NationStates Jolt Archive

-- if you could vote would you vote for Gore?--

Are you likely to vote Democrat?
this poll is for you.

If you are likely to vote republican, this Primary Poll is not for you (I am going to make a poll for a popular Republican candidate.. later)

What's the point? He's not running anyway.

What's the point? He's not running anyway.the point is to figure what are his chances.. If he runs.

But he won't. He's officially announced he's not many times.
Everyone likes him. He's already won the presidency once. He'd win without question if fuckhat Nader doesn't run.

But he won't. says you. ;)

Besides, my poll says "If you could"

If he runs.
Hasn’t he left it a bit late?

Add to that the inconvenient truth (boom boom!) that he’s neither female nor black.

Add to that the inconvenient truth (boom boom!) that he’s neither female nor black.I have Colbert powers.. I see no race :D

Probably not. He didn't even carry his own state.....

Would be the best running by far, but why would anyone want it? Bush has the whole country and the whole world in such a mess and no one that I've heard has an answer to any of the problems. There just are no good answers when we're in this deep on everything. The next person is asking to be hated because only a benevolent dictator can pull this out of the fire, and that ain't gonna happen.

He could have a brilliant election campaign: Re-Elect Al Gore for '08. Then, if he won, when running for re-election, campaign on being able to be thrice elected for president.

Probably not. He didn't even carry his own state.....

That was quite the kick in the teeth, but understandable - the people who knew Al Gore the best were some of the least interested! :p

Well, at least he could put the Iraqis and Iran leader to sleep with that monotone voice of his.

If Obama wasn't running, then I'd vote for Gore.

He's already won the presidency once.
No he didn't. He failed to get enough electoral votes to win. Not the first time it's happened, probably not the last. He lost. Get over it.

He's not running again so he has no chance of winning. You can't score if you don't shoot.

Well I don't see how 'loosing' the election makes him any less desirable, considering how popular he still is and how he actually talks about the issue of climate change among other things, I mean considering the state Bush has put the US in, I am sure sure people would have preferred a moderate voice in the white house, not some rapid neocon who shoots at everything standing.

Plus, he did win the election, it's just you Americans have your ridiculously undemocratic and out of date electoral college which doesn't represent the people.

He failed to get enough electoral votes to win.Bush was not elected by the People.

Bush was elected by the Republican Supremes.

Plus, he did win the election, it's just you Americans have your ridiculously undemocratic and out of date electoral college which doesn't represent the people.
If he won then it would have been a smear of blood, not a house plant that got into the big, bland house. The electoral college is there to protect states with smaller populations like South Dakota and Wyoming from the powerhouses like California, Texas (don't mess with it), and the York that is newest. Without the electoral college in place those small population states would never be heard, would have zero influence in the national scheme of things. Without at the senate states like Texas and California (I hate that song) could just pass laws that make SD a national waste dump or something equally stoo-pid.

Bush was not elected by the People.

Bush was elected by the Republican Supremes.
He may have been dumb enough to bring a club to a knife fight but he was the legal winner and that's what mattered. Not who should have won or who was expected to win but who did win. And if he did somehow rig the courts and the polls then he should get a commendation for original thinking.
http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_kobayashi_preview.jpg
:D

oooh wow if he runs Americans can vote for the Bush 2.0

only this time Americans would have to deal with a pro-censorship wife aswell

... if Bush did somehow rig the courts and the polls then he should get a commendation for original thinking. he dont need to rig the Judges.. the Supremes that crowned Bush were appointed by the War party (Republicans.)

the point is to figure what are his chances.. If he runs.
So what are you doing here? Unless you have some sort of NSG->RL converter, I mean.

Bush was not elected by the People.

Bush was elected by the Republican Supremes.

I guess you don't buy into the research that every recount in Florida after the 2000 election showed that Bush was the winner...

On NSG. It's not exactly a representative sample of likely voters, if you know what I mean.

I guess you don't buy...I only buy very high quality, reliable, known origin, that I can trust.

