patrick.net

Quigley says

People like to say that the Supreme Court gave the election to bush, but as I remember it, they ruled that they had no authority to rule. This decision let the previous decision by the Florida Supreme Court stand, which held that the vote counting was over as per official statement.

That is the opposite of what happened. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount, which was underway when the SCOTUS ordered them to stop counting votes and handed the election to W. The SCOTUS at that time consisted of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats, and 5 Republicans voted to hand the election to the Republican candidate. Two Republicans voted not to, including Justice Souter, who was so upset about the unprecedented decision that he nearly resigned.

Quigley says

It had gone on for so many weeks by then that the nation was getting seriously ancy.

The commercial media did present it that way, and I found that fascinating. The TV news are brought to you primarily by PhRMA (count the ads, you'll see), and who pays the piper calls the tune. The commercial media started running the impatient narrative about how it's been going on too long, perhaps due to their overwhelming impatience generally ("Give us something new to distract people with") or perhaps in anticipation of megabucks for PhRMA (think Medicare D). In reality, Congress counts the electoral votes in January, so there was plenty of time to count the people's votes in Florida. The Republicans in the Florida legislature were talking about sending a Republican slate of electoral votes to Congress, as a rival to the possible Democratic slate if the recount favored Democrats, but then the Congress could have decided which slate to count as per the Constitution. Most people thought the SCOTUS would refuse to hear the case, but a few predicted the outcome, including an obscure litigator named John Roberts, whom W later appointed Chief Justice. That isn't to allege a grand conspiracy per se, but the Republicans play politics as a team sport, and look for opportunities to advantage their team.

Probably the biggest factor though in Gore's ultimate loss was that he conceded on election night based solely on TV news projections before the votes had even been counted. At various times during the campaign, it seemed like he didn't even want to be President. Remember him sighing through the debates? And at other times saying, "Well, I agree with that" instead of offering voters a choice of policy? And there was that bizarre Michael Jackson-like stage kiss with now ex-wife Tipper, I did hear one person say she would vote for Gore because of that, but I wonder how many simply dismissed him entirely. He wouldn't even let Bill Clinton campaign for him, in order to avoid being associated with the Monica Lewinsky episode, which most voters didn't even care about. Whatever people think of Al Gore today, he was not a great candidate in 2000.

Waa Waaa Captrain'Troll

"I mean, for fuck's sake, your last post seems to be saying he was unelectable because he kissed his wife. What the hell?"

That kiss more more than just a kiss. It was a failed attempt to make Gore not look so robotic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/20/weekinreview/the-nation-when-a-kiss-isn-t-just-a-kiss.html

Remember all his embarrassing attempts to reinvent himself? The "i don't wear a tie" preppy Gore. The "cowboy boots and tight jeans" Gore.

You must remember this
A kiss is still a kiss
A sigh is still (just) a sigh
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by...

And Gore was just a bore
he's still quite the snore
Obama lies like a rug
like Rush on a drug
As time goes by...

I'm proud to be his partner. We've had triumphs, we've made mistakes, we've had sex.

George Bush (b. 1924), U.S. Republican politician, president. Speech, May 6, 1988, College of Southern Idaho. quoted by Alexander Cockburn in New Statesman (London, May 27, 1988), repr. In Corruptions of Empire (1988). Bush's gaffe occurred in a speech extolling the Reagan/Bush administration. He corrected himself: "Setbacks, we've had setbacks.... I feel like the javelin competitor who won the toss and elected to receive."

Daily Trader says

Both parties are mired in dirt, Dan. Did you forget that democrats actively sought to invalidate absentee military ballots in 2000?

1. Any illegal actions by one party, do not justify illegal actions by the other party.
2. Unlike the blatant voter suppression laws passed by the republicans, in 2000 the only invalidated absentee ballots were ones that actually invalid.
3. There were 680 fraudulent absentee ballets in Florida in 2000 compared to only a few cases of in person voter fraud found over all of American history in all states together.

