What will you do IF Gore WINS?

[ToBeMe]

OK, here's one that got by me, and I thought I had followed everything pretty closely...(must have been asleep when this was on, or just forgot it) Some Donna Brazile Lady has come forward and said that she was told to make the remarks she made about Police & Dogs keeping Black Democratic voters from voting by a high ranking Democrat on election night. I don't even remember hearing this on the 7th or 8th but it was just on the AP radio news.

• OK, looked up the spelling of her name and what she is, apparently she is some sort of campaign advisor or worker. Still don't mean much to me, might not even be a big deal but the radio people made it sound like it was!

 

[MrPALCO]

What is Gore doing now that the Hand Writing is on the Wall?




edit..html

 

[Zucchini]

<< At this point Bush has a good shot of possibly bringing the country back together....on the other hand, Gore has little or none. >>



That is some wishful thinking. Democrats will be very angry that the election was &quot;stolen&quot;(man this word has been used too much already). Don't throw any b/s at me about bush's bipartisan work in texas, democrats in texas are practically republican, and he had little power anyways. They also had little reason not to work with him back then.

 

[Moonbeam]

If Bush gets elected, I would imagine that all the Democrats that had to indure the prig Rep attacks on Clinton and the slurs that they have no character will set out to bring us the truth of the missing time Bush experienced as a Guard pilot. Then we'll find out all about the back door deals that got tax payer money to build the statium for Bush's multi million dollar team sale. Then we can start impeachment hearings for the murders of witnesses and on and on and on and on.

It staggers me also, that guys like bozack and MrPALCO can't see that their slander of Democrats as crybabies is nothing else but pissing and moaning of the kind they decry.

 

[etech]

My reference to the Kyoto treaty was to point out this,

Voting for someone because they support the Kyoto treaty would be a mistake. The KT will tie up energy and peoples time to finally decide that it is an unworkable solution. If that time and effort had been put to actually working on fair and achievable solutions the world would be better off both financially and environmentally. That's what I should of said earlier.

Kyoto treaty
&quot;US Senators attending COP-3 are getting hot under the collar at what they consider irresponsible negotiating by Clinton-Gore officials, which may result in harsher energy restrictions for the US economy than for its Third World trading partners. Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming described the Kyoto conference as &quot;an economic meeting disguised as an environmental meeting,&quot; reports Bonner Cohen of the Earth Times. A disbelieving Sen. Enzi mocked the entire conference as &quot;a Chinese plot to restrict the growth of the American economy,&quot; noting the People's Republic of China's flat refusal to join the UN's incipient global energy rationing regime.&quot;

 

[Moonbeam]

I think if we dig deep, etech, we'll find some oilmen financing that site. You can ACT NOW, and send an email to Clinton urging him not to weaken the treaty here

Edit: If the link doesn't work try www.ucsusa.org The Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[etech]

The US will never ratify a treaty that is so blatantly unfair to it's own interests.

Moonbeam, you are almost ludicrous in your assertions that anyone that does not approve of that treaty must be an &quot;oilman&quot;, your biases are showing loud and clear.

Please read the blasted treaty and tell me why so many nations we not be covered by it. Tell me what it would do to the US economy. Then perhaps we can work together to come up with better solutions that actually have a chance of being enacted.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are very kind, etech. It's a relief to know I'm only 'almost' ludicrous. When I use language like 'I think', that means I'm stating an opinion, not making an assertion as you maintain. Also, we have done non of the digging I suggested we do so all you are doing is saying you have a different opinion than me. You offer no proof to my feeling that the site is probably financed by somebody whose economic interests are threatened by the treaty rather than those who have maybe only philosophical differences. Think about it. I welcome the sentiment that it is better to work consensually than to bicker. Like many issues I havn't the expertise or time to explore, I trust the Union of Concerned Scientists to be scientific and informed on the issue. I would defer to their judgement. I think that economics gets too much consideration in these kinds of issues. We may all die rich and young.