On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:30:14 GMT, Lancer wrote in
. com:

On 07 Jan 2005 00:31:35 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

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

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.

Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected.

You really think that Nader made that much of a difference?


That's a question which can't be answered because there's no way to
tell how many Nader votes would have been Kerry votes if Nader hadn't
run.

My question is if Nader had more influence on the election than voting
fraud. That -can- be answered if there were more fraudulent Bush votes
than the total votes for Nader, which may indeed be the case.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---