| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After the bush years, I no longer believe that the parties are the same. I cannot see the Iraq war happening under president Gore for example.
AFAIK, Gore or one of his close aides stated that Iraq would have happened under their watch anyway.
I'm not sure what this sentiment means anyways, was Gore so much more peaceful than Obama?Is Iraq somehow more offensive a war than Afghanistan? (not to mention Somalia and other indirect conflicts)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott. this isn't 4e. Your blind defense of WotC and any of their critics is fine, they aren't killing people.
Ooooookay, we're done with you.
|
That's not "society" building up that idea. That's the political reality of a first-past-the-post voting system. If you don't want to use the system in the way that is most beneficial to yourself, that's fine. But you don't, for instance, get to vote for Ralph Nader in a swing state in the 2000 election and then complain about Bush being elected.
I didn't, and I wouldn't :P.
Because democracy is not about getting exactly what you want all the time, and throwing up your arms and complaining about that by calling your choice "the lesser of two evils" makes you sound like a spoiled child. You should bother voting for them because one of those candidates is a better choice for you than the other (and if you disagree, you aren't paying attention).
I forgot that you got to decide how I should vote. If I decide that neither of the Republican/Democratic candidates represents what I want in a president, and don't feel that either person is a better choice than they other, then it really doesn't matter if I vote for someone else, does it?
Ya know, I've tried to stand up for you in the past. I've ignored the fact that you can be a little abrasive, because you have clearly given your ideas a lot of thought. That having been said, your posts in this thread have done NOTHING but make you look like the infant you claim others to be, because the elections didn't go the way you wanted them to.
I forgot that you got to decide how I should vote. If I decide that neither of the Republican/Democratic candidates represents what I want in a president, and don't feel that either person is a better choice than they other, then it really doesn't matter if I vote for someone else, does it?
That's sort of a weird position to take, though - honestly believing that the two candidates are interchangeable. Do you believe that reflects a well-researched view of reality?
Sure, if you've looked at both candidates and decided:
- that support or opposition to abortion rights doesn't matter to you
- that support or opposition to campaign finance reform doesn't matter to you
- that the minimum wage doesn't matter to you
- that the way government taxes small businesses doesn't matter to you
- that how we approach strong economic rivals like China doesn't matter to you
- that support or opposition to union rights doesn't matter to you
- that support or opposition to women's workplace rights doesn't matter to you
- that how the country deals with criminals doesn't matter to you
- that support or opposition to curtailing defense spending doesn't matter to you
- etc.
Then sure, it doesn't matter if you vote for someone else. I think that, if you're being honest with yourself, however, you will accept that one or more of the issues outlined is important to you, and that it makes more sense for you to support one candidate than the other. The above is just a small sampling of topics that the two candidates have major disagreements on. Unless you truly feel like it's all a wash (a viewpoint that I consider both unnecessarily cynical and without any grounding in reality), you may be working at cross purposes with yourself if you choose to vote for a third-party candidate.
Ya know, I've tried to stand up for you in the past. I've ignored the fact that you can be a little abrasive, because you have clearly given your ideas a lot of thought. That having been said, your posts in this thread have done NOTHING but make you look like the infant you claim others to be, because the elections didn't go the way you wanted them to.
I voted for Bush in 2004, but thanks for playing. This isn't about being partisan; I am partisan, but my push against third-party voting is rooted in political theory, not party lines. Bush is just convenient to point to because so many people do believe he was a poor President. This is about dispelling the myth that voting for a third-party candidate represents a powerful symbolic statement, rather than a potentially self-destructive decision to give the candidate you like the least a boost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You voted for Bush in 2004, but the Naderites are responsible for the eight years of Bush rule?!?
Yeah, you're right, we are done here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scott. this isn't 4e. Your blind defense of WotC and any of their critics is fine, they aren't killing people.Ooooookay, we're done with you.Any excuse for not having to defend your "compassionate, caring" Obama's ordering a sixteen year old American citizen's assassination, eh?
Typical.
I'm sure if I tried hard enough, I could find several 16 year olds that I would be totally fine with being assassinated. ;)
You voted for Bush in 2004, but the Naderites are responsible for the eight years of Bush rule?!?
