namelesstavern.net

Now I know it's not official if Gore is running or not, but let's see where NT stands for the Dem nomination for 08.

I've always liked Gore, not that I'd get a vote.

Al Gore would be my vote.

I think he would be a great balance for the Democratic party. I do not like Hilary, i dont believe she would be an effective leader at this point in time. I do not believe that a woman president at this time, would be the right choice.

I believe that a woman should be president, but due to the Iraq situation, among others i dont believe the world would give enough credibility towards a woman at this point. Its horrible to say that, but i believe it to be true.

Obamma, and Kucinich i do not know much about at this time. I need to start looking at them alittle more closely.

I don't trust Hillary or Obama. Quite frankly I don't care for the ultra-left that has taken over the DNC. Having a power base of extremes (either left of right) is not good for the country. Moderation is key.

Hillary knows this and this is why, if you watch carefully, you'll see that she is now trying to position herself as more moderate than liberal.

I would like to see Gore run. I'd vote him. It's too soon yet, but chances are he probably wont.

Xaiveir wrote:I believe that a woman should be president, but due to the Iraq situation, among others i dont believe the world would give enough credibility towards a woman at this point. Its horrible to say that, but i believe it to be true.

I have a similar view, if not the same conclusion. I think there would be a lot of bias toward a woman president abroad.. but I don't see the outcome as being bad. Despite the fact that I wouldn't probably agree with a lot of the paths she might take, I see one positive in the entertainment value when she started twisting the nuts of some foreign entities who tried to run rough shod over her because she's a woman.

Diekan wrote:I don't trust Hillary or Obama. Quite frankly I don't care for the ultra-left that has taken over the DNC.
I would like to see Gore run. I'd vote him. It's too soon yet, but chances are he probably wont.

You see Gore as a moderate? I know that sounds loaded... it's really not, I just found it odd.

Compared to Kucinich? Damn right he's moderate. I like a lot of what Kucinich has to say but he's even a bit too moonbatty for ME to vote for. The main thing Gore would be considered a leftist on is the environment, which I have NO problems with. Other than that, he's actually fairly moderate. Yes, he's pro-abortion, but so is a majority of the citizens of this country.

Plus he smokes them all on experience, with Hillary coming in 2nd there. From all accounts, she's actually used her time on the Defense comittee to good purpose to develop closer bonds and understanding with the military brass. When someone asked one of the joint chiefs which of the Democratic candidates understood the military mind, the answer was, "You mean other than Hillary?" Plus her years in the Senate have given her governance experience, and whatever she picked up as 1st Lady, obviously. (Can't imagine HER getting caught getting oral sex from an intern... rofl)

Ultimately, though I wish Gore would run, I doubt he will. I suspect the democratic ticket will shake down to Hillary for President, Obama for VP. Obama's got good qualities, but just doesn't have the experience yet. Season him for 8 years as VP though, and he'll probably make an EXCELLENT presidential candidate. Inexperience won't count against him anywhere near as much in the VP slot, and the ticket will still pull in just about as many of the same voters as it would with him headlining the ticket. (and will still probably motivate just as many Klansman types to go vote against him too, unfortunately).

Now, would I vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket? Probably, given that I don't particularly care for ANY of the GOP candidates. They're either far too pro-war, too cozy with Dobson and Robertson and their ilk, proved to be idiots by raising their hands saying they don't believe in evolution at the 1st GOP debate, rabidly anti-abortion, or have destroyed their credibility over the last 8 years (McCain). I suppose Giuiliani is the least objectionable of the lot, by a fair distance, but I'm still not a big fan.

-Arlos

I read something last night about Gore not going to be able to gather the funding needed to run.

From what I heard, he could do it if he declared ASAP. There's a lot of big name democratic supporters that're still hoping he'll run, and have held off endorsing someone or making the big contributions, etc. But time is running out, the longer he waits, the more of those people will have given up and picked a side already.

I figure if he hasn't made an announcement by midsummer, he's not going to run, as that's when it really will start to be too late.

-Arlos

I would vote for Mike Gravel in a heartbeat. It's too bad he wont even get near the air time clinton and obama will.

