<p>[CNN</a> Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com](<a href=“http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/]CNN”>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)</p>
<p>My comment - polite version - oh dear!</p>
<p>Nader?!!! I personally blame him for Bush being elected in 2000.</p>
<p>But then the dems benefitted when Ross Perot ran…</p>
<p>Nader is horrible. He can definitely take some of the credit for Bush getting elected in 2000 (though not all!). He’s not exactly a team player, is he? What a royal pain.</p>
<p>Cranky nutjob. He should get with Dennis K.</p>
<p>Swimcatsmom, that’s what I said when I saw the headline - oh, dear! Haven’t we had enough of this nonsense?</p>
<p>The nutjob is the guy who says we may be in Iraq for 100 years. The nutjob is the woman on the Armed Forces Committee who votes for war and aggressive, hostile occupation (which she supports three years later from the Pork Zone), without bothering to read the intelligence report in her own possession.</p>
<p>Speaking of nonsense…</p>
<p>Mini, you may get a candidate you can support.</p>
<p>Oh, as you know I have very low expectations. But no nutjobs like the above, please. ;)</p>
<p>Would you support Obama? I thought I read somewhere you would.</p>
<p>Oh, I’m very clear I would. I think he could lie pretty well, and I love the symbolism (I have d’s of two different races). That’s more than enough for me. </p>
<p>(and as you know, under certain conditions, I could even support the 100-year-nutjob, though I don’t expect it will come to that.)</p>
<p>(Resolution 260: Article II: United Nations Convention on Genocide, ratified 1948):</p>
<p>Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; </p>
<p>“We think it was worth it.” – Madeleine Albright</p>
<p>I think more people will die in a McCain administration than in a ******* administration.</p>
<p>I would have said that in 1992 as well, when (somewhat against my better judgment) I voted for a ****** Administration.</p>
<p>(Won’t get fooled again.)</p>
<p>After reading your latest post in the Obama thread about Hillary, I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
"* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; </p>
<p>“We think it was worth it.” – Madeleine Albright"</p>
<p>That article 2 should eliminate wars and most sanctions.</p>
<p>I think that there should be a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Ralph Nader from running. Lord almighty.</p>
<p>If Ralph runs, then Bloomberg better run too.</p>
<p>Ralph Nader has made himself into the Harold Stassen of the 21st century.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I was thinking too. It would even the playing field.</p>
<p>Go Ralphie! Great political theater…</p>
<p>“If Ralph runs, then Bloomberg better run too.”</p>
<p>How many liberals do you think you need in the same race? Wouldn’t you be concerned about splitting the vote a third way? I mean, I’d be fine if you guys choose to lose . . .</p>