Al "You are listening to me talk" Gore.

only this time Americans would have to deal with a pro-censorship wife aswell

All political wives are pro-censoship. Like what's her name... bacon stick... bacon staff... bacon rod... ham rod... Hilary!

Eh, I'd prefer Obama.

On NSG. It's not exactly a representative sample of likely voters, if you know what I mean.we pretty much know who is Left or right wing.(xept the new members)

Some of these may be posing as likely to vote democrat.. but there is only a few willing to travesty themselves.

besides the new members, we pretty much know who is Left or right wing.

Oh yeah? What wing am I?

Oh yeah? What wing am I?

Crazy wing?

Crazy wing?

Wrong! I'm Denny Seiwell.

Oh yeah? What wing am I?You are Crazy Wing !!!

he dont need to rig the Judges.. the Supremes that crowned Bush were appointed by the War party (Republicans.)
You missed the joke entirely. I don't know how much more obvious I could have made it. In Wrath of Khan it is eventually revealed that Kirk cheated on an unwinble test because he hated to lose and because he was the first to do it, was awarded for his original thinking rather than punished for his cheating.

I only buy very high quality, reliable, known origin, that I can trust.
In other words, only studies funded by organizations you support or view favorably. Like if MoveOn.org funded a "study" that showed Gore really had 144% of the vote accross the country...you'd hit that? I'd hit that. I'd hit anything that moves. Or doesn't. I need moar secks.

And Myrmidonisia, nobody 'lieks' a multi-poster. Keep your comments confined to a single post and give others a chance to respond. If you think of something new and no one has responded yet then use the edit feature.

Crazy wing?aww.. second place.. again

*gives Full credits to Szanth*

aww.. second place.. again

*gives Full credits to Szanth*

I win!

You missed the joke entirely. I don't know how much more obvious I could have made it. In Wrath of Khan it is eventually revealed that Kirk cheated on an unwinble test because he hated to lose and because he was the first to do it, was awarded for his original thinking rather than punished for his cheating...Damn, Its the second time this month I miss a great Joke.. Last one was a Futurama reference. I need more Viagra :D

In other words.. MoveOn.org I was thinking more like "Toyota".. But meh.

:D

I'm not so much a fan of Gore. I'd far prefer Richardson or Clinton.

Damn, Its the second time this month I miss a great Joke.. Last one was a Futurama reference. I need more Viagra :D
No, not viagra. You needs moar pooper.

I was thinking more like "Toyota".. But meh.

:D
Toyota needs moar pooper.

I'm not so much a fan of Gore. I'd far prefer Richardson or Clinton.

I don't even know who Richardson is, but Clinton ftl because she's a censorship whore with a really unappealing southern accent - sometimes.

I don't even know who Richardson is, but Clinton ftl because she's a censorship whore with a really unappealing southern accent - sometimes.

Plus she has terrible dress sense. Most of the time she's halfway to Whistler's Mother!

No, not viagra. You needs moar pooper.


Toyota needs moar pooper.

You're beginning to win much <3 from me.

291-246.

And I'm voting for Hillary.

No, not viagra. You needs moar pooper.
meh, If it works for you.. it may work for me. (whatever that is) :D
.

Toyota needs moar pooper.What?? No F******g way.. I am NOT making experiences with my car. my precious car.

Plus, he did win the election, it's just you Americans have your ridiculously undemocratic and out of date electoral college which doesn't represent the people.

No, he didn't win. He won the popular vote, but that doesn't represent the separate states of the union. If we didn't have the "ridiculously undemocratic and out of date electoral college" 13 states would make the decision on who leads all 50 states.

A popular vote only works in a country like GB, or other European nations, that in most cases would fit within the territory that make up the US. It doesn't works in a Republic where each state, or region is equally represented.

I assure you a popular vote system would only serve to provide advantages to states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Massachusetts and disadvantates states like Alaska, Hawaii, and North and South Dakota, and other small states.

Plus, he did win the election, it's just you Americans have your ridiculously undemocratic and out of date electoral college which doesn't represent the people.

And explain to me how parliamentary systems are more democratic than the electoral college?

-- if you could vote would you vote for Gore?--

Are you likely to vote Democrat?
this poll is for you.

