Is Phatscotty a Republican?

[thegreekdog]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

[AndyDufresne]

I endorse this.


--Andy, unregistered monkey, belligerent Star Trek enthusiast, and Futurama-phile

[muy_thaiguy]

I endorse this.


--Andy, unregistered monkey, belligerent Star Trek enthusiast, and Futurama-phile

The first is illegal in 3 states, the second in 8, and the 3rd in 5.

[Phatscotty]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

[Lootifer]

Tsk tsk TGD, you forget that PS can quite easily, and does as seen above, claim to be a libertarian.

I do doubt his honesty and consistency though. Much like he'd probably lie on a MBTI test to avoid being a F.

[Phatscotty]

Tsk tsk TGD, you forget that PS can quite easily, and does as seen above, claim to be a libertarian.

I do doubt his honesty and consistency though. Much like he'd probably lie on a MBTI test to avoid being a F.

there's a perfect example. I made no such claim. That should about do it concerning dishonesty.

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

And the reason you believe you'll get an honest answer is...

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, I'm not seeing why PS would suddenly choose to be honest with us.

1. He suffers no consequences of being dishonest--other than the status quo of distrust from us, so by not incurring an additional negative consequence, he may as well opt for dishonesty.

2. He could profit from becoming honest, but then we'd have no way of knowing whether he was honest or not. This uncertainty seems to preclude the possibility of such profit, so why would PS still opt for honesty if the gains are uncertain?

3. Could he be taking a chance--regardless of that uncertainty? Maybe.

4. PS is consistently dodgy, so even if he throws down some answers here, we can (a) find discrepancies between the current claims with the past claims, and (b) look for future inconsistencies. (RE: a & b, that kind of investigation is pretty much profitless, and has been conducted many times in the past--confirming his inconsistency).

Given all this, PS is likely being dishonest--or he isn't aware of his dishonesty (mild dissociative disorder/complete inability to understand oneself). Or he's the Dodge King Troll.

[Phatscotty]

Now back to your regularly scheduled coordinated smear job programming

[ooge]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

By that voting record he appears to be in favor of wherever the political winds blow,the mind of a scattered brain individual with no core principles.reminds me of a fan of the New York Yankees living in Boston going to Red Sox games,He is not really a Fan of the Yankees, he just likes getting all the negative attention.

[waauw]

I have to say, even though phatscotty sounds quite extreme in other topics, his answers here are quite similar to my own opinions. I've found some newlyfounded respect for the guy

[ooge]

I have to say, even though phatscotty sounds quite extreme in other topics, his answers here are quite similar to my own opinions. I've found some newlyfounded respect for the guy

that will change if he ever calls you a racist.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have to say, even though phatscotty sounds quite extreme in other topics, his answers here are quite similar to my own opinions. I've found some newlyfounded respect for the guy

it'll change within 10 days. Wait for the next hot topic, and you'll find the Dodge King Troll at his finest.

[john9blue]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

wait nvm, it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend that people you don't agree with are all dishonest scumbags.

bunch of fucking morons. i don't often defend scotty, but the level of idiocy here is ridiculous.

also, this made me laugh:

By that voting record he appears to be in favor of wherever the political winds blow,the mind of a scattered brain individual with no core principles.reminds me of a fan of the New York Yankees living in Boston going to Red Sox games,He is not really a Fan of the Yankees, he just likes getting all the negative attention.

because it's coming from someone so thoroughly indoctrinated and so predictable that i could probably write a computer program to make their posts for them. i can see why you'd be against individual thought. get back in line soldier!

[Woodruff]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

I do. All the time.

wait nvm, it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend that people you don't agree with are all dishonest scumbags.

Occasionally, there are people who are dishonest scumbags.

bunch of fucking morons. i don't often defend scotty, but the level of idiocy here is ridiculous.

Actually, you do. Frequently.

[AndyDufresne]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

wait nvm, it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend that people you don't agree with are all dishonest scumbags.

bunch of fucking morons. i don't often defend scotty, but the level of idiocy here is ridiculous.

also, this made me laugh:

because it's coming from someone so thoroughly indoctrinated and so predictable that i could probably write a computer program to make their posts for them. i can see why you'd be against individual thought. get back in line soldier!

--Andy

[Phatscotty]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

I do. All the time.

wait nvm, it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend that people you don't agree with are all dishonest scumbags.

Occasionally, there are people who are dishonest scumbags.

bunch of fucking morons. i don't often defend scotty, but the level of idiocy here is ridiculous.

