24 February 2008
Ralph Nader is Going to Run for President
Posted by Terrie Soberg under: Presidential Election 2008 .
Things are going to get just a tad more confusing. According to the AP:
WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) – Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will “shift the power from the few to the many.”
Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
“You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”
“In that context, I have decided to run for president,” Nader told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Nader also criticized Republican candidate John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for failing to support full Medicare for all or cracking down on Pentagon waste and a “bloated military budget. He blamed that on corporate lobbyists and special interests, which he said dominate Washington, D.C., and pledged in his third-party campaign to accept donations only from individuals.
Mail this post
58 Comments so far...
Angela Rogin Says:
24 February 2008 at 1:46 pm.
I think he is genuinely a nice man and he does a lot of good things but he is just way too liberal. The good thing is that he should take votes from the dem candidate. Well, I guess that’s a good thing. Which establishment candidate will do more damage I guess is the real question. Probably Barak but at least that will open up the way to get back on track in 2012. If McCain gets in and sinks us, we won’t loose the integrity of our party and any chance to seat a president maybe for a long time.
wpillentn Says:
24 February 2008 at 2:22 pm.
I think Ralph Nader is a good man with good intentions, but he seems to screw stuff up like when Al Gore was running , the votes that Mr. Nader got should of went to Al. I know he wants to mix things up but he really should just support one of the candidates and help to get the United States back on course after bush screwed up things. We need the democrates in office to fix what the republicans screw up every few years. I personaly hope and pray it is Hiliary that wins, Barack Obama talks a good talk but I just dont think he will cut it and we will be in for a longer period of being poor .high gas and causing high price , we need someone in who can stop all the import and make the other countries pay to ship their goods in to the States , like we have to , to send out products to their countries and most wont take our stuff, but we take theirs. not fair and I am sick of it. we need a country wide health plan, get rid of the middle man. the health companys are making to much money and people are dying cause of them. my wish for president would be for a honest hard working man or woman of the people. I know a dream but none of the candidates are those. I think we need to go back to a simple and happy time, why do we let the minority win or the majority. saying the pledge of allegiance should be happening and we should be able to pray and not worry about whose religion we are bothering. let them do their own stuff. we are all free. and we need to stop the government from joining canada and mexico in to one country.
E.E. Says:
24 February 2008 at 3:28 pm.
wpillentn,
Welcome to our site. I think the majority here are Republicans but we have a goal of getting out a message to anyone who believes there should be freedom of religion and it shouldn’t be messed with. So while I don’t agree with everything you said, it doesn’t matter and shouldn’t matter. I agree with enough that there is some common ground. I sure don’t want the North American Union and it would be nice to be free to worship as we wish without the government interfering.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 3:49 pm.
I decided to copy something from the Constitution Party. Personally, I want to work from within the Republican Party to try and bring us back to tenets that fully support the Constitution. It seems like there are more and more Republicans who are recognizing that loyalty to the Constitution is more important than loyalty to a party platform and are willing to work to bring us in line with that great document.
I have always believed in thinking for myself and not blindly following party line in every issue. While I agree with the majority of the Republican platform, I resent those who say if you disagree with anything then you are not a Republican. Who are they to say who is or isn’t a Republican? If they are not inline with the Constitution, then they ought to get in line and not throw people out of the party who are. This brings me to my point which wpillentn brought up. Free trade is unconstitutional. What is worse, our government has even made free trade a scam by making the playing field unlevel against us. Tax breaks for U.S. companies going offshore hurts Americans. Selling raw materials like lumber to Japan and other countries for less than it takes to supply it is not a level playing field. The founders set up tariffs to protect our economy.
If we still had tariffs in place, as do our competitors, we would not have the trade imbalance we do and the dollar would be strong. So here is a little about tariffs from the Constitutional Party:
Article I, Section 8 (in the Constitution) provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of the United States during most of the nation’s history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.
Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.
We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America’s economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America’s capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.
We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 3:58 pm.
Holy cow Joy, you’re a democrat at heart? Free trade isn’t just a small part of the Republican platform, it is major. To not be for it means you’re an isolationist.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:02 pm.
Labels, T. Fan…labels. They are used to shove people in line with party thinking or shove them out. Pat Buchanan was labeled an isolationist even though he is clearly not one during his run for presidency. People bought the label and it finished him. There is a huge difference between being an isolationist and wanting to not let your country be economically raped. We are living in a global economy but we are the only one expected to have an unleveled playing field. Look into it.
