My first time go to the poll in 20 odds years living in the United States, I voted for Al Gore and told all of my family, my friends to vote for Al. I still have faith in Former Vice President Al Gore. If Bush didn't stole the election, we should be much more happier and perhap lesser bills to pay, having better paying jobs and whatever else that citizens of a great wealth and most powerful country should receive.

Today, I would like to ask that Former Vice President Al Gore please, please, please support and endorse Hillary for President in year 2008 only if you don't run for President next year. After these Bush's years of destruction to the middle and low income class, only Hillary can bring back the same state of wealth and powerful nation we once were under Former President Bill Clinton and Former Vice President Al Gore. I would love to put you in White House after 8 years of Hillary. I still believe in you. But the aftermatch of sheer destruction of this big require Hillary's hands for now to reverse it.

Sincerely Yours

Michelle Tran

Hillary is not the answer. She is more of a Republican Light, and I would not trust her any farther than I could carry a locomotive.

It must either be Gore or Ron Paul. Logic screams that.

Anyone else beside the two of them and we are all toast and there is no more America.

None of us will be pushing for Gore to endorse anyone, nor will we be supporting anyone ourselves, until such time as Al Gore makes the announcement that he definitely won't be running in 2008, and we obviously hope that announcement never comes.

Sometime after Labor Day, we expect Gore to either launch an exploratory committee or close the door for good on running for president. It seems more likely that he'll be running than not, but we just don't know yet. Until that time, we're working our butts off to get him to run and won't entertain the notion of him or us endorsing anyone else.

Thanks anyway - I'll just wait for Al to make his move.

There are only 2 scenarios from my perspective, and yes, these are in order of preference:

1)Al runs and all the world will benefit. I won't really care who he picks as VP. If he thinks they are the right person for the job, then ok by me. I will put all my energy into supporting him in anyway I can.

2)Al doesn't run and (most of) the world will be sad. But they will still benefit from the "different kind of campaign" he is running. Assuming he chooses to publicly endorse a candidate, I will support whomever he supports, as I think Al knows best. I will still put all of my energy into supporting him in anyway I can.

Quite simply, the man knows his stuff and I really don't trust anyone else to be my leader. He doesn't have to be President to be MY Leader! He's got my support regardless of his official title.

(But I would REALLY like to see him take his rightful place!!)

Ron Paul??? You mean you support the abolition of the Social Security and Medicare programs as well as every other program to help the poor and underprivileged? You support extending Bush's tax cut for the rich and making them deeper? You support repeal of all civil rights legistation for women and minorities? You support the government doing nothing to combat Global Warming?

These are Ron Paul's positions. So I assume if you support him, you support these positions too.

However, since Al Gore would be against most of these positions, the logic escapes me.

Please provide proof of your assertions.

Thanks!

Either you can't refute what I said or you're too lazy to do your own research. I think it was Madison who said, 'An informed electorate is need for the proper maintance of democracy". Of course it is just easier to just have an unthinking knee-jerk reaction to one issue and not bother to look at the man's record and everything else he believes in.

From his interview on The Daily Show:

Stewart: What about your domestic agenda? I think you've sort of made your bones on this idea about Iraq and liberty. You're a guy that really would get rid of a lot of our government.

Paul: Yeah, I think that would be true. I think a lot of our government is very wasteful.

Stewart: Right. Where would you go? Let's say — you won't accept, as a doctor, Medicare, right?

Paul: No, I never did.

Stewart: Right. But you stuck to that. Is that something you'd get rid of?

Paul: Yes, but that's not high on my agenda. Matter of fact, we've taught a couple of generations to be very dependent on government, and that's not my goal, because I think you have to have a transition period. I happen to think that the market can deliver any service better than the government can.

http://lincmad.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-pa...daily-show.html

You can find a more complete summary of his record here: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm But since you may be too lazy to go through the whole thing, I'll hit some of the highlights:

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)

Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)

Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition

Voted YES on restricting lawsuits. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)

Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Campaign slogan in 2004: The Taxpayers' Best Friend. (Jan 2007)

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)

Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)

Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)

Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)

Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)

Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)

Geez, thanks for the personal attacks. Maybe if you had read through the 200+ posts I have made here and countless others elsewhere you would know where I am coming from. Does that make YOU "lazy"???????? I would say thanks again but you were very rude.

