But of course there's no difference between Gore and Bush*.

:eyes:

Dumbasses.

yawn. :eyes:

And, yes, I do put a lot of blame towards people who thought there was "no difference" between the two. We saw the difference clearly; why couldn't they?

That's the point; there are consequences for foolish actions which harm society, both nationally and worldwide.

:wtf: I personally don't give a shit what you choose to post about, I just think its a tremendous waste to keep stabbing ourselves in the ass when there are bigger dragons in front of us.

so we recognize it when the same misguided yet vehement opposition comes full cycle in 2008.

Something our Green enabler friends don't like to be reminded of ...

many of whom inhabit DU today.

.....maybe there isn't any difference except.........

Brain...

The WH Idiot - he pickled his brain with all that cocaine and booze that became known as "youthful indiscretions" at 20 and 30 years old.

President Al Gore - has a brain and regularly uses it.

Speaking ability...

The WH Idiot - couldn't speak in a full intelligent sentence if his life depended on it - without practicing for days on end that is. Even then it would be a toss up.

President Al Gore - can speak in full intelligent understandable sentences about a variety of issues at the same time.

Relating to other...

The WH Idiot - impresses the world with his "uncuriousness". OMG, I love that one!!

President Al Gore - is able to speak to and relate to everyone from the "bottom of the rung citizen" to world leaders without missing a beat.

Taking Advice...

The WH Idiot - Rejects advice except from Carl Rove (I'm beginning to wonder about them two, maybe Pickles knows something we don't) and is so set in his one way or the highway attitude that opinion or attitude change to Idiot boy equals weakness.

President Al Gore - Seeks out advice from a variety of sources on a given issue and then makes a decision based on all the gathered information. I think that's called educating oneself.

So maybe, people have got a point, other than these issues they are both male after all so they do have something in common. I'm sorry President Al Gore for insulting you so but I'm trying to see this from other's point of view and not having much success.:shrug:

:D

other hippie drivel. I don't hear much from nader anymore.

We can't deny it: If not for corporate money, both parties wouldn't be anything like they are today. But within the parties are people who will actually represent the ideals that the party is supposed to embody, but doesn't.

...who decided what those ideals are who decided that the party is supposed to embody them?

civil liberties/ environment/ war, etc., and that the Democratic party as a whole has been held back somewhat from adressing these issues due to dependence on corporate money, as well as sometimes ignoring their base in an attempt to get the votes of people further to the right. But do you mean in terms of things that groups of people want but neither party adresses? That does keep things from being considered as mainstream issues.

But my question is, who decided the ideals that Democrats are supposed to represent, and to what extent we are supposed to represent them?

Is there a test?

not specifically about Gore, but still the same.

Thank you for keeping the home fires burning! Some would say that this crap gets old and it deserves to be given a rest. Others would say that time had come and gone a long time ago. I myself will simply say that it is childish and let ti go at that.

...we can't let it happen again, even as people are threatening to make it happen again.

the party has it within its power to keep it from happening again, just not in the way some folks think it does.

:puke:

:eyes:

Nader was RIGHT. That's what I've learned. Nader has been totally, 100% vindicated in his assessment of geopolitics and American apathy. The Dems have proven themselves, almost to a (wo)man, to be capitulators. Enablers. Whole body made up of a bunch of little Chamberlains.

And if today's Gore had run, he would've won so big they couldn't have stolen it.

For 2008, mark my words: Gore will run, and he will win.

We would not pollute the environment with exhaust from our cars and public transportation, and that's the least of it. Smokestacks would stop smoking, chemical plants would stop dumping. Tune in, turn on, drop out.

He opposed a war (sort of) that was still three years off in 2000.

But what else?

About this president's abuse of the constitution???

That was pretty radical.

And, most importantly, he is funny now. We know the Murkins likes funny.

First and foremost, there was Joe Lieberman. People keep comparing him to Bush today, it was true then as well. Secondly, Gore kept trying to appeal to the conservatives on the issues, consider Creationism for example. And, of course, Bush was doing the opposite- making big promises about reducing greenhouse gases, etc.

In retrospect, sure there were big differences. But not to the average voter in 2000.

for the Dem nomination supported Nader in 2000.

That is a deal killer for me. He is certainly not getting my vote.

Flame-Bait.