I voted Gore in 2k and i'm sick of the blame Nader Mantra!!!

[Room101]

I voted for Gore in 2000 and I'm sick of the blame Nader mantra.
The blame sits solely on Katherine Harris for wrongfully purging all those black votes, if not Gore wins.

Why didn't Gore raise hell about the black voters getting wrongfully purged?

Gore could not carry his own state.

Gore ran a shitty Champaign.

The Republicans and Dems have had a two party installed dictatorship on our illusionary democracy.
What a great example to teach our kids" son if you fail blame someone else" "if you don't get something blame someone else"

Who the fuck do you guys blame for the Dems completely failing since 911? Well? No wonder the Progressive agenda has gotten nowhere as of late because of this you hold the bag crap, people look at us and think wimps for always blaming someone else for losing.

[realFedUp]

1. You can still edit your "blam"

:-)

[robbedvoter]

2. My, my - a record for freeper myths on such a short "blam"

Sure you voted for Gore. And a lifetime Democrat - I bet!

[Room101]

3. You attack me for leaving out a "e" you guys are a joke

What does " a record for freeper myths on such a short "blam" mean?
Can you get any more Cryptic? Notice how you guys don't even address the subject, you guys should jump in a sandbox.

[Ein]

24. Agreed.

I think you raised some good questions.

Irregardless of others opinions, Gores campaign was weak, imo. I think he might've took it as a cake walk, b/c he sure as hell didn't fight in the end.

[ParanoidPat]

Reeeeaaallllly! Gore didn't fight? LOL!

Let me introduce you to the wonders of Google :evilgrin:

Here's a Google search for "Florida, Gore, lawsuit"!

Searched the web for Florida, Gore, lawsuit. Results 1 - 10 of about 53,000. Search took 0.31 seconds.

Pravda.RU BUSH DECLARED WINNER. GORE DISAGREES, FILES LAWSUIT
... GORE DISAGREES, FILES LAWSUIT Catrine Harris, Florida’s state secretary,
has declared Republican George W. Bush winner in the state. ...
english.pravda.ru/world/2000/11/27/1150.html - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Judge to rule Tuesday morning on Florida election ...
... Vice President Al Gore: "I would not want to win ... CNN) -- A county circuit judge in
Florida will rule ... by 10:30 am on Volusia County's lawsuit against Florida ...
www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ 11/13/president.election/ - 66k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Gore joins lawsuit to extend Florida recount deadline - ...
... find law, dictionary, Gore joins lawsuit to extend Florida recount
deadline. After joining a lawsuit Monday to extend Florida's vote ...
www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/13/presidential.recount.update.02/ - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.cnn.com >

Florida Ballot Lawsuit Plaintiff: 'I Wasn't Too Bright'
... recount of Florida's presidential ballots. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed Wednesday,
claim that many voters thought they were voting for Democrat Al Gore but ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/ 2000/11/9/185953.shtml - 33k - Aug 12, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

Islam Online- News Section
... Texas, earlier Saturday, Bush said he would be willing to withdraw the lawsuit, "depending
upon Vice President Gore's campaign's decisions." Florida carries 25 ...
www.islamonline.net/English/News/ 2000-11/12/article1.shtml - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Gore dealt double defeat in Florida courts; trial set for ...
... among other things, that Bush's attorneys are "threatening to make a mockery" of
the proceedings before Sauls in Gore's lawsuit contesting the Florida outcome. ...
www.nctimes.net/news/120200/aa.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

CNN.com - Gore campaign turns to Florida Supreme Court - November ...
... The Gore lawsuit. On Thursday, the Gore campaign told Lewis that Harris had violated
his ... RELATED STORIES: Judge rules Florida Secretary of State did not abuse ...
edition.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/17/harris.discretion.ruling.04.pol/ - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Chronology of The Florida Vote - Election 2000 - Covenant News
... Dems Drive to Keep Counting Votes... Slow-Motion Larceny in Florida November 15,
2000 More Legal Confusion in Recount... Bush/Gore Join Lawsuit on Recounts... ...
www.covenantnews.com/election.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

COURT TV ONLINE - DECISION 2000
... 14 deadline (part one); Gore lawsuit challenging Nov. ... The first Palm Beach suit,
the controversial ballot; Florida election statute; Florida voting procedure ...
www.courttv.com/news/decision_2000/ - 61k - Aug 12, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages

Florida Long Count: Court Rulings
... New Battle Lines Drawn After Florida Certification Richard L ... Washington Post, 27
November 2000; Gore Contests Results in Lawsuit Alleging Misconduct ...
www.failureisimpossible.com/floridafollies/ courtrulings.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

<52,990 MORE> :)

[Ein]

30. I'll concede on that then.

My deal is I heard nothing of Gore's outrage, nothing about an election being stolen. When all was said and done, everything hung still for a second and then continued on like all was normal. Maybe it wasn't Gore that was complacent, but his supporters.