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:13 pm.
It is up to us to make our products look desirable to other countries and to our workers to not be lazy and do a good enough job to compete. Globalization is a fact, like it or not.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:18 pm.
I used to buy that line also, T. Fan. Then I really studied the issue and realized we can’t blame our workers. I have read lots of government sponsors ads and promotions for companies to go off-shore. You can’t blame Americans for not wanting to work for 35 cents an hour and work six or seven days a week in terrible conditions. How do you compete with that? Not only that, the companies get huge tax breaks.
We have lost most of our manufacturing base and that is dangerous for multiple reasons.
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:20 pm.
America will be all right. We have something no one else in the world does. We are the most adaptable, inventive nation on earth.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:27 pm.
I’ve heard that a lot. The first time was from a professor in TN who taught at Vanderbilt and was a government consultant. When I gave my report on NAFTA, he tried to argue but I had studied everything I could get my hands on for weeks and he didn’t have a leg to stand on. I had documented facts. Finally the only thing left he could say was that even though we would loose manufacturing and most of our jobs in the long run, it would be okay because Americans were the most inventive people alive.
To that I launched into a rather passionate speech about why the world had moved into a technological age filled with such wonder. It was the freedoms that were built into the Constitution that created a climate where mankind could reach his/her highest potential and become so inventive. I told him that with the eroding of our freedoms, that inventiveness would begin to slip and we would find ourselves on par with the rest of the world instead of ahead.
Also, I told him that it was unreasonable to expect every American to be an inventor.
The third problem is that the world has not become a more peaceful place. From history we learn that the day will come when we will need a manufacturing base to be able to supply materials for a defense war. Without that we are lost.
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:29 pm.
This is a hard one for me. If we start a trade war then we will end up the losers.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:34 pm.
The very sad truth, T. Fan, is that we are already seeing the fruits of free trade and we are the losers. When America is forced to import wheat as we are now, and when we have only six days of food for the stores and most of it is coming from China to COSTCO and Wal-Mart, something is very, very out of balance. Our trade deficit is appalling. Future forecasting looks much worse. Our dollar is falling. Rush Limbaugh is in denial and looking not at facts but only hope, a word he hates. I like Rush but he doesn’t understand economy.
When you study the theory of free trade it sounds very good. But our founding fathers understood something that has been forgotten. Tariffs are necessary because countries put self interest first. Americans were sold on this because we are so giving and open. We are laughed at because we are the only ones sticking to free (and even give away at a steal) trade. The others aren’t playing the game and never will. We truly are being taken advantage of. We just need to stick to the Constitution…they knew what they were doing.
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:36 pm.
Give me some time to think about this. I’m very Republican.
E.E. Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:44 pm.
T. Fan, I’m very republican too but it looks like I’m in the majority now. People are waking up. Here is something from October from the Wall Street Journal.
Republicans
Grow Skeptical
On Free Trade
By JOHN HARWOOD
October 4, 2007
WASHINGTON — By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.
The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy.
Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush’s calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.
“It’s a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. The poll comes ahead of the Oct. 9 Republican presidential debate in Michigan sponsored by the Journal and the CNBC and MSNBC television networks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119144942897748150.html?mod=djemalert
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:48 pm.
I’m getting a headache.
T. Fan Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:48 pm.
I’m going to take a nap. I’ll be back tomorrow.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 4:53 pm.
Well, when you come back tomorrow, I hope you will read this. I know it is hard to differentiate between dogma that is preached by party leaders, and unchanging principles that are found in the Constitution. This is amazingly hard and labels make it even harder. Good luck in your studies.
Stumpy Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:02 pm.
Teacher I dont got no dog or ma so do I get an A?
If I tell you a big secret will I get extra credit?
Them folks preaching free trade is the big businesses who went off shore to get them little kids to work for slave wages. They give big bucks to there buddies in office to make sure there aint no tariffs so they can bring them nikes back here and sell em. Of course they made big promises when they first did all this. They told us them shoes could be sold cheap cause all the money theyd save but guess what? The prices went up. But us dummys aint as dumb as we sound – or write.
E.E. Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:06 pm.
Then again even though this seems like it has been a democrat vs republican issue, the higher up dems like Bill Clinton who was president for NAFTA are all for it. Remember the shaking hands at the top of the political spectrum circle and we all get it. So it doesn’t matter who gets in because both sides want the North American Union. It’s a sell out folks.
