Slavik44

Pot really is the widespread drug, it is the drug of choice, the drug people use...there clearly is a demand for pot and no legal means to fullfill this demand. In a case like this it has allowed for gangs to pop and supply people with pot, not only is it the drug of choice, but I belive gangs with out pot to sell are like a government with out the ability to collect taxes. Keeping Pot illegal, keep sgangs running at full tilt, pot is their source of funding, I think you would find that you would severly hurt gangs if they lost this source of funding. Law Enforcement Agencies also spend alot of time and resources combating these gangs, and combating grow ops. As well Firemen and electrical workers are often brought in when gorw op's go bad. So I belive there is money to be saved there. Then there is money to be earned, unofficially Marijuana is one of B.C's biggest industries an industry the B.C government gets no money from, by legalising Marijuana the B.C government gets a piece of the pot. More money to fund more services. I don't know how to measure the health costs of pot, I really don't know what they are, but whatever they are under prohibition we are already covering the tab for whatever the health problems may be with out recieving any of the obvious monetary benifiets, or recieving the benifiets of being able to allocate police resources better to combat other crimes. I do belive that in the end there are a number of benifiets to be seen in legalising Pot. Not neccasarily because pot can cure every disease ont eh face of the earth, but because we invest so much loose so much, and forfiet so much in a war against a drug that is relatively speaking, harmless.

What if those three humans were skiers who choose to ski in out of bounds areas? Should the gov't be expected to shell out an unlimited amount of money to rescue them? The point is valid - these people are at least partially responsible for their own fate because they choose to enter a region where foreigners are regularly kidnapped and murdered. Technically the death rate is lower in Iraq then it is in Canada, maybe they travled there to live longer If these three Humans were skiers I would be glad there lives were saved, and wouldn't ask for them to pay money, although by payign taxes they do pay money. A recent string of commercials ahs been runing that have said innoculate yourself with knowledge 50% of Cancer is preventable. I do not expect 50% of Cancer patients to pay for life savign services because the failed to innoculate themselves with Knowledge. I recognize that many people want to cut government waste, but there is so much government waste acomplishes nothing I see no reason to bitch about costs when we get results. When the B.C government spent a year telling us about how B.C was the best place on earth, I cannot complain about saving three lives. When the Government of Canada siphons millions of dollars into a political party, I cannot complain about saving three lives, When the government of Canada spends billions creating a registry that accomplishes nothing, I cannot complain about savign three lives, When the government of Canada subsidizes an industry that kills 46,000 people a year, I cannot complain about subsidizing a life saving effort. Looking at some other states, the U.S apparently misplaced 23 billion dollars in 2003, The DoD spent 100 million on unused flight tickets, in cases like this I cannot compalin about savign three lives. I realise these people put themselves in danger, and I realise some people are so damn greedy they will miss their bloody tooney, by the way doesn't a penny cost a cent and half to make? Anyways, I see so much government waste that needs to be corrected, I see so many foolish decisiosn from government that result in people dieing, that I cannot complain when the government spends money to save lives, even if those people foolishly jepordized their lives. I don't think it cost 30 million, but if it did maybe the Liberal Party Can give it to us as a down payment on the sponsorship scandal, or the multi million dollar inquiries that ensued. I see very few people complain about such obvious government waste that I belive it is in bad taste for people to turn around and complain about saving a life for the cost of a slice of pizza.

I can't belive people are bitching and complaining about the cost of thsi operation. I must say I have always felt that you cannot put a value on human life, and today we have saved the life of three humans. In the past the Canadian government has siphoned off 250 million dollars of tax payers mney, it has spent over a billion creating a useless registry, ships millions of dollars into subsidies for tobacco companies. These actions have not saved a single life, today three lives were saved and the first thing we start bitching about is the cost. There are about 16 million people in the Canadian workforce, I don't know how much this operation cost, but even if it cost 30 million dollars I cannot say I am so cold hearted that I would bitch about two dollars, I have given two dollars to a herione addict on the streets of down town Vancouver, I spent two dollars buying a couple slices of pizza today, apparently I also spent two dollars saving three lives...I used to think the pizza was awfully cheap but in comparison a human life cost me less, I can't complain. If JTF was physically present and involved in the rescue I will lend nothing but support to the Prime Minister. These people may have made a foolish decision, but I must say I have yet to hear of a single person who hasn't.

