View Single Post
  #49   Report Post  
Old January 7th 05, 12:25 AM
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank.


No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the
first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still
support the office, just not the man.

Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king.


That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an
unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.
And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.

The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?


He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on
the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm



If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the
Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. The two big
parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if
it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate. The only thing
this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in
free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along,
and also why I don't vote for either of them.

Also, notice that the article states that Nader had his own petition
to run under the Reform Party ticket. So which petition won?