Al Gore won Florida by 412.

Hey guys. This is just in!! According to CNN, Al Gore should have won Florida. 412 "dimples" were recently discovered......



















........on Tipper's butt!

 

Those aren't dimples. That is called cellulite.

 

CNN trumps the Supreme Court.

If the election results were in doubt, it was the responsibility of the State of Florida to declare a winner. We certainly couldn't accuse the governor of Florida of bias, now could we?

 

You know, there is a lot of literature out there on how Gore DID win Florida in 2000:

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181%20

http://www.americanpolitics.com/2001gore.html

Then there is literature out ther on how Bush won Florida in 2000:

http://www.nirajweb.net/mt/niraj/archives/001026.html

Then there are the results of balanced studies such as this one:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

The thing about Al Gore that bothers me is all the controversy over his loss. There are several scenarios that have panned out (such as described by the NORC) that show Gore could (not should) have won Florida by as little as 20 votes, to as many as thousands (butterfly ballot). Then there is the issue of Nader in NH, where thousands of votes would have gone to Gore (based on exit polling) That would have given him the win.

Whether you like or dislike Gore (and obviously Tipper as some have pointed out) can you imagine what it must be like being him? Waking up EVERY day and looking in the mirror and thinking (at least in his mind) that he lost the presidency in a very controversial way? That he got the popular vote? That Nader may have cost him NH? That Maybe he would have won Florida if the Supreme Court voted in his favor?

I wouldn't be able to take it. No wonder he didn't want to run against Bush this year, it would have have killed him if he'd lose again.

I would venture to state that if Kerry loses to Bush in November, we may see a return of Gore in 2008, just so he can try again, just because it wouldn't be against Bush.

 

It seems that it's now ok to discuss women's butts and post links to porn sites on this forum-- all in the name of politics. It's nauseating...

 

Porn sites??

 

Yes

Yes!

Bill Clinton's Library by Bruce.

 

I agree that it is totally disgusting. Maybe funny, but disgusting nonetheless....

John Kerry is a no nonsense kind of guy who hopefully will help undo some of the moral vacuousness that is running rampant in our nation under the "leadership" of our current President. I'm not talking about his stance on abortion here - I'm talking about his ability to bring seriousness and gravity to the real issues we all face, and to do so in a way that is not condescending and smarmy as our current President so aptly demonstrates every time he takes the podium.

 

Thank you for the bit of political humor, Carl. The big smile made my day...................

 

John Kerry is a no conviction kind of guy who will always have one eye on the opinion polls. He doesn't stand for anything, other than whatever he believes will get him elected.

Back in 1990, he prepared two letters to his constituents concerning the first Gulf War. One stated that we needed more time for the economic sanctions to work, and the other stated that he fully supported the President in repelling this "heinous act of aggression". He waited until Congress voted to give the President the authority to wage war to send out the flag-waving, patriotic letter.

Unfortunately, several of his constituents got both letters, dated days apart. If that doesn't tell you that John Kerry is an empty suit, I don't know what will.

 

Has Kerry actually stated what his plan for anything will be, other than "I will do (fill in the blank) better than Bush?"

 

Re: Yes

I thought it was funny, so okay, but, perhaps I hold humor in too high of a regard?

 

I'm thinking that Kerry is Clinton without the "I feel your pain" charisma - and lacking Saint Hillary's marxist sanctimony, I'll live better with his presidency than the creepy one's.

-Orson

 

"MORE SENSITIVE" WAR ON TERROR?

Last week, speaking to a group of minority journalists, Kerry said he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. Oh really? Just how does Senator Kerry propose being more sensitive to the bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists that killed 3,000 innocent Americans three years ago? Is he worried that we're not being sensitive enough to the thugs trying to kill our troops in Najaf right now? I don't particularly want a commander in chief focused on sensitivity.

Anyway, speaking yesterday in Dayton, Ohio, Vice President Dick Cheney promptly lit up Kerry, saying "Those that threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively, they need to be destroyed." Amen. But this is good, because what you're seeing is a fundamental difference between the two candidates on the most important issue facing this country: national security (no, not jobs or health care.)

On one side, you have a candidate who for four years has demonstrated his willingness to go after Islamic terrorists and kill them outright. No negotiations, no pandering, no waiting for U.N. approval. Just a commitment to do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect the United States of America. That's the Bush record.

On the other side, you have an appeaser. This is not in dispute. Kerry is more concerned with what France thinks than what the United States needs. He is also inconsistent....one minute he is for the war, the next against it, and so on. Is this lack of resolve what we need when facing down the most vicious enemy we have ever faced in our history? I think not. Ask anyone with experience dealing with Islamic radicals. They view sensitivity as weakness. When they heard Kerry making his comments about "a more sensitive war on terror" they must have cheered. How do you say "bring it on, Mr. Sensitivity" in Arabic anyway? Face it, November's choice is becoming more and more clear.

A more sensitive war on terror? Not sensitive, but weak. Very, very weak.

 

HOOOAAAAH!! (It's an Army thing.) Roger that.

I say kick their ass and take their gas.. These liberals always find ways to justify the murder of our countrymen three years ago. Un-freakin-believable.. Hello??? They attacked us.. Period..

 

So.... who exactly attacked us? Was it the oil-rich nations of the Middle East? Was it Saddam? Was it the Saudi Royal Family? Was it Iran? Was it Kuwait? Egypt? Libya? Or all of them?

As I recall, it was Al-Qaeda.

In your infinite wisdom, do the members of Al-Qaeda hold vast reserves of gas and oil that we are not aware of which would somehow justify your statement of kicking their ass and taking their gas? Or is it our plan to simply rob sovereign nations of their natural resources to fuel our own overconsumption of the world's oil supply?

 

Relax, Homey.. "Kicking ass and taking gas" is just a phrase, dude.. And you are absolutely correct.. Al-Qaeda attacked us. But where are they located? They are worldwide - specifically the Middle East.. And how do you neutralize enemy threat (that's the sensitive, liberal-friendly and politically correct way of saying "kill them all")??? By going after them ourselves.. Do you think the governments of Saudi, Iran, Libya, etc.. would voluntarily hand over Al-Qaeda to the US of A?

Also, I don't see how we "rob" nations of their natural resources.. If we are indeed robbing, how do you explain the hike in gas price?

Heaven forbid, but how would you feel if a member of your family was murdered by these thugs?

 

Oh no, Japan has bombed Pearl harbor! Quick, attack Mexico!

I place too much value in humor too I guess.

 

I didn't lose a close family member, but I did lose a close friend in the WTC... And the way I feel is probably how you feel - we need to eliminate Al-Qaeda as a threat to global security so that this type of wanton murder of our citizens can never happen again.

However, I caution our leaders to not expand this focus to a more general war against Islam, even though that may be the likely outcome of all of this. Certainly the war against Iraq, in retrospect, had nothing to do with defeating Al-Qaeda but a lot to do with establishing our hegemony in the oil-rich Gulf states.... as well as settling a blood feud between the Bush family and Saddam Hussein.

 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/9387047.htm?1c

To paraphrase The Daily Show anchor Jon Stewart (or his writers),
"Hey G.W., I think Cheney just called you a pussy."

LOL!!!

Tony