soxfan420 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Apu you get your copy of bush and his wife yet??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 24, 2004 Author Share Posted February 24, 2004 This piece from Democratic Underground took the words right out of my mouth: Appearing on NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday, Nader announced that he is once again running for president of the United States. It seems that Saint Ralph couldn't stand the idea of sitting this one out, and putting the interests of the country ahead of his own massive ego. He has once again illustrated how he is the nation's Number One Bush Enabler. Apparently, multimillionaire Nader has been too busy counting his savings from the Bush tax cut to notice or care that the Bush Administration has damn near ruined our country in less than four years. After a few perfunctory and lackluster criticisms against Bush, Nader (as usual) heaped most of his contempt on those of us who are actually out here trying to defeat the illegitimate, unelected moron. In a particularly gag-inducing bit of spin, Nader said that his critics on the left were "against democracy, against freedom." Funny, that sounds kinda like what Ashcroft and Bush said about us when we dared to criticize them these past few years. OK there are a couple of problems with their statement. First of all the don't forget the Kerry's are the richest of all of the canditates running. I guess I must have missed them going down to the fed and returning all of the extra money they got from the tax cuts. If anyone has benefited from the tax cuts Ralph Nader would have benefited the LEAST of Bush, Kerry, and Nader. Accusing Nader of counting his money is ignorant of the facts, and misleading. And number two, in reality who are the democrats to decide who can run as an independant. I didn't hear any of them telling Ross Perot not to run while Clinton was going into office with less votes in both elections (and % of vote) than Bush got. I don't think Bush is a saint, I would relish a canditate that I could vote for instead of him, but this is the same ignorant propoganda that the Repulicians put out. I don't know how you can post this as an endorsement of what the Democrats are doing, while assailing the Republicians for doing the exact samething. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 another cartoon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I like this one too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I like this one too. I thought Tiny Tim Russert remained utmost neutrality -- as someone of his stature would be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 You are correct, it is that simple. But in the upcoming election where we are all aware that votes "for Kerry" will really be votes "against Bush", and Kerry just happens to be the guy. Every election is that way. Do you think that everyone who disliked Gore liked Bush? There were people that would vote straight party line if an actual Donkey ran as the Democratic candidate and an actual Elephant ran as the Republican. Most elections are about who people dislike the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 OK there are a couple of problems with their statement. First of all the don't forget the Kerry's are the richest of all of the canditates running. I guess I must have missed them going down to the fed and returning all of the extra money they got from the tax cuts. If anyone has benefited from the tax cuts Ralph Nader would have benefited the LEAST of Bush, Kerry, and Nader. Accusing Nader of counting his money is ignorant of the facts, and misleading. And number two, in reality who are the democrats to decide who can run as an independant. I didn't hear any of them telling Ross Perot not to run while Clinton was going into office with less votes in both elections (and % of vote) than Bush got. I don't think Bush is a saint, I would relish a canditate that I could vote for instead of him, but this is the same ignorant propoganda that the Repulicians put out. I don't know how you can post this as an endorsement of what the Democrats are doing, while assailing the Republicians for doing the exact samething. i agree ss. by no means i think Bush is a saint, but in my opinion i dont think he has done a bad job, especially given the unique circumstances he has had to face. And, in my opinion Kerry wouldn't do a better job and i will be voting for Bush. Both sides skew the facts, both sides only tell parts of stories, both sides lead you to believe things that arent true or arent totally true. But, the problem i have is what right do the Democrats have to tell who can and who cant run as an independent. They have none. Thats what really bothers me with this. If Nader wants to run, it is his RIGHT and no one should be 'ordering' to not if that is what he wants to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Remember the 15%/presidential debates catch-22 Nader always complains about? I think he woulda kicked Gore's and Debya's ass had he been allowed to partake. That wouldn't get him elected, but it would surely humiliate both parties. let him run as an independent if he can. Good for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 OK there are a couple of problems with their statement. First of all the don't forget the Kerry's are the richest of all of the canditates running. I guess I must have missed them going down to the fed and returning all of the extra money they got from the tax cuts. If anyone has benefited from the tax cuts Ralph Nader would have benefited the LEAST of Bush, Kerry, and Nader. Accusing Nader of counting his money is ignorant of the facts, and misleading. And number two, in reality who are the democrats to decide who can run as an independant. I didn't hear any of them telling Ross Perot not to run while Clinton was going into office with less votes in both elections (and % of vote) than Bush got. I don't think Bush is a saint, I would relish a canditate that I could vote for instead of him, but this is the same ignorant propoganda that the Repulicians