I wouldn't usually waste my time on a living political joke like Al Gore, but his statements as quoted in this article just cried out for some snide comments...
"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again..."
Hey, you had no plans the last time you ran, doofus.
"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq.
Instead, you would have waited for it to develop nuclear weapons to attack you with.
"We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."
You would have kept it and handed it out to the special interest groups that voted for you.
"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media."
Why would you? They're all Democrats anyway!
"We would not be routinely torturing people"
I take this as a pledge from you never to speak in public again.
"We would be a different country."
Canada?
"There were specific warnings that the levees might break," he said. "But for whatever reason those warnings were not acted upon in a timely way."
...by the Democrats who have controlled the governments of Louisiana and New Orleans almost continuously since Reconstruction ended.
He said the United States and other countries are similarly ignoring the threats that global warning pose to the environment. "My country is extremely attentive to the slightest increase in a risk from terror, and that's appropriate," he said. "But why should we be so tolerant of risk where the future habitability of our planet is concerned?"
Indeed. Lets start by putting a stop to your personal hot air emissions.
Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors. "I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.
None of us expect to be interested in you running again, you sad schmuck.
"Of course a woman could get elected president," he said. "I am not going to make any comment on individual candidates. It's quite premature."
As was your candidacy. America simply wasn't ready for a robot president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Do you realize that you sound like a hysteric teenager? Unburdened by facts, you lash out in all directions, hitting left _and_ right, probably without knowing which is which. If Gore says exactly the same thing as Bush, you would still attack Gore, wouldn't you? If you watched the presidential debates a year ago, you'd know who was the robot president; the remote control device wasn't very well hidden from view .... We republicans wanted honor & integrity restored to the White House after the Clinton years, but we didn't expect to have to wait 8 years for it to happen.
I know more about US politics than most people, including most Americans. I had a 99% accuracy rate in predicting the outcome of the US elections (all gubernatorial and congressional races & the electoral votes) last year. I read half a dozen US newspapers every day. I have seen most of the presidential tv debates from 1960 onwards (I even have most of them on video tapes).
This was not intended to be a spoof on W. I'm sure there will be ample opportunity for that later. This was a particular take on Gore, and whether you approve of it or not bothers me not the slightest.
Hey, even kids have a right to express their emotions.
But once they grow up, we kinda expect them to use a more refined debating style. Calling your opponent "doofus!" is indicative of your own level. I'm not sure anyone would care for the kind of "support" you're providing.
"I know more about US politics than most people, ..."
Hah! It's not enough just to _say_ it, you know. Precious little of your rants here support that statement.
It's ok to be self-assured, but when that turns into self-centered "I am the only who knows the truth", you've crossed a line.
It's just so sad that people like you seem to get elected to offices of non-negligible power, by an ignorant populace ...
Words like "Snide comment" and "spoof" are usually indicative of a text not being intended as a serious analysis of a subject. A quick look around this site should have told you what to expect, and I'm sorry that you failed to grasp the difference between satire and the "refined debating style" you were looking for.
Satire? I always thought that satire was supposed to carry - or be carried by - a certain sense of humor. Judged by the number and nature of the comments you receive, you appear to have failed miserably. Maybe I'm not angry enough, or drunk enough to get it.
You're just repeating the rhetoric from the republican right wing. When did that become satire?
"Today, President G. W. Bush announced that he would pass new legislation, effectively blocking access to the nation's graveyards. The Pro-Life movements, who have been strongly opposed to the burial of people who, they claim, still might have a chance to life, generally welcomed this move. "I still feel guilty about lowering my Grandpa into that hole in the ground", says Bud Lite, Crawford, TX, chapter president of the Subtle Signs of Life association. "Maybe we could've done more for him, maybe those liberal commie doctors were more busy thinking about their own golf rounds than patching together Gramps after his unfortunate encounter with that freight train. I guess I'll never know."
When asked about the predicted accumulation of bodies in hospitals and morgues, the White House spokesperson Leakto DePress, said that "there are always alternatives to burial" and declined any further comment."
That's satire.
Oh, I agree. Quite humorous, though I utterly fail to see that it's any less off the actual political target than anything I wrote. A matter of taste and viewpoint perhaps.
For the record, I'm all in favor of euthanasia and I thought several Republicans made fools of themselves in the Schiavo case.
Post a Comment