i thought obama didn't take money from these ppl? then i thought that changed to he's only taken less than $200,000 from them total...why does his story change? like when he kept saying in the primaries that lobbyists wouldn't have jobs in his white house then months later when pressed what he really meant was they won't dominate his white house.....yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, i guess obama is the first honest politician, ever! :rolleyes: except for that slight issue of him saying on tv his campaign chair wasn't a pharmaceutical lobbyist when he is....i guess he forgot....?
no, that would've been lincoln. and he was prolly our last one, too.
i think what you're forgetting is, even though you admire & respect ralph nader, he doesn't have ANY political savvy, NO experience playing with the grownups in this game called politics AS A POLITICIAN. unfortunately, the way the rules are written, there are gonna be some imperfections in ANY politician's record. i can live with that in my president. what i can't live with is someone who's gonna tumble into the white house clueless and then fumble the job through sheer inexperience and a refusal to engage in the actual political game. those are acceptable characteristics in a friend; not so helpful in a president.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
yes, i remember, first you said you just didn't care about the issue b/c it didn't effect you, then you changed to obama was just trying to give us some tough love and now it's settled to he thought 30% was still too high....whatever happened to these baby steps you guys are always talking about?? it seems like if i think 30% is still too high why would i still allow them to charge even more? why wouldn't i make my own bill?
i mean seriously, wtf has obama done??? he's missed a little over 40% of the votes for this current senate, he's done nothing but become senator in a race he ran unopposed in
and i think this is more of an issue than that insider trading shit ppl like to keep pulling up, i guess it doesn't matter that they contradict themselves w/ that very arguement they keep trying to make....but whatever
Yep. Whatever, dude.
But in my defense, there's nothing contradictory in that first paragraph.
A). You're absolutely right. That issue doesn't affect me much, as I tend to avoid using credit cards. At the time - and it was likely from something you posted - I didn't know anything about the bill. So, when asked what I thought of the credit card bill, I responded honestly. And, for the record, that's still my answer. Not one of my major concerns. But that in no way contradicts:
. Tough love? Don't really remember that one, but I'll take your word for it. Likely I wrote something to the effect of "maybe high interest rates will curb spending." A completely anecdotal remark on my part, probably, and really kind of an aside. Still doesn't contradict A, nor does it stand at odds with:
C). Thirty percent was still too high, and the overall bill was a piece of shit. Well, it's true, isn't it? Here is where I started to look at what you were talking about - the bill itself - and the more official stance of the candidate. He voted against a bad bill and the amendment that was intended to make it look a little better.
There was no personal, RainDog progression here where I gradually changed my position to match that of the candidate. I am still not overly affected by high credit card interest rates, except that maybe high interest rates keep me from using credit cards (A and ; and Obama voted against both the amendment and the bill (C) for seemingly rational reasons, independent of my personal anecdotes on a message board.
I feel it is somewhat naive to think that Obama's vote has nothing to do with his contributors.
They always say follow the money trail.
"They"? They talk a lot, don't they?
They also tell me that MyDD is fiercely pro-Hillary, and to take any opinion pieces from there with a rock of salt. But I suppose they are just feeding my naïveté.
They also tell me that MyDD is fiercely pro-Hillary, and to take any opinion pieces from there with a rock of salt. But I suppose they are just feeding my naïveté.
Yours is also just an opinion here. We all have our own.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
no, that would've been lincoln. and he was prolly our last one, too.
i think what you're forgetting is, even though you admire & respect ralph nader, he doesn't have ANY political savvy, NO experience playing with the grownups in this game called politics AS A POLITICIAN. unfortunately, the way the rules are written, there are gonna be some imperfections in ANY politician's record. i can live with that in my president. what i can't live with is someone who's gonna tumble into the white house clueless and then fumble the job through sheer inexperience and a refusal to engage in the actual political game. those are acceptable characteristics in a friend; not so helpful in a president.
Ralph Nader has tons of political experience.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But in what capacity? He's never held public office. Never compromising is a luxury he can afford by never really being in the game as a serious player (read: holder of elected office).
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
But in what capacity? He's never held public office. Never compromising is a luxury he can afford by never really being in the game as a serious player (read: holder of elected office).
Just having a title doesn't mean shit to me. Nader has a long list of accomplishments in which he fought the odds and actually brought some CHANGE to the people of this country. To me, that will always be more important than whether or not he has held an elected office. Looking at the sorry ass job most elected officials do, I can't even see how that aspect is supposed to be some big plus. The usual elected official in the senate is full of shit....give me something new. Give me someone who has proven he is all about the things he talks about because he has turned his words into ACTIONS and PROGRESS time and time again. Nader's been in the political game since the 70's, he knows how it works and has always approached the gov't with how it is supposed to work for the people not how we the apathetic masses shrug and accept it as these days.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
federal courts aren't as accountable, the ultimate federal court said stop the recount and stop looking into all those ppl who were wrongly prevented from voting for crimes they committed in the future!
February 18, 2005
President Bush today signed legislation restricting consumers' rights to file class action suits against corporations, the first of a series of business-backed bills intended to put consumers in their place.
Signing the bill into law at the White House, President Bush called it "a practical way to begin restoring common sense and balance to the U.S. legal system."
The measure will "help protect people who are wrongfully harmed while reducing the frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs and burden American businesses," Bush said.
The measure was opposed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the organization of all federal judges, who said it would further clog federal courts.