From Princeton

Although not widely known until much later, Al Gore received 202 more votes than George W. Bush on election day in Florida. George W. Bush is president because he overcame his election day deficit with overseas absentee ballots that arrived and were counted after election day. In the final official tally, Bush received 537 more votes than Gore. These numbers are taken from the official results released by the Florida Secretary of State's office and so do not reflect overvotes, undervotes, unsuccessful litigation, butterfly ballot problems, recounts that might have been allowed but were not, or any other hypothetical divergence between voter preferences and counted votes. After the election, the New York Times conducted a six-month investigation and found that 680 of the overseas absentee ballots were illegally counted, and almost no one has publicly disagreed with their assessment.

The bottom line is that Bush lost the election and it is only through fraud that Bush got to be president. Furthermore, the Republican Party is clearly the undisputed champion of voter fraud and voter suppression. I'd be surprised if there weren't any democrats doing it, but it's not rampant like in the Republican Party.

And this is coming from someone who hates the Democrats. It's just that the Republicans are even more despicable.

uomo_senza_nome says

He has run as an independent candidate twice in a completely rigged two-party system. You have to cut him some slack for sounding pissed off about the electoral process.

I completely agreed. I just don't think he came off very well in the video.

The only solution short of fiat at gunpoint is for a third party to do the following in order.

1. Get as many people elected in local government and state legislating bodies.
2. Take control of as many House seats as possible.
3. Win governorships of states.
4. Win Senate positions.
5. Get powerful senate appointments.
6. Win the presidency.

They can't get to step 6 before steps 1 to 5. Third parties really need to attack goals in this order.

CaptainShuddup says

Since when is it winning to demand honest elections? How low is your bar?

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

Since when is it winning to demand honest elections? How low is your bar?

He can't reach the bar. His intellect won't reach it.

He holds the opinion of a child and administers what little he understands and knows like a brat who had his candy taken away from him when Obama became President.

Dan8267 says

Since when is it winning to demand honest elections? How low is your bar?

Demanding honest elections brought us electronic voting and everyone knows you can't rig electronic voting machines that were built with no bid contracts from one single company. Right?

Boo Hoo Poor Poor Liberals they can't get a fair election. Welcome to the Independent Voter's hell buddy. You'll get no such comfort here, not from a bonefide Nader voter, I can promise you that fucking much.

CaptainShuddup says

Boo Hoo Poor Poor Liberals they can't get a fair election

Child move to China, you'd be happy there. Forced abortions, no votes, corporatist's everywhere..

Politicofact says

Child move to China, you'd be happy there. Forced abortions, no votes, corporatist's everywhere..

Why don't you come over and load the truck?

Dan8267 says

1. Get as many people elected in local government and state legislating bodies.

Houston, we have a problem at Step 1.

What Nader misses when he calls Obama and Bush war criminals for conducting drone strikes in sovereign countries is that these strikes are privately or tacitly approved.

The case where this is most clear is Pakistan, where most of the strikes occur. Pakistani leaders must publically decry the attacks as violations of its sovereignty. Local populist politics require this. But it's abundantly clear from their policies that they don't care. The geopolitical reality is that Pakistan has tremendous leverage over the U.S. by way the supply routes into Afghanistan. When the U.S. does something Pakistan really disapproves of, they close the supply routes. They did this over the bin Laden raid, and when we accidentally blew up a number of their soldiers last year.

Yemen has no such leverage, but in Yemen, AQAP is actively seeking to unseat and supplant the local government. The notion that Al-Hadi would privately tell Obama 'no' to a drone strike on AQAP is more than a little absurd. As long as the approval is private, Al-Hadi is free to publically say whatever is most convenient for him politically, and our national interests are in perfect alignment.

Neither government has any operational sovereignty over the areas we bomb. Neither government lodges formal complaints with the ICC. Occasionally one hears feigned righteous indignation out of these countries, but actions and interests speak louder than such words.

"Ralph Nader speaks the truth"

Ya what's new? Unfortunately Ralph Nader, as well as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will never win the sheeples votes precisely because they are honest, consistent and speak the truth.

Instead the sheep will always vote Democrat or Republican citing imaginary differences between the two parties or differences of the past LONG GONE. Today Democrats and Republicans are the EXACTLY THE SAME. Any difference you think you see between Democrats and Republicans is smoke and mirrors. They are both the same party. With two different names.

I don't have the slightest bit of sympathy for these sheeple conditioned to vote "Democrat or Republican" or for "whoever they think will win" or because "Mcain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam" or "Romney is handsome" or "I don't like Al Gores smile" or "I like that Bush is from Texas" or "Obama is black".