If you are likely to vote republican, this Primary Poll is not for you (I am going to make a poll for a popular Republican candidate.. later)

NO and HECK NO!!!

But he won't. He's officially announced he's not many times.
Everyone likes him. He's already won the presidency once. He'd win without question if fuckhat Nader doesn't run.

You have a problem. He DID NOT won the 2000 election. Popular vote yes but NOT the electoral vote. Ergo, he lost.

As it stands, there are several candidates from both parties who might be worth supporting. I've yet to decide on whom it might be yet, so I'm a possible primary voter for either party.

He could have a brilliant election campaign: Re-Elect Al Gore for '08. Then, if he won, when running for re-election, campaign on being able to be thrice elected for president.

If he had actually won, this would be illegal if he did run (which he is not) and won and ran again in 2012.

NO and HECK NO!!!So, who are you going to vote for?

Plus, he did win the election, it's just you Americans have your ridiculously undemocratic and out of date electoral college which doesn't represent the people.

Welcome to the life of a Democratic-REPUBLIC and not a democracy. Jeez. I thought everyone knew that.

If he had actually won, this would be illegal if he did run (which he is not) and won and ran again in 2012.I am against term limits,
and I would love to see Bush try to get a third term :D:D ;):D

I only buy very high quality, reliable, known origin, that I can trust.

Then I guess all the major news media that did the recounting does not count as they all showed Bush winning Florida in 2000.

Bush was not elected by the People.

Bush was elected by the Republican Supremes.


Supreme Court justices that were ostensibly really into "states rights." It's kind of funny in a way. Instead of the President appointing the judges, in 2000 it was the judges appointing the president.

Then I guess all the major news media that did the recounting...says you.

So, who are you going to vote for?

No one yet as I do not know who is running.

Then I guess all the major news media that did the recounting does not count as they all showed Bush winning Florida in 2000.

Nah, OD only listens to that which agrees with and supports his previously held opinions. If it doesn't match, he calls it lies and propaganda and dodders off enjoying his own private fantasy world.

says you.

:headbang:

You really have zero clue as to what you are talking about do you? No I can see that you do not.

Supreme Court justices that were ostensibly really into "states rights." It's kind of funny in a way. Instead of the President appointing the judges, in 2000 it was the judges appointing the president.since most Supremes had been appointed by the Republican party.. they crowned a republican President.

You really have zero clue as to what you are talking about..says you. ;)

since most Supremes had been appointed by the Republican party.. they crowned a republican President.

Then why was it only 5-4 when most of them, as you say, were appointed by Republicans? Would it not be logical for it to be nearly unanimous?

Nah, OD only listens to that which agrees with and supports his previously held opinions. If it doesn't match, he calls it lies and propaganda and dodders off enjoying his own private fantasy world.

I've got enough bookmarks at home that suggest there were far more factors giving Bush the illegal advantage than just a botched recount, though that was part of it.

No one yet as I do not know who is running.Who would you vote for.. running or not.

since most Supremes had been appointed by the Republican party.. they crowned a republican President.

They crowned nobody. They ruled that Florida was violating the equal protection rules in their methods of counting, and that there was insufficient time to redesign universal rules before the existing, legislated deadline passed. They merely demanded that the state of Florida adhere to the Constitution and its own existing laws.

Who would you vote for.. running or not.

Sorry! That information is classified need to know. My vote is my own.

They crowned nobody. They ruled that Florida was violating the equal protection rules in their methods of counting, and that there was insufficient time to redesign universal rules before the existing, legislated deadline passed. They merely demanded that the state of Florida adhere to the Constitution and its own existing laws.

I do not think he actually understands judging by his posts of just how close said deadline was.

Sorry! That information is classified need to know. My vote is my own.

Lemme guess - you're white. [/davechappelle]

Lemme guess - you're white. [/davechappelle]

Since when does color have to do with the Australian Ballot?

Since when does color have to do with the Australian Ballot?

"So I was fucking my wife in the ass..."
"Yeah, yeah, but who are you voting for?"
"Dave! Stop with the personal questions. I'm tryin to tell you about fucking my wife in the ass, you're asking all these personal questions."

