Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Well... considering the two alternatives the Dems put out to run against him... *shrug*
We'll never know...
That pretty much sums up your and my argument.
I'd like to know how you can casually "*shrug*" and consider any of that better than "the two alternatives the Dems put out to run against him." :roll:
It's easy to play the 'what if' game and fantasize about where we'd be IF something else had happened. What IF Dubbya had died from choking on that peanut? What IF the flying spaghetti monster had returned to earth during his term? What IF an asteroid had crashed into Nebraska just before 9/11? What IF... You get the point.
You're an idiot to say that we would have definitely NOT done * IF so and so had been elected as president instead of GWB.
I'm not saying things would be the same. But you can't state with any kind of certainty, beyond the certainty that a five year old has in the existance of Santa Claus, that we would be better off today.
Maybe Gore would have passed some kind of radical environmental reform that pissed off the Chinese enough for them to fire a nuke at us... Maybe Kerry is so dorky on the international scene that someone kills him out of general principle. Who knows! I guess that's part of the fun in living in your little hypothetical word.
But back to my original point... Hindsight being 20/20 and all... What did the Dems offer at the time that was so much more compelling than Bush? Nothing. An environmental whacko and an elitist dork that the average american couldn't relate to.