You're welcome. I guess I must have touched a nerve.

All this info is readily available on the internet. Took me about 30 seconds to look up. So when someone uses Al Gore's and Ron Paul's names in the same breath as if they stand for the same things, I have to assume they are intellectually lazy and have not made an effort to learn what the man really believes in or what his record is. I've seen it too many times in the past.

It is the same thing when people insist Bill Richardson, Joe Biden,Ron Paul, Harold Ford, Evan Bayh or Hillary Rodham Clinton Bush should be on the same ticket as Al Gore.

Anyone who voted for the war in Iraq should be immeidately disqualified, and if Al Gore picked someone who's views are not those of 2007 Al Gore, they should be disqualified.

Best thing Al Gore ever did was free himself from the Clinton's in 2000, even though he was not seated, he won the popular and electoral vote, and did it without the help of any Bush or Clintonite.

That made him free, and that made him the person I would chose if only he would run, in 2008. For him to go against that, would in essence be selling out, and probably would end up not accomplishing what he could accomplish with one of those people stabbing him in the back ala Joe Lieberman.

Barack Obama or Mike Bloomberg and of course, best choice would be Russ Feingold.

Of course, without impeachment and repudiation beforehand, nothing good will happen in America, especially when Bush cancels the 2008 elections after a false flag op, with the signing statement Bush did back in May giving him 100percent absolute power.

Gore/Obama! Sounds like a winning ticket to me!

I truly believe that he will choose someone that is not running for president: Senator Mitchell, Senator Nunn, Senator Kerry, etc. I believe that the reason Kerry is not running is that he knows that he will be Gore's VP pick. These two men won before, but was cheated out it. Kerry has been vocal lately on many topics.

It's time to restore democracy in America

:good: Gore - Kerry 2008 :good:

Sounds like a winner to me, if only.

"Please provide proof of your assertions. Thanks!" Sorry, asking to back up what YOU SAY is not my responsibility, it is yours. It is customary to provide proof (like a link etc.) when asserting something or else one might think that you are making it all up.

:rules:

:Y:

So if I say that Al Gore is against Global Warming or that John McCain supports the war in Iraq, I have to back each up with a link or you'll think I'm making it all up?

I merely repeated Rep. Paul's long standing and frequently stated positions on several issues. They were not "my assertions", but a matter of record and fact. Anyone who listened to what the man has said in debates or interviews would know that. It's not my fault that some people just weren't paying attention to what was right in front of their faces.

So please spare me the self-rightous indignation. You were calling me a liar and I proved you wrong because you were too lazy to do 30 seconds worth of research.

Excuse me? Where did I call you a liar. I asked for proof. You said
"Ron Paul??? You mean you support the abolition of the Social Security and Medicare programs as well as every other program to help the poor and underprivileged? You support extending Bush's tax cut for the rich and making them deeper? You support repeal of all civil rights legistation for women and minorities? You support the government doing nothing to combat Global Warming?

These are Ron Paul's positions. So I assume if you support him, you support these positions too.

However, since Al Gore would be against most of these positions, the logic escapes me."

I simply wanted you to post what you eventually did. You did not prove me wrong.

Did it occur to you that I wanted your proof to show others?

Your continued attacks on this Gore site are indicative of combativeness with Gore fans.

Makes me wonder what your true agenda is.

Obama is my senator. Gore is my president.

Please don't insult my intelligence. You were calling me a liar. You've has an accusatory tone since your first post. Just as you're trying to accuse me of something nefarious now. You'd make a good FAUX News anchor the way you like to make accusations.

First, I would assume that anyone who would publically advocate someone for the office of President would be familiar with that person's position on issues. Rep. Paul's positions are well known to any who has paid attention to the man.

As I asked you earlier, if I said that Gore was against Global Warming or McCain supported the Iraq war would I have to provide links as proof? (And please don't cowardly ignore this again. I'd like an answer.)

Second, you're initial post could have been worded, 'I didn't know this about Rep. Paul, could you provide links so I can learn more about his positions'. But instead you took an accusatory tone and infered that I was making it up, as you admitting in a previous post.

The truth is you were too arrogant or lazy to do a little reseach on your own. You thought you could get away with infering that I was lying. But I responded and proved what I said was the truth. And now rather than deal with the substance of the original issue you try to divert the issue and make it about me.