These are not reasons to vote for someone as President.

The thinking seems to be somewhere along the lines of: "Yes we know there are honest, hard working people with integrity like Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich who uphold the Constitution and serve the people. But we can't vote for them because they don't have a chance of winning."

Make sense?

CaptainShuddup says

Demanding honest elections brought us electronic voting and everyone knows you can't rig electronic voting machines that were built with no bid contracts from one single company. Right?

Which is exactly why electronic voting machines should not be privatized, should not have "trade secrets", and should be open source so that everyone in the world can verify their design.

uomo_senza_nome says

Dan8267 says

1. Get as many people elected in local government and state legislating bodies.

Houston, we have a problem at Step 1.

If third parties can't win local elections, there is no point in them trying to win the presidency. It's far easier to change local politics than high level federal politics. The higher the office, the more resistant to change and the more money protecting the status quo. Obviously any upcoming party must first win the small games before entering the big league.

We already know who's going to win: OBAMA.

The 47% and "harvesting" videos have guaranteed an easy victory for Obama.

Nobody is going to tolerate Gordon Gekko in the White House.

Since there are so few sources in this thread, here's a great one showing video of candidate debates.

http://www.slatev.com/video/political-kombat-12-romney-vs-santorum-and-cain/

Dan8267 says

If third parties can't win local elections, there is no point in them trying to win the presidency. It's far easier to change local politics than high level federal politics. The higher the office, the more resistant to change and the more money protecting the status quo. Obviously any upcoming party must first win the small games before entering the big league.

Agree. although mobilizing grassroots movements is hard (lot of fundraising involved) and probably why they fizzle out.

I think there just needs to be cohesive "Indepent" movement. No not "Grassroots", that just code for Somebody has to beat someone else to the punch and copyright the name, and set up the "Official" bank account for donations. Then donations from the people that are against the interest of the movement, start investing and call the shots for the money they kick in.

But a real movement, to get the word out vote independent. Not Green, not Tea Party, not the Libertarian party but any and all parties, should be advised to consider over the current dual option presented to us on city, state and Federal level.

A movement that demands a bigger say in the Primaries, especially when an Independent favorite is co opted into either party, for a greater good. Then their Independent constituents should damn well be better able to vote against Ass Clowns like Herman Cain, Newt fucking Gringrich, Joe Perry, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, or Mitt Goddamn Romney, then that way, Ron Paul would be the winning President come November 7th IF just that small injustice of Democracy didn't exist.

Sure Ron Paul was in Primaries but a good 80% of the people that would have voted for him, were not able to nominate him.
Don't forget a large portion of his supporters were also Democrats that were lied to in 2008. They were not able to Vote for Ron Paul in this election either.

You shouldn't have to go around changing your allegiance on you Voter registration card based on the choice of Idiots running. What's the point of even having parties, if you're just going to jump from party to party like changing a funky pair underwear?

Especially when you aren't even sure what your choice of Idiots are going to be in given election season, until it's too late to change your voters registration card anyway.

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

Since when is it winning to demand honest elections? How low is your bar?

Demanding honest elections brought us electronic voting and everyone knows you can't rig electronic voting machines that were built with no bid contracts from one single company. Right?

Boo Hoo Poor Poor Liberals they can't get a fair election. Welcome to the Independent Voter's hell buddy. You'll get no such comfort here, not from a bonefide Nader voter, I can promise you that fucking much.

Nader is for everything liberal that you are against. He is for:

Socialized medicine
A pollution tax
Extremely pro-union
Regulating corporations and investors
Affirmative action
Welfare
Raising minimum wage
Progressive taxation
Fighting global warming
Heavy government involvement/spending in education, the environment, and transportation.

He is against:

Corporate involvement in public schools
Nuclear power
Standardized testing

He is as liberal as they come. You rail against liberals all day long, then you bitch because Nader didn't get elected. You seem like you're just plain angry at the world.

Homeboy says

Nader is...as liberal as they come.

..and he called ObamaCare "a disaster."

curious2 says

..and he called ObamaCare "a disaster."

The fact that he disagreed with Obama doesn't make him conservative or libertarian; he's still a liberal. Probably more so than Obama.

Dan8267 says

Daily Trader says

Al Gore was even more unelectable than Mitt Romney.

