Damnit Ralph (530 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.59 on 18 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Uncle B. (View user info) at 2008-02-24 13:06:24 EST
Why you gotta do this to us again...
Seriously man, stop being an attention whore, only 600k votes in 96, 2 million in 2000, and 400k in 04, please stick to protecting our consumers.
There is no reason for you to run again man...NONE.
Sure some people like your ideas, but many people still blame you for Bush's narrow victory over Gore, so c'mon man...please...maybe next time...just not this time.
Damnit Ralph...
(Nader is running again folks)
User Reviews
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-02-25 10:26:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I voted for him in '04, and it's a tossup between him and Ron Paul now for the candidate begging for the most attention.
Which is why I'll write in BRAD LINZY on my ballot come November. The way I figure, ETS is just as stable as either of these guys, if not moreso.
Although, you gotta admit, Ralphie did have a cool campaign slogan last time:
"Vote for what you believe in, not what you fear."
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2008-02-24 18:18:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Kodos (a space alien): It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
Man: He's right; this is a two-party system.
Homer: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang (also a space alien): Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
- From The Simpsons
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-02-24 16:56:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This sucked. I don't care what your political views are, if your post sucks I'll -2 it.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-02-24 16:45:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nader is not an attention whore. He is by far the best candidate in the field. I will not vote for him if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. If Clinton gets the nomination, I might be voting for Nader. Clinton is not enough of a step forward. If she was the Democratic nominee then I would probably choose to spend my vote on trying to get Ralph Nader one step closer to federal funding.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-02-24 16:18:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously. And I voted for him in 2000. I think.
Submitted by beer-turtle (user info) at 2008-02-24 15:18:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't like Gore either, but I really despise Bush.
No conspiracies will be presented nor any real facts...
I don't like the Clinton's either.
I see McCain as an extension of the Iraq war and possibly dragging us into Iran.
Nader is an attention whore.
I could probably get as many votes as Nader if not more....run under the "Why the fuck not" Campaign.
While I may not agree with everything Obama has said, after carefully weighing most of the candidates I decided he would make the best figurehead for our nation.
More than anything else I am just tired of paying $3+ a gallon for gasoline without a matching increase in my pay scale. Exxon made record profits AGAIN...
Iraq wasn't about deposing Saddam it was about keeping oil prices artificially inflated.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 14:17:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fine. You went from shitty tactics to blatant name-calling.
Sure glad I'VE never done that.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-02-24 14:15:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Actually - i don't care. You don't know anything and I'm not going to waste my time lowering myself to your level. You useless sack of spackertude.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-02-24 14:12:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 19:10:34 GMT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good show, Red. Discount accurate statements with "you doan no shit bout our politics!"
Bullshit. I can read as well as you, and have better comprehension. Attacking the accuracy of my comment based on your perception of my knowledge does nothing to further your case in the argument, but shows you use chicken-shit debate tactics.
---
Your initial statement was - at best - shallow and ignorant - and at worst utterly retarded. I simply extrapolated from that.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 14:10:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good show, Red. Discount accurate statements with "you doan no shit bout our politics!"
Bullshit. I can read as well as you, and have better comprehension. Attacking the accuracy of my comment based on your perception of my knowledge does nothing to further your case in the argument, but shows you use chicken-shit debate tactics.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-02-24 14:05:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 18:48:49 GMT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:42:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 18:35:27 GMT (#)
Ranking: 1
Do Americans throw out their heroes as the British discarded Churchill after WWII?
------------
And subsequently re-elected, hardly what Id call discarded.
=========
Yes, he was re-elected when he became the leader of the opposition party. My point is that he was the ultimate hero and was shat upon by the British voters. You have short memories and probabably even shorter penii. :)
---
Your knowledge of British history and politics is laughable.
Look at Wellington and his subsequent 'treatment' by the British public.
I think you'd have to agree that Churchill was a better war leader than a peacetime leader. As was Wellington.
The times change, and the requirements for leaders change as well. That's not betrayal. That's just politics.
wait
are you saying Bush is a hero? If not - where did that madness come from?
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2008-02-24 14:05:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The way I see it Al Gore fucked things up by running, Nader would have run if he didn't.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:55:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll vote for him, and I was going to vote for McCain.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:48:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:42:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 18:35:27 GMT (#)
Ranking: 1
Do Americans throw out their heroes as the British discarded Churchill after WWII?
------------
And subsequently re-elected, hardly what Id call discarded.
=========
Yes, he was re-elected when he became the leader of the opposition party. My point is that he was the ultimate hero and was shat upon by the British voters. You have short memories and probabably even shorter penii. :)
<justfuckingwithyou>
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:42:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 18:35:27 GMT (#)
Ranking: 1
Do Americans throw out their heroes as the British discarded Churchill after WWII?
------------
And subsequently re-elected, hardly what Id call discarded.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:35:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Do Americans throw out their heroes as the British discarded Churchill after WWII?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:15:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Incidentally lots of Americans voted for Bush, not just once, but twice.
I'm sorry, but your nation clearly deserves it if you fall for it twice.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-02-24 13:08:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment