Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Ralph Nader emerges from hole in the ground, sees his shadow, announces intent to run for president again. It's official: four more years of President Bush   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 1124
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7634 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2004 at 10:02 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1124 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-02-22 02:16:33 PM  
barneyfifesbullet
What, and be an asswipe troll like you? Nah.

Wait a sec. You make a completely outrageous claim that you can't back up in any way, shape, or form. I then call you on it, which makes me a troll? I think it's time to up your dosage, son. You're still a bit confused.
 
zkm
2004-02-22 02:16:35 PM  
-Epistax

People that make asshat statements like that are why we have an electoral college in the first place. Without we live under mob rule, the states with larger populations would romp the states with less. The electoral college evens it out protecting the minority against being overpowered by the majority.
 
m00
2004-02-22 02:16:41 PM  
2004-02-22 02:11:34 PM thornhill


Jensaarai
[I do not understand this whole, "Nader's running steals votes away from the Democrats." Think about how Goddamn arrogant that is. You morons assume that just because someone may be liberal, they MUST vote for your candidate? You wish there was a more LIMITED choice, just so your candidate who isn't all that much different from Bush can make it in?]

What pisses me off about Nader, is that his campaign is all about how the Democrat and Republican candidates are exactly the same, and that he's the only one with some differences. This is so false. If you really think someone like Kerry is going to run the country like Bush (I'm not say he's going to do a better or worse job), you clearly have not done your homework.

Are we talking about the same Kerry that voted for the Patriot ACT? Are we talking about the same Kerry that voted for the Iraq war? Are we talking about the same Kerry that went to yale, was a classmate of Bush (they are two years apart), and was accepted in the Skull 'n Bones (that exclusive, secret illuminati society whose sole purpose is placing its members in power), JUST LIKE BUSH?

They were bonesmen in the same farking political club together, at the same college, at the same time. And Kerry voted for all the big ticket Bush items. And you are telling me that they are different?
 
2004-02-22 02:16:55 PM  
mongosmash

Thornhill if you bothered to read any of naders positions, his simple explanation is that both the democrats are controlled by the corporations and special interests that donate to them... The have the same position, and that position is to vote for whomever their corporate masters tell them to.

That doesn't change the fact that they way the govern, and the choices that members from the two parties make will still be completely different. It's also up to the candidates how much they're going to allow themselves to be influenced by their contributors. A contribution is not a legally binding agreement that buys you a vote.
 
2004-02-22 02:17:03 PM  

Eraser8 -- Party bylaws are relatively unimportant? If you can't get past the demands of the party delegates, you don't get the party endorsement.

Look at the Dems. When the unions in the US went impotent, they stopped showing up for the caucuses. Suddenly, the democrats stopped being the party of labor, and became the party of the [fill-in-the-special-interest-groups-who-showed-up]: Like the greens. Kind of hard to support labor when you're against industry....

 
2004-02-22 02:17:21 PM  
Regardless of Nader in or out of the race, I think it'll go like this...

September 2004, Republican Convention: Cheney bumped from ticket (for "health reasons") and Guliani installed as VP candidate.

October 2004: Osama Bin Laden "captured."

November 2004: FOUR MORE YEARS
 
2004-02-22 02:18:10 PM  
thornhill: The Democrat and Republican parties are sharply split on many issues.

OK, I'm a cynic. While candidates and parties are split on several key emotional issues, how different are they on the everyday mundane issues where government makes a difference? The size of government; size of the military; taxes; deficit spending; government regulation; pork-barreling? Follow the money. Candidates keep their contributors happy and spin the story to voters in their district to get re-elected.
 
2004-02-22 02:18:19 PM  
McGovern72

"Nader is a champion for the little guy and a Great American."


Examples?
 
2004-02-22 02:18:36 PM  
Philzone,

Really? Where in this thread can you find that?
 
2004-02-22 02:18:41 PM  
eraser8

Terrorists were repsonsible for 9/11. You can say what you will, but I really don't think anyone could have predicted the extent of the damage that was done.
 