Obama hits Clinton on NAFTA support
“Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America,” Obama said. “Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have.”
“The fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president,” Obama told an audience at a factory that makes wall board, located in a working class community west of Cleveland.
“A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a ‘free and fair trade agreement’ and that it was ‘proving its worth.’ And in 2004, she said, “I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America,” he said.
A spokesman for Clinton, Phil Singer, said the former first lady was critical of NAFTA long before she ran for president. He cited remarks from March 2000 in which she said, “What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed.”
Singer also said that in 2004 in Illinois, Obama spoke positively of the trade agreement, saying the United States had “benefited enormously” from exports under NAFTA.
The trade agreement has long been unpopular in the industrial Midwest, where critics blame it for lost jobs and shuttered factories, many of which once employed union workers who tend to vote Democratic.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:06 pm.
You get an A plus Stumpy.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:24 pm.
Trade is not my strong suit, neither is labor. I do know this… if I had lived around 1900 I would have been for unionization of sweat shops, laws restricting child labor, etc. They were needed the, as people were being taken advantage of in so many ways. Over the past half century the pendulum swung too far and unions have priced their members out of many jobs. Retirement and healthcare packages have bankrupted companies.
Regarding free trade, I believe in free and open trade with countries that believe the same and provide a work climate that is not akin to slave labor. Since a large share of our trading partners do not fit that bill, I believe we need responsible trade agreements to level the playing field. The world is not fair, and we do need protection.
For those who believe losing these important manufacturing jobs is not important, that our inventiveness will bail us out… it will only widen the gap between our rich and poor. Good, solid farming, manufacturing, mining and transportation jobs are critical to the well-being of our country.
Ask anyone who believes in individual responsibility, hard work and conservative values who is making a good living and enjoying a good benefit package because he or she belongs to a union if they would prefer to give up union benefits. Protection of one’s income generally overrides all other principals.
America First may sound like a liberal slogan. But as far as I am concerned, let’s put her first.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:37 pm.
Holy cow! lots of comments. I couldn’t stay out of this cause some of you have pushed my buttons. I want to disagree wholeheartedly whit the idea that Americans are special. We are born the same way anyone else is. We are no better innately. What makes us “better” is the constitution. Without it we are just another bunch of people.
The constitution is everything and the only thing that makes this country stand out. It is responsible for our heritage and future.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:45 pm.
Chuck, I agree.
Unions ARE capitalism and free market. Workers have a commodity- labor. They have every right to leverage that commodity. They have a moral obligation to leverage it if it means the well being of their families. But they should price themselves out of a job. (like you said chuck)
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:46 pm.
I meant should NOT price themselves out of a job
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:50 pm.
I think the most compelling argument against free trade is that the founding fathers were against it, like Joy pointed out. You got to be careful when you line up against them.
Secondly- it encourages slave labor or exploitation of empty promises to foreign workers.
Third- it destroys the native infrastructure to wage war or survive a war in the event that shipping lanes and highways are not secure..
Of course their are many other reasons. But the founding fathers were right about everything else. This brave new experiment would be the first to succeed contrary to their prescription.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 5:53 pm.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…
Roy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:05 pm.
There is some good reasoning going on here. You don’t really have to have a deep background in economics to use simple logic. Free trade would be great in an idealistic world. Reality is different. I agree with Chuck that we should have those agreements with any country willing to play the exact same rules, we just haven’t found one yet. As for inventiveness being the answer, your argument is perfect.
I agree with Cave that Americans aren’t better than other people. It would be a hard argument to make since we are a melting pot from all over the world. It is the Constitution that makes the difference and creates an atmosphere of personal growth.
Roy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:07 pm.
I shouldn’t have left out E.E. and Stumpy. Great comments. I have a feeling Stumpy may be smarter than all of us.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:15 pm.
I want to chime in here again. Historically Republicans were against free trade. It wasn’t until big business started gaining the upper hand with aggressive lobbying that we were sold on free trade. On the political spectrum, that would be where we move past small government and move clear to the right side to fascism. Only instead of nationalistic fascism it would be international fascism with big business in bed with governments and controlling politics to line their pockets. Democrats see this and cry foul but the sad thing is, they become reactionary and think socialism is the answer. Never a measured response or a return to the touchstone of the Constitution.
Ghost Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:19 pm.
