While I agree with the taxation stuff, I'm am not really sure what Al Gore might have done after 9/11. Quite frankly, the way he has gone insane since he lost the election (please spare me the cut and pastes from loony left wing sites about how Booooosh stole the election, Libs) leads me to believe he may have nuked some countries. And the press would have cheered.

I just don't know. I doubt his response would have been the reasoned, well thought out response that Bush had.

But you know that no matter what he did, the press would have cheered. Even while we were all standing in the unemployment line and being hit by Islamofascists.

Why do conservatives not believe that Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan? That was a no-Brainer, hince why W. did it. I do doubt that he would have invaded Iraq, thus keeping us out of this quagmire that has resulted in a new pro-Iranian government!

Don't forget the daily doses from the MSM of "the globe is warming! The globe is warming!"

Yup. With charts and maps at each WH press briefing. Sunscreen would be passed out, along with sun bonnets for the ladies.

I am not sure about what he would have done with the taxes but I do think he would have had a soft response to 9/11. You may be right that his environmental concerns would have trumped the terrorist concerns, at least until we had car bombings etc. on our soil. Then Gore would have had to do something. Perhaps a little too late to easily contain and prevent more. What he would have done I am not sure, but my gut feeling is that he would not go after the terrorists as Bush has until politically pressured into it. He most likely would not have used the NSA for surveillance on terrorists or potential terrorist communications in and out of this country. (This Echelon program was started under Clinton, it is not a Bush program. So don’t try to pin Echelon on Bush. So far Bush has only been accused of domestic spying, no doubt purely for political reasons, by the left. The MSM no doubt has called it “domestic spying” for it’s own selfish ends, controversy is something they like to stir up, it gives them something to report on and sell news papers and gain a TV audience. So far I have not heard of any convincing evidence that Bush has spied domestically, or illegally. I have become a skeptic of much of what the MSM reports, around politics specifically.)

Hmmm, a president using his veto power... what would that be like?

Oh, and my dad just had about a third of all the muscle tissue in his left arm surgically cut off and is now undergoing chemo because he didn't wear sun screen. Really funny stuff. That Gore... what a jerk.

I was thinking about Global Warming on my way to work this morning (as we were experiencing our 5th straight day of rain, which I blame on Global Warming of course, as I did the record snowfall in NYC this winter). Two things came to mind:

If the climate is warming, for whatever reason, and the polar ice caps partially melt, wouldn't the level of the oceans slightly decrease or stay the same? After all, everyone knows that ice displaces more space than water, and since the Artic ice cap is floating in the Artic Ocean, when it melts, won't the water displace less than the ice is currently displacing? Therefore, for the Artic Ice Cap at least, the level of the oceans would decrease. Of course, this would probably be ofset by the Antartic ice cap partially melting.

Second, with an increased temperature, wouldn't there be increased evaporation from all bodies of water? Wouldn't that increase the amount of rainfall, which has a cooling effect and would benefit arid regions?

He'd be better that the corrupt, incompetent C student running the White House.

A-10's observations about rain and snow are correct. Global warming trends add energy into the weather systems, resulting in more rain and snow as the temperature bell curve passes upwards through those optimum conditions. Global warming as laymen see it means everything just gets warmer, which is, to put it kindly, extremely simplistic. But convection currents get stronger, creating higher highs and lower lows in abnormal regions of the planet.

As the big melt progresses northward, the first big ice fields to go will be Greenland, which is land based, so the zero-sum float-melt scnenario described wouldn't apply. Antarctica is the same. It's land-based melt would lift sea levels.

But, as it has been described many times without sinking in, global warming provides a mechanism that could trigger another ice age. I realize that is a really complex process to wrap your brains around. But Greenland's fresh water dumped into the Atlantic Ocean's "conveyor belt" current that brings warmth up from the equator could shut it off, freezing the higher latitudes.

Rainfall does not have a cooling effect. You may feel ran falling and think, hey, that's cold, but atmospheric water vapor holds heat. That's the primary reason it can be so hot by day and cold by night in the desert.

