Heeven wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:Pity the most destructive insane choice was made! You get what you pay for! Now pay indeed you will!!Anon
The whole country is paying, not just the idiots who hired an idiot.
I'll be interested to see who comes next.
Too bad the whole country wasn't paying attention to the first four years. It's everyones fault he was elected in 2004 ... he should have been stopped then. Now it's time to pay the piper!!
Anon
Quote:No Gore couldn't have *****ed the US of A as bad as Bush because the republican congress would have stopped him. Interesting thought yes?
Pity they couldn't stop Bush.
xingu wrote:Quote:No Gore couldn't have *****ed the US of A as bad as Bush because the republican congress would have stopped him. Interesting thought yes?
Pity they couldn't stop Bush.
The populace was more intersted in what the slime-boat smear campaign had to say! That and a protracted hate campaign againt gays to submit anti-gay measures in 11 states to energize the bigots! Worked like a charm. Hate and slime ... sure winners for the Republican Party who did it so amazingly well!! Gotta give them credit, it got them four more years!
Hard to feel too sorry for America, you reap what you sow!!
Anon
Sturgis wrote:dyslexia wrote:No Gore couldn't have *****ed the US of A as bad as Bush because the republican congress would have stopped him. Interesting thought yes?
Yup.
(and be sure to check my follow up thoughts too)
What follow up thoughts? So did I read your post right? Are you actually agreeing that Gore couldn't have possibly f*cked up as bad as Bush has?
Cool.
Who knows what Gore would have done in the same situation. Gore may have taken longer to act, but in the end I believe he would have adopted the same policies and path chosen by President Bush.
I'm reasonably certain that the conservatives and Republicans here would not descend into the sort of vile name calling and unadulterated hatered expressed by so many of the Democrats and the Left.
Asherman wrote:Who knows what Gore would have done in the same situation. Gore may have taken longer to act, but in the end I believe he would have adopted the same policies and path chosen by President Bush.
I'm reasonably certain that the conservatives and Republicans here would not descend into the sort of vile name calling and unadulterated hatered expressed by so many of the Democrats and the Left.
Oh, please. If 9/11 had happened under Gore and if, for argument sake, he had done what Bush has done afterward, the Right would have provided new meaning to the word "merciless."
Really? You believe we still would have gone into Iraq without a plan then?
Asherman wrote:I'm reasonably certain that the conservatives and Republicans here would not descend into the sort of vile name calling and unadulterated hatered expressed by so many of the Democrats and the Left.
That is one of the funniest, albeit least reality based, comments I have read around here for a long time.
Surely, you aren't one of the loonies who believe that Bush concocted 9/11 as part of some grand conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution and conquer the world! Of course, 9/11 would have happened. This country and Western Civilization had been under attack by radical Islamic terrorists since before the old Soviet Union crashed and burned. President Clinton tried to deal with the terrorists by lobbing a few SLBM into the deserts. The Clinton administration spent years waiting for the sanctions against Iraq to work, and threatened more sanctions each time Saddam violated another promise or condition of the Gulf War Cease-Fire. Those circumstances existed long before the Gore/Bush election.
Gore may well have temporized and waited for more information, more and better preparations before acting. The Taliban might have remained secure in their mountains training Al Quida terrorists while Gore worried about how they might be best handled. If Gore had followed his natural inclination of procrastination, he certainly would have been criticized by conservatives, Republicans and those who wanted and expected prompt and effective action taken against those who murdered our citizens.
Iraq, situated in the heart of the Middle-East, the center of gravity for the radical Islamic terrorist movement. Was over ripe for direct action. Saddam did everything he could to convince the world that he had, or soon would have WMD and everyone knew he was perfectly capable of using the most terrible weapons against the defenseless. Iraq was in constant violation of the Cease-fire and made UN inspections as difficult as they could. With Iraq there was already a war, temporarily suspended, that needed to be concluded. Yes, I think President Gore would have eventually sent troops into Iraq with similar results. I seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have made any fewer mistakes than the Bush Administration.
Would we conservatives and Republicans brought new meaning to the term 'merciless', if President Gore had followed the same policies, etc. as President Bush ....... I don't think so. We would have been very critical if a Gore Presidency failed to act against our enemies, because that would, I believe, led to more and perhaps even worse attacks than we saw on 9/11. I can't imagine myself descending to accusing the President of the United States as being as evil as Hitler, or Stalin. To accuse the United States government of pursuing dreams of world conquest is not something that I would likely do. I'm not the sort to believe the propaganda of our nation's enemies, over those whom we've elected. I don't believe that supporting our troops in the field is advanced by calling them murders, or showing them in their moments of weakness under fire. No, I don't think that if Gore had been elected that I, at least, would have become foul mouthed and so partisan as to call for his eminent removal from office.