2004-02-22 02:18:44 PM  
BigJake

you miss the point. those who hate bush and his people do not necessarily like the democrats. they're both filthy. the only real difference that the democrats take money from companies/organizations/people who are little "better" than those companies/organizations/people that give money to republicans. of course, what ends up happening is that the same companies/organizations/people give money to both parties sometimes equally and sometimes not. it wouldn't be in their interest to all of a sudden have a president or a congress or a senate that they haven't greased.

by attacking those whom you call "democrats" you are taking the focus away from the real problems from which america is sufferering.
 
2004-02-22 02:20:01 PM  
Gleaning,

I said LIBERALS, not Democrats. Both sides of this "debate" are liberals, to one degree or another.
 
2004-02-22 02:21:03 PM  
BeowulfSmith writes: Unfortunately, despite having wake-up calls to our poor security from the 1993 World Trade Center attacks and Oklahoma city (not to mention several attempts that were thwarted, like the 2000 attempted attacks by those Algerians), American was just complacent.

Especially the Republican conference of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Republican caucus of the U.S. Senate. After the 1993 WTC attack and again after Oklahoma City, the Clinton administration proposed tough anti-terrorist legislation -- that the Republicans refused to adopt. According to the GOP, the Clinton measures were too restrictive of civil liberties (and, they were right to a point).

I think the Republican resistance was based on two things:

1) A pathological hatred of President Clinton.

2) The fact that Clinton intended to go after both international terrorists as well as domestic ones. People like Tim McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph are, in some Republican constituencies, rather well regarded. You can still hear Republican wails over Ruby Ridge (many going so far as to blame that on Clinton, too -- despite the fact that Clinton, at the time, was still governor of Arkansas).
 
2004-02-22 02:21:59 PM  
sorry my mistake. but the fact remains, that even conservatives can detest the bush organization and the self serving policies it's brought.
 
2004-02-22 02:22:23 PM  
Churchill:

Ever heard of a book called "Unsafe At Any Speed"?
 
m00
2004-02-22 02:22:32 PM  
2004-02-22 02:20:01 PM BigJake

What if I don't consider John Kerry a liberal? What issue is he liberal on?

Liberal is a relative term.

Personally, I think he's as bad as Bush
 
2004-02-22 02:23:02 PM  

Another giant thread of


[image from home.comcast.net too old to be available]


Whining....

 
2004-02-22 02:23:47 PM  
m00, John Kerry has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. If you don't consider Kennedy a liberal, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
2004-02-22 02:23:54 PM  
Jeez churchill...

"Unsafe at Any Speed"...Ever heard of it? Seatbelts? Safer cars?

I don't mean to go all partisan on your arse but only Conservatives like you see fit to demonize people who have worked to help average citizens...the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act... Nader had a hand in bringing all these things to fruition.

Whether you like it or not, churchill72, all the above have benefitted you...
 
2004-02-22 02:24:38 PM  
This thread is so much fun, laughing at NeoCon wingnuts who throw out lies, half truths, misrepresentations, ridiculous claims, self rightous proclamations, smug crowing, and slanderous statements of hate only to be rebutted and proven wrong time and time again before simply vanishing. I guess it's Tinians turn to be the Piniata today.
 
2004-02-22 02:25:02 PM  
I am still curious why people support GWB. I mean, unless you are a religious Zealot or super rich....or just plain moronic and uninformed.
 
2004-02-22 02:25:27 PM  
AcadianSidhe writes: Terrorists were repsonsible for 9/11.

Forgive the tartness of this reply...but, I refer you to the first sentence of my post to Tinian: ...terrorists were actually responsible for 9/11...

In other words, your observation -- while accurate -- was unnecessary. I was not putting the "blame" on any administration, per se. I was merely playing along with Tinian's sick game.
 
Ro
2004-02-22 02:26:11 PM  
McGovern 72 and other people considering voting for Nader, whay don't you just vote for Bush? You know that you'll be getting the same result with your vote!
 
