Nader
 

Nader just annouced he's running as an independent canidate. I suggest you all take a good look at his ideas for reform. He is a logical thinker and hopefully can be the catalyst towards the end of a ridculous two party system.

Cheers,
Philp

The dems are nervous now... if it wasn't for Nader, Gore would be sitting at 1600 now. Imagine how different things would be if that happened?

Dude, that has got to be one of the stupidest things to say. The libertarians got thousands of votes in Florida, oh wait, so did Buchannan, not to forget to mention the Socialist party. To blame Nader for swinging votes ins't fair, there were many others who "swung votes".

Also, don't you think it's ridiculous that unless you are a republican or democrat you are considered B rated? When was he last time we had someone representing another group besides rep or dem?

Nader swung the votes away from Gore and Bush won...SOOO stupid, people should be able to vote for who they want.

No offense Richard, I'm just sick of hearing that comment. : )

Run, Uncle Ralphie, run!

Leveraged Voting......
 

I figure if I vote for Bush, I'd only be cancelling out ONE Democrat vote.

If I vote for Nader, and he attracts only one or two Democrat votes that would have gone for whichever final ABB (Anybody But Bush) candidate the Democrats decide on, then when the final tallys come out, I have kept two or three Democrat votes from stacking up against Bush.

It's a great plan, and it worked last time too.

Can you imagine Gore handling the world of the last 4 years?

Scary.

Even Nader sounds better than that.

No, I don't want to debate anybody about anything, and I don't want to hear about all the usual litany. Suspect I will anyway.

It's my plan, and I am sticking to it.

I don't really care who anybody "likes" around here, but Nader is the reason why Bush is in the White House, period. (Him and the Supreme Court, actually).

Phillip, how many legitimate votes did the Socialist party or Pat Buchanan get in Fla. in 2000? Nader got 100,000 and Bush (supposedly) beat Gore by 537. :eek: All knowledgable people agree that Nader took 100 votes from Gore for every one that he took from Bush, at least, so Nader was an election spoiler, PERIOD. Nader's single accomplishment in 2000 was costing Gore the electoral vote in ~20 states, including Florida, and inserting our present genius in the White House!

"Imagine Gore (as president) the last four years"?? Are you kidding me?? I could imagine Pat Buchanan w/ Strom Thurmond doing a lot less damage than Cheney in control w/ Bush as his front office man. Yassar Arafat in control of the world couldn't f**k things up worse than Bush's retarded son. His will go down in history as the most disasterous presidential administration ever. Who perpetrated the biggest scandal in the history of the U.S. And that is if he is removed in the fall. God help us all if he is re-installed somehow. No Bush-hater, in their wildest nightmare in 2000, could imagine the carnage that these corrupt right-wing extremists could inflict on the world. No one.

Singpilot, do you own a *****load of Halliburton stock or something? I cannot imagine who else would think that the world is a better place for having their board of directors influencing world affairs. :confused:

I have a surrogate big brother who fought in Viet Nam as an 18 y.o Marine during the height of the war, and my Dad fought in Korea, uncles in WW2, etc., they all agree that Gore on LSD would have been better than this punk. Someone please illuminate this for me.

Oh yeah, Nader. I liked him better when he was climbing under my car, checking the brakes. WTF makes him qualified to be President?? Or is it just a petulant, "who cares if he's qualified", whine against the 2 dominant parties??

Well, timing is everything as they say in ol' H'wood. Kerry AND Edwards are beating Bush by no less than 10 points in popularity. So is it that Nader steps in to - let's be realistic here - level the playing field more than push Independent values such as his?

Hopefully, if the Dems are as "tight" as the news has said, they'll ignore him. They have to keep focus on getting GW out of the White House. Anything Nader does in lieu of removing Bush is a proven liability.

Re: Nader
 

my plot is working! divide and conquer. it's Perot in '92 all over again! only this time the Democrats will be on the short end of the stick, and I shall finally have my revenge!!

MUUAHHAHHAAHAHAAAAAAA!!

Yes, but not a whine, more like a "wake up you guys".

An election spoiler???? What the ***** are you saying?

