Ron Paul actually was my original choice. I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 but was pleasantly surprised by Clinton who i thought was smart until Obama showed up.
This country needs Bob Barr more now than ever and his Rand-esque libertarian brilliance! I believe in this guy.....come on people follow me, vote Barr and put the blood sucking socialistists and sleeze bucket capitalists out of the Game.
Not a scapegoat. An enabler. He allowed this to happen. -And I suppose if you want to use the syphilis/gonohhrea analogy, I suppose I would choose a milder disease which can be cured with a quick shot of antibiotics, than one that would send one slowly insane.
I don't think it's fair to say what Ralph Nader believed considering you aren't Ralph Nader, but I believe he runs because he doesn't agree with the two party dictatorship or the influence of corperate fat cats in Washington.
Well, I guess it's cool if you want to use Nader as a scapegoat even though Bush would've been President anyways, whatever gets you to sleep at night. I could say the same thing and say that everything was your fault for voting for Gore or Kerry when you should've been voting for Nader. Other people are allowed to run for President, people shouldn't limit themselves to choices equivalent to Syphilis or Ghonorrea. I didn't vote in 2000, or 2004, I'm only 17 now so I can't vote in 2008 either, I would've voted for Nader though, and in 2012 if he's running I'll be voting for him, if he's not running I'll most likely vote the Libertarian ticket unless there's a Democratic or Republican candidate like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul.
Come on. You were choosing Nader, who you KNEW had no chance of winning, instead of somebody who would NOT have invaded Iraq, would NOT have ignored New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, would NOT have eviscerated the regulations that Nader worked so hard for. It is YOU, PERSONALLY, along with a few over 500 others who are RESPONSIBLE for all of this, you being a Nader supporter who happens to live in Florida. YOU PERSONALLY, started the Iraq WAR. YOU PERSONALLY, set up the deregulation which made the subprime meltdown so bad. YOU PERSONALLY, ignored the Kyoto Protocols. YOU PERSONALLY, ignored New Orleans drowning. You allowed it to happen by allowing Bush to win. YOU PERSONALLY, because it is YOUR VOTE that allowed Bush to get into power.
Nader is more eagerly passively accepting evil than anybody else, because he believed it was OK to have four more years of Bush than have him not running, even though deep down he KNEW that he did not stand a chance of winning.
I actually voted for Nader back in 2000. I listened to him again today when he was speaking on Washington Journal, and I remembered why I voted for him before. I like the points he makes, but I'm still going to vote for Obama this time.
Martin Luther King Jr. said "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
I don't know if it's fair to say the "Republican corperate puppet" used Nader to cut the strings of the "Democratic Corperate Puppet in 2000. It's more like the election was stolen from Al Gore, and people blamed it on Nader. Then in 2004 John Kerry conceded the election to Bush. I don't believe Bush getting elected twice was the fault of Nader. Bush getting elected twice was the fault of the people that voted for Bush. I'm not one who would settle for the lesser of two evils, I would rather choose to be not be harmed at all rater then be harmed or less harmed, I don't understand why anyone would settle for harm.
The "Republican corporate puppet" used Nader to cut the strings of the "Democratic Corporate Puppet" during the 2000 election. Then the Republican Puppet proceded to gut the regulations that Nader spent his whole life campaigning for. Then he invaded Iraq and ignored New Orleans. I doubt very strongly if Gore would have done any of this. You might think of both parties as being evil, but the lesser of two evils is still less evil, and therefore does less harm.
I think he knew he could not win, and he knew that any votes for him were being taken from the Democrats...
Ron Paul actually was my original choice. I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 but was pleasantly surprised by Clinton who i thought was smart until Obama showed up.
Rand! scary.
This country needs Bob Barr more now than ever and his Rand-esque libertarian brilliance! I believe in this guy.....come on people follow me, vote Barr and put the blood sucking socialistists and sleeze bucket capitalists out of the Game.
Not a scapegoat. An enabler. He allowed this to happen. -And I suppose if you want to use the syphilis/gonohhrea analogy, I suppose I would choose a milder disease which can be cured with a quick shot of antibiotics, than one that would send one slowly insane.
I don't think it's fair to say what Ralph Nader believed considering you aren't Ralph Nader, but I believe he runs because he doesn't agree with the two party dictatorship or the influence of corperate fat cats in Washington.
Well, I guess it's cool if you want to use Nader as a scapegoat even though Bush would've been President anyways, whatever gets you to sleep at night. I could say the same thing and say that everything was your fault for voting for Gore or Kerry when you should've been voting for Nader. Other people are allowed to run for President, people shouldn't limit themselves to choices equivalent to Syphilis or Ghonorrea. I didn't vote in 2000, or 2004, I'm only 17 now so I can't vote in 2008 either, I would've voted for Nader though, and in 2012 if he's running I'll be voting for him, if he's not running I'll most likely vote the Libertarian ticket unless there's a Democratic or Republican candidate like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul.
Come on. You were choosing Nader, who you KNEW had no chance of winning, instead of somebody who would NOT have invaded Iraq, would NOT have ignored New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, would NOT have eviscerated the regulations that Nader worked so hard for. It is YOU, PERSONALLY, along with a few over 500 others who are RESPONSIBLE for all of this, you being a Nader supporter who happens to live in Florida. YOU PERSONALLY, started the Iraq WAR. YOU PERSONALLY, set up the deregulation which made the subprime meltdown so bad. YOU PERSONALLY, ignored the Kyoto Protocols. YOU PERSONALLY, ignored New Orleans drowning. You allowed it to happen by allowing Bush to win. YOU PERSONALLY, because it is YOUR VOTE that allowed Bush to get into power.
Nader is more eagerly passively accepting evil than anybody else, because he believed it was OK to have four more years of Bush than have him not running, even though deep down he KNEW that he did not stand a chance of winning.
I actually voted for Nader back in 2000. I listened to him again today when he was speaking on Washington Journal, and I remembered why I voted for him before. I like the points he makes, but I'm still going to vote for Obama this time.
Martin Luther King Jr. said "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
I don't know if it's fair to say the "Republican corperate puppet" used Nader to cut the strings of the "Democratic Corperate Puppet in 2000. It's more like the election was stolen from Al Gore, and people blamed it on Nader. Then in 2004 John Kerry conceded the election to Bush. I don't believe Bush getting elected twice was the fault of Nader. Bush getting elected twice was the fault of the people that voted for Bush. I'm not one who would settle for the lesser of two evils, I would rather choose to be not be harmed at all rater then be harmed or less harmed, I don't understand why anyone would settle for harm.
The "Republican corporate puppet" used Nader to cut the strings of the "Democratic Corporate Puppet" during the 2000 election. Then the Republican Puppet proceded to gut the regulations that Nader spent his whole life campaigning for. Then he invaded Iraq and ignored New Orleans. I doubt very strongly if Gore would have done any of this. You might think of both parties as being evil, but the lesser of two evils is still less evil, and therefore does less harm.
I should've added an option for other, oops.