OT National Laboratory for Bad Government

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Wolfgang wrote:

so, who wants to behave like an adult?.........anybody?

You go first.

Why?

Wolfgang

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Big Dale wrote:
...Kinky Friedman.

He's not a politician, he's a comedy act.

This is from someone who voted (so he says) for Nader in 2000. Nader was
a comedy act that wasn't funny. Not even very slightly funny -- he split
the progressive vote and threw the election to Bush.

Nader was the Green Party candidate in 2000 and a vote for Nader
in Illinois didn't throw the election. If he had received 5% of
the vote in Illinois the Green Party would have been on subsequent
ballots without having to submit petitions.

If anything, Kinky
Friedman has MORE chance of being elected than Nader did in 2000, or in
any other year, and if he isn't then we can rest assured that Texas will
have no ****tier politics than it already has.

They both have exactly the same chance, zero. But Nader came awful
close to getting the Green Party on the ballot in Illinois while
there's not an ice cubes chance in hell that Kinky Friedman's name
will appear anywhere on a Texas ballot unless the voter writes him
in.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Big Dale wrote:

The only Texas
politician that has earned my vote is Kinky Friedman.


He's not a politician, he's a comedy act. Nobody takes
his political aspirations seriously, least of all Kinky
himself.

This is from someone who voted (so he says) for Nader in 2000. Nader was a
comedy act that wasn't funny. Not even very slightly funny -- he split the
progressive vote and threw the election to Bush. If anything, Kinky
Friedman has MORE chance of being elected than Nader did in 2000, or in
any other year, and if he isn't then we can rest assured that Texas will
have no ****tier politics than it already has.

I guess you forgot all about all of those registered Democrats in Florida
that voted for Bush in 2000. I memory serves, more Florida Democrats voted
for Bush (some where in the two hundred thousand vote range) than voted for
Nader, so how could Nader have thrown the election to Bush?

Still can't figure out why the Democrats can't get it right, but unwilling
to admit the fact, heh Steve?

Mark

wrote:

I guess you forgot all about all of those registered Democrats in Florida
that voted for Bush in 2000. I memory serves, more Florida Democrats voted
for Bush (some where in the two hundred thousand vote range) than voted for
Nader, so how could Nader have thrown the election to Bush?

It's very simple -- so simple that even you should understand it. If
Nader hadn't been on the ballots then Bush would have lost to Gore. That
is irrefutable.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:

I guess you forgot all about all of those registered Democrats in Florida
that voted for Bush in 2000. I memory serves, more Florida Democrats
voted for Bush (some where in the two hundred thousand vote range) than
voted for Nader, so how could Nader have thrown the election to Bush?

It's very simple -- so simple that even you should understand it. If Nader
hadn't been on the ballots then Bush would have lost to Gore. That is
irrefutable.

Hm......so, if pigs had wings they WOULD be Eleanor Roosevelt?

Irrefutable. What's more, logically and empirically unassailable.

And yet.......I don' theen so Kweeksdraw.

Wolfgang
good god, the boy is stupid.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:

I guess you forgot all about all of those registered Democrats in Florida
that voted for Bush in 2000. I memory serves, more Florida Democrats
voted for Bush (some where in the two hundred thousand vote range) than
voted for Nader, so how could Nader have thrown the election to Bush?

It's very simple -- so simple that even you should understand it. If Nader
hadn't been on the ballots then Bush would have lost to Gore. That is
irrefutable.


What is irrefutable, is if all the Dems in Florida had had confidence in
there party's candidate, Gore would have won.

Gore lost because Dems in Florida didn't think he had what it took. Nader
wasn't a factor.

Mark

wrote:

I guess you forgot all about all of those registered Democrats in Florida
that voted for Bush in 2000. I memory serves, more Florida Democrats voted
for Bush (some where in the two hundred thousand vote range) than voted for
Nader, so how could Nader have thrown the election to Bush?

Just like I said, he split the progressive vote. If Nader hadn't been on
the ballot, Gore would easily have won Florida. (A good argument can be
made that he won it anyway.)

The situation was not unlike the Bush/Clinton/Perot race in the 1992
election. Perot split the angry, paranoid, nutcase (i.e.,
"conservative") vote.

Why do you think the Republicans go out of their way to get Nader on the
ballot, and the Democrats go out of their way to keep him off?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
Just like I said, he split the progressive vote. If Nader hadn't been on
the ballot, Gore would easily have won Florida. (A good argument can be
made that he won it anyway.)

You just don't get it, do ya? If all those Dems that voted for Bush had
voted for Gore, he would also have easily won Florida, but they didn't and
the SCOTUS decided to coranate Bush.

Gore lost, anyway you spin it!


The situation was not unlike the Bush/Clinton/Perot race in the 1992
election. Perot split the angry, paranoid, nutcase (i.e., "conservative")
vote.

Why were all Perot supporters: " angry, paranoid, nutcase
(i.e.,"conservative[s]")? Perhaps because you didn't support Perot?

Why do you think the Republicans go out of their way to get Nader on the
ballot, and the Democrats go out of their way to keep him off?

It's called corruption of the political system. Anytime either of the two
major parties feels threathened they resort to their time-honored
undemocratic dirty tricks.

Get over it Steve, Gore ain't POTUS and Bush is a puppet of the American
Christian Taliban.

Mark