Al Gore = Best Next President

[thirdeyeblindislit]

You've heard his rants on Global Warming, and you've seen him about everywhere you turn, the Today Show, The Tonight Show, The Emmys, an all day global awareness marathon, etc... and now it's time to take a look at the possibility of Al Gore staying in the spotlight is just a plan for him to stay in public eye until later on next year when he announces his run.

Al Gore would be the perfect canadate for democrats and it seems right now that he would be the best fit for the next president of the United States.

Let's examine why:

-Unlike Hilary he didn't vote for the war in Iraq thus he doesn't have to take a stand on why he voted to be there.

-Unlike Obama he has the experience of already serving in the white house and he doesn't wish to nuke the middle east.

-Unfourtantely running for president is all about money, but he has the funds to enter the race late in the game and still have enough to campaign.

-According to a latest ABC News poll he has 14% of the popular vote so far and he's not even in the running. (that's only 9% behind Obama.)

-He already won once before. :p

If Al Gore were to run for president we may just see a better America. Now I know the jokes that are going to surface having to due with the environment and how he'll have a hidden agenda to have us all run on hybrid cars and that's fine, but you really can't deny that Al Gore is the best bet for 2008. :thumb:

[GreyHam]

i just cant take him cerealy though...

[Dr Hooch]

I just don't think he'd get the neccessary support? He lost before to GWB; i can't see how he could possibly win against a fresh opposition that can cauterise some of the bsuh administration's many wounds.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

I just don't think he'd get the neccessary support? He lost before to GWB; i can't see how he could possibly win against a fresh opposition that can cauterise some of the bsuh administration's many wounds.


Al Gore won the popular vote in the election against Bush (which basically means he really won) so I'm about 99% sure that he'll have the support.

[Iskandar]

Al Gore won the popular vote in the election against Bush (which basically means he really won) so I'm about 99% sure that he'll have the support.That was seven years ago.

[thirdeyeblindislit]

That was seven years ago.

Well who else does he really have to run against? The republican party has been slashed so bad that it's going to take some time for them to heal. I'm not saying it's impossible that a republican will take the white house in 08 but I think it's highly improbable. The democrats really only have obama and hilary going for them but I've already stated why he would outdue them and on top of that he apparently already has the support if he as 14% of the democratic vote already and he's not even running.

[lunchforthesky]

The democratic party should just disband and move to Canada if they can't win the next election. Bush's imcompetance should of made it a walk over it's only cause the Dems are so useless that this is actually close.

[Dr Hooch]

We say this, lunch

we are talking about a country in which the more liberal of the parties is noticeably more conservative than our conservative party

[peeted]

I agree that he would make a great president, but i just cant see it happening.

[-1up!-]

The democratic party should just disband and move to Canada if they can't win the next election. Bush's imcompetance should of made it a walk over it's only cause the Dems are so useless that this is actually close.

I don't think they would be that popular in Canada. But then again I'm not "really" Canadian so I can't say.

[lunchforthesky]

We say this, lunch

we are talking about a country in which the more liberal of the parties is noticeably more conservative than our conservative party

Almost makes me not worried that Cameron may win the next election.

[ringworm]

-Unfourtantely running for president is all about money
its sad so many people out there want a chance to actually represent us, but get trumped by the hundreds who dont, all because of our whacked campaign process


i heard something where certain primaries are being bumped up a month? anyone else heard that?

[Akira]

Gore won't run, but if he did I would definitely vote for him.

[Cesar21]

His time has pass. He would have been a good president back when he lost, now its not gona happen. He might still make a vicepresident, or some high ranking official in the democrat goverment.

[The Stig]

-He already won once before. :p

No, actually, he didn't.

If Al Gore were to run for president we may just see a better America. Now I know the jokes that are going to surface having to due with the environment and how he'll have a hidden agenda to have us all run on hybrid cars and that's fine, but you really can't deny that Al Gore is the best bet for 2008. :thumb:

Yes I can. I deny he's the best candidate. Done.

[Cesar21]

No matter what advantages the electoral system of the US brings to the states, when someone gets the majority of the popular vote and doesn't win you know that something is wrong and that it doesn't work.

In a country who is said was build on democracy and who suposably defends democracy in the world things like the 2000 election are inexcusable.

[The Stig]

Nobody in an important position of power called the country a democracy until Woodrow Wilson. The way the election process is set up and has been set up the entire life of the country, he lost. The electoral college wasn't some obscure bylaw pulled out of the *** of the Constitution for this case. It's been like that for a very long time, and in fact, several presidents have been elected after losing the popular vote. It's the way of the system.

[Cesar21]

If I'm not mistaken (and I can be) there was only one another president elected even though he lost the popular vote.

I never said he won, I know he lost and I don't doubt it... although I do belive Bush stole the election in Florida with the help of his brother, but this is beside the point.

