The only thing Nader is good for these days is confusing democrats to vote for him. I'd love to see him on the ballot but really overall he just doesn't matter.
This election will not be a good one for Democrats if Nader drains many votes from them. Historically, presidents who get a second term make their most unpopular decisions during the second term because they can't get re-elected anyway. What will Bush do if he gets re-elected? He could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade through executive order, start a war with Iran or Korea or China, release pseudo-scientific studies declaring homosexuality to be a mental illness, continue to chip away at the Bill of Rights,
Ignoring all other points... Is homosexuality based in thought or genetics? The problem is that mental health is based on normal behavior, dictated purely by statistics. Assuming a free environment where homosexuality is accepted without prejudice, what percentage is there for homosexuals? 5%? Good, bad or indifferent, it would still stand to be considered a "mental" illness if not genetic.
Conversely, if, as I heard recently on TV (not accepting it as fact, instead just an illustration) that 60% of adults show signs of depression. Shouldn't we treat the 40% for excessive happiness.
Nader is just an attention whore (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:0, Troll)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Conversely, if, as I heard recently on TV (not accepting it as fact, instead just an illustration) that 60% of adults show signs of depression. Shouldn't we treat the 40% for excessive happiness.
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Seriously, you forgot a critical distinction: Illness generally requires harm (to one's self or others). Where is the harm?