Nader wants liberals to vote for Rand Paul

[arely staircase]

http://theweek.com/articles/447342/ralph-nader-wants-liberals-back-rand-paul-dont

[leftofcool]

1. Of course he does.

Then he will be assured a repuke president.

[riqster]

2. Natch.

He hasn't changed a bit.

[MBS]

79. yup. n/t

[trumad]

3. Fuck Nader!

[COLGATE4]

104. X 10000 !! nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Wow, a boogeyman from the past!

Who else will be pulled out of the spooky doorway to scare people into voting Hillary?

Psst.... no one cares what Ralph Nader wants these days. His 15 minutes are long over.

[djean111]

6. Yep. You got it.

[blm]

53. dj, you need to reread what he posted.

The poster is playing this AGAINST Hillary. I'm a well known Clinton critic here at DU, but, I know when someone is taking unfair swipes at her in order to push the left toward Rand Paul.

[arely staircase]

21. who do you think pulled him out ?

Why is he generating headlines?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. First someone named Bill Scher.

Then you decided that headline and that story needed to get further exposure here at DU.

[blm]

52. Nader is 'scaring' people to vote for Hillary? LOL - he's on the Rand2016 bus

just like some here at DU are while they're posing as liberals open to a candidate like Rand Paul.

I am NOT a coincidence theorist, Mr Erich.

[djean111]

5. I don't think Nader will get what he wants.

But, of course, if the Dems do lose, this gives cover to the "the damned liberals did it!" bullshit.

[still_one]

13. not at all. In case you are unaware, the Democratic party does not walk with one voice, but is an

inclusive party. The vast majority of liberals will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, including if it is Hillary.

Ralph Nader is NOT a Democrat. In fact from his book he has pretty much destroyed the illusion that he is even liberal since he is telling people to vote for Rand Paul.

[djean111]

28. Seems that I see "you liberal lefty hippies voted for Nader and that is why Bush won"

almost every day, here. I didn't say liberals WOULD vote for Rand Paul, I am saying that, if the Dems lose, the Centrists will blame it entirely on "liberal lefties voting for Rand Paul because Nader told them to".

[hobbit709]

7. Nader can want what he wants but he ain't getting it.

[tabasco]

8. Nader is a narcissistic rat bastard

[WhiteTara]

11. Make that Nadir, narcissistic rat bastard. nt

[still_one]

9. Then that pretty much says it all. Either Nader has completely lost his mind, or he is a racist and

sexist bigot. Encouraging people to vote for Rand Paul is telling folks to vote for someone who is anti-gay, believes in discrimination, and unequal treatment between the sexes.

Nader has made himself even more irrelevant than he was before.

No, Nader is a bad penny, and by this book, he has probably destroyed any legacy he might have had

goodbye Mr. Nader, the vast majority will never take you seriously again

[Luminous Animal]

69. He didn't tell anyone to vote for Rand Paul. The title of the OP is a lie.

And so is the headline of the article. The original article is here…

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

[Electric Monk]

74. Thanks for posting and clearing that up. Liars do their cause more harm than good. nt

[still_one]

87. Assuming he didn't endorse Paul, the asshole said President Obama should be impeached, and as far as

I am concerned he has become an irrelevant jerk who has become a tool for the MSM

[Blue_Tires]

100. That puts Ralph in an even worse light

"Impeach Obama?" He's lost his fuckin' mind...

When did Nader go full circle and become a Teabagger?

[stevenleser]

110. See my #108 nt

[snooper2]

124. Well, he has one thing right "The Emerging Left-Right Alliance"

You can see that with the far right and far left love fest over Putin...

The circle is complete!