Well Bardot gained her influence by being attractive...so it makes sense that she no longer has any influence. And as for the economic benifiets if they are so small, that they amount only to a couple hundred dollars per person why doesn't McCartney sell the damn helicopter on E-bay and use the money to pay the people to stop hunting seals.

hold on anti-Americanism.... Like in the election of 1911 or after the war of 1812? Anti-Americanism generally doesn't just appear one day for no reason, sometimes polticial parties foster it to help them win elections, like the conservatives, or sometimes it is a result of fighting a war against Americans, or feeling American pressure. Listen anti-Americanism is in our history it is not the fault of the CBC, it wasn't around in 1812, it is not the fault of Muslims in Canada...they probabley weren't around in 1911. Anti-Americanism tends to rear its head when there is a big issue at stake and Canadians and Americans are in disagreement. It generally subsides when we can find something to unify ourselves as nieghbors and friends, this pointing to the fact that most people can be satisfied. Because most people don't hate America, they instead are genuinley frustrated with American actions. Some take this to far and express themselves the wrong way, but just like in the past we will find an issue to unite us as friends or this current problem will meerely subside if given time.

I have repeated this countless times, there are flaws in how the political system has implemented AA, I am not here to defend those flaws, the current system is very poorly run. I belive that would be memo to Slavik, I certainly did not send you such a memo. Well we might all starve to death, or maybe the government will have camereas and wiretaps in all our houses, or maybe the ocean level will rise 150 feet flooding coastal cities, or the earth might enter an ice age, or turn into a desert, we might have a nuclear war, or all get blown up by terrorists, or our petroleam based economy will collapse and we will live like cavemen for the rest of our lives, a deadly virus will spread through out the world killing 90% of us and destroying the civilization we once had, the cancer rate will spiral out of control and we will all die, the baby boomers will get old die and leave the country in crumbles, the next generation of pot heads and punks will destroy everything their parents built for them and leave the world in ruins, a new computer virus will strike death to the financial system of the western world reducing us all to sobbing children, we will run out of drinking water and die of thirst, an asteriod will strike the earth wiping out our species and leave the world to be dominated by someone else, there are plenty of theories about what will happen in 50 years do you honestly think you have the answer? And even if you do, in comparison to the above, is it really that bad? Viable solutions???? While I respect renegades position and can recognize he makes very valid points, your being nothing more than a troll.

I agree that debatign on this forum can be well pointless, it really doesn;t accomplish anything material, but it canunder circumstances be fun. And to ease your worries about not changing any opinions, I will let you know that you certainly helped to change mine regarding pot.

I have a few problems with the study... Mainly what are the before results, we have none. This doesn't tell me anything other then the fact that a PHD still can;t help you do a good study. For all I know thsi could tell me dumb people smoke pot, not that pot makes people dumb. This could tell me that people who succeed less at school are more likely to do drugs such as pot, they are not successfull at these tests because there are below average. Maybe people with very slight mental handicaps are more likely to do drugs, therefore likely to perform poorly on such tests. Maybe pot smokers are more likely to binge drink and thats why they performed poorly on this test. Maybe Pot smokers are more likely to eat doritoes and that is why they performed poorly on this test, maybe doritoes are the real problem. Based on this study we just don't know, and I personally would not want to spend 40 billion dollars a year based on this study, I would not want to stop housing projects so I can build prisons, I would not want to cut school education so I can fund in prison education programs, I wouldn't want to cut health aid to drug addicts just so I can spend more money to put them in prison. If Pot inhibits your decision making ability then perhaps the DEA needs to stop smoking the pot they confiscate.

Well for one I did admit AA was not a neccesity for change, I did not argue that you must have it. While I cannot provide a perfect answer to your situation I can offer a few possibilities. Although Asians have been in North America for a long time, I guess if we count natives they were here for a very very long time. But anyways the majority of Asians living in Canada have immigrated recently within the past few generations, my point being that immigration standards are fairly high, we do not accept your average garbage man from tiawan into Canada, we instead attempt to get the best and the brightest. So generally speaking Asian Canadians can be succesful despite lingering affects of discrimination because they are generally speaking above average. Why Jews? I think with Jews we deal with a very sensitive subject, the holocaust one of the greatest tragedies of the century. I think it is fairly welld ocumented and most people know and are truly appalled by not just the holocaust but statements by a prime miniser who said none is to many, I would say there is much more vigallance whenit comes to discrimination against Jews.