They pulled it fast, over everyone, apparently in several states, blatantly, and arrogantly. The Democratic party and moreover anybody who cares about American democracy must've been asleep.

edit: How many lawsuits were filed by Dems, and by Repubs?

[orangecoloredapple]

4. Not carrying his own state was embarrassing - I'll give you that

but, the supreme court is responsible for the final result. Harris was responsible for making it possible, but the SUPREME COURT of this mighty nation is responsible.

Gore ran such a shitty campaign that he won the popular vote.

[ParanoidPat]

5. Who the fuck do you guys blame....

....for the Dems completely failing since 911?

I guess you must blame Gore? :shrug:

Perhaps you should get used to hearing about Nader's 'spoiler' roll now that he's decided to pull an encore out here in California! :)

Learn how to use Google and find out how many lawsuits were filed over the voter purge in Florida.

I'll make it easy to start, click this link for Google search for Florida, voter purge, lawsuit Browse these 690 hits and if you need more I'll be happy to provide them! :evilgrin:

I try to apply thought BEFOREAPOST! :hi:

[Terwilliger]

7. I guess Democrats aren't interested in Democracy

it was the party that told the CBC not to walk out...what was so important that they couldn't walk out...handing the store over to the likes of George W. Moron?

[JackSwift]

29. No you did that

by voting for Nader. I'm all for your right to vote, but if you exercise that decision stupidly, I'm all for my right of free speech to criticize you for it. You've set up a straw man argument, and it is a fallacy. But as its the same one you do every day, that is unsurprising. Yes, you may vote for whomever you want, but that doesn't make you a good person, or a Democrat.

[Terwilliger]

71. hahah...awwwww...I'm not a good person

poor Jack...no sugar in your sugar smacks?

I pity your MUDDLE in the face of the threat of George Bush and the Fascists.

[JackSwift]

73. Nope

and there's no Green Clovers in your Lucky Charms.

[Iverson]

6. they don't want to hear it

I appreciate the effort, but people here on progressive, left-leaning DU want to fight. They aren't too keen on an exchange of ideas just now.

Also, your own exasperation, which I share, isn't helped by the bold case and use of the term "fuck" and so on. I strongly recommend that you reject the model of angry denunciation, since that prevents real exchange in the first place.

Peace.

[JackSwift]

8. And I'm weary of Nader enablers

and twits who are so uneducated that they cannot understand concurrent causation: namely that the Republicans had several "breaks" all of which went their way, and if any one hadn't, they would have lost. But not so weary I won't repeat why they make no sense. One of these is that if Nader hadn't run, it would not even have been close in Florida. Another was that if Harris hadn't purged the voter roles of blacks, it would not have been close (Harris did other things too). Another was the Supreme Court's purely partisan ruling.

The continued Nader supporters want to argue that the other concurrent causes mean that their man had nothing to do with the Bush victory. They ignore that "but for" Nader's conduct, Gore would have won hands down. Yeah, they had a right to support and run their guy, but I have a right to my opinion that they were irresponsible and their actions led directly to Bush being elected.

You're sick of it? Good. When you are as sick of it as I am of Bush's destruction of freedom and democracy in this country, then we've made a start. But Nader supporters being sick of their irresponsible actions is well deserved.

As far as your logic goes, you commit the error of not understanding concurrent causation and not understanding a plurality voting system.

[ulysses]

10. be weary, then.

Goddamned pity party.

:nopity:

[JackSwift]

11. Be damned then.

And like your namesake, may it take you 10 years to find your way home, may all your companions die horribly because they follow you, and may strangers seek to steal your wife and fortune.

[ulysses]

12. I'm damned, then.

Did you have a political point to make?

