any elections soon enough. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.htmlI think people sometimes think America's some fallen country, that we were once good and pure but have fallen in recent times. The war in Iraq reminds me of the Spanish-American war. Something blows up, then we rush to war regardless of the circumstances. All America has ever represented to me was a country that had done horrible things to nearly every ethnicity in me. All that said, I'm sure if Bush does try to activate this Homeland Security Presidential Directive he will have a revolution on his hands, and that sounds much better to me than pushing the republicans aside for a few years so they can scheme their evil for another day. "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights" Bob Marley
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jun 19, 2007 16:20:39 GMT -5
Interesting. Wondering if you would vote for Condi Rice then. Since most see her as nothing more than a Bush sock puppet, yet she meets the criteria quite nicely for non-Anglo and some of the other criteria you laid down. Not male either (or so they tell me). She has a great deal of experience at the (almost) highest level. Well educated. She isn't running from all info available. Why would she, given the clusterf*ck that is this administration? Just curious if you would vote for her hypothetically to stick it to the man, or is the fact that she is a Republican enough to turn you off. Or maybe she is "the man", just doesn't look like it. True, it's difficult to want her to run, since she's a Bush Puppet. But, I find wanting to see a non-Anglo finally sit in the Oval as "sticking it the man", as in a white man - as you imply - intersting, as well. So, does that mean wanting to see anyone other than a white man is to be considered as such? I hope that's not what you meant, doc. He would definitely qualify as well as any one of the current candidates, no matter his race. Well, sooner or later people need to decide on one side of the issue or the other, but I don't see how that's similar to voting for a non-Anglo candidate who may be just as well qualified or, put another way, jus as unqualified as any of the white male who ran and got lucky enough to win, like .... who else? True, again, but the fact that the white majority would still vote for a t*** like him, twice, rather than an equally or more qualified female or minority candidate speaks VOLUMES about how much race concientious it is. I guess that makes sense. What I was getting at was it sounded, in your initial post, that you were telling anyone listening that you really didn't care WHO it was that was elected, as long as they weren't white, to "stick it to the (white) man". You have every right to feel that way if you choose. I am questioning that, and in this most recent post it sounds like you have changed a bit to an "equally qualified non- white candidate". Either way, it matters little. You are entitled to think, say and vote however you see fit. I mentioned the pro-life/pro-choice debate as an attempt to show how something that, in my way of thinking, completely snow-jobs the American public in to voting for a candidate based solely on an issue that has no business in the political arena. A meaningless debate to divide us and rule us. The voter could think the person is a complete douche, yet must vote along party lines for just one issue. That is how we get stuck with a turd. To me, race has no business in the political arena. It is naive to believe the vast majority don't see it though. I don't care. I'd vote for a black libertarian in a heartbeat. A black (R) or (D)....not again. I'm done with the 2 majors. The liberals voted for a t*** like Gore, and then a t*** like Kerry, and I think it speaks volumes that those two hand jobs couldn't kick the ass off a loser like Bush. Coming on the heels of a popular guy like Clinton, and unable to beat Bush after he crapped all over us for 4 years. That speaks to the quality of the Dems right now, if you ask me, and not much more than that. The (D)'s better come up with something better than "Anybody but Bush" in the future. I'm also looking for more than "Anybody but whitey".
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 19, 2007 16:23:01 GMT -5
Eaob, you stated--did you not?--that you were an Independent who leans "somewhat" towards the Democrat side. You stated you were one of these holier than though swing voters; the ones who can sway the election either way, lol. Those are the great moderate class. One and the same. If I've confused you with another of the libs pretending to be moderate here, well my mistake.