I also know that there are reasons why the electoral college exists, and I insinuated one of the reasons in the first sentence of my previous post. I also know that this is the way of the system of the US.

What I'm actually putting under the microscope is the effectivity, fairness, and value of the system. I'm sure that when it was implemented over 200 years ago(not implying that age makes it any less valuable) it was perfectly in place with the state of things in that time, but at this day and age... is it still something that is worth having, is it still effective as a tool of election, does it still creates the same advantages it did in the past, would a change in system be more beneficiary and fair for the people?

This is the stuff I was refering too.

[catfishjohnathon]

i agree with you.

[Jake=Suck]

I never said he won, I know he lost and I don't doubt it...



-He already won once before. :p
just thought id point that out.

and personally the dems biggest concern should be that a popular democrat may run as independent and split the democratic vote giving an easy win to the republicans.

[Jake=Suck]

If I'm not mistaken (and I can be) there was only one another president elected even though he lost the popular vote.


its actually happened four times, 2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824.

[Independent_CA]

I'm going to laugh when Liberman runs and kills the democrats chance of winning anything.

[Reaganista]

Unlike Obama he has the experience of already serving in the white house and he doesn't wish to nuke the middle east.
are you suggesting that barack hussein obama wants to nuke the middle east

[The Stig]

He has said that he wants to invade Pakistan. It isn't nuking the Middle East by any means, but a knee-jerk reaction saying he'll invade an ally is pretty poor foriegn diplomacy.

[Reaganista]

ok ty mr. limbaugh can we move on to something somebody might care about

[pedro durruti]

Dude Pakistan is no ally of ours, unless you count serving our imperialistic interests while simultaneously betraying fundamental Americna values as characteristics of alliance

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Nobody in an important position of power called the country a democracy until Woodrow Wilson. The way the election process is set up and has been set up the entire life of the country, he lost. The electoral college wasn't some obscure bylaw pulled out of the *** of the Constitution for this case. It's been like that for a very long time, and in fact, several presidents have been elected after losing the popular vote. It's the way of the system.

All I'm saying is that the PEOPLE wanted Gore in 2000 as shown by him winning the popular vote and they more than likely want him now shows the most recent polls.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

If they vote for him like this NOW when he's not even stated he's running, imagine what would happen.

Furthermore, I don't agree with the election process in this country even though I know there's not much I can do about it. But as far as I'm concerned in MY personal opinion which you don't have to agree with, Al Gore won that election and Bush just had a whole lot of money.....

[Iskandar]

Dude Pakistan is no ally of ours, unless you count serving our imperialistic interests while simultaneously betraying fundamental Americna values as characteristics of allianceYep, that's what an ally is.

[Hedgedive]

if Gore ran I think he'd easily get the Democratic nomination.

-exp
-good policies and shi
-blowjobs or no the Clinton administration was one of the best in a very long time

[Reaganista]

what did clinton do that was good

[griftadan]

Al Gore won the popular vote in the election against Bush (which basically means he really won)

not at all actually

[Akira]

He has said that he wants to invade Pakistan. It isn't nuking the Middle East by any means, but a knee-jerk reaction saying he'll invade an ally is pretty poor foriegn diplomacy.

That was possibly the stupidest thing Obama could ever say, because now everyone who dislikes him can just say "Obama would nuke our allies as soon as he got elected."

[Futue te Ipsum]

i just cant take him cerealy though...I lolled.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

but you really can't deny that Al Gore is the best bet for 2008. :thumb:

Sure I can: I support Ron Paul

[Cesar21]

Good thing Arnold can't be president, imagine the massacre.

[Left Shoe]

Sure I can: I support Ron Paul

123

[WhoDidTheElf]

I can't stand the guy. I'd take McCain over him any day.

[Akira]

I can't stand the guy. I'd take McCain over him any day.

Why?

Personally, I think McCain is an old, spineless geezer. But that's just me.

[Oriah]

I heard about an article that said Gore was a huge hypocrit with regards to the environment issues. Something about his mansion is a huge waste of energy or something. Anyone else heard of this article? if so let me know where you find it.

[lunchforthesky]

I heard about an article that said Gore was a huge hypocrit with regards to the environment issues. Something about his mansion is a huge waste of energy or something. Anyone else heard of this article? if so let me know where you find it.

It's pretty much bollocks. He has a mansion but it's run mostly of renewable sources.

[Oriah]

It's pretty much bollocks. He has a mansion but it's run mostly of renewable sources.

Ah.