Recall that Odysseus wins in the end.

[Iverson]

14. there it goes

It's that liberal pluralism we hear so much about. Curious how it's about the same fit as conservative pluralism all of a sudden.

[JackSwift]

19. Fallacy of the ambiguity

There are multiple meanings of pluralism, and you have committed the fallacy of ascribing to me a different meaning than I intended.

[Iverson]

21. incorrect

Your post #11 in all its transparent charm left little room for ambiguity.
However, since you possess such certitude about what I mean, you just go ahead and conduct both halves of any conversation we might have.

[JackSwift]

28. You have committed the logical fallacy

of assuming that a plurality voting system is the same thing as being for pluralism. Plurality voting means the single person with the most votes wins, even if it is not a majority. An example of this is the 150 plus Cal gov race. A person who gets 10 percent could win. Pluralism is a general concept meaning many people have many different ideas.

As for what you think, I don't know, and I don't care to speculate on it.

[Terwilliger]

72. maybe the Democrats should have never allowed this law to continue

It lasted from 1911?!?! TOO FREKIN' LATE!

Now, was it Ralph Nader's responsibility to see the potential morass created by these recall laws was pointed out to Democrats over those 88 years?

I guess maybe Dems were hoping they could use it first.

OnEdit: 1915 - 4 = 1911

[JackSwift]

75. What does 1911 have to do with Ralph Nader?

Nothing as far as I know. I'm taking a wild guess that you are talking about the California recall, which this thread subject does not address. If so, it is part of the "reform" California constitution championed by then Cal Gov. Hiram Johnson, a Republican and political ally of Teddy Roosevelt. These "reform" Republicans were the most liberal politicians of their day. Roosevelt left the Republican party after Taft steered it to the right, and formed the Progressive Party, sometimes known as the Bull Moose Party. Johnson remained a Republican and later served for many years as a US Senator.

While Nader and the Greens have the right the same as anyone else to put forward a candidate, I've got the right to criticize it.

[JackSwift]

18. I was just returning your insult

Yes, he "wins" in the end by returning home, killing the suitor robbers. But every one that ever followed him died a horrible death, he was an absent father, and a husband that abandoned his wife for the better part of two decades. The Greens kinda won that way too, by enhancing the contradictions. Pyrrhic commented that "one more such victory and I will lose this war."

[ulysses]

20. No insult meant.

It's been nearly three years since the 2000 elections, and you're still holding a pity party over Ralph Nader on a regular basis. Get a grip.

[JackSwift]

31. You clearly meant an insult

I've got a grip on the consequences of my own voting behavior, thank you. And it's my right to have an opinion and criticize others for theirs. I think Greens who don't accept the consequences and responsibility of their voting are cretinous assholes not different than the malignant narcissist in chief.

[ulysses]

36. Good sir, I did not!

I've got a grip on the consequences of my own voting behavior, thank you.

Brownie points to you. So do I.

And it's my right to have an opinion and criticize others for theirs.

Absolutely.

I think Greens who don't accept the consequences and responsibility of their voting are cretinous assholes not different than the malignant narcissist in chief.

A "Green who doesn't accept the consequences and responsibility of their voting" being "anyone who isn't wearing sackcloth and ashes"?

[JackSwift]

42. Not quite

A "Green who doesn't accept the consequences and responsibility of their voting" being "anyone who isn't wearing sackcloth and ashes"?

I'll accept: "Oops, won't do it again. I was young and naive." Or even "my bad." Actual sackcloth and ashes not necessary. But some kind of "I was mistaken" or "I won't do it again" is necessary to gain my personal acceptance. Now there is a world of people who can do just fine without my personal acceptance. But a Green who is going to do it again is well worth my contempt and chastisement. Two and a half years after the fact and hanging out on the boards out to give even a really stubborn half-wit enough of a poltical education to realize that democracy in this country is the choice of the lesser of two evils and that voting for their perfect dream candidate loved by 3% of the electorate results in the very worst winning. Now I've never expected an enthusiastic 18 year old to grasp this immediately. I didn't at that age and I made that mistake when I supported John Anderson. But it wasn't a mistake I repeated. I understand why I made the mistake, but I'd be really embarrassed if two and a half years later I hadn't figured out I'd been had. As much as I liked Anderson, today I think that Reagan put him up to it.

[ulysses]

44. you mistake me for someone

who feels the need for your personal acceptance, then.

[Room101]

16. Me not sick of *? Do you know, who you are speaking to ?

(jackswift)"You're sick of it? Good. When you are as sick of it as I am of Bush's destruction of freedom and democracy in this country, then we've made a start."

I won't even try to answer that one, because I’m physical on the front lines fighting it.

You speak of logic in the same post of blaming someone else?
(Remember I voted for Gore) To blame the Supreme Court is valid, with their political and business ties to the bush junta. But the blame Nader logic spits on the Constitution and our so-called illusionary Democracy! What's next a constitutional Amendment banning third party candidates?

[JackSwift]

26. You seem to not understand the difference

between having a legal right to do something and accepting the consequnces and moral responsibility of doing it.

Greens have a right to vote for whomever they please, they have a right to run as a third party. I have not problem with their legal right to do that.

But I have a right to criticize them for the consequences of those actions, the consequences being that it resulted in the election of Bush (who Nader stated he would rather see elected than Gore).

The legal right to do something and the consequences of doing it are two different things. If I am handling a court case and my client doesn't want to accept half a loaf in a settlement and go to trial, and then he/she loses everything because the 12 jurors don't vote his/her way, that becomes a consequence of refusing a settlement offer. The client bears not only the moral responsibility, but the economic consequences.

When the Greens decided to support Nader, they did so knowing (and in some cases hoping) that it might have the consequence of throwing the election to Bush. It doesn't detract from their right to do that, but their refusal after the election to acknowledge that their actions have consequeces (which they acknowledged before the election) demonstrates the emotional maturity of a child who cries when refused desert for not finishing vegetables at dinner. The bearing the moral responsibility for the outcome is something that the Greens still supporting their vote will never approach until they accept the much easier concept of consequences.

Yeah, they can hold their breath till they turn blue, but they may pass out and get brain damage. The only ones I have even the slightest sympathy for are the ones who come to terms with the fact that their actions have consequences. The rest aren't even connecting their actions to events.

[noiretextatique]

55. nice sermon, however

the "consequence" you mention is a result of participation in the democratic process; i am more concerned about the party
that hijacked it, and the process by which its supposed to operate. the end result of which should be the will of the voters...not the will of jeb bush, katherine harris, the supreme court, and the republican candidate.

think any of the supreme five understand the consequences of THEIR actions...yet? would you feel better if they repented? i know i wouldn't...we are still living with the consequences of their actions.

[Skittles]

9. Bush didn't carry his home state either

Connecticut.

[orangecoloredapple]

15. beautiful reply

that was truly memorable!

[kysrsoze]

17. Touche!

I don't blame the Nader-ites. I blame everyone who voted against Gore for this mess. Like none of us saw this coming? It was SO expected that things would turn to sh*t once Bush got into office. Just look at how well his father did for our country. Wasn't that enough of a clue?

[JackSwift]

32. And Nader didn't carry his home state

and never has in any election and never will. Nor has he ever carried any other state, and it is unlikely he ever will.

[Skip Intro]

13. Nader could have prevented the bush pResidency

And was pleaded with to do so, yet he refused.

It was evident weeks before the voting that a few crucial votes - Nader votes - could determine what kind of future this country would reap. Nader put himself before the good of the nation, imho, with his antagonistic refusal to heed those calls.

The "no difference between the Dems and repukes" mantra was just salt in the wound. Nader has forever lost my respect.

[Terwilliger]

23. That's entirely incorrect

but if you like wallowing in your hatred, so be it

Ralph Nader did not influence the outcome of the 2000 election EXCEPT perhaps as inspiring people to go out and vote Dem, which I'm SURE happened given all the hatred here at this website.

[Skip Intro]

25. "Nader didn't influence the outcome of the 2000 'election'" ??!!!

Are we talking about the same election?

Let me ask you something...

If Nader had withdrawn from the race, who do you think those voters would have voted for? You're not going to tell me they would all have chosen not to vote, or that they would have went repuke, are you?

As pointed out here yesterday, if just a single-digit percentage of Nader votes would have gone to Gore in Fla., we would not be pondering on this board the death of our nation by militiristic, oil-drunk traitors.

Nader was pleaded with to drop out, and he should have, and if he would have there would have been no bush misadmin. This, to me, is self-evident.