[SamKnause]

10. No.

[Kahuna]

12. Of course he does. Why does ralph hate America? nt

[DinahMoeHum]

14. "I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole"

- Bob Weir/Grateful Dead

http://artists.refuseandresist.org/news14/news679.html

(snip)
Ralph Nader is the most arrogant and narcissistic guy I've ever met. I had a meeting with him in the early Nineties. I was jazzed going into the meeting, and I was disgusted leaving. I don't think I've ever met a bigger asshole.
(snip)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

127. I'll never forget meeting him. Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., circa 2002?

If anyone who knows Washington, D.C., knows Dupont Circle traffic. It is not pedestrian friendly. So I spotted Mr. Nader from across the street--cars coming on both sides around the circle. I was so emotional and hyped up that I had to meet him. Nearly killed himself running across the street trying to catch up with the man. I finally got to him, exasperated and out of breath. Asked to shake his hand. He looks at me as if I had the measles. No smile. I said something like: Thank you so much for all you've done for the 'little guy', the environment, for workers' rights. Something like that. He gives me a have-nod and a little scoff, turns, and walks off.

[onecaliberal]

15. Fuck Nader. That pos needs to stfu!

[Cha]

16. FO,nader

[Scuba]

17. "Unsafe at any Speed" was Nader's last worthwhile endeavor.

[Archae]

26. Even that has turned out to be badly written.

Had General Motors just let Nader stew in his own juices, the book would have joined "Chariots Of The Gods" in the credibility department.

But GM decided to put private investigators on Nader's butt, and that gave him legitimacy.

[ProfessorGAC]

115. Beat Me To It, Arch

The safety methodology was also flawed, so the very premise of the book is tenuous at best.

Not saying that cars aren't WAY(!!!!) safer today, but the car he targeted was actually not significantly different than all the other cars on the road. They were just littler.

And even today, chances of getting hurt in a smaller vehicle are higher than in a bigger vehicle. They made cars safer. They didn't change the laws of physics.

[Archae]

122. Exactly, and the Corvair was a sports car.

Sports cars are made to be driven by experienced drivers who know about tire pressures and cornering at high speeds.

GM marketed the Corvair to everyone, and inexperienced drivers had disastrous events.

1950's cars were mostly shitty, over-stylized and under-quality.
The 1959 Cadillac was the worst example I can think of.

The 60's cars were better, but the resistance of the car companies to even seat belts showed how out of touch the big car makers were.

A 1970's National Geographic illustrated quite emphatically how careless US car makers were, compared to Japanese car makers.
And it became evident by sales.

[Autumn]

18. Liberals won't back Rand Paul. We are smarter than that.

[LWolf]

19. .

[hrmjustin]

20. Nader has lost all credibility imo.

[arely staircase]

22. one would think

Hey, Justin

[hrmjustin]

25. Hey arely!

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

41. To Democrats, maybe

[hrmjustin]

44. to me definitely.

[betterdemsonly]

24. So the DLC thinks coalitions with the right are the

same as voting for the right? Interesting, but so typical of the hypocritical selfrighteosness of the dems that always make coalitions with the right on right wing causes like the Iraq War, social security privatization and mandates.

[Spazito]

27. Yeah, go with the racist guy who wants to go back to the "whites only" good old days...

is all about privatization of everything, good plan.

[betterdemsonly]

32. As if none of the coalition for social security privatization fit this profile! n/t

[Spazito]

33. So lets get this clear...

You think it's better to support a racist who wants to privatize everything on a myth the Dems want to privatize Social Security??? Seriously?

[betterdemsonly]

34. Many dems want to privatize social security, particularly the third way, new democrats.

Nader only advocates coalitions with the libertarian right on lefty pet causes like rooftop solar and anti-interventionism

[Spazito]

36. Nader is promoting a racist who wants to privatize everything...

that is what the OP is about, you do realize that, right?

[betterdemsonly]

38. The original post mischaracterized coalition building as promotion

The dlc/thirdway/newdemocrats would make coalition with racist Rand Paul to privatize social security, so by the standards of the original post they advocate voting for him.

At least Nader will cooperate on issues the left wants done, as opposed to the third way cooperating on accomplishing right wing causes.

[Spazito]

57. Wow...just....Wow...

and

[zappaman]

82. You said it, bub.

[Comrade Grumpy]

61. That racist guy is reaching out to minority communities...

...on things like sentencing reform and the war on drugs.

And he's working with liberals like Cory Booker and Pat Leahy to do it.

It's that whole left-right coalition thing against the corporate center that the article refers to.