"So I was fucking my wife in the ass..."
"Yeah, yeah, but who are you voting for?"
"Dave! Stop with the personal questions. I'm tryin to tell you about fucking my wife in the ass, you're asking all these personal questions."

:confused:

WW3 is about to erupt, and I don't think Gore is really that keen on being the last US president if it happened after Jan 21 2008.

They crowned nobody. The implications of the supreme court's politicized action are enormous.
The Republican Judges handed victory to George Bush by blocking a full count of all Florida's votes.
The Republican Judges ordered the un-recounted ballots to remain under lock and key in a Tallahasee courthouse.

WW3 is about to erupt, and I don't think Gore is really that keen on being the last US president if it happened after Jan 21 2008.

We try not to elect a "last president", and just hope for he best.

Sorry! That information is classified need to know. My vote is my own.I am only asking you to confirm that you are going to vote republican ;)

I am only asking you to confirm that you are going to vote republican ;)

It all depends who they put up and what he stands for. Same goes for the Democrats along with any and all independents.

The implications of the supreme court's politicized action are enormous.
The Republican Judges handed victory to George Bush by blocking a full count of all Florida's votes.
The republican Judges ordered the un-recounted ballots to remain under lock and key in a Tallahasee courthouse.

There had been multiple counts before and after the courts decision, both official and unofficial. Nearly all evidence points to a Bush victory, regardless of how often, or in how many ways, the ballots were counted. In fact, adhering to the Florida Supreme Court's standards for the statewide recount, Bush's margin increased.

Here's wikipedia's summary of the decision.

"Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 U.S.C. § 5. Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case."

Further, it ordered the ballots secured in order to prevent tampering.

We try not to elect a "last president", and just hope for he best.
you are probably on your last president now, after WW3 finishes and the world economy collapses in the west you will change over to a new world order and become an openly run mason dictatorship.

Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county.#1 If That is unconstitutional.. then all US elections are unconstitutional.
US elections are (and have always been) using different standards in different states/counties/etc.

#2 All the damn Judges needed to do is to allow the ongoing Counting to finish. (just like Bush should have allowed Hans Blix to finish his job)

#1 If That is unconstitutional.. then all US elections are unconstitutional.
US elections are (and have always been) using different standards in different states/counties/etc.

:rolleyes: READ. The way the recounts were being done was ruled unconstitutional.

#2 All the damn Judges needed to do is to allow the ongoing Counting to finish. (just like Bush should have allowed Hans Blix to finish his job)

Except for the fact that recounts were being done differently in all precints which made it unconstitutional to go on...

The way the recounts were being done was ruled unconstitutional..this is the way we always do recounts.
ForYourInformation, That(florida 2000) was not the first recount we ever did.

If he had actually won, this would be illegal if he did run (which he is not) and won and ran again in 2012.

That actually isn't true, the law prohits a President from serving two consecutive terms, not serving more than 2 terms. Therefore, a person could serve two terms as President, not run, for a term, then run again, and would be able to serve, assuming they one.

However, the job is extremely stressful, and no one has ever been popular enough to actually stand a chance of winning a third elections, except Roosevelt, and Reagan, but then Reagan was sick by the end of his second term.

this is the way we always do recounts.
ForYourInformation, That(florida 2000) was not the first recount we ever did.

So are you from Florida then?

So are you from Florida then?when I say we.. I am speaking of US.
The crowning of Bush was not by a state Judge.. it was by the fucking SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS).

the SCrOTUS Crowned MyDearLeader.

That actually isn't true, the law prohits a President from serving two consecutive terms, not serving more than 2 terms. Therefore, a person could serve two terms as President, not run, for a term, then run again, and would be able to serve, assuming they one.

Check the Constitution again:

Amendment XXII
(Ratified February 27, 1951)


[edit] Section 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


[edit] Section 2
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

So in other words, what I said was 100% correct. If he won in 2000 and ran and won in 2008, he cannot legally run in 2012.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Amendment_XXII

when I say we.. I am speaking of US.
The crowning of Bush was not by a state Judge.. it was from the fucking SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS).

