Kerry-Bush Polling

[nick2]

kaiser: I'm voting for Nader, no matter how much that may harm my next favorite candidate (Kerry).

And your reasoning is ...?

[BurnKU]

Originally posted by nick2@Mar 1 2004, 04:41 PM

kaiser: I'm voting for Nader, no matter how much that may harm my next favorite candidate (Kerry).

And your reasoning is ...?

Probably because he likes his positions. Like I've been saying, Kerry has no chance unless he gets some ideas of his own and stops relying on the hate speech.

[Airshark]

Man, I just don't get it. I can respect the opinions of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, even Communists. But I cannot understand how anybody who has read anything Nader has written or heard him give his opinion on any issue would vote for him for the office of dogcatcher, much less President Of The United States. The guy is an imbecile. The list of candidates I'd vote for before Nader would look like a phone book.

Free trade? Protectionism? Hah! Nader directly stated that the most reasonable remedy for monopolistic practices was for the alleged monopoly holder to produce, advertise and distribute their competitor's products free of charge. If that sounds like I'm making it up, Google his proclamations about the Microsoft v Netscape case. On CNN's Crossfire, he not only reiterated this idea, but stated that breaking Microsoft up would be insufficient punishment, even though he said that the public had not suffered any penalty for the Microsoft free distribution of Internet Explorer. His suggestions in this case, incidentally, have also included forcing Microsoft to charge for products and services that it currently gives away for free - how that helps the consumer, I'll never understand.

Ralph Nader has no problem making pronouncements on issues he knows nothing about. I'm not sure there are issues he knows anything about. Democrats should be the first to shoot him down, because he probably cost Gore the election in 2000, and he might be the difference this time.

[ScottStevens]

Originally posted by kaiser+Mar 1 2004, 04:27 PM-->

QUOTE(kaiser @ Mar 1 2004, 04:27 PM)

[lazydaze]

Originally posted by Airshark@Mar 1 2004, 04:44 PM
Man, I just don't get it. I can respect the opinions of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, even Communists. But I cannot understand how anybody who has read anything Nader has written or heard him give his opinion on any issue would vote for him for the office of dogcatcher, much less President Of The United States. The guy is an imbecile. The list of candidates I'd vote for before Nader would look like a phone book.

Free trade? Protectionism? Hah! Nader directly stated that the most reasonable remedy for monopolistic practices was for the alleged monopoly holder to produce, advertise and distribute their competitor's products free of charge. If that sounds like I'm making it up, Google his proclamations about the Microsoft v Netscape case. On CNN's Crossfire, he not only reiterated this idea, but stated that breaking Microsoft up would be insufficient punishment, even though he said that the public had not suffered any penalty for the Microsoft free distribution of Internet Explorer. His suggestions in this case, incidentally, have also included forcing Microsoft to charge for products and services that it currently gives away for free - how that helps the consumer, I'll never understand.

Ralph Nader has no problem making pronouncements on issues he knows nothing about. I'm not sure there are issues he knows anything about. Democrats should be the first to shoot him down, because he probably cost Gore the election in 2000, and he might be the difference this time.

Go Nader GO

[kaiser]

Originally posted by nick2@Mar 1 2004, 04:41 PM

kaiser: I'm voting for Nader, no matter how much that may harm my next favorite candidate (Kerry).

And your reasoning is ...?

Because he's not Bush.

I mean, that's a good enough reason, isn't it, to vote for someone?

[Bleacher Creature]

I'd rather vore for Ralph Kramden than Ralph Nader.

Seriously, is this what the American electorial process has come to? I mean we have a joker entering a race against two clowns. I think we would get better people to run, across the board, if we were to knock off the nitpicking of a person's personal life, and would focus on the issues they bring to the table. I don't give a retarded Quizno's rats rump about who he/she is sleeping with, or, whether or not they served in the guard thirty years ago.

[Bleacher Creature]

Originally posted by kaiser@Mar 1 2004, 04:46 PM
Because he's not Bush.

I mean, that's a good enough reason, isn't it, to vote for someone?

Pete Rose isn't Bush.

[kaiser]

Originally posted by The Kev@Mar 1 2004, 05:00 PM
Pete Rose isn't Bush.

You got me there. Is Pete running? Maybe I'll have to consider him if he is.

He's certainly got more base hits than any of other candidates.

[Airshark]

Originally posted by kaiser+Mar 1 2004, 04:46 PM-->

QUOTE(kaiser @ Mar 1 2004, 04:46 PM)

[King]

Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 1 2004, 04:29 PM

I ..... going to vote for Ron Paul ............................

I took the liberty of editing your post, lazy.

You're now officially my hero.

[lazydaze]

Hey...

Oh well the point was made

[glen a richter]

Let's not count out John Edwards so fast. We can save that for after tomorrow.

Disclaimer: I'm voting for Edwards tomorrow.

[BurnKU]

Originally posted by glen a richter@Mar 1 2004, 05:51 PM
Let's not count out John Edwards so fast. We can save that for after tomorrow.

Disclaimer: I'm voting for Edwards tomorrow.

As interesting as Edwards is, he's done. I have a lot more respect for him than Kerry.

[glen a richter]

Originally posted by BurnKU+Mar 1 2004, 05:53 PM-->

QUOTE(BurnKU @ Mar 1 2004, 05:53 PM)