Knees hit the floor. Hmmm. Still a toss up.

Assume the position.

'I was going to vote for Obama, but he may have changed my mind,' said Charles Byrnes, 54, of Covington."

Here we go again.

Knees hit the floor. Hmmm. Still a toss up.
#1 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-09-09 04:42 PM

YEAH!

That is until you add in the Mens Restroom Variable!

Nader has the balls to tell it like it is. No fucking way is he ever going to be POTUS.

I just don't understand why he and barr and all the others don't run for congress and try to build up their numbers there... establish themselves as a real party, and then have a presidential candidate...

Ralph is right. In my opinion, all liberals should be voting for Nader and all conservatives for Bob Barr. I don't see how obama or mccain serve either of those factions' interests at this point.

"I just don't understand why he and barr and all the others don't run for congress and try to build up their numbers there"

Absolutely. I have 50 times more respect for Dennis Kucinich than I do for Ralph Nader, even for Ron Paul. Political parties are going to be part of the system unless we change the whole basic system and we aren't going to do that so...if you don't like the parties change on or start your own. Sniping from outside the system without ever having been elected to any position is just arrogance..."Look at me...I'm the smartest man in America."

There are plenty of greens and libertarians that run for congressional office. Nobody elects them there either. The fact that you've never seen a libertarian or green congressman doesn't mean they aren't running, and it also shouldn't preclude them from running for president. If you think "trying to establish themselves as a party" should be one of their goals, then you should support their running for president since it gets the word out when most people are paying attention to politics.

Nader is 100% absolutely correct. There is no difference between them. None.

Ah Nader. Opportunist he may be, but he does talk a good game.

"Ralph is right. In my opinion, all liberals should be voting for Nader and all conservatives for Bob Barr. I don't see how obama or mccain serve either of those factions' interests at this point."

#7 | Posted by JOE

I was thinking about Barr, but he keeps not acting like a libertarian, wanting to sue Saddleback for not inviting him to the debate, and trying to keep candidates off of ballots in Texas. Isn't that what the major parties try to do to third parties? Aren't libertarians supposed to be against that kind of shit?

My XBox 360 + large screen HDTV has my interests at heart, so I'll be voting for that and his veep, Wild Turkey, this coming election.

Barr has actually been elected before, he used to be a Republican Congressman from Georgia. That is the reason why Libertarians nominated him in their convention last May, because they thought he had "experience" and could get media attention.

Political parties always face this choice, either build the party, or run someone for president to get people exposed to the party and it's ideas. Some parties, like the LP and GP do both, they build at the local level, but use the presidential run to get exposure, as little as it is.

"I was thinking about Barr, but he keeps not acting like a libertarian, wanting to sue Saddleback for not inviting him to the debate, and trying to keep candidates off of ballots in Texas. Isn't that what the major parties try to do to third parties? Aren't libertarians supposed to be against that kind of shit?"

That is why this year I am actually happy the Libertarian candidate will be excluded from the presidential debates. If he was to be in the debates, I get the feeeling people would come away with an incorrect idea of what Libertarians are.

My XBox 360 + large screen HDTV has my interests at heart, so I'll be voting for that and his veep, Wild Turkey, this coming election.

#12 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2008-09-09 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag

LMAO - I too see a hell of a lot more Halo 3 in my future after this election is over. =)

"wanting to sue Saddleback for not inviting him to the debate, and trying to keep candidates off of ballots in Texas. Isn't that what the major parties try to do to third parties? Aren't libertarians supposed to be against that kind of shit?"

I just don't see how wanting to be allowed to participate in a debate is anti-libertarian. Third parties have challenged election laws that keep them out of debates since the beginning of time. You can't put your libertarian agenda into action if nobody ever sees or hears from you. I could see your point with regard to trying to keep candidates off the ballot in Texas, but I look at that as beating them at their own game. It would be a tremendous victory for Barr to win that state and it would get a lot of publicity for the libertarian party, which they sorely need.

Nader is an idiot. The two major parties are not the same. They both suck in different ways.

Member, I always see you say things like that about Barr. Can you name a few issues on which he does not conform to the typical libertarian stance?

"Nader is 100% absolutely correct. There is no difference between them. None."

Do any of you honestly believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq????
Do any of you remember the word "SURPLUS."
Do any of you remember the "CONSTITUTION", you know, that thing the present president calles "a piece of paper."
Does "Tax Cut for the Rich" mean anything to you??

Nader is full of shit. Corvairs were cool cars. Nader has made a career out of missing the entire point of things.