Very interesting discussion. I want to add something to the mix. I think that businesses that want to keep illegal aliens here are the same as the old plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep their slaves. They use to tell people that if there wasn’t slavery no one would be able to afford their goods. Same argument. So the reason companies go overseas to find cheap labor is the same as the illegals being exploited here for cheap labor. I would resent that if I were a Mexican except a lot of them feel they have no choice because of conditions in Mexico.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:22 pm.
Exactly, Ghost. And if you ask Mexicans how things got so bad in their country they will tell you NAFTA. What a mess.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:23 pm.
I was thinking of a response to the above statements and Joy made it for me. The democratic response is virtually always overreaching and reactionary. Fairness and balance based upon correct Constitutional principals is the goal.
Cave, I agree we are not better than other people, but our country sure beats the rest. I hope it will continue.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:30 pm.
The pendulum I mentioned earlier is an interesting thing. When I was a kid we all worked on farms in the summer to earn money for school clothes, books, and entertainment. I was proud one day, as a 6th grader, to pick 333 pounds of beans in one day and made $10.00 (1965). All of our friends were there with us, even those with wealthy parents. We did not need to earn an income to support a family, and we enjoyed the opportunity to work and have benefited from the experience.
Today, most kids are denied those opportunities because of overreaching laws. We lose when incentives are lost.
Ghost Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:34 pm.
You know, if kids now days had to work in the summers just to learn to work, they wouldn’t have such a sense of entitlement. I’m only twenty three and I see most of the people my age with that. They are set up perfectly for a nanny state.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:41 pm.
Hard to believe this blog was about Nader throwing his hat into the ring. Does anyone think that will help McCain to win?
I have been thinking that the best scenario is for Hillary to win in the General. That way we get the republican party back, and it keeps Obama out. Does this announcement by Nader help Hillary of Barak more?
Matt Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:41 pm.
I feel sorry for T. Fan. This makes my head ache to. It is kind of hard when you think you have something down. I guess I never really thought about it before. I just thought free trade sounded right. Maybe it is because we are a giving people and we want to be open and give people the benefit of the doubt. This makes a lot of sense though and the biggest thing is I am learning the difference between dogma and principles a bit better now. This is a great example for that.
E.E. Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:45 pm.
Cave, I’m thinking this may help Clinton. She gets democrats that are a little more establishment types. Barack has more free thinkers and they seem to be the Nadar type.
Matt, it is great to know we have the courage to break out of the box and think for ourselves.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:49 pm.
Joy,
If I understood you right;
That is a good point about Fascism run not by the gvt but by big business. I have felt for a long time that the future will be run by big business and that gvt will become more and more insignificant. But most republicans think that that kind of talk is liberal. Maybe it is but I just can’t see it not happening with the power and wealth that businesses are getting. They will be able to buy almost anything- political and otherwise.
One thing that makes this so much faster is that big businesses can afford to setup foreign workforces and produce everything for super cheap. The playing field is so uneven because smaller companies cant do this.
An international oligarchy seems inevitable.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 6:56 pm.
Again, great analysis, Cave. This is why it is so crucial to understand the real political spectrum. This is all explained in that article. It is permanently below the icon at the page top. Liberals say conservatives are behind the big business take over and they call us neo-cons. Neo-fascist conservatives. Conservatives think it is liberals who are behind it with big government. Neither look to their own party. Divide and conquer. Make each side blame the other and while they are busy doing that, big business and big government go to bed together and make little Clintons, Obamas and McCains, the perfect blend of the two. In substance, there is little difference. What is there is only subterfuge and window dressing.
Nalvy Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:01 pm.
Joy, you are freaking brilliant. You seem to be able to see straight through all the crap.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:08 pm.
Chuck I am reading what you quoted from the constitution.
I pretend to be real smart sometimes but I really have to admit I am not. And in that spirit, I am asking you to explain to me what you are trying to teach us with that quote from the duties and powers of congress? I tend to need things spelled out for me. Is it just a direct reference to tariffs or does does your point go beyond that?
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:08 pm.
Consider, if you will, how the marriage of big business or special interests and bureaucracies has become so bloated and controlling. It is because of this that healthcare costs are out of control. Free market principals have not been in play here for decades. Oversight is needed to to protect the citizens, but not at the expense of the public in favor of big pharma and the insurance companies.
The powers that be have figured out that if we are so all-consumed with presidential politics we will not notice the draining of civil and economic liberties… divide and conquer.
Joy Bischoff Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:12 pm.