Al Gore was elected.

Thank you. Al Gore won the popular,and, without Supreme Court interference, the electoral vote in 2000. Bush also lost in 2004, I refer people to Harvey Wasserman's work in covering his home state of Ohio, and the election steal therein.

msilenus says

Neither government has any operational sovereignty over the areas we bomb. Neither government lodges formal complaints with the ICC. Occasionally one hears feigned righteous indignation out of these countries, but actions and interests speak louder than such words.

The empire brooks no interference.

"Especially when you aren't even sure what your choice of Idiots are going to be in given election season, until it's too late to change your voters registration card anyway."

Considering how dangerous it is that airplane windows don't open, I'm sure as heck going to vote for Mr. Romney, who brought this issue to the forehead, er, I mean forefront!!

monkframe says

Neither government has any operational sovereignty over the areas we bomb. Neither government lodges formal complaints with the ICC. Occasionally one hears feigned righteous indignation out of these countries, but actions and interests speak louder than such words.

How do you define "operational sovereignty"? Elaborate. What does that mean? It's okay to missile attack an area of a country where they can't defend themselves because they don't lodge complaints with the ICC?

Moronic.

War is murder. It's wrong. It's never okay to attack other country unless your being attacked first and have no other choice but to defend yourself. War is a last resort. Not a first.

Homeboy says

Nader is for everything liberal that you are against. He is for:

Who says I'm against those things? You have no idea what I'm for or against. Nader, Paul, and Kucinich, are for reforming the corruption in Washington, that makes every Liberal gesture an exercise in Irony.
They are not for Outsourcing important social, medical and economic services out to no bid corrupt corporations. Or having a run away FED policy that destroys middle class and small business. They would NOT tout a life on Welfare over a strong middle class. IF they offered services and help to anyone, then it would benefit a majority of people that fit that description, instead of a select fringe of beneficiaries.
They would NOT impede any investigations into, any Federal worker, elected official or appointee.

These three candidates first and foremost are for fighting the corruption in Washington, not claiming "Transparency" while creating a greater convoluted kluge.

These guys would not be Suing crooks that can afford the lawsuit, but would be championing full prosecution. These guys would all be for investigating Senators and Congressmen that voted for legislation that benefited their financial potfolio.

These guys are Liberals, they are the genuine article.

I'm all for peoples right to vote, does that make me and you the same?

Try using a smaller pencil.

Something tells me, Nader would have considered Cheap solar panels from China a huge step in the right direction. And something else tells me there would have been a hell of a lot of explaining to do, for any company like Solydra, with a disasterous outcome such as they had. It was obvious corruption but they got a pass. Because it was a Liberal innitiative.

THere is no freaking way, Nader would put partisanship above all else to NOT do the right thing by the American people.

You also left out one huge important part.

Ralph Nader IS NOT a Liberal Democrat. If he was, he would have ran on the Democrat ticket and won in 2000. It was the Liberals that threatened to arrest him for showing up at the DNC convention and the Debates.

Comeon you assholes can't co opt everything and everybody, that claims to be on the side of the American people. In fact 4 years have proven Liberals are on the Elite rich Liberals side. Everyone else can fuck off. If you're middle class and caught in tough times you're SOL.

Liberals expect you to walk away from all of your worldly possessions and become indigent. But even then, you would have made to much with in that year, so come back next year after you've suffered a year of sheer destitution, then they MIGHT talk to you.

You have no CLUE what you're talking about, you just like the way "Nader and Liberals" in the same sentence rolls off the tongue.

CaptainShuddup says

Who says I'm against those things? You have no idea what I'm for or against. Nader, Paul, and Kucinich, are for reforming the corruption in Washington, that makes every Liberal gesture an exercise in Irony.
They are not for Outsourcing important social, medical and economic services out to no bid corrupt corporations. Or having a run away FED policy that destroys middle class and small business. They would NOT tout a life on Welfare over a strong middle class. IF they offered services and help to anyone, then it would benefit a majority of people that fit that description, instead of a select fringe of beneficiaries.
They would NOT impede any investigations into, any Federal worker, elected official or appointee.

Oh, I see - Nader is for the "good" kind of welfare, but anyone else who is for welfare is for the "bad" kind of welfare.