While big business is jubilant, consumer organizations are outraged. A tobacco industry analyst put it bluntly: "The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California called it "an injustice to consumers, and a windfall for irresponsible corporations."
"When Americans are injured or even killed by Vioxx or Celebrex or discriminated against by Wal-Mart, they may never get their day in court," Pelosi said. "Those cases that do go forward will take significantly longer because the federal courts are overburdened and unequipped for this caseload. That is why the bill is opposed by federal judges, including the Judicial Conference of the United States."
"Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the federal courts and therefore stop the cases," she said.
The Bush Administration and its big-business backers hope to follow up with legislation that would cap damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Another bill would shut down asbestos litigation, as Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) noted in arguing against the class action measure.
"Today we will attempt to pre-empt state class action," Conyers said. "Next month we will take up a bankruptcy bill that massively tilts the playing field in favor of credit card companies and against ordinary consumers and workers alike.
�On deck are equally one-sided medical malpractice bills and asbestos bills that both cap damages and eliminate liability to protect some of the most egregious wrongdoing in America," said Conyers, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been leading the charge to curb citizens' right to sue. It spent $24.5 million last year lobbying the issue. Credit-card issuer MBNA, which last year passed Enron as the Bush campaign's biggest contributor, also backed the measure.
Consumer Reaction
Congressional passage of the class action bill is "a significant vote against consumers' rights," said Consumer Federation of America Assistant General Counsel Rachel Weintraub.
"This legislation essentially denies consumers access to a uniquely important legal tool against corporate wrongdoing. Class actions enable consumers who were harmed in similar ways to aggregate their claims into one case," Weintraub said.
"The bill also undermines the ability of state courts to hear cases primarily concerned with their own citizens. S. 5 is unfair to consumers and we applaud those courageous 149 Representatives who opposed this inequitable bill," Weintraub said.
She said that although the bill purports to curtail "class action abuses," it "virtually wipes out state class actions, thereby removing what is sometimes the only venue for redress of injury or fraud for consumers."
Weintraub said the bill makes it more difficult for consumers to obtain effective and efficient judicial relief for injuries, for example, caused by defective products, fraud in the marketplace, or discrimination. The jurisdictional changes mandated by S. 5 are "designed solely to impede class actions, not to make them fairer or more efficient," she said.
so now the argument has shifted as to why this is a bad bill. the argument now is that it will clog the federal courts? so it wasnt clogging the state courts that handle twice the docket the feds handle? you wonder why the feds didnt want it? because it is more work that is why. show me one person that would support being given more work.
so the whole argument has shifted to "it will backlog the fed courts so in turn it will stop suits from moving forward"? wow, thats really reaching.
i dont see a concern at all with moving massive class action suits to a federal level. again, these judges are MORE then qualified to sit the bench for these suits.
As Obama-mania sweeps across the land and has Democrats everywhere buzzing, I find myself a bit wary of it all. Not that I'm a single-issue voter, but when it comes to civil justice issues, Illinois senator Barack Obama is a bust. His willingness to buy the corporate line about class action "reform" last year prevents me from joining the hallelujah chorus.
The 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a pet cause of George W. Bush, essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts. Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many lobbyists that there was nearly one for every member of Congress. (You can read more about some of the chicanery involved in selling CAFA in my book.)
Obama's state was also the focus of intense media campaigns surrounding the bill sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But when the bill came up for a vote, Obama's fellow Illinois democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, didn't cave. Potential presidential rival Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. Even John Kerry, who went on national television during the 2004 presidential debates and said, "John Edwards and I support tort reform," voted against this bill.
So what's up with Obama? No surprise here, but maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.
Obviously the class action vote was just one among many, but I do find it telling. Either Obama didn't fully understand the implications of the bill for consumers (who may be shut out of court when they're ripped off for relatively small amounts of money), or he was voting with an eye on the White House and courting future campaign contributors in the business world. Neither scenario gets me especially excited about the Democratic Party's new rock star.
..................
so, yeah....i'll take their words for it over big business, like you are apparently so willing to do....can you show me some things stating how this has been a great help to ppl seeking justice to corporate abuses, wrongdoings, fraud....?
the little guy stands to have a fairer shot at a state level where that judge is accountable to the ppl of that district rather than some federally appointed judge
here is a toubling excerpt from that article...
"essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts"
1. forced most state class actions? bullshit... it is only suits over $5 million and suits with plaintiffs in multiple states. that is hardly "most" you know what happens with a criminla case that crosses state lines? it becomes a federal case, for logistical reasons. the same thing is being applied here.
2. "backlogged"? bullshit... every court in this country if fucking backlogged. county, state, federal... i would rather have state courts handle real state issues and not massive class action suits. call me crazy
3. "republican dominated fedearl courts"?... two parts here... 1. just because you we appointed by a republican does not mean you are corrupt or inept. these judges are the best in the land and have to exceed the qualifications to even be considered. these men and women are far from cronies and political lapdogs.... 2. you dont think there are republican state judges? i know a few personally.
