[george68]

Went to edgewood college which hosted a debate watching party lacking any media commentary. Very cool. They had discussions afterwords which was quite fun, kinda like the lounge only much better. Did anyone else go to one of these?

My hatred for bush and Kerry also attracted hte attention of some nader people, and I'm all signed up. Join us. Fight the good fight. If you don't like hte way the country is right now, avoid the right and the left, and think for yourself.

Woot.

- Ca$h

[itai195]

Nader? Are you kidding? Even George McGovern wants him to drop out.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by george68:
My hatred for bush and Kerry also attracted hte attention of some nader people, and I'm all signed up. Join us. Fight the good fight. If you don't like hte way the country is right now, avoid the right and the left, and think for yourself.

I agree with you that Nader is the best of the 3, but we both know that there is no way Nader will even get 5 points.

[Timo]

There are those who blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000. I'm not one of them. Nader exists to point out how the Dem's sometimes lose sight of the very people who make up their constituency. So bravo, Nader, for showing folks that their votes should never be taken for granted.

As for Nader-the-candidate, personally I think he's whack. He's got some bad ideas and I would not support him.

[itai195]

I wouldn't blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000, but I would point out that a lot of Republicans are helping Nader get on the ballot in states this year. Think about that.

[Timo]

Whatever. We expect that stuff from Republicans. The bigger issue is: does your candidate address your concerns, or does he take your vote for granted?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Timo:
Whatever. We expect that stuff from Republicans. The bigger issue is: does your candidate address your concerns, or does he take your vote for granted?

You could tell me that about any election and I'd agree 100%. But not 2004, I think this one is too important.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Timo:
Whatever. We expect that stuff from Republicans.

What? to make sure everyone gets a fair chance?

if it was the Repubs that was trying to get a candidate taken off a ballot you'd hear cries of cheaterdom being screamed from the mouths of the liberal masses. But it's somehow STILL the Repubs bad when the Dems do it. Odd how that works.

Note, I am not claiming YOU feel this way.

The bigger issue is: does your candidate address your concerns, or does he take your vote for granted?

Exactly.

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
I wouldn't blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000, but I would point out that a lot of Republicans are helping Nader get on the ballot in states this year. Think about that.

Actually you're 100% wrong there. The republican party called up Nader's WI people and aoffered to help finance nader's fight to get back onto the ballot.

Naders' people's response was this:

No WAY. We would rather LOSe and not be on the ballot than recieve the help/support of your party.

So yeah. You're completley wrong.

- Rob

[itai195]

Uh, do you read the news? Maybe they did that in WI, but look up Oregon, Florida... and IIRC, New Mexico. Zimphire didn't even deny it, do you think he honestly cares about Nader voters?

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
But not 2004, I think this one is too important.

Spoken like a true brainwashed individual. Congrats. Both sides tell you 'this is the most important election EVER" every four years. Again and again. It's like those 'THIS IS THE BIGGEST SALE EVER!" sales.

Truth is, it isn't the biggest deal, but it benefits BOTH main parties if you believe that.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
Uh, do you read the news? Maybe they did that in WI, but look up Oregon, Florida... and IIRC, New Mexico. Zimphire didn't even deny it, do you think he honestly cares about Nader voters?

Link me.

[itai195]

Gimme a break, I lived in Berkeley for 4 years and know how people who support Nader think. Do you think they are any better?

Yes, I do think 2004 is an important election, and I can come to that conclusion just fine by myself thanks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Zimphire didn't even deny it

Deny what? That they TRIED to help Nader?

They aren't worried about Nader taking Bush. The Repubs aren't doing anything wrong.

I would be more concerned with the group trying to TAKE a candidate off a ballot because they seem them as competition. I would indeed call that cheating.

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
Zimphire didn't even deny it, do you think he honestly cares about Nader voters?

Zimphire said the republicans feel that people should have the choice to vote for nader. He did not say that the republicans finance nader's fight.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would be more concerned with the group trying to TAKE a candidate off a ballot because they seem them as competition. I would indeed call that cheating.

No ****. If nader wasn't allowd in my state I'd vote for Bush just because the **** the dem's tried to pull.

- Rob

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by george68:
He did not say that the republicans finance nader's fight.

Correct. I said no such thing.

[itai195]

Nader's "illegal" GOP backers
Strange alliance
1/3 Of Donors To Nader's Bid Support GOP
Nader's GOP Raiders
McGovern to Nader: Drop Out!
The dark side of Ralph Nader

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:


Gimme a break, I lived in Berkeley for 4 years and know how people who support Nader think. Do you think they are any better?

You don't know how I think. I don't even agree with Nader a whole lot. But hwat I DO see is that someone is thinking for THEMSELF and trying to make the country better. With Bush=Kerry, you get a party controlled by corporations and financial interests. Hence, I'm not voting for Nader because he's exactly who I want, I'm voting for him because I think he's much much much better than the other two (who differ only in the fac that WMDs are controlled by countries or terrorists, basically)..

- Rob

[icruise]

Originally posted by george68:
Zimphire said the republicans feel that people should have the choice to vote for nader. He did not say that the republicans finance nader's fight.

- Rob

Do you really think that the Republicans would be up in arms for the rights of an independent like Ross Perot to be on the ballot? Come on. They only want Nader helped because they know he will eat away at Kerry's numbers.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

What? to make sure everyone gets a fair chance?

if it was the Repubs that was trying to get a candidate taken off a ballot you'd hear cries of cheaterdom being screamed from the mouths of the liberal masses. But it's somehow STILL the Repubs bad when the Dems do it. Odd how that works.

Note, I am not claiming YOU feel this way.

Exactly. [/B]

Zimphire, you know that I keep you on ignore because you're a troll and you're irrelevant to intelligent discussion. I'd prefer if you do the same -- ignore me. That being clear, know that I certainly won't entertain any of your drivel with an answer.

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
http://archive.salon.com/news/featur...obs/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...der/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...och/index.html
http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBRTG7COWD.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul21.html

1. ?????
2. An opinion page? Please.
3. So nader's publisher's CEO supports media deregulation.... um... okay, WTF MATE?
4. So Donors support Nader AND bush? Who cares? That doesn't mean that president bush is pumping money to nader.
5. The only link that's remotely related to your original claim. I question it's validity, but the thing is, the actions mentioned here are SINGLE PEOPLE whoBELIEVE nader will steal votes, and took their own time to help Nader out. They Right did not directily donate to nader.

[george68]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Do you really think that the Republicans would be up in arms for the rights of an independent like Ross Perot to be on the ballot? Come on. They only want Nader helped because they know he will eat away at Kerry's numbers.

Guess what? Here's a little crux in your belief system:

I like Bush better than Kerry.

Nader is stealing my vote away from Bush.

You ****ing guys get so arrogant and just ASSUME all of nader's votes were potential Kerry votes. THEY AREN"T. People who vote for nader are pissed off at both parties, and think they're both retarded and controlled by money, corporations, and neither does a very good job at representing the average person.

- Rob

[Timo]

Originally posted by itai195:
You could tell me that about any election and I'd agree 100%. But not 2004, I think this one is too important.

Ah, my friend, I disagree. They're all important. '72 was as important, and the Left imploded then, unable to appeal to their own constituents.

I think Kerry's objective needs to be now, as Gore's should have been four years ago -- how do we appeal to Nader supporter's concerns? Importantly, if Kerry can't swing these voters, the fault will lie with him and his message, not with Nader.

Sometimes people forget that the name of the game is to appeal to the voter. To blame Nader for something that was Gore's fault then, or to say Nader should step aside now, is taking your eyes off the ball. The point is simple: Kerry needs to be relevant to Americans (or enough Americans) to win.

Americans like Ca$h.

[itai195]

Originally posted by george68:
3. So nader's publisher's CEO supports media deregulation.... um... okay, WTF MATE?

Do you know who Rupert Murdoch even is? Know what, it's not worth arguing this. I gave you links I found in five minutes, if you want more info you can Google it yourself.

[george68]

Originally posted by Timo:
Zimphire, you know that I keep you on ignore because you're a troll and you're irrelevant to intelligent discussion. I'd prefer if you do the same -- ignore me. That being clear, know that I certainly won't entertain any of your drivel with an answer.

Yeah, never mind that he has a valid point. If the roles were reversed, I'm pretty sure there would be protests and riots EVERYWHERE.... I can hear it now... "the republicans are limiting peoples rights to choose!"