Hillary and Obama strike me as complete panderers - politicians in the crappiest sense of the word. That shit isn't going to cut it with the dire problems we've got going on right now.

I don't think I'll ever vote for Democrat again, but if I had to pick one Gore would be it.

^Voting for Ron Paul. :o

Gore used to be a moderate. Now, he's a poster boy for Moveon.org and would lose every red state, including his homestate of Tennessee. Comparisons to Kucinich are fun, though. Thats not the company one wants to keep if they are interested in a run at the White House.

I predict Hillary will win the nomination. Her machine is too good, and Obama is a tad too green, and doesn't have enough cross spectrum appeal.

As I said earlier, I think the Democratic ticket will shake out to be Hillary for president, Obama for VP.

As for Gore, you just don't like him because he's anti-Iraq-war, and probably the most pro-environment candidate you can find outside the Green party.

-Arlos

Gore quit being a politician and became a far left shrill. He's just another garden variety Sean Hannity of the left, now. I don't dislike him. I'm not like the far left cool aid hate crew. I just recognize partisan voices, and choose to ignore them, on both sides. He wanted the cash and leveraged his fame. More power to him.

Gore in '94 was very close to my political beliefs, and I supported him as I lived in Tennessee. Gore in '04 is a George Soros Muppet, with his head firmly up the man's ass.

The Gore of 94 would be a guy I'd love to see in the White House. The Gore of '04 won't have any moderate or conservative votes whatsoever and is a worse choice than Kerry was 3 years ago.

Gore out of the choices given.

Arlos, why would you stray away from voting for someone who doesn't believe in evolution? I'm actually curious and would like to hear why. I wouldn't stray away from voting for someone who does believe in evolution. I don't see how that would affect political decisions they make.

Not believing in the process of evolution is akin to not believing the world is a sphere.

Finawin got it in 1. I could never vote for someone that divorced from reality, that ignorant of science and so out of touch with the rest of the world. I have no problem with people believing in God, Allah, Buddah, etc. (OK, maybe a problem with Xenu worhshipers, but that's a seperate issue, heh.) I even have no problem with believing that God is why there is life on Earth now. But the HOW life came to be like it is, that's a scientific question, and we know the answer to that: Evolution. It's as much a scientific fact as the laws of thermodynamics.

-Arlos

I don't agree that it's a fact - a theory only. Let's not completely derail this thread into another evolutionary discussion though. Thanks for your answer.

The "Laws" of thermodynamics are theories. Plate Tectonics is a theory. Do you doubt either one of those because they are "Only a theory"? Theory in a scientific sense means something completely and utterly different than what you're used to, or how it is used in any other sense. Nothing in science, ever, is "proved" or a "fact", period. It is obvious you have never learned the distinction of how science terms Theories as compared to common useage.

Then again, that's not exactly uncommon, since I've heard politicians make the same arguments. Lacking such basic knowledge of science, when so many of the upcoming challenges to this country and the world are going to depend on science to describe the problem and provide the solutions, is why I could never vote for them. Science is IMPORTANT, and to treat it with such disdain is infuriating.

-Arlos

Science is important. Believing that evolution is fact is not.

To deny evolution is to proclaim you don't believe in science. Period. End of story. Just like claiming you don't believe plate tectonics, don't believe the Sun is powered by hydrogen fusion, etc. Same thing. EXACT same thing.

It is willful denial of reality. And who wants to vote for a politician that denies reality?

-Arlos

That's rediculous

And what, exactly, scientific evidence do you have that completely discredits evolution? No, a couple sentances in Genesis doesn't count.

So, what is this all-encompassing evidence you have that completely disproves the combined work of 150 years and tens of thousands of scientists? I want to hear it.

What? You say you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence, and are accepting the word of a book written by some bronze age tribesmen huddled in tents & caves 4 thousand years ago over every shred of scientific work done on the issue in every field from ecology to biology to genetics over the last 150 years?

I'd say denial of reality fits like a glove. BTW, how much did your membership in the Flat Earth society cost you?

-Arlos

What's rediculous is you making a statement that if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in science. That's all I'm saying.