Let me make this perfectly clear, even though most minorities do not suffer from discrimination like they did in the past the affects of this discrimination still linger today. Because they still linger today, they can provide people who were not discriminated against with an advantage, an advantage based upoun past wrongs. The discriminationof yesterday affects the people of today, not only does it affect those who were discriminated against but it also elavates those who were not discriminated against. And therefore we continue to perpetuate the discriminationof the past because the discrimination of the past not only put up bariers it also allowed for other people to be eleavated over such minorities. Next I do not belive we should make your local black pimp the head of General motors, but I do belive we can give consideration to skin colour when hiring for low level positions. Because at low level positions it is not hard to find people who can perform the required tasks perfectly fine, in that way we are not hiring someone under qualified to do the job, We are meerly hiring one qualified person over another qualified person, this done in cases where there is little substantial difference between the candidates, and in my previous posts I did say that there have been problems implementing this, so that AA can go to far, but that doesn't change the fact that it can also do good. A little affirmative action is a bit like a progressive tax system, we are taking from everyone but we ask a little more from the rich, in the Case of AA those who have collectively benifieted from past wrongs. However unlike taxes if AA were implemetned responsibley it would be over before you die and those you leave behind would not face the prospect of AA.

Yeah no shit thanks for the news, my point was that the effects of discrimination linger long after the actual discrimination has left, I was argueing that AA can help ensure this process happens and happens at a faster rate not that this process absolutely requires AA to happen but there can be benifiets. Speeding up societial change from a policy point of view has always failed. People's opinions are far more dogmatic than regulations on paper. I am not talking about speeding up societal change, I am talking about bringing somethign up to the level of our current society.

Yeah no shit thanks for the news, my point was that the effects of discrimination linger long after the actual discrimination has left, I was argueing that AA can help ensure this process happens and happens at a faster rate not that this process absolutely requires AA to happen but there can be benifiets.

You know allowing a limited number of off topic threads may not be such a bad idea for the general flow and behavoir on the forum. All to often we sit behind a computer screen and see people as that lonnie left wing guy, that rightwing nut job, that pinko commie and so on and so... I realise there is opposition to this because this is a political forum, but knowing posters as people instead of as a backwards pain in the ass <insert affiliation here> may be benificial to the forum. But just a thought, other then that I don't mind the idea of the proposed change, and including telivision may not be a bad thing, you could probabley generate alot of interestign conversation on some Movie/T.V documentary, especially when members of this forum can send out advanced notice.

Well thats certainly an interesting hobby you got, I personally like playing hockey and other outdoor sports, but hey whatever floats your boat. My point would be however that when you say Natives have a compasionate culture you are not degrading anyone elses culture, you are not saying natives have a more compasionate culture. -------------- now my opinions on afirmative action, If you can find a group that has been discriminated against in the past, you will generally find that the effects of this continue on generations after the discrimination has ended. Because if you discriminate against hiring women, 30 years down the road, the upper chain of command will be disproportionately a bunch of white old farts, not because they were neccasarily the best candidates, but because the competition was cut short, from an early age by discrimination. In my opinion affirmative action can help get the ball rolling but should only be a temporary measure, until we build a foundation upoun witch to work. In other words affirmative action should not be about getting a black, or a female, or black female CEO, but affirmative action should be used to bring up the number of "minorities" in lower level positions so that they can gain expirence neccasary to advance their career, affirmative action should act as the tool to get them in the door and to keep them inside that door until we have ended the generational lag of discrimination that affects people well after discrimination has ended. Unfortunately for us politicians have a way of screwing up even the most simplistic things, but it is not reverse discrimination but rather an answer to a serious problem, a generational lag of lingering discrimination. To solve this it may very well mean that we have to slow down the promotion of non-minority people within the ranks to ensure that effects of discrimination does not perpetuate itself over and over again generation after generation. Unfortunately with our teams of walking dinosaurs this process has become contencoius because it is delaying an inevitable generational change that should hopefully lead to a better equality in the work place, oh and in the sake of being politicaly correct my apologies to the dinosaurs.