And I don't think Nader should have withdrawn because he had no right to run, he had every right to run. But he also had the right to choose to put the good of the nation before his own aspirations, and that he did not do.

[Ein]

27. If it wasn't for Nader

I most likely wouldn't be registered to vote or give a shit about social issues. And I wouldn't/won't vote for Gore. I'm not into electing corporate tools.

http://www.globaltreatmentaccess.org/content/press_releases/99/080899_AU_PR_GORE.html

Indefensible.

[ParanoidPat]

46. "I'm not into electing corporate tools" ? LOL!

Gore swipes at Bush over hate crimes legislation, Confederate battle flag

May 9, 2000
Web posted at: 6:31 p.m. EDT (2231 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that Arizona Sen. John McCain endorsed his former GOP rival George W. Bush, Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore criticized Bush for failing to speak out against the Confederate battle flag during their primary rivalry, and said that wide difference still separate the two Republicans.

"When the Confederate flag flies over a state capitol it should concern us all," the vice president told a gathering of the Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday in Washington. "This is not complicated."

"We know it is wrong not only to support it, but to find it impossible to summon the moral courage to speak out about it," Gore said, drawing sustained applause. "It is wrong to remain silent about it."
<MORE>

Gore Endorses Legislation to Protect School Kids on the Net

(March 24, 1998.) The prospects for passage of the some sort of bill protecting school children from smut on the net improved when the Vice President announced the Administration's support new legislation on Monday, March 23. However, the specifics remain uncertain.

Gore's wants legislation "that would require every school and library using the e-rate to develop a plan to protect their schoolchildren from inappropriate content." However, Gore stopped short of endorsing the Safe Schools Internet Act, S 1619 and HR 3177. S 1619 would require that elementary and secondary schools, and libraries, receiving federal internet access subsidies install the blocking software of their choice. Gore also stopped short of endorsing mandating the use of blocking software. The ACLU and other liberal civil liberties groups oppose the use of blocking software in schools and libraries.

S 1619 is sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Dan Coats (R-IN). It was approved by voice vote without any objections by the Senate Commerce Committee on March 12. (See, Story.)
<MORE>

Gore Announces Privacy Initiatives

(August 1, 1998) Vice President Al Gore, Commerce Secretary William Daley, and FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky held a joint press conference Friday morning to announce a series of initiatives to protect privacy rights in the electronic age. Gore advocated legislation to prevent web sites from collecting data from children under 13 without parental consent, but stopped short of endorsing any other website restrictions.

Gore also stated that he supported industry self-regulation, and singled out the Online Privacy Association for commendation. The OPA is a large industry group which is trying to promote consumer confidence in electronic commerce through industry self regulation, and at the same time, head off government regulation.

The bulk of the Vice President's remarks were devoted to advocating legislative and regulatory solutions for protecting medical and financial records, and to criminalizing identity theft.
<MORE>

Related Documents
Transcript of Press Conference, 7/31/98.
Al Gore Press Release, 7/31/98.
Gore's NYU Speech on Privacy, 5/15/98.
Daley Speech at Privacy Conf., 6/23/98.
Pitofsky Testimony to Congress, 7/21/98.

TEXT: GORE ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION ON EQUAL PAY

*EPF416 04/02/98
(To improve enforcement against wage discrimination) (610)
Washington -- Vice President Gore in a White House ceremony April 2 announced the Clinton Administration's support for legislation introduced by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), to improve enforcement of laws to combat wage discrimination against women and to strengthen the remedy provisions in the Equal Pay Act by allowing compensatory and punitive damages.

The Vice President also announced new initiatives that would enhance enforcement of wage discrimination both in the private sector and the federal government.

Following is the White House text:
<MORE>

Vice President Gore Announces Comprehensive Legislation to Improve Pipeline Safety
Bill Would Strengthen Enforcement and Community "Right to Know"

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release April 11, 2000

WASHINGTON, DC--Vice President Gore today proposed comprehensive new legislation to improve the safety of oil and gas pipelines across the country, and to strengthen citizens’ right to know about pipelines in their communities.

The proposed legislation, the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, would reauthorize and strengthen the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) pipeline safety program. The legislation would increase safety measures and inspections in heavily populated and environmentally sensitive areas, increase penalties for safety violations, and expand research to develop innovative pipeline inspection tools.

"Pipelines criss-cross our country, carrying the fuel that powers our homes, our cars, and our factories. These pipelines are vital to our economy, but without adequate safeguards, they can pose a serious threat to our families, and to our environment," the Vice President said. "Our proposed legislation will establish strong, comprehensive pipeline safety measures, backed by rigorous enforcement, and the best technology available. It also guarantees every community’s right to know where these pipelines are and how well they are maintained."
<SNIP>



Clinton administration proposes passenger rights legislation House subcommittee hears from disgruntled passengers

March 10, 1999
Web posted at: 2:59 p.m. EDT (1459 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Al Gore proposed broader rights for air passengers during a White House event Wednesday, including higher compensation for botched trips and greater disclosure of airline policies.

The administration proposals came just hours after the House aviation subcommittee opened hearings on an airline passengers' bill of rights.

Gore and Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater cited some passenger frustrations in their presentation of the proposal, including flight cancellations, lost luggage and being stuck on the tarmac.

"I remember reading about one family that spent eight hours stranded on a runway as they tried to get home for Christmas," said Gore.
Proposal would double compensation for bumped passengers
<MORE>

From govinfo.library.unt.edu

Al Gore

Vice President of the United States

<SNIP>
Among elected officials, Vice President Gore's environmental record is unparalleled. In June 1992, he chaired the U.S. Senate Delegation to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was the world's largest gathering ever of heads of state to focus on the environment. He also is the author of the national best-seller EARTH IN THE BALANCE: Ecology and the Human Spirit which outlines an international plan of action to confront the global environmental crisis.

Last year, President Clinton and Vice President Gore unveiled the Global Climate Change Action Plan, a public-private partnership to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere while promoting economic development,. Gore was instrumental in breaking the gridlock on the national wetlands policy and in forging an historic partnership between government and industry to develop a new generation of fuel-efficient vehicles. He recently unveiled the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program, an international project to coordinate the work of children, educators and scientists in monitoring the global environment.

In his effort to help revitalize America's communities, Gore has traveled the country to meet with people who live in poverty-stricken inner cities and rural areas to hear what they need to rebuild their lives and their homes. He chairs the Community Enterprise Board of the President's Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community program, which will designate certain areas of the country as eligible to receive federal assistance and subject to strategic plans for revitalization.
<LOTS MORE>

I could go on but I think you get the picture! :evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

69. what happened to democracy

what didn't you understand when you went to school?

If Republicans and Democrats have so many disagreements that functional government is nearly impossible....THEN BURN THE SHIT!

CHANGE IT UP!

GET PEOPLE PISSED!

Ok, I'm giving the election to George W. Bush. How do you plan to make my vote irrelevant? The DLC? Conservative Democrats? How do you plan to turn my vote for Joe John John Dennis Al Carol Bob Ted Alice into something that will transform the country into the liberal utopia you claim by simply electing a Democrat as president, knowing full well that he can do nothing in an all Republican legislature.

So.....we get Named Democrat into the oval office. What's to say his/her obstinacy and "obstructionist" behavior would bring a new Congress? With the recall in full swing, they'd lynch the Democrat within months.

So...

So...what? We just hope and pray to sky fairies that we'll convince the electorate this time?!?!

[Terwilliger]

70. "the good of the nation"

positively jingoistic

[JackSwift]

35. And if you like wallowing in your hatred

then go to it. And Nu-Duer merely said he/she had lost all respect for Nader, not that he/she hated Nader. You love the straw man fallacy, painting all your opponents as haters, and not dealing with the issues, don't you?

Nu-Duer was entirely correct, and you respond with a straw man and ad hominem.

[Terwilliger]

56. I responded with the reaction Dems have when they hear F******s

thats all

And the fact of the matter is, I've nailed the "issues" to the wall. No one can prove Nader drew enough votes to "make it close enough to steal". Nobody can claim that he said that he wants to destroy the Democratic party, although statistical **rlo* will tell you that English doesn't match meaning. Nobody can claim that he wants Republicans to win, and still be able to match that assertion with any public statement. Nobody can deny that he is an independent American citizen who sees a serious problem with the two-party system, and can claim he's looking to do ANYTHING other than try to correct the heinous load of corruption that is the current government.

