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  
•       •       •

7633 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2004 at 10:02 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1124 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-02-22 02:32:31 PM  
MrBlueSky

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.


That kind of cynicism is why the system isn't changing.
 
m00
2004-02-22 02:33:18 PM  
2004-02-22 02:29:20 PM BigJake

I ask you again, sir.

How do you reconcile your stance on Kerry's liberalness, with the fact he voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act?

Those currently are the two most important issues to me, as a voter. And I think they are very important issues in general. And I believe my position ("no" on both), for better or worse, to be liberal. Yet John Kerry voted "yes" to both. So how can I possibly see him as a liberal?

How do you?
 
2004-02-22 02:34:35 PM  
eraser8
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).


I fully agree with the first point. However, your second point is probably one of the most retarded things I have ever read on Fark, and that is saying a lot. How would crazy militant secessionists (connected with various neo-nazi movements)be a constituency of the administration who greatly expanded the power of the FBI and other Federal bureaus (the ones they feared the most) and then had an administration chock full of Jews, Blacks, and other minorities that heavily supports Israel? If you think about it for a second, it makes absolutely no sense (unless maybe they had their own ABC, anybody but Clinton, campaign, but in that case, that hardly proves any affiliation, just antipathy toward the other party).

Honestly, part of your problem, and the problem of a lot of heavily politically opinionated farkers (right or left) is that you have a deep seated neccesity to demonize people who disagree with you. Just consider that possibly people, who don't agree with you, do so because they have weighed the information and made a different choice, and they are not in fact Nazis, members of a secret shadow government, or crazy religious fanatics that want to end the world to bring on the rapture. Well, anyway, it's just a suggestion.
 
2004-02-22 02:35:01 PM  
MTB_guy
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?


See: OSHA
 
2004-02-22 02:35:29 PM  
DLinsalata

I can, the Liberals are able to back up most of what they say with sources of reliable information, when discussing the facts at least. Either you don't read that many threads from beginning to end or just choosing to side with Conservatives on this one.

Have you followed a thread with Tinian in it at all? He regularly gets kicked from one end of the thread to the other for the crap that posts.

If you have a some examples feel free. Also, the term "Liberal" is applied too liberally, it's not just Liberals that hate Bush. The only people defending him are the hard right conservatives (some of whom claim to be Libertarians) who also do all the (continued) biatching and whining about the Clintons.

Liberals are a much more independant bunch on Fark, can share similar views with sharing a brain and yeah, I can and will say that I find them to be honest the majority of the time. There are always exceptions though.
 
2004-02-22 02:36:13 PM  
BigJake

No ,try again.

I'd really like you to define liberal for me. If you think Democrats=liberals you are sadly mistaken.
 
2004-02-22 02:36:21 PM  
Don Dokken:

So? Isn't this yahoo running too? Big deal.

I find it ironic that Roy Moore would run for the Constitution Party, though. Isn't the U.S. Constitution what made him get rid of his stupid monument anyways?
 
2004-02-22 02:36:50 PM  
churchill72

Yeah, um, there are more 3rd parties than green and libertarian. Secondly, maybe some people see the need to be radical to get some farking changes in the system implemented. Lastly, Libertarians aren't really that radical. They pretty much don't give a rat's ass what's going on, as long as anyone's rights aren't being infringed upon. And, personally, provided they're still keeping the government in order, I think a laissez-faire approach to what people want to do (again, providing no rights are violated) is pretty cool. Maybe then at least the prisons wouldn't be crowding and people wouldn't be biatching as soon as they get their feelings hurt.
 
2004-02-22 02:37:31 PM  
AcadianSidhe: That kind of cynicism is why the system isn't changing.

Not cynicism. Reality that tastes bad. You can't change the system by waiting to see what its product is going to be. If you want the parties to produce better candidates, you have to be involved in the party itself, not just wait to see what they hand you.

But if they *do* hand you crap, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting for the person who best represents your views and has at least an ice-cube's chance in hell of winning.

 
2004-02-22 02:38:01 PM  
I submitted this two days ago with a better headline. It's already old news.
 
2004-02-22 02:38:02 PM  
I don't care who the president is, because it makes no difference which moron is in the White House.

But I do wish GWB stays the president, just to annoy all you liberal schmucks.

You idiots should stop worrying about who the president will be. Pay attention to your life and shut the hell up. Whining all time about GWB is just plain silly.

