just a forum poll
we post some wacky shit too
Someone in that thread said Beck claimed we'll be paying 90-95% of our income in taxes by 2012 lol.
Why Republicans are more dangerous and stupid than Democrats:
When Democrats don't like America, they talk about moving to Canada :smug
When Republicans don't like America, they talk about Civil War II and how many guns they have cached away. :smug
There's a difference between democrats and republicans? They are playing for the same team as far as I can see.Because if Gore was elected in 2000 everything would have been pretty much exactly the same as when Bush won amirite?
The general direction would be pretty much the same I think.I think it's pretty fair to say he would have never responded by going into Iraq.
I think it's unfair to try to say in retrospect how Gore would have responded to 9/11.
just a forum poll
we post some wacky shit too
Yeah, but we're not, you know, SERIOUS.
Unless it's a poll about fucking Tauntaun.spoiler (click to show/hide):tauntaun[close]
Well spending wise, yes pretty much.
I wouldn't go as far as to say bin laden would have been caught, but its pretty obvious those 100k+ arabs and the 4,000 Americans would still be alive today. Which is a pretty damn big difference.Well spending wise, yes pretty much.
Yeah, but instead of 4k dead Americans and 100k+ dead brown skinned folks, we'd probably, you know, have SOMETHING USEFUL to show for all that money spent. And probably would have caught or killed bin Laden by now.
What I'm trying to say Cheebs: the US like pretty much every other 'democracy' is heading in a certain way and no elected politician is going to change that.
What I'm trying to say Cheebs: the US like pretty much every other 'democracy' is heading in a certain way and no elected politician is going to change that.
I wouldn't go as far as to say bin laden would have been caught, but its pretty obvious those 100k+ arabs and the 4,000 Americans would still be alive today. Which is a pretty damn big difference.Well spending wise, yes pretty much.
Yeah, but instead of 4k dead Americans and 100k+ dead brown skinned folks, we'd probably, you know, have SOMETHING USEFUL to show for all that money spent. And probably would have caught or killed bin Laden by now.
We can play the what if game all day. Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy. Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.
You got a point there on the war, ofcourse no war would have been a huge difference.
I'm talking beyond that.
And Malek could you explain that? I have a degree in History but don't really see what you're getting at, there must be some Hegel influences in me no doubt though.
We can play the what if game all day. Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy. Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.
Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.
I'm going to oversimplify things now to get the point across so don't attack the analogy because as any analogy it can only be taken that far before falling apart:
Good cop, Bad cop.
Two different people, different methods, same goal, same team. They get things done together, even if they act seperate of each other. Bad cop does bad things, good cop cleans up.
Republicans, democrats. It really doesn't matter. Stuff needs to get done, so someone somehow will have to bite the bullet on some matter and be unpopular. Then the other steps in and 'cleans up'. Their common interest are served and by electing the good cop the public feels like it's actually in control. Then the proces repeats itself ad naseum.
See some people want to think that the good cop and bad cop are on different teams, but they are fucking partners.
See some people want to think that the good cop and bad cop are on different teams, but they are fucking partners.
We can play the what if game all day. Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy. Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.
Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.
I'm going to oversimplify things now to get the point across so don't attack the analogy because as any analogy it can only be taken that far before falling apart:
Good cop, Bad cop.
Two different people, different methods, same goal, same team. They get things done together, even if they act seperate of each other. Bad cop does bad things, good cop cleans up.
Republicans, democrats. It really doesn't matter. Stuff needs to get done, so someone somehow will have to bite the bullet on some matter and be unpopular. Then the other steps in and 'cleans up'. Their common interest are served and by electing the good cop the public feels like it's actually in control. Then the proces repeats itself ad naseum.
See some people want to think that the good cop and bad cop are on different teams, but they are fucking partners.
We can play the what if game all day. Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy. Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.
Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.
Yeah, he had the luxury to be 100% against it since, you know, he wasn't the President and all. It's easy to take a stand on principles when you're a fat guy with a beard and no real responsibilities, a little harder if you're the freaking President.
That's not to say that Gore would have gone to war in Iraq- he probably wouldn't have started out with a conclusion and then found a hypothesis to match, for instance. Or cherry picked the intelligence info that reinforced his beliefs. But saying that a President Gore would have never considered invading Iraq post 9/11 is, well, the sort of thing a stupid teenager from Michigan would say. O WAIT.
I think any historian can identify some processes in retrospect that have shaped the world, in fact as you know our whole view of history is shaped by these processes (like 'Industrial Revolution' etc.).
Didn't you say that you supported that at the time?The general direction would be pretty much the same I think.I think it's pretty fair to say he would have never responded by going into Iraq.
I think it's unfair to try to say in retrospect how Gore would have responded to 9/11.
Eh? I think that was PD. I was a hippie liberal by that point already. I supported Nader in 2000. :-\Didn't you say that you supported that at the time?The general direction would be pretty much the same I think.I think it's pretty fair to say he would have never responded by going into Iraq.
I think it's unfair to try to say in retrospect how Gore would have responded to 9/11.
I never supported the war. It got me into politicsThe 2000 recount is what got me into it. Memories. :'(
Eh? I think that was PD. I was a hippie liberal by that point already. I supported Nader in 2000. :-\
it kinda sounded like it.Quote from: CheeboDNC AKA Jacob YenorPeople are saying it is because of Bush's amazing and perfect Middle East "freedom" strategy. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now it is spreading. Does it seem to be working? Yes, yes it is.(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7162/flipberrybos7.jpg)
tsk tsk :-\
There's a difference between democrats and republicans? They are playing for the same team as far as I can see.
I fucking hate false equivalency, and I always hate this discussion. Though it might be partially Gore's fault for not leveling up to super-awesome Gore until several years after the election, anybody who actually believes the hypothetical Gore years would've resembled the Bush years is distinguished mentally-challenged.
Why do you assume Gore would be any better? He's just another rich-kid dolt like Bush.
Why do you assume Gore would be any better? He's just another rich-kid dolt like Bush.So you vote Obama then, and Clinton before him. Because both are guys who came from nothing and pulled themselves to the top and ran against candidates from rich families.
That's my new motto in politics now. No more sons of influential or rich men. Give me someone that pulled themselves out of their situation and rised to the top.