Gore/blumberg In 08

[azcoyote]

Watched and listened to the LIVE WORLD concert event to raise environment awareness. Toward the end of the 24 hour event Al Gore was interviewed and press to say whether or not he would run for president if he felt the other candidates would not give global warming enough priority. He never said yes and he never said no. Blumberg has enough money to finance a media blitz like you can't even imagine. What do you think? Crazy idea?

[jonny_lech]

Yea, crazy.

#1) I have yet to meet anyone who lives in NYC who actually likes Bloomberg. This includes friends who are conservative leaning who work on Wall St. and liberal punk artists who live in Brooklyn.

#2) Bloomberg has been pushing the idea that the country needs a centrist, third party. Al Gore is a Democrat and hasn't shown any real signs of defecting, although Lieberman's departure makes the concept interesting. Despite that, Al Gore used to be a centrist, but ever since the '00 election, he's been becoming more vocally left. Most of the left-center that he would be looking to garner will vote for Hillary. Like Newt Gingrich, Al Gore is very popular with certain factions within his own party, but is generally considered to have too much baggage to be electable.

#3) While environmental issues are obviously picking up steam lately, Al Gore has only really focused on that and the war in Iraq. Given that some sort of withdrawl from Iraq will hopefully be by Nov. '08, he's going to look like a one trick pony. I think it goes without saying that immigration is a big one on people's minds.

[Allia22]

Urgh, I'm scared. I may just end up voting for Mickey Mouse, be a hermit in the hills and be done with it.

[ghostofdavid]

Gore on the ticket could really detract from Obama or Hilary. If the Democrats really want to be taken (more) seriously, I don't think they will use Gore again for a presidential candidate.

Bloomberg makes my skin crawl. Even though he has all that money (and UN influence, especially in regards to gun control), can he legally dump it to Gore without being penalized? I do not understand fully the way that contribution donations go, but I thought each person and organization can only give so much money. Bloomberg has already been financially penalized for doling out money under one illegal manner or another. Not that it matters, he is a multi-billionaire.

[Skarredmind]

I would totally vote for algore! After all the guy lead the government comittee that invented the internet! And as we all know Manbearpig, is a super serial concern!

Our next president:[attachment=435:manbearpig_al_gore.jpg]

[azcoyote]

Ok it is a crazy idea. What was I thinking.

[Scheetz]

Bloomberg can DIAF as far as I am concerned. He is against the 2nd Amendment and feels the need to send illegal scams through Virginia to try and arrest gun store owners.

Clinton and Osama, that right there means this country burns to the ground. Clinton has already stated that if she is in office she will pass a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME because the poor want to stay on welfare.


Fred Thompson, when he comes out, he gets my vote.


And Skarredmind: The manbearpig epidemic is super cereal!

[ghostofdavid]

What is Fred Thompson's track record for firearms rights? If he is Hollywood, he is probably anti.

[Scheetz]

What is Fred Thompson's track record for firearms rights? If he is Hollywood, he is probably anti.

He is not anti. Though he is not all for firearms either. Just he has a better view on them than everyone else running. He has a great stance on the biggest issues concerning this country right now. Not going to get into them as my post will probably be edited

[ahwahoo2006]

I just don't think Gore/Bloomberg would be a viable ticket as a 3rd party, mostly because the 2 party system is too entrenched. While I think that this needs to be changed, that is a completely different topic (I'm a pretty solid libertarian). The Democratic Party would also not pick up Gore as he has already lost lost an election and, IMHO, is too "green" for the general population. The Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot and nominate either Clinton or Obama (hell, maybe both). Unfortunately, both these candidates are too devisive.

[Uncle G~Dogg]

Fred Thompson, when he comes out, he gets my vote.

Ditto...

[Scalliwag]

Some of the comments I found very funny. Words like devisive describes GW better than anybody in the bunch. As a matter of fact when did anyone have to even be able to say a coherant sentence to be electable? GW certainly would not meet the specs some are throwing down here and my bet is some here even voted for him Oops Does anyone else pick up on the irony here?

Bloomberg is an opportunist. So is Thompson when you look at him a bit closer. He was a lobbiest that went to the highest bidder. He "conveniently" forgot about lobbying for a abortion group, or at least taking their money. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/us/polit...nyt&emc=rss That story still has to play out. I put my bets against Fred. He is an actor, not even a good one, but neither was Reagan. Reagan even played second fiddle to a chimp in this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043325/
Is he a lot like Reagan... sure. Is that a good thing? Well that depends on how close you look as well. Reagan was the head of the screen actors guild. So he was a union leader. He was the first president that had been married more than once yet professed family values after his life of Hollywood affairs. So as an opportunist, Fred is like Reagan.