[JackSwift]

63. Nobody can prove it to your satisfaction

but frankly that's not a standard I adopt, nor would I ever attempt it because you are so biased on the issue that you wouldn't accept any standard of proof that contradicted your pre-set opinion.

[Terwilliger]

65. I'm sorry Jack...that's weak

Frankly, you folks don't have the proof. That's what you can't stand.

Damn man, don't you think that your attitude matches a Freeper's attitude toward Clinton?

[JackSwift]

74. What's Clinton got to do with it?

False analogy.

You don't accept the proof? Gee, if we settled disputes in this country by admissions of the opposition debaters, rather than judges and juries, no disputes would ever get resolved.

[Terwilliger]

76. What's Clinton got to do...got to do with it....

What's Clinton, but a smarmy politician...

[JackSwift]

33. You are absolutely right

.

[Ein]

22. Thanks.

I agree on the 2 party statement, we got bad and worse, and thats the range, otherwise (as someone told meon the another thread) you're 'riding the fringe'.

And on Nader 100 percent.

[JackSwift]

38. Sometimes life gives you a bad and worse choice

Diabetics were given the choice of daily injections or death.

Gangrene patients where given the choice of amputation or death.

Weak countries were given the choice of surrendur or die.



Life gives you choices, few of them good. Reality indicates that in a plurality voting system, you can avoid the very worst if you all get together on a compromise choice, who may be bad.

If I've got a perfect candidate who can only pull 3% of the vote because my likely allies, who comprise 48% of the electorate disagree and think my candidate is the worst, I've got a problem.

[dansolo]

34. I don't blame Nader for Gore losing.

I blame him for being a liar and a prick. Gore ran a horrid campaign, and should have won the election easily. Fine. But Nader based his campaign on the blatantly false premise that Gore and Bush were equal, and he campaigned in close states right before the election after saying that he wouldn't.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. Waaaaaaaaaa, Flame bait

You gotta be kidding. Nader gets no free ride here. He knew what he was doing.

[JackSwift]

39. Right on!

Not only did he know what he was doing, he hoped for exactly that outcome.

[buddhamama]

40. i blame the repubs

there may have been some complacency on the of the part of the DEMs but the plan to take over the Nation was worked waayy before the election.

[jonnyblitz]

41. DAMN good post!! I completely concur.!!!

:hi:

[JackSwift]

43. The Nader vote was something completely

within the control of the voters. Unlike the dastardly actions of Harris or the Supreme Court or the Republicans, the known evil. The innocent Greens (led on by Nader and other not so innocents) were not a given concurrent causation in favor of Bush. Everyone on the left (and it works the same on the right) traditionally goes through the nominating process, which Nader was free to join, and gets behind the eventual nominee. Labor, environment, gays, religous freedom, handicapped, civil rights, etc. It is a compromise for every one of them. Nader's ego was that his constituency and he personally were vastly more important than everyone else getting together. I disagree.

[Bushknew]

45. Democratic entitlement / Gore refused to debate Nader

What a coward, and he agreed with monkey boy on most of the debates!!!

THIS IS WHY NADER WAS RUNNING.

TO SLAP THE DONKEY FROM GOING TO THE RIGHT.

I WANTED to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, but didnÕt.

I voted AGAINST BUSH and not FOR Lieberman and Bore in 2000.

A center right Democrat will not get the Progressive vote and therefore lose in 2004.

IsnÕt the election of 2000 proof enough of this?

Democrats need to stop this entitlement mentality and take responsibility for earning the progressive vote.

[Alexander]

51. Gore never refused to debate Nader.

However, you're not allowed to debate candidates unless the polls show you pulling at least 15%. Gore could've wanted to debate him more than anything, but those are the rules.

[Bushknew]

53. Nader was not even let in the ROOM when the debates were going on.

That was very cowardly, 15% or no 15%.

Gray Davis also refused to be on the same stage with the Green party candidate.

You can hid behind your 15%, but this will just make progressives in the Democratic party leave to the Green party.

[Catherine Vincent]

47. The past is the past but I hope Nader only get about 20 votes in 2004.

He has a right to run but any idiot should realize Nader will not get enough votes to win the WH. I wholeheartedly believe that Nader secretly wanted Bush in the WH.

[Bushknew]

48. If a Democratic would have run to the left of the center,

there would be less of a need for a Nader candidate.