[Already_Taken]

what did clinton do that was good

Well,

- He reduced the deficit by over $600 billion dollars during his term
- He cut taxes on 15 million low income families while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest tax payers.
- He signed a few favorable bills (in my opinion) restricting the ability to buy firearms (assault rifles) while exempting many hunting rifles from the ban.
- He signed the The family and medical leave act which makes it law to be paid while on leave for child birth, adoption, personal, or family illness.
- He enacted a crackdown on deadbeat parents who were delinquent on their child support.
- Made student loans possible by allowing students to borrow money from the government at a low interest rate with flexible repayment options.
- Raised funding for public education

That's just a handful of his accomplishments, but yes, he did get a blowjob. (Have you seen his wife???)

[Iskandar]

Sure I can: I support Ron PaulI'm so sick of the Internet hype around Ron Paul

[ringworm]

git on outta her'a

im so sick of all the campaign hype, neither side is an option tbo

[lunchforthesky]

Well,

- He reduced the deficit by over $600 billion dollars during his term
- He cut taxes on 15 million low income families while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest tax payers.
- He signed a few favorable bills (in my opinion) restricting the ability to buy firearms (assault rifles) while exempting many hunting rifles from the ban.
- He signed the The family and medical leave act which makes it law to be paid while on leave for child birth, adoption, personal, or family illness.
- He enacted a crackdown on deadbeat parents who were delinquent on their child support.
- Made student loans possible by allowing students to borrow money from the government at a low interest rate with flexible repayment options.
- Raised funding for public education

That's just a handful of his accomplishments, but yes, he did get a blowjob. (Have you seen his wife???)

Woah you have A LOT of negative rep.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well,

- He reduced the deficit by over $600 billion dollars during his term
- He cut taxes on 15 million low income families while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest tax payers.
- He signed a few favorable bills (in my opinion) restricting the ability to buy firearms (assault rifles) while exempting many hunting rifles from the ban.
- He signed the The family and medical leave act which makes it law to be paid while on leave for child birth, adoption, personal, or family illness.
- He enacted a crackdown on deadbeat parents who were delinquent on their child support.
- Made student loans possible by allowing students to borrow money from the government at a low interest rate with flexible repayment options.
- Raised funding for public education

That's just a handful of his accomplishments, but yes, he did get a blowjob. (Have you seen his wife???)


The weapons ban was on almost all fully automatic weapons, not just assualt rifles if I recall right.

And isn't public funding a state deal?

And the crack down on deadbeat parents was a joke mostly. They just had an article on Yahoo about how they've changed the system so now you can't get a passport if you have outstanding childsupport. And had some statistics on it from the previous years. In it's like first5 years it made something around 30 million or something like that. Not a bad idea though.

Why?

Personally, I think McCain is an old, spineless geezer. But that's just me.

He's to...I want to say idealistic, but it's not quite the right word. And I'm sick of having global warming rammed down my throat like some kind of shitty med. We get the picture, were ****ed in 250 years.

And I don't like McCain, I was just stating I'd take him over al gore.

[Reaganista]

- He reduced the deficit by over $600 billion dollars during his term

so
- He cut taxes on 15 million low income families while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest tax payers.

that's not necessarily good
- He signed a few favorable bills (in my opinion) restricting the ability to buy firearms (assault rifles) while exempting many hunting rifles from the ban.
it was actually an assualt weapons ban, assault rifles have been de facto illegal since forever and gun control activists were all pissed at him for not going nearly far enough
- He signed the The family and medical leave act which makes it law to be paid while on leave for child birth, adoption, personal, or family illness.

yeah that was good

- He enacted a crackdown on deadbeat parents who were delinquent on their child support.

it wasn't really a crackdown
- Made student loans possible by allowing students to borrow money from the government at a low interest rate with flexible repayment options.

student loans were possible beforehand
but ya he made more of them possible

- Raised funding for public education
with mixed results at best

i dont think that really outweighs the reprehensible stuff he did

[ringworm]

dont forget he removed all the W keys off the keyboards, which prob cost taxpayers billions considering they'll pay hundreds for a toilet lid :(


:p

[Already_Taken]

so

that's not necessarily good
it was actually an assualt weapons ban, assault rifles have been de facto illegal since forever and gun control activists were all pissed at him for not going nearly far enough

yeah that was good

it wasn't really a crackdown

student loans were possible beforehand
but ya he made more of them possible

with mixed results at best

i dont think that really outweighs the reprehensible stuff he did

What reprehensible things did he do? He lied about his personal life a few times, but honestly, the president's personal life shouldn't be subject to anymore scrutiny than yours or mine if you ask me.

As far as his initiatives for education; he did much more than our current president. And he lowered the deficit by the biggest amount in history, only to have that nullified by our current president also.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

The one single reason I would never, ever, ever support Al Gore is simple and plainly obvious: Tipper Gore

[Reaganista]

What reprehensible things did he do? He lied about his personal life a few times, but honestly, the president's personal life shouldn't be subject to anymore scrutiny than yours or mine if you ask me.

he deployed tanks against americans


As far as his initiatives for education; he did much more than our current president. And he lowered the deficit by the biggest amount in history, only to have that nullified by our current president also.
your point being

[Already_Taken]

oh, he deployed tanks against americans. :lol:

My point is that if our next president is as "bad" as Bill Clinton, maybe we'd be better off.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

oh, he deployed tanks against americans. :lol:

My point is that if our next president is as "bad" as Bill Clinton, maybe we'd be better off.