It's baffling how "conservative conservation" is an oxymoron, total opposites. Wanna pay less taxes? Drive down the price of gas. Wanna drive down the price of gas? Use less. Wanna destroy bin Laden/Zarqwawi/Chavez? Legislate energy independence. Encourage alternative energy sources. Hell, profit from selling wind power/tide power/solar power to all those unreasonably concerned liberals. Brazil did it. Are we dumber than Brazil?

Back OT. I have asked the same question of our friends on the left on several occasions on this and other blogs and have never gotten a single substantive response (see the "teenage liberal" response above).

I have asked for their plan to fight Global Terror, to deal with the illegal aliens invading our borders, to deal with Iran, etc. The answer is always the same: "Anything would be better that what Bush is doing".

They have no plans. They only have an agenda: to win back the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Then to push their censure/impeach the President for protecting us agenda, their abortion agenda, their gay marriage agenda, and their tax raising agenda.

Congressive, Your overview of global warming was one of the better, concise, explanations I have read. Why the right does not see the economical opportunities and benefits to our national security of developing global friendly energy technology is baffling.

The US became the economic leaders of the world by developing new technology. Innovation creates the highest paying jobs, and promotes research and higher learning.

Deleted - Hate-filled, leftwing slanders.

Teenaged,

You do realise that Gore accepted cash bribes while he was Vice President and that he had lower grades than President Bush, right?

Barney,

Still waiting for the proponents of Global warming to present their plan to relocating 100 million Americans as the seas rise...you see, if the global warming people are right, we can't stop it from happening fast enough to prevent the flooding of New York City, etc...so, if global warming is really what its advocates say it is, then they should have some detailed plans of what to do about it, right?

I mean, they don't just have plans to place fiscal burdens on the United States economy, do they?

Jim,

Afghanistan was a "no-brainer", true, but Algore IS a no-brainer. He would have bombed and not sent troops. You forget that the left was telling us of the QUAGMIRE in, yes, Afghanistan, just like Vietnam. We kicked their asses so quickly, many forget there was opposition to the invasion. Algore, the political coward, would not have invaded.

Mark,

I see you quickly edit my post. For future reference, what were you referring to slander, my quip in regards to his studies, or the documented and factual article that GW Bush was burning fraternity pledges in Yale? Thats not slander, its true and he even went on the record to defend the practice.

I remember seeing the SNL skit where Gore was on the set of West Wing and was sitting behind the desk pretending to be president. I thought it was funny as hell and I thought he did a good job.

That being said I have no doubt that his response to 9/11 would have been to launch a volley of cruise missles into Afghanistan and then packing up and going home. There would have been no invasion of Afghanistan and the Taliban would have survived to finance and train more attacks on our country.

Al Gore accepted cash bribes while VP and somehow Mark Noonen was the only one who heard about it. That's just plain funny...are you going to write into SNL with that one??? I think Horatio Sanz should play you.

I actually caught SNL this week, probably for the second time since back in my HS days...Farley, Sandler, Rock, Spade, etc..., those were the good ole days. The Gore piece was nothing but political satire. It was humor for the sake of humor and nothing else. When I found out Julia Louis Dreyfus was hosting, and being a huge Seinfeld fan, I continued to watch it. Jason Alexander and Jerry Seinfeld made cameos and I laughed my arse off at it.

You guys really need to change the subject of this blog from politics to comedy. The mere mention that Gore would have sat on his thumbs after 9/11 almost made me bust a gut. He absolutely would have attacked Afghanistan...but here's the clincher...rather than pulling troops out because of "no viable targets" and moving to Iraq, Gore would have persisted in Afghanistan until the culprit of the attacks was caught. While bin Laden doesn't mean that much to Bush, he means a lot to the American people, and would have meant more to Gore.

First, the SNL appearance was clearly in humor. It was totally tongue-in-cheek, and Gore riffed severeal jokes at himself (..due to the the giant hurricane elmination machine I was instrumental in developing").

But as far as what would have happened if the largest vote-getter had been allowed to take his rightful seat in the oval office:

1)In the wake of 9/11, any president would have invaded Afghanistan. The entire world - except our "allies" Pakistan - supported our efforts in Afghanistan. Nobody begrudged us striking back at those who attacked us, and Gore certainly would have done so. He immediately came out in support of the US invasion of Afghanistan.

