View Full Version : SOOOO glad Nader is running!

02-23-2004, 09:17 AM
If I was one of you liberals, I'd be pretty ****ed that Nader decided to steal your votes! What an idiot. He knows he has no chance, but decides to run, even though he would rather have a democrat in office instead of GW again. Go GW!

02-23-2004, 09:26 AM
Come on AW. Here I thought you were this really cool dude :lol:

At least we disagree on something now...

And yeah, Nader sux big Wilson-autograph size balls.

Craig Sheppard
02-23-2004, 11:06 AM
Agreed Shaolin. But sorry I'm in the Edwards camp not the Kerry camp. But I'd vote for Johnny Mac for President before I'd even think about punching a card for the buffoon we have now!


Brian Purdie
02-23-2004, 01:27 PM
I'm still not convinced that Clinton didn't have something to do with pushing Nader into the race. His man Clark couldn't grab the ticket. The Clinton's need the Dems to lose for Hillary to run in 08. That's the bottom line. Kerry or Edwards, the nominee is going to get whacked by the Arkansas mafia.

02-23-2004, 02:33 PM
Arkansas mafia

:lol: nice one Brian

02-23-2004, 03:23 PM
If I remember correctly, didn't the republicans fund Nader's campaign in 2000?

02-23-2004, 04:15 PM
If I remember correctly, didn't the republicans fund Nader's campaign in 2000?

I don't think you remember correctly; campaign finance information is very well documented. I'm assuming you mean the Republican Party, which, if so, you are horribly wrong, but I'm sure there's Republican's out there funding him. A lot of companies fund everyone. I know that the Democratic Party in California put out ads promoting Simon, the weaker politician, during the primaries and it worked, Republicans ran Simon, Simon lost. Sigh.

Anyway, Go Nader! How can you say that he does such a horrible disservice to the democrats? He runs as the guy who isn't Gore or Bush, or Bush and Kerry. It's not his fault that some people want him to be their president.

02-23-2004, 04:40 PM
There are other bb's on the Internet on which to discuss politics. Go to those bb's if you want to discuss completely non-tennis related issues. Personally, I don't want to read (most) people's ill-informed political opinions.

02-24-2004, 10:37 AM
One can easily argue that Nader takes votes away from Democrats because he is such a flaming liberal. But its wrong to say that this happens in favor of republicans. For instance, in the 2000 election almost as many voted for Buchanon as did for Nader. Supporters of Buchanan were much closer ideologically to Bush than Gore. Thus, the other parties that you aren't considering truly even out some of the "stolen" votes.

david aames
02-24-2004, 08:25 PM
Go GW!

Do we get to suffer your political rants because you wanted to get past the 100 posts? Way to G@w W.

02-24-2004, 09:19 PM
Dubya all the way!!!

02-24-2004, 09:41 PM
Remember, Clinton would not have won in 1992 except that Ross Perot was running and got 18.87% of the popular vote. Much of that was from the independant voters who would have probably voted for Bush I.

And all you Gore-lovers out there - don't blame Nader for everything!! Another one of the sad, pathetic little ironies about Al Gore's political career is that he would have become President IF HE ONLY HAD WON HIS HOME STATE OF TENNESSEE!!!! I mean, gee whiz, golly, his own home state voted against him.... how bad can it get?....oh, I see..... there was also that early endorsement of Dean...and a call for all good Democrats to rally around Dean....Gore trying to be the elder statesman and unite the Democratic Party......around Howard Dean......HAHAHAHA!!!!

In 1968, in another very close election, George Wallace, former Democrat, put Richard Nixon into the White House by getting 12.9% of the vote. Nixon got 43.2%, Humphrey 42.6%

So a strong third party candidate has always had an effect on PResidential elections.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I dunno. A guy who is not afraid to make controversial decisions even though he's dead wrong? Or a guy that can't seem to ever make up his mind about what he really believes is the right thing to do? Does anybody remember Jimmy Carter and the world chaos that resulted from his self-doubt and mealy-mouthed do-goodness?

Either way, we will be living in dangerous times....

02-24-2004, 10:06 PM
Bush is a chaotic evil imp.
Nader is a lawful neutral Romulon.
Kerry is a neutral evil Ring Wraith.
Kucinich is lawful good half-elf.
Edwards is a true neutral human.
Sharpton is chaotic good hobbit.

What alignment and race are you?

02-25-2004, 07:31 AM
Who is the Libertarian candidate this year?

02-25-2004, 07:35 AM
Actually, David, I posted this thread way before I had 100 posts. It didn't get much attention for a day or two, and now people brought it back from the dead.

02-25-2004, 08:53 AM
Badnarik is a lawful with lawful tendencies gnome.

02-25-2004, 11:22 AM
I know he ran under the Green Party, but I remember on some of the political shows saying that he had additional funding from well known republican supporters. I am not here to passionately debate this for ever an ever, and I could really care less if he steals votes from the democrats or anyone else. I was simply contributing something I had observed when this whole Nader issue was a regular topic in the national press.

02-26-2004, 06:31 PM
Nadar takes no corporate money, but he is a Romulon. He supports Dennis J. Kucinich, who happens to be a half-elf, for the Democrat Primary.

If you think Dean is too conservative, vote for Kucinich, who happens to be a half-elf with holy symbol. If you think Kucinich is too Democrat, vote Nader, he is a Romulon with a invisible truth lasso stolen from Wonder Woman's invisible stealth fighter.

Don't be LEFT in the middle, tennis fans.

Joe Average
02-26-2004, 09:36 PM
I'm glad Nader is running too. For George Bush's sake. I mean ... with $140 million in his campaign war chest, the tax cuts, a victory in Iraq ... and they're still talking about close race in November ... no matter who wins for the Democrats. Yes, he'll need Nader to siphon votes from the Democratic nominee. His policies are obviously not enough to get him re-elected. And I'm not quite sure Nader is a "flaming liberal." He seems to be against special interests ... and against big business screwing over the little guy. That makes him a "flaming liberal?" Would the contrary make him a conservative?

02-26-2004, 10:33 PM
The definition of "Special Interest" these days seems to be "anybody with an interest that isn't YOUR "Special Interest". If it's YOUR Special Interest, then it's not a special interest at all, only a just and fair cause that all good Americans should believe in. Right?

So, to say that you are against "Special Interests", while popular as a political warcry these days, is about as useful as saying that you are against Bad Weather. Just what is Bad Weather? Rain? Well, farmers need rain. OK, cloudy days? I love cloudy days. Snow? Ski resorts need snow. Sunshine? How could anybody be against sunshine except dermatologists?