Actually, you do. Frequently.

That's a bunch of crap. Out of all the posters that used to talk to me, I miss John the most. I haven't seen him touch one of my post in at least a year, maybe longer. and that's fine, I don't blame anyone for wanting to stay out of my discussions, and I respect anyone who truly wants to talk about the issue, regardless. In fact toxification is the goal of posters like Woodruff. Greekdog asks me some questions, I answer them the exact same way I have always answered them, Woodruff and Co. come in and call me a liar and a bunch of other names and make the entire conversation toxic, and nobody wants to touch it. Brilliant, no. Effective, yes. Honorable, no. Troll, yes.

That's fine, I always have stood alone. But after the tech bubble, after the real estate bubble, after the precious metals run up....the very few people who have heard my words and took it upon themselves to actually learn about something on their own and have truly evolved out of the bullshit level people always try to drag me back into, have done extremely well for themselves. I have found that being right too early is a curse. You probably can't imagine how completely moronic and utterly idiotic everyone told me I was for trying to move my clients into gold at $290, and my boss and the company owner were no exception, while of course they are highly educated and experienced people themselves. Even they did not get the memo. It wasn't even 9 out of 10 people who wanted to tear my head off for even suggesting something so stupid as gold, it was more like 29 out of 30. But here we are, a decade later...what I have found is that those who were the most vocal in calling me a barbarian, an America hater, an evil Liberal, (one of my clients at the time, while in Singapore, sent me a picture of the banner in the street that said "America, the great satan" and he wrote "saw this, thought of you) have pretty much ruined our relationship and now they resent me and write me off as greedy or lucky or whatever. Losing their homes has become my fault. Losing their retirement has become my fault. Even though I was only trying to help them the entire time, even though everything I warned about came to pass, they still can't make hay. But all I can do is try to help.

I don't care what anyone wants to call me or label me. I don't give a single shit. I've already experienced the worst on both sides. I don't care how many times I get banned for double posting or necrobumping either. I care that in the future, you remember me and what I and others have said, so you can look at recent history for yourselves, and make the correct decision at the correct time, in a world saturated with lies and disinformation and elitist/establishment backed narrative control at every level.

[Lootifer]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

wait nvm, it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend that people you don't agree with are all dishonest scumbags.

bunch of fucking morons. i don't often defend scotty, but the level of idiocy here is ridiculous.

I almost suspect you of trolling here.

Firstly I said I questioned his honesty (likewise BBS gave reasons why he would be dishonest and opted on that likelihood) I didnt openly call him a "dishonest scumbag"*.

Secondly PS is very smart in that he seldom lets his core ideals show (similar to you but less subtle); for example he says he is not against specific aspects of the laws governing homosexual behavior, but often eludes to a predicted deterioration of society if these laws are altered in favor of homosexuals. I try to call him out when he does this but it is not often successful (see my thread on education for an example of this).

Thirdly there's even a nifty example of it in here. He was careful to quickly assume that he was also not a libertarian, doing so prevents this being used against him in further arguments. If he's not guilty of dishonesty/consistency then he's certainly guilty of opacity/political maneuvering (lol on an anonymous forum no less!) which I dislike with equal fervor.

* yes yes, plenty of irony here, but get over it.

[AAFitz]

At my own personal risk* I create this thread to determine, once and for all, whether Phatscotty is a Republican and what kind of Republican he is.

Phatscotty, please answer the following questions:

- Who did you vote for in the 2012 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?
- Who did you vote for in the 2004 presidential election?
- At the time, did you support the war in Iraq?
- At the time, did you support the war in Afghanistan?
- Did you support, during the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, the creation and/or maintenance of military presence overseas?
- Are you in favor of the federal bonus depreciation deduction?
- Are you in favor of the federal credit for research and development?
- Are you in favor of making abortion illegal?
- Are you in favor of making English the official language of the United States?
- Are you in favor of making flag burning illegal?
- Are you in favor of making gay marriage illegal?

I may have additional questions for you as you answer these.

Thanks.

TGD, registered Libertarian, tax attorney, and constitutional scholar

* Personal risk may include, but is not limited to, bodily harm, banning, and accusations of trolling, baiting, and flaming.

You think I would report you or something?

That's okay. All my life there has been confusion as to exactly where I stand, but like I have said repeatedly, I am a registered independent who is fiscally concerned, and the fiscal concern is growing more and more and time goes by. Independents do not always act a certain way, which is why it is hard for some people who think because I go to the right on one issue, I am chained to the right on every issue. Anyhoo...