[ParanoidPat]

49. What is your version of "left of center"?

:evilgrin: Please be specific! :)

[Bushknew]

50. IÕm a Kucinich supporter, need I say more by how I define center left?

Paul Wellstone would have never made it to the Senate without support. DonÕt be afraid to be a Democrat. Support Kucinich

[ParanoidPat]

57. I've actually been a Democrat all of my life! LOL!

And I wouldn't be surprised if Al throws his support to Kucinich if he doesn't end up being drafted! :)
AFAIK, Kucinich is the only candidate on record to call for the elimination of the 'Patriot Act' his first day in office! That for me is the most important issue behind seeing how our votes are counted.

I didn't drift away from the party, they slithered away from me! :evilgrin:

CFR should stand for Campaign Finance Reform NOT Cash For Republicans! :(

[Bushknew]

58. Here Here ParanoidPat!!!!!

<<I didn't drift away from the party, they slithered away from me! >>

Here Here, IÕm not a plant trying to divide the Democratic party. :eyes:

IÕm fighting, slapping the Donkey to come back home.

[Terwilliger]

78. haha!

slapping the Donkey!

Go AL Go!

[Democat]

52. Blame whoever you want, but Green voters helped elect Bush

Nader could choose to make a positive difference by trying to push the Democratic Party to the left from within, like the Christian Coalition and other groups have done to the Republican Party.

Instead he helps Republicans get elected and actually pushes the Democratic Party to the right by recruiting from the far left of the Democratic Party.

His strategy weakens the left and strengthens the right.

[Shanty Oilish]

54. One might almost think Nader was the first 3rd party ever

It's happened before. A third party occasionally wins enough votes to become a post-election pinata.
The real question is whether Nader earnestly believed his candidacy was appropriate and in the best interests of America, or whether he was trying to siphon off enough Gore votes to put Bush in office. It depends on what you believe about the man.
If he wanted Bush elected, his whole life is an atrocious fraud.

[jiacinto]

60. The answer to your question is right here

Source: http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

"When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "

[jiacinto]

59. Nader wanted Bush to win--Period

Nader made their jobs that much easier. And frankly, had even just 1% of the Nader voters in Florida went for Gore, the outcome would have been much different.

But just so that people clearly know this was Nader's intention in the 2000 election. He wanted Bush to win.

Source: http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html

"When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "

[Bushknew]

61. Did Gore want Bush to win since

Gore agreed with Bush so much in the debates?

[ParanoidPat]

64. Would you please list....

....those 'agreements'? :evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

66. WEAK!

look it up

[ParanoidPat]

68. LOL! Are you tellin' me to 'look it up'!

Funny! :) Don't make me go there, I'll POST it! (I hope you're not on dialup! ) :evilgrin:
Lest ye forget, 'tis he who made the charge so 'tis he that has the burden of proof!

Besides, you don't want me to post a list of lies told by Bush* on the campaign trail. (that would include the lies he told during the debates or have you forgotten the answers he gave?) :shrug:

They're just a Google away! ;-)

On Edit: Here, I'll make it easy.

CAMPAIGN 2000: VICE PRESIDENT GORE AND GOVERNOR BUSH PARTICIPATE IN DEBATE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, OCTOBER 3, 2000

CAMPAIGN 2000: VICE PRESIDENT GORE AND GOVERNOR BUSH PARTICIPATE IN SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, OCTOBER 11, 2000

CAMPAIGN 2000: VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE AND GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH PARTICIPATE IN THIRD DEBATE SPONSORED BY THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, OCTOBER 17, 2000

Just point me to where you confused the two of them and I'll try to explain it to you! :)

[Terwilliger]

77. now, how did Gore lose?

I mean!!!! shit...if Al Gore laid it out so well, why was an utter moron like George W. Bush elected? How could Gore lose?

Oh, I understand Ralph Nader was arrested just for coming to one of those debates. Sounds like democracy to me! :freak: :nuke: :thumbsdown:

[noiretextatique]

62. can i assume democrats wanted bush to win

given their anemic response (collectively) to voter disenfranshisement in florida? given that there were enough votes never cast that might have been even more than the 1% of nader votes, and given that the democratic candidate never challenged on this issue... :wtf: is your point?

[jiacinto]

67. You know what my point is

nt