********. The no-bs facts are that the Democrats view Nader as competition, and pulled a bunch of dirty ******** tricks to hopefully eliminate him. That is ATROCIOUS, and pisses me off. I could NOT see the Republicans doing this, if the roles were reversed.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
Do you know who Rupert Murdoch even is? Know what, it's not worth arguing this. I gave you links I found in five minutes, if you want more info you can Google it yourself.

This just in! John Kerry apparently purchased some gasoline for his car at a gas station in Miami! The owner of the refinery that produced this gasoline was sold the crude oil by an oil company who's CEO is a public Bush supporter! Obviously Kerry is secretly financing the Bush campaign!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Do you really think that the Republicans would be up in arms for the rights of an independent like Ross Perot to be on the ballot? Come on. They only want Nader helped because they know he will eat away at Kerry's numbers.

In comparison with the Dems that only want him out because they think he will take votes away from Kerry?

I mean so will Bush, should he be out too because of that reason?

Give me a break. They are trying to cheat.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Timo:
Zimphire, you know that I keep you on ignore because you're a troll and you're irrelevant to intelligent discussion. I'd prefer if you do the same -- ignore me. That being clear, know that I certainly won't entertain any of your drivel with an answer.

And this post was necessary why?

You could have just private message me fanboy.

[itai195]

I think that's a little different than having your book published by an arch conservative, but hey... whatever

[Timo]

Originally posted by george68:
Yeah, never mind that he has a valid point. If the roles were reversed, I'm pretty sure there would be protests and riots EVERYWHERE.... I can hear it now... "the republicans are limiting peoples rights to choose!"

********. The no-bs facts are that the Democrats view Nader as competition, and pulled a bunch of dirty ******** tricks to hopefully eliminate him. That is ATROCIOUS, and pisses me off. I could NOT see the Republicans doing this, if the roles were reversed.

- Rob

He has a valid point? So give him a cookie. So what. He's a chump and I'll not speak to him.

You, on the other hand -- I agree with you that Nader is marginalized because he's viewed more as a threat to the left. Let's be clear, anyone who knows Nader's trajectory knows he is no friend of the Right's darling (and constant pet project), Big Business.

But, my friend, you're naïve if you think the Republicans don't also have such scripts in their playbook. C'mon. It's not like you to be naïve.

[itai195]

Originally posted by george68:
********. The no-bs facts are that the Democrats view Nader as competition, and pulled a bunch of dirty ******** tricks to hopefully eliminate him. That is ATROCIOUS, and pisses me off. I could NOT see the Republicans doing this, if the roles were reversed.

- Rob

LOL, you might want to Google "McCain 2000 Republican Primary South Carolina"

I agree that I wish Democrats hadn't gone after Nader so aggressively, but to suggest that the Republicans haven't had a hand in this situation is total rubbish!

[icruise]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
In comparison with the Dems that only want him out because they think he will take votes away from Kerry?

I mean so will Bush, should he be out too because of that reason?

Give me a break. They are trying to cheat.

My point is that they are both acting in their own self interest. "Republicans just want to make sure that everyone gets a fair chance" -- you really believe that?

[itai195]

Originally posted by george68:
2. An opinion page? Please.

That makes it wrong? It's based on the news, here I Googled a 'legitimate' article for you, it took 5 seconds:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/

Voter for Nader if that's what you want, it's your choice and of no consequence to me. I'm just defending my opinion.

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
That makes it wrong? It's based on the news, here I Googled a 'legitimate' article for you, it took 5 seconds:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/

Voter for Nader if that's what you want, it's your choice and of no consequence to me. I'm just defending my opinion.

And again we get ********.

"a complaint to the Federal Election Commission by a liberal watchdog group."

Gee, no bias on the complaint there.

And then we have stuff like this:

"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said "
"The complaint alleges"
"Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese called the allegations "absolute nonsense."

"We didn't work with any Republican groups or any corporations or non-profits trying to get people to come to our event," Zeese said. "We reached out to our constituency and got our people out there.""

So gee, we have some wacko group who's OBVIOUSLY biased accusing the Nader people of something without any proof, and hte nader people saying it's ******** and they hate obth parties, and they don't want help from either of them.

Are you going to post anything of substance? Or just more accusations by lefties?

- Rob

[ThinkInsane]

Wrong forum kids