Al Gore is a loser (Video Proof)

[version77]

Quote from Sparohok:


While America is indeed rich and successful, and much of the world is certainly envious of our wealth, people don't fly planes into buildings because they wish they had XBox 360s.

I don't think an Xbox 360 represents wealth. So give us your take
on why the nutjobs flew airplanes into the WTC.

Maybe it's because we let our women have more rights than a dog?

I bet if you think about it for awhile, you can come up with other reasons...

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from man:

btw that is something new to me. people might like me
or not, but no one really thought i was stupid as in
"have a double digit IQ." or maybe you admire me and
it was a compliment coming from a single digit source?
if so, please aplogise and thnx for your nice words.

double digit is harsh.... i would be willing to put you right at 100.

 

[neophyte321]

can't we stay on-topic. This is a discussion about the Loserishness of Gore, not a study on the stupidity of "man"

I think "man" should confine his posts to the Prosac nation thread, unless of course he is a Paxil a man, in which case he should start his own thread.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Given that either Gore or Clinton are going to be the Democrat nominee for President I'd be doing a bit more than "speculating" as to their future intentions. But then again I'm an American voter who knows the political history behind each war we've fought.

I see little rhetoric from the Democrat's that suggests their opposition to this war is anything more than partisan.

One can find many quotes from the leading Dem contenders the past few weeks flexing their muscles toward Iran.

A shitload of folks are going to vote Dem on the mistaken notion that they're voting for peace. They're going to be disappointed......

Pabst, there is no question that you know US history and politics far better than I do. However, that does not give you powers of precognition. Your speculations may be better than mine, but they remain speculations nonetheless.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Gore had been in power and that he had decided on an excursion into Iraq. Do you think that he might have taken a more measured and balanced view of the most current intelligence available at the time before arriving at his final decision to go forward? Do you think he might have consulted with the international community in the spirit of cooperation rather than be abrasive to the point of alienating several important heads of state? (Cooperation, while slower, would have resulted in a somewhat more equitable distribution of responsibilities among the consenting nations, don't you think, thereby reducing US costs, both human and financial?) Do you think he may have paid more heed to his military advisors and experts to better understand the gravity and nature of his chosen path? Do you think he would have given more weight to the recommendations of someone like Colin Powell who knew what he was talking about, rather than someone like Rumsfeld who was spoiling for a fight and had a penchant for "special ops" but no actual experience or expertise to back it up; a man who subsequently chronically underestimated the manpower and resource requirements of the undertaken initiative? Do you think that Gore would have been as fast off the mark to make a name for himself in the history books, to hell with the consequences?

I think you know what my guess is.

 

[man]

Quote from ratboy88:

double digit is harsh.... i would be willing to put you right at 100.

good shot! that hurts more and i guess you know that ...

 

[man]

Quote from neophyte321:

can't we stay on-topic. This is a discussion about the Loserishness of Gore, not a study on the stupidity of "man"

I think "man" should confine his posts to the Prosac nation thread, unless of course he is a Paxil a man, in which case he should start his own thread.

got the message. just can help one final comment: you
do not really believe that "the Loserishness of Gore" is
really ... a "topic"? i mean which other title of a thread
could be a better invitation on bash-bash than that?
"discussion"? no way ... and did i ... yeah, i did.

 

[Optionpro007]

Quote from man:

i think

not true...

 

[PORNSTAR69371]

more left wing hypocrites hahahahahaha now slowly remove you foot from your mouth.

right on the exact same page too, so it was alright for scientists to be wrong about global cooling but not smoking hey??? boy the left sure has things figured out, sounds quite similar to gore and his crusade for global warming, all the while usng 8 times more energy than the average person.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Scientific views change. Remember when hydrogenated vegetable oil (margarine) was all the rage? It was the state of knowledge at the time. Science evolves. It progresses. You go with the best current thinking until better current thinking surfaces. To say it isn't so is patently disingenuous. Equally disingenuous are those who cherry pick what suits them. Global warming doesn't suit most shorter-term commercial interests very well. Oddly enough, Republicans in the aggregate don't put much stock into global warming. Coincidence? Nah.

Quote from Thunderdog:

Groovy. Just remember that the same lobbyists who were working on behalf of the tobacco companies are now focusing their efforts to squash the premise of global warming. And we all know that the tobacco lobbyists were nothing if not sincere. You're in good hands.

 

[man]

Quote from PORNSTAR69371:

more left wing hypocrites hahahahahaha now slowly remove you foot from your mouth.

right on the exact same page too, so it was alright for scientists to be wrong about global cooling but not smoking hey??? boy the left sure has things figured out, sounds quite similar to gore and his crusade for global warming.

there are different stages of illiteracy.

 

[man]

Quote from Optionpro007:

not true...

now THAT was a blow.