2) Since Saddam Hussein was utterly ruined, completely contained, and not a threat to his neighbors (those are the words of Colin Powell in Apr 2001), and clearly was an enemy of al-qaeda, the US would not have gone and done the dumb thing by invading Iraq. This alone would have saved US tax payers $1 trillion, and left our military in a far stronger position to deal with the real threats we face.

3) Since the economy went soft, it is unlikely Gore would have raised taxes. However, recognizing that we were in a time of war, he would not have advocated cutting taxes for the very rich - a dumb idea that was discredited in the 80's, has lead to record budget deficits, and historically has never been done in war-time.

4) because our efforts would have focused on the terrorists who attacked us, Gore's "War on Terror" would have been far more effective. Bin Laden and Zawahiri would have long ago been apprehended, and for a fraction of the cost of Bush's Iraq fiasco, Afghanistan could have been secured and rebuilt. Without killing 30k to 100k Iraqi civilians in the name of "democracy", anti-American furor would not have developed as strongly as it has - indeed, Muslims would have looked at the transformation of Afghanistan and felt far more sympathetic towards the US - a sympathy in the wake of 9/11 that Bush has completely squandered. Far fewer Muslims would have come under the influence of jihadists, and joined the ranks of the international Islamists movements.

5) Because the US would not be bankrupt under Bush's tax free-for-all for the wealthy and the quagmire in Iraq, under Gore we would have had monies to shore up our nation's dilapidated infrastructure (roads, bridges, and levees), and would have focused on securing chemical plants and ports from terrorist attack.

6) Energy policy under Gore would not have been written by the largest fossil-fuel corporations. His energy policy would have emphasized conservation and investment in research into alternate fuel sources. Bush, on the other hand, innediately cut all government funding into alternate fuel research (hydrogen, hybrids, etc) the first thing he took office. The result has been that Europe and Japan is now far ahead of us in these technologies. Developing alternate energy sources would have spurred entire new industries that could have become the economic growth engine for the 21st century. Instead, we will have to buy these energy technologies from Europe and Japan - and now we have to deal with $3.50/gallon gas.

So to sum up, a Gore Presidency would have meant: a US not saddled with crushing budget deficits (and perhaps even budget surpluses - remember those?), lower gas prices, a stronger economy on sounder long-term footing, a more successful war targeted on the religious fanatics who attacked us, an America that is more respected and liked abroad (as opposed to the way Americans are laughed at or hated almost everywhere in the world today).

Aarontime, it was difficult to count, because there were so many, but I came up with around 19 or 20 outright lies, distortions, half-truths, and examples of wet-dream wishful thinking, unsupported by historical evidence or facts in your post. What are you, about 15 or 16? More importantly, what are you smoking?

Yeah Aaron, don't you realize these people think that budget surplusses are a myth??? Good job on your post...I am right there with you.

Spook, why don't you do some economic research on your own. It's plain and simple how tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the middle class. To oversimplify, our federal government will get its money one way or another. When it cuts taxes on the wealthy, it must raise interest rates. Do these interest rate hikes hurt the wealthy, or do they hurt the middle class? The answer is the middle class. Higher interest rates mean people pay more on home loans, car loans, credit cards...while at the same time promote savings, not investment for the wealthy. Since government spending has increased, not decreased (so much for smaller government) we are stuck with huge deficits. How are these paid for? Continued rising interest rates and borrowing from foreign countries. Yeah, that sounds smart....NOT!!!

Ron,
You couldn’t be more wrong if you made a concerted effort.
1) You’re confusing interest rates on loans and the interest rates paid to government bond holders. The Fed raises and lowers the bond interest. Because the debt is financed using bonds, the bond holders receive a higher rate of return when the rates go up. Because the majority of the debt is in the hands of Americans, either through purchased bonds or retirement funds the payout at the higher rate helps the middle class.
2) The higher interest you are speaking of gets paid to banks and lending institutions and goes under the heading of profit. The government doesn’t receive money from the lending institutions based on the interest they charge the customers, so your theory about the government raising interest to compensate for cutting the tax rate is hogwash.
3) The only way interest rates affect taxes is the difference in income the banks make at the higher interest is taxed by the Feds, the amount of money here is insignificant.
4) The Fed’s raise and lower interest in an effort to heat up or cool down the economy by making it harder or easier for consumers to get credit and deficit spend, just like the government does, higher rates slow an overheated economy.
If algore were president, he’d of issued an apology to the world before the second plane hit the tower.