[Spazito]

64. Some might be okay with the racist guy, I'm not...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

As to reaching out to minority groups, it is laughable, imo. The minority communities are not fooled by him, they know his history of racist views.

[Comrade Grumpy]

70. It will be interesting to see if it gets him any traction. n/t

[Spazito]

71. Chances are slim to none n/t

[SidDithers]

35. What is a dameocrat, anyway?...

Anybody else posting at DU and Dailykos. Any ideas for talking about chained cpi
any ideas on how to encourage green voting without getting banned?

Sid

[betterdemsonly]

39. quit spamming every other thread I am in with this same post. n/t

[SidDithers]

42. Why won't u answer the question?...nt

Sid

[betterdemsonly]

43. I have no clue what you are talking about? n/t

[SidDithers]

48. Riiiight...nt

Sid

[morningfog]

95. Stalkers gotta stalk.

[SidDithers]

120. And Green Party disruptors gotta disrupt...nt

Sid

[snooper2]

142. how about every third thread?

[arely staircase]

75. :-) nt

[zappaman]

81. !!!

[hrmjustin]

46. How do you feel about Nader's view on Paul and impeaching Obama?

[betterdemsonly]

47. Lieberman and other democrats voted to impeach the Clinton

Quit pretending right wing dems are loyal when they aren't They have also jumped ship to campaign for Reagan, and Nixon.

[hrmjustin]

51. Lieberman was in the senate at the time so he did not vote on impeachment.

He voted against conviction in the Senate. A handful of house Democrsts did vote for impeachment.

I am not a defender of Lieberman.

Now if you don't mind sharing please tell us your views on what Nader said on Obama and Paul.

Thanks in advance.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. ...

[hrmjustin]

60. it's a shame. I would have like to hear the posters view on it.

[zappaman]

84. Me too!

But I have a feeling we never will...

[OilemFirchen]

63. "the Clinton"

[Warren DeMontague]

90. i think they musta meant

"The Clenis"

[geek tragedy]

117. Only a racist fuckwit would consider Rand paul an acceptable president nt

[Generic Other]

29. Something we can all agree

aint gonna happen!

What an ass.

[libodem]

30. Fuck Nader

[bigwillq]

31. No, thank you (nt)

[jwirr]

37. Hasn't he caused enough problems already? He has an article in the "Yes" magazine for Spring 2015

on what he thinks about the two party system called "The New Left-Right Alliance Against Corporate Rule". It starts out with him telling us how the Rs and Democratic Party are both owned by Wall Street. I am sure there are people here on DU that agree with him.

I like the magazine but I wish they would not give him a means to spout his bull again. I don't think he has ever admitted what his 3rd party did to this country in 2000. Until he finally acknowledges that he helped the bush crime family take over DC I am not interested in what he has to say.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

40. He aint the only one, i cant say anymore...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Maybe he can convince Paul to run 3rd party and split the R vote.

No, I'm not worried about him poaching D votes because he's not a civil libertarian but a 10th Amendment fetishist.

[betterdemsonly]

50. It would be fun if we had a four way general

maybe it would compensate for the total lack of democracy in the primary coronation of Hillary.

[liberalhistorian]

73. You are aware

that she has not actually announced her candidacy and that we don't know for sure if she's even running?

[Enthusiast]

49. Man...he has completely lost his mind.

[vi5]

54. Idiotic, but the whole thing is transparent....

Trot out the Nader Boogeyman to be sure we keep voting for the lesser of two evils and marching the Democratic party into oblivion.

[jpak]

55. Fuck Nader

yup

[Fiftyone]

56. Paul knows nothing about the economy

He would be a terrible president.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. At last! Nadir's mask as a Liberal falls and his Libertarian face is exposed

by his own words - although I've always noticed that he's always far more critical of Democrats than he is of Republicans.

[MFrohike]

62. A pair of morons

Both the subject of the article and the writer. What that writer doesn't know, or acknowledge, about the history of liberalism in America would just about fill the Grand Canyon.

