Nader.

[Blackflag]

There were three assholes in this election that would bring real change: Nader, Kucinich, and Paul. Two are gone.

Obama isn't going to change anything, and you know it. He's not going to end the Iraq debacle. And he doesn't have clue one what to do about the economy. All these big-talking so-called anti-war posers complain about Iraq, but then they'll vote for Obama instead of somebody who will end it.

Which leaves the question - who are YOU going to vote for, you filthy, brainwashed whore? Vote for change, or let the media trick you out all over town?

[LoungeMachine]

I'm going to vote like the brainwashed, tricked out whore I am.

Because you know damned good and well Ralph fucking nader aint going to even win 1 percent of the vote.

And the alternative to Obama, is a 3rd term of BushCO led by a geriatric panderer to the right.

So who is really the one being misled here? You, or me?

You, who actually thinks there's a snowball's chance in hell someone without an R or a D after their name is going to get elected...

or me, who would rather stomach the lesser of 2 evils [again]

The time to START your "real change" tub-thumping will be Jan 21, 2009. Not now, 9 months before the general.

[Nickdfresh]

Nader's a pinhead that is no better than those he claims to be leading the revolution against. He'll get nothing done, except perhaps deliver another election to people like George W. Bush..

[WARF]

Nader is a wasted vote.

[Blackflag]

[i]
So who is really the one being misled here? You, or me?
[/B]

I'm not sure.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He'll get nothing done,

As president, he absolutely could end the Iraq thing immediately. He doesn't need Congress for that, and I believe he would. That's also the best thing someone could do for the economy right now.

And isn't that what (most) everybody wants - an end to Iraq and something done abou the economy?

You know with anybody else, there's still going to be troops in Iraq four years from now.