And stop posting all these Anti-Bush articles, it's getting boring in TotalFark, endless nonsense, with your whining for god sake.
 
2004-02-22 02:38:34 PM  
"MTB_guy
More people die from falling off ladders every year in the States than were killed on 9/11."

If you are too stupid to properly use complex technology like a "ladder," Then you should be euthanized.
 
2004-02-22 02:38:42 PM  
philzone2001

"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


Wow, I like that one.
 
2004-02-22 02:38:58 PM  
BeowulfSmith

[Bill Clinton wasn't responsible for 9/11, and neither was Bush. Osama Bin Laden was the one responsible, along with Al Queda and their supporters (Taliban etc).]

True enough. But Clinton was terribly negligent. We were repeatedly attacked by OBL & Al Qaeda during his two terms and his responses were (to be charitable) weak. Al Qaeda trained 15-20,000 terrorists in their Afghani camps during the mid to late 90's.

Kerry and most of his supporters seem only to care about catching OBL. If Kerry is elected he'll call off the war on terror as soon as OBL is captured, and we'll be right back to the pre-9/11 days. With 15-20,000 terrorists still out there, plotting to devastate America.

Think I'm wrong? Listen to the Farkers around you. They hate the war on terror. They fear and hate Bush and Ashcroft more than the terrorists. They think that finding OBL is the key to solving the terror problem and Bush is a failure in the war because he hasn't captured OBL yet.

OBL is only a small part of the war on terror and capturing or killing him isn't going to put an end the threat. For some reason the knotheads around you have this crazy notion that OBL is indispensable to the terrorists. To quote Charles De Gaulle, "The graveyards are full of indispensable men."

Democrats simply aren't responsible enough to be entrusted with our security.
 
2004-02-22 02:39:29 PM  
The 2004 election will not follow 2000 election pattern. Nader won't get dick for votes. I predict less than 1%.

The reason is 9/11, Iraq, and Bush's economic policy -- people will recognize there's too much on the line to throw a protest vote out to nader.

I hope it's Edwards that get the ticket, but I'll swallow and vote for Kerry if it comes to that.
 
2004-02-22 02:40:01 PM  
Depends how you weight the votes, of course. Those are for total votes, some of which are more important than others. Kennedy voted for the Patriot Act, which doesn't give him a leg up on Kerry in this instance, and I can't find out how Kennedy voted on the force resolution at the moment. Keep in mind that Senate vote was 98-1, so unless you think Russ Feingold is the Senate's lone liberal, that's not a strike against either of them.
 
2004-02-22 02:41:36 PM  
ghogman, what you did with that pic is a perfect example of why noone respects the GOP anymore.

Anyway, I hope Nader gets run over by a Chevy Corvair while trying to cross a street. That'll be the best irony of all.
 
2004-02-22 02:42:15 PM  
BigJake

let me ask you, do you think watergate was the only scandal perpetrated by an american government? if it was not, do you think that it was the worse that could have possibly been? and by that I mean, one party eavesdropping and stealing files from the other.

watergate was made into a movie because it was the only time they got caught.

now you can't honestly look at the team of secretaries that bush has assembled and think that they're going to do what is in the interest of the people of america before the interest of their best friends they left back in the boardroom four years ago.

for god's sake, bush sr. is making millions off of advising huge gold mining companies and the like. is bush jr. going to ignore his dad's wallet just after he ousted the democrats that ousted his dad?
 
2004-02-22 02:42:27 PM  
Lenny_da_Hog

Not cynicism. Reality that tastes bad. You can't change the system by waiting to see what its product is going to be. If you want the parties to produce better candidates, you have to be involved in the party itself, not just wait to see what they hand you.

But if they *do* hand you crap, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting for the person who best represents your views and has at least an ice-cube's chance in hell of winning.


It's pretty damned hard to make changes in the two big parties. Too many people have too much influence on an individual level. I'm not just saying just vote for a 3rd party for change. It also involves getting other people to break away from the 2 party system through freedom of speech, etc. Morally, I personally just can't vote for who I think will win, and I don't believe in settling in my choice.
 
2004-02-22 02:42:35 PM  
AcadianSidhe writes: I know people who are perfectly respectable and intelligent who plan on voting for him

I know people who are perfectly respectable and intelligent -- but sometimes act irrationally. And, I think that's a phenomenon that helps Bush.

