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?

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.

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

snip
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 are a living testament to Milton's biography of an enigmatic young
man who said, "I ate what?"

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

snip
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 are a living testament to Milton's biography of an enigmatic young
man who said, "I ate what?"

Grapes sour?

On 07 Jan 2005 02:17:19 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

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

snip
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 are a living testament to Milton's biography of an enigmatic young
man who said, "I ate what?"

Grapes sour?


No, I believe the "sour grapes" story was told by Grimm and involved a
nutritionally-challenged fox.




----== 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 =---

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

And they were in '92.........

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.

You acknowledge this, yet you tried to deny that third party
candidates had any effect on the outcome of the election.


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.

So which is it then Frank? Do third party candidates shift votes away
from "the big 2" or not?


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:26:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

And they were in '92.........

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.

You acknowledge this, yet you tried to deny that third party
candidates had any effect on the outcome of the election.


I said nothing of the sort. I simply question how much influence they
had, and how that influence compares the the amount of voting fraud.


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.

So which is it then Frank? Do third party candidates shift votes away
from "the big 2" or not?


Not in my case. If I'm limited to those two choices (or even just one
choice) I simply won't vote for that position, and that's exactly what
I did with a couple races in this last election. But if you want to
gaze into your crystal ball and divine the intentions of other voters
then don't let me stop you.