So I guess Gore and Bush were not the same after all, huh ralf?

[Jim Sagle]

:puke:

[Lindsey]

1. No Shit....

Jesus f'ing Christ - can you even believe this is real? I honest to God keep hoping it's just a nightmare and I'll wake up and Gore will be where he rightly should be - in the White House.

[FlemingsGhost]

2. When Bush Snake Oil, Inc. leaves town with all our money...

And the Democrats essentially escort them to the county line, folks like you will still be trying to raise a possé, to tar-and-feather Ralph Nader.

(edited for punctuation)

[Jim Sagle]

3. Ralf's an enabler, so he gets a twelve-step program: twelve kicks in the

ass.

[Zero Gravitas]

4. Yeah

A Recovery Program For Republican/Corporate Enablers Sopranos Style!

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. The bill of goods sold by both sides was false

Did they both play to the middle then show their true colors later? What good does that kind of false advertising do? Just be who you are, stand up for what you _really_ believe in.

[LeahMira]

6. Gore believed in continuing as we were going...

Did they both play to the middle then show their true colors later? What good does that kind of false advertising
do? Just be who you are, stand up for what you _really_ believe in.


ITA, GPV! The Gore we are seeing now is not the same person we saw back then.

Well... maybe he really is, but where was that fire back when it could have done some real good? But then, I don't think anyone imagined that things would get this bad either. We had it so good then.

In some ways I wonder if it might not have been better if a Democrat (not Gore at that particular time, but someone) had not come out to say the same sort of things about Clinton as Gore said about Bush yesterday. IOW, how dare he risk the good image of America and of the Democratic party and jeopardize all the good that was being accomplished by having a stupid and tawdry affair with an intern.

Since you are Green, I'd guess that you also felt to some degree at the time that there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the major parties. Actually, Gore was agreeing with Bush in the presidential debates on some things. The majority of the people saw themselves, I think, as getting essentially the same plans and the same direction, but either with or without the "personal morality" factor. Although I realize that Democrats aren't ones to mix religious values with politics, I wonder if we didn't miss the boat somehow back then.

At any rate, Gore took exactly the right tone in this speech. He managed to position Democrats as patriots and loyal Americans, which is exactly what we all knew about ourselves all along. Bravo!

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. I agree, the Gore we are seeing now is far more palatable to me

But dang, I do wish Wellstone had been able to run for and win the Oval office in 2000. (Though I suspect he would have met a similar fate if he had. :( )

[w4rma]

8. Wellstone had back problems that prevented him from running

for president. If he had been reelected and able to serve this last 6 year term, he would have probably not run for office again because of his medical problems.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Yeah :( Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled

that Dennis entered the fray, but I think Wellstone might have had a better shot at the office this time around.

[FlaGranny]

12. This Gore is no different than

the 2000 Gore. He just has a lot more to be angry about.

I saw a speech of his years ago at one of the Democratic conventions, I think it was in 1991, where his passion was visible for all to see, and which brought tears to my eyes. It was the speech where he spoke about his son's injuries.

I think we do a disservice when we expect our political leaders to constantly demonstrate anger and passion. It just makes a lot of people think they're crazy. Remember Howard Dean? One scream did him in.

Edit: P.S. I love Howard Dean!!!

[Cheswick2.0]

27. bull

Did you listen to anything he said then. I'd refer you to his nomination acceptance speach if I thought you would actually read it. The Gore we are seeing right now is the Gore I saw and heard then. But I wasn't filtering my sight and hearing through Nader filters.

[Bridget Burke]

11. In an abstract way, I agree.

The official Democratic party is not as far left as I might wish.

But anybody who could not tell that Gore was far better than Bush in 2000 was an idiot.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Far better than bush is one thing

but I saw something still far better than Gore in Nader and the Greens. And I felt safe voting for Nader and the Greens because, in a logical world, Gore should have won. (And technically did.)

So I don't want to hear any crap from anyone on DU about Nader voters in 2000. Had the BFEE not screwed around with the system we would have had our vote of conscience and not been "spoilers".

We didn't get $hrub because a handful of voters aligned themselves with the Greens and the Socialists, we got him because the GOP frigging cheated.

[sangh0]

16. How is contributing to the theft of an election far better than Gore?

So I don't want to hear any crap from anyone on DU about Nader voters in 2000

Though I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to hear about, the fact still remains that people are responsible for their actions. You can say "Had the BFEE not screwed around with the system..." all you want, but there are many here amongst us who knew that one of the real differences was that Gore was not crook.

We didn't get $hrub because a handful of voters aligned themselves with the Greens and the Socialists, we got him because the GOP frigging cheated.

I've always been fascinated by how some people can distinguish subtle similarities between the D's and the r's while maintaining the most simple of explanations for what happened in Election2000.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I didn't contribute to the election theft of 2000 and neither did

the Greens.

You seem to be far more pissed over people exercising their constitutional right to vote their conscience than you are over the GOP's cheating. How can you be more upset with honest 3rd party voters than you are with documented crooks?

That both fascinates and worries me.

[sangh0]

Yes you did

You seem to be far more pissed over people exercising their constitutional right to vote their conscience than you are over the GOP's cheating.

I said nothing about people exercising their rights. I criticized the consequences of their actions, their inability to forsee those consequences due to Nader's lies about there being "no difference"

How can you be more upset with honest 3rd party voters than you are with documented crooks?

Simple. I'm not. Surprisingly, I am able to criticize both the repuke thieves and their Green enablers

That both fascinates and worries me.

Greens have a long tradition of being focused on irrelevancies, such as "what concerns sangha"

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. The above post has been filed under W for "Whatever!"

[sangh0]

28. I wouldn't want to defend your straw men either

Since I never complained about people exercising their right to vote, I don't blame you for taking a pass on your fallacious accusation

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Yet you say that Greens willingly contributed to the theft of the election

Were we scrubbing the voter rolls? Did we say "No! don't recount those votes?"

Hmm.. You know, I just can't recall any secret Green meetings about how to help $hrub steal the election. If you have any transcripts from them, I'd be happy to look them over.

[sangh0]

31. Don't twist my words. Your credibility is low enough

I did not say "Greens willingly contributed to the theft of the election".

Why are you distorting what I said? Can't you defend yourself with facts, instead of putting words in my mouth?

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. What does this mean, then?

"How is contributing to the theft of an election far better than Gore?"

The implication is that I supported Bush and his theft, yes?

[sangh0]

37. It means what it says

Please note that I did NOT use the word "willingly", nor did I say that you supported Bush*

When will you stop distorting what I say?

[GreenPartyVoter]

41. Then say what you mean more clearly.

[sangh0]

43. I didin't "say" something

I asked a question - "How is contributing to the theft of an election far better than Gore?"

The only thing this question implies is that Nader and the Greens contributed to the theft of an election. It says nothing about intent. That's clear.

I can't say anything to remove the lack of clarity in your reading comprehension.

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. What is your basis that we contributed to the theft?

The implication is that we did comething illegal like mess with the voter rolls or ballot counts. All we did was use our constitutional right to run a candidate. That's got zip, zero, zilch to do with stealing an election.

If you want to say that the number of votes that went to Greens hurt Gore's chances, fine, that is true. But the way you phrase it implies that there were dirty dealings going on by the Greens, and that I take offense at.

[sangh0]

48. Please stop putting words in my mouth

The implication is that ...

Why do words like that always precede accusations of criminal behavior or intent, when I've said nothing about the Greens committing crimes or having criminal intent (or even bad intent)

All we did was use our constitutional right to run a candidate.

Your actions have consequences. You have chosen to ignore them. I have not.

If you want to say that the number of votes that went to Greens hurt Gore's chances, fine, that is true

You see how easy it is to state a fact? You might want to make it a regular habit.

