Who has done more opposing Bush?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'll vote for the Democrat.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Feingold - what kind of a question is this?  Nader helps Bush  if anything.

[Angel of Death]

BRTD: making Democrat voters look like asses since 2000

[Lief 🗽]

I'll vote for the one who actually has a place of power within the government.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Feingold - what kind of a question is this?  Nader helps Bush  if anything.

That Nader apologists like to deny that blatantly obvious fact and claim that all Democrats are utterly worthless and identical to the Republicans in every way.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

BRTD: making Democrat voters look like asses since 2000

[Hash]

BRTD: making Democrat voters look like asses since 2000

[Robespierre's Jaw]

BRTD: making Democrat voters look like asses since 2000

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Russ Feingold has opposed President Bush more times than Ralph Nader has complaining. Thanks to him in 2000, Dubya was elected. With honourable mentions to the Butterfly ballot and Katherin Harris.

[Nym90]

Feingold - what kind of a question is this?  Nader helps Bush  if anything.

That Nader apologists like to deny that blatantly obvious fact and claim that all Democrats are utterly worthless and identical to the Republicans in every way.

Well, to be fair, quite a few Democrats say that too....

To answer the poll, obviously Feingold.

[© tweed]

Feingold.

who did more opposing presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton?  Ralph Nader.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Why don't the pro-Nader hacks (who unsurprisingly are European and don't have to live under Bush) directly deal with the point? There are clearly Democrats doing more good than Nader, who really hasn't done jacksh!t since Bush has taken office.

(Has anyone else noticed that not a single American on this forum has said it would be better to vote for Nader in 2000 and it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference if Gore was President?)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why don't the pro-Nader hacks (who unsurprisingly are European and don't have to live under Bush) directly deal with the point? There are clearly Democrats doing more good than Nader, who really hasn't done jacksh!t since Bush has taken office.

(Has anyone else noticed that not a single American on this forum has said it would be better to vote for Nader in 2000 and it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference if Gore was President?)

Only Dumbs care, BRTD.

[Јas]

Seriously BRTD, this Ralph Nader obsession of yours really should have passed by now.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Seriously BRTD, this Ralph Nader obsession of yours really should have passed by now.

Apparently he needs a reason to bring all the hate on me. So he just puts words in mouth.

Funnily BRTD ignored Tweed's contribution to the debate.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Seriously BRTD, this Ralph Nader obsession of yours really should have passed by now.

It would if people would quit defending that piece of human sh!t and actually argue voting for him in 2000 was a good thing because Gore and Bush are absolutely identical.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Seriously BRTD, this Ralph Nader obsession of yours really should have passed by now.

It would if people would quit defending that piece of human sh!t and actually argue voting for him in 2000 was a good thing because Gore and Bush are absolutely identical.

Who here has ever argued that?

People have the right to choose who they want to vote for, remember in 2000 the dangers of a Bush presidency were not so apparent and clear as now and this, like everything else, would have been forgotten except by a coterie of Historians and polly junkies like us if not for 9\11. Nader has a right to run for president and people have a right to vote for Nader for president, no?

Anyways many on the left were sick of Clinton trick of running from the left and governing from the right. Observe:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

And can you please respond to the uncomfortable truth above this time instead of going "OMG NADER!1111".

[they don't love you like i love you]

Who here has ever argued that?

You.

People have the right to choose who they want to vote for, remember in 2000 the dangers of a Bush presidency were not so apparent and clear as now and this, like everything else, would have been forgotten except by a coterie of Historians and polly junkies like us if not for 9\11.]

Yes, but there's a little thing called "hindsight" that anyone who says they would vote for Nader now and wouldn't vote for Gore under any circumstances (like you) lacks.

Nader has a right to run for president and people have a right to vote for Nader for president, no?

"Everyone has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege." - Josef Stalin

Anyways many on the left were sick of Clinton trick of running from the left and governing from the right. Observe:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468
And can you please respond to the uncomfortable truth above this time instead of going "OMG NADER!1111".

Halliburton is much worse than Occidental, so I have a tough time caring about that.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Feingold obviously.

Nader is a major Bush-enabler on par with Karl Rove, Tom Delay, and Dick Cheney

[they don't love you like i love you]

No one has ever really responded to this point I've made a few times:

Right now Nader is a complete pariah, an outcast who will never accomplish anything because he's lost all his former allies and won't be taken seriously again. But this is more due to running in 2004 than 2000. Had he simply stood down in 2004 and worked on mending bridges instead of lighting the all ablaze by running again, he might have a chance to make a difference again.

Now what he did he accomplish by running in 2004? Nothing. What COULD he have accomplished? Nothing. At least in 2000 there was the issue of earning major party status for the Green Party. Nader's 2004 run did nothing but solidify his status as a pariah.

Now doesn't that prove that Nader is more concerned with his ego than the public good? Why should I respect such a guy?

[Јas]

No one has ever really responded to this point I've made a few times:

Right now Nader is a complete pariah, an outcast who will never accomplish anything because he's lost all his former allies and won't be taken seriously again. But this is more due to running in 2004 than 2000. Had he simply stood down in 2004 and worked on mending bridges instead of lighting the all ablaze by running again, he might have a chance to make a difference again.

Now what he did he accomplish by running in 2004? Nothing. What COULD he have accomplished? Nothing. At least in 2000 there was the issue of earning major party status for the Green Party. Nader's 2004 run did nothing but solidify his status as a pariah.

Now doesn't that prove that Nader is more concerned with his ego than the public good? Why should I respect such a guy?

This thread does offer insights into someone's ego, but I don't think it's Ralph Nader's.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Hating Nader has nothing to do with ego.

[Јas]

Hating Nader has nothing to do with ego.

No, but your implicit (and repeated) declarations of moral superiority to Nader do.

[Hash]

Seriously BRTD, this Ralph Nader obsession of yours really should have passed by now.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. Even by your standards that is a particularly pathetic arguement to make.

And I have criticized Ralph Nader decision to run in 2004 many times here before. As it split the Green Party and seemed like an ego trip (That doesn't mean I hate him or think he shouldn't have been allowed to run). This is no new opinion coming from me. But you just think I have some Ralph Nader love in.

[Joe Republic]

How many times does this need to be said?:  Ralph Nader is now entirely irrelevant - you've already admitted this yourself, BRTD.

SO WHY THE F**K ARE YOU STILL TALKING ABOUT HIM?