If algore were president, he’d of issued an apology to the world before the second plane hit the tower.

Heh, ROTFLMAO

You people, honestly.
Quit trying to justify inferiority complexes with abusrb ruminations.
Admit that you supported the dumbest prez in two-hundred year and move on.

Bane,

Do you realize that banks borrow from the Fed at the prime rate? If prime goes up, consumer rates go up. The difference between prime and the interest rates on loans is profit. When prime goes up, savings rates also go up. Therefore people tend to save more when interest rates are higher, and invest more when interest rates are lower. Investors must compare the return on investment to the guaranteed return on savings to make their decisions.

So yes, cutting taxes puts more money in the hands of investors, but if interest rates get too high, investment goes down, jobs go down, economy receeds. Deficit spending is just not a good idea in the short term unless there is a guaranteed payback in the long term. Nothing is guaranteed. If we are hit with another terrorist attack and investors pull their money out of the market as happened immediately after 9/11, our country will go into a depression since interest rates will drop to nothing, we will be stuck with a huge deficit and the only way to recover will be to tax the wealthy. If you check your history books, taxing the wealthy got us out of the last depression and will be the only way to recover from Bushonomics when the inevitable terrorist strike comes.

dear retired spook -

OK, of the "19 or 20 outright lies" you say are in my post, perhaps you'd like to single out 2 or 3 to debate. I'd certainly enjoy that kind of substantive dialogue. Are you up to it?

Al Gorisms....that's all we need to know

You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html

sorry for the double post - I relized just after clicking send that I'd typoed spook's handle. My apologies.

I think Horatio Sanz should play you.

I think Rachel Dratch should play you, Ronda...

You guys really need to change the subject of this blog from politics to comedy.

I agree, Captain Ronda. As long as you post here, comedy prevails. You are one funny fella...

Now I'll address the topic. If Al al-Gore were president, we'd all be bowing to Mecca five times a day...

I'm just curious if you lefties can cite anything in ALgore's past that would indicate that he would invade Afganistan much less any place else.

He has a body guard when he spent a gfew weeks in Vietnam during the war, staying as far away from combat as he could.

If I recall, you dems were predicting we'd get our an arse kicking by the Taliban, and shortly after the invasion you were calling it a quagmire.

He trained under der Schlickmiester so he learned how to lob cruise missles but never commit troops. He has never taken a pricipled stand that might jepordize his popularity in his entire political life. So why would he suddenly change his modus operandi?

What are you guys smokin'???

Ron,
You have several logical leaps, let me help you;
1) The bulk of lending is based on assets on hand; that is the bulk of the institutions deposits in the Fed. the Prime Rate is established for overnight lending to “prime” customers. The government reserves for lending is dependent upon lending institutions moving money from one source to another; not on the government handing out checks to banks, and Savings and Loans.
2) Think of money as a commodity; the price, or lending rate is established by supply and demand. Increasing the rate reduces the demand. As interest goes up, the demand declines, taxes are foregone that would have been realized from production, sales, employment and investment.
3) As interest goes up the demand for bonds also goes up, investments in the bond market increases and savings and retirement plans benefit. Short term interest rate hikes can have a long term positive effect.
4) Keynesian Economics is what was tried to pull the US out of the Great Depression; that is tax the rich, and the government becomes a consumer; placing orders and paying for the goods and services with the people’s money. It has become a thoroughly discredited economic philosophy!
5) Global investment and mass mobilization got us out of the depression, not a liberal’s redistribution of wealth scheme; not that FDR didn’t try that, but history shows that “When the United States became involved in World War II, the drafting of young men into the armed services and the creation of millions of new civilian jobs in the defense and war industries finally brought the Great Depression to an end.” FDR Museum and Library.
This is actually a good place to bring this up, algore has said repeatedly that he is a Keynesian, and if he’s not lying this time, he would indeed try to have the government purchase its way out of a depression. He has recommended technocracy schemes to build hydrogen engines at government’s expense, as well as raising money to pay for his technocracy through increased energy taxation.

