let's lynch Nader

[Ghetto_Squirrel]

Originally posted by sppunk
because he's a true liberal.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel

Howard Dean's not liberal? Then Bush doesn't get more right-wing each day.

[Ghetto_Squirrel]

Howard Dean's a centrist in the Clinton mold. He's admitted how middle of the road he is numerous times. That he gets tagged as a left-wing wacko is a testament to how far right this country has shifted.

[Boycott Graceland]

let's here it for people so stupid and closed-minded that they believe the only system possible is one with two parties, and that any vote to any party other than those two is a wasted one.

you are sad, lazy people. why would you even vote if you're only voting for "your party" to get in? fuck voting for whoever you think "other people will vote for," just so your government will give you the most immediate benefeits and least amount of anguish you believe is plausable. do what you think is right, not what you think other people might think is right.

anyways, i find all the people who play the game of politics to be pretty boring. most men treat it like a professional sports league.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


2000 exit polls:

60% of Nader voters said they'd have voted for Gore
20% said they'd have voted for Bush
20% said they wouldn't have voted

If even one-sixtieth of that 60% had voted for Gore in Florida, he wins the election.

Also, Nader's not going to get nearly the amount of support he got in 2000. If I may make a shameless plug: Experts doubt Nader will affect 2004 race

1. Exit polls are not infalliable, in fact they're barely reliable.
2. The 20% that said they would have voted for Bush are obviously either a) retarded or b) fictional.
3. You can use statistics to prove pretty much anything you want.
4. Your mamma so fat she sat on coal and made diamonds.
5. Exit polls are more like this "upon removing your dick from Chris's rectum, would you say that a) it was nice b) it was tight c) it was loose or d) banana."

Originally posted by Boycott Graceland
let's here it for people so stupid and closed-minded that they believe the only system possible is one with two parties, and that any vote to any party other than those two is a wasted one.

you are sad, lazy people. why would you even vote if you're only voting for "your party" to get in? fuck voting for whoever you think "other people will vote for," just so your government will give you the most immediate benefeits and least amount of anguish you believe is plausable. do what you think is right, not what you think other people might think is right.

anyways, i find all the people who play the game of politics to be pretty boring. most men treat it like a professional sports league.

Way to be ignorant!

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel
Howard Dean's a centrist in the Clinton mold. He's admitted how middle of the road he is numerous times. That he gets tagged as a left-wing wacko is a testament to how far right this country has shifted.

His constituency ruined it for him. All the college greens from across the land latched on to him like a baby in search for a teat.

I feel bad for him. Plus, he didn't help himself with the whole YEEHAW speech where he was obviously stuck in the denial stage.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


Never. They should change the party structure from inside. Nader should have ran as a Democrat. Lord knows we had a lot of suspicious "democrats" running this year, Joe Leiberman isn't exactly a leftist.

I do love how Democrats have been calling for a move to the center for years now, especially calling conservatives divisive, and yet they hang their most moderate candidate out to dry, and paint him to be a traitor, a Republican, and a conservative.

Originally posted by Nimrod
I do love how Democrats have been calling for a move to the center for years now, especially calling conservatives divisive, and yet they hang their most moderate candidate out to dry, and paint him to be a traitor, a Republican, and a conservative.

I hope you understand that I neither consider myself a Democrat nor do I want them to move towards the "center".

I think Bill Clinton was the move to the center the Dems wanted, I think Lieberman is not a moderate but a Republican who is a Democrat because he's a Jew. Follow me? He's not really moderate about anything in my view, just because he walks like a duck, talks like a duck but calls himself a swan doesn't make him one.

[Boycott Graceland]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


Way to be ignorant!

yeah, you're the kind of people i'm talking about.

Originally posted by Boycott Graceland

yeah, you're the kind of people i'm talking about.

You're the kind of people that don't understand that our country is this way because people like it this way.

It's all the same shade of shit so what does it really matter?

[Ghetto_Squirrel]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros

2. The 20% that said they would have voted for Bush are obviously either a) retarded or b) fictional.

I was skeptical of this also, but my grandparents very nearly voted for Nader but chose Bush instead. They're relatively conservative people, but they loathe the corporate control of the country. Nader's message regarding this really appealed to them, though they may not agree with some of his other stances, and they also had respect for him from his Unsafe at Any Speed days. So, they were Republicans who almost jumped onto the Green boat in 2000.

[professional wannabe]

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


I was skeptical of this also, but my grandparents very nearly voted for Nader but chose Bush instead. They're relatively conservative people, but they loathe the corporate control of the country. Nader's message regarding this really appealed to them, though they may not agree with some of his other stances, and they also had respect for him from his Unsafe at Any Speed days. So, they were Republicans who almost jumped onto the Green boat in 2000.

finally, some proof that validates what Nader was saying all along(that many people would've voted for Bush instead if he wasn't on the ballot) is really true......(and what i believed to be true also.)

and to all the Nader-haters out there: if it wasn't for all the Greens that showed up in Washington state and voted for Maria Cantwell(a Democratic senator who unseated a Republican incumbent), and gave her the difference she needed to win that seat, the Democrats would never have had control of the Senate from 2001-2002, when Jim Jaffords of Vermont switched from being a Republican to an independent. i'm still disappointed though that then, they acted like panzies(sp?) and didn't have the balls to stand up against Bush more often, like they should've done(but still, at least they did stop some of Bush's conservative agenda). finally too, i wouldn't be worried about Nader if i were you, since he won't be on as many ballots as he was in 2000(plus he doesn't have the backing of a party behind him, like he did in 1996 and 2000), and because all progressives, liberals, and moderates who despise Bush realize we all need to unite behind one candidate to beat Bush. i'd really like to see Nader run in 2008, though, just now's not the time he should be trying to run if you ask me.