This is what it sounds like: Vote for the guy that has a chance to beat the other guy (who you don't like), but whatever you do don't vote for your favorite candidate because that will spoil the election?

That makes NO sense to me. Please explain why I should vote for YOUR boy b/c he may lose.

I say let him run.....no use in complaining about how he will screw up another candidates chances, etc. This is how the American system works and if a guy wants to run for president, that is his right. I am a little concerned that Nader's involvement may keep Bush in office another 4 years (something I don't want), but I support 100 percent anyone's right to run for public office. I think it is dangerous to limit one's freedom of choice on the basis that it would hurt a broader cause. Isn't that how some of the dumbest decisions have been made in the past? That's how we rushed into the war with Iraq without proper planning, because not enough Dems were willing to put a damper on Bush's mission. A stretched analogy I know, but it still illustrates the dangers of supressing a movement in favor of the 'greater good.'

If you don't like Nader and are mad that he is running, simply do not vote for him. For what its worth, I will likely vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. I just want to get Bush outta there.

The reason why
 

Speeder your the reason why I moved to Nevada from CA!

I saw Nader this morning, also. Smart man, well spoken, and can think on his feet. None of his chosen words during the interview sounded anything like what is heard from Kerry, Edwards or the president . He presented no great "plan" that he then had to explain in excruciatingly boring, micro-managed detail. No "lock-box" for entitlement programs. He reduced the homosexual marriage controversey to the most basic of concerns; equal rights....and didn't even try to sidestep that issue.
He sugar-coats nothing, his stance on the issues of environment, economy, healthcare, welfare and the place America should occupy in world affairs are clear as glass.

In other words, he doesn't have a snowball's chance.

I am hoping, however, that the controversy of his entering the race will afford him the opportunity and coverage to bring his perspective of these issues to the forefront.

Ralph has the same anger as Dean, but isn't hampered by the schmooze-talk of the more experienced (bastardized) Kerry or Edwards. I'd really like to see him on the same stage as the president in a debate, that would be killer.

Ed

I know you're exaggerating and trying to be funny, but this is just stupid.

The corporate-owned religious-right Reps scare the hell out of me, and the corporate (or Chinese)-owned Dems who want to raise my taxes so Carmencita can have baby #9 and get free healthcare (while I pay) make me sick.

I'll vote independent, thank you. It's my freaking choice.

Re: The reason why
 

Thanks, Tabs. :)

I'm about to become the only guy admitted to Rgruppe w/ a 911SC!! http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat4.gif http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat3.gif

Yeah, baby!! :D

And Blue, we might be closer in viewpoint than you think. I am basically aligned w/ the right on several issues, including the (lack of an) immigration policy in our country. I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone thinks that Bush & Co. have their best interests in mind. :confused:

Unless you are one of the lucky corporate types who is benefitting financially from the drummed-up war or the current price of a gallon of gasoline, (in L.A. or Baghdad), ;) , everyone else in the world is suffering under these human canker sores who are making policy.

And Phillip, Nader is not my "favorite candidate" by a long-shot. :cool:

Re: Re: The reason why
 

Go with my Blessings....& tell em I sent U.....now back to my TV...

I think GW pissed in Speeder's corn flakes or somethin. That is some deep seated hatred you got there friend. Are you gonna be alright when Bush wins? BTW I'll be in DC for the party either way, see ya there?

He pissed in the world's cornflakes, IMO. And it is not an uninformed opinion, but I don't have the energy to argue anymore. Go ahead and think that he is a good leader, and that he or Cheney would send their own sons to Iraq, or whatever you want.

Will I "be alright when he wins"? I will give up on the American public if that happens, or if people are dumb enough to vote for Nader and give him another term while "losing" the vote, but I'm a survivor. I will fare better than most I suppose, I'm part of the relatively privleged class, but it is no fun watching the world burn. It must take a pretty sick mind to enjoy this *****, just for partisan reasons. :cool:

Nader is smart and he does his homework. If he can get into the debates, he could make a huge impact on this election. but the wimpy Republicans will probably block that, for fear their boy may start crying onstage.

