Is there too much blood and gore around the world for you to support Gore?

[Boojatta]

Poll question: Is there too much blood and gore around the world for you to support Gore?

[3waygeek]

1. The problem is

too much blood, not enough Gore :P

[blonndee]

10. Yay! Good one. n/t

[evlbstrd]

2. No vote.

Crap poll.

If Gore had taken office, as was his right, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

[Boojatta]

4. I'm talking about current and future support, not past support. e.o.m.

[evlbstrd]

5. Then the answer is an unequivocal "No."

He's a better candidate now than he was for 2000. And he was damned good then. He seems to have shed the DLC skin since then.

[zeemike]

6. I agree

There seems to be no real use for this poll that I can see.
Other than perhaps see how many people are so dumb as to associate words like that. It is like saying that I dug up all the bushes around my house because we have Bush as president.

[Boojatta]

7. It's like saying that you had freedom fries with your hamburger.

Now you've done it. Nobody will choose "yes" if you insult in advance everybody who chooses that option.

[uppityperson]

9. I too have nothing to add but can't pass up a chance to say so.

[evlbstrd]

12. Thank you.

Bogus poll. Very loaded and Lounge worthy. Although I doubt it would get any respect there.

[panader0]

3. On the contrary, I think Al Gore could reduce the suffering.

I think he could reduce the animosity toward the US. I think he could deal very well with global warming. I think that if he had been correctly elected as President, that most of the deep shit we're in would not have happened. Of course, I voted for Al Gore. But almost ANYONE except bushco could do a better job than this current, corrupt admin.

[saltpoint]

8. You mean "Al" as "owl" right?

Owls eat other animals but they aren't that much of a threat, IMO.

I can live with 'em.

[Blue-Jay]

11. WTF?

[Boojatta]

13. kick to elicit more replies. e.o.m.