On Jul 3, 10:02=A0pm, "Al. E. Crocodile" <ObamaCroc08.net> wrote:
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:931ef4c2-6964-45a4-8611-ecff76444544@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jun 30, 3:10 pm, Transition Zone <mogu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
differe=
nce
> > > > >between Obama and Teddy Kennedy on matters of policy. Obama,
howev=
er,
> > > > >is certainly the smarter of the two.
>
> > > > >I've never been a fan ofNader, and I don't see why anyone is
payin=
g
> > > > >him the least bit of attention. He says what he thinks will get
hi=
m
> > > > >ink and airtime. He's a publicity hound. There's something
pervers=
e
> > > > >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
bla=
me
> > > > >him for eight years of George W. Bush. As far as I'm concerned,
th=
at
> > > > >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)
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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
i=
s
> > > 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- Hide
quote=
d
> > text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >Obama is Condi Rice's *****.
>
> wow goober, think that will win yall any elections ?
Evidently, you think Rev Wright will.
|