[Gothmog]

65. Who cares what Nader thinks?

The man gave us CJ Roberts and Justice Alito. He is not a democrat and only cares about himself

[Politicalboi]

66. Ralph!

[Luminous Animal]

67. No he doesn't. Nowhere in the original article does Nader state that. Nowhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

[Chathamization]

93. I noticed that too. But apparently, facts aren't needed anymore.

I disagree with a bunch of the stuff that Nader said in that article, but apparently criticizing people for what they've actually said isn't enough for some. Now we need to spread lies and disinformation about them as well.

Eh...

[stevenleser]

111. See my #108 nt

[Chathamization]

114. In neither the book or the linked article does Nader do what the OP says

Though your view that when the facts don't match up with a claim we should just pretend that their are secret facts which do is telling.

Book:

In fact, Nader never says this or anything close to this. The index in Nader's Unstoppable reveals three mentions of Rand Paul on pages 43, 92 and 109:

p. 43: "In 2013, Senator Wyden [D-Oregon] teamed up with Republican senator Rand Paul to introduce legislation that would legalize industrial hemp grown in the United States."

p. 92: "In fact, in 2013, a debate over the military and domestic use of drones broke out, sparked by Senator Rand Paul's twelve-hour filibuster, which brought together mainstream conservative and liberal think tanks, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and citizen activists of both Right and Left."

p. 109: "In March 2013, Senator Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont], chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the new senator Rand Paul introduced the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, allowing judges to impose sentences below mandatory minimums."

Nowhere in Unstoppable does Nader ask liberals to sacrifice any part of their ideals to rally behind Paul. In fact, Nader tells liberals just the opposite, telling them to be uncompromising in their principles, "To create a convergence that will work and endure, at the onset those from the Left should have a take-us-or-leave-us stance, indicating they are not ready to compromise their principles but will work with any good-faith conservative who shares this one goal."

Linked article:

Nader suggested that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D – Mass., would be a strong alternative to Clinton, with her understanding of “corporate power,” but said that Warren won’t run because Clinton has “dried up” the prospects for other Democratic contenders to compete.

Nader has his own vision for who he’d like to be president and has even put forward a proposal of 20 billionaires who he encourages to run for president – a list that includes media mogul Oprah Winfrey and environmentalist Tom Steyer.

“That's where we're at now: 20 billionaires with some enlightened background and I said run. Run! Run as an independent,” Nader said. “Just to shake up this two-party tyranny … So maybe one of them will run. We certainly have enough of them, don't we?”

Misinformation (or, lies if you prefer) gets spread around a lot, and most of it gets thrown around unchallenged. Mostly because it's easy to throw out a garbage claim with no evidence, and it takes time to disprove it. And when evidence is provided disproving, the response is usually to deny it and keep making the false claim; or do what you did, and just pretend their are secret facts that back up the claim without providing any evidence of them.

[stevenleser]

118. You have disproved nothing. You still don't have the book to read.

I'll reserve judgment until the book is out.

[Chathamization]

126. The book is it. I provided the excerpts pertaining to Paul in my post, which shows that Nader didn't

do what the OP claims. I shouldn't have to remind people of this, but it's apparently necessary - if you make a claim (the claim in the OP that Nader wants liberals to vote for Paul; your claim that Nader's book backs that up) the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Despite the fact that people shouldn't have to prove a negative (but since I know that many like to throw out claims without providing any proof), I bothered to look into it myself and provided all the excerpts from the book pertaining to Rand Paul - none of which say what the OP says.

I can't really think of any greater way to prove that Nader's book does not say what the OP says about Rand Paul than to show everything Nader wrote about Rand Paul in the book (and again, I shouldn't even have to do that since the onus is on the individual making the claim).

[stevenleser]

128. you can phrase it 100 different ways. You still arent looking at the book. nt

[Chathamization]

135. Yes I am. The book is available here, and it doesn't say what you claim (as I posted earlier):

Link. Again, the onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence. If the book wasn't available online, it would be much easier for your misinformation to stand. But now I've provided you with the excerpts about Paul, from the book, which shows that your claims are false, yet you still insist on misleading people and spreading falsehoods.

Which is part of the reason why the person making the claim is supposed to provide the evidence; it's not every time that such claims are so easy to disprove, and so at times when the information is harder to access (for example, if this book wasn't online), it'd be much easier for individuals to stand by their falsehoods saying, "well, since neither of us have read the book, you can't prove that my claim is wrong!"