But the way you phrase it implies that there were dirty dealings going on by the Greens, and that I take offense at.

And again you rely on your flawed perception instead of going by what was actually said. How could I imply dirty dealings by Greens while saying nothing about dirty dealing by Greens?

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. That's what "imply" means

to say indirectly.

For someone so hung up on facts and not fantasy, you sure are having trouble grasping the former today.

[sangh0]

51. Even with "indirectly" there's a relationship based on fact

You still haven't pointed to one thing I've actually said that makes your assumptions reasonable, and not an invention of your mind.

[sangh0]

44. I was clear

I asked a question - "How is contributing to the theft of an election far better than Gore?"

The only thing this question implies is that Nader and the Greens contributed to the theft of an election. It says nothing about intent. That's clear.

I can't say anything to remove the lack of clarity in your reading comprehension, nor can I insure that you understand what I did not mean.

[noiretextatique]

62. amazing isn't it: "democrats against democracy"

:eyes: (unless of course you're voting for one of the TWO "approved" candidates, D or R)
f

[Jim Sagle]

54. You're going to hear all the "crap" I feel like giving about ralf,

If you don't like it, leave.

[Forkboy]

55. that's the spirit Jim

of course,it's the fascist spirit :eyes:

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. *lol*

[Jim Sagle]

59. No, it's the free-speech spirit.

:beer:

[Forkboy]

60. telling people to leave if they dont like it?

That's a real free speech provoking idea :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

61. Hey, there's a lot of stuff I don't like here as well. My only options are

endure it or leave.

[NNN0LHI]

19. All of the people who are left enough for me are unelectable

I don't like it. But that is just the way it is. Little steps.

Don

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Keep fighting for election reform

Let's get ranked voting in place, then we'll see how "unelectable" the left wing really is.

[NNN0LHI]

42. We had better be worried about even having elections right now

Worry about the reforms later.

Don

[Jim Sagle]

53. Thank you.

[Loonman]

10. Friggin' Nader

Man, he makes me ill.

[bacchant]

14. I got into a friendly debate in a local bar with a green

He was desperately clinging to his Naderesque dogma. Even in the face of all the horrors visited on the world by Bush, he refused to admit there was any difference at all between Bush and Gore. I guess the latest green defensive talking point is the absurd notion that Gore would have taken us to war with Iraq on account of 911 just like Bush, and that we'd be in the same fucking mess we are now. I respect my green brothers, but statements like that are pure shit.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. It depends, I think

If Gore had been presented with all the same false evidence and fallen for it (debatable), if we'd had the same GOP congress (possibly even more GOPers, since the prez was Dem), if the American people were pushing for accountabily over 9/11..

then maybe he would have gone to war. If the people and the Congress were pushing for it, I am not sure I could see him standing strong against that wave.

[sangh0]

17. Don't you mean "It depends, I imagine"

Your hypothesis depends on the people and Congress pushing for an invasion of Iraq, but the record clearly shows that it was the Bush* admin who was pusching this war

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. BUsh would not have gotten it if he had not riled the masses into fear

The question is, would the people have been frightened enough after 9/11 with Gore at the helm to push for it?

Maybe.

Who is to say the GOP would not have leaked the same misinformation that contributed to the run-up to the war anyway? They still might have stirred the pot of fear, even without the stupid homeland security color code.

[bacchant]

22. GPV, this one is a non-starter

We know that the OSP created most of the "intelligence" used to drag us into the war. We also know that Rumsfeld's boys cherry picked, ignored, or enhanced what was coming from the intelligence community. It seriously unlikely that Gore's administration would be overrun by neocons attempting to use Iraq as the first domino in their world domination wet dream.

