In <0ee1ebac-0809-41fc-84f6-52d7b65bb902@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, on
06/30/2008
at 01:10 PM, Transition Zone <mogulah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>On Jun 29, 6:19 am, al Guacamole <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 6:46 am, Rumpelstiltskin
>>
>>
>>
>> <PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:23:40 -0400, Gary <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > >No Guilt
>> > >by Charley Reese
>>
>> > > It's funny that RalphNader, the perennial presidential-election
>> > >spoiler, is claiming that Barack Obama is appealing to white guilt.
>> > >I've seen no evidence of that. In fact, Obama has been trying his
best
>> > >to run a colorblind campaign.
>>
>> > >The truth is, except for his skin color, Obama is your standard
>> > >Northern liberal. If there's only a dime's worth of difference
between
>> > >Republicans and Democrats, there's only a penny's worth of
difference
>> > >between Obama and Teddy Kennedy on matters of policy. Obama,
however,
>> > >is certainly the smarter of the two.
>>
>> > >I've never been a fan ofNader, and I don't see why anyone is paying
>> > >him the least bit of attention. He says what he thinks will get him
>> > >ink and airtime. He's a publicity hound. There's something perverse
>> > >about people who will run for office, knowing they can't win, but
are
>> > >willing to skim a few votes off one of the major candidates.Nader
>> > >definitely cost Al Gore the election in 2000, so we can justly blame
>> > >him for eight years of George W. Bush. As far as I'm concerned, that
>> > >consignsNaderto the dung heap.
>>
>> > I thought it was gay people who cost Gore the election in
>> > 2000. Oh no, wait, it was black people who didn't vote in
>> > enough numbers. Oh, no, wait, it was ...
>>
>> > Oh no, now I remember, it was the US Supreme court.
>> > How could I forget? (Actually of course, I didn't forget.)
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> There was pretty much agreement onNader'srole as a spoiler. But I
>> don't think that that's sufficient reason to pan him. We are a free
>> country and I dislike the media excludingNaderfrom the presidential
>> debates.
>The media has made many many mistakes in recent years. Look at the
>profitability of their
>newspapers.
>> Of course, I know that they can do that. It just seems a very
>> un-American thing to do. DespiteNader, Gore won the popular vote.
>And despite Obama, Hillary won it this time. So much for legitimacy.
>(this means Nader possibilities for angry dems thinking about McCain
>sup****t)
Son, if hillary won -- how come Obama has the votes to be the nominee!
>> It wasn't necessary for the court to decide the election. They could
have
>> simply agreed with the Florida court which called for a statewide
>> recount.
>Nader has to really thank big party dems for the latest Florida flop.
>This is almost Nader's to-lose.
You know nothing of US elections. Are you out the 7th grade this year?
>> I don't understand why it's necessary to decide so soon and
>> not mandate a run-off. In many states-- Hawaii included-- a recount is
>> always mandated for a close vote. It's the law.
>Looking at recent AWFUL flip-flops by big party candidates. Nader should
>take these
>results for face value.
>I'm certain Nader will collect 20% of dem voters - at least
Never has he won that much in the past. Won't now. He's past his prime.
50% or more of all American's don't know who in the hell he is.
I think you're like the idiot lady whining a day ago, that hillary should
not give in. She can't figure out -->its over. The nominee is Obama.
|