Fred was also a lawyer for the repubs during the Watergate hearings. So he has the same connections as a lot of GW's people like Rumsfield, Cheney, etc. etc.
So Thompson would be a continuance of Bush. The next president will need to have never even liked Bush for my vote. If they cannot be honest enough to say Bush is/was a failure he or she cannot be trusted.

BTW what Gore did was co-sponsored legislation to make the internet available to the public. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp It was a lot easier for his enemies to jump on his mistake in wording than it would have been for some of the repubs that voted against it to explain to those of us "here" today on the internet why they were against it.

[Skarredmind]

BTW what Gore did was co-sponsored legislation to make the internet available to the public. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp It was a lot easier for his enemies to jump on his mistake in wording than it would have been for some of the repubs that voted against it to explain to those of us "here" today on the internet why they were against it.

I am also willing to bet that hes not that cereal about the manbearpig problem . Even so I can't take the guy seriously. GW sucks, the only reason he got my vote is because Kerry seemed to be a bigger tool... I hate the fact that most of my voting is based not who who I like best but who I hate the least. I think this year Penn Jillette will get my vote...

[Scalliwag]

BTW what Gore did was co-sponsored legislation to make the internet available to the public. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp It was a lot easier for his enemies to jump on his mistake in wording than it would have been for some of the repubs that voted against it to explain to those of us "here" today on the internet why they were against it.

I am also willing to bet that hes not that cereal about the manbearpig problem . Even so I can't take the guy seriously. GW sucks, the only reason he got my vote is because Kerry seemed to be a bigger tool... I hate the fact that most of my voting is based not who who I like best but who I hate the least. I think this year Penn Jillette will get my vote...

I admit you can only hope for the lesser of two evils. But by the end of his first term and his "you're either with us or against us" and telling the insurgents to "bring them on" it was obvious he was pretty damned evil.
10 billion dollars a month policing a third world country. At least his pals at Halliburton are cashing in.

[dcrooksjr]

If you want a good all round canidate I suggest Ron Paul, Gore likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
Heres a documentry by Martin Durkin about Global Warming.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...51566&hl=en

[Sonthert]

Bernie Sanders (I, VT)/Obama (D, IL) 2008!

If Gore runs again, I will vote for George W. Bush as a write in. I swear. Al Gore really typifies a little of each that makes both parties bad. He exemplifies none of their good points. As much as I hate neo-conservatives, I would easily say, next to Strom Thurmond and David Duke, Al Gore is the most unlikable democrat I can think of. He isn't even really a democrat in the classic tradition. He pushes what he wants, tries to make people live in a way he wants them to. He's not a representative, he's a pulpit bully.

Too bad Lloyd Bentsen wasn't ever elected. I always liked what he had to say.

[jonny_lech]

Bernie Sanders (I, VT)/Obama (D, IL) 2008!

If Gore runs again, I will vote for George W. Bush as a write in. I swear. Al Gore really typifies a little of each that makes both parties bad.

*cough*Tipper*cough*

*cough*censorship*cough*

[ahzwald]

maybe Pat Paulson will run again.....is he still alive.....now i feel old.....better go smoke some AF mint or maybe orange, that always makes me feel better

[nestormakhno]

Clinton and Osama, that right there means this country burns to the ground. Clinton has already stated that if she is in office she will pass a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME because the poor want to stay on welfare.

Right, right, as opposed to passing a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME to finance a bullshit war on terror.

[Scheetz]

Clinton and Osama, that right there means this country burns to the ground. Clinton has already stated that if she is in office she will pass a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME because the poor want to stay on welfare.

Right, right, as opposed to passing a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME to finance a bullshit war on terror.

Ok, you are missing the point here. You WILL ALWAYS pay for our Armed Forces. So you are willing to not only have your paycheck broken up for taxes, armed forces, Social and medical BUT you also want to pay another 10% to people who make less money than you???

This is why we have people donate money for these causes. They are WILLING to help out. Why should I HAVE TO pay for some idiot who wants to beg for change and drink booze when HE IS CAPABLE of working. Why should I HAVE to pay for some moron who dropped out of High school and works at McDonalds for the rest of his life.