I absolutely did, and you know why? Because I was a 19 year-old with too much Ayn Rand and not enough exposure to actual political thought (not to mention a sad lack of knowledge regarding the issues at hand). And it's something I am sorely ashamed of to this day. Thankfully, I live in California and my vote had no chance of contributing to Bush's election, but that doesn't mean that I don't deserve to feel bad and feel like I failed in my civic duty.
Bush won in 2004 not because of the Naderites, but because Kerry was a worthless candidate. Here is a suggestion, if you want to run someone and say they have a real military record to run on, you probably shouldn't put someone up that came back and called his fellow servicemen a bunch of baby killers. Just something to keep in mind, it kind of negates the whole proud soldier image.
Bush won in 2004 not because of the Naderites, but because Kerry was a worthless candidate. Here is a suggestion, if you want to run someone and say they have a real military record to run on, you probably shouldn't put someone up that came back and called his fellow servicemen a bunch of baby killers. Just something to keep in mind, it kind of negates the whole proud soldier image.
So, wait, you're saying a "real" serviceman wouldn't call people who killed babies babykillers?
/boggle
I get the Kerry hate. Largely because I was a Howard Dean guy.
Scott. this isn't 4e. Your blind defense of WotC and any of their critics is fine, they aren't killing people.Ooooookay, we're done with you.Any excuse for not having to defend your "compassionate, caring" Obama's ordering a sixteen year old American citizen's assassination, eh?
Typical.
How about that you brought up 4e in a political thread?
Bush won in 2004 not because of the Naderites, but because Kerry was a worthless candidate. Here is a suggestion, if you want to run someone and say they have a real military record to run on, you probably shouldn't put someone up that came back and called his fellow servicemen a bunch of baby killers. Just something to keep in mind, it kind of negates the whole proud soldier image.So, wait, you're saying a "real" serviceman wouldn't call people who killed babies babykillers?
/boggle
I get the Kerry hate. Largely because I was a Howard Dean guy.
Hey, if you want to run as someone that is willing to tell the hard truth, that is fine, but don't then try to run as a war hero, which he tried to do.
Hey, if you want to run as someone that is willing to tell the hard truth, that is fine, but don't then try to run as a war hero, which he tried to do.
What I'm trying to figure out is why you think those two things are mutually exclusive.
Hey, if you want to run as someone that is willing to tell the hard truth, that is fine, but don't then try to run as a war hero, which he tried to do.What I'm trying to figure out is why you think those two things are mutually exclusive.
So was he a baby killer as well, or was he just the only one that wasn't? Was he the only pure soldier there? Yeah, if the US soldiers were such worthless scum, murdering and raping, then why should we view Kerry as being a hero when he was knee deep in it as well.
How about that you brought up 4e in a political thread?Scott. this isn't 4e. Your blind defense of WotC and any of their critics is fine, they aren't killing people.Ooooookay, we're done with you.Any excuse for not having to defend your "compassionate, caring" Obama's ordering a sixteen year old American citizen's assassination, eh?
Typical.
Yeah, there's no place for that kind of controversy here! This is about the Presidential election!
So was he a baby killer as well, or was he just the only one that wasn't? Was he the only pure soldier there? Yeah, if the US soldiers were such worthless scum, murdering and raping, then why should we view Kerry as being a hero when he was knee deep in it as well.Hey, if you want to run as someone that is willing to tell the hard truth, that is fine, but don't then try to run as a war hero, which he tried to do.What I'm trying to figure out is why you think those two things are mutually exclusive.
That's a fair point, but by that standard the very term "war hero" is an oxymoron, which I do believe is the case. Wars don't make one heroic.
If we go by the typical textbook jingoistic definition of "war hero", the man served his country in combat. Whether or not he came back and say "woof, guys, there's some bad bad stuff going on back there" would only make him another kind of hero as well.
But as I've said, Kerry was a limp opponent for Bush and, in retrospect, I'm not surprised we got Bush again.
Yeah, there's no place for that kind of controversy here! This is about the Presidential election!
4e sucks! 4 more years (of Pathfinder and Obama)!
Wars don't make one heroic.
No, they just don't make one great. ;)
Wars don't make one heroic.No, they just don't make one great. ;)
was wondering if you'd catch that.
|
How about that you brought up 4e in a political thread?Scott. this isn't 4e. Your blind defense of WotC and any of their critics is fine, they aren't killing people.Ooooookay, we're done with you.Any excuse for not having to defend your "compassionate, caring" Obama's ordering a sixteen year old American citizen's assassination, eh?