Do you even listen to yourself? You are like a parody of a cranky old man who sits in his La-Z-Boy and yells at the TV. But you have no idea what you're yelling about.

You don't even realize that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are polar opposites in many ways. Kucinich is WAY more liberal than anyone the Democrats have run in the last 50 years. I voted for him in the primaries.

You spend all day posting your rants here, and then claim I can't know what you are for or against? Why, are you lying about it? I'll ask you, then.

Are you for or against welfare?

Are you for or against corporate involvement in public schools, i.e. "Charter schools"?

Are you for or against standardized test scores as a means to rank public school teachers?

Are you for or against nuclear power?

Are you for or against socialized medicine?

Are you for or against military spending?

Are you for or against gay marriage?

Think about these things, and then do some research as to whether the politicians you endorse actually agree with you.

Homeboy says

Oh, I see - Nader is for the "good" kind of welfare, but anyone else who is for welfare is for the "bad" kind of welfare.

Nevermind.

Obama is doing a fantastic job, and you're right Nader is not Liberal public enemy number one. He is really a Liberal, but he thought he could do better on his own, even against the behest of the Liberals begging him to run on the Democrat ticket. You're right sorry for any confusion I might have caused carry on.
I'm done arguing with revisionists, some people there just isn't any reaching. Belive what you want buddy. Just do me a favor, don't bitch at me for Voting for Nader. He is after all, how you put it... A Liberal.

Are you for or against welfare? - We had welfare in this country, a great system, that was there to provide help for anyone that needed it. A crutch for people that needed it when they needed it.
It needed to be fixed by prosecuting corruption and fraud. How was it overhauled by Clinton? By creating more venues to exploit through fraud. How has Bush and Obama fixed it even further? By making it impossible to qualify unless you are a small fringe of people that qualify. Mostly Latina, or Black females. Everyone else can go pound sand. This is not me, this every American in the last 4 years that thought it would be there for them. Google around before you replay with your manufactured Liberal response.

Are you for or against corporate involvement in public schools, i.e. "Charter schools"?
I'm against all Corporate involvement in any government or public entity.
Like contractors that supply gas to the USPS, bill 200 gallons although they only delivered 100 gallons. They actually go to truck to truck there is no way to actually meeter what was dispensed on the governments side. (True story, a coworker has the FBI contacting him about a company he worked for last year, investigating this very subject).

This is why I'm for government health care agency from the schools to the hospitals, and since it's federal grants that provide most research, the US government should get full license to all drugs they supply grants to research. But more on this later on your Healthcare question.

Are you for or against standardized test scores as a means to rank public school teachers?

I belive all schools in Ameirca deserve the same resources as the next, there should not be one single neighborhood in America where people pay a premuim to live because of the "public schools", if you want a leg up and you have the money. Then damn it send Jr. to a private school, like its always been. Liberals have hijacked the American education system as their private 'Prep School' for their precious spawn, while encouraging, fostering and protecting the rights of the bad students in the 'metal detector' schools.

Are you for or against nuclear power?
I'm for an energy policy that provides affordable energy. I'm against speculation in any sector. We were on the right track, I though we were working harder in the 80's to do away with nuclear energy, and provide better and safer alternatives. Some where along the way it got profitable to politicize all energy while touting a Unicorn Mythical magic power. Let's get real about the resources we have, then let's have an adult conversation on how to best utilize them.

Are you for or against socialized medicine?
I am, unfortunately Democrat Americans are not.
Nothing where pay you a premium will ever be called "Socialized Medicine".
If it smells like shit, then it damn well is. Insurance has investors that demand premiums inflate faster than wages. Health care should be not for profit, and should come from taxes, and staffed by federal workers. Every child in America with the grades, regardless of income or social class, should be educated in federal medical schools(but not limited to) to be Doctors, then have to work in the federal healthcare system for up to 8 or even 10 years. Before they can into private practice. This system should exist right beside a private health for profit industry.

Are you for or against military spending?
Yes to pay for Healthcare, and to stop bombing people and laming our youth, and creating shell shocked nut jobs, that are politicized and place on a fast track to take jobs, because Liberals or anyone feels guilty. Even if those Vets aren't qualified for those jobs. Also lets not forget, these kids signed up for these Wars.

Are you for or against gay marriage?
I'm neither for or against gay marriage.
Though in reality, marriage is a religious sanctity, the government does not have the right to write laws pertaining to the definition of Marriage.

