REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=325
Will the REAL Al Gore please stand up.
–
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
20
Feb
Get REAL America
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)
24 Responses to “Get REAL America”
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
On Jun 28, 6:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
I assume you mean US Senator. And he also won election to the Vice
Presidency, for which everybody in the country can vote. Won twice,
in fact.
"Whata Fool" <wh…@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:6oc883torrp8vjo6j9rfden09ifq0dnjcc@4ax.com…
> Thomas Elifritz aka kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=325
> Will the REAL Al Gore please stand up.
[Whataf]
> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for state
> senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
[hanson]
…. ahahaha… Don’t worry "whataf"… Unless there are in the next
700 days or so, 3 Catrinas, a submersion of Florida and a Spring
Flower Festival in the middle of Greenland… nobody except
enviros of class 1, 2 and 3 (##) are going pay attention to
** The Man with the Flailing Arms **…. ahahahaha… ahahaha…
Even Thomas has his reservations…. says he in this link above:
" I don’t think he gets it yet" … ahahaha… ahahahanson
(##) =
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:55:39 -0700, Lloyd <lpar…@emory.edu> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 6:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
>> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
>> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
>I assume you mean US Senator.
From the state of Tennessee, stupid, only people in Tennesee
voted for him then.
>And he also won election to the Vice
>Presidency, for which everybody in the country can vote. Won twice,
>in fact.
No, he didn’t run, he was picked by the ladies man.
But when he ran for president, even the people in his home
state didn’t want him.
On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
majority preferred.
Bleepy
Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
>> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
>> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> majority preferred.
Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
And the electors are not required to vote as their state does, so
the issue of who wins is a little more complicated.
But after destroying America’s industrial base with GATT and NAFTA,
why would anyone want to elect him president to destroy what’s left?
I mean, Clinton was the best president Chinese money could buy, I
don’t even want to worry about who’s pocket Al Gore is in. And Al
Gore is an internationalist and not all that cool with the idea
of America as a sovereign nation.
Cheers,
Rich
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bleepy
Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
:On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
:> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
:> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
:>
:> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
:> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
:
:He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
:majority preferred.
:
Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
–
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
– Thomas Jefferson
On Jun 28, 10:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
> :On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> :> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> :> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> :>
> :> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> :> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> :
> :He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> :majority preferred.
> :
> Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
I know very well how our elections work. I said exactly what I meant
to say, and it has a plain meaning.
Bleepy
On Jun 28, 8:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
> Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> >> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> >> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> > He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> > majority preferred.
> Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
That has nothing to do with my point. Your claim is that he is somehow
subpar, right?
Bleepy
In article <d519835acu1kppgdmshfqg60b079b8k…@4ax.com>,
Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
>:majority preferred.
>Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
Besides, the 2000 election was a tie for all practical purposes — the
final outcome turned on small details, not on overwhelming electoral
preference. Even if the president *were* elected by direct popular vote,
it wouldn’t have taken much to swing the outcome the other way. Which
says a lot about Gore, and not favorably, given that he was the incumbent
VP, of a fairly popular president, facing the weakest Republican opponent
in many years.
What the majority clearly wanted was a "NONE OF THE ABOVE, DAMMIT" option.
—
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he…@spsystems.net
"Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote
> On Jun 28, 8:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
> > Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> > > On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > >>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> > >> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> > >> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> > > He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> > > majority preferred.
> > Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
> That has nothing to do with my point. Your claim is that he is somehow
> subpar, right?
Isn’t that obvious?
No one, NO ONE, in human history has ever managed to make a complete
dumbass out of himself, like Al Bore.
Ok, the 3 stooges left out.
An idiot, lead by a religion of false science and incomprehension… is it that
what you want for a politician, governing a country like US?
How stupid must one be to elect an obvious paranoiac?
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:12:30 GMT, in a place far, far away,
he…@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <d519835acu1kppgdmshfqg60b079b8k…@4ax.com>,
>Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>:He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
>>:majority preferred.
>>Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
>Besides, the 2000 election was a tie for all practical purposes — the
>final outcome turned on small details, not on overwhelming electoral
>preference. Even if the president *were* elected by direct popular vote,
>it wouldn’t have taken much to swing the outcome the other way. Which
>says a lot about Gore, and not favorably, given that he was the incumbent
>VP, of a fairly popular president, facing the weakest Republican opponent
>in many years.
And he couldn’t even win his own home state.
>What the majority clearly wanted was a "NONE OF THE ABOVE, DAMMIT" option.
Yup. Same thing four years later.
Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> On Jun 28, 8:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
>> Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>>>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
>>>> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
>>>> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
>>> He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
>>> majority preferred.
>> Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
> That has nothing to do with my point. Your claim is that he is somehow
> subpar, right?
If the welfare of the American people is at issue, subpar is a vast
understatement.
Cheers,
Rich
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bleepy
Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
:On Jun 28, 10:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
:> :> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
:> :> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
:> :>
:> :> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
:> :> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
:> :
:> :He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
:> :majority preferred.
:> :
:>
:> Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
:
:I know very well how our elections work. I said exactly what I meant
:to say, and it has a plain meaning.
:
You may know how, but you obviously don’t understand why. If you did,
you’d realize that your comment was meaningless.
–
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
– Thomas Jefferson
On Jun 29, 1:06 am, "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt…@frankenexpress.de>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote
> > On Jun 28, 8:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
> > > Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> > > > On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > > >>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> > > >> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> > > >> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> > > > He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> > > > majority preferred.
> > > Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
> > That has nothing to do with my point. Your claim is that he is somehow
> > subpar, right?
> Isn’t that obvious?
> No one, NO ONE, in human history has ever managed to make a complete
> dumbass out of himself, like Al Bore.
What evidence do you offer for that assertion?
Bleepy
On Jun 29, 6:59 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
> :On Jun 28, 10:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> :> :> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> :> :> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> :> :>
> :> :> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> :> :> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> :> :
> :> :He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> :> :majority preferred.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
> :
> :I know very well how our elections work. I said exactly what I meant
> :to say, and it has a plain meaning.
> :
> You may know how, but you obviously don’t understand why. If you did,
> you’d realize that your comment was meaningless.
Whata Fool was trying to make the point that Al Gore had only won a
seat as state senator, which is clearly wrong, then further went on to
state "even the people in his home state didn’t want him." Winning the
majority of votes in a presidential election indicates that he has
widespread support, which I pointed out.
Now, where do you find fault with my argument? How is my comment
meaningless in this context?
Bleepy
On Jun 28, 11:12 pm, h…@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> In article <d519835acu1kppgdmshfqg60b079b8k…@4ax.com>,
> Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >:He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> >:majority preferred.
> >Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
> Besides, the 2000 election was a tie for all practical purposes — the
> final outcome turned on small details, not on overwhelming electoral
> preference. Even if the president *were* elected by direct popular vote,
> it wouldn’t have taken much to swing the outcome the other way. Which
> says a lot about Gore, and not favorably, given that he was the incumbent
> VP, of a fairly popular president, facing the weakest Republican opponent
> in many years.
You failed to point out that he was a remnant of the Clinton
presidency, so he had a lot of that stink on him.
Bleepy
Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
:On Jun 29, 6:59 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
:>
:> :On Jun 28, 10:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
:> :> :> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
:> :> :> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
:> :> :> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
:> :> :
:> :> :He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
:> :> :majority preferred.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
:> :
:> :I know very well how our elections work. I said exactly what I meant
:> :to say, and it has a plain meaning.
:> :
:>
:> You may know how, but you obviously don’t understand why. If you did,
:> you’d realize that your comment was meaningless.
:
:Whata Fool was trying to make the point that Al Gore had only won a
:seat as state senator, which is clearly wrong, then further went on to
:state "even the people in his home state didn’t want him." Winning the
:majority of votes in a presidential election indicates that he has
:widespread support, which I pointed out.
:
:Now, where do you find fault with my argument? How is my comment
:meaningless in this context?
:
Because it does nothing to rebut the comments you’re trying to rebut.
He didn’t get a majority of the votes in his home state. Not
rebuttable because it’s a fact.
–
"Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory."
–G. Behn
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:50:13 -0700, in a place far, far away, Baldin
Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Whata Fool was trying to make the point that Al Gore had only won a
>seat as state senator, which is clearly wrong, then further went on to
>state "even the people in his home state didn’t want him." Winning the
>majority of votes in a presidential election indicates that he has
>widespread support, which I pointed out.
But he couldn’t get a majority of the vote from the people in his home
state for president.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:43:49 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> On Jun 29, 1:06 am, "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt…@frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote
>> > On Jun 28, 8:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
>> > > Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
>> > > > On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
>> > > >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
>> > > >> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was
>> > > >> for
>> > > >> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on
>> > > >> that.
>> > > > He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
>> > > > majority preferred.
>> > > Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
>> > That has nothing to do with my point. Your claim is that he is somehow
>> > subpar, right?
>> Isn’t that obvious?
>> No one, NO ONE, in human history has ever managed to make a complete
>> dumbass out of himself, like Al Bore.
> What evidence do you offer for that assertion?