Typical.
Here's a thought, is my mentioning 4e in this thread worse than Obama ordering an illegal assassination on a sixteen year old American citizen?
Because if Scott isn't going to address that because I mentioned 4e, either he a) has zero defense for that, or b) has zero perspective.
I throw in some snark about his blind defense of WotC (to accent that he is doing the EXACT same thing in the EXACT same way with Obama, by the way, a perfectly acceptable way to show someone couldn't approach something objectively), and all the sudden he's too offended to actually address the real point? Nah, he just doesn't have any way to justify a criminal act.
|
|
Seriously, if y'all are going to get hung up on some snark, and ignore the fact that Obama ordered a hit on a sixteen year old, especially since neither of you can throw a stone over snark, my only conclusion is, again, you can't defend it, so you'll feign offense and try to pretend that elephant isn't in the room.
And, meatrace, shall I compile a "greatest hits" of some of your more insulting posts? It may be illuminating. Have an opinion on someone else's snark when you stop using it yourself, m'kay?
|
|
Yeah, there's no place for that kind of controversy here! This is about the Presidential election!How about that you brought up 4e in a political thread?Scott. this isn't 4e. Your blind defense of WotC and any of their critics is fine, they aren't killing people.Ooooookay, we're done with you.Any excuse for not having to defend your "compassionate, caring" Obama's ordering a sixteen year old American citizen's assassination, eh?
Typical.
Keep ignoring my question, Scott. Keep preaching how you know what's in Obama's heart.
Address the fact that Obama ordered the assassination of a sixteen year old kid. Defend that. Please.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To paraphrase aMiB: bombing innocents in Waziristan? F~%& 'em! I got Obamacare!
Why I refuse to vote for Obama
Remember, folks, it's only bad to bomb innocents and assassinate Americans if there's an "R" after your name. Democrats are immune from war crimes because they're not Bush. And Pakistanis aren't really people anyway, right? Right?
You missed a step. How will your presidential vote affect this at all? Voting doesn't affect what someone will do when they are elected. Voting gets you someone who will do what you want.
So who are you going to elect who is going to stop this?
aMiB, let's see, I am not going to vote for someone who ordered a hit on a sixteen year old. I don't give a s$$* if Obama's urine cures cancer, he ordered a hit on a kid. Period.
You can have your realpolitik b.s., I'm not voting for a criminal. I didn't vote for Bush, I won't vote for Obama. Get over it.
You seem to think I give a crap who wins. I'm not voting to decide an election, I'm voting for what I believe in. And that isn't bombing countries we aren't at war with and assassinating teenagers.
I have no faith in our government doing the right thing. I have no faith in our media doing its job. And I have no faith in an American people that don't understand that a vote is a vote is a vote, and buy the lie that not voting R or D is a "waste".
Voting for more of the same is a wasted vote. Enjoy wasting yours. When you vote for an incumbent, it is a validation of the previous term. I won't validate more crime.
Um. The 16 year old you speak of wasn't the target. But don't let me stop you from lying.
And, meatrace, shall I compile a "greatest hits" of some of your more insulting posts? It may be illuminating. Have an opinion on someone else's snark when you stop using it yourself, m'kay?
I'd love that!
But really, it has nothing to do with the snark. It has to do with a silly ad hominem that has no bearing on the argument.
]AFAIK, Gore or one of his close aides stated that Iraq would have happened under their watch anyway.
Citation?
]I'm not sure what this sentiment means anyways, was Gore so much more peaceful than Obama?
Obama hasn't done what bush has done. You can argue that drone strikes are bad, and that a massive invasion of Iraq is bad, but i don't think it can be argued that they're equally bad.
Is Iraq somehow more offensive a war than Afghanistan? (not to mention Somalia and other indirect conflicts)
Yes.
The afghan government was harboring al queda, who repeatedly staged attacks against the us Culminating in 3,000 deaths on september 11th. No government, anywhere, is going to tolerate that much loss of life without a response.
Iraq neither attacked us nor harbored the people who did. It was a blatant grab at Iraq's natural resources. That is far different than reprisal/prevention towards someone thats done you considerable harm.
