Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal

Abookamongstthemany

soulsinging wrote:

i hope he gets it. the more, the merrier.

but yes, pipe dream. a magical universal health care (WHAT IS HIS PLAN? no one has shown it to me yet... im for free cake for everyone at every meal too, just dont ask me how i plan to do it). no war fought ever again. pipe dream. magical corporate accountability... what is his plan? again, have not seen it.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5228101&postcount=73

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

Nader would tax things we dont' like-pollution for example. Also the stock market, where billions change hand every day. The recenue created would be considerable, enough to pay for health insurance for the entire country. He'd legalize hemp to give farmers more of a chance, and I could go on. His platform is very sound, he's got a lot of good ideas.

how would he do this exactly? declare himself dictator and disband congress? becos, i may be fuzzy on this, but i could swear there was something about congress making laws. marijuana isn't getting legalized yet (though i am pretty sure it will be by the time i die), and i don't think stock market taxes are going to fly. im not even sure i know what you mean by that. are you talking about taxes on dividends? i was under the impression those were already taxed. as to pollution, we have agencies to regulate that and fines can be imposed on violators. it's just almost impossible to beat them in court and it's usually worth it to them to pay plaintiffs off rather than fix it. unless you just mean a tax on pollution. that one sounds alright. but i still don't see what nader has to do with it... has he said that is what he'd do?

RainDog

So Nader wouldn't have run if Edwards was nominated? Really?

Edwards? No real beef with the guy, but talk about a candidate whose rhetoric doesn't match his record. But, yeah, I heard about Nader making this announcement long after it became apparent that Edwards wasn't going to get the nod. Safe bet there. Like me saying "I'm here to announce that if Time doesn't stop, I will leave work for home this evening!"

soulsinging

RainDog wrote:

So Nader wouldn't have run if Edwards was nominated? Really?

Edwards? No real beef with the guy, but talk about a candidate whose rhetoric doesn't match his record. But, yeah, I heard about Nader making this announcement long after it became apparent that Edwards wasn't going to get the nod. Safe bet there. Like me saying "I'm here to announce that if Time doesn't stop, I will leave work for home this evening!"

i was kinda surprised too, though edwards is the kind of liberal america could get on board with. i also think he has changed a lot. his wife was very sick... might have woken him up on a few things. i really liked him and hope he gets his day. im still hoping for an obama/edwards ticket. keep hillary in the senate. she's better suited to congress. and with dems in the white house and her in the senate, we might be able to start turning things around.

havent seen you here in ages. i was in your town 2 months back, watching my beloved buckeyes get stomped

KosmicJelli

"""it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act""

Russ Feingold Senator from Wisconsin...

I think this man really needs to run for prez... he has had my vote in the past and if he ever decides to run.. Im behind him 100 %

RainDog

Sadly, it's a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don't believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement?

The same way I would condemn a wound AND the salt poured on it.

Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical "solution" being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton?

How does a president tear down the insurance industry? A president can pitch an idea - use the "bully pulpit" as it's called; but it's Congress that writes the laws. And, unfortunately, they don't seem open to the idea of single payer health care. If the population truely does support single payer, then they're going to have to vote out Congress first. That takes time. Until then, 'band-aids' will be necessary.

Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man's right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader's right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that's not the liberalism I studied.

Candidates - including Nader - always ridicule opponents. They're opponents, after all.

Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader's announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn't going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers' rights now--not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn't choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the "hope" of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.

Again, I never got the whole "substance of Edwards" thing - at least not as far as policy vs. rhetoric goes. And, at this point, who doesn't know what Nader stands for? It's not like he just suddenly came out of no where.

I won't condemn Nader's run. I've voted for him in the past, and enjoy seeing him out there, for the most part. But I think we need to understand where the fundamentalist/moderate sides really are.

RainDog

soulsinging wrote:

i was kinda surprised too, though edwards is the kind of liberal america could get on board with. i also think he has changed a lot. his wife was very sick... might have woken him up on a few things. i really liked him and hope he gets his day. im still hoping for an obama/edwards ticket. keep hillary in the senate. she's better suited to congress. and with dems in the white house and her in the senate, we might be able to start turning things around.

I like the Obama/Edwards idea; I'm not sure it would work election wise, but I like the idea.

soulsinging wrote:

havent seen you here in ages. i was in your town 2 months back, watching my beloved buckeyes get stomped

Former Ohio citizen, myself. I imagine if I was more of a football fan, that game would have been like me punching myself, no matter who won. Hope you had a good time.

Edited - too many "selfs" in the first draft.

MasterFramer

Urban Hiker wrote:

I think Michael Colby has it right.
These faux-liberals out there are the same people driving hybrid SUV's and patting themselves on the back for being so Green. :rolleyes:

They can have Obama, I'll take Nader.

BTW - has anybody read 'Wolves in Sheep's Clothing'? Which from the cover looks like it could be titled 'Donkey in Elephant's Clothing'.

I just added it to my "to read" list and would love to hear thoughts on it. Please PM.

Nader owns McDonalds stock... he must be ok with Animal cruelty... I would never own a fast food stock. Would you?

KosmicJelli

One question popped in my mind...

Why do we elect officials? To do our bidding for us (at least in theory)...

But what has happened? My answer is that corporations have undermined "the people"...

When we have undermined "the people"... we have lost one of the greatest resources... humans.

Humans collectively have done great things together... but we have become pitted so against each other through greed, race, etc ...

