Saw on CNN that Gore is endorsing Dean.

Now, I know gore is an assclown, but to endorse a freaking socialist?

This is amazing.

TXL

What is the Headline tomorrow:

"Dean gets Gored"

[rofl2]

Now we have to be worried. [:O]

Good.  When the '04 election is over, they can both sit around and commiserate with Dukakis and Mondale.

[banana][banana]

wonder how snagglepus joe feels?

TXL

IBTL. (or am I just being a prick?)

CW

Good, I hope it helps him win the nomination. He is the least anti-gun of the Democrats (a LOT better than John “Look at me, I’m a hunter” Kerry).

Isn't that kind of like being the smartest of the Stooges?

who cares? the only thing that matters is the only other candidate that is less electable than dean is sharpton

Aside from pushing for lawsuit preemption, I don’t think Bush is any better.

Dean was endorsed by the NRA while running for governor of Vermont (which has probably the LEAST restrictive gun laws in the country) and he has repeatedly stated that he believes gun policy should be left to the states. He does support AW ban renewal, but so does Bush; neither are really pushing for it, though.

I say “less anti-gun” because I think none of the major candidates (including Bush) are really pro-gun; I am just speaking comparatively.

Because of Dean's ongoing neuroses, he doesn't have the good sense to turn down Gore's endorsement but in fact has said he "welcomes the support from the inventor of the Internet".   [:D]

Seems the Alpha Male is doing what comes natural, looking out for HIMSELF. He gets to be on TV again, he'll be out campaigning for Dean, stirrin' up the black folks as well as trying to nose his way into the "hip" crowd of Dean followers and jump on that bandwagon before the rest of the Dems fall in line.

He also gets to take media attention away from the Hildebeast as an early warning for '08 that he's still in the game baby!

Heh... this'll be good!
     [IMG]http://members.cox.net/the-macallan/MacsPics3/AlGoreDancing.gif[/IMG]




Oh and check out the bullshit-bias the Associated Press injects into their coverage of this story:
       Don't ya just love the little zinger they throw in there about the "5-4" SCOTUS decision?

That's ALL we ever hear about that case now in the media - that the SCOTUS was split 5-4 over this whole matter.

They NEVER mention the [b]7-2[/b] SCOTUS decision that struck down the Florida Supreme Court ruling allowing selective manual recounts that [b]GORE[/b] was using to steal the election.

And they'd NEVER mention that the REASON the 5-4 decision was even made was because the SCOTUS ruling came down on Dec. 12 (one day after hearing arguments) and that was the SAME DAY that Federal Law required for certifying all electoral college votes. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to recount the whole state of Florida by midnight THAT SAME DAY.

Had the SCOTUS not even ruled in that "5-4" decision, Bush would have STILL been certified the winner at midnight that very day.

But no, history and the media will forever tell the tale of the "5-4" decision that "gave Bush the election" and you'll NEVER EVER hear of the [b]7-2[/b] SCOTUS decision that the Florida Supreme Court was [b]WRONG[/b] in ordering manual recounts of only "certain" (i.e. mostly Democrat) counties.

Just remember...
[b]It was a [b][size=3]"[red]7-2[/red]"[/size=3] Supreme Court ruling[/b] that stopped Al Gore & the Democrats from [size=3][red]STEALING[/red][/size=3] the election!

It was a [b][size=3]"[red]7-2[/red]"[/size=3] Supreme Court ruling[/b] that stopped Al Gore & the Democrats from [size=3][red]STEALING[/red][/size=3] the election!

It was a [b][size=3]"[red]7-2[/red]"[/size=3] Supreme Court ruling[/b] that stopped Al Gore & the Democrats from [size=3][red]STEALING[/red][/size=3] the election![/b]