IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / further to nader
Post #362,493
by rcareaga
Picture of rcareaga
9/12/12 12:36:52 AM
Reply
New further to nader
http://www.lawyersgu...ph-lecture-series

cordially,
Post #362,499
by Another Scott
9/12/12 8:33:20 AM
Reply
New He makes a very strong case. Thanks.
Post #362,503
by mmoffitt
9/12/12 10:29:42 AM
Reply
New I thought it was a load of crap.
Especially the closing. But then I found this comment and felt much better.
Sorry Scott, Gore was way to the right in 2000. He repudiated the party’s commitment to national health care and ran as a war hawk, including on Iraq. He chose the right wing Joe Lieberman as his veep candidate.

Nobody is ever entitled to the vote of their base. You can certainly argue that it was worse for the country for the left to turn to Nader, but they didn’t owe Gore anything. Gore had every chance to repudiate his conservativism, choose a leftist veep candidate, endorse single payer and oppose militarism, and get the left to vote for him. He didn’t want to earn their votes.


BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I voted for Ralph in 2008 and it didn't count. So, you can't blame me for anything - even if your logic is as tortured as that exhibited in the article/rant at your link.
Post #362,505
by rcareaga
Picture of rcareaga
9/12/12 2:09:17 PM
Reply
New Ralph in 2008 was harmless, so good for you
And frankly, mmoffitt, I take the strongest exception to your characterization of my logic as "tortured." Even were my thought processes faulty in this instance—which I do not for a moment concede—the proper term would be "enhanced logic." Do have a care.

cordially,
Post #362,510
by mmoffitt
9/12/12 4:32:03 PM
Reply
New Noted. But, ...
in this instance I was referring to Scott Lemieux's brand of logic being tortured. No offense intended toward yours.
     Yeah, the two parties are the same. Give up. Let it burn. - (Another Scott) - (29) - Sept. 7, 2012, 09:53:31 PM EDT
         Yes, they are - (SpiceWare) - (28) - Sept. 8, 2012, 01:01:03 PM EDT
             Point of order. - (Another Scott) - (27) - Sept. 8, 2012, 01:31:57 PM EDT
                 the issue for me - (SpiceWare) - (3) - Sept. 8, 2012, 01:54:43 PM EDT
                     Things can change for the better. - (Another Scott) - (2) - Sept. 8, 2012, 02:26:49 PM EDT
                         it would change faster - (SpiceWare) - (1) - Sept. 8, 2012, 02:40:20 PM EDT
                             Please see my reply below. -NT - (Another Scott) - Sept. 8, 2012, 02:53:51 PM EDT
                 Re: Point of order. - (hnick) - (22) - Sept. 8, 2012, 02:26:36 PM EDT
                     Man - please lighten up a little. :-) - (Another Scott) - (4) - Sept. 8, 2012, 02:53:24 PM EDT
                         yeah, they'll really listen - (SpiceWare) - (3) - Sept. 8, 2012, 04:17:05 PM EDT
                             It was an important call. - (Another Scott) - (2) - Sept. 8, 2012, 04:51:53 PM EDT
                                 it was Sheila being Sheila - (SpiceWare) - (1) - Sept. 8, 2012, 06:52:00 PM EDT
                                     Meh. 14 years ago.... :-) - (Another Scott) - Sept. 8, 2012, 07:06:52 PM EDT
                     turning your stomach - (rcareaga) - (16) - Sept. 8, 2012, 07:48:35 PM EDT
                         <blush> You're far more eloquent than me. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4) - Sept. 8, 2012, 09:05:42 PM EDT
                             I'm eloquent. You're cogent. There's a difference. -NT - (rcareaga) - (3) - Sept. 8, 2012, 11:16:27 PM EDT
                                 Who's Curly then? -NT - (malraux) - (2) - Sept. 8, 2012, 11:20:19 PM EDT
                                     Every man for himself! -NT - (Another Scott) - Sept. 8, 2012, 11:23:45 PM EDT
                                     Hey Moe! Poink. -NT - (crazy) - Sept. 9, 2012, 07:00:47 AM EDT
                         Re: turning your stomach - (hnick) - (2) - Sept. 9, 2012, 07:49:05 AM EDT
                             Don't. Lets reason together and get closer to the truth. -NT - (Another Scott) - Sept. 9, 2012, 08:40:02 AM EDT
                             'course I don't want you to shut up. - (rcareaga) - Sept. 9, 2012, 09:41:11 PM EDT
                         Um, "not second-guess your ethical stance"? - (mmoffitt) - (7) - Sept. 10, 2012, 10:15:23 AM EDT
                             I was talking about *his* ethical stance - (rcareaga) - (6) - Sept. 10, 2012, 01:26:23 PM EDT
                                 :0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5) - Sept. 10, 2012, 02:38:36 PM EDT
                                     further to nader - (rcareaga) - (4) - Sept. 12, 2012, 12:36:52 AM EDT
                                         He makes a very strong case. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - Sept. 12, 2012, 08:33:20 AM EDT
                                         I thought it was a load of crap. - (mmoffitt) - (2) - Sept. 12, 2012, 10:29:42 AM EDT
                                             Ralph in 2008 was harmless, so good for you - (rcareaga) - (1) - Sept. 12, 2012, 02:09:17 PM EDT
                                                 Noted. But, ... - (mmoffitt) - Sept. 12, 2012, 04:32:03 PM EDT

"Yes, but what if you get out of that groove?"
"Well, then I'm in trouble."
206 ms