vegas2003

More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the fact that George W. Bush is President of the United States. Nader is more responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself in the clear by persuading more of his fellow-citizens to vote for him than for anybody else, which normally?in thirty-nine of the forty-two previous Presidential elections, or ninety-three per cent?had been considered adequate to fulfill the candidate?s electoral duty. Nader is more responsible than George W. Bush, whose alibi complements Gore?s: by attracting fewer votes, both nationally and (according to the preponderance of scientific opinion) in Florida, Bush absolved himself of guilt for his own elevation. A post-election rogues? gallery?Jeb Bush, James Baker, Katherine Harris, William Rehnquist and four of his Supreme Court colleagues?helped, each rogue in his or her own way, but no single one of them could have pulled off the heist without the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto himself.

__________________
SEACREST OUT!

sickkittens

No way! C'mon. Really? Are you sure? Are you lying to us? For real?

__________________

HIGHEST PAYOUTS FOR NO-CONSOLE TOURS IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY!
THIS SIG CAN BE YOURS FOR $200 - ICQ: 78881543

slackologist

He would gain more support for his cause from the center-left if he put some support behind the liberal center-left effort now, helped liberals win and THEN ran against them next election. I'm not sure his(Nader's) intrests are as transparent as he's making out, his argument is good but his method is flawed and not long-term and i don't believe anyone that put his views(not method) forward would NOT be able to see that he's doing his cause more damage than good ( the majority of votes are in the center, not extreme left/right)

slackologist

blah

garett

So what you're saying is ...

Instead of participating in the "free democracy" that Americans love to push in everyone's faces all the time .. they should just vote for the lesser evil of the two parties so the country will be just as fucked either way? Rather than trying to change things by voting for whom they truly believe in?

Sounds like a plan

__________________

Swiftone

But there is no chance in hell he will win, and I imagine more democrats will vote nader then republicans.. Not a good deal IMO, I dont like Bush or Kerry, but Bush has to go no matter what.

__________________
Yo.

Dirty F

DIE NEWSWHORE DIE

Dirty F

Thread killer!

slackologist

not at all, i think we need to break up the 2 party system, but this action wont greatly help Nader gain suport from the center, center-left or right.

It's a shame america doesnt have a preference system where you can nominate who you want your votes to go to incase your first choice is left out of the top 2 in the vote count, then your vote actually counts toward electing a leader of a nation.

eg;

1:Nader
2:Kerry
3:Bush

or

1:Satan
2:Ashcroft
3:Bush

slackologist

? Ignore works also.

exspamr

i think a vote for nader is worth it just for the simple pleasure of seeing democrats squirm when you say who you voted for

garett

Whether or not Nader really 'steals' swing voters or democrats .. I just find it a little absurd that anyone would betray the democracy that they put so much pride into.

If you really want to change things then get out and campaign and educate and try to get enough people to vote for Nader (or whomever you want to win) so they can win federal funding and actually put on a real show.

It's my honest opinion that it does not matter one bit wether it's the democrats or the republicans in office. Your country will be just as screwed either way. Go back and pay attention the 2000 election campaigns. Bush and Gore made the exact same promises, they spewed the exact same bullshit .. and trust me they'd of done the exact same thing in office.

Against the war in Iraq? Don't forget that Clinton bombed the shit out of baghdad a few years back. If you don't think Gore would have dealt with 9/11 in the exact same way (by going to war and totally fucking up a bunch of, mostly innocent, middle eastern countries) then you've got to look at the history of the democrats and the republicans .. they're reflections of each other!

The only thing I can honestly say the democrats would do in our favour is they would probably stop the campaign against porn that Ashhahahahaha and Bush are leading right now. Thanks to Clinton porn hadn't seen a major obscenity prosecution in over 10 years and the online scene in the U.S was allowed to explode. But I don't really think Bush can close pandora's box...the rest of the world likes porn too.

If you really want to change things vote for who you want to win .. voting based on who you want to lose is a big compromise and a big contradiction.

__________________

slackologist

I'd like to see a gun crazy anti-abortionist with 50 kids from the 'loony-right' running as a second republican candidate also.. maybe one day.

traffictrader

The fact that so many moderate liberals think in this way just goes to show why the republicans are leading the nation.

First off, there were 5, count them, FIVE other candidates on the Florida ballot who were considered ?Liberal? and received more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush. Surely by your logic, each of them is as responsible as Nader for ?costing? Gore the election.

More importantly however? is that by blaming a fellow liberal for Gore?s loss you are creating unneeded animosity amongst likeminded voters and ignoring the real cause of Gore?s defeat, and indeed, threat to Kerry in the ?04 election? Katherine Harris. That woman cost Gore the election far more than Nader ever could. For more information on Ms. Harris, watch this fun and informative flash file.

http://www.bushflash.com/swf/gta.swf

__________________

hoe_vender

Is that motherfucker going to try again

__________________
ICQ #286508534