Dude, let's return to reality, there is a difference between Gore and Bush.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. ...

a) I never said we WOULD go to war under Gore (in Iraq.. Afghanistan is another story) just that the possibility was there.

b) Yeah, there are some differences between Gore and Bush, but if I had to do it all over again (providing that the BFEE didn't have their hands in the ballot boxes) I still would have voted Green because the Greens have a platform I can agree with. Gore didn't feel the same way I do on too many issues for me to be happy with voting for him.

c) I am voting against Bush via Kerry this time around because I do not trust the BFEE not to try and steal this election too. But I am not holding my breath that my vote will make a whit of difference. If Max Cleland could "lose", so could Kerry. :(

d) And lastly, you can't tell from where you are sitting, but I am a dudette. :*

[sangh0]

26. Your argument here is ridiculous

Everyone knows that Bush* was EAGER to invade, yet you insist that Bush* wasn't pushing it. You're not helping your credibility by arguing against the obvious

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. What makes you think Bush wouldn't have pushed for it

even with Gore in office? Like I said, he could have gotten his GOP buddies in congress to stir up the sheeple.

[sangh0]

32. History - learn it or take part in a farce

The repukes DID push it under Clinton, but it didn't get Clinton to invade. You haven't offered any information to support the idea that Bush* could've set US policy while Gore was in the White House.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. Because there is no hard fact

it is supposition, and not one that I even said "I stand behind this 100%".

I simply played devil's advocate to the original post, which was about how we might have wound up in Iraq under Gore.

Perhaps you should start reading the entire threads instead of starting with my replies??? It would help things to make more sense to you. (I know it's hard not to rush right to my posts, since my user name is such a draw for you, but please do try.)

[sangh0]

39. Please stop making stuff up

Even suppositions are supposed to be based on things that have actually happened.

I simply played devil's advocate to the original post, which was about how we might have wound up in Iraq under Gore.

The original post said nothing about Iraq or what Gore would have done. Please stop making stuff up.

Perhaps you should start reading the entire threads instead of starting with my replies??? It would help things to make more sense to you. (I know it's hard not to rush right to my posts, since my user name is such a draw for you, but please do try.)

You'd be better off defending your idea, and not trying to disguise your lack of arguments by putting words and motives that don't exist in my mouth. It's not the first time you've done that in this thread.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. From the original post (and by that I mean from this tangent

#14, not the starting post of this entire thread. Just wanted to be clear on that.)

"I guess the latest green defensive talking point is the absurd notion that Gore would have taken us to war with Iraq on account of 911 just like Bush, and that we'd be in the same fucking mess we are now."

[sangh0]

45. Please stop defending your inventions

Your "devil's advocacy" is notable only for it lack of facts and the abundance of fantasy

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. Another W for you Sangh0

Buh-bye. :hi:

[sangh0]

49. Another example of your inability to defend what you've said

I've criticized your inability to provide facts to defend your position. All you had to do was to point out the facts you've used, but since you have nothing but fantasy, you wisely chose to retreat

[Forkboy]

58. Speaking of providing facts Sangha

Why haven't you responded with any facts to the question I asked you in the other thread about Cobb.

I understand if you wisely decided to retreat though.I would to :silly:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bacchant]

34. Heh, fair enough

Oops, I should have said "I respect my green brothers and SISTERS" I totally support your right to vote your principles no matter what the outcome. I'm also grateful that you're willing to be flexible considering the immediate danger to our democracy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. No problem :^)

[dansolo]

52. No IWR if Gore was president.

Ask anyone who claims that Gore would have done the same thing as Bush one simple question:

Would a Republican Controlled Congress given Al Gore a blank check IWR?

I don't even believe that Al would have invaded Iraq, but even if you think that he would, there is no way that the GOP would have given Gore the latitude that the Democrats have given Bush.

[Tellurian]

21. Is everyone forgetting that before Gore left office he personally handed

the Hart-Rudman Commission Report to Cheney? Which stated after a two year study, the US was vulnerable to attack vis a vis poor airport security.

Cheney dismissed the study out of hand.. because,
He KNEW!

[pezcore64]

38. Yeah Really, BUT

I dont think it hit Al till after the election about just how BAD OFF things in this country are and are headed. I think it was a bit of a wake-up call to him.