"I just don't see how wanting to be allowed to participate in a debate is anti-libertarian. Third parties have challenged election laws that keep them out of debates since the beginning of time. You can't put your libertarian agenda into action if nobody ever sees or hears from you."

#16 | Posted by joe

Wasn't that a private institution keeping him from the debate? And didn't he take "wanting" a step further into "sueing?"

I could be wrong.

Who knows what the military industrial complex would've told Gore? Do you? No.

I remember "Projected Surplus". There was no actual surplus.

The Constitution is still preserved and protected. What rights have you lost Danni?

Reagan raised taxes on the rich 6 times. Bush 41 did it 2 times including the largest of all time. Were they Democrats Danni?

Where's Travis Bickell when you really need him?

"Do any of you honestly believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq????"
--DANNI

Hard to say, but considering the democrats' own talking points about Iraq, WMD, and Al Quaeda in Iraq (pre invasion), anything's possible.

Do any of you remember the word "SURPLUS."
--DANNI

The Republican congress had nothing to do with this?

Do any of you remember the "CONSTITUTION", you know, that thing the present president calles "a piece of paper."
--DANNI

Don't forget Obama voting with Bush in giving Telecomm companies immunity for cooperating with the eavesdropping program.

Does "Tax Cut for the Rich" mean anything to you??
--DANNI

I'll give you that one.

One minor difference; holy shit they're not quite the same.

Joe--with that scenario --it would be chaos. lol!!

Neither candidate would have the required 270 EV to win.

I am not sure--but ---

Wouldn't they would have to go to the Senate--right?

The Senate has 51-49 Dems over Repubs.

But--Lieberman is one that would cross over to vote for McCain. (There could be others from both sides)

If there was a 50-50 tie.

Cheney breaks the tie in favor of McCain.

Is that how this scenario gets resolved? It goes to the Senate?

"Wasn't that a private institution keeping him from the debate? And didn't he take "wanting" a step further into "sueing?"

Yes, and yes. I suppose if you asked Barr, he'd say that the greater good would be served by him being in the debate, regardless of whether he had to technically "violate" libertarian principles(?) by being as aggressive as possible in trying to get into the debate. Can't really answer for him there.

I think a 270/270 tie would be broken by the House, not the Senate.

Okay, one more time, allow me to explain:

The Republicans are assholes who take large contributions from wealthy asses and corporations, whilst posing as doers of the public good.

The Democrats are assholes who take large contributions from wealthy asses and corporations, whilst posing as doers of the public good.

Got it? Good.

Saying the parties are the same is too forgiving of the Republicans for the messes they have created.
Under Dems previously things weren't perfect but in comparisons....they just aren't the same.

"I think a 270/270 tie would be broken by the House, not the Senate."

That's good.

Nader and Barr, please get out of the way. You may have left some footprints already for future reference, but the country is not ready for side noises like you and Barr. Can't you see?

I like Nader better than Barr

"I like Nader better than Barr"

Posted by shirtsbyeric

Besides, I've already voted for Nader.

Still thinkin' of writin' in Paris.
Or was that writing ON Paris with Reddi Whip?

Nader is HONEST. I voted for Nader twice. But the Republicans must be punished for what they've done, regardless of how lame the Democrats are.

"Do any of you honestly believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq????
Do any of you remember the word "SURPLUS."
Do any of you remember the "CONSTITUTION", you know, that thing the present president calles "a piece of paper."
Does "Tax Cut for the Rich" mean anything to you??"

---------------

The owners wanted bush, and they got him. No selection is going to change this fact.

I wonder how much the rethugs are contributing to his campaign THIS time?
Want proof? Look it up! I won't vote for his worthless ass-he's only in it to be a spoiler.

I wonder how much the rethugs are contributing to his campaign THIS time?
Want proof? Look it up! I won't vote for his worthless ass-he's only in it to be a spoiler.

I wonder how much the rethugs are contributing to his campaign THIS time?
Want proof? Look it up! I won't vote for his worthless ass-he's only in it to be a spoiler.

"I won't vote for his worthless ass-he's only in it to be a spoiler."

Posted by frankf55

He's honest, and in a state like Texas where it won't matter, he's a "none of the above" proxy.

OTOH I liked my Corvair.

If the election were today I'd vote for him.

The worst and by far the most heinous thing that Ralph Nader ever did was to hold up the Republican,Wall St.Corporats to Public Scrutiny - and because of that Mortal Sin they've worked overitme in every posible area to defile and assassinate him!!!