I'm glad to see Nader in. I think it may help Kerry too, as he'll become the "moderate" in the middle.

All of a sudden, this campaign got interesting to me!

And as for "deep seated hatred", I don't know about that. I have an intense dislike for him, but don't wish him ill or anything. I just want him to go back to failing at things that don't matter as much, like all of those businesses in Texas that he got into through family connections.

He has run the country exactly like every other endeavor in his life, he ran it into the ground. I swear that this guy could F.U. a wet dream, as the old saying goes. Granted, these are trying times, but if we ever needed brilliant leadership it was the last 4 years. Instead we got George Jr., who has slid into every situation in his life through name recognition and just dumb luck, (Nader and Florida), and manages to always leave things FUBAR when he moves on to the next failure.

I have always struggled to understand his fans, some are obviously just GOP hacks who would be loyal to any Republican, but are others cheering for the rich frat boys of the world whose Dads' got them everything even though they were never qualified? The guys who always move to the front of the line, (ahead of you, BTW), and get your National Guard spot? As long as they come off like good ole' boys down on the ranch? :confused:

Signed,
Confounded :)

You're probably right. I was raised in a republican and "privileged" :rolleyes: household where my father slaved his ass off to earn a decent amount of money (and incidentally provide a good 100 or so decent jobs and training for people who would otherwise be flipping burgers). His thanks? 50% of the money he earns goes straight to Uncle Sam. That's why I can never vote Democrat. However, we're also Jewish (though mostly unreligious), and the bible-pounders taking over the Republican party scare the living crap out of me. It's like the goddamn Taliban or something.

What's a voter to do?

And lastly, for all of you anti-affirmative action people out there, try to imagine all of the incredible breaks that this Jackass got at every possible juncture of his life.

Arthur Ashe said it best: "True equality will not be achieved until a black man can be mediocre and succeed wildly." :D

Michael Jackson exceed even that...he's white now, Bill Clinton was our first black president, and I'm merely confused as hell. Fug it, the 2000 election convinced me...I don't vote anymore. I got so disgusted that I managed to get myself removed from the voter registration lists...which in Orygun, takes more paperwork than getting on them.

Speeder, in all seriousness man someone or something got in your head along the way and really messed you up. Was it a professor or something? I can see that there is no turning you but damn man your gonna pop a vein gettin so riled up. Just remember, the exact things you are saying now were said about Reagan and to my knowledge he never started WW3, the government didn't go bankrupt(quite the opposite really), and all in all he is one of our best loved ex presidents. Odd how things turn out huh.

I've tried to pass up these angry soliloquies by Speeder, but it's a bit too much.

Anyone noticed the lack of attacks on America since 9/11? Duh, that's why people will vote for George W. Bush regardless of the hyberbole of the left.

As for privilege - Speeder said himself that he was "part of the relatively privileged class". So - Does that mean he will not try to get his kids into the best colleges or otherwise help them out? How about Al Gore's father? Or the Kennedy's? Or how about John Kerry and his rich wives?

Here's a real issue that concerns me: The budget deficit. I was willing to accept it for a short time for the sake of America's security. I'm afraid that I do not see the discipline on the right or the left to deal with it. I do know one thing: With the left in control, they will raise my taxes again instead of cutting government spending. (Time for Newt Gingrich to return.)

Is it possible to keep these discussions civil? Like avoid the use of the words "retard" and "****", etc? I've decided that if the anger meter gets too high, I'm staying out.

- Bill

Oh man..... Don't get speeder started on Reagan. I made the mistake of doing that a couple of weeks ago...

Getting back to Philips topic, he has every right to run and every right to be voted for, this is America. Does he have a chance, ofcourse not, but in 20-30 years maybe we will look back at the Perots and Naders as the forfathers of the then relevant third party, who knows. I will say as a republican I am pleased as punch to see him join the race, even if he only gets .5-1% it will likely be enough. Remember the electoral college boys:) Thanks Ralphy.

Lendaddy, It must be the limited ability of internet communication to relay nuance that is the problem here; I typed all of the proceedeing w/o any veins popping or teeth-gnashing, I can assure you. More of a sense of resignation, I find the current state of the world and our leadership pathetic. Yet my life is pretty OK, like I said I am privileged. It's a wonder that I'm not a Republican, really, I got dealt a lucky hand from birth. Good health, great family, friends, drive a Porsche, (+ a de rigueur liberal Volvo), ;) , what's not to like? I could go into more detail about how good my life is, but it really wouldn't be good form. :)

So don't lay awake worrying about me, good friend. I'm fine. :)

On a side note, though, I go out of my way not to get too personal w/ anyone here, (granted there is a fine line), and find statements suggesting that a professor "messed me up" quite offensive, I most definitely think for myself if nothing else, and I am sure that you did not mean to disrespect me, right? ;)

I only say this because these types of statements are always followed by fast-moving fists when said face-to-face, and for that reason people don't usually patronise me like that in person. Nor do I patronise others for that very reason. :cool:

(Typed w/ a smiling face). :)

Perhaps if you give it a little deeper thought, your priviliged upbringing and current lifestyle may explain your rabid liberalism. Odd that I was not brought up such, hmmmm.

Speeder, I reread what I typed and I can see where I was a little condecending. I aplogize, but you just remind me of some people I know. As a side note, where is the tell all deathbed will or book by some insider in our great republican conspiracy to trade human life for money? Don't you think ONE person might find their conscience in the end. I mean this has been the dem claim for years, do you really give us that much credit? I mean that is one hell of charge and would take some truely vile creatures to carry it out, no? Yet ZERO remorse by anyone ever. Certainly the liberal son of Reagan or the like will fill us in on the goats blood rituals and secret handshakes.

Bill, how many planes flew into the Pentagon during Clinton's watch? And Gerald Ford's? I took a class in college called "logic" that dealt w/ arguments such as yours above, but unfortunately I think that you are right about people voting for Bush for that reason. Of course by your reasoning, Bush is also the cause of 9/11, but I'm not going to pursue that one. ;)

As for political discussions staying "civil", I prefer that they get heated and issues really get wrung out. I only object to personal insults between members here. I am pretty sure that I have not called anyone a name or questioned their mental state, (OK, maybe Tabs), :D , but if I have I apologise and will try to watch that.

As for my kids, I do not have any, (that I am aware of), but yes I would want the best for them. The difference is that liberals are aware of the inequities of the world and have a sense of justice, many conservatives seem happy w/ the explanation that "hard work" and ingenuity are the only things that separate the rich from poor. If you travel and become worldly, this POV will soon evaporate. What separates people's fates is largely opportunity and circumstance, many millions of people in the world will work harder than you or I could ever imagine and never have a dime.

I always found it impressive when rich people cared more about helping the less fortunate than getting a tax break on their millions. But that's just me.
:cool:

Len, Apology accepted and appreciated. I try not to be too sensitive, but I respect you and most everyone else that I disagree with here and don't want to ruin what I consider a great salon. Bill, (Brawlins), same goes for you, it is not my intention to offend so much as to express very strongly held opinions about important issues and leaders.

Lendaddy, you make a good point. No, I do not believe that all Republicans are part of some great, evil conspiracy. (Cheney and Wolfowitz, yes, but not all of you). ;) It is more of a different philosophy about what is fair, I guess, to tell you the truth I am at a loss to understand it like I said before about Bush and his supporters. The obsession w/ lower taxes always seemed to me a little strange; on the one hand I understand the historical roots of it and how/why this country was formed, plus I hate paying ridiculous taxes and govt. waste as much as the next guy, but when you jump from that to a corporate culture that values extreme wealth and power above the common good, they lose me. I do not think that Enron or Halliburton are anomolies. Just extra successful at looting the economy.

Sometimes it seems that there is an "end justifies the means" coda that just completely went off the rails, especially w/ the Iraq war, (where I do not think that the ends justify much), or w/ the environment, etc...

I can see how some conservative positions are a reaction to extreme left wing philosophy, (which is ridiculous as well at times), I am all for a "Centrist" government but don't think that Bush/Cheney are even remotely centrist. Theirs is a "scorched earth" game plan all the way, from the courts to the environment to distributing wealth upwards, (which will absolutely ruin the country), to the BS war on terrorism, etc...

Terrorism is fought by using real intelligence, (in both meanings of the word), not invading Iraq which had zip to do w/ 9/11 and was a de-fanged tiger until we occupied it, ironically. :cool:

I don't get it guys.

Any half educated person should be smart enough to know they are ALL crooked.

It falls to the bascics of human nature. ESPECIALLY in a capitolist society. E V E R Y O N E is out for their best interests. You're of questionable state of mind if you're not. It doesn't matter what "party" you prefer. Dollar bills change hands... obligations are fufilled... etc.
All this talk of "special interest groups" really gets at me... What the hell is a special interest group??? Isn't E V E R Y T H I N G a special interest group? There is no "General Interest Group". You can't get 280 million people to agree on any one topic. Christ, we all subscribe to our own little list of "special interest groups".

I look at these elected officials and I know they are all out for their own interests beyond any other. It's human nature. I think most of us really know that... we are mostly, as a whole, just content to have everything in this society running more less the way it's been going. Warm, cumfy, cozy, spend spend spend... make babies... and die.

I for one openly admit my party of choice is not all it says it to be. None are.

I simply follow the basic idea of smaller/limited government. I don't want someone telling me where to receive medical treatment, I don't require a Gov't hand out, I don't ever want unknown people deciding how I choose to defend myself in my own home. These are the bascics.

Please don't fool yourself into thinking One Party cares for you any more than the other.

Demographically speaking, I think it is safe to say you can divide the country up into two catagories. The urban areas tend to be more liberal, while the more rural areas seem to me to be more conservative. I've always thought this was funny because Dem's usually try to paint the GOP as the e-vil conglomerate super dirty old men behind the curtain of all malace, while trying to paint themselves as "a real home grown people person".

I've also noticed over the years how the more educated, univ. professeur-elite type's seem to think of themselves as the more sophistocated/enlightened types while viewing their arch enemies, the Right-wingers as lowly pawns. Honestly, I have causght that from more than one.

This all seems very ironic to me.

In the end, I digress and decide to be happy with the current state of affairs.

What has GW done so incredibly wrong?
The war? is that the beef?

The economy?
Man, I bet GW popped that IT bubble himself...

I think we are doing pretty good all things considered.

Speeder -

As you know, Bush took over in January of 2001. No way that he could have made the necessary infrastructure changes from the previous eight years of Clintonism in time to prevent 9/11. But I really don't blame Clinton either. I'm not sure anyone could have really imagined the evil that could do such a thing as on 9/11. But Bush dealt with it decisively, and people do not have that same degree of confidence in any of the Democratrs.

Lastly, the characterization of Republicans as insensitive to the underprivileged is simply not true. Certainly there are some that way. I know many Republicans who give to the poor and to charity. Most Democrats I know give little, if any. I would say that the difference between the Republican and Democratic positions is that Republicans think the way out of poverty is through hard work. The Democrats think the way out of poverty is to keep giving away cash. 30 years of an ineffectual welfare system proved that does not work. I have to give Clinton credit for one thing - He signed most of the bills that Gingrich and the Republican Congress passed from 1994 on - including welfare reform.

- Bill

Well, the funny thing is that I would agree w/ the "conservative" position on many issues. The welfare system was badly broken, and needed to be scrapped/changed. Now of course it was a lot easier to move people from welfare to work when the economy was on fire in the '90s, but the important thing is that government does engage in social engineering, even (especially) when it does nothing. Policies force people to take one action or another, including getting off their butts and working hard. 3/4ths of homeless people are just bums, IMO, you should hear the grief I get from left wing friends for saying that. But it's true, so I say it.

I agree w/ other Republican positions regarding generally smaller govt. and justifying all revenue requests, less regulation where it is just cumbersome and stupid, but that view ends when it destoys the environment or deregulates energy and allows companies like Enron to fleece consumers for a utility, a neccesary commodity. There needs to be a common sense approach, some things need to be regulated and some things don't. The problem is when an ideology takes hold, (from either side), that "cuts the nose off to spite the face" as in the case of energy deregulation. (Controlled markets going against conservative philosophy in ALL cases).