[stevenleser]

146. No, you're not looking at the book. You're doing an index search. It will not show all pages.

You're making assumptions on content when all content is not available.

And let's be clear, my sole 'claim' is that the reviewer has had his hands on the book and is probably correct.

[Chathamization]

147. No, the link I provided let's you search the book, even if you bizarrely believe the index is lying

And a search of the contents of the book shows that mentions of Rand Paul appear, yes, where the index says it does, and where the earlier article said they were. Nader does not say he wants liberals to vote for Rand Paul in the book (both an index search and a search of the books contents show this); the article in the OP doesn't say that Nader says it in the book, and the article in the OP even links to an article where Nader shows Paul's not his preferred candidate.

It's telling, because there's not much misinformation that could be debunked as thoroughly as this; it's telling that despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, some people will still spread the falsehood. I suppose it's because the truth is meaningless to them.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

68. I think I'm gonig to ralph.

[uppityperson]

72. frp. eom

[Scootaloo]

76. "To kick off his publicity tour..." well, there you go.

[chillfactor]

77. like hell I would....

Nader and Paul....two peas in a pod...

[pnwmom]

78. This is the real Nader, the one that deliberately threw the 2000 election to Bush. n/t

[tavernier]

80. I do not like that pompous ham,

I do not like him, Sam-I-Am.

[peacebird]

83. Rand Paul thinks gay marriage is evil, thinks social security & medicare should be privatized

He believes in no environmental regulations, just total freedom for corporations.

Sound like a perfect fit for liberals.... NOT.

[Rex]

85. So he is now a center-right winger? How totally sad and pathetic.

The man had an actual career saving the environment, so sad he gave it up to become a cheap politician.

[arely staircase]

88. and a cheap politician on the fringe, go figure nt

[Rex]

106. I totally agree and he further lost his shit with a pie to the face.

Should have stuck with the environment and not got mixed up with moonbats like Ron Paul imo.

[arcane1]

86. No fan of his, but I didn't see anywhere in the article where he says that.

Did I miss it?

[stevenleser]

108. The article reviews a book that the article author no doubt had access to. A main

Theme of the book, written by Nader, seems to be a coalition between the progressive left and the libertarian right. This is a frequent theme of libertarian leaning TV and radio shows. When I am on shows like that they ask me about the prospects of this all the time. Like Nader, Libertarian leaning Conservatives who ask me about this are hoping they can put Rand Paul or someone like him into the White House.

My response to them is always the same. Look at the problems that Democrats have keeping progressives in the coalition and there is 60-80% agreement in the corresponding positions. Libertarians are fooling themselves if they think they can get progressives to support Rand Paul in any significant numbers when there is less than 40% agreement there.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Is "Cap'm Integrity" taking money from Republicans again?

[brooklynite]

91. "impeach Obama"!

When it comes to the current president, Nader said that Obama has violated the Constitution on several occasions and should be impeached.

"Oh, most definitely," Nader said when asked if Congress should bring forward articles of impeachment against Obama. "The reason why Congress doesn't want to do it is because it's abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

[Blue_Tires]

101. Ralph would fit right in on the current DU...

[Liberalynn]

92. Nader can go shit in the woods

and I hope he gets poison ivy on the front and back. Rand Paul thinks 80 percent of the people on SS Disability are making up their illness. Well I'm not making mine up and I wouldn't hire Rand Paul to clean up after my dog.

[Beausoir]

94. Heh. Ralph was the same guy who said W. was too lazy to be a dangerous President.

Nader is a dumb fuck...way past his sell-by date.

[Major Nikon]

96. ...and the horse he rode in on

[McCamy Taylor]

97. They must have something on Nader. Or else, he is senile.

[Marr]

98. I don't see there part where Nader says liberals should vote for Rand Paul.

Perhaps you can quote it?

[stevenleser]

109. See my #108 nt

[JHB]

99. What's that noise? Is there a mosquito in the room?

Go away Ralph. Come back when you can deliver votes.

