"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...
From a macro-political veiwpoint markie, nader did help Bush. If one
assumes
the greenies were going to vote,

See, Wyanie there's the catch. You assume that folks would just vote for
the sake of votin'.

See my reply to 'tripper below:

************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **
"daytripper" wrote in message
...
Then you don't understand how our system works.

You'll have to provide a little illumination to explain that one, Mark...

/daytripper (the math sez you're quite wrong...)

Math has nothin' to do with it. If I voted for Nader--and I did-- I did so
because I didn't want to vote for neither Bush nor Gore. Had I not voted
for Nader or some other candidate, I wouldn't have voted at all. So You
might as well argue that all the folks who could have registered to vote,
but didn't, and all of the folks that were registered to vote, but didn't
were also spoilers.

I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Why would I want to choose
between Stalin and Hitler? The folks that complain that Nader voters
spoiled the election for Gore are the ones who are spoiled. They didn't get
things their way and so they want to place blame. There is no blame to
place, at least not with part of the electorate that didn't vote for either
Bush or Gore. We made our choices, knowin' full well that our candidate
didn't have a snow-balls chance in hell of winnin', yet we voted for them
nonetheless. Imagine that, there are folks that actually vote their
conscience.

Op
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** ****
But what most democrats conviently forget, that Perot probably did the
same
thing to aid clinton during the first election.

I worked in the Perot petition drive, as it never actually got to the
campaign phase, and I stil don't buy this arguemen.

Op