2004-02-22 02:26:15 PM  
BigJake

m00, John Kerry has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. If you don't consider Kennedy a liberal, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


I consider him an asshole and an idiot, but I don't think he's a liberal, considering liberal implies progress.
 
2004-02-22 02:26:27 PM  
"Know what I say? STFU. Vote for whoever the fark you want. I may not go green, but lately that Libertarian ticket has been looking pretty nice."

How is it logically possible that someone could vote green OR libertarian? Those two parties are (unlike the demo-republicans) are actually on radically different ends of the political spectrum. The greens are nothing but recycled communists and the libertarians are the only non-statist, (somewhat) well known party around. You are either on one extreme or the other...its illogical to think you would show up at the polls, flip a coin and choose between either one of those parties. This person obviously has no concept of ideology or political philosophy.
 
2004-02-22 02:26:29 PM  
bigjake i listen to the right biatch and whine all the time just like the lefts.
 
2004-02-22 02:26:31 PM  
Elrik
If you change your vote because you fear your candidate is going to lose then you have given up your freedom to choose.

Let's be real. Voting serves two purposes. 1)expressing your voice; 2)having a say in who gets elected. I prefer to have a say in who does, or doesn't get elected. I can express my voice on the Internet or at a bar or through campaign contributions. Voting is about getting the best person in office. Losing votes are losing votes.
 
2004-02-22 02:26:43 PM  
Xtremehkr
NeoCon wingnuts who throw out lies, half truths, misrepresentations, ridiculous claims, self rightous proclamations, smug crowing, and slanderous statements of hate

Not that I'm coming to anybody's defense, but you can't even try to tell me the liberals are any better.
 
m00
2004-02-22 02:26:45 PM  
2004-02-22 02:23:47 PM BigJake

m00, John Kerry has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. If you don't consider Kennedy a liberal, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you

Like the "liberal" Patriot Act and Iraq war? Cuz, Kerry voted for 'em.

While we're at it, name one thing John Kerry has DONE in Congress. He's sat on committees, authored some bills everybody knew wouldn't go anywhere, sure. What exactly has he done that makes him worthy of my vote.
 
2004-02-22 02:27:01 PM  
ghogman

it's got nothing to do with whining. it's got to do with truth. and americans just aren't getting any.

keep in mind though, some americans still believe what the warren commission had to say.
 
2004-02-22 02:27:21 PM  
2004-02-22 01:56:48 PM Tinian

Clinton was responsible for 9/11.

Clinton didn't capture bin Laden, so 9/11 is his fault? That's like saying it's the airline's fault (for lax security) or the airplane makers fault (for building planes that can crash into buildings).

No, bin Laden is responsible for 9/11. It was his organization that carried the attack out. You can blame Clinton for not getting bin Laden, but not for 9/11. Using your logic, you can blame Bush 41, since he was the one who put troops in Saudi Arabia and got bin Laden mad to begin with. You can also blame Bush 41 for allowing Afghanistan go to hell in a handbasket after the Soviets left. It's no use blaiming one politician, because they were all involved.
 
2004-02-22 02:27:30 PM  
eraser8

Gotcha. Sorry- just that the blame game gets old after awhile, ya know?
 
2004-02-22 02:27:46 PM  
tarvuz: I mean, unless you are a religious Zealot or super rich....or just plain moronic and uninformed.

Thank you. You have just accurately described the top of the American bell curve.

 
2004-02-22 02:28:11 PM  
Edwards for President.

I dont think as many people will vote for Nader as they did in 2000, plus Gore still won the popular vote. I'm glad this is being overspun by the media though because people will be more reluctant to vote for Nader.
 
2004-02-22 02:28:17 PM  
2004-02-22 02:23:47 PM BigJake


m00, "John Kerry has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. If you don't consider Kennedy a liberal, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you."

BigJake: Obviously a Hannity, Limbaugh listener. Completely missed mOO's point.