[MADem]

102. Oh, I'll BET he does...because nothing says "liberal" like a racist teabagger with a squirrel on his

head!!!!

If there was any question as to his shit-stirring ways, the questions have been answered. I think we're past due for a Fuck Ralph Nader thread...where's EarlG?

[PoliticAverse]

103. Who? n/t

[samsingh]

105. is he fing serious? what fing moron. he's the reason that bush was able to steal

the election

[Agnosticsherbet]

107. Nader, working to Republicans elected since 2000

I guess in his old age he has gone full libertrian free market raicst.

Not surprised.

[seabeyond]

112. He really is a piece of shit. Nt

[Historic NY]

113. It be a cold day in hell if I'd vote for either of those two loonies....

Nader is way past the spoilage expiration date.

[KamaAina]

116. What about those of us without rugs?

Who do we vote for?

[Orsino]

119. Looks like that sweet, sweet Fox money did indeed go to his head. And heart.

He's still calling out the right evils, but imagining a Rand Paul as any sort of solution is not just stupid; it's a lie.

[yellowcanine]

121. Yes, since Rand Paul is a big environmentlaist and supporter of consumer protection laws.

[Omaha Steve]

123. Sad attempt to get in the public eye

He needs to get back under his rock.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

125. He wants me to vote for a fucking racist? No fucking way!

[LynneSin]

129. And I want Ralph Nadar and any 'liberal' that listens to this fool to kiss my ass

Rand Paul is hardly the Libertarian wet dream. I mean I guess if one is a wealthy land-owning Christian then you are in luck but for the rest of us we would be shit out of luck.

[Hekate]

130. Ralphie, go home. Your mother's calling you.

[fredamae]

131. Nader fails to understand

that no Liberal...who is a liberal, in real life, will entertain this bs longer than the time it takes to A) Read the headline; and B) wipe the coffee off their screen.
FU Nader.

[mmonk]

132. That is why Warren and Sanders are the consumer protectors now.

[Capt. Obvious]

133. Nader endorses Elizabeth Warren

Nader said he never tells anyone not to run for president but that he would oppose a Hillary Clinton presidential bid.

“She's turned into an international militarist,” he said. “She's far more hawkish than Obama.”

Nader suggested that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D – Mass., would be a strong alternative to Clinton, with her understanding of “corporate power,” but said that Warren won’t run because Clinton has “dried up” the prospects for other Democratic contenders to compete.

From the actual article

[Capt. Obvious]

134. Nader would like to see President Oprah

Nader has his own vision for who he’d like to be president and has even put forward a proposal of 20 billionaires who he encourages to run for president – a list that includes media mogul Oprah Winfrey and environmentalist Tom Steyer.

“That's where we're at now: 20 billionaires with some enlightened background and I said run. Run! Run as an independent,” Nader said. “Just to shake up this two-party tyranny … So maybe one of them will run. We certainly have enough of them, don't we?”

[Chathamization]

136. Yep, that's what the actual article says. Some people on DU are working overtime to deceive their

brethren. I hope posters take this as a lesson in checking sources rather than trusting the claims made here.

[BainsBane]

137. He's gone insane

Truly. Rand Paul is far, far right and would undo all the consumer protections that Nader worked to implement before he became a resentful, old man. Pretending that Paul would dismantle the "corporate state" (which is really the capitalist state) is very strange because Paul's record is the precise opposite. He stands for unfettered capitalism. All Paul wants to dismantle is government.

[arely staircase]

138. spot on nt

[Capt. Obvious]

140. He also wants Warren to run

He's lost his mind.

[Blue Owl]

139. Ralph is just another word for the act of vomiting

[Takket]

141. if he apologizes for 8 years of Bush, i will consider it.

[olddots]

143. Ralph should be opening for Nugent

at some chili cook off before the monsrer truck show .

[DiverDave]

144. Sure, I do what all egomaniacs tell me

Dude, you wrote 1 book, and turned our country over to the shrub.
Is he contrite? nope.
Stay classy ralph

[hifiguy]

145. Fuck the eternally irrelevant Ralph Nader.

That is all.

[tblue37]

148. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. nt