I think its tragically funny that the only way you Bushbots can continue to cheerlead for the President is to make up fantasies about how bad it would have been if some other guy had been President.

In effect your message is: "Sure its bad now, but it could have been so much worse!" Lets shorten that to, "GOP: It could be worse!" Wow, now you've got yourself a slogan to run on in 2006. Good luck with that.

By the way, since it seems like each week it just gets worse for the President, here's another "It could be worse..." bits for you to cling to.

Remember, if Al Gore was elected...

..aliens from Xargon 5 would have taken over the planet by now!

Democratic Utopias: L.A., San Francisco (think they'll welcome the military when the big earth quake hits?), New Orleans, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C.

Yep what a bunch of Utopias.

It sounds like you are confusing Clinton with Reagon and Bush I. Those two sat on their butts when our nation was attacked by terrorists. Clinton went after Bin Laden, but the CIA stopped him. Learn your history moron!

Aaron and Ron,
1) algore came out in support of the Afghan invasion because he didn’t have to do anything.
2) What Gen Powell actually said in Ciaro February 2001 (reported in Time Apr 2001) was “… the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” Why do liberals always forget to mention that last part? He also said, “I think this just reinforces another one of the messages I am carrying throughout the region -- that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is a dangerous regime. It seems to me it should reinforce to all the peoples of the region, especially my Arab friends in the region, that we have to enforce the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam Hussein agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. We have to make sure that he is denied the opportunity to continue moving in this direction. We have to make sure that we do everything we can to contain him, to constrain him, to get inspectors back in under the terms of the U.N. resolutions. All of us have to be vigilant, recognizing that these terrible weapons he is trying to develop will be aimed at the people of the region. He has shown before that he is more than willing to use weapons of this nature against the people of the region to pursue his own end. So I think this German report, once we’ve all had a chance to see it and assess it, will help make the case to the people of the region and the people of the world that Saddam Hussein must be contained until he comes to his senses and until the international community is assured that he is not pursuing the kind of technology indicated by that report and by many other reports that we have seen in recent years.”
3) “The economy went soft” this is priceless; the Clinton recession began in the second quarter of 2000; Clinton raised taxes in 1992 to fix the “worst economy since the great depression” as he put it. Gore recommended raising taxes at Georgetown U in April 2001.
4) Even if we assume that algore would have put all of his efforts in Afghanistan, it would have been about 8-10 months before we began fighting the Afghan people for control of the country; the overwhelming military force you are talking about would have had us as imperialist occupiers of the country, just a few years after they got Russia out they would have been shooting at us. The most effective method was to oust the government, allow the Afghans to set up their own and assist us in routing the remaining Taliban loyalists. History will bear this out.
5) Without the increases to the treasury caused by the tax cuts, where would algore have found money to pay for this entire infrastructure?
6) Because the Clinton-algore team operated for 8 years without an energy policy, how do you expect anyone to believe he would have had one magically upon inauguration? And if you are trying to develop energy policy, whom makes more sense to discuss with than energy companies? Hippies?
One final thought, the so-called surplus was an illusion; it was entirely the Social Security Trust fund, which was actually not real; it was “loaned” to the treasury to pay its bills upon receipt. Then, to make the magic complete, Clinton claimed to not only pay the money to the Treasury in an interest free loan, but still have the money as a surplus. Utter nonsense, you boys ought to take a class in finance or accounting to understand what it is you don’t know.

algore is a political whore, he has had more sides of any argument than john effen kerry. The only thing for sure about an algore administration is that it would be for sale to the highest bidder.

If Al gore were president, we would certainly all be subjected to every kind of evil that lurks.
As for al himself well, he was born a LOSER!!
:( Too bad.

So you're saying consumer loan interest rates are not tied to prime? I guess it's mere coincidence that consumer rates go up when prime goes up. That makes sense.