Sorry, I busted my ass to get where I am. I am not going to give someone a free ride to the spot I worked for.

Our welfare system blows ass and so does No Child Left Behind. Both of them need to be fixed and NCLB needs to be removed completely.

[dcrooksjr]

Clinton and Osama, that right there means this country burns to the ground. Clinton has already stated that if she is in office she will pass a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME because the poor want to stay on welfare.

Right, right, as opposed to passing a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME to finance a bullshit war on terror.

Ok, you are missing the point here. You WILL ALWAYS pay for our Armed Forces. So you are willing to not only have your paycheck broken up for taxes, armed forces, Social and medical BUT you also want to pay another 10% to people who make less money than you???

This is why we have people donate money for these causes. They are WILLING to help out. Why should I HAVE TO pay for some idiot who wants to beg for change and drink booze when HE IS CAPABLE of working. Why should I HAVE to pay for some moron who dropped out of High school and works at McDonalds for the rest of his life.

Sorry, I busted my ass to get where I am. I am not going to give someone a free ride to the spot I worked for.

Our welfare system blows ass and so does No Child Left Behind. Both of them need to be fixed and NCLB needs to be removed completely.

take a look at Ron Paul he wants to eliminate both. Edited July 23, 2007 by dcrooksjr

[nestormakhno]

Clinton and Osama, that right there means this country burns to the ground. Clinton has already stated that if she is in office she will pass a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME because the poor want to stay on welfare.

Right, right, as opposed to passing a law to FORCE YOU TO GIVE UP a percent of YOUR INCOME to finance a bullshit war on terror.

Ok, you are missing the point here. You WILL ALWAYS pay for our Armed Forces. So you are willing to not only have your paycheck broken up for taxes, armed forces, Social and medical BUT you also want to pay another 10% to people who make less money than you???

This is why we have people donate money for these causes. They are WILLING to help out. Why should I HAVE TO pay for some idiot who wants to beg for change and drink booze when HE IS CAPABLE of working. Why should I HAVE to pay for some moron who dropped out of High school and works at McDonalds for the rest of his life.

Sorry, I busted my ass to get where I am. I am not going to give someone a free ride to the spot I worked for.

Our welfare system blows ass and so does No Child Left Behind. Both of them need to be fixed and NCLB needs to be removed completely.

I agree that our welfare system blows, but I think it needs reform rather than complete elimination. It's pretty much impossible for everyone to bust his/her ass to get to high places in life. Our economy needs cheap labor, but it's a very well-known fact that you can't survive on minimum wage. Plus, a society as large and diverse as the US needs to take care of its weakest citizens. Welfare - at least in its reformed state - is a public good and is just as necessary as defense. And as Adam Smith will tell us, the government needs to provide three things: justice, defense, and public goods. To avoid a pseudo-French-Revolution-type scenario, we need to take care of those who can't take care of themselves (by the way, that fraction of spending is so tiny, especially compared to defense spending, that it's laughable). As today's France still demonstrates, poor people have that unfortunate tendency to riot...

[Sonthert]

The military is just welfare with guns. People who can't jobs elsewhere join the military. Welfare and the military are one and the same...except a lot more of the budget goes to the military.

Minimum wage is a joke. Its now a bar thats inched up to keep the low-level jobs populated. If the minimum wage lags too far behind, people drop out and on to welfare.

Look at Oakland County, Michigan, look at the Silicon Valley. They were paying people $13-$15/HR to work at McDs. Just average people working the counter. Jobs create prosperity. American companies have to be regulated strongly and correctly as far as employment goes. End employment of any immigrant. Or, create a special tax that companies pay based on the percentage of immigrant workers they employ. Create a tax for computers used in a workplace. If they were robots that looked human, nobody would question it. Computers replace workers that a company would have to pay taxes for, computers are more reliable and don't take vacations, or breaks. Either eliminate payroll taxes or tax computers, either way. Create a tax for companies that ship jobs overseas or use a certain percentage of their materials/parts as a qualifier. If less than 75% of the materials/parts by weight or volume come from a county other than the United States (Not including U.S. territories), then a duty is put on the item of, say 50%. Its basic economics. Supply and demand curves. If the demand remains constant and the supply increases (through more people entering the workplace by immigration or unemployment or their job being moved overseas), then the equilibrium price goes down. Basic Econ. Econ 101. As more jobs go overseas, as more people are removed due to computers, as more people find themselves out of work, EACH of the people still working will get paid less. Maybe not immediately, but their pay-raises will be slower than inflation, or whatever. It won't be like "You get a pay-cut today". People are working longer hours for less money. The average person can afford less now then they could 50 years ago. Don't take my word for it, look up the statistics about average work hours and adjusted incomes spread out by income level. The top .5% are getting fabulously wealthy, while the bottom 98% are getting worse off.