So what I have picked up from the thread so far is that its ok to make a bad vote as long as you live in the right place.
Well its not really a bad vote if it doesn't do bad things now is it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The afghan government was harboring al queda, who repeatedly staged attacks against the us Culminating in 3,000 deaths on september 11th. No government, anywhere, is going to tolerate that much loss of life without a response.
See, I don't get this reasoning.
1 million Iraqis starve to death and no one gives a f@!#, but 3,000 Americans die and all of a sudden America's got a casus belli?
The hypocrisy of imperialism is pretty mind-boggling.
The afghan government was harboring al queda, who repeatedly staged attacks against the us Culminating in 3,000 deaths on september 11th. No government, anywhere, is going to tolerate that much loss of life without a response.
See, I don't get this reasoning.
1 million Iraqis starve to death and no one gives a f@!#, but 3,000 Americans die and all of a sudden America's got a casus belli?
The hypocrisy of imperialism is pretty mind-boggling.
This common asymmetry is, in my opinion, very well put in two opinion pieces I read in the Guardian from Glenn Greenwald:
Oh, and before it happens, please, for the sake of argument, abstain from doing that "Ha, this dude is not credible, I don't need to even read that!!" that is so common sometimes in the forum. Just read the fracking thing and discuss =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the topic of drone strikes in Pakistan has come up, this is a major thorn in my side concerning the Obama administration. It's not nearly as neat and clean as he'd like the public to think, and really it's tantamount to the terrorism we're supposedly trying to stop.
Scary thing is that Romney says Obama isn't tough enough in his stance on the Middle East.
Since the topic of drone strikes in Pakistan has come up, this is a major thorn in my side concerning the Obama administration. It's not nearly as neat and clean as he'd like the public to think, and really it's tantamount to the terrorism we're supposedly trying to stop.
The huge difference is we're at least trying to bomb people that genuinely deserve a rocket to the head, as opposed to trying to bomb innocent civilians for the most impact possible. Its war, war is messy, and i think the drone strikes are about the least intrusive and way possible of going about it. I don't think not going about it is a possibility. People were pissed off after 9/11 and if you didn't put someone's head on a platter for it they were going to vote in someone that would.
Scary thing is that Romney says Obama isn't tough enough in his stance on the Middle East.
Which is either empty rhetoric (and you have no chance to influence events) or he's not kidding (and you at least get the chance to keep things from getting worse)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All right, let's put this in perspective. These "surgical strikes" are killing hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani citizens. Are those acceptable losses to take out a few terrorists? Would you be willing to accept the deaths of everyone else that lives on your block while police were attempting to apprehend one murderer?
These people are terrified to go to the market. They won't go to the funerals of friends, family, and neighbors. They won't go about their daily lives because they are frightened of being caught in the explosion when a rocket comes down. Is this justifiable? Can we ruin the lives of other people trying to secure our own peace of mind?
And no, it is not war. Last I heard, the United States hadn't declared war on Pakistan, which is where these drone strikes are occurring.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, why do people assume every Nader vote would've gone to Gore? For that matter, if Gore was so worried about it, maybe he could've made some concessions to the progressive wing of the party the way the Democrats have moved further to the right after every failed (and victorious) election of the past 20 years.
- that support or opposition to abortion rights doesn't matter to you
Granted, abortion rights are a major difference between the two candidates. (Not so much the parties as there are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats who are just horrible when it comes to women's reproductive rights.)
that support or opposition to campaign finance reform doesn't matter to you
that the minimum wage doesn't matter to you
that the way government taxes small businesses doesn't matter to you
that how we approach strong economic rivals like China doesn't matter to you
that support or opposition to union rights doesn't matter to you
This is where Democrats have the weakest argument. Obama has embraced SuperPACs, and no Democratic candidate has taken a hardline stance on the minimum wage, and Obama lackeys like Rahm Emmanuel have shown exactly how much Democrats care about unions. Democrats and unions are in an abusive relationship wherein the Democrats mistreat and ignore unions and cow them back into submission about what will happen if they leave.
that support or opposition to women's workplace rights doesn't matter to you
Granted.
that how the country deals with criminals doesn't matter to you
that support or opposition to curtailing defense spending doesn't matter to you
etc.