Have you ever noticed that the majority of economists are democrats? Look into that one, it might surprise you. Regardless, savings goes up-investing goes down. That's a simple fact. By the way, global investment got us out of the depression?...and where, pray tell, did the government get the money to invest? By taxing the millions of people who didn't have jobs? Ha! Only a republican would believe that. No, the money came from the wealthy...plain and simple. I just hope you're alive when the next depression hits....you'll turn democrat in a heartbeat because I guarantee no republican is going to give two shats about you and your broke arse.

Ron,
As always, your ignorance is stunning.
Lending institutions get Prime from the Fed to deposit, they charge Prime+ to consumers to insure profit.

The government didn’t “invest” during the 1930’s. The draft put millions on the government payroll, suppliers and manufacturers of war material began production and the government paid the bills with proceeds from the sale of bonds, as well as issuing script and deferring payments. The Government sold bonds to raise money for the war effort, as well as international commerce. The largest investors in Government bonds were insurance companies.
Just who were these "wealthy" Americans that paid for WWII from their taxes? Kennedy's? Or other crooks, robber barrons, profiteers and scoundrels that had money by 1936? Did you go to public school or something?

Gad, don’t you check any facts before you post?

:) Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
That was a really good one,haaaaa! but I'm afraid
your'e wasting your time on the history illite!!
Haaaaaaaaaaa hahaha.

Dear Bane of Everyone's Existence -

1) and what precisely did Bush have to do? You all act like Bush personally led the troops into battle - hey, don't you know that the flight-suited landing was just a photo-op? Anyway, Gore or any other president would have given the orders to attack the Taliban - you're deluded by blind hatred of Gore if you think otherwise.

2) You can confuse the issue all you want with long exerpts of quibbling and wishy-washy caveats. But without a doubt, the key senetences in Powell's assessment ring crystal clear: "And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Lets read that again: He has NOT developed any wmd capability, and he is UNABLE to threaten his neioghbors. Doesn't leave much wiggle room, does it? And of course, the subsequent ill-advised invasion of Iraq bore this out: Saddam had no wmd and was not a threat.

3) We can go back and forth with all kinds of manipulated economic data to support my or your point of view on the economy. However, most Americans would agree that the economy was doing much better under Clinton's stewardship than under Bush. As Reagan knew well, perhaps the best economic indicator is not GDP or the Dow or any other such egg-head formulas - it is what the majority of the people are feeling about their own economic situation. Remember Reagan's famous line "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?". Right track/Wrong Track polling is also a good indicator of how the economy is doing for the average American, and over 70% today think we're on the Wrong Track.

4) Again, you can cherry pick all kinds of dubious economic stats that "prove" that the moon is made of cheese and that your grandma is General Custer. What is not in doubt, however, is that the deficit has sky-rocketed under the Bush admin and the Republican Congress. Now, is that due to irresponsible spending, or irresponsible tax cuts? Or a little of both? I'll let you decide - either way, this sorry situation is all on Bush and his Republican rubber-stamp congress. What do you have against fiscal responsibility? Why do you hate America so much?

5) See 4, regarding the budget surpluses we enjoyed under Clinton's responsible tax and budgeting plans. Also, not invading Iraq would have saved $1 trillion of our tax dollars (not to mention 30 to 100k Iraqi civilians, and 2,400 US soliders). That's a trillion, with a T. By any standard, that ain't chump change. That money alone would fund a rather substantial overhaul of the country's infrastructure. Instead, it has been flushed down the toilet.

6) Gore most certainly did have an energy plan - it just wasn't one written by and for Big Oil. Renewable and alternative energy technologies have long been near and dear to Gore's economic agenda, and he spoke and wrote about these technologies. What we got under Bush was not an energy policy - it was license for corporations peddling fossil fuels to raid the national treasury. As Bush was fond of saying: "hey - that's YOUR money!"

Which is a nice segue into your final frothing bit of intellect: "algore is a political whore, he has had more sides of any argument than john effen kerry. The only thing for sure about an algore administration is that it would be for sale to the highest bidder." That's pretty rich of you to say, considering Bush has virtually sold the entire country to private corporate interests, both at home and abroad.