You have convinved me of your moral superiority.
Yeah, me too. If only all the other conservatives were so pure and noble...
Gunning Fog Index needs a lot of attention, though.
Asherman wrote:Iraq, situated in the heart of the Middle-East, the center of gravity for the radical Islamic terrorist movement. Was over ripe for direct action. Saddam did everything he could to convince the world that he had, or soon would have WMD and everyone knew he was perfectly capable of using the most terrible weapons against the defenseless. Iraq was in constant violation of the Cease-fire and made UN inspections as difficult as they could. With Iraq there was already a war, temporarily suspended, that needed to be concluded. Yes, I think President Gore would have eventually sent troops into Iraq with similar results. I seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have made any fewer mistakes than the Bush Administration.
This is wishful thinking on your part. If you truly believe that Gore would have used the same "direct action" that Bush took, then you are either delusional or reacting without thinking because you are angry at the language some on this thread have used.
I believe he would have gone into Afghanistan. That decision was basically a no-brainer; perfect for a no-brainer like Bush.
But invading Iraq? With no plan for what to do once we got there? Ha, only an idiot would try something like that, as we've seen.
Just one supreme court vote....just one vote...and this whole Iraq debacle could have all been averted. Not to mention all the other f*ck-ups that have happened along the way.
Asherman wrote:Who knows what Gore would have done in the same situation. Gore may have taken longer to act, but in the end I believe he would have adopted the same policies and path chosen by President Bush.
I'm reasonably certain that the conservatives and Republicans here would not descend into the sort of vile name calling and unadulterated hatered expressed by so many of the Democrats and the Left.
Asherman, I will find you and sue you to recover the cost of that emergency-room visit caused by my sides splitting.
How on earth did you manage to keep a straight face while typing that!?!?!?
Because I believe it. Alright, folks think I'm naive and too attached to "old fashioned" ideas and virtues. Tough. I try to live up to the ideals of what a gentleman should be. Perhaps if more people tried to put those "humorous" efforts in their lives the country would be better off ... or maybe not, but I'm not going to change anyway. Nor to I believe that I am alone in taking this attitude. We don't, in my view, need more change and democracy, but closer-ties to our traditional forms. I think that the great majority of Americans still believe in their country's essential goodness and the good faith of their elected leaders. I trust the American People, and the American system of government. Attacks on the Constitution and on this country are not very likely going to gain my approval.
I think most of our elected leaders are good and true to their oaths, and until that is shown clearly to be false they deserve our respect. I've studied most of our Presidents, and there are damned few that weren't far better than their worst critics painted them. Those Presidents with the greatest reputations (except for Washington) actually fare worse than some of those who are today vilified, if not virtually forgotten. I try to take the long view, to see the big picture undistorted by the ranting of partisans of any stripe.
Asherman...don't oversell....
Asherman wrote:Who knows what Gore would have done in the same situation. Gore may have taken longer to act, but in the end I believe he would have adopted the same policies and path chosen by President Bush.
I'm reasonably certain that the conservatives and Republicans here would not descend into the sort of vile name calling and unadulterated hatered expressed by so many of the Democrats and the Left.
then you were obviously hibernating during Clinton's time in office, because the vitriol from the right was pretty intense.
I personally didn't approve of President Clinton. I believe that he committed a felony while in office by lying under oath in a Federal Court. I supported his impeachment for that crime, not for his understandable preference of a young intern over his wife. I thought he should have been more forceful in his efforts to get Saddam to live up to his obligations. I would have preferred much stronger actions taken those who murdered American soldiers in their barracks, and attacked US warships.
However, I never attached dirty names to the man, or accused him of betraying his office and oath. I certainly never thought that his removal from office was essential to the continuation of our form of government. I never accused him of being in cahoots with wealthy liberals to turn the country into a socialist worker's paradise. On the whole, I think my image of President Clinton was as a man who enjoyed being in the limelight, but who hated to do anything that might cause people to love him less. Common traits in actors and politicians.
Some conservatives and Republicans took a harder and more critical view of Clinton than I did. A dear friend was fond of calling Clinton a crypto-communist, but I think most of that was more for effect that true belief. I never hear a Republican or conservative suggest the the country was in danger by the President's actions, even though many of the people I knew thought him a fool. I have the highest regard for President Carter, who would be a good role model for Americans, but he was a really ineffectual President. I've never heard anyone say anything but good about Carter as a man, though his policies were at best doubtful.