Republicans are right about a lot, I have seen how economic health cures many social problems, (ironically in the '90s when under Clinton crime plummeted and more cops were hired), $$ also helps to cure social diseases such as racism, when people are doing business w/ one another they share a common goal and cultural differences tend to fall by the wayside. Plus everyone's boat rises. I have seen this w/ my own eyes, no one can tell me that it isn't so. They are right, vitality in the small business sector cures many social ills better than govt. programs.

I just don't see anything conservative or good about our current leaders, I do not believe that the answer to terrorism is invading Iraq, (it was simply an obsession of Bush's, planned well before 9/11), and he should not have sacrificed one single American life for it. It is a nightmare, as is all of his foreign policy.

McCain is my kind of Republican, smart and reasonably independant. :cool:

Just an idle question to all of the Bush supporters...What ever happened to the Republican mantra of "Smaller Government"?

With all of the deficit at the Federal level, and money from DC not reaching the states and locals, taxes in these areas are rising to make up the difference. Where has all the money gone? I find it hard to believe that it is all for national security when I live only 100 miles from the border with Mexico and we can't get any additional border patrol personnel, and the number of folks coming over because of the proposed "amnesty program" that President Cheney been talking about has swelled to a point where this is our biggest crime problem. Come on, folks; the current leadership does not consist of the brightest or the best. Mediocre at best. And, throughout his career, Mr. Nader has been a "spoiler", not only in politics, but in other fields as well. Glib is not polished nor is it informed; it is merely the ability to appear knowledgable.

I do not take sides re: parties. But to have someone say that Gore could not have done as well as the present individual says something about the writers. To follow ANY party blindly is not to be a free thinker, simply a willing follower. I voted for Ronnie, I also voted for Clinton. I vote for the individual I think has the best take on the situation at the time. The last presidential election was bought and paid for. And so it goes, with attacks from both sides, but the capper being the accusation that Kerry has accepted money from special interest groups while the Bush team sits on multiples of cash from the very same groups.

So, where has the money all gone? Just remember before you answer; I worked in and with the public sector in finance for 25 years.........

You miss the point. Bush has never denied taking the money. It was when Kerry attempted to claim taking this money makes you a whore that the Bush team pointed out his hypocrisy.

As far as where has the money gone, I am with ya. This is one are where W has let us down. I think he is trying to buy the Dem arguments out from under them. I hope term 2 is much different in this respect.

Bottom line is core principles from the right are closer to my own, I.E. it would be difficult for dems to hit targets they're not aiming for if you get what I mean.

yeah, yeah, yeah, say whatchya want, truth is Nader is going for the "hat trick" in screwing around every American with at least half a brain and half a heart.

As everyone on this board has declared himself to possess the former by virtue of Porsche ownership, this august institution should come out in open condemnation of dear Ralph.

Ralph killed the Corvair and Gore, now he's gunning for whomever else carries the liberal (refer to the qualities described in the openning paragraph) banner in '04.

Let's get rid of this guy before he decides to come after air-cooled 911's for their inherent "unsafe" understeer behaviour like he did with that cool little Corvair. Either that or we'll have to reincarnate that squeaky little conservative that "draws his own graphs" to carve up the republican vote. (you know, Ross Perrot)

Thanks for the Corvair bit. I have owned a number of them, and was a so-called "expert" on their engines and drivetrain in an organization called "CORSA" (Corvair Society of America) and "ACORN" (Association of Corvair Nuts). Reading Nader's book was required. Amazing how the VW, with the same type pf rear suspension gets nary a mention, and the Corvair, in 1965, changed the suspension to a more Corvette type with double universals on each axle. Even Nader's raiders state "With the suspension changes, the Corvair became one of the best handling cars built in America". But it was too late. Time, rumor, and cost drove the little 911 wannbee away.

YEah; I'm kinda Conservative, and for the life of me I cannot see anything "conservative" fiscally about the current president. I still say: It is amazing the emotional drek we take from our political leaders that we would not accept from our own kids.