Nader for president

http://www.khtk.com/nader.html

this is a good read

uh. words...

words...

words...

heh. use on wood.

bleh

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

I wish nader wouldn't have been so successfull in the united states. Perhaps al gore would be president now if it wassdadwn't for him.

Originally posted by ham:
I wish nader wouldn't have been so successfull in the united states. Perhaps al gore would be president now if it wassdadwn't for him.

No. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Nader.

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

I wouldn't even call the nader campaign successful since it didn't meet the voter requirement for funding

Al Gore lost in certain key states, particularly his own, simply because of NRA inflence. So, I wouldn't really fault the nader extremists for the hell we now live in.

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

aw man, this wasnt a true political thread

Originally posted by 13:

Al Gore lost in certain key states, particularly his own, simply because of NRA inflence. So, I wouldn't really fault the nader extremists for the hell we now live in.

Well, let's suppose that all the votes Nader got in Florida had gone to Gore (like they most likely would have)...



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

damn...

fohgivahnis prease~!

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

http://www.algoreisourpresident.com/...er00-thumb.jpg

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Well, if Gore won certain states he would have enough electoral votes to bypass that florida fiasco bla bla bla

http://www.napanet.net/~lindarey/anger8.jpg

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

Originally posted by bittertrance:
Dear Mr. Stern,

At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances. That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.

Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6....When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games.

This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials.

Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for the USA Today, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars.

Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically?

In a February interview with David DuPree of USA Today, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ...It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory.

It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter.

You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed – whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs.

We look forward to your considered response.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Shawn McCarthy

Director, League of Fans

http://www.napanet.net/~lindarey/anger8.jpg



------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

Originally posted by 13:

http://www.napanet.net/~lindarey/anger8.jpg

LMAO!!!



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Well, the political "experts" predicted prior to the election that whoever took Pennsylvania and Florida would be the winner. PA and FL were the key states in that election. And Gore won PA and depending on how you count the votes Gore won FL. And let's not forget that Gore won the popular vote.

http://www.algoreisourpresident.com/...er00-thumb.jpg

------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Well, the political "experts" predicted prior to the election that whoever took Pennsylvania and Florida would be the winner. PA and FL were the key states in that election. And Gore won PA and depending on how you count the votes Gore won FL. And let's not forget that Gore won the popular vote.

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Nader.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.

bleh!

http://www.machetemfg.com/Machete_Me...kers_lemmy.gif

If gore had been elected nearly everything would be the same as it is right now. It's a fine message to send to people: "Don't dissent, we need you to fight off someone using evil black magic against our dark-gray magic weilding wizard beard man! stop lollygagging around with that guy who could actually make all of this irrelivant"

It doesn't make me any less upset about the 2000 election, but Nader does indeed kick ass.

Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.

Bravo.

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/mad.gif

------------------
~*Sarah Kimberly*~

...and the tragic and
romantic ascent...

AIM: Gazing Iscariot

Samantha is the only person in this thread who knows what she's talking about. God I love that gal. The rest of you have the thinking capacity of a squid, and I love how all the closet-conservatives come out in threads like this. I'm surprised Affectation and Tweedyburd haven't graced us with their bullshit.

Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore. The election was arguably his to lose, and he did. He and Bush agreed on so many different things (during interviews, debates, etc...) that most people could conceive no considerable difference between the two. You can't blame a failure as big as Gore's campaign on Nader. The difference he made was very small, but I'll grant that it could have made the difference in several states. Still, as someone mentioned, he lost his home state!. Is that Nader's fault too? Furthermore, can you blame Nader for the fact that he gave many voters what they felt was a better choice than two equally shitty candidates? I know I would have rather just abstained from voting than have voted for either Bush or Gore.

Ass Kicking #1:
Are you by chance going to Bob's College to earn your education? If so, you should ask for your $10 back. You clearly haven't learned shit. President Gore ran a stellar campaign and had thousands of volunteers working 24 hours a day for him. Samantha has it right. You are totally underestimating the impact of Nader. Had Nader not been involved, Gore would have won Flordia, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which would have given him 296 votes, and would have beat Governor Bush by 50 some electoral votes. Who cares if he lost his home state? The Lakers don't win every home game do they? Shit happens sometimes. This wasn't a race for TN governor.

Ass Kicking #2:
The reason for Gore's "loss" is simple: Idiot "liberals" like you (I could name 50 more on this board), who know nothing about giving up a little of your own selfish ideology for the good of the Party and think nothing about how the consequences of jumping ship far outweigh the benefits, seem to believe that you are really accomplishing something here. Well you're not, unless you think that putting Bush in office is an accomplishment, so stop with the theatrics you stupid shits.

Ass Kicking #3:
You want to claim that Gore and Bush are no different? Fine, go ahead. I've already made you look like an ass (quite easily might I add). But I don't seem to recall Gore's platform ******* killing a surplus and ringing up a huge deficit, opting out of environmental pacts, cutting rich people's taxes, and doing nothing for the millions of people who can't get access to health care. I'm sure there's more, but I've made my point.

Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

Again, I'm not singling you out. There are at least 50 other dumbasses on this board who believe the same way you do. I'm going back to work now.

What do you mean by 'closet conservative'? Do you think most people here have a problem professing what their standpoint on most things is? Don't make broad generalizations about all conservatives just because you don't agree with a few's stand points.

------------------
~*Sarah Kimberly*~

...and the tragic and
romantic ascent...

AIM: Gazing Iscariot

Originally posted by if there is a llama:
I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Al Gore would be president if it wasn't for Al Gore.

i agree with your assertion, but the fact remains that if nader had not run al gore would be president of the united states and we'd all have microchips in our heads

the two things in your argument are not mutually exclusive

Originally posted by Gore is the President:
Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

the US court system is powerless without the executive branch; if the executive decided not to follow the USSC's decision then it would not be unconstitutional; in reality, clinton could have said "no way" to the USSC just like the executive did in the early 1950's (brown decision)

this is a basketball thread dammit

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Well, let's suppose that all the votes Nader got in Florida had gone to Gore (like they most likely would have)...

It's not Nader's fault Gore lost. The people who would vote for Nader (like me) voted for him because, guess what? THEY DIDN'T WANT GORE TO BE PRESIDENT.

Originally posted by Gore is the President:
Samantha is the only person in this thread who knows what she's talking about. God I love that gal.

Also, don't forget that this election was decided by 5 people: 3 old white men, an old white woman, and a confused black man who was appointed by Bush I. Not by the American people, who chose Gore by thousands of votes.

<3

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by Graveflower:
It's not Nader's fault Gore lost. The people who would vote for Nader (like me) voted for him because, guess what? THEY DIDN'T WANT GORE TO BE PRESIDENT.

So, in other words, they wanted Bush to be president? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.



------------------
~~Samantha~~
AIM: MercuryAdore

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

wow. that's a lot to read. i don't like you that much.