In any event, given that your own description of yourself is inaccurate, it should surprise no one that you botched your characterization of me as well. To that point, you botched the characterization itself. A redneck Young Republican? There are redneck Republicans, sure. There are the Young Republicans, the yuppies, the young professionals, the Alex P Keatons, as well. I've never come across a dot that falls within both of these two distinct spheres. But I have noticed a redneck dot that occupies a place within Republican and Democrat spheres, and a young professional dot that occupies some property with in Republican and Democrat spheres.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 16:49:20 GMT -5
The war in Iraq reminds me of the Spanish-American war. Something blows up, then we rush to war regardless of the circumstances. That, just simply, was an excuse they were hoping and waiting to forcefully take Florida away from Spain, of course - just like they did to annex (steal) Texas and other parts that now make up the Southwestern chunk of the U.S. from Mexico. Yup, you gotta love these "peace-loving", "God-fearing" American whites - especially those descended from English and other European peasants and sharecroppers who came and ran amok on entire continent, in the name of democracy, life, liberty, and happiness - purely for themselves at the expense of Indians, Blacks, Mexiicans, and, even, Asians.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 16:59:24 GMT -5
True, it's difficult to want her to run, since she's a Bush Puppet. But, I find wanting to see a non-Anglo finally sit in the Oval as "sticking it the man", as in a white man - as you imply - intersting, as well. So, does that mean wanting to see anyone other than a white man is to be considered as such? I hope that's not what you meant, doc. He would definitely qualify as well as any one of the current candidates, no matter his race. Well, sooner or later people need to decide on one side of the issue or the other, but I don't see how that's similar to voting for a non-Anglo candidate who may be just as well qualified or, put another way, jus as unqualified as any of the white male who ran and got lucky enough to win, like .... who else? True, again, but the fact that the white majority would still vote for a t*** like him, twice, rather than an equally or more qualified female or minority candidate speaks VOLUMES about how much race concientious it is. I guess that makes sense. What I was getting at was it sounded, in your initial post, that you were telling anyone listening that you really didn't care WHO it was that was elected, as long as they weren't white, to "stick it to the (white) man". You have every right to feel that way if you choose. I am questioning that, and in this most recent post it sounds like you have changed a bit to an "equally qualified non- white candidate". Either way, it matters little. You are entitled to think, say and vote however you see fit. I mentioned the pro-life/pro-choice debate as an attempt to show how something that, in my way of thinking, completely snow-jobs the American public in to voting for a candidate based solely on an issue that has no business in the political arena. A meaningless debate to divide us and rule us. The voter could think the person is a complete douche, yet must vote along party lines for just one issue. That is how we get stuck with a turd. To me, race has no business in the political arena. It is naive to believe the vast majority don't see it though. I don't care. I'd vote for a black libertarian in a heartbeat. A black (R) or (D)....not again. I'm done with the 2 majors. The liberals voted for a t*** like Gore, and then a t*** like Kerry, and I think it speaks volumes that those two hand jobs couldn't kick the ass off a loser like Bush. Coming on the heels of a popular guy like Clinton, and unable to beat Bush after he crapped all over us for 4 years. That speaks to the quality of the Dems right now, if you ask me, and not much more than that. The (D)'s better come up with something better than "Anybody but Bush" in the future. I'm also looking for more than "Anybody but whitey". Well, I still have my doubt about the sincerety of the whites, like you, who say that colr doesn't matter, based on history. But, in any case, just think all the missed opportunities of electing women or minority for presidents who could have done far better than all those rich, white males who did lousy jobs - like Jackson, Harding, etc. - and made this country a better place for ALL people - not just whites. Think about that. I wouldn't criticize if most of the white male presidents did half-decent job of governing, but, they didn't and the history proves it. Yet, people just keep putting these guys in the Oval Office. What is it that Einstein said about the definition of insanity?
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 19, 2007 17:08:24 GMT -5
Eaob, you stated--did you not?--that you were an Independent who leans "somewhat" towards the Democrat side. You stated you were one of these holier than though swing voters; the ones who can sway the election either way, lol. Those are the great moderate class. One and the same. If I've confused you with another of the libs pretending to be moderate here, well my mistake. In any event, given that your own description of yourself is inaccurate, it should surprise no one that you botched your characterization of me as well. To that point, you botched the characterization itself. A redneck Young Republican? There are redneck Republicans, sure. There are the Young Republicans, the yuppies, the young professionals, the Alex P Keatons, as well. I've never come across a dot that falls within both of these two distinct spheres. But I have noticed a redneck dot that occupies a place within Republican and Democrat spheres, and a young professional dot that occupies some property with in Republican and Democrat spheres. Look, pal, whateva~ But, if GWB could have run for another, I know you would have voted for him and say, "duh....., but there wasn't anyone else better..."
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Jun 19, 2007 17:58:49 GMT -5
|
|