I hate to tell you this but there is no national recount in the US. It is all done at the state level and subject to state laws which cannot go against the Election Laws of the United States or the Constitution itself.

I hate to tell you this but there is no national recount in the US. It is all done at the state level and subject to state laws which cannot go against the Election Laws of the United States or the Constitution itself.the Election Laws called for a manual count.

and this constitutional right was blocked by the fucking SCrOTUS.

the Election Laws of the United States called for a recount.

NO! STATE LAW called for a recount. Federal Law did not. Show me the section of the FEDERAL ELECTION LAW that calls for recounts.

and this constitutional right was blocked by the fucking SCrOTUS.

I see you do not know what you are talking about. That is ok. We all have our weakspots.

#1 If That is unconstitutional.. then all US elections are unconstitutional.
US elections are (and have always been) using different standards in different states/counties/etc.
No, the Constitution specifically delegates the duty of administering elections to the states.

#2 All the damn Judges needed to do is to allow the ongoing Counting to finish. (just like Bush should have allowed Hans Blix to finish his job)

Then they would have permitted the continued violation of the fourteenth amendment for the voters of Florida.

NO! STATE LAW called for a recount. Federal Law did not. true, but it is the Federal Judges (SCrOTUS) who blocked the ongoing Counting.

By declaring that a lack of uniformity in vote-counting is Unconstitutional, the SCroTUS has invalidated the entire US electoral system.

No, the Constitution specifically delegates the duty of administering elections to the states.
Like i said, ultimately the Federal Judges (SCrOTUS) are the ones who did block the recount.

true, but it is the Federal Judges (SCrOTUS) who blocked the ongoing Counting.

Because the way it was being done was UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the XIV amendment as it has been described to you.

By declaring that a lack of uniformity in vote-counting amounts is Unconstitutional, the SCroTUS has invalidated the entire US electoral system.


Prove it.

Like i said, ultimately the Federal Judges (SCOTUS) are the ones who did block the recount.

Because the way it was being administered was Unconstitutional. GAH!!! :headbang:

true, but it is the Federal Judges (SCrOTUS) who blocked the ongoing Counting.

By declaring that a lack of uniformity in vote-counting is Unconstitutional, the SCroTUS has invalidated the entire US electoral system.

No it hasn't, and that's for several reasons.

First being that SCOTUS decided the purview of their ruling would only encompass Bush v. Gore. It was not to be considered precedent.

Secondly, the Constitution delegates the ability to administer elections, in accordance with the Constitution, to the states.
Like i said, ultimately the Federal Judges (SCrOTUS) are the ones who did block the recount.

Yes, and they had good reason to: To protect the 14th amendment rights of the voters of the State of Florida.

Further, to say that the Court made its decision out of loyalty to party or appointer is patently false, knowing that one of the justices, Souter, who was in the dissent was, in fact, appointed by George Bush's father. I'm certain had the other justices acted improperly he would have brought it to the public attention.

Because the way it was being administered was Unconstitutional. GAH!!! :headbang:Are you saying there was no constitutional way to verify the irregularities ?

Welcome to the US, the country than can put a man on the moon, but is not able to manually count votes.

I hope Al Gore *does* run. :)

Over the years our good, self-proclaimed "creator of the Internet" has provided us with a lot of laughs at both his expense and the expense of the Left. His little habit of preaching about "carbon footprints" and then burning enough electricity at his home while he's away to power 20 households is merely the latest laugh he gave us. :D

I'm sure his next candidacy would serve to ruin the reputation of all liberals for at least a dozen years. ;)

Are you saying there was no constitutional way to verify the irregularities ?

I already told you, and along with others, the states control the elections. Do they have to follow Federal Procedures? Yes they do (look up US Election Laws) however, all verification is done at the STATE level first.

Welcome to the US, the country than can put a man on the moon, but is not able to manually count votes.

Are we talking Florida? You are right. Look at the numerous different ways they were recounting the ballots! One precint was doing it differently than another. That my friend is unconstitutional. Now if Florida had a uniformed way of recounting ballots, then we would not be having this discussion.