Chuck, I have wanted to say what you said in your last paragraph for a while now. I struggle at keeping the line between telling the truth and giving readers more than they can handle and swallow. I seriously am convinced that they love for things to be as stirred up as possible on the right hand so the left hand can be as busy as it wants to be.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:16 pm.
Sorry Cave, I was writing the last before I read your last question. I did not ignore you.
Again, as no constitutional scholar, the Constitution empowers congress to promote the general welfare of our citizens. Congress has the power to impose duties and “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”. If it’s contract with us is to promote our general welfare, then it should keep that in mind as trade agreements are enacted. The fiduciary responsibility of our elected representatives (I said representatives, not leaders) is to us. That means they represent our interests in all trade agreements. Fair and balanced, yes. Globalist, no — that is not in the Document. If our representatives wish not to “represent” us, then they can resign and work for the United Nations. Remember what the term “representative” implies.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:18 pm.
I think one thing that people overlook in why health care costs are rising is this:
If it isn’t a financial pain to go to the doctor, the result is GUARANTEED CONSUMPTION. Therefore inflation.
I know a lady who goes to the doctor for every little thing because she has really good insurance. A friend takes his kids to the doctor for every tiny worry because his insurance covers it all. His premium is guaranteed for a number of years as well as the tiny $5 co-pay. These people and the millions like them cause inflation. because they don’t judge their purchases by the price. I know this is off topic but it is Chuck’s fault for bringing it up.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:19 pm.
Excellent point Chuck- I knew I dint’ get it the first time. Wow that is powerful stuff! How could I miss it?
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:26 pm.
One thing more. I realize things like this have been said before, but we need to remember where our allegiances lie. I am a Republican, but I am not so blind that I do not see that our Republican representatives lost their way when they had the majority. Lower taxes and mortgage our future is not smart. Someday the piper will have to be paid.
Lowering taxes with McCain-like wishes for controlling spending is smarter. Any farmer knows that without pruning, an apple tree will soon bear worthless fruit. Democrats squeal when growth of bureaucracies is curtailed. They whine and cry that the miserly Republicans are trying to starve children, animals, seniors and anybody who is infirm… dirty Republicans.
Well, a trimming of bloated bureaucracies is needed. Fiscal responsibility is needed. But it will never happen because the representatives learned long ago that if you grease enough palms with pork fat, you remain in power. We are all guilty. We keep sending the guy back who brings defense contracts to our district. Trim government yes, but not in my back yard.
Anyone who runs on a platform to accomplish the items I have just discussed will lose every time.
Pickles Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:47 pm.
I’m learning so much today. I love when you guys make me look smart when I talk to my friends. Seems like politics is our main subject lately.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:54 pm.
Pickles. I picture you with freckles. Do you guys ever picture the people who post on here? Stumpy, if I was a novelist I could describe you really well by the way you write. But then I suppose maybe it is you who is the novelist and you actually live in a Park Avenue penthouse and the hillbilly is just shtick. I hope not… overalls, a rifle across yer lap as you rock back and forth in that old wooden rocker. Squirrel stew simmerin’ on the pot. Yer big ol’ jackass out brayin’ in the barn… I wish I had your tranquil life.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 7:56 pm.
I shouldn’t be allowed on here when I’m on pain medication.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:04 pm.
Same type of thing here in Utah Cuck. Most people here agree that we need to get more nuclear power plants but no-one wants to store the Nuclear waste in their state, even though it is far safer than running oil and gas rigs all over the freeway. ( I am referring to Chucks post at 7:26)
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:06 pm.
See!?!
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:06 pm.
Woops I called you Cuck! One day I am going to type out some profanity and get banned from this site.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:08 pm.
BTW chuck I think Carrie has red hair freckles and Pickles is a short brunette . Stumpy is short, has an impish grin loves steak. I picture you, Chuck as a man in his fifties who was once very good looking and looks a lot like his dad.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:10 pm.
I shouldn’t type while you are on pain medication.
Chuck C Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:10 pm.
ONCE!?!
Pickles Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:32 pm.
Cave you’re mean. I’m sure Chuck is still very handsome. I think of him as blond and you as brunette. I have chestnut hair and am 5′4″ and am small boned but no freckles since I was little. I have to take off for a party. Bye.
Cavetrollhead Says:
24 February 2008 at 8:49 pm.
Ha Ha Ha
Come on,
You know I am just teasing good old Chuck.
Er I mean good young Chuck.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