BigJake, I think you should elaborate on that Kerry vs. Kennedy liberal voting statement.
 
2004-02-22 02:28:58 PM  
that is to say, even forty years from now, if there's a forty years from now, there'll still be some of you, a minority by then, that'll swear bush and his people are above board on all accounts.
 
2004-02-22 02:29:13 PM  
NEWS FLASH:

The Republican National Committee announced today that the Republican Party is changing its emblem from an elephant to a condom.

The committee chairman explained that the condom more clearly reflects the party's stance today, because a condom accepts inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects pricks, and gives one a sense of security while one is getting screwed.
 
2004-02-22 02:29:20 PM  
m00, Acadian,

It's all in the Congressional Quarterly, check it out. Though you have a point m00, when you ask about what he's done... In this last session, Ted was present for almost 3 times as many votes as Kerry, but on the ones Kerry was there for, he was more liberal.
 
2004-02-22 02:29:44 PM  
Tarvuz the non-moronic and informed wrote:

"I am still curious why people support GWB. I mean, unless you are a religious Zealot or super rich....or just plain moronic and uninformed."

Well, seeing as how you are so well informed and non-moronic why dont you convince me not to vote for GWB. Oh, and while you are at it, please expound on your theory that the democrats are (not just in rhetoric) better for the "little guy." Explain.
 
2004-02-22 02:30:03 PM  
tarvuz

I am still curious why people support GWB. I mean, unless you are a religious Zealot or super rich....or just plain moronic and uninformed.


Or maybe they think along different lines than you do and have their own reasons? Just a thought. I'm no Bush supporter, but I know people who are perfectly respectable and intelligent who plan on voting for him, and they have their own reasons. For every reason anyone throws out some reason for Bush being bad, there's some other president out there who has done something just as bad. I just think he's an idiot, not evil.
 
2004-02-22 02:30:23 PM  
"To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive."

Robert Louis Stevenson
 
2004-02-22 02:30:30 PM  
More people die from falling off ladders every year in the States than were killed on 9/11.

Where's the department of homeland security on that?
 
2004-02-22 02:30:31 PM  
NO its whining... looking for another govt handout.
Pissed they may have to wait another 4 years for somthing free....
Go spend your tax cuts and have a good time...
 
2004-02-22 02:30:37 PM  
gleaningtheboob -

"Some Americans still believe what the Warren Commission had to say"

And we're off! Best conspiracy theory in the next 10 minutes wins a NEW CAR!
 
Ro
2004-02-22 02:30:55 PM  
truckers_atlas & McGovern 72, so how would you feel after you vote Nader and Bush stays in the office because Kery was 2 votes (yours) short of getting a swing state?
 
2004-02-22 02:31:17 PM  
Enough elaboration, Captain?
 
2004-02-22 02:31:47 PM  
tarvuz
I am still curious why people support GWB. I mean, unless you are a religious Zealot or super rich

Suppose I am one of those two. What do you have to convince me to NOT vote for George?
 
2004-02-22 02:32:04 PM  
My fellow conservatives, let's not get too happy over this. "The Ten Commandments judge" Roy Moore may be running on the Constitution Party ticket.



[image from morallaw.org too old to be available]
 
2004-02-22 02:32:09 PM  
Everyone, whether liberal, middle or libertarian, has got to admit though...

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when we all argue about who is most electable as opposed to who is the best person for the job. It reminds me of the line (sorry to use it again as everyone else beat me to it) from one of the best Simpsons ever, "Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
 
2004-02-22 02:32:24 PM  
eraser8 said:
Rayonic writes: Do you think Bush 2004 is a stronger or weaker candidate than Bush 2000?

He's a far, far weaker candidate today than he was in 2000. He has a record to run on now. And, his record is the worst of any president in U.S. history.

That's what I figured you (guys) would say. Thus, why shouldn't Nader run? Bush is weak, Kerry is weak -- this is the ideal time for a third-party candidate to run.
 
Displayed 50 of 1124 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report