Tell that to the 79 Americans who died at Waco, and the 168 who died in the retaliatory bombing in Oklahoma City

[thirdeyeblindislit]

he deployed tanks against americans


I'm pretty sure that the list Already Taken has stated outweighs that incident by far. I'm not saying what happened in forgetable, but the good by far outweighs the bad in Clinton's term and you have yet to come up with how it has not. :thumb:

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions? Enacting pointless gun control laws that only hurt legitimate gun owners? Conducting a half-assed foreign policy with such great PR moves as lobbing cruise missiles at the Chinese embassy and a Sudanese pharmacutical plant?

[Reaganista]

but the good by far outweighs the bad in Clinton's term and you have yet to come up with how it has not
yeah i have tho

[Akira]

Tell that to the 79 Americans who died at Waco, and the 168 who died in the retaliatory bombing in Oklahoma City

Don't pull that. You think that Waco could have possibly ended peacefully?

[Already_Taken]

Whatever at least he wasn't a ****ing war monger.

How should the situation in Waco have been handled?

And the OKC bombings were Clinton's fault?

I don't think any president has control whether or not crazy people are born.

[cbmartinez]

Yeah seriously, Waco was a bad situation and to blame Clinton for the handling of that is ridiculous. Same goes for Oklahoma City.

The details of Waco are too sketchy to say whether or not their was a excessive amount of force used.

As far as a weak foreign policy, I know Somalia is always cited but at least the US entered on behalf of the UN, unlike Dubya who walked all over the UN's disapproval of the entrance to Iraq. And Kosovo could have not been executed better.

[Reaganista]

Whatever at least he wasn't a ****ing war monger.

um ya he kinda was

How should the situation in Waco have been handled?
not in basically the same way the chinese government handled tiananmen
The details of Waco are too sketchy to say whether or not their was a excessive amount of force used.
um no they arent

[thirdeyeblindislit]

Selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions?

No offence but that's total speculation and therefore meaningless to your point.

[Dr Hooch]

not in basically the same way the chinese government handled tiananmen

Waco was handled inn a shitty way but it wasn't really a peaceful protest was it? They were at least armed with illegal weapons, and the people inside definately were the ones to turn a botched raid into a seige, even if there should never have been a botched raid in the first place.

[Dr Hooch]

Well,

- He cut taxes on 15 million low income families while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest tax payers.

Comparing things in different units is intellectually dishonest.

[Reaganista]

Waco was handled inn a shitty way but it wasn't really a peaceful protest was it? They were at least armed with illegal weapons, and the people inside definately were the ones to turn a botched raid into a seige, even if there should never have been a botched raid in the first place.
except most of the people murdered at waco were completely innocent

[Dr Hooch]

Well, all of the people at tianemmen were completely innocent, except of the crime of protesting.

So it isn't a fair comparison.

[Reaganista]

except when i said most of them were innocent i meant most of them were innocent
not all of them were doing something illegal
like at tiananmen
so i guess you're right it isn't fair, bill clinton is actually more reprehensible than yang shangkun

[Dr Hooch]

Wait what?

You know you can't win a debate by like, agreeing with me, misinterpreting what i say to try and show i'm arguing against my point of view and then turning my argument of "Waco isn't a fair comparison to tiannemen" into "so i guess you're right it isn't fair, bill clinton is actually more reprehensible than yang shangkun"

Jesus christ....

[spitfirejunky]

-Unlike Obama he has the experience of already serving in the white house and he doesn't wish to nuke the middle east.

Wait what?

[Reaganista]

Wait what?

You know you can't win a debate by like, agreeing with me, misinterpreting what i say to try and show i'm arguing against my point of view and then turning my argument of "Waco isn't a fair comparison to tiannemen" into "so i guess you're right it isn't fair, bill clinton is actually more reprehensible than yang shangkun"

Jesus christ....
no you've convinced me, tiananmen wasn't as bad as i previously thought because the people were doing something illegal
and it's ok to murder people as long as some of them have broken the law, right

[Already_Taken]

I'm almost certain that he was not arguing that breaking the law justifies murder. :lol: You should get a show like Jon Stewert. Your arguments sound like his, except with no intelligence backing them.

[Reaganista]

I'm almost certain that he was not arguing that breaking the law justifies murder
then what could
Well, all of the people at tianemmen were completely innocent
possibly mean

and im much smarter than john stewart i mean come on