you bet, its time to make money...got a problem with that?Its called capitalism.What,are you a frikkin socialist???Capitalize on the opportunity you whining anti-american.
I give Bush a D-. The only thing worse would have been a Gore presidency. Gore is a wash out, otherwise he would have ran in 04 and 08. In both cases he would have suffered humiliating defeats and he knew it. More importantly the Dem party knew it. Besides, he'd rather be King Al, lord and master over the environmentalist zealots. That way he can just make shit up and never held to account. Pays pretty good too. He's not stupid, just a loser.
Par for the course. W was a miserable failure dependent on his father for everything and anything and you are saying gore presidency would be worse? The only reason Gore lost was because the country at that time had lot of people like you. It took people 8 years to realize what should have been self evident immediately. Unless a person rates W as F- the person is not worth talking to.
Gore had a booming economy, following a President with 65% favorable ratings. It should had been as easy as it was for G.H Bush to follow Reagan. But Gore was a weak little pussy.
I agree we have little to discuss. Anyone that thinks Olberman is a journalist is beyond reach. Enjoy your fantasy world. Ignore!
Gore picks a Senator for his VP who is such an over the top neo-con that he was run out of his Party by the far-Left wing yet liberals act like Gore foreign policy would've been Gandhian. From the BBC in 2000: US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. "There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalize his people and threaten his neighbors" Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/809168.stm