Okay, time out. Both of you are loyal Gore supporters. Both of you are intelligent people. Both of you are members in good standing on this board. There's no point in going into who said what and who should apologize and who could have worded things better or differently. Just stick to debating the issue and move off of the personal stuff. There's plenty of interesting material to debate regarding Ron Paul.

I've been rather surprised to see his name cropping up on this board as someone Al Gore supporters would support. Yeah, he's an interesting person, and I think he's a no-bullshit type along the lines of Ross Perot (says what he thinks, which is refreshing). But look at what the guy actually stands for. He's extremely conservative, and while his no-nonsense demeanor is attractive, what's underneath is very out of synch with most of our beliefs.

If Gore doesn't run, I believe we can do a lot better than Ron Paul.

Exactly my point!

Which is exactly what I wanted when I posted to JamesAquila: "Please provide proof of your assertions. Thanks!"

I am shocked by the personal attacks from him and I hope he refrains in the future.

:Y:

Please that was a confrontational statement that infered I was lying. Don't insult everyone's intelligence saying that it wasn't.

I was willing to let this go after EM's post, but since you've decided to bring this up again and accuse me once more, I demand that you answer this question:

If I had said that Al Gore was against Global Warming or that McCain supported the Iraq war, would I have has to "provide proof of my assertions"?

I don't think anyone was accusing anyone of lying. I think there was a request for information and documentation, which isn't necessarily an accusation of anything, and documentation is something we're supposed to provide here, unless the statement we've made is completely accepted by most rational people, e.g., global warming is real. I, myself, am not that well-versed in Ron Paul's specific stands on issues, so I appreciated the list and the documentation. It further cemented what I already believed about him. So again, please let's not focus on the personal side of this debate and get back to the topic, which actually had nothing to do with Ron Paul in the first place, but we all know how these threads tend to meander into other subjects. :rolleyes:

I would normally let this go and simply not answer insulting post made by AlGoreFan in the pass but in this a misjustice was made. While the phrase lying was not used the statement:

"Please provide proof of your assertions. Thanks!" Sorry, asking to back up what YOU SAY is not my responsibility, it is yours. It is customary to provide proof (like a link etc.) when asserting something or else one might think that you are making it all up.

Came out very clear and this was after JamesAquila did provide links and proof of what he had to say.

It might be a good idea to lock this post.

We must all remember that this whole situation that we and our nation find ourselves in affects us each differently in very very emotional ways, and much of the misunderstanding that happens here is not intentional.

Many of us are venting intense frustration with our government and ourselves because of this whole mess.

Thanks for the cool-headed words Rev. Being angry since December 12th 2000 has taken it's toll on me too. Sometimes I have to just turn off listening to the news or reading the paper; I just get angrier and angrier :mad: :mad:

At the same time I am a little concerned about the anger towards Pelosi and Congress. I have wanted Emperor Cheney and his Boy-Wonder George impeached since the day they stole the White House but this almost sounds like a Karl Rove dirty trick :blink: Make everyone so angry, frustrated and impatient they stay home on election day or are diverted into voting for a third-party.

I would start by opening investigations possibly leading to the impeachment of Gonzales first. Cheney next. Send your angry letters to Republicans in Congress until a half-dozen are willing to seriously look at impeachment. If they won't -- you know which party to blame. :sport:

I'm sorry but when someone uses the phrase 'provide proof of your assertions', they are infering that I was lying. If I had been asked 'I'd like to learn more about Rep. Paul's positions could you please provide links', that would be different. You're a writer EM, you know that phrasing and semantics matter.

And again I ask the question, if I has said Al Gore was against Global Warming or McCain supports the war in Iraq, would I have been asked to provide links because someone might think I was making it up?

My only criticism was that it would take a mere 30 seconds for someone to google Rep. Paul and find out where he stood on important issues. For someone to publically espouse Rep. Paul for the office of President but not be aware of his positions on key issues, they must be lazy, intellectually lazy.

Gore's book 'The Assault on Reason' speaks as to how the political discourse has become cheapened. But it doesn't have to be that way. As citizens we have the responsibility to be informed and with the internet we have the tools to be informed. The problem is people are either too lazy or they make a snap judgement about an issue or candidate and don't want to know that their original opinion was a mistake.

