faster pussycat... type! type!

Whereas Kerry merely encouraged his "fellow soldiers" to lie about atrocities they "observed"... UNDER OATH. I hink if you do a little reading of Ollie North, one of Mr. Kerry's contemporaries, you'll find his open letter to Kerry VERY interesting.

Nader has it right, Bush and Kerry are figureheads, bought and sold to the highest bidder like Beanie Babies on eBay. If you want a leader who has the PUBLIC's best interests at heart, vote Nader.

Even though this is pro-Bush, it reflects what a Lemming-esque mindset can do when a slick documentary is aired for the sole purpose of removing a sitting president:

http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11/

hrm... i haven't heard about this kerry thing, but if you're speaking in reference to that swift boat ad, see this link: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244

i do agree with nader more than i do with bush or kerry, but now is not the time for idealism. my order of preference would be nader, kerry, bush and since there is no way that nader will happen i don't htink now is the time to vote idealistically. actually, i live in a state where there's no way bush will get it, so imight vote for nader, but if i were in a swing state, there is no way i'd do it.

also, in reference to the c41.11 documentary... i didn't read it but saw that it was in reference to michael moore's film. i'd just like to point out that not everyone who thinks that bush misled congress and the american public into war is basing their judgement on fahrenheit 911.

Now is not the time to remain true to your beliefs? So we should whore ourselves out based on a whim? If more people grew balls, then no "two party" candidate would be elected.

And the documents Kerry's camp were expounding upon were the same ones the liberal bastion Rather was apologizing for having used. THEY WERE FABRICATIONS.

The C41.11 wasn't an attack against Moore, but the "anyone, anything, anyway to oust Bush" ideal that has flooded the consciousness of the American socialist movement. Better to remove ALL the Billionaires and elect someone who has a vested interest in keeping this country running.

To not uphold your support for Nader with your vote is a sign of weakness of character on your part.

hang on... there is NO weakness of character on arifa's part whatsoever. there's no need to attack her personally. i happen to agree with her, as well. i wish i could be more idealistic, but i don't think we can risk it.

i don't understand why everyone comes out at the last minute and praises nader, where are these people the day after the presidential election. if the feelings exist, in such strength, then it's going to take an enormous amount of effort to make him a viable choice, in terms of successful election. all the people who criticize for lack of conviction, when people say they can't risk a vote for nader, are going to need to start working NOW, for the next election.

So you can take Kerry, a scant year after his intent to run, seriously, but not Nader who has been stumping for 8 years? I think the issue is whether or not Nader's supporters can package him into nice little sound bites and Entertainment Tonight-esque clips. All fluff, no stuff.

And what exactly are we at risk of? Do you seriously believe that if the country is so close to imploding that another billionaire, but this one socialist, in the white house is going to chage a damn thing? Short term fixes aren't the solution, they only prolong the bigger problem. Previous administrations "patches" have done nothing to stabilize our economy or infrastructure. Bush, Clinton, Bush; They all were weak spined people too concerned with the polls to make a REAL change. Reagan relied an a philosophy that failed, but at least he tried.

Open your eyes, Bush and Kerry will say and do anything to be elected. Once in office, they'll be mired by their cronies and hacks and NOTHING will change. Nader is the only one who has kept his promise, and if that is a "risk", then you're calling MY VOTE a "risk"; MY FREEDOM a "risk". I suppose Kerry would be a good choice, then. His parties' socialist agenda relies on eliminating the voice of dissent, and thereby eliminating that horrible "risk".

An earlier poster said Nader has our best interests in mind. No, Nader is only running to feed his vast ego. Same with Kerry.