4. i am not taking anyones "word for it"... i read the bill, i read the pro's and con's... and I do not see the issue... especially not the major issue you are trying to make out of it here...
and last but not least... can you show me where this has impeded or blocked someones right to a hearing for their complaint? where are the examples of all the righteous suits being thrown out by eveil republican appointed federal judges?
i see nothing wrong with the bill. i see nothing that you have presented that i consider an issue or unfair. logistically it may present a new task for the federal courts, but i think they can handle it just fine. and as i said, every court in this country is backlogged.
no, that would've been lincoln. and he was prolly our last one, too.
i think what you're forgetting is, even though you admire & respect ralph nader, he doesn't have ANY political savvy, NO experience playing with the grownups in this game called politics AS A POLITICIAN. unfortunately, the way the rules are written, there are gonna be some imperfections in ANY politician's record. i can live with that in my president. what i can't live with is someone who's gonna tumble into the white house clueless and then fumble the job through sheer inexperience and a refusal to engage in the actual political game. those are acceptable characteristics in a friend; not so helpful in a president.
i've asked before but either get ignored or someone gets pissy and says they don't owe an explanation to me, but what has obama done to make you think he would be any different? what sets him above nader and everyone else?
his first election he ran unopposed after going to court a few times to get everyone else taken off, then beat alan keyes (and come on, who in their right minds would vote for keyes!?) and has missed nearly half the votes in this current senate!! and some of them are pretty important ones like funding for the REAL ID act, FISA, Dept of def appropriations, intelligence appropriations....but he always has time to vote to renew the patriot act or to confirm condi rice as sec of state even tho he claims to think she was pretty responsible for leading us into a 'stupid war', voting repeatedly to fund this 'stupid war', voting againt credit card caps, voting to put cases against big corporations into an already back logged federal court taking the power away from the state
other than something he's said or promised to do can you cite something that would show me he has more political savy than nader? nader has been fighting for citizen's rights for decades
it doesn't bother any of you that he lies about his connection w/ lobbyists? going from 'lobbyists won't have any jobs in my white house!!!' to 'they won't dominate my white house' from i don't take money from lobbyists!!! to 'well, i only take a couple $100 grand here and there and have them as chair of my election campaign.....and LIE about it on national tv during a state debate before their primary!
i think Matt Gonzalez made some pretty strong points in that video
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so now the argument has shifted as to why this is a bad bill. the argument now is that it will clog the federal courts? so it wasnt clogging the state courts that handle twice the docket the feds handle? you wonder why the feds didnt want it? because it is more work that is why. show me one person that would support being given more work.
so the whole argument has shifted to "it will backlog the fed courts so in turn it will stop suits from moving forward"? wow, thats really reaching.
i dont see a concern at all with moving massive class action suits to a federal level. again, these judges are MORE then qualified to sit the bench for these suits.
no, that is just another facet of the problem, as i've already given you others like i don't think they will be given as fair a shot. i'm all for cutting back on frivolous lawsuits, but i don't think this helps. can you show me 1 civil rights group or victims rights group that supported this bill? no, it just seemed like lobbyists and bush really pushed for this
it will take LONGER to have their case heard, then whatever the plantiff admits to isn't admissible anywhere else!!
"essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the bac
klogged and Republican dominated federal courts"
1. forced most state class actions? bullshit... it is only suits over $5 million and suits with plaintiffs in multiple states. that is hardly "most" you know what happens with a criminla case that crosses state lines? it becomes a federal case, for logistical reasons. the same thing is being applied here.
2. "backlogged"? bullshit... every court in this country if fucking backlogged. county, state, federal... i would rather have state courts handle real state issues and not massive class action suits. call me crazy
3. "republican dominated fedearl courts"?... two parts here... 1. just because you we appointed by a republican does not mean you are corrupt or inept. these judges are the best in the land and have to exceed the qualifications to even be considered. these men and women are far from cronies and political lapdogs.... 2. you dont think there are republican state judges? i know a few personally.
4. i am not taking anyones "word for it"... i read the bill, i read the pro's and con's... and I do not see the issue... especially not the major issue you are trying to make out of it here...
did you not read these parts of the articles?
While big business is jubilant, consumer organizations are outraged. A tobacco industry analyst put it bluntly: "The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard."
"Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the federal courts and therefore stop the cases," she said.
"The bill also undermines the ability of state courts to hear cases primarily concerned with their own citizens. ***who they will be accountable to, not some politically appointed judge who finally gets to hear it after how long?
maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.
and from either the Fordham Law Review article or the piece by a Proffesor of Law at UCLA:
t also 'contradicts the framers’ intent that the federal government
consists of only limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary
should only usurp state judicial power when there are serious national
interests at stake.
'CAFA’s effect is to create exclusive federal jurisdiction over some statelaw
based interstate class actions.301 Consequently, CAFA effectively
strips the state judiciary of its authority to create and interpret state laws
governing some kinds of class actions.302 and 'In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court held that it is unconstitutional for federal courts sitting in diversity to create substantive common law,18 stating that neither Congress nor the federal courts have the “power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a tate.”19 Consequently,'
substantive law.20
Because CAFA is based on diversity jurisdiction, state substantive law
will govern all of the class actions under its purview.21 However, because
CAFA restricts jurisdiction over these class actions exclusively to federal
court, the federal courts will lack applicable state law and be forced to develop a federal common law of class actions.22 Accordingly, CAFA will
force federal courts to violate the core constitutional holding of Erie
because the federal courts do not have any constitutional authority to create
substantive law.23
The main reason the framers chose to include federal diversity
jurisdiction in Article III was to prevent state courts from exercising
prejudice against out-of-state litigants.291 None of the rationales that
Congress chose to justify the need for CAFA implicate this policy
concern.292
and last but not least... can you show me where this has impeded or blocked someones right to a hearing for their complaint? where are the examples of all the righteous suits being thrown out by eveil republican appointed federal judges?