So...

the Dems & Repubs knees hit the floor (at the same time)when big business knocks...

Oh...

so Nader's knees will hit the floor when (who??)...homeless persons knock, or...the ACLU knocks, or...big solar panel, or big wind turbine, or big hydrogen fuel-cell, or big perpetual-motion technology knocks???

Dude is a lunatic - as well as a hypocritical wealthy egotistical know-it-all.

WAR: Nader taking votes form Obama!

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are Pepsi and Coke. Brand names, whoring themselves out for sales. God bless third parties. If we only could get third parties more into the big game, maybe those Dems and Repubs will be forced to stop pandering to the lowest common moronator.

Nader is such an old fart that he probably can't tell his socks apart.

YELLOW IN FRONT!

Nader is such an old fart that he probably can't tell his socks apart.

I think the angry little urchins should vote for Nader.

Somebody tell Kos.

Plant the seed.

Nader's real change we can believe in.

Obama's just this self-imploding little gnat.

Do any of you honestly believe Al Gore would have invaded Iraq????

Nope, he would have fucked us in a totally different way. The positive thing about that would be that the soldiers and marines and sailors would still be alive.

Do any of you remember the word "SURPLUS."

I remember it being tossed around. I also remember that it wasn't his policy that gave us this supposed "surplus". Al Gore didn't do anything as a vice president except collect money from China. At no time during his vice-presidency did it become expedient for him to be "The Global warming Guru". Just think of the change he could have effected from that position in American Government.

Do any of you remember the "CONSTITUTION", you know, that thing the present president calles "a piece of paper."

Do a search for the people who voted for Clinton's version of the Patriot Act. It shouldn't be difficult. It happened right after the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was ripped wide open by an American terrorist. A lot of those very same people who voted for that voted for the Patriot Act as well.

Back then, I didn't hear a lot of lefties screaming about its infringement on our Constitutional Rights.

When you get done with that little gem of legislation, look up Carnivore. When you're done with that, look up the use of Federal Investigators to get personal dirt on American Citizens.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Gimme a fucking break you hypocritical partisan hack.

Does "Tax Cut for the Rich" mean anything to you??

Does "Tax the shit out of everyone" mean anything to you?

I just don't understand why he and barr and all the others don't run for congress and try to build up their numbers there... establish themselves as a real party, and then have a presidential candidate...

#6 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-09-09 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because Nader is an egomaniac. He seems to think he's actually relevant, and really can't understand why the peons won't vote for him. That's why they won't take the time to establish themselves. If Nader REALLY cared, his millions would go to getting some Green senators and whatnot in office. Because, unlike the repeated presidential runs, it's actually POSSIBLE to win some Senate seats. But instead, it's all Nader, all the time.

I'm not too much noticing differences between Reps and Dems either.. but holy crap, _Nader_ sure isn't the answer. The Greens need to quit running this guy.

Agreed ^.

Nader is like the kid that wants to play "his" game and "his" game only. He won't play in the game that has been set up for over 100 years. No. He wants to play it his way and only he should win.

Nader is no reformist. Nader talks - and that's about it. If he really wanted change, he'd get in the game.

If Nader did like Rob suggests, nothing would change. The issue is of national importance, all politics is NOT local.

"The Greens need to quit running this guy."

#46 | Posted by soheifox

I know papers get to your neck of the woods a few days late, but get your head out of your 2004 redacted, foxy.

Cynthia McKinney is the Green Candidate.

#48 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-09-10 09:25 AM | Reply

She is the real "change" candidate and she'll be getting my vote in November!

She is the real "change" candidate and she'll be getting my vote in November!

#49 | Posted by 101Chairborne

NO!!!

-she'll be getting my vote in November!

She still won't sleep with you.

If Nader did like Rob suggests, nothing would change. The issue is of national importance, all politics is NOT local.

#46 | Posted by soheifox

Shoe-in-mouth is wrong as usual, and is too stoopid to grasp the real point.

Rob is correct. If Nadar really cared about the crap he says, he'd start a grass-roots initiative that would actually make a serious difference -- in 20 years.

That's how politics works.

But for Nadar, the only thing that matters is Nadar. He runs for president not because he wants to change things but because that's how he gets media attention and strokes his ego.

uhm, vern....?

Nevermind.

That aside, Nader runs to keep the issues on the national agenda... issues that get ignored by both parties over and over.

... and maybe we don't have 20 years?

He's honest, and in a state like Texas where it won't matter, he's a "none of the above" proxy.

OTOH I liked my Corvair.