I've seen it quite often right here at Fark: take any political issue. One side sets out its basis for support. Even if the other side can successfully and conclusively prove that the claims made in support were false, does it ever change the position of the proponent?

That means that the support could not possibly have been based on logic. Logic requires that if the basis for a judgment has changed then the judgment itself must be re-evaluated.

But, in political matters especially that's not the way things go. Instead of looking at the issues logically and dispassionately, people tend to -- borrowing a phrase from a great writer -- build castles in the air and then lay the foundations under them.

And, it's not just the voting public. The Bush administration is a wonderful example of illogic in action. They decide on a policy (for ideological rather than logical reasons) and then put out a rationale. If their rationale turns out to be wrong, the policy never changes; they just invent a new justification.
 
2004-02-22 02:42:57 PM  
a55h013 says: "But I do wish GWB stays the president, just to annoy all you liberal schmucks."

"You idiots should stop worrying about who the president will be. Pay attention to your life and shut the hell up. Whining all time about GWB is just plain silly."

Asshole:
WTF?
Are you sure you're not moby posing as a dumbfark republican?
 
2004-02-22 02:43:17 PM  
Captain,

You make the same mistake as the gentleman I was talking to earlier - I said if you don't consider TED KENNEDY (not Democrats) is liberal, I have a bridge to sell you. There are some moderate Democrats out there, but Kennedy ain't one of them.
 
2004-02-22 02:43:57 PM  
beauregard said:
The reason is 9/11, Iraq, and Bush's economic policy -- people will recognize there's too much on the line to throw a protest vote out to nader.

I hope it's Edwards that get the ticket, but I'll swallow and vote for Kerry if it comes to that.

Isn't Kerry for all of Bush's policies anyway? Since he always seems for vote for everthing he says he's against, I've seen him running a very pro-Bush campaign so far.
 
2004-02-22 02:44:09 PM  
What an irony. Nader claims to want to be President to stand up to the evil corporate machine, etc. etc. etc., and then he causes the Ultimate Corporate-C0ck Sucker to ascend to the Presidency.

I voted for Nader in 1996 and in 2000 (the latter from a non-swing state where I knew I could afford to waste the vote). Now, I'd like to chase him through the streets of West Palm Beach with a steamroller.

(It's still OK to make up facetious threats about politicians as long as they're liberal, right?)
 
2004-02-22 02:44:25 PM  
beauregard
I hope it's Edwards that get the ticket, but I'll swallow and vote for Kerry if it comes to that.

Wow, you must be popular with all the boys. ;-)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one.

/immediately becomes a hypocrite
 
2004-02-22 02:45:02 PM  
Hah. Kennedy should be in jail with Bush, Cheney and Lay, but that'll never happen
 
Ro
2004-02-22 02:45:14 PM  
chickensocks:,
...This brings attention to those issues....


So, are you happy with 'attention on the issues', but Bush in the White House after 2000 elections?

 
2004-02-22 02:45:18 PM  
AcadianSidhe
That kind of cynicism is why the system isn't changing.

Maybe. Let's imagine there was an evil king. 60% of the population hate him. The king allows elections. 10 candidates run against the king. The 10 candidates split 60% of the vote. The king is still in power. 60% of the population still hate him. "Democracy prevails". Is it more important to express a "voice", or to get the evil king out of power?

It's easy. People should vote for Nader if they don't mind living under Bush for four more years. People should vote for the Democratic candidate if the Democratic candidate will be less bad than Bush. Nader isn't going to win. You may as well write in "tooth fairy".

Stupid story to illustrate a simple argument.
 
m00
2004-02-22 02:45:25 PM  
2004-02-22 02:37:31 PM Lenny_da_Hog


[AcadianSidhe: That kind of cynicism is why the system isn't changing.]

Not cynicism. Reality that tastes bad. You can't change the system by waiting to see what its product is going to be. If you want the parties to produce better candidates, you have to be involved in the party itself, not just wait to see what they hand you.

But if they *do* hand you crap, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting for the person who best represents your views and has at least an ice-cube's chance in hell of winning.


The problem is that Kerry doesn't represent most demoract's views. The very reason he is "electable" because he represents enough republican views to sway the swing voters, and he's a democrat. Each party has the blind faith that My party > Their party, so not many think to care if he's electable to democrats. In fact, it seems not to really matter.