Now if Florida had a uniformed way of recounting ballots, then we would not be having this discussion.


For that matter if Al Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee or Bill Clinton's state of Arkansas we wouldn't be having this discussion either. It says everything we need to know about Mr. Gore that the people who knew him best rejected him. :)

I would if I could...at least he was a politician BEFORE he made movies...

I'd love a Gore/Obama ticket. Get Obama some experience for 2016, and give Gore a much deserved seat in the oval office.

I'd love a Gore/Obama ticket. Get Obama some experience for 2016, and give Gore a much deserved seat in the oval office.yeah, I like that idea.

This is VERY appriote if you saw last weeks Family Guy where Peter travles back in time and messes up the universe. "In other news Preident Gore killed Osama Bin Laden with his bare hands.", "Hey with Bush we never had flying cars that run on vegetable oil.", "With President Gore's universal health care people ar eliving much longer and with his zero tolerance gun cotrol and strongly funded edecation systen ther's no street crime!"
_________________________________________________________________

I voted maybe but I'm leaning on YES. PS: In my school before we had the 2000 election the school held a mock election where the students voted. Gore smashed Bush and won by like 75%.

Also I think many feel that Bush cheated, in that 2000 election.

Check the Constitution again:



So in other words, what I said was 100% correct. If he won in 2000 and ran and won in 2008, he cannot legally run in 2012.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Additional_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Amendment_XXII

Whoever your talking about NO. If you serve 4 years as president in 2000, and you don't serve from 2004 to 2008 you can seve 4 and only 4 more years.

So 2000-2004/2008-2012 is more than fine. GRover Cleaveland did it. However after serving from '08-12 you CANNOT run again.

Whoever your talking about NO. If you serve 4 years as president in 2000, and you don't serve from 2004 to 2008 you can seve 4 and only 4 more years.

So 2000-2004/2008-2012 is more than fine. GRover Cleaveland did it. However after serving from '08-12 you CANNOT run again.

Grover Cleveland only served 8 years in case you have forgotten.

Back to the 22nd Amendment Section 1:No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

Sorry but the Constitution wins this argument.

Here's why

Aurill stated:That actually isn't true, the law prohits a President from serving two consecutive terms, not serving more than 2 terms. Therefore, a person could serve two terms as President, not run, for a term, then run again, and would be able to serve, assuming they one.

He is saying that a person can win two consecutive terms and not run then run again. This is not correct as the 22nd amendment clearly states that they can only serve two terms in office. This is not saying two consecutive terms but two terms overall.

Back to the 22nd Amendment Section 1:No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

Sorry but the Constitution wins this argument.

Here's why

Aurill stated:That actually isn't true, the law prohits a President from serving two consecutive terms, not serving more than 2 terms. Therefore, a person could serve two terms as President, not run, for a term, then run again, and would be able to serve, assuming they one.

He is saying that a person can win two consecutive terms and not run then run again. This is not correct as the 22nd amendment clearly states that they can only serve two terms in office. This is not saying two consecutive terms but two terms overall.Many democratic countries like Venezuela do not have term limits ;)

Many democratic countries like Venezuela do not have term limits ;)

And for a long time, we did not have term limits either for President. FDR's presidency changed all of that.

And for a long time, we did not have term limits either for President. FDR's presidency changed all of that.:confused:
What?.. You are not going to whine about me spelling-out the fact that Venezuela is a Democracy?

Maybe you morning coffee was not strong enough :D

:confused:
What?.. You are not going to whine about me spelling-out the fact that Venezuela is a Democracy?

Maybe you morning coffee was not strong enough :D

Either that or did not want to fight at the moment. Pick your pick.

Besides. The US is not a Democracy either. It has democratic measures but is a Democratic Republic.

Either that or did not want to fight at the moment. Pick your pick.Well.. your coffee must be OK..
you did recognize Owens at the Nazi Olympics.

Well.. your coffee must be OK..
you did recognize Owens at the Nazi Olympics.

I am a sports nut.

Oh and Venezuela is a Bolivarian Republic :D