Edit: For those of you who are opposed to welfare, look at countries with welfare and without. Average pay, average education level, longevity of life are all higher in countries with welfare systems. Countries without welfare systems can look forward to higher crime rates, higher infant mortality rates, shorter life spans, lower wages and worse medical care. Rates of common health infections like Cholera, tuberculosis Go, go look it up. You people opposed to welfare aren't opposed to the idea of welfare, you are just opposed to paying for it. Murder rates run closely with welfare subsidies, murder rates are as five times higher in countries that don't have welfare (estimates vary, buts its substantially higher in non-welfare nations). You can't just eliminate welfare and assume the quality of your life will remain the same (or get better) other governments around the world disprove that. Just because you want things a certain way doesn't mean it will happen. Getting rid of welfare would be a huge error, if other failed and failing countries in the world could be important. Edited July 23, 2007 by Sonthert

[nestormakhno]

The military is just welfare with guns. People who can't jobs elsewhere join the military. Welfare and the military are one and the same...except a lot more of the budget goes to the military.

Minimum wage is a joke. Its now a bar thats inched up to keep the low-level jobs populated. If the minimum wage lags too far behind, people drop out and on to welfare.

Look at Oakland County, Michigan, look at the Silicon Valley. They were paying people $13-$15/HR to work at McDs. Just average people working the counter. Jobs create prosperity. American companies have to be regulated strongly and correctly as far as employment goes. End employment of any immigrant. Or, create a special tax that companies pay based on the percentage of immigrant workers they employ. Create a tax for computers used in a workplace. If they were robots that looked human, nobody would question it. Computers replace workers that a company would have to pay taxes for, computers are more reliable and don't take vacations, or breaks. Either eliminate payroll taxes or tax computers, either way. Create a tax for companies that ship jobs overseas or use a certain percentage of their materials/parts as a qualifier. If less than 75% of the materials/parts by weight or volume come from a county other than the United States (Not including U.S. territories), then a duty is put on the item of, say 50%. Its basic economics. Supply and demand curves. If the demand remains constant and the supply increases (through more people entering the workplace by immigration or unemployment or their job being moved overseas), then the equilibrium price goes down. Basic Econ. Econ 101. As more jobs go overseas, as more people are removed due to computers, as more people find themselves out of work, EACH of the people still working will get paid less. Maybe not immediately, but their pay-raises will be slower than inflation, or whatever. It won't be like "You get a pay-cut today". People are working longer hours for less money. The average person can afford less now then they could 50 years ago. Don't take my word for it, look up the statistics about average work hours and adjusted incomes spread out by income level. The top .5% are getting fabulously wealthy, while the bottom 98% are getting worse off.

Edit: For those of you who are opposed to welfare, look at countries with welfare and without. Average pay, average education level, longevity of life are all higher in countries with welfare systems. Countries without welfare systems can look forward to higher crime rates, higher infant mortality rates, shorter life spans, lower wages and worse medical care. Rates of common health infections like Cholera, tuberculosis Go, go look it up. You people opposed to welfare aren't opposed to the idea of welfare, you are just opposed to paying for it. Murder rates run closely with welfare subsidies, murder rates are as five times higher in countries that don't have welfare (estimates vary, buts its substantially higher in non-welfare nations). You can't just eliminate welfare and assume the quality of your life will remain the same (or get better) other governments around the world disprove that. Just because you want things a certain way doesn't mean it will happen. Getting rid of welfare would be a huge error, if other failed and failing countries in the world could be important.

lol, for a second, there, I thought this was the income tax thread. But even those who work minimum wage are suplemented by welfare. I agree with you about worldwide welfare presence, but too much welfare can pretty fatally fuck up the economy. Look at the EU.

[Sonthert]

Yeah, proves my point. Look at Germany, Switzerland. The fucked up countries are still fucked up. The strong ones are still strong. The EU did nothing.