We need to act like responsible citizens and take the time to educate ourselves otherwise we will continue to get Presidents like Bush.

Thanks Al001! :clap:

Very true! The fact that the MSM seems to be trying their best to blame everything on the Dems makes me suspicious too.

There has been a real double standard in the reporting of these stories. When the Dems staged a filabuster to block a few Judicial nominees, they were cast as obstuctionists. Now the Republicans in the Senate have blocked most of the legislation that was past in the House but you never hear them being called obstructionists.

The Dems have a one seat majority with one Senator on sick leave and Lieberman often voting with the GOP. Somehow that is never pointed out, instead the Dems are cast as ineffective.

Speaking of Lieberman, it is well known on the Hill that he has threaten to go over to the GOP (giving them the majority) if the Dems in the Senate cut off funding of the war. This was reported by Chris Matthews once and no one else. Why? To make it look like the Dems are weak.

As Bob Sommersby would put it, the press cohort has created their narrative and they are not going to report the facts that dispute it.

I am not going to get into a battle over my views, but I am aware of Ron Paul's position on issues.

First of all, I will never be a person who follows any party line of belief. I base my views on what I believe to be logical reasoning and will not apologize for that.

While it is my opinion that Al Gore is the best suited individual for the office of the presidency, I do agree with many of the positions that Ron Paul takes.

There is no man that will ever be perfect or will ever suit every American in any election for any position.

I resent the remark about intellectual laziness on my part, but will just consider the source, who in fact does not know me at all.

I will NOT carry this argument any farther, and will not back off of my belief that Al Gore and Ron Paul are the two top prime candidates who have the ability to put America back on track.

If anyone takes offence at my belief .... then ... Oh Well. Too bad.


:Y:

Just curious, how do you reconcile that on most major issues Gore and Paul's positions are exactly the opposite of each other?

Gore supports the Kyoto treaty and other government effort to fight global warming, Paul does not. Gore believes in Universal Healthcare, Paul does not and even wants to abolish Medicare. Gore supports Stem Cell research, Paul does not. Gore supports Affirmative Action and civil rights legislation, Paul is against them. Gore believes in Gun Control, Paul does not.

These are fundemental issues regarding the direction of our country that will define who we are as a people. Since the two men are 180 degrees apart on these issues, where is the logic on supporting them both?

Like I said ... no one will ever be perfect.

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the IRS and supports the Fair Tax. I am not sure of Al Gore's stance on this.

Ron Paul is for dissolving the Federal Reserve, which is one of the most sane things that could happen in America. The Fed Reserve is the core of the neo-con movement.

Ron Paul is totally against the WTO, the New World Order, Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, and anything else that destroys America as a sovereign nation. And he is against meddling in the affairs of other countries. Iraq and Iran included.

______


These guys are, I admit, Ying and Yang on many points. That is one reason I suggest a bipartisan teaming up of the two. They are both reasonable men who are intelligent and could work together toward logical solutions to all of the issues.

______

I also have said over and over again that I support Al Gore first, but if he doesn't run, I don't see anyone else that would work to save the constitution and at the same time be intelligent enough, caring enough to put the interest of our country first.

______

Also, I am human and reserve the right to change my mind if I see a better idea.

______

I believe it is time, in this country, to put the country and it's people first, and I do agree that the global climate crisis should be a top priority.

I hate the IRS. They are a mob of thugs that operate outside of the law, much like Bush and the neos. The Federal Reserve is not Federal. It is a group of private bankers who profit from screwing Americans and is under the control of The World Bank, which is British.

______

If Al does run, he has my full 110% support .... period.

OK That makes more sense to me. However, on many of these issues Gore's position is the opposite of your's and Paul's.

Gore/Obama is the right ticket. I have been a democrat for 12 years, donated many times from my corporation to candidates in the Democratic party. I will vote either Gore, Obama or Republician. Hilary is to far from democratic beliefs and standards to be from this party. I have written letters to VP Gore asking him to sae this party from Hilary. Electing her would be like the Republicans electing Pat Robertson. The Republicans that I know are begging for her to win because they KNOW she cant carry the vote in the election. Its GORE/Obama to win the ticket