How many Wall St Criminals have been persecuted by the Obama Administration? How much reform have the Democrats pushed to empty our prisons of nonviolent offenders and end the whole sale privatization of prison system? Clinton and Obama both increased defense spending, and Obama's plan will increase defense spending AGAIN. Meanwhile, the Democrats are parroting plans the Republicans offered in the 1990's.
These things matter very much to me. Which is why I don't vote for two major parties that have made it very clear it doesn't matter to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the topic of drone strikes in Pakistan has come up, this is a major thorn in my side concerning the Obama administration. It's not nearly as neat and clean as he'd like the public to think, and really it's tantamount to the terrorism we're supposedly trying to stop.The huge difference is we're at least trying to bomb people that genuinely deserve a rocket to the head, as opposed to trying to bomb innocent civilians for the most impact possible. Its war, war is messy, and i think the drone strikes are about the least intrusive and way possible of going about it. I don't think not going about it is a possibility. People were pissed off after 9/11 and if you didn't put someone's head on a platter for it they were going to vote in someone that would.
That "war is messy" line can only be used because the US is one of the few countries which have the capacity nowadays to wage so many wars while keeping the damage at its territory to a minimum. Do you think that the same cool posturing would be possible if enemy nations started sending drones after military in the us and killed lots of civilians while doing it?
Firstly, why do people assume every Nader vote would've gone to Gore?
No one is assuming that. Ralph Nader received nearly 100,000 votes in the Florida Presidential election in 2000. George W. Bush won Florida in that same election by 537 votes.
I will repeat.
537 votes decided the race. Nader got 100,000.
For that matter, if Gore was so worried about it, maybe he could've made some concessions to the progressive wing of the party the way the Democrats have moved further to the right after every failed (and victorious) election of the past 20 years.
Yes, the Democratic party bears some of the blame for the loss, absolutely. That doesn't change the fact that voters who chose to support Nader (many of whom used the exact same, "I'm sending a symbolic message!" rationale seen in this thread) are one of the primary parties responsible for Bush's election. If Nader voters had instead chosen to vote for the major party candidate they favored most, Bush would not have been elected.
This is where Democrats have the weakest argument. Obama has embraced SuperPACs,
Obama has "embraced" SuperPACs because the reality is that unlimited campaign funding through SuperPACs makes it nearly impossible to win office without them. The Republican party uses so much SuperPAC funding that it would be idiocy to try and compete without it. Obama and the Democratic party are both strongly in favor of doing whatever they can to negate the impact of the Citizens United ruling. Unfortunately, Republicans love it which makes it very difficult to roll back.
This isn't a weak argument at all. Citizens United screwed everything up. There is no choice to not use SuperPAC money. You either make use of SuperPACs, or you lose elections. I'd really love to know what you think Obama and the Democratic party should be doing here. I mean, really. Please tell us.
These things matter very much to me. Which is why I don't vote for two major parties that have made it very clear it doesn't matter to them.
That's fine. Just understand that, as in Florida in 2000, casting a vote for a third-party candidate can have tangible, profoundly negative results.
All right, let's put this in perspective. These "surgical strikes" are killing hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani citizens. Are those acceptable losses to take out a few terrorists? Would you be willing to accept the deaths of everyone else that lives on your block while police were attempting to apprehend one murderer?
There is a difference between right/wrong and "morally equivilant to 9/11"
It doesn't matter, because there is no viable voting option for no reprisals on our part. Your vote could theoretically influence a drone strike vs a messier option.
These people are terrified to go to the market. They won't go to the funerals of friends, family, and neighbors. They won't go about their daily lives because they are frightened of being caught in the explosion when a rocket comes down. Is this justifiable? Can we ruin the lives of other people trying to secure our own peace of mind?
I;m more worried about the piece of my mind that's currently in my skull, and a certain minority of folks in the middle east and western asia would like to splatter all over the side walk. They're (justifiably) equally worried about the same thing happening to them. The difference is that the US is sitting on a large pile of military hardware that we really need to find a use for and they're not. When two people are equally worried about staying alive of course the one with the bigger gun is going to live through it. You are not going to convince a significant number of Americans that turning the other cheek is going to work, so thats not an option in a democracy.
And no, it is not war. Last I heard, the United States hadn't declared war on Pakistan, which is where these drone strikes are occurring.