put out. I don't know how you can post this as an endorsement of what the Democrats are doing, while assailing the Republicians for doing the exact samething. It's not meant to be an endorsements of the Dems but rather a critique of Nader and his self serving egotism. If Nader was really concerned about democracy, he'd be cementing the Green party together behind candidates after he's done running and funding them and mobilizing them into a more effective party. As Dean said, if Bush wins in 2004 then the progressive work that Nader has done will be rolled back and curtailed. Nader is going to have trouble getting on the ballot in the first place and having to bankroll it as an independent is not smart in a political perspective. If Nader is true to his guns that he wants a viable party against the Republican/Democrat structure, then he should work to build up the Greens and make it so they can get on ballots in all 50 states amongst other things. If that means not running a Presidential candidate in 2004 then so be it. That's my personal opinion about Nader and his egotism to run this campaign in complete opposition to his goals of wanting a viable 3rd party is beyond comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Nader's running? oh darn... Bush is a lock now. Too bad Kerry, for a moment there I thought you had a chance. LMFAO!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!!! Yeah, of soap-droppin' and ass-tacklin' in the barracks, maybe. I thought W would win in a landslide 3 months ago. Now I am not so sure. I don't put much stock in the primary-phase polls, way too early, but you can't help but wonder when friggin' Edwards is projected to Beat bush by a solid margin - Edwards! I wish GOP will be as arrogant as our Nukey-boy about their chances in the forthcoming elections the rest of the way. I wish they are as complacent as they have been lately. They think they have it locked in the lo-ck bo-x (hehe) and the Smirkinator's recent "I am not gonna lose" is telling. Nader running as an indep this time around which should limit the "damage" especially now that many of his backers see what their folly led to in 2000.....and the unified (or rather unifying) variegated anti-Bush movement is gaining major momentum. Do you honestly think Dems have little-to-no shot in 2004, soldier? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I 'd be happy if there was real campaigning going on in either of the camps. Mudslinging is old and shows that the slinging candidate can't stand on his/her (in pres case this year his) own abilities. Tell me what you did that makes you a good candidate, what you will do for this country, not some BS from years ago that has almost no bearing on now. ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Bush is a lock now. Too bad Kerry, for a moment there I thought you had a chance. LMFAO!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!!!! Four more years?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Four more years???!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The book photo is fake. The second one is pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The book photo is fake. The second one is pointless. So now you are probbably going to tell me this one is a fake, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 So now you are probbably going to tell me this one is a fake, too? Or this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Or this? That's from a powdered donut, silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 It's not meant to be an endorsements of the Dems but rather a critique of Nader and his self serving egotism. If Nader was really concerned about democracy, he'd be cementing the Green party together behind candidates after he's done running and funding them and mobilizing them into a more effective party. As Dean said, if Bush wins in 2004 then the progressive work that Nader has done will be rolled back and curtailed. Nader is going to have trouble getting on the ballot in the first place and having to bankroll it as an independent is not smart in a political perspective. If Nader is true to his guns that he wants a viable party against the Republican/Democrat structure, then he should work to build up the Greens and make it so they can get on ballots in all 50 states amongst other things. If that means not running a Presidential candidate in 2004 then so be it. That's my personal opinion about Nader and his egotism to run this campaign in complete opposition to his goals of wanting a viable 3rd party is beyond comprehension. So what does that say about Edwards, and espesially Kucinich and Sharpton? They are wasting my tax dollars to have the same chance at election as Nader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 So now you are probbably going to tell me this one is a fake, too? No way dude, that one is totally real. Bush had a relapse, got f***ed up on Jager shots and decided to go in drag to a press conference. Personally I like the gorilla pics of Bush better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Personally I like the gorilla pics of Bush better. No, you don't. This you like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 In a particularly gag-inducing bit of spin, Nader said that his critics on the left were "against democracy, against freedom." Funny, that sounds kinda like what Ashcroft and Bush said about us when we dared to criticize them these past few years. Maybe that should show you just how radically far to the left you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 You are correct, it is that simple. But in the upcoming election where we are all aware that votes "for Kerry" will really be votes "against Bush", and Kerry just happens to be the guy. I certainly don't want to see the "against Bush" votes split among possibly several better solutions (compared to Bush and Kerry) if the end result is that Bush wins. This is no time for idealism, it's time for ANYONE BUT BUSH. CAN WE PLEASE GET THIS DOUCHEBAG BUSH OUT OF OFFICE! PLEASE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.