Letters to the Editor
-
Why do I say those things?
It's really simple. No one believes politicians and what they say.
It's the EFFECT of their actions that counts.
When Nader runs, he either has no effect or he damages Democrats. This year, it will be the same. He will have either no effect or he will damage the Democratic nominee.
That's why he's a whore for Republicans. If you support the Republican efforts to continue the war in Iraq, that Nader made possible, you can either support Nader or McCain - no difference. If you support the Republican efforts to retain their tax cuts for the rich, that Nader made possible, you can either support Nader or McCain - no difference. If you support the Republican efforts to end choice in the SC, that Nader made possible, you can either support Nader or McCain - no difference.
A vote for Nader is a vote to damage the Democrats. If that's your interest, hey - have at it. Just don't bring that weak crap about Nader's "principled stand" and his "purity" here. it stinks like the shit he is.
-
Joan and Joe's id at work?
Quotes from dataguyx:
"I honestly believe that Mr. Nader has a serious disease. It is syphilis."
"Nader is himself an idiot, and anyone who supports him is an idiot. That's not an opinion, that is a FACT."
"Nader is to blame for Iraq."
"Nader is not principled. He is an ego-driven wack job."
"Yes, it is possible to be stupider than a rock. Anyone who supports Nader is an idiot."
"Nader has no issues EXCEPT obstructing Democrats."
"If you support the Republican efforts to continue the war in Iraq, that Nader made possible, you can either support Nader or McCain - no difference. "
Your posts should get some kind of award for breathtaking immaturity. Psychologically normal people do not spew such unnuanced venom. You truly come across as an unstable, even dangerous person.
-
Joe listen to NPR
I think Joe Conason is one of the best columnists ever and I used to love listening to him on Al Franken's Friday show, but I think he's missed his mark with going after Ralph Nader. Listen to Nader's interview on 2/25 talk of the nation, PBS. He is going after the democrats because they are the best chance for changing the conversation to include some of the WAY important issues that he's listed for presidential candidates to address (12 issues that matter for 2008). He isn't REALLY running for president. He wants to get folks to use leverage to force the candidates to talk about corporate crime, food and drug safety, workplace and auto safety and go after polluters. He even says to use the leverage to force the issues to the forefront but go into the voting booth and vote strategically. In other words, when pollsters call your house say you support Nader so the candidates get the message to start these important dialogues, but go into the voting booth and vote Hillary or Obama. I'm sure he appreciates getting help to have his causes heard, even if the Republicans and John McCain advocate for that. BUT, he's really on our side and we should applaud him for finding a high profile means for speaking up against the health industry, agribusiness giants, corporate criminals, drug companies.
-
@ms antrhopia
"I honestly believe that Mr. Nader has a serious disease. It is syphilis."
"Nader is himself an idiot, and anyone who supports him is an idiot. That's not an opinion, that is a FACT."
"Nader is to blame for Iraq."
"Nader is not principled. He is an ego-driven wack job."
"Yes, it is possible to be stupider than a rock. Anyone who supports Nader is an idiot."
"Nader has no issues EXCEPT obstructing Democrats."
"If you support the Republican efforts to continue the war in Iraq, that Nader made possible, you can either support Nader or McCain - no difference. "
Of these quotes, I literally agree only with three - the bottom two, and the fact that Nader is now, tragically, an ego-driven whack-job. (Nader did not suggest, support, or take part in the Iraq war, but it is undeniable that he made it possible.)
I certainly disagree with the top three.
However, I strongly agree with most of the other points in the posts that these quotes were taken from.
You've demonstrated that this poster is angry and uses hyperbole, but you haven't addressed the substance of his arguments.
-
to Robert Franklin
Yes, you seem like a nice person too, and I appreciate the time you took to formulate a well-thought-out reply.
We share overlapping political goals, but we simply disagree, for the time being, about how to further them.
That's probably true of many if not most of the pro-Nader posters.
I'm not going to deny that I still strongly believe that "third party" action that ends up facilitating gains of power by Republicans is a very, very, very bad idea. But I've explained that to death by now.
I'll just close out my comments on this thread by acknowledging our probable strong overlap in opinions about other real, pragmatic issues.
-
more shallow rhetoric from the blame-everything-on-Nader crowd
h_lance "(Nader did not suggest, support, or take part in the Iraq war, but it is undeniable that he made it possible.)"
The people who made the Iraq war possible are:
- tribalistic ethnic groups
- the Ottomans and their Imperial policies
- the British & French governments of the early 20th century
- the American and other democratic governments who supported Saddam Hussein and the Baathist for decades
- the millions of Americans who voted for George Bush in 2000/4
- Islamic terrorists
- Shia and Sunni inter-Islamic strife
- the millions of Americans who voted Republican in 2002
- the Democrats who supported Buch lock and step
- the mainstream media which abetted this all the way
So where exactly does Ralph Nader come in?
The 'substance' of your argument is that because he offered people a choice in a democracy he is personally to be "made possible" for a war. That is a frightening condemnation of choice and political freedom on your part, comrade.
h_lance: "You've demonstrated th t this poster is angry and uses hyperbole, but you haven't addressed the substance of his arguments."
First of all claiming Nader has syphilis goes beyond hyperbole into malicious libel. I see Salon with its new editorial policy failed to take that down.
His and your arguments have no substance. They are shallow, ad hominem attacks which offer no concrete evidence against Nader and neglect uniformly to examine Nader's positions on various issues.