LOL....Use a computer. Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I don't think you can type a "substantive argument" into a Blackberry. K ----- Original Message ---- From: "wanzala@xxxxxxxxx" <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> To: Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx>; NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:50:37 AM Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again Clearly you wouldn't recognize a substantive argument if one was staring you right in the face, as in my previous posts. Joe w. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:38:53 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wanzala@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again No you haven't. K ----- Original Message ---- From: "wanzala@xxxxxxxxx" <wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> To: wanzala@xxxxxxxxx; NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:08:39 AM Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again And I would add that I have already provided substantive points to counter Nalini's assertions and all you can offer to support her is empty bombast. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: wanzala@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:54:31 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again Same rules apply to you - ie, you are also obliged to prove your assertions. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Iley_dohn@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:34:32 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again It isn't a comparative analysis. It's a declarative statement. You say that they are the same but you do not point out any that would bear this out. It's one thing to say it and another to prove it. wanzala@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I defy you to disprove the fact that any comparative analysis of democratic and republican positions would find more similarity than difference. Clearly you and nalini are the delusional ones here. Joe w. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Melinda Iley-Dohn Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:45:44 To:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again Joe, I would not accust Nalini of being delusional in a phrase that ends like your first paragraph. We have a word for this in Central Texas. Caca del Torro. Nalini is on the spot with this. Melinda wanzala@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wanzala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: You are the delusional if you think there are meaningful policy differences between the sort of people a democrat or republican would appoint to cabinet positions. A visual representation of democratic and republican party ideology would look like venn diagram, with most of it overlapping. As to judicial appointments, I invite you to provide actual examples and significant trends showing a significant difference between democratic party and republican appointments to the federal bench in the last 20 years. On the supreme court its a wash, and one of the most 'progressive' justice on the supreme court is david souter, a bush appointee And democrats have either pushed or failed to block - even when they had the numbers - some of the most repressive legislation in us history. At least 70 percent of every vote for a democrat is the same, in policy terms as a vote for a republican. Joe w. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Nalini Lasiewicz" com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:25:38 To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.com <http://yahoogroups.com/> Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again --- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups.com <http://yahoogroups.com/> , wanzala@... wrote: > > No, a vote for a third party candidate is just that. That's one way to say it. However, the only once to actually WIN the election will be a Democrat or a Republican. You are glib about how those are the same, but if you'd spend a few hours studying the federal judicial appointments of the past 20 years, you'd choke. Also, the President appoints the entire Cabinet....that's the department heads of the whole federal government. If you think that the Dems and Reps appoint the same sort of folks, you're deluded. Since Nader and no "third party" person is going to become President, I guess you can comfort yourself in a fantasy in which Nader will appoint the Cabinet. But on Inaguration Day, you'll have to wake up and realize that, once again, you've thrown away your vote to send a "message." I started school last week. One of the instructors told us (among many other insipid things) that he voted for Edwards in the CA primary, even though Edwards had dropped out of the race a week prior. He said, "I had to vote my conscience." I dropped the class. He's a loser and wants us to be come losers. No thanks. Nalini ---------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica <http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica> 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links ---------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica <http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica> 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links ---------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.