For the sake of argument, if he was ideologically a republican but had a [D] after his name, he would probably get the majority of dem votes in a general election. Even over a moderate republican such as McCain who may actually be more ideologically a democrat (given the way the two parties are currently voting).

And that's a very bad state to be in.
 
2004-02-22 02:46:00 PM  
AS liberal. Duh.
 
2004-02-22 02:46:00 PM  
if we the USA hate terrorism so much why didn't we invade northern ireland and take out the IRA. just a thought any UK farkers feel free to help me on this if you support or disagree with my statement

Tinian getting rid of OBL will not end the war on terror. it will be a non-stop war it will never end. such an aggresive war only fuels the anger that caused such tragdies as 9/11. i hope it doesnt i dont want to ever wake up again and see that happening on live TV any where in the USA or the world again.
 
2004-02-22 02:46:28 PM  
BeowulfSmith

He may not be that far wrong, Republicans are definately capable of doing such things when it is politically expediant. See below.

Headline: Commission that will investigate the CIA's intelligence gathering

ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS
BODY:
BOB EDWARDS, host:

President Bush has appointed the members of a commission that will
investigate the CIA's intelligence gathering. Commentator Kevin Phillips
says the president should have found appointees without checkered pasts.

KEVIN PHILLIPS:

It really is a little hard to believe out of all the Republicans that
George W. Bush could have appointed to co-chair the new CIA investigation
he wound up picking Laurence H. Silberman, a lawyer and senior federal
appeals court judge. Silberman is a good bet to be the commission's
principle behind-the-scenes orchestrator because Washington is, after all,
Republican controlled. The Democratic co-chair, former Virginia Senator
Charles Robb, was picked as a non-boat rocker.

But in the past, Silberman has been more involved with cover-ups in the
Middle East than with any attempts to unravel them. His name has been
raised in two well-documented connections. One was the Iran Contra scandal
of the mid-1980s. The second was the October surprise episode in 1980 in
which the Republicans were later accused of colluding with the
revolutionary government of Iran to keep 52 American hostages confined in
Iran so that they could not be freed by the Jimmy Carter administration in
time to influence the 1980 presidential election.


The complaints voiced against Silberman are as follows. First, that in
1980 as part of that year's Republican campaign, he attended at least one
of the October surprise meetings where an Iranian representative discussed
what Iran would want in exchange for keeping the hostages. As for the
later Iran Contra episode, a special prosecutor in that affair accused
Silberman, then a federal judge, of courtroom diversion and obstruction.
Silberman was one of two judges in a 2:1 decision that overturned Oliver
North's Iran Contra conviction. The special prosecutor even toyed with
accusing Silberman of judicial misconduct.

The name of that angry special prosecutor was Lawrence Walsh, a Republican
who had been deputy attorney general of the United States during the
Eisenhower administration. Walsh wrote about both instances in his book
"Firewall." Even the word chutzpa doesn't describe this appointment of
Silberman. He is not the first but the fourth or fifth Iran Contra figure
to be given an appointment in the second Bush administration. This is not
bravado but arrogance.

Hopefully, Senator John McCain can emerge as a Republican counter to
Silberman in this investigation, but it would be nice if McCain had some
other honest Republicans to help. One possibility might have been Scott
Ritter, the former Marine Corps major and registered Republican who served
as one of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Ritter became famous last
year for his insistence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq. Obviously, he would bring important skills to the commission, but
the White House would rather hug a cobra.

Ritter is one of the growing number of Republicans who have decided that
the United States needs a new president.

EDWARDS: The comments of Kevin Phillips. His latest book is "American
Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush."
_____________________________________________________________



Moderation is always a good thing, but Bush is by no means moderate, and the more I look the more it seems that the Republicans are by no means moderate.
 
2004-02-22 02:47:40 PM  
It's pretty damned hard to make changes in the two big parties.

Well, it's pretty damned hard to get someone elected too, but you're taking part in that. To make changes in a party, all you have to do is SHOW UP and VOTE. Bring your friends. In a district with 8,000 voters, twice that many residents, I took over a district because me and my girlfriend showed up. That was a majority, I took chairman, and after placement on a spending committee, had threats and ass-kissings coming from candidates all over the state.