The study also found an increase in class action removals since CAFA, with an initial burst of removals occurring after the act was enacted.....
A purported nationwide class of American Airlines skycaps who she represented were recently denied class certification. A judge ruled that the state laws were not similar enough to be managed in one proceeding through the certification of various subclasses.....
The CAFA exceptions that allow a class action to stay in state court are so “incredibly narrow” that far too many cases that should be litigated in the courts are moved to federal courts, said Stephen Burbank, a civil procedure professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
For instance, residents of Pennsylvania pursuing state claims against a company with a business in the state could still have their case removed to federal court if the company is incorporated in another state or has another principle place of business.
“If a federal court would not certify a case as a class action but a state court would, the state is denied its ability to enforce their laws in their view of class action,” Burbank said.
When a state class action is removed to federal court and consolidated with other state class actions under an MDL, settlements with the combined class can be more difficult to reach.
If cases are combined, the stakes increase and the conflict intensifies, creating more roadblocks to settlement, Burbank said.
“It is not at all clear that turning a bunch of local skirmishes into a world war is conducive. Small cases may each be resolved efficiently and quickly,” Burbank said.....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
But in my defense, there's nothing contradictory in that first paragraph.
A). You're absolutely right. That issue doesn't affect me much, as I tend to avoid using credit cards. At the time - and it was likely from something you posted - I didn't know anything about the bill. So, when asked what I thought of the credit card bill, I responded honestly. And, for the record, that's still my answer. Not one of my major concerns. But that in no way contradicts:
. Tough love? Don't really remember that one, but I'll take your word for it. Likely I wrote something to the effect of "maybe high interest rates will curb spending." A completely anecdotal remark on my part, probably, and really kind of an aside. Still doesn't contradict A, nor does it stand at odds with:
C). Thirty percent was still too high, and the overall bill was a piece of shit. Well, it's true, isn't it? Here is where I started to look at what you were talking about - the bill itself - and the more official stance of the candidate. He voted against a bad bill and the amendment that was intended to make it look a little better.
There was no personal, RainDog progression here where I gradually changed my position to match that of the candidate. I am still not overly affected by high credit card interest rates, except that maybe high interest rates keep me from using credit cards (A and ; and Obama voted against both the amendment and the bill (C) for seemingly rational reasons, independent of my personal anecdotes on a message board.
do you bring up the 'insider trading' thing? b/c what i said was
'
and i think this is more of an issue than that insider trading shit ppl like to keep pulling up, i guess it doesn't matter that they contradict themselves w/ that very arguement they keep trying to make....but whatever'
on the one hand they fault nader for selling stocks in companies he was about to go after 30-40 years ago...which seems the ethical thing to do...i would think. if you were a lawyer about to take monsanto to court and you had stock in them would you keep it? of course not!
but the contradiction comes in they also fault him for having a mutual fund which puts money into some questionable companies...
so which is it?? are they mad at him for selling stocks or for keeping them!? it's a contradiction, not to mention a reach
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, that would've been lincoln. and he was prolly our last one, too.
lincoln was also the last 3rd party candidate to be elected president
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it will take LONGER to have their case heard, then whatever the plantiff admits to isn't admissible anywhere else!!
so now the concern it that the process will take longer?
any civil court action takes forever, regardless of jurisdiction.
i read throuhg all of the articles you posted. i could find 20 articles that support CAFA. it is kind of hard to use opinion pieces to prove your case, since they are simply opinions and "what if's"
can you provide 1 person, or 1 righteous lawsuit that has been unfairly dismissed or delayed since this bill was passed?
on the one hand they fault nader for selling stocks in companies he was about to go after 30-40 years ago...which seems the ethical thing to do...i would think. if you were a lawyer about to take monsanto to court and you had stock in them would you keep it? of course not!
so now insider trading is eithical?
selling off stock for profit in advance of a known decrease in value because of your organizations work is called unethical
nader is a fraud dude.
you cannot rail against wall street and corporations, while being heavily invested in them at the same time. that is just being a flat out hypocrite and a fraud
Nader on T.V. interview running for president ~ "They are all owned and controlled by the evil corporate interests on Wall Street!!!"... "You country is owned and controlled by corporate interests on Wall Street!!!" (which he may very well be correct, however)
Nader talking to his broker 10 minutes later ~ "Hey, i want to out $50,000 more into my portfolio, i prefer a mutual that invests in war stocks and multi national corporations that i rail against"
:rolleyes:
or maybe we could talk about his multi million dollar home that "he" doesnt own, you know, the one he keeps in his sisters name
when you look at Nader with an honest look like i have, you will be very dispappointed, just like i was.
he invested and profitted on the exact thing he has railed against.
call it what you want. justify it how you want. the fact remains the same.
I've researched Obama far more than most; my job allows me a lot of free time in front of the computer and I'm an Obama supporter and political junkie.
So, why don't you tell me, rather than offering the "search engine button", what kind of skeletons he has in his closet? What is it about him that you think isn't worthy of your vote, what makes Hillary or McCain a better candidate? Other than Rezko and Wright, what makes him unelectable?
The less sarcasm, the better.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
I've researched Obama far more than most; my job allows me a lot of free time in front of the computer and I'm an Obama supporter and political junkie.
