>I you the same mistake alot
>of Republi-Crats make, and that
>is creating this abstract of
>the "third" party, in which
>all other parties are in.
>In 1996, the Reform party was
>HUGE!!! Not third-party material
>(such as world workers, socialist,
>constitutional law, etc.)
>
>in 2000 the Greens are HUGE!!!

You can't possibly compare the Greens to Perot (I forbid to put Buchanan in the same party as Perot) in 92 or 96. Perot was totally influencial in Clinton winning the presidential election in 92. Hell Clinton never even won a majority of the popular vote in either election! Nader doesn't have enough support to make a strong appearance like Perot did in either election. He, like Browne, is only hoping to gain enough votes to have federal funding for next year, not to mention enough support to get on all ballots as well as put himself in the debates next election. The Greens aren't as big as you guys percieve.

>Harry Browne is a joke candidate.
> He will be lucky
>if he gets 0.1% of
>the popular vote--LUCKY. In
>fact, let's go back and
>examine that.

Actually last year he took 2%. We just want 5. That's it, that's all.

>Nader is a very popular candidate.
> He took 4% of
>the popular vote in the
>1996 election--and he had NO
>CAMPAIGN--sad efforts at best.
>This year, the Greens are
>huge, with hundreds of candidates
>in every state, people running
>local, state, national--many of which
>are the only non-republican candidate,
>many of which will win.

Same with the Libertarians. We have over 500 candidates campaigning in this upcoming election at every level. There's no difference.

>Nader is huge for a reason.
> Not 'cause he's some
>"oh, woe is me" complaining
>"third-party" candidate--because he is a
>famous champion of people's rights,
>of efficiency, and of government
>and corporate responsibility. He
>has the longest history of
>public service of any candidate,
>the most ideas, and a
>HUGE, HUGE, HUGE support structure.

How nice.

>Granted the greens are not running
>a powerful presidential campaign.
>Alot of this is due
>to absence of contributions from
>Exxon or Pharmaceutical Companies, and
>being shut-out by the press,
>but they ARE getting by
>on penny candy.

As I stated before, campaign contributions are a very small figure of Gore and Bush's campaign. If anything it might count for up to maybe 10% of their funding......and that's being real generous. Most of their support comes from individual funding. In fact, on his website (although I don't know where because I don't go to it) it is said that Bush has a list of all of his supporters to his campaign. Perhaps you should go there and see how much of a percentage has been made directly from corporations.

Not to mention.....Nader has the big Green money, Buchanan now has federal funding.......Browne has neither. All his money is grassroots.

>Every newspaper, including the ones that
>claim to be more progressive
>have shut Nader out.
>The only Nader articles are
>attacking opinion pieces. Your
>logic that Nader gets the
>most press is faulty.
>It's like saying ads calling
>clinton a liar are "press"

Doesn't matter. Attention is attention, especially if you weren't previously getting any. I bet you Nader would rather have negative publicity than no publicity.

>Nader is being attacked because he
>is a REAL threat to
>a REAL problem. If
>he wins, it's all over
>for the duopoly. If
>he wins 15%, the Party
>qualifies for millions of dollars
>in Federal aid.

Actually he only needs 5% for federal funds; 15% to make sure the next Green Party candidate gets into the debates.

Let's pretend for a second that, out of the depths of hell, the AntiChrist comes and makes Nader president.

Wouldn't it, like it did McCain, defeat the whole purpose of his stances on government reform? McCain ran around yelling about campaign finance reform and about how Bush had so much so-called "soft money", yet he gave Bush a fight and won several key states in the primaries. Same with Bush-Gore, in which Bush has collected over double the campaign funding that Gore has. It made McCain look quite dumb when McCain is shouting "It isn't fair! Bush has more money than I do and will win by a landslide!" when he was neck and neck with Bush until Super Tuesday.

Wouldn't a Nader victory do the same? Wouldn't it say, "hey, although this is a two-party system, and corporate dollars are flowing, Nader STILL won!" It means that despite those odds, you can still win? Either way, for Nader it's a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" strategy.

>In that case, the current hundreds
>of Green candidates become hundreds
>of well-funded green candidates--goodbye duopoly.

I'll believe it when I see it. Although I'm sure the Greens will reform alot of things (not for the better, however), I will bet you they aren't going to give up their new found political power so easily. Not to mention that by favor of being in the majority, democracy will work in THEIR favor more than any other minority party. All in all, I don't trust the Greens any more than I do the Demos or the Reps.



"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.