Might as well say, "Math's tough. Let's go shopping." Or "My one vote doesn't count."

 
2004-02-22 02:49:13 PM  
AcadianSidhe wrote:

"Yeah, um, there are more 3rd parties than green and libertarian."

- Did I ever say there were no other parties other than Green and Libertarian? No matter what, all of those other parties are variations on the basic left/right wing theme. Some idiots act like there really is an alternative to left wing (statist) and right wing (liberal) politics.

"Secondly, maybe some people see the need to be radical to get some farking changes in the system implemented."

- Possibly true, but if you are standing in line at the polling area trying to decide between the Green party and the Libertarians, you are an idiot and your vote shouldn't count. Basically, learn about the political philosophies of the day, choose a side, vote accordingly.

"Lastly, Libertarians aren't really that radical. They pretty much don't give a rat's ass what's going on, as long as anyone's rights aren't being infringed upon."

The Libertarians ARE that radical. Any political philosophy that doesnt promise utopia to the writhing mass of idiot voters is obviously "radical." The libertarians are the anti-pork, rely on yourself (and not the government) party, and that philosophy is very foreign to Washington DC.
 
2004-02-22 02:49:50 PM  
BigJake,

I want to know what you consider liberal. How are Ted Kennedy or John Kerry so liberal?
 
2004-02-22 02:50:56 PM  
eraser8

Hey, I was just pointing out that it's unfair to call EVERYONE who votes for Bush a fundie, rich, or an idiot.
 
2004-02-22 02:51:32 PM  
I'm sure that with all these post someone has already said what I would like to say about Nader and probably better than I can. But this is what Josua Micah Marshall wrote about that self-aggrandizing prick:

'Certainly, this latter-day political narcissist has already made up his mind what he's going to announce. So there's no point waiting to call him what he is: an enemy of progressive change in this country and a cat's paw of the Republican party.

If anything, calling him a 'cat's paw' is too generous since a dupe at least doesn't know he's being used.'

Now on to the Dems: What a Bunch of Dumbasses. They keep talking about electability but we vote for one of the two serious Dems Rove really wants to go up against, Kerry.

The Democrat who has Bush waking up in a pool of tequila scented sweat is Edwards, but the party establishment is behind Kerry so I guess we can get ready for 4 more wars.
 
m00
2004-02-22 02:52:52 PM  
2004-02-22 02:40:01 PM BigJake

Depends how you weight the votes, of course. Those are for total votes, some of which are more important than others. Kennedy voted for the Patriot Act, which doesn't give him a leg up on Kerry in this instance, and I can't find out how Kennedy voted on the force resolution at the moment. Keep in mind that Senate vote was 98-1, so unless you think Russ Feingold is the Senate's lone liberal, that's not a strike against either of them.

No, it's a strike against both of them.

I also believe Feingold is the only one that voted against the congressional pay raise, which came right after the 80billion Iraq allocation, the tax cuts, the economic slump, and when we realized we'd be facing the greatest deficit ever.

But sure, why SHOULDN'T congress pat itself on the back and give themselves more money.

asshats, every one.

Look at it this way, party lines are drawn between what's said as a Monday morning quarterback, NOT what's done on the field. On the field both parties do the same damn thing (vote Iraq war, vote Patriot act).

Sure now when it's SAFE and IRRELEVANT all the dems are speaking up. But who had the guts to make the stand when it mattered? One farking guy. I'm starting to see the appeal of Bush...
 
2004-02-22 02:52:59 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?]

More Americans were killed by gan-bangers last year than were killed in Iraq.

Where's liberal outrage on that?
 
2004-02-22 02:53:05 PM  
Grand_Moff_Joseph

No, its just the format that has been liberalism since JFK died.
Whine, cry, insult and never make a solid decision and stick with it.

We would still be wondering what Algore was going to do while terrorists thrived, Iraqi people continue to die and the middle east becomes the next USSR. All while giving YOUR tax doallars (while increasing) to peopple who want handouts.
I for one am very happy with "W" and look for his administration to be the team he built. I do however do not trust thh side bets Mr. Halliburton has created, but as a military strategist and VP as the office needs, he is great. Its sad he has used the power for some more monitary gain. I hate that, but no administration is perfect.
 