"An Inconvenient Truth"? It’s true, people have a long history of acting
dumb, but he’s the first to get an Oscar for it.
On Jun 29, 12:49 am, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:55:39 -0700, Lloyd <lpar…@emory.edu> wrote:
> >On Jun 28, 6:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >> >REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> >> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> >> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> >I assume you mean US Senator.
> From the state of Tennessee, stupid, only people in Tennesee
> voted for him then.
> >And he also won election to the Vice
> >Presidency, for which everybody in the country can vote. Won twice,
> >in fact.
> No, he didn’t run, he was picked by the ladies man.
> But when he ran for president, even the people in his home
> state didn’t want him.
Too bad Gore didn’t have a brother as govenor in Tennesee, then he
could have fixed the election like Jeb did for W in Florida.
Eric
On Jun 28, 10:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
> >> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
> >> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
> > He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> > majority preferred.
> Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
> And the electors are not required to vote as their state does, so
> the issue of who wins is a little more complicated.
> But after destroying America’s industrial base with GATT and NAFTA,
> why would anyone want to elect him president to destroy what’s left?
> I mean, Clinton was the best president Chinese money could buy, I
> don’t even want to worry about who’s pocket Al Gore is in. And Al
> Gore is an internationalist and not all that cool with the idea
> of America as a sovereign nation.
Yet you have no problem paying 3 bucks a gallon given that Bush is
owned by the oil companies which are international comglomerates.
Eric
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Cheers,
> Rich
> > Bleepy- Hide quoted text –
> – Show quoted text –
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Eric Chomko wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:53 pm, Rich <some…@someplace.not> wrote:
>> Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 4:16 pm, Whata Fool <w…@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:34:58 -0500, kT <cos…@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>>>> REAL – Re Elect Al Gore.
>>>> Re-elect him for what, the only elections he won was for
>>>> state senator, but only people from his home state can vote on that.
>>> He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
>>> majority preferred.
>> Yeah, but the president has never been elected by the popular vote.
>> And the electors are not required to vote as their state does, so
>> the issue of who wins is a little more complicated.
>> But after destroying America’s industrial base with GATT and NAFTA,
>> why would anyone want to elect him president to destroy what’s left?
>> I mean, Clinton was the best president Chinese money could buy, I
>> don’t even want to worry about who’s pocket Al Gore is in. And Al
>> Gore is an internationalist and not all that cool with the idea
>> of America as a sovereign nation.
> Yet you have no problem paying 3 bucks a gallon given that Bush is
> owned by the oil companies which are international comglomerates.
That’s every bit as big a problem as Clinton’s love affair with China.
Most people present politics as a false dichotomy, more or less. If
one side is bad, the other side (aka their side) must be good. This
is simply nonsense. There is nothing preventing both sides from being
good or bad, but today I suggest that both sides are bad and that
the only difference is the kind and amount and magnitude of the
damage done. Nothing ever gets fixed, nothing ever gets solved,
everything both parties does just makes things worse. This is not
an accident.
If Bush does not manage to push the amnesty bill through congress
he’ll be the first since Reagan who has failed to do so. But since
Clinton did 2 amnesties, I guess the average is still 1 per president.
Cheers,
Rich
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Eric
>> Cheers,
>> Rich
>>> Bleepy- Hide quoted text –
>> – Show quoted text –
On Jun 29, 10:51 am, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra…@msn.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Jun 28, 11:12 pm, h…@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> > In article <d519835acu1kppgdmshfqg60b079b8k…@4ax.com>,
> > Fred J. McCall <fmcc…@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >:He did get the majority in 2000. That certainly indicates who the
> > >:majority preferred.
> > >Now go read up on why we have the Electoral College…
> > Besides, the 2000 election was a tie for all practical purposes — the
> > final outcome turned on small details, not on overwhelming electoral
> > preference. Even if the president *were* elected by direct popular vote,
> > it wouldn’t have taken much to swing the outcome the other way. Which
> > says a lot about Gore, and not favorably, given that he was the incumbent
> > VP, of a fairly popular president, facing the weakest Republican opponent
> > in many years.
> You failed to point out that he was a remnant of the Clinton
> presidency, so he had a lot of that stink on him.
Actually, Gore distancing himself from Clinton during the 2000
election most likely backfired. Despite Clinton’s ethical problems he
most likely would have beat Bush had he been able to run in 2000. Only
hard-line Republicans, who would not have voted for Clinton anyway,
really felt that Clinton’s problems were a true liability.
The point is that Gore didn’t lose anything because of Clinton.
Eric
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bleepy