A few years ago in my grade twelve history class, my teacher invited Canadian Citizen who had faught in Vietnam to come talk to the class. He said he had "volunteered" to join the U.S army, after his lottery number had been drawn so he could have a small element of choice in his future, seing as how he would end up serving anyway. So the first thing I would question is the manner in witch thsi man "Volountered" for serivce, was it truly voluntary? The second thing I would like to point out, which is something this man mentioned in his presentation, is that many people simply paid doctors to get out of millitary service, in the case of the guy who presented, a couple of his cousins and a number of his friends paid a doctor to be declared medically un fit to serve. I brign this up because many have become so quick to condemn the man in this news story for desertion, but how many thousands of people are there in America today leading productive lives with children and grandchildren all because they paid a doctor some money to avoid serving in the millitary. Atleast the man in thsi news story, left the country. He did not further insult those who died by remaining in America living under the banner of American millitary protection. I think we love to blame people and call them cowards, but at the very least these cowards had enough guts to leave their country and enough integrety to stop living under the American millitary banner, unlike wha tI would assume to be thousands of people who "medically" deserted the American millitary.

Yeah that was all fine and dandy but it was a loud of shit, I realise the piece was meerely a way of pointing out the many oddities in todays society, our many problems, and I realise this is more of a light hearted approach but I think it points out our problems in a very poor way. The article is so tainted with nostalgia it makes me want to puke, the fact is no amount of gravy can cover up a rotten christmas turkey and no matter how you dress up the past, it cannot cover up the what the past was, the past was not some sort of Golden Age of wholesome living and responsible and respectible politicians, it was not a time where every held hands and sung kumbayah. Yes there are many problems in the world, but if the answer was in the past we wouldn't be expirencing the problems we our today.

Liberal Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%. Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, however Ross Perot ran in two elections, in 1992 when he got 18.9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992) of the vote and in 1996 when he got 8.4% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996) of the vote.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" When you replied I thought you might be makign an attempt at humor, because you really gave the natives no credit, going so far as to say they had no society, I thought you must at the very least be tryign to make an attempt at humor. So in response I gave you a somewhat sarcastic reply based on culture stereo types--Dumb ass redneck albertans, War lord Americans who beat their POW's, etc... because you to used such stereo types I meerely responded with the exact same tactic. I preyed on stereo types, except when I did that you found it extremely offensive and decided to tell me to go to hell. Showign meerely how hipocritical you are, it was fine for you to blatantly insult native culture, but when I jokingly did the same about western society, you lost it, shame on you. As for some points, 1) All native tribes had a society, society is the summation of human interactions...it is the make up of peoples daily lives, it is blatant ignorance to deny that natives had interactions, customs, and culture. 2) The only natives that hunted Buffalo were the Plains Buffalo Hunters, those that lived in the praries, it may come as a shock but there were no bloody buffalo in P.E.I. 3) What is nomadiac, most fully nomadiac tribes, those in the prariers and Canadian North, had lower populations, While most groups on the west coast and those that spoke the Iroquis langauge had more permanent dwelling areas and had much heavy populations. 4) Property, could I rightfully claim banff national park as my own, just because it is not private? While most natives had no codified private property in the western sense, it would be a mistake in bad faith to say that as groups they did not control areas or, hold soveriegnty of lands. Most Iroquis villages for example would be surrounded by defendable barricades, while land was not a commodity to be bought and sold, territory and farm land of a group could/would and was defended against invasions from other native groups. 5) Millitary Alliances, I feel I must touch on these meerely to point out the fact that outside group pacts would indicate that natives could make a claim to soveriegnty, to control, and to being governed, they were not a heldless body walking through the forrests...they worked both with and against surrounding native groups. 6) The NorthWest Coast Natives stretched basically from Alaska to the south end of British Columbia, they had a fairly large population, had familial ownership of fishing sites and housing locations, they had beauty products, and had a form of a class system, which included slaves. 7) In the praries as the use of horses became widespread, native groups ran into each other more often making conflict somewhat more common. Why? Because native individual native groups still followed herds, they still needed exclusive hunting territory. While this is not private property, it could be considered a crude form of crown land...this is our land to share between us. 8) Canada and America were not the only countries colonized by Europe, south of us there were many countries colonized by Europe countries that did have permanent settlements, advanced cultures, and could be considered by even the toughest crititic as nations. The principle holds true, if you always must do as the romans when in rome, it was undoubtedley violated in South American countries, in India, the Middle east, etc... ------------------------------------- Signifying in todays society an abnormal attachment to religion? There are many in todays society that would claim any attachment to religion is abnormal, wether it is a girl wearing a crucifix as big as her cleavage or a sihk wearing a turbin or a kirpan. I don't neccasarilly find it offensive, and while it may have the potential for danger I do not find it dangerous. Of all the student to student violence in Canadian schools we have not once had an instance where a student harmed another student with a kirpan. Make no mistkae about it, kirpans were in schools long before this ruiling, this ruiling applies specifically to quebec, but in other Canadian provinces thsi has been permitted for a long time with out problems, the same can't even be said for safety scisors or basketballs. To most fundemental christians being homosexual belittles them, how about Larry Spencer who declared homsexuality should be outlawed, is that not belittling homosexuals is that not offensive not only to homosexuals but to most Canadians, to have a political representative declare they want homosexuality outlawed, that would be a fundemental violation of human rights and an intolerable act Now hold on, prayer has never been banned in school, anyone who has ever been to a school during test time knows that even athiests pray. Was it not God who declared that "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." So let us not then exalt ourselves in public school showing everyone how religous we can be, say it to him in private from your heart not publicly proclaim it from some memorized verse in your head. On the same side the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms gurantees Canadians the freedom to choose to practice or not to practice religion or any religion. While I think you might be over stating things a slight bit, I belive you might be onto something with the French language. However I would argue that instead seperation of Church and state shoudl be viewed as a blessing to the church, although I would say it is a blessing in disguise. The Christian religion is big on the concept of Free will, God gave man free will, I think religous people shoudl respect the fact that God wants individuals to choose to worship and respect him, not to have governments force people to respect God, because forced respect God is no better then forced Frenchification. No, groups that sit around a table wearing bad sheets and pillow cases as hats are considered white supremicists, groups that loudly proclaim their culture to be superior to others and give no right to other people to have their own culture are white supremiscists, no different then a muslim who says all infidels must die, it is irrationality and a violation of our "unailable rights".

