Blah blah blah...more of the same anti Nader tripe from someone who obviously hasn't done much research on the man or his positions other than taking his party's talking points as law.
If you had, you'd realize that he's the only candidate trying to make an issue out of the lack of paper ballots that seems to be worrying you so much..
He doesn't seem to be making that much of an issue, maybe he's said he's concerned, but I've yet to see any mass national movement directed by him bringing the possibility for real change prior to november. Has nader been strongly emphasizing this point, is it one of his main and loudest point he goes over at every chance he can? I don't think so, for I've not heard of it(though I may be mistaken, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), if it's just something he says from time to time in his speeches, what does that tell you? Same as those fox "we're unbiased, no hidden agenda" comments, just bold lies to reassure they ain't up to nothing.... rightttttttt... In any case, regardless of what he says, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. NADER KNOWS VERY WELL IT WAS HIS INTERFERENCE THAT ALLOWED THE DISASTER that took place in the year 2000, and HE KNOWS HE'S TAKING kerry's votes and threatening this nation with the reelection of Bush. HE can speak whatever he wants, his motives are clear as water for those who dare to see through his cloud of lies by
LOOKING AT HIS ACTIONS AND THEIR INTENDED CONSEQUENCES, his intent is the re-election of President Bush.
And I'll say one thing further- a vote for Ralph Nader, or David Cobb, or even Michael Badnarik is not "a vote for Bush". A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. Votes are EARNED, like respect..
Well, let's make it clear in this election there are only TWO CHOICES, no matter how you wanna slice it or look at it. Unless an act of divine intervention takes place, not likely, either BUSH or KERRY will be in the whitehouse next year. Now your actions are what will speak the loudest, not your thoughts not your ideals not your words, the election is close and those actions may very well decide who wins. By not voting fo kerry, you're inacting/neglecting, you're putting america in jeopardy, for the odds go ever closer to Bush winning. NO VOTE OR A VOTE FOR SOME OTHER LIBERAL CANDIDATE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, will result in INCREASING BUSH CHANCES of winning. That is the consequence of your actions, and in knowledge of DIEBOLD, you very well know that a close election is extremely likely to be stolen by this system and handed to BUSH... so you've increased BUSH odds of winning significantly, actions work by increasing the odds a particular event may happen( i.e. getting on a train increases your odds of getting to that destination, poisoning someone significantly increases odds of death, etc), and your actions are working in BUSH favor.
In closing, NEVER AGAIN try to tell me that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. This is factually untrue. Thank you and good day, sir.
.
Unless you can prove my above paragraph is logically inconsistent, it is the truth, and I must always speak that which seems to be the truth. Whether you intent to for another to die, give the election to someone, or the like or not, either through ACTION OR INACTION/NEGLECT, it can result in that event taking place. Your decision not to help a lone dying man, will increase his odds of dying, your decision not to vote or to vote for nader will increase the odds of Bush winning significantly(a close election will be more easily stolen by DIEBOLD), it is an action that is favorable to BUSH.
Let me give you an example: if you know of the atrocities that may take place at the hands of a particular man, and you do nothing to stop him though you may have been able to do something, then you're partly responsible. (cough Peter Parker cough).
Just a reminder, the supreme court may see, from what I've heard, up to four judges retiring. Bush's called the likes of Scalia exemplary, this is the kind of judge that may very well replace'em.
If I didn't vote Nader, I'd vote republican for certain reasons. Please stop blaming Nader voters just because your party of choice keeps picking douchebag candidates.
.
'm just speaking the truth, and I know it hurts, but it's still the truth.
Whether you like it or not, your eyes are better open then closed, especially at this must pivotal moment. Let ye see the consequences of your actions, the AMERICA YOUR CHOICES ARE HELPING TO CREATE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, with intent or without, this is what you're doing:
Question:"Justice Scalia, in your view, does the Constitution prohibit the execution of innocent persons?"
Answer: "NO.."- Scalia
.
Scalia....
Scalia said that the Constitution has nothing to say about executing children down to at least the age of 14 and, "theoretically" anyway, executing "anyone over the age of 7."
Justice Antonin Scalia: "There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."
Justice Antonin Scalia:"My Constitution is
a very flexible Constitution.".
When he saw the bodies of the American mercenaries despoiled in Fallujah, Massey's first thought was "we do the same thing to them," he told The Independent. Iraqis "would see us debase their dead all the time." His unit was killing so many innocent people, including women and children, that he told his commanding officer he felt "we were committing genocide." The commander's response: "You're a wimp."
General Ralph Eberhart, head of America's first domestic military command, said the Regime must now bring the experience learned on foreign battlefields to the "Homeland" itself, including the integration of police, military and intelligence forces, "wide-area surveillance of the United States" and "urban warfare tactics," GovExec.com reports.- march 2004
But, you may be right, we've not seen this before, an extremist-right-wing-neo-con legislative branch(maybe even MORE one-sided then ever thanks to future more blatant uses of diebold), an executive branch that seems to blur the line between church-state, and a supreme court that would permit blatant attacks against the constitution, human rights, and democracy itself(constitution restoration act, marriage amendments- this one did not pass, but with a more blatant use of diebold, congress could very well end up even more one-sided, and with the supreme court backing this sort of thing could end up as laws, laws upheld by the courts.). Let see the constitution fight off a concerted tri-pronged attack from all three branches, let see if it does not fall against such.
Let's hope the atrocities done by americans on foreign soil are not brought to the HOMELAND.
PS As for nader, I know not if the following is true, but they've good sources( like NYtimes, washington times, fortune, Wall Street Journal, LAtimes, Washington post, cnn, and the like), so take it with a few piles of salt, but it may still be a peak at the nader iceberg's truth:
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
If even some of this is true then he deserves respect... for his cunningness/deceitfulness
