« Get the Cardboard Box Ready Under the Bridge | Main | Gallows Humor »

Republicans for Nader

One Word...

ABC News: Who Backs Nader?

July 24, 2004 Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's quixotic presidential campaign says it submitted about 5,400 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot, far short of the required number of 30,000. Luckily for him, approximately 43,000 signatures were filed by Michigan Republicans on his behalf, more than meeting the requirement.

Heh


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Republicans for Nader:

» On The Third Hand linked with Sorry, but I have to laugh...

Comments (10)

"Heh"????Win at an... (Below threshold)
Jack:

"Heh"????

Win at any cost?

That's nice to know...

I'll refer you to Baldilocks since I don't have the proper "conservative" credentials to be taken seriously about how wrong this is.

All they're doing, Jack, is... (Below threshold)

All they're doing, Jack, is helping a legitimate candidate for the presidency get his chance to be judged by the voters. What can possibly be wrong with that?

Oh, really????Then... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Oh, really????

Then why are they not helping Nader in EVERY state, including those that are not "solid red"????

Riddle me that, Batman...

(excuse me while I enter fu... (Below threshold)
Bartlet:

(excuse me while I enter full rant mode)

Win at any cost? That's nice to know.

No you little nit wit.

Winning at every cost is Democrats suing in court to make sure that our military people don't get the right to vote.

Winning at every cost is Democrats suing in court to make sure that some people's votes are counted differently than others.

Winning at every cost is Democrats suing in court to change the rules of an election AFTER it has been run.

Winning at every cost is replacing a candidate the primary voters DID vote for and replacing him with a candidate they DID NOT vote for.

Winning at every cost is exactly what the morons on your side of the isle have been doing, you delusional twit.

Grow up, get a life and learn a little history you brain damaged sycophant.

(Close full rant mode)

Sycophant?For whom... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Sycophant?

For whom?

A sycophant is "a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people". Who exactly am I trying to flatter here?

If you're going to rant, at least rant intelligently, Bartlet...

I merely asked why the Republicans are NOT helping Nader get onto the ballot in EVERY state if they are "merely assisting the democratic process" rather than nakedly trying to split the vote so that their candidate can win.

I did not try to defend (or even bring up) ANY of the actions supposedly mounted by the Democrats that you mentioned, nor did I say I supported the Democratic candidate, as you assumed in your statement of "Winning at every cost is exactly what the morons on your side of the isle have been doing, you delusional twit."

Statments like that are exactly why our democracy is going to shit.

Jack," you delus... (Below threshold)

Jack,
" you delusional twit."

I'd say that statements like that have an equal effect.

Both parties play dirty politics. Live with it or try to change it. Two choices. Wining about the other side usinig the same tactics your side uses is not one of the choices.

I merely asked why the R... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I merely asked why the Republicans are NOT helping Nader get onto the ballot in EVERY state

The problem is Jack, you are asking a stupid question.

What does it matter how many states Republicans do this in? You are asking a stupid question and you wonder why you don't get an answer.

I'm sure Republicans would do it in every state if they could.

Your are implying that since they have not done it in every state it is evil. DUH! If they did it in every state, wouldn't it would be "more" evil?!?

You aren't making any sense.

Ask a question that has merit and perhaps you will get an answer.

Ask goofy, irrelevant questions and don't be too surprised if you get your rhetorical hat handed to you.

Just a friendly word of advice.

Kathy,I believe yo... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Kathy,

I believe you misread my last comment, I was the one CALLED a "delusional twit", not the one name calling. It was included in my comment as a direct quote (copied and pasted) from Bartlet's comment.

Paul,

Your attempt at a "friendly word of advice" is appreciated, but my question was in response to McGehee's comment of "All they're doing, Jack, is helping a legitimate candidate for the presidency get his chance to be judged by the voters. What can possibly be wrong with that?" What is wrong with that is they are NOT interested in "helping a legitimate candidate get his chance", otherwise they WOULD be working in every state to get that candidate on the ballot. My question was asked not to be answered, but to point out this hypocrisy. Sometimes asking a question in this manner is more effective than just saying "you're a hypocrite". Apparently in this case, it is not. So, I will say that if McGehee's statement is the true Republican position, then that position is hypocritical unless they try to get Nader on the ballot in EVERY state.

Okay, let me rephrase:... (Below threshold)

Okay, let me rephrase:

All they're doing, Jack, is helping a legitimate candidate for the presidency get his chance to be judged by the voters of M ichigan. What can possibly be wrong with that?

After all, it's a decision made by the Michigan Republican Party, is it not?

Anyway, my response was intentionally snarky, because I don't take your objection seriously enough to care to debate it with you in substance. I think you're making a fool of yourself to come flying out of your skin over it like this. As has been said before by wiser (and no doubt sadder) men than you Jack, "Politics ain't beanbag."

Odd, saying I'm "flying out... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Odd, saying I'm "flying out of my skin" when my first comment referred to the objections to the tactic posted at Baldilocks, who's conservative credentials should be reasonably up to date, and I get called a "delusional twit" and "brain damaged sycophant" (towards whom I am playing the sycophant has yet to be answered).

Who exactly is flying out of their skin here? Seems to me the only people making fools of themselves are those who not only start name calling for no reason but then cannot even use the appropriate names.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy