Nader

[speeder]

To paraphrase Clinton, "who is better off now than they were 4 years ago?" Let's see, there is Halliburton, then some companies that make body bags, caskets and artificial limbs, (does Halliburton supply these to the Defense Dept.?), there is Bechtel, (oh yeah, part of Halliburton, sorry), there is Brown and Root, (Halliburton again, sorry), hmmmmm....., well there must be someone else. Did President Cheney sit on any other boards?

HTF these lowlifes can be acceptable to anyone is beyond belief. And anyone who buys the argument that they have "made us safer" needs to stay away from Times Square and Ebay. You will get your clock cleaned.

[lendaddy]

What exactly is it that your buddy Clinton did to make the common man better off? Best I can tell he did next to nothing and pushed our problems down the road. The only fiscal moves he made were Repulican legislation which he signed. And in my best Reagan voice I say "well, there you go again" You actually believe these guys are in the business of trading human life for $? Is it that far fetched that they believe they are doing the right thing by ridding the world of murderous tyrants. Personally I say no we are not safer(yet) but we will be. We have knocked the hive from the tree so the bees are pissed but once we douse and light it up we will be much safer.

[dd74]

I must say Haliburton is in the limelight in conjunction with this war only because Cheney was attached to the company. This by no means admonishes either he or the company from reaping eventual benefits, but then again, many American companies will reap benefits from this war. Cellular phone services, fast food - you name anything that you utilize here in this country, and that will be eventually used in the new Iraqui lifestyle if the U.S. has its wishes. So who do you blame then? An entire American lifestyle? An entire American consumer-based ideology?

Secondly, of the U.S. wish - Denis - this will no longer be GW's wish to "Americanfy" Iraq if Kerry is elected. Then it will be Kerry's plan to either advance the war, clean up the country, introduce big American businesses to it - thus becoming one with special interest as has GW - or bail on the country altogether . In general, I do not like this war, however it's a done deal - it won't go away, and I don't think there will be an easy remedy to fix it - particularly before June 30th when the American troops plan to hand over control to the Iraquis.

So, instead of complaining about what George has started, how would Kerry fix it?

But back to American companies: McDonalds is ruining the rainforest. Goodyear is destroying the world too as are hundreds of other American companies in lieu of natural resources or exploitation of humanity. Haliburton is no worse than any of those entities.

You want to know where the problem starts? It starts with YOU - THE CONSUMER. So until you put down your Big Mac, your Nextel wireless and stop driving your car, these worldwide conflicts and these presidents perpetuating these conflicts will continue.

[tabs]

Why DD you listened to me...

To quote Steve Forbes, "Kerry isn't interested in anything, except getting himself elected."

Kerry is for the Tax Cuts except for those who make over 200K a year (the rich)..that amounts to 28B more in taxes on a 500B deficeit...

The concensus on Wall Street is that if Kerry is elected the economy will go into the toliette.

Nader says that corporations through their lobbyists and money (donations) control the government of the US....Duh....if a corporation gives money to both canidates, the corp. wins no matter who is elected. Get it...So it doesn't matter which frick or frack you elect both are sucking at the tit of special interest groups. And guess what you the citizen lose in the end. Cause the corporation owes no alllegiance to anything except it's share holders ( I know CEO's are feathering their own nests...usually with stock options)..which for all intents and purposes are Institutional investors.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

So it doesn't matter which frick or frack you elect both are sucking at the tit of special interest groups. And guess what you the citizen lose in the end. Cause the corporation owes no alllegiance to anything except it's share holders ( I know CEO's are feathering their own nests...usually with stock options)..which for all intents and purposes are Institutional investors.

Excellent job restating what's already been said. I nominate tabs for Secretary of the Department of Redundancy Department.

[tabs]

I guess I'm just repeating what I've allready said in the past then.

[speeder]

How would Kerry, (or anyone else), clean up Junior's mess? That's a loaded question if ever there was, it is probably not possible. The best anyone can do is to stop the hemmoraging of our economy and the sacrifice of human life, but it won't be easy. BTW, as of today the June 30th date has been scrapped. At least Kerry knows a thing or two about a war where our leaders lied to us and the situation was far from the official version.

And Len, Cheney and his pals at Halliburton couldn't give a rat's ass about murderous tyrants. When is our military and Halliburton scheduled to go to Africa? You've got to be kidding me, right? The people of Sudan could use our help as of yesterday. They are wisely not holding their breath.

I suppose that people could look at Enron, for example, and say, "do you really believe that they could trade thousands of people's retirement pensions and loot the national economy just for money??"

Yes, they would and did. And yes, corporate interests come first in this White House. ANd don't anyone bother to tell me how "all politicians are the same", the current situation is the biggest scandal in the history of the U.S. It is unmatched in depravity, and by the time that all of the facts come out it will be way too late. Clinton could have gotten blown 5 times a day by each member of congress and funnelled all govt. business to Little Rock firms only and it would not have come close.

ANd what did Clinton do to make the common man better off?? Well, since I assume that you would deny him credit for anything that occured during his 8 years in office, nothing. If, however, you do not subscribe to the theory that he did nothing, then how about the best economy since the invention of the wheel? Crime rates plummeted, more cops were hired, National forrests were acquired and protected from development, most of the world became more prosperous and peaceful under his leadership, he came closer than anyone else to brokering a Middle East peace plan, (Bush immediately abandoned any effort to bring peace to Israel/Palestine), Jobs were more plentiful than ever in the U.S., more millionaires were created in the U.S. than ever in history, (Bush is the first administration since the great depression to suffer a net loss of jobs during his term), let's see....., I'm sure that I'm forgetting something, but I'm willing to bet that every right-winger on this board saw business flourish as never before or since under Clinton. Even a slacker like me couldn't swing a dead cat w/o hitting an employment opportunity in the '90s.

Of course, none of this had anything to do w/ Clinton or his policies. Explain how it works again, according to the GOP? The president inherits all problems from the previous administration, nothing is his fault, unless of course things are going well, (and the prez is Republican), in which case the current guy gets the credit.

You guys are hilarious!

[dd74]

Man, Denis, what's with you? I can hear you screaming through your words.

Anyway, I find fault with a lot of your last post. If Kerry makes it, he will be elected for the purpose of ousting Bush. That's fine. But he'll have a short four years at the helm if he doesn't correct the problems Bush created. The celebration over kicking GW out will be short lived. Now's time to do the dirty work. How will he do it? What measures? It's time to stop *****in' about Bush and come to an idea of what needs to be done. That's the problem with Dems; they're nostalgic for bad times. I don't see Repubs complaining about all the crap Kennedy put this country through with his deficit spending - something that it took the Vietnam war to overcome.

Secondly, this crap about Clinton and the economy is a waste of keystrokes. No one can take the credit for the economy. The Internet boom - and yes, it was the Internet vis-a-vis the new economy - that pushed up portfolios, etc., not the President. Clinton gets no more credit than Reagan should get for stopping the Cold War. It was economics.

Also, coming close to brokering a Peace Deal? Who cares. Did Clinton do it? No. Why? Because his "people" were foreign affairs failures. Why do I say failures? Because they didn't get the job done, did they?

So you tell me: what great accomplishments came about with Clinton? I'd like to compare him to Bush and see what part of "more of the same" we'll get off of Kerry.

[speeder]

I happen to think that everyone should be outraged by this sort of corruption, I mean come on, how much worse could it be? These people have chutzpa, (or WTF it's called), I'll give them that. As for me "screaming", (??), what, was I typing w/ the CAP LOCK key on by accident? Every once in awhile I need to blow off a little steam over the criminals in the White House, the whole "Nader for President" thing is just bringing some awful memories to the forefront. If you think that Bush and Cheney are acceptable leaders, fine, but I don't share your opinion even 1%.

I am far from the most vociferous Bush/Cheney hater that I know, in fact I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, but that is long past. My Dad, who is a Korean war vet and not hugely political, tosses his Time magazine straight into the trash w/o reading it if Bush is on the cover. He is battling cancer, when it looked like he was going to die last year, he said, "at least I won't have to live under that (unprintable) anymore, but you will", other people that I know including a Viet Nam vet that occasionally employs me feel basically the same. Bush is scum, but next to Cheney he is a boy scout. Sorry if I scared any children w/ my rant, but I can assure you that I am fine, even when someone is driving like a twat in front of me.

[dd74]

...well, okay then...

[brawlins]

This is what wearies me:

And yes, corporate interests come first in this White House. And don't anyone bother to tell me how "all politicians are the same", the current situation is the biggest scandal in the history of the U.S. It is unmatched in depravity, and by the time that all of the facts come out it will be way too late.

The biggest scandal in history, huh? I guess we'll see. Even Speeder is waiting for the facts to come out. So he must have secret sources in the meantime?
Why not stick to real facts? This discussion is so emotional and so illogical that it is not worth continuing.
I'm checking out.

- Bill

[cegerer]

" ....when it looked like he was going to die last year, he said, "at least I won't have to live under that (unprintable) anymore, ...."

That's actually quite sad. I just don't understand how or why one could let a politician have that sort of major affect on one's life? Has there really been ANY difference whatsoever in your daily life between the Clinton and Bush administrations? If so, what could they possibly be????? There sure haven't been any changes in my life ......

My free advice for the day: for the next 3 months, cancel all of your subscriptions to newspapers, stop watching the TV news, don't listen to talk radio, and don't debate politics here or with anybody. You'll be amazed how inconsequential politicians really are. -- Curt

[WOODPIE]

Did anyone else hear or read that the president now wants to reclassify jobs offered at places such as McD's and BK as "manufacturing" jobs?

[dd74]

Originally posted by WOODPIE
Did anyone else hear or read that the president now wants to reclassify jobs offered at places such as McD's and BK as "manufacturing" jobs?

What would be the benefit or detriment of that? Oh, wait! Is it to say not all our manufacturing jobs have gone to the Third World?

[WOODPIE]

That would be my take on it, yeah. Kinda funny.

One thing Nader (you remember Nader, this is a thread about Nader) mentioned Sunday morning was the need to invest in alternative fuel sources and the technology that goes with it. I agree; petroleum is so twentieth century. Would that someone (anyone) would launch this country on a new endeavor into this field and/or others such as nanotechnology with the same vigor that JFK provided, I think would cause the entire globe to prosper. The president's mission to Mars will only yield more Tang.

Ed

[dd74]

Well, I'll tell you Woodpie, it's an investment opportunity worth looking into. One of the most intelligent statements President Clinton made was sooner or later someone is going to make TRILLIONS on alternative fuel sources.

Too bad no one's listened to him yet...

[350HP930]

It always suprises me how the hardcore democrats and gore lovers love to blame his supreme court loss on Nader.

The election fraud, court battles and the thousands of blacks that were denied their right to vote cause jeb's voter roll purges 'accidentally' labelled them as felons had more to do with his loss than Nader ever did.

The fact that gore could not do any better than he did against a right wing baffoon and an independant candidate (that I voted for BTW) is his own personal and political failure, not Nader's.

If memory serves me correctly he either lost or barely won his 'home' state. That should tell you something.

Then again, faced with tweedle dee or twildle dumb in the office of president over the past several years, I would have preferred gore.

As long as we are going to get the president that is pre-selected for us by the powers that be I would prefer that we have one that is beholden to insurance companies and would better manage the nation's risk instead of one who is beholden to energy barons who are out to maximise their profits and don't give a damn about the risks involved.

[speeder]

In 2000, Nader said, "Gore cost me the election!"

[speeder]

Curt, Thank for that. My Dad kind of does take your advice, he just won't look at an image of Bush, he tries to pretend that Bush doesn't exist.

Yeah, he's a lifelong Democrat, worked on the railroad, (so he is a union guy), fought in a God awful war, (aren't they all), GI bill through college and law school, etc...

The other thing is that we have a dark sense of humor in my family that I fear doesn't translate real well over the 'net sometimes, ie. I always told my Dad that when I die I want one of those smart-ass tombstones that says like: "I told you I was sick, now do you f**king believe me??" (With the boots sticking out of the ground). He says, "No problem, kid. Done deal."

He is actually in remission now, since I feel like you guys are family here is a picture of the old man in happier times, (visiting my brother in South America ~20 years ago):

[350HP930]

Speeder, I don't see anything wrong with your anti-bush posts.

I just think that the bush lovers are just taking the low road of attacking the messenger by accusing you of being 'emotional' when you tell them what they don't want to hear.

Cognitive dissonance is the clinical term for their reaction I believe.