No society? Look at British Columbia, the natives there were so advanced, they had adopted the major corner Stones of American society before "America" existed. They had slavery, beauty products, religion, and the welfare state. They had magnificient open floor plan houses with a panoramic ocean view, they had vacation homes for their familiy. Their was private ownership of whaling and fishing locations, and if I broke your arm, I would be expected to compensate you. Out east we had the Iroquis who were constantly at war with the Hurons, very American if I do say so myself. Not only that but they even beat their POW's. The Iroquis also had houses and lived in one place for up to ten years, farming, I suppose we could take shots at todays millitary families here, how long do they live in one place? And like Canada today as you wander into the praries you find the wierdo's who beat their wives, ride horses, and get drunk while walking in the forrest.

I belive it was an ivy league history professor who claimed the value of a degree in history, is simply that you can criticaly read a Newspaper. It might seem like alot of money to invest, only to teach people how think critically, but given todays society, people who can read a newspaper are a rare treasure. If history can teach people only to think critically, to read a newspaper, then we as society have made a great gain. I know alot of people on the right side of the political spectrum say, everyone should be forced to take an economics course, I understand the principle behind this, and I would like to continue this principle to suggest that if a B.A means you understand your surroundings even a little better, society as a whole will be better.

What do you mean step on your toes, perhaps people who don't work out 5 times a week are stepping on my toes, perhaps people who smoke are stepping on my toes, perhaps people who take EI holidays are stepping on my toes. One of the most expensive things for government is costs associated with private car ownership, maybe car owners are stepping on my toes. How about dogs, think about they spend all this money on a dog who lives for 10-15 years and then dies, that dog doesn't have a job and produces nothing but more dogs and dog crap. That money could be better spent elsewhere, and that time could be better spent elsewhere, yet we have dog parks, maybe dogs and dog owners are stepping on my toes. How about the entertainment industry, nothing productive comes from sitting down and watching the Lord of the rings trilogy but that hasn't stopped me from watching it, it hasn't stopped the government from subsidizing the industry, and it hasn't stopped the industry from taking in billions of dollars a year. How about the chevy camaro? they are comming out with a new one, but for a number of years the F bodies were merely a product of the Canadian government, probabley why they failed. I think what you need to consider is that getting my degree steps on your toes so much less then other activites. Like smoking, seriously its a billion dollar industry whose end product is death. Of all the things to get pissed off about Geoff, why don't you go get pissed off at money being wasted on killing people, I hardly call that productive. In Canada alone we pay tobbaco companies 100 million dollars, to do what? Kill our people and take our money...yeah and your pissed off about a bloody philosophy degree???????? And please the degree is in history.