2012 - I voted for Romney, specifically against Obama
2008 - Ron Paul
2004 - Ralp Nader

I have never, EVER supported the Iraq war. I was against it even before it started, even when Keith Olberman and Hillary Clitnon were for it. Being against the Iraq war was probably the #1 reason I was demonized as a Liberal from the years 2001-2006.

I supported the Afghanistan actions, but was hoping we would clean house, get the terrorists, and get out. I would have preferred to leave after about 6 months.

I don't think I supported any kind of military presence overseas. Of course each situation is different, and I'm not a pacifist, but my first votes I could cast were for Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, and their position on the military was a heavy reason for my support, that is that the military is far too stretched out and intervenes way too much in other countries. I am for the strongest of strong defenses, as to me that is the most important function of government, and I think there is a lot of difference between a strong defense and a large military that outspends the rest of the world combined.

I don't know exactly what the federal bonus is, but I can tell you if it costs money that we don't have, I am very likely against it unless there is a specific good and legitimate reason for it's existence.

Federal credit for RnD, I am not dead set against it, but I would much rather prefer the tax system we have were not in place in order for there to be deductions in the first place.

I am not in favor of making abortion illegal.

I think it's important to have an official language. That is not to say that no other language can be spoken, but when it comes to government forms, yes I think they should be in English. We should provide translators and forms written in other languages upon request. However I have not heard a lot of arguments against this or put a lot of thought into it, so I would be open to listen and possibly be persuaded upon discovery of previously unknown details/situations.

I believe burning the flag is a form of free speech, and making it illegal would infringe on the first amendment.

I have a problem with the way your last question is asked. As of right now, gay marriage is not recognized by a majority of states, so I think it's incorrect to ask if I support making it illegal, as that is the way it mostly is. But to skip the re-asking, I can tolerate whichever way the voters decide, so long as the voters get a chance to decide. That is to say, if the voters decide not to change the definition of marriage, I support that. Likewise, if the voters decide to change the definition of marriage, I support that too. The marriage issue is mostly one of process to me, and overall I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

It is very cool to see you having answered these questions honestly. I have a little more respect for you, not that I think that matters to you one iota.
I also think it to some degree proves that you are more or less a reasonable person, that enjoys making....sensationalized claims and creating drama...or, for lack of a better word...a troll. But that is based on the entire other body of your "work" in CC, and not on this.

Also, personally, I enjoyed watching you squirm on that last question, but that is my failing, not yours.

[AAFitz]

ITT are a bunch of douchebags.

if you think scotty is a liar here about his beliefs, then call him out on it when he tries to argue against them in another thread.

wait nvm, it's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend that people you don't agree with are all dishonest scumbags.

bunch of fucking morons. i don't often defend scotty, but the level of idiocy here is ridiculous.

also, this made me laugh:

By that voting record he appears to be in favor of wherever the political winds blow,the mind of a scattered brain individual with no core principles.reminds me of a fan of the New York Yankees living in Boston going to Red Sox games,He is not really a Fan of the Yankees, he just likes getting all the negative attention.

because it's coming from someone so thoroughly indoctrinated and so predictable that i could probably write a computer program to make their posts for them. i can see why you'd be against individual thought. get back in line soldier!

I hesitate to comment on this, because so often John, you take me seriously, when I am being sarcastic. Here, I will be serious, but I fear you would confuse it for sarcasm....because I am partially agreeing with you AND phatscotty....typically, that would be deadpan, sarcastic parody from me. That is so unlikely, so impossible, that you were supposed to realize I was joking because the statement is just too ridiculous....but in this case, I am not joking...err, am being serious, except where Im obviously joking......just trust me this once.

I believed he was answering honestly. I can't honestly say I know he was honest, but I certainly chose to believe he was being honest. It had the look and feel of honesty, and I never gave it a second thought...except maybe on his last answer which seemed to be answered by someone who was..."Bi..."

Anyhoo, I think you have a valid point that if he answered honestly, he deserves respect for that, and for my part, I gave as much of it as I could. I also however, think your reaction is a little overboard, much as I think some of the other people......my god Im defending PS here....may have similarly been a little overboard as well.

Again John, Ive been completely honest up until this point, but will now venture into the kind of area you dont like which is somewhere near Parody land, with still a hint of honesty...