Aaron,
Let's read the rest of the statement from Powell, "but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime’s ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction." You can keep ignoring what Powell really said, or face the facts. You’re a liberal so I don’t expect you to acknowledge facts.

The right track/wrong track has nothing to do with the economy or how people feel about the economy, get the right popularity contest if you’re going to quote it. The consumer confidence is the survey on the economy, and right now consumer confidence is high. Tell me, Clinton-algore sycophant, name me one thing that Clinton-algore did for the economy, just one thing.

There was no surplus under Clinton, and he proposed no tax plan, no economic incentives or any spending policy during his entire administration. The Republican congress had the first economic policy of the Clinton administration and Clinton shut down the federal government rather than debate the issue. And if we really wanted to save money why not just cancel all natural disasters? I’m sure algore would have prevented the Two Towers from being attacked, and there would have been no hurricanes or wild fires or flooding, wait, all that happened in the 90’s, never mind.

Algore’s energy plan was presented in Earth in the Balance; penalize consumers, pray for an answer to “global warming” and government control of the energy industry.

algore took bribes from Armand Hammer, Buddhist nuns, Chinese businessmen, and technology companies, these are facts; your specious claim that this administration has been sold is like the rest of your sophomoric rant; long on fantastic claims, short on any real facts. Gee, just like a liberal.

Bane,

The only mistake I made was that I referred to prime rate when I meant discount rate. Banks absolutely borrow money from the Fed at the discount rate. People borrow from the banks at prime rate.

So, since you claimed the fed gets prime from banks for deposits, that would make you the ignorant one.

Nevertheless, without the war in Iraq, our economy would have grown faster and made more people happy. However, Republicans always want to have their cake and eat it too. Personally, I'd rather have the rich taxed and the money invested in better infrastructure and technology that leads to an independence on foreign oil. Instead we get war-mongering and rhetoric about America being addicted to oil with no action. Why? Because action against oil companies would be selling out to Bush's buddies and we can't have our special interests whining at us, now can we?

Don't worry, Bushbots - all your concerns will be answered when Gore is elected (again) President, this time in 2008.

Banal Existence -

"The right track/wrong track has nothing to do with the economy or how people feel about the economy...

In what alternate reality? People vote and poll according to their pocket books. To say Right Track/Wrong Track has nothing to do with the economy is rodiculous. People's lives are directly affected by the economy they live in, and who that economy favors. Obviously, the majority of people aren't too happy with their economic plight these days - or else Bush's numbers and the Right Track/Wrong Track ratings wouldn't be in the dumpster.

And it is easy to see why: plainly put, the Bushians are a bunch of mega-wealthy folks who have shaped the economy to serve them, with the help of useful idiots on the religious right. While GDP, corporate profits, worker productivity, and the stock market have been going gang-busters, the income of middle-class wage earners has remained stagnant. Meanwhile, the out of pocket costs for middle class Americans have ballooned. Healthcare has skyrocketed, gas prices are taking a bigger chunk of wages, while tax benefits have gone to the wealthy.

Overall, because the Federal government is bankrupted by corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich, state and local taxes have had to increase to pay for basic public infrastructure. Bushonomics has eroded the earning power of average Americans, and for most citizens the American dream is now further out of reach than ever before. Meanwhile, the disparity between the richest 1% of Americans and the bottom 80% is at a level that has not been seen in this country since before the Great Depression.

Ron and Aaron,
Neither of you has the mental acumen to light a match.

Prime Rate, banks don’t charge customers Prime, as stated before, Prime is for overnight borrowers. That’s the problem with going to Wikpedia for your information; it’s incomplete. You originally wrote, ‘When it cuts taxes on the wealthy, it must raise interest rates.” You were wrong, I corrected you, deal with it.
Now, as to your contention that the economy would be better without a war, well duh! The economy would be better without illegal immigrants, natural disasters, welfare, and many other inconveniences. But, once again with no evidence whatsoever you draw a logical leap that a war was concocted for monetary gain; no war for oil. Incredible stupidity on your part; if we fought this war for oil, why don’t we have $1.00/ gallon gasoline? And don’t give my your koskids talking points about oil company profits; the government takes more per gallon that the oil companies, and profits are what keeps the economy rolling along better than any industrialized nation.