What exactly is time? And how do we define what is a waste of time? Is a waste of time generaly applicable, is it specific, and who determines if you are wasting your time. Do I get to determine? Geoff, your wasting your time, why? because I say so. I don't think, things work like that. You see if you had taken a history course, you might have been introduced to this idea of individualism, its pretty prevalant in western society. What I am thinking here is of the quality of being an individual and as an individual being able to determine whether or not you are wasting your time, by your self, not having someone else determine that for you. For instance, many people have sat back and said, a B.A is a waste of time. I will not debate wether or not a B.A is a waste of time for you, but allow me to decide for myself. In the end I enjoy going to school (knida of Ironic I never really went to high school), I like learning about the past, about other cultures, and about other societies. Many people I talk to getting a B.B.A, are doing it for the money, they hate every second but they want the money. For them money means happiness, and getting a B.B.A means getting money, therefore getting a B.B.A means happiness. For me the college expirence and getting my B.A is enjoyable, so who are you to sit down and tell me not to enjoy myself. Just because you don't agree with it? Well I am sorry comrade Stalin, but as long as I am guranteed, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I will do what makes me happ, within the law, not what you would be happy with me doing. As far as raising the cost I don't see why, I make just enough to go to school, I would rather not have to graduate in debt. When it comes to college raising the cost might not mean screening out the less commited so much as it might mean screening out those with less financial means. As for raising the bar, why? Geoffery if I recall, in a post about abortion, you noted that you theoretically were a candidate to be aborted, because for all intents and purposes, you were going to grow up to be an idiot. Of course the whole method of screening people out is not precise and it incurs a high level of inefficiencies. I was looking at my transcripts and I laugh at the fact that I have a fairly high GPA thanks to taking the most remedial courses possible, to the point that none of my courses really qualified me for acceptance into university, I didn't have the right courses. Now in University I have a 3.94 CGPA and am in the top two percentile of my school, the screening process didn't exactly work. It didn't work because in high school I had no direction, no purpose, no desire to do anything but stay home sleep in and watch T.V. where as in University I have a goal, my goal is to get good grades so I can get into law school. Some people have goals in high school, they have their life all planned out. That can be one of the biggest advantages to university, for the 90% of us who don't have our life planned out, I suppose not only is it an adventure in learning but an adventure in self learning and I see no reason why we should deny that to people. Some people don't figure it out before university, in university, or after university, some people never figure it out. But in the end the quest is always the most fun, and I don't see why we should be denying people the oppurtunity to take that quest, just because they don't meet your standards or won't live their life the way you want them to. I don't think it would be fair for me to tell you how to live your life, and I don't think you want me to either, this feeling is reciprocal amongst most people in the western world.

found one, in Alberta, http://www.jobbank.gc.ca/ShowJob_en.asp?Or...urce=JobPosting

As Ronald Reagan would say: There you go again. I stated that it was extremely doubtful that Clinton would have won in 1992 because Perot took 1/3 of the votes from Bush Sr. Indeed, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Then you compared it to the 5% of the vote that Nader took from al-Gore in 2000. Not.even.close. And I told you that if nader hadn't run it would have been extremley unlikely that Bush would have won the election, Bush won by a couple hundred votes in Florida. I am not trying to equate 5% to 18%. I am merely pointing out that both won the election because of vote spliting, nader's was much more localised/smaller but in the end it did the same thing. Would bush have won in 1992 probabley, would Gore have won in florida in 2000, probabley. I am not trying to say 5% equals 18% but the end result was the same. Kind of like Shooting a guy in the head with a shot gun and shooting a guy in the head with a little pistol, they both end up dead.