#38 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-09-09 08:31 PM | Reply

That's pretty much the approach I'm taking in Illinois. Obama will win in a blowout here so there is no need for me to vote for the "Messiah" to stop McCain.

For lower offices, in true bipartisan fashion, I'll probably split my votes between Greens and Libertarians because my conscience seldom allows me to vote for politicians who can actually win.

With you on that one 100%, Anton.

I didn't see Zat's corvair comment.

Danni and I had it out on the issue of Nader a few months back and she finally came out admitting that she hated him because he took away her Corvair.

There is a clear difference between the parties.

The Republicans are the ones who think the other party is full of wackos.

The Democrats are the ones who think the other party if full of morons.

Nader runs to keep the issues on the national agenda... issues that get ignored by both parties over and over.

#53 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-09-10 11:06 AM | Reply

Issues that are STILL IGNORED.

?What has changed because of Nadar? He's been screaming for decades, and what has he accomplished?

I know it stings, but clowns like Nadar accomplish nothing serious. All they do is distract people like you -- honest and serious.

You waste your time, energy and money on media clowns like Nadar. If you care .... if you really care .... do something local.

Do you havwe the courage or will you be just another Drudge Slug and bitch about the major parties?

NADER ACCOMPLISHMENTS
*Safe Drinking Water Act
*Clean Air Act
*Freedom of Information Act
*Environmental Protection Agency
*SeatBelts/AirBags/Tire Safety
*Consumer Product Safety Act
*Pension Protection Act
*Whistleblower Protection Act
*Safe Medical Device Act
*National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act
*Clean Water Act
*Occupational Health and Safety Administration

With you on that one 100%, Anton.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2008-09-10 11:15 AM | Reply

It must be an Illinois thing.

Do you havwe the courage or will you be just another Drudge Slug and bitch about the major parties?

It takes more courage to go against the grain, to question the status quo.

People who follow along, go with the flow are cowards. You are sheep to be led to the slaughter. You are boring, unimaginative and sad.

"It must be an Illinois thing."

I think living in a state that is already decided one way or the other before they count the polls gives third-party supporters the mental green light to do as they wish.

I know papers get to your neck of the woods a few days late, but get your head out of your 2004 redacted, foxy.

Nader's running independent in 45 states.

Cynthia McKinney is the Green Candidate.

#48 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-09-10 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bravo for the Greens. Really, I mean that. Though I think them running _anyone_ for President is kinda silly, hey. More power to them. But uhh.. isn't she the lady who tried to get a law passed specifically about Tupac Shakur? Isn't she a bit too umm... micro-focused on just a few issues to actually be Presidential material?

But Nader is now running as an independent? That's even _worse_ The dude's ego just never stops.

I liked the part where Vernon called me an idiot, and then proceeded to post almost exactly the same thing I posted. Not too wonderful at the reading comprehension, is he?

But Nader is now running as an independent? That's even _worse_ The dude's ego just never stops.

#64 | Posted by soheifox

These are the issues that we'd never hear about if Nader wasn't running.

#65 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-09-10 01:37 PM | Reply

Obama doesn't have time to discuss those issues. He's too busy changing, hoping and organizing.

McCain can't devote much time to them either given the emotional trauma he has suffered because of Obama's "old fish" comment.

I guess that's part of my point.

No wonder Nader can't tell the parties apart. He's been to Chicago...

#68 | Posted by Farmer_John at 2008-09-10 02:10 PM | Reply

What the hell are you talking about? The community of Chicago is perfect. Barack organized it.

he does know all about corvairs

That is because Nader is an idiot and has been proven wrong on everything he has ever written..but somehow people still follow him.

Gezz, I need to go liberal where if you are wrong on issues it just enhances your image.

"Whatever, Nader. Get the fuck out of politics, you egotistical douche bag. You cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and I'll never forgive you for it."

You're an idiot. Nader had, and has, every right to run. Why do you hate democracy?

Why do you hate democracy?

#73 | Posted by nullifidian at 2008-09-10 05:30 PM | Reply

He's pro-choice on everything but voting.

I agree with Rob's #6 post. Good call, Rob.

"She is the real "change" candidate and she'll be getting my vote in November!"

#49 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Surely not enough YOU believe your own bullshit.

It's easy to tell them apart. The Republicans usually have a (R) either before or after their names. Democrats have a (D).

Democrats are running the lanky black guy and the old white dude. Republicans are running another old white dude who picked a little MILF from Possom's Bottom, Alaska.

See? It's easy.