If Santa Claus was Superman, would kryptonite affect him?
Posted on 10/28/2004 11:06:10 AM PDT by del griffith
Let me ask a question. It's loaded.
If Al Gore had won in 2000 and had executed his administration exactly as President Bush has with the exact same results, exact same actions, exact same bills signed, exact same actions, bills and speeches given, the exact same situation in Iraq and the WOT....everything exactly the same as has been done to this point by President Bush, would your support for Al Gore be as strong and would you find fault in Gore what you see as success in President Bush?
Please, not Gore wouldn't have done this or Gore wouldn't have supported that. Everything under Gore would have identically mirrored the actions and results that we've experienced under President Bush. Would you be fighting for Al Gore's re-election citing the same accomplishments as you will President Bush?
If pigs could fly.
That being said, people vote for the incumbent president based on his actions to date - not his name.
"Would you be fighting for Al Gore's re-election citing the same accomplishments as you will President Bush?"
No, I would be screaming at his fiscal liberal tendencies, same as I am now.
Like Bush, he would've done nothing to reform Socialist Security.
If Santa Claus was Superman, would kryptonite affect him?
It's a useless hypothetical. It's like saying "If Hitler was not a dictator and didn't kill anyone, would you still think he was one of the greatest mass-murderers of the 20th century?" By gutting the possible choices of the elements that make them what they are, you've made the choice completely meaningless.
If my grandmother had balls, she'd have been my grandfather.
I'd support him, especially if he was running against a Kerry or Kerryesque candidate. However if the R's ran a candidate that was tougher on illegal immigration and lower domestic spending, I'd support the R candidate.
IF he were running against W (exact same views, but one R, one D), I'd support Gore just for the sake of not changing horses in mid stream.
Owl_Eagle
" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"
It would depend on the opponent, now wouldn't it? If the GOP was running a UN-appeasing, anti-American, terrorist-enabling traitor, I'd be voting for Gore in a heartbeat.
There you go!
Succinct, logical, simple and to the point.
I have a hard time getting by anyone who would support Kerry. He's a UN loving, commie loving, America hating traitor. Can't get by that. He's also an abortionist pig. Can't put lipstick on that. He's a tax and spend Massachusetts liberal. In fact, even more liberal than Kennedy. Can't get by that. And he's a fraud and a liar to boot. Anyone who would even remotely consider Kerry as presidential material is NO conservative.
Exactly. Once you stated the "unlikely" premise, you invalidated the part of the equation that was Gore. In other words, you might as well have picked anyone other than Bush...
"Hey Red Sox fans, if the NY Yankees were the Boston Red Sox, would you still hate them?"
LOL! Love the analogy.
;*)
Oh, but wait! That didn't happen.
No.
"if the R's ran a candidate that was tougher on illegal immigration and lower domestic spending,"
Unlike, say, George W. Bush?
Well, in the first place, from the infamous date of
9/11, the Gore administration would still have its
finger in the air in order to govern by the polls.
Your question just will not compute with reality.
The Clinton/Gore administration hadn't yet answered
any terrorist attack with meaningfulaction, so how could I
assume that would change?
Or as Uday and Qusay Hussein once said, "This is the
end. Bush is not Clinton." Neither is he Gore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.