And to think that it might have been Alan Keyes…

I don’t agree with this. I firmly believe that the naderites cost us the 2000 election. You make statements that imply proof yet I see none.

ASk and ye shall receive…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAyNWXnTZ84

And how exactly is getting rid of gop domination of our country not progress?

When you realize that both the Democratic party and Republican party are nearly identical. The only thing that changes is the face of puppet that is running for the office.

I understand exactly what you mean and I was there myself 8 years ago.

The only significant difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain espouses that he is pro-life where Obama espouses he is pro-choice. Either candidate will continue the Bush doctrine of preemptive war.

I don’t agree with this. I firmly believe that the naderites cost us the 2000 election. You make statements that imply proof yet I see none.

If it had not been so close then the gop could not have stolen it and it would not have been that close without nader in the mix…..it’s called a spoiler and it’s a fact. Perot did the same to the gop in the 90’s

I understand your sentiments and they are shared with many but where does it say in the Constitution that Ralph Nader did not or does not have the right to run for president?.

By using this tired old spoiler logic it can just as easily be concluded that Gore lost the election for Nader.

bitterale Says:
Do not lose sight of the fact that the word “progress” is in the title of this blog.

And how exactly is getting rid of gop domination of our country not progress?

bitterale Says:
If you mean his supporters kept Gore form losing the 2000 election then that tired old sod was disproven years ago.

I don’t agree with this. I firmly believe that the naderites cost us the 2000 election. You make statements that imply proof yet I see none.

If it had not been so close then the gop could not have stolen it and it would not have been that close without nader in the mix…..it’s called a spoiler and it’s a fact. Perot did the same to the gop in the 90’s

bitterale Says:
I am under no allusion that Cynthia or Ralph can win the election but it is important to not exclude them from the debates. Their presence will raise the bar and hopefully allow for a more relevant discourse.

I would agree with this. There seems to be no logical reason to exclude them from the debates.

bb doesn’t get it and I’m not surprised.

bitblt thinks that you should call a black man an arab based on name.

bitblt thinks Barrack Obama is not a man who made it in the world by himself, unlike mccain, bush, etc.

nader took gop money to run against democrats. How do you get around that?

I believe it was in Oregon and was a safe Democratic state.

Admittedly that did not go unnoticed by me at the time and it upset me as well because it was before I awoke and realized how futile the exercise of voting for the lesser of the two evils really is.

Do not lose sight of the fact that the word “progress” is in the title of this blog.

I am under no allusion that Cynthia or Ralph can win the election but it is important to not exclude them from the debates. Their presence will raise the bar and hopefully allow for a more relevant discourse.

While bit understands that BHO’s father was from Africa, it strikes bit as somewhat( a bit ) misleading to refer to BHO as African-American. While technically accurate this hyphenated American designation usually means that one is the descendant of slaves brought to the North American continent in the early days of the British colonies. BHO does not descend from these slaves who help build the USA.

Further, the Senator’s first two names are distinctly Arabic. Was BHO’s father an Arab? If so, wouldn’t it be more accurate to call him an Arab-American?

bit doesn’t thing this is particularly important. However, it doesn’t seem somewhat( a bit ) ironic that the first African-American candidate for POTUS is not a descendant of slaves, but more likely a descendant of slave owners.

nader took gop money to run against democrats. How do you get around that?

Kay Says:
bitterale,

thanks for reminding me that Cynthia was the first African-American nominated for President! (Green Party!)

Wasn’t Jesse Jackson a nominee at least once before that?

Obama is actually going to get elected though and that’s the point I think.

I’m not sure how Nader could marginalize himnself. Seems counterproductive to me if it were even possible. If you mean his supporters kept Gore form losing the 2000 election then that tired old sod was disproven years ago. Any one of the other seven independents running for president had more votes than the Bush/Gore margin. The Dems blamed Nader because it was easier than facing the truth that Gove and the Dems ran a very poor campaign.

One more note about Nader: I’m willing to try a consumer advocate. Weve tried corporate advocates for decades which led us to the mess we are in today.

*****
“I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it then to vote for tsomething i don’t want and get it.”
Eugene Debs
*****

thanks for reminding me that Cynthia was the first African-American nominated for President! (Green Party!)

bitterale Says:
Cynthia McKinney was the first African American nominee for president. There will be no need to marginalize her, as they will Ralph Nader

Cynthia will be heard more now than ever. It’s not democrats who have silenced her it is the republicans.

nader marginalized himself….as did perot, they are the same.

…and the first brotha to LOSE!!

Nice going Hussein!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You really are a worthless ignorant piece of garbage arent you. Stupider than brass bubblegum and a bigot to boot. Do the world a favor and DO. NOT. BREED.

Will

move on traitor. You are gum on the bottom of a shoe.