You are truly laughable at times. You are the one who initiates the attacks, then when you are called on it you try and turn the tables. I can appreciate a good debate tactic, but could you save that for the high school forensics?

Potential allies? How many times in our cyber jousts have I said to you that I would bet that you and I could find more to agree on than disagree on? How many times have I offered for you and I to start a dialogue? Typically I am responded to with invective and inflammatory sexual comments.

Nice try at shifting the blame, but it goes like this. When you make comments and aim barbs, you have to be ready to be held to the same standard. When you make charges about my candidate, understand that yours is going to be held to the same standard. If you want to talk about politicians and what you disdain about them, I a OK with that. Hell, I have worked with some of the top national figures my entire adult life and there is much I don't care for in our system. But when you take to the attack, then understand that you are up for the counter attack.

Bottom line is that Ralph is guilty of much of what you accuse the others of. He does not have the moral or ethical high ground. So it comes down to what and who has the best chance of defeating our common adversary. If I thought that was Nader I would be right there with you. But responsible folks that are interested in changing status quo must accept the rules we are playing under and within that structure work for the best change we can manage. And we must further do all we can to stop those whose actions threaten that change. That is why virtually every political observer/commentator, no matter their politics, has painted Nader as a man whose megalomania is in control.

Mick