I think this can all be solved with a yes or no.

Phatscotty, were you completely honest in your answers to GD?
(again, I think so, and I only ask, to clarify for everyone else)
((and the reason I mentioned the Parodyland was of course, because I AAFitz, your long time buddy, and simply asking flat out, "were you lying"))

Hopefully even Johnny can see the humor in that.

[/]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?
I would have thought several of his ideals would be deal breakers for you, like his single payer universal health care plan, $10 living wage advocacy, progressive taxation advocacy, or anti-economic globalization advocacy.

[Woodruff]

In fact toxification is the goal of posters like Woodruff. Greekdog asks me some questions, I answer them the exact same way I have always answered them, Woodruff and Co. come in and call me a liar and a bunch of other names and make the entire conversation toxic, and nobody wants to touch it. Brilliant, no. Effective, yes. Honorable, no. Troll, yes.

Actually, you make a fine habit...no, habit isn't the right word...you make a fine profession out of not answering questions, whether they are posed by myself, thegreekdog, BBS, or whoever. The only time you seem to be willing to give an answer to a question is when you seem to believe you can twist it toward your own ends. Otherwise, you simply obfuscate, deny or avoid.

But here we are, a decade later...what I have found is that those who were the most vocal in calling me a barbarian, an America hater, an evil Liberal

You keep saying things like this, but I have to tell you...you've never been a liberal.

But all I can do is try to help.

Yeah, you're trying to help alright. You're helping those people trying to get welfare aid. You're helping homosexuals.

I care that in the future, you remember me and what I and others have said, so you can look at recent history for yourselves, and make the correct decision at the correct time, in a world saturated with lies and disinformation and elitist/establishment backed narrative control at every level.

You are the direct source of most of the disinformation in this forum.

[Woodruff]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?
I would have thought several of his ideals would be deal breakers for you, like his single payer universal health care plan, $10 living wage advocacy, progressive taxation advocacy, or anti-economic globalization advocacy.

I can hear it running through his head now..."Wait, Nader was for those things?" <laughing out loud>

[john9blue]

I almost suspect you of trolling here.

Firstly I said I questioned his honesty (likewise BBS gave reasons why he would be dishonest and opted on that likelihood) I didnt openly call him a "dishonest scumbag"*.

Secondly PS is very smart in that he seldom lets his core ideals show (similar to you but less subtle); for example he says he is not against specific aspects of the laws governing homosexual behavior, but often eludes to a predicted deterioration of society if these laws are altered in favor of homosexuals. I try to call him out when he does this but it is not often successful (see my thread on education for an example of this).

Thirdly there's even a nifty example of it in here. He was careful to quickly assume that he was also not a libertarian, doing so prevents this being used against him in further arguments. If he's not guilty of dishonesty/consistency then he's certainly guilty of opacity/political maneuvering (lol on an anonymous forum no less!) which I dislike with equal fervor.

* yes yes, plenty of irony here, but get over it.

i'm not trolling... and if you want to know about any of my core ideals, then just ask!

and i think you should call scotty out on this stuff because i'm interested in how he will respond. like / was saying, how did he bring himself to vote for nader? did he change over the years, or would he still vote nader given the chance?

It is very cool to see you having answered these questions honestly. I have a little more respect for you, not that I think that matters to you one iota.
I also think it to some degree proves that you are more or less a reasonable person, that enjoys making....sensationalized claims and creating drama...or, for lack of a better word...a troll. But that is based on the entire other body of your "work" in CC, and not on this.

Also, personally, I enjoyed watching you squirm on that last question, but that is my failing, not yours.

respect, aafitz. this is the kind of reaction i was hoping for. you can disagree with him or think he's a troll, but at least he's putting it on the line. right now scotty is the "man in the arena" and ITT are a bunch of critics.

[Phatscotty]

2004 - Ralp Nader

Wow, that's kind of surprising, what did you like about Nader?

I was very against the Iraq war, and Nader was the only voice against it. I was looking for pictures of my Nader halloween pumpkin I carved but don't know where they are. Plus, I was all caught up in that "If we can just get him 5%!" thing, and I was a lot younger, barely out of college. The war was a priority for me. That is when I was still on my third party streak. Locally I was very proud to vote for Jesse Ventura, and my other votes were for Tim Penny and Dean Berkley. I guess looking back I cared mostly about working outside the Republicans/Democrats and I had a lot of hope after seeing a 3rd party win the governorship in a state like Minnesota