So, why don't you tell me, rather than offering the "search engine button", what kind of skeletons he has in his closet? What is it about him that you think isn't worthy of your vote, what makes Hillary or McCain a better candidate? Other than Rezko and Wright, what makes him unelectable?
The less sarcasm, the better.
I'm not going to just tell you just because you demand it. I've already stated my reasoning and all you have to do is search my posts or threads and it's right there for you. If I felt like going into it again right now, I would. But I don't. And it's not about skeletons, it's about his weak platform, record and his pandering.
I never claimed he was unelectable just that I won't be voting for him based on my ideals.
Also, I never claimed Hillary or McCain were better than Obama. I'll take a page from Ron Paul and say he's about the same as the other two but maybe
slightly better.
You can eat your bowl of 'slightly better' all day long but I'm tired of the bad taste it puts in my mouth. I'm passing.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Also, I never claimed Hillary or McCain were better than Obama. I'll take a page from Ron Paul and say he's about the same as the other two but maybe
slightly better.
progress as in I'm still not going to vote for Obama but have thought he was only slightly better than Hillary this whole time?
Although, I like Hillary's stance on healthcare and gay marriage better. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I like her platform better. I can't see any parts of Obama's proposals that stand out from hers.
However Hillary's record and history give Obama the slight edge over her and that's ONLY due to his very short political career. Still some things he has done in these fews years already point to what we can expect to see of him in the future. Also, he has had plenty of time to bring some of this 'change' he's so fond of invoking....I'm just not seeing too much he has done. Could you let me in on some proof of his greatness? Something that points to his rhetoric being backed by substantial actions and efforts? If he was genuine about wanting change, I would have expected to see some of it by now in the place of publicity tours and writing books to promote himself.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
selling off stock for profit in advance of a known decrease in value because of your organizations work is called unethical
nader is a fraud dude.
you cannot rail against wall street and corporations, while being heavily invested in them at the same time. that is just being a flat out hypocrite and a fraud
Nader on T.V. interview running for president ~ "They are all owned and controlled by the evil corporate interests on Wall Street!!!"... "You country is owned and controlled by corporate interests on Wall Street!!!" (which he may very well be correct, however)
Nader talking to his broker 10 minutes later ~ "Hey, i want to out $50,000 more into my portfolio, i prefer a mutual that invests in war stocks and multi national corporations that i rail against"
:rolleyes:
or maybe we could talk about his multi million dollar home that "he" doesnt own, you know, the one he keeps in his sisters name
when you look at Nader with an honest look like i have, you will be very dispappointed, just like i was.
he invested and profitted on the exact thing he has railed against.
call it what you want. justify it how you want. the fact remains the same.
whatever, can you name something obama has done? wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for him to go after a company he had stock in?
do you know what's in your mutual fund? how do you even find out b/c i'd really like to know
when i look at obama i am even more disappointed, to quote edwards, 'it'd be nice to see some substance behind the rhetoric'
it's all take, take, take...you've yet to show anything to back up your side, at least i'm offering something other than 'b/c i said so!!!!'
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
What do you have on Obama other than the Rezko land deal and Jermeiah Wright??? *yawn*
there's the lies he's told about lobbyists, for a few....
he said he doesn't take money from lobbyists, he's taken $100's of thousands from lobbyists
the chair of his new hampshire campaign was a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry and when it was brought up on national tv during the debate obama L I E D by shaking his head side to side and saying 'that's not true!' when it was true
when hillary seemed pro lobbyist obama had all this rhetoric about 'lobbyists won't have a job in my white house!!!' and later when pressed on it he said what he meant was they won't dominate his white house
he's lied about having anything to do w/ certain bills other than to stand at the front and talk during press time
he repeatedly votes to reauthorize the patriot act
he voted to confirm condi rice, yet she helped mislead us into a 'stupid war'??
see my sig; he says his foreign policy will be like daddy bush's and reagans....secret, illegal wars, selling thousands of missiles to iran, funding, arming, training terrorists, lying to congress, shredding documents, falsifying records....
will put more money into the already bloated defense budget
will NOT bring all the troops home and most of the ones that leave iraq will only be deployed in afghanistan or elsewhere
his health care plan is shit
he's is for nuclear power and 'clean' coal but only wants a small % to be using alternative energy by 2025
missed a little over 40% of the votes in this current senate
didn't really support any progressive democrats during the 06 elections while he traveled to connecticut to speak for lieberman
....is that enough for now?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
selling off stock for profit in advance of a known decrease in value because of your organizations work is called unethical
nader is a fraud dude.
you cannot rail against wall street and corporations, while being heavily invested in them at the same time. that is just being a flat out hypocrite and a fraud
Nader on T.V. interview running for president ~ "They are all owned and controlled by the evil corporate interests on Wall Street!!!"... "You country is owned and controlled by corporate interests on Wall Street!!!" (which he may very well be correct, however)
Nader talking to his broker 10 minutes later ~ "Hey, i want to out $50,000 more into my portfolio, i prefer a mutual that invests in war stocks and multi national corporations that i rail against"
:rolleyes:
or maybe we could talk about his multi million dollar home that "he" doesnt own, you know, the one he keeps in his sisters name
when you look at Nader with an honest look like i have, you will be very dispappointed, just like i was.
he invested and profitted on the exact thing he has railed against.
call it what you want. justify it how you want. the fact remains the same.
The Sun reported on Saturday that Mr. Nader had earned more than $512,000 over the last 16 months, mostly in speaking fees. The newspaper also said Mr. Nader's personal holdings were valued at more than $3.9 million, including a stock portfolio heavy on technology holdings.
Mr. Nader has nearly $1.2 million in stock in Cisco Systems, the Internet networking company. He also owns smaller amounts of five other technology-related stocks and has more than $2 million in two money market funds, The Washington Post reported. He listed no debt.
Mr. Nader, a 66-year-old lifelong bachelor, rents an apartment in Washington, and does not own a car or real estate.
He said that he did not take a salary from any of the advocacy groups he had founded, and that he lived on $25,000 a year.
Mr. Nader made no apologies for his own net worth, saying he could have been even richer had he not been funneling 80 percent of his earnings back into civic projects.
''I'd like to set an example that people who have means should use those means to better society,'' he told The Post.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wPXMJWM7aF0
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
no, that would've been lincoln. and he was prolly our last one, too.
i think what you're forgetting is, even though you admire & respect ralph nader, he doesn't have ANY political savvy, NO experience playing with the grownups in this game called politics AS A POLITICIAN. unfortunately, the way the rules are written, there are gonna be some imperfections in ANY politician's record. i can live with that in my president. what i can't live with is someone who's gonna tumble into the white house clueless and then fumble the job through sheer inexperience and a refusal to engage in the actual political game. those are acceptable characteristics in a friend; not so helpful in a president.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
But in my defense, there's nothing contradictory in that first paragraph.
A). You're absolutely right. That issue doesn't affect me much, as I tend to avoid using credit cards. At the time - and it was likely from something you posted - I didn't know anything about the bill. So, when asked what I thought of the credit card bill, I responded honestly. And, for the record, that's still my answer. Not one of my major concerns. But that in no way contradicts:
C). Thirty percent was still too high, and the overall bill was a piece of shit. Well, it's true, isn't it? Here is where I started to look at what you were talking about - the bill itself - and the more official stance of the candidate. He voted against a bad bill and the amendment that was intended to make it look a little better.
There was no personal, RainDog progression here where I gradually changed my position to match that of the candidate. I am still not overly affected by high credit card interest rates, except that maybe high interest rates keep me from using credit cards (A and
They also tell me that MyDD is fiercely pro-Hillary, and to take any opinion pieces from there with a rock of salt. But I suppose they are just feeding my naïveté.
Yours is also just an opinion here. We all have our own.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ralph Nader has tons of political experience.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But in what capacity? He's never held public office. Never compromising is a luxury he can afford by never really being in the game as a serious player (read: holder of elected office).
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Just having a title doesn't mean shit to me. Nader has a long list of accomplishments in which he fought the odds and actually brought some CHANGE to the people of this country. To me, that will always be more important than whether or not he has held an elected office. Looking at the sorry ass job most elected officials do, I can't even see how that aspect is supposed to be some big plus. The usual elected official in the senate is full of shit....give me something new. Give me someone who has proven he is all about the things he talks about because he has turned his words into ACTIONS and PROGRESS time and time again. Nader's been in the political game since the 70's, he knows how it works and has always approached the gov't with how it is supposed to work for the people not how we the apathetic masses shrug and accept it as these days.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so now the argument has shifted as to why this is a bad bill. the argument now is that it will clog the federal courts? so it wasnt clogging the state courts that handle twice the docket the feds handle? you wonder why the feds didnt want it? because it is more work that is why. show me one person that would support being given more work.
so the whole argument has shifted to "it will backlog the fed courts so in turn it will stop suits from moving forward"? wow, thats really reaching.
i dont see a concern at all with moving massive class action suits to a federal level. again, these judges are MORE then qualified to sit the bench for these suits.
here is a toubling excerpt from that article...
"essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts"
1. forced most state class actions? bullshit... it is only suits over $5 million and suits with plaintiffs in multiple states. that is hardly "most" you know what happens with a criminla case that crosses state lines? it becomes a federal case, for logistical reasons. the same thing is being applied here.
2. "backlogged"? bullshit... every court in this country if fucking backlogged. county, state, federal... i would rather have state courts handle real state issues and not massive class action suits. call me crazy
3. "republican dominated fedearl courts"?... two parts here... 1. just because you we appointed by a republican does not mean you are corrupt or inept. these judges are the best in the land and have to exceed the qualifications to even be considered. these men and women are far from cronies and political lapdogs.... 2. you dont think there are republican state judges? i know a few personally.
4. i am not taking anyones "word for it"... i read the bill, i read the pro's and con's... and I do not see the issue... especially not the major issue you are trying to make out of it here...
and last but not least... can you show me where this has impeded or blocked someones right to a hearing for their complaint? where are the examples of all the righteous suits being thrown out by eveil republican appointed federal judges?
i see nothing wrong with the bill. i see nothing that you have presented that i consider an issue or unfair. logistically it may present a new task for the federal courts, but i think they can handle it just fine. and as i said, every court in this country is backlogged.
i've asked before but either get ignored or someone gets pissy and says they don't owe an explanation to me, but what has obama done to make you think he would be any different? what sets him above nader and everyone else?
his first election he ran unopposed after going to court a few times to get everyone else taken off, then beat alan keyes (and come on, who in their right minds would vote for keyes!?) and has missed nearly half the votes in this current senate!! and some of them are pretty important ones like funding for the REAL ID act, FISA, Dept of def appropriations, intelligence appropriations....but he always has time to vote to renew the patriot act or to confirm condi rice as sec of state even tho he claims to think she was pretty responsible for leading us into a 'stupid war', voting repeatedly to fund this 'stupid war', voting againt credit card caps, voting to put cases against big corporations into an already back logged federal court taking the power away from the state
other than something he's said or promised to do can you cite something that would show me he has more political savy than nader? nader has been fighting for citizen's rights for decades
it doesn't bother any of you that he lies about his connection w/ lobbyists? going from 'lobbyists won't have any jobs in my white house!!!' to 'they won't dominate my white house' from i don't take money from lobbyists!!! to 'well, i only take a couple $100 grand here and there and have them as chair of my election campaign.....and LIE about it on national tv during a state debate before their primary!
i think Matt Gonzalez made some pretty strong points in that video
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, that is just another facet of the problem, as i've already given you others like i don't think they will be given as fair a shot. i'm all for cutting back on frivolous lawsuits, but i don't think this helps. can you show me 1 civil rights group or victims rights group that supported this bill? no, it just seemed like lobbyists and bush really pushed for this
it will take LONGER to have their case heard, then whatever the plantiff admits to isn't admissible anywhere else!!
did you not read these parts of the articles?
While big business is jubilant, consumer organizations are outraged. A tobacco industry analyst put it bluntly: "The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard."
"Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the federal courts and therefore stop the cases," she said.
"The bill also undermines the ability of state courts to hear cases primarily concerned with their own citizens. ***who they will be accountable to, not some politically appointed judge who finally gets to hear it after how long?
maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.
and from either the Fordham Law Review article or the piece by a Proffesor of Law at UCLA:
t also 'contradicts the framers’ intent that the federal government
consists of only limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary
should only usurp state judicial power when there are serious national
interests at stake.
'CAFA’s effect is to create exclusive federal jurisdiction over some statelaw
based interstate class actions.301 Consequently, CAFA effectively
strips the state judiciary of its authority to create and interpret state laws
governing some kinds of class actions.302 and 'In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court held that it is unconstitutional for federal courts sitting in diversity to create substantive common law,18 stating that neither Congress nor the federal courts have the “power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a tate.”19 Consequently,'
substantive law.20
Because CAFA is based on diversity jurisdiction, state substantive law
will govern all of the class actions under its purview.21 However, because
CAFA restricts jurisdiction over these class actions exclusively to federal
court, the federal courts will lack applicable state law and be forced to develop a federal common law of class actions.22 Accordingly, CAFA will
force federal courts to violate the core constitutional holding of Erie
because the federal courts do not have any constitutional authority to create
substantive law.23
The main reason the framers chose to include federal diversity
jurisdiction in Article III was to prevent state courts from exercising
prejudice against out-of-state litigants.291 None of the rationales that
Congress chose to justify the need for CAFA implicate this policy
concern.292
http://securities.law360.com/secure/ViewArticle.aspx?Id=51474
The study also found an increase in class action removals since CAFA, with an initial burst of removals occurring after the act was enacted.....
A purported nationwide class of American Airlines skycaps who she represented were recently denied class certification. A judge ruled that the state laws were not similar enough to be managed in one proceeding through the certification of various subclasses.....
The CAFA exceptions that allow a class action to stay in state court are so “incredibly narrow” that far too many cases that should be litigated in the courts are moved to federal courts, said Stephen Burbank, a civil procedure professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
For instance, residents of Pennsylvania pursuing state claims against a company with a business in the state could still have their case removed to federal court if the company is incorporated in another state or has another principle place of business.
“If a federal court would not certify a case as a class action but a state court would, the state is denied its ability to enforce their laws in their view of class action,” Burbank said.
When a state class action is removed to federal court and consolidated with other state class actions under an MDL, settlements with the combined class can be more difficult to reach.
If cases are combined, the stakes increase and the conflict intensifies, creating more roadblocks to settlement, Burbank said.
“It is not at all clear that turning a bunch of local skirmishes into a world war is conducive. Small cases may each be resolved efficiently and quickly,” Burbank said.....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
do you bring up the 'insider trading' thing? b/c what i said was
'
and i think this is more of an issue than that insider trading shit ppl like to keep pulling up, i guess it doesn't matter that they contradict themselves w/ that very arguement they keep trying to make....but whatever'
on the one hand they fault nader for selling stocks in companies he was about to go after 30-40 years ago...which seems the ethical thing to do...i would think. if you were a lawyer about to take monsanto to court and you had stock in them would you keep it? of course not!
but the contradiction comes in they also fault him for having a mutual fund which puts money into some questionable companies...
so which is it?? are they mad at him for selling stocks or for keeping them!? it's a contradiction, not to mention a reach
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
lincoln was also the last 3rd party candidate to be elected president
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so now the concern it that the process will take longer?
any civil court action takes forever, regardless of jurisdiction.
i read throuhg all of the articles you posted. i could find 20 articles that support CAFA. it is kind of hard to use opinion pieces to prove your case, since they are simply opinions and "what if's"
can you provide 1 person, or 1 righteous lawsuit that has been unfairly dismissed or delayed since this bill was passed?
so now insider trading is eithical?
selling off stock for profit in advance of a known decrease in value because of your organizations work is called unethical
nader is a fraud dude.
you cannot rail against wall street and corporations, while being heavily invested in them at the same time. that is just being a flat out hypocrite and a fraud
Nader on T.V. interview running for president ~ "They are all owned and controlled by the evil corporate interests on Wall Street!!!"... "You country is owned and controlled by corporate interests on Wall Street!!!" (which he may very well be correct, however)
Nader talking to his broker 10 minutes later ~ "Hey, i want to out $50,000 more into my portfolio, i prefer a mutual that invests in war stocks and multi national corporations that i rail against"
:rolleyes:
or maybe we could talk about his multi million dollar home that "he" doesnt own, you know, the one he keeps in his sisters name
when you look at Nader with an honest look like i have, you will be very dispappointed, just like i was.
he invested and profitted on the exact thing he has railed against.
call it what you want. justify it how you want. the fact remains the same.
What do you have on Obama other than the Rezko land deal and Jermeiah Wright??? *yawn*
Use the search function.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I've researched Obama far more than most; my job allows me a lot of free time in front of the computer and I'm an Obama supporter and political junkie.
So, why don't you tell me, rather than offering the "search engine button", what kind of skeletons he has in his closet? What is it about him that you think isn't worthy of your vote, what makes Hillary or McCain a better candidate? Other than Rezko and Wright, what makes him unelectable?
The less sarcasm, the better.
I'm not going to just tell you just because you demand it. I've already stated my reasoning and all you have to do is search my posts or threads and it's right there for you. If I felt like going into it again right now, I would. But I don't. And it's not about skeletons, it's about his weak platform, record and his pandering.
I never claimed he was unelectable just that I won't be voting for him based on my ideals.
Also, I never claimed Hillary or McCain were better than Obama. I'll take a page from Ron Paul and say he's about the same as the other two but maybe
slightly better.
You can eat your bowl of 'slightly better' all day long but I'm tired of the bad taste it puts in my mouth. I'm passing.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i am making progress!
progress as in I'm still not going to vote for Obama but have thought he was only slightly better than Hillary this whole time?
Although, I like Hillary's stance on healthcare and gay marriage better. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I like her platform better. I can't see any parts of Obama's proposals that stand out from hers.
However Hillary's record and history give Obama the slight edge over her and that's ONLY due to his very short political career. Still some things he has done in these fews years already point to what we can expect to see of him in the future. Also, he has had plenty of time to bring some of this 'change' he's so fond of invoking....I'm just not seeing too much he has done. Could you let me in on some proof of his greatness? Something that points to his rhetoric being backed by substantial actions and efforts? If he was genuine about wanting change, I would have expected to see some of it by now in the place of publicity tours and writing books to promote himself.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
whatever, can you name something obama has done? wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for him to go after a company he had stock in?
do you know what's in your mutual fund? how do you even find out b/c i'd really like to know
when i look at obama i am even more disappointed, to quote edwards, 'it'd be nice to see some substance behind the rhetoric'
it's all take, take, take...you've yet to show anything to back up your side, at least i'm offering something other than 'b/c i said so!!!!'
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
there's the lies he's told about lobbyists, for a few....
he said he doesn't take money from lobbyists, he's taken $100's of thousands from lobbyists
the chair of his new hampshire campaign was a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry and when it was brought up on national tv during the debate obama L I E D by shaking his head side to side and saying 'that's not true!' when it was true
when hillary seemed pro lobbyist obama had all this rhetoric about 'lobbyists won't have a job in my white house!!!' and later when pressed on it he said what he meant was they won't dominate his white house
he's lied about having anything to do w/ certain bills other than to stand at the front and talk during press time
he repeatedly votes to reauthorize the patriot act
he voted to confirm condi rice, yet she helped mislead us into a 'stupid war'??
see my sig; he says his foreign policy will be like daddy bush's and reagans....secret, illegal wars, selling thousands of missiles to iran, funding, arming, training terrorists, lying to congress, shredding documents, falsifying records....
will put more money into the already bloated defense budget
will NOT bring all the troops home and most of the ones that leave iraq will only be deployed in afghanistan or elsewhere
his health care plan is shit
he's is for nuclear power and 'clean' coal but only wants a small % to be using alternative energy by 2025
missed a little over 40% of the votes in this current senate
didn't really support any progressive democrats during the 06 elections while he traveled to connecticut to speak for lieberman
....is that enough for now?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E3DC1531F93AA25755C0A9669C8B63
The Sun reported on Saturday that Mr. Nader had earned more than $512,000 over the last 16 months, mostly in speaking fees. The newspaper also said Mr. Nader's personal holdings were valued at more than $3.9 million, including a stock portfolio heavy on technology holdings.
Mr. Nader has nearly $1.2 million in stock in Cisco Systems, the Internet networking company. He also owns smaller amounts of five other technology-related stocks and has more than $2 million in two money market funds, The Washington Post reported. He listed no debt.
Mr. Nader, a 66-year-old lifelong bachelor, rents an apartment in Washington, and does not own a car or real estate.
He said that he did not take a salary from any of the advocacy groups he had founded, and that he lived on $25,000 a year.
Mr. Nader made no apologies for his own net worth, saying he could have been even richer had he not been funneling 80 percent of his earnings back into civic projects.
''I'd like to set an example that people who have means should use those means to better society,'' he told The Post.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way