Congress has authorized the use of military force against al-Qaeda. Since they're a multinational terrorist organization thats not bound by any border then either is the authorization against them.
And considering Osama was chillin' 500 feet from pakistan's most prestigious military academy pakistan has some explaining to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All right, let's put this in perspective. These "surgical strikes" are killing hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani citizens. Are those acceptable losses to take out a few terrorists? Would you be willing to accept the deaths of everyone else that lives on your block while police were attempting to apprehend one murderer?There is a difference between right/wrong and "morally equivilant to 9/11"
It doesn't matter, because there is no viable voting option for no reprisals on our part. Your vote could theoretically influence a drone strike vs a messier option.
These people are terrified to go to the market. They won't go to the funerals of friends, family, and neighbors. They won't go about their daily lives because they are frightened of being caught in the explosion when a rocket comes down. Is this justifiable? Can we ruin the lives of other people trying to secure our own peace of mind?I;m more worried about the piece of my mind that's currently in my skull, and a certain minority of folks in the middle east and western asia would like to splatter all over the side walk. They're (justifiably) equally worried about the same thing happening to them. The difference is that the US is sitting on a large pile of military hardware that we really need to find a use for and they're not. When two people are equally worried about staying alive of course the one with the bigger gun is going to live through it. You are not going to convince a significant number of Americans that turning the other cheek is going to work, so thats not an option in a democracy.
And no, it is not war. Last I heard, the United States hadn't declared war on Pakistan, which is where these drone strikes are occurring.Congress has authorized the use of military force against al-Qaeda. Since they're a multinational terrorist organization thats not bound by any border then either is the authorization against them.
And considering...
Yeah, you're probably as equally worried of being killed by terrorists as those guys with killer robots flying over their heads day and night...
Besides, everything is pointing to the direction that these strikes are actually helping terrorist recruitment by creating victims looking for revenge.
And the idea that it is legal for the US to attack unilaterally citizens from any country that they are not at war with simply by declaring that there is a terrorist among them is, frankly, ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the Democratic party bears some of the blame for the loss, absolutely. That doesn't change the fact that voters who chose to support Nader (many of whom used the exact same, "I'm sending a symbolic message!" rationale seen in this thread) are one of the primary parties responsible for Bush's election. If Nader voters had instead chosen to vote for the major party candidate they favored most, Bush would not have been elected.
Al Gore was such a loser that he drove away 200,000 registered Democratic Floridian voters who turned to Bush. But it was the Naderites who are "one of the primary parties responsible for Bush's election."
Al Gore was such a f#!&ing loser that he drove away the state he had represented in Congress for over a quarter of a century! But it was the Naderites who are "one of the primary parties responsible for Bush's election."
It makes you wonder who were the secondary parties?
Al Gore was such a loser that he drove away 200,000 registered Democratic Floridian voters who turned to Bush. But it was the Naderites who are "one of the primary parties responsible for Bush's election."
You understand the concept that more than one individual or group can bear responsibility for the outcome of a collective act of decision-making, yes? And that each of those individuals or groups can be blamed for any negative outcomes from that act, just as they can be lauded for positive ones, yes?
What I see you doing here is trying everything rhetorically possible to dismiss the idea that voting for a third-party candidate can contribute to a disastrous outcome, and has been shown to have done exactly that in the recent past.
Heh. Gore and Kerry are the ones you want to take a look at when discussing who to blame for Bush. Kerry who, from what I got from way over here in Sweden, had all the charisma of a crash test dummy. Gore, whose environmental shenanigans were so apallingly bad that they even gave him the Nobel peace prize. Hint: If they ever offer that prize to you, it's seriously time to rethink your life...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Gore and Kerry are the ones you want to take a look at when discussing who to blame for Bush.
Or, ya know, the supreme court...
Environmental shenanigans? You mean his being, sometimes the sole, champion for environmental progress in his tenure as Senator? Eh?
His movie was ok to show to school children in the UK if and only if their teachers also informed them about 13 significant falsehoods, remember? I also personally admire his dedication to the environmental cause, what with his five cars, three large houses and a private jet...
Or, ya know, the supreme court...
He had already lost before the Supreme Court got involved. They just upheld the decision.
He was just crying out each time someone decided against him with, "It's not fair!" and trying to get someone else to change the outcome.