HOW EVER!!!
I do believe all long term cohabitants should enjoy the same legal standing as married people. You might not believe it, but there are brothers, sisters or even best friends that live their whole lives together. Don't they deserve the same rights and say so as married or even would be Gay married couples? Or is this about "LOVE"?

There monogamous, symbiotic relationships that have nothing to do with love and marriage. Shouldn't a brother, sister or a friend that has lived, supported a sibling, or friend and for all intent and purpose have been a household unit by any definition sans the affair, deserve rights as well?

If you think not, then the Gay marriage argument is more about ramming the Gay agenda down the religious institution rather than having rights recognized.

premium,
a.
at an unusually high price.

CaptainShuddup says

Nader, Paul, and Kucinich, are for reforming the corruption in Washington, that makes every Liberal gesture an exercise in Irony.

Nader, Paul, and Kucinich are almost the very definitions of liberal. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Any true libertarian is by definition a liberal. Nader and Kucinich are socialist, but that's an economic philosophy, not a social one. Both are liberals as both advocate social freedoms.

And yes, I like these three politicians on government reform and human rights issues even though I disagree with all three on economic issues. I'd still support any of them.

Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar are actually good friends and have come together on many human and civil rights issues despite being polar opposites on economic issues.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QLdcB0ln9t8

Even Noam Chomsky gives proper respect to Ron Paul. If the double-dumb fucks in the Republican rank and file had the sense to nominate Ron Paul, Obama wouldn't get re-elected. By nominating 47% can suck my balls Romney, the Republicans have forfeited the election and no amount of election fraud (voter ID suppression) is going to change that fact. And to think, the Republicans literally rallied behind every alternative to Mitt Romney except Ron Paul

Tecumcari says

Dan8267 says

It's been mathematically proven that Al Gore won the election. No amount of time is going to change that fact.

Only if your 'math' uses conjecture on how people MEANT to vote.

Tecumcari says

Also, Presidents don't win elections from the popular vote but via the Electoral College.

Did you read the fucking paper? It does not use any conjectures and it addresses electoral college votes, not popular votes. Finally, it's not my math, it's math period and the math was done and shown in complete detail by Cornell University, Northwestern University, University of California, and Harvard University and published in the peer-reviewed political journal American Political Science Review. With those fucking credentials making a snarky remark is no refutation.

If you honestly think the math is flawed and all the peer reviews by highly qualified skeptics didn't catch it, than show a mathematical proof that their math is wrong. That's what a peer review board would do.

Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. I've got a highly qualified peer-reviewed journal that shows all its work as proof that Al Gore won the election versus a snarky assertion that "math is wrong" to say Gore lost. Which side would anyone with a brain favor?

Dan8267 says

Even Noam Chomsky gives proper respect to Ron Paul. If the double-dumb fucks in the Republican rank and file had the sense to nominate Ron Paul, Obama wouldn't get re-elected

The Problem with Ron Paul was, he ran in a closed primary, the majority of his supporters were disillusioned Democrats, and hardcore Independents. His base was NOT allowed to nominate him.

Daily Trader says

"I mean, for fuck's sake, your last post seems to be saying he was unelectable because he kissed his wife. What the hell?"

That kiss more more than just a kiss. It was a failed attempt to make Gore not look so robotic.

It never ceases to amaze me how Americans like to seize on the unimportant in elections. Gore kissed his wife wrong. Obama "fist-bumped" with his wife. Obama looked at the floor. Dennis Kucinich is too short. etc.

Here's an idea: Maybe we could start judging presidential candidates by how good a job they would do as president, not by a bunch of fucking stupid irrelevant trivialities. But I guess I'm asking too much.

CaptainShuddup says

Belive what you want buddy. Just do me a favor, don't bitch at me for Voting for Nader. He is after all, how you put it... A Liberal.

Vote for whoever you damn well want to vote for. I don't care. I'm just calling you out for your inconsistencies. You don't understand the issues, and you don't understand which candidates are for which things. But that sure doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off all the time.

Homeboy says

Gore kissed his wife wrong. Obama "fist-bumped" with his wife. Obama looked at the floor. Dennis Kucinich is too short. etc.

We have television to thank for that. Style is now more important than substance.