Since last post: 2000 days Last activity: 454 days
#2 Posted on 21.11.02 1147.46 Reposted on: 21.11.09 1148.24
So if Gore had blamed Bush for the faltering economy, he would have won in 2000? Geesh. I think not. It seems to me that a plurality of people(at least enough to win 271 electoral votes) though Gore was a full of shit and a complete tool. I would expect more people to find this if he runs again. Which is fine by me because he will sterilize the Democratic Party for at least another four years. Just wait 'til people realize that his agenda isn't too far off from San Francisco Nancy Peolosi and that he really is a loon...
Since last post: 2046 days Last activity: 812 days
#3 Posted on 21.11.02 1213.03 Reposted on: 21.11.09 1213.53
So.. you would rather have a canditate that blindly ignores the CAUSE of the economic downturn, and the obvious effects of Bush's plans (so it is not booming again.. that is quite frankly impossible this soon), and just starts yelling about how bad things are? This Gore is a shell. He has NO agenda, NO alternative plan to make things better, and has simply turned up the volume on his somewhat unsubstantiated attacks on Bush. So you want a leader who simply yells, and does NOT present clear and coherant plans for what he would do with the office? Why?
#4 Posted on 21.11.02 1231.43 Reposted on: 21.11.09 1234.11
I thought the article was going to be about this Al Gore, the one getting all weepy-weepy and boo-hooing in interviews.
But seriously, everything I've heard from Al Gore lately has been long on criticism and short on answers. I can criticize the government just as well as Al Gore. How about we see some ideas for solutions?
And since when is the Taliban back in control? Did I miss that news report?