Now to the nit-wit that can’t read labor/economics information; 1) income in all sectors has outpaced inflation since 2000. 2) Real income for middle class has increased. 3) Real buying power has increased !
You might try actually researching before spouting off your crap, let me clue you in; just because you drive an economy car, doesn’t qualify you as an economist.

Restating your non sequeteur about “right direction/wrong direction” polls doesn’t make it correct. The consumer confidence is the accepted method of judging … well consumer confidence. Tell ya what, produce one internal from the rd/wd polling that supports your “rodiculous” claim and I won’t think you’re an economically challenged high school dropout. I’m pretty safe here; you honestly are in over your head.

You liberals won’t be satisfied until we have the kind of confiscatory taxes your girlfriend algore suggests. Thank God this man has less credibility than susquatch. You know, I met this man in 1988; he was charming, funny, smart, witty, engaging, and a regular guy. I liked him when I met him. I’d share a drink maybe go hunting quail with him; but I’d never vote for him. His ideas, like yours would ruin this country.

Oh, and Ron,
Can you explain where I wrote "the fed gets prime from banks for deposits"?
Are you stupid, and a liar?

Yeah, I screwed that up, bane...next time I'll cut and paste...sorry.

...Captain Ron runs away with his tail between his legs

Have you guys ever watched al gore on television while being interviewed by a reporter and the reporter is asking him a question, did you ever notice, how he nods his head back a little and flares his nostrils and sorta smiling........

You know where he got the habit don't you? what he was thinking about was boy I wish I could get with my ol buddy bill and smoke some grass....Haaaaaaaaaaa Hahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaa hahaha Good one heh?:):):)hehehe.

I am continually amazed at after 14 years in Japan under their universal health care system that Americans still say "Our health care system is the best in the world," yet Americans spend twice as much per capita as Japan on health care but America's system is rated next to Lativa's while Japan is at the top of the list.

I've been trying to find an op-ed piece, probably in the NYT, a few weeks after 9/11, written by one of Gore's leading lawyers in his Florida fight to take the election. I e-mailed it to many people, and it is on a frozen computer I need to take in, to see if I can retrieve any of my files.

Anyway, this article was written by one of the lawyers who filed all those lawsuits in Florida in 2000. The bulk of the article was his abject gratitude that we had Bush in the White House after 9/11 instead of Gore. He said he had been a true Gore believer, had done everything in his power to get him in the White House, but that he had come to know the man, and knew all of those from whom Gore would have selected his Cabinet---and that the Gore team absolutely could not, would not, have handled 9/11 well at all.

The other significant thing in the article was his admission that he, and the Gore team, really did not think they had more votes than Bush in Florida in 2000, but they thought their man would be a better president, so they felt justified in making the claims they made, following the paths they followed, and filing the suits they filed.

I thought it might have been Boies, but couldn't find anything on google about him writing this piece. Maybe someone who subscribes to the NYT can find it in the archives.

To me, it said all that needed to be said about Gore as president....

Bane, while I have to consider Kerry and Clinton to be true political whores, selling out to whoever had the cash, I came to see Gore as more of a Sybil. He so totally inhabited each of his many personalities, and switched among them so swiftly and completely, he really creeped me out. I got mad at Bill and John, got fed up with them, but Al just...creeped me out. From the famous Tongue Thrust onstage to the sighing to the podium-pounding Hitleresque speechifying, he just couldn't hang onto any one persona long enough to get a handle on him---but they were all creepy.

I will say this for Al---he'll make a dandy candidate in '08. Once John made military service such a big deal in '04, Al will be under the gun if he has to run---he has got to be the only candidate in the country who, by comparison, could make Kerry really look like a hero.

If Al gore were president' You can bet that there would be a "Storm" brewing near the white house,Hunters across the nation would protest with "Dignity" and without pause to the persuance of Mr.Anti-gun.

Kerry and Clinton to be true political whores, selling out to whoever had the cash...

You need to check Gores portfolio. Then man has not been exactly sitting around.Whoring around, yes.