2004-02-22 02:53:10 PM  
I would consider liberal consistently voting for tax increases and/or against tax cuts, advancing or being friendly to the cause of cumpusory unionism, trying to move us towards a single-payer health care system, voting against proper funding of our military, consistently voting for income transfer programs, and being anti-free-trade. That is by no means a complete list, but you get the idea.
 
2004-02-22 02:53:58 PM  
I voted for Nader in 2000. I'm also a registered Republican.

Why? Because at the time I lived in conservative-ass Nebraska and knew Bush would win the state. I voted Nader because I believed my vote could help the viablilty of a third option. That and I refused to vote for Bush OR Gore.

Now I live in Washington State and I'm not sure where my vote will go. I hate Bush with the passion of a thousand fiery suns. I haven't found a Dem I'm happy with yet, and here comes Nader again. So for the good of my beliefs what the heck am I supposed to do with my vote?
 
2004-02-22 02:54:08 PM  
churchill72


- Possibly true, but if you are standing in line at the polling area trying to decide between the Green party and the Libertarians, you are an idiot and your vote shouldn't count. Basically, learn about the political philosophies of the day, choose a side, vote accordingly.


I don't think many people do that. I support the Green Party only because it introduces competition. I don't think anyone was talking about chosing between green and libertarian, just pointing out that there are more options.

The Libertarians ARE that radical. Any political philosophy that doesnt promise utopia to the writhing mass of idiot voters is obviously "radical." The libertarians are the anti-pork, rely on yourself (and not the government) party, and that philosophy is very foreign to Washington DC.

Ok, well, I'll grant you that they're not NORMAL, but they're not radical in the sense that the prohibition party or the communist party are.
 
2004-02-22 02:54:11 PM  
m00, are you or are you not agreeing that Kennedy is a liberal?
 
2004-02-22 02:54:49 PM  
BeowulfSmith writes: How would crazy militant secessionists (connected with various neo-nazi movements)be a constituency of the administration...

There were, in 1994, some Republican constituencies that supported the militia movement, that cried for Randy Weaver and David Koresh. How do you think Eric Robert Rudolph survived so long in the mountains of North Carolina? Some credit his survival training -- but, there is a ample evidence that people were providing him with food and actively helping him evade capture. People were rooting for the guy because he used terrorist tactics against gays and abortion providers.

And, are you actually suggesting that many Republican constituencies weren't in opposition to leglislation that treated abortion clinic bombers as terrorists (which they are)?

Think David Duke. Republican. Think the NRA -- which went as far as calling federal law enforcement agents "jack-booted thugs" for enforcing the law against what could reasonably be regarded as domestic terrorist organizations.

And, when Trent Lott went down to Mississippi in 1995 or 1996 and spoke to semi-racist organizations, do you think that he would have been promoting Presient Clinton's campaign against anti-government zealots holed up in the wilds of Montana? Do you think those groups would have appreciated his support for the president if he had?

Honestly, part of your problem...is that you have a deep seated neccesity to demonize people who disagree with you.

Not true. You seem to equate the strength of my disagreement with demonization. They are not the same.
 
2004-02-22 02:55:01 PM  
Veruca,

You're not a registered Republican if you live here in Washington. We don't register by party here.
 
2004-02-22 02:56:48 PM  
Lenny_da_Hog

Might as well say, "Math's tough. Let's go shopping." Or "My one vote doesn't count."


Well, then it's just as silly to say that it's useless to support a 3rd party.

Just cause something doesn't nessecarily work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for someone else. Your way to get things done isn't everyone's way.
 
2004-02-22 02:57:25 PM  
Klyde:
Could you give me some examples of progressive change implemented by the democrats?

I guess voting for war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich and the patriot act is considered progressive.

If so I'll vote for that conservative Nader.
 
2004-02-22 02:58:09 PM  
veruca
I hate Bush with the passion of a thousand fiery suns.

I like the way you describe your admiration for Mr. Bush. Do you mind if I borrow it? :)
 
2004-02-22 02:58:18 PM  
Tinian what are these gan-bangers and who are they killing and with what? if you mean gang bangers and hand guns then you really dont pay attention to the news do you? the left really doesnt take too kindly to these things. and im sure the right doesnt like ppl being killed either. im all for protecting everyones rights in the bill of rights, i believe that some take the BOR to far but if you chose to speak up, own a gun or whatever else makes you happy (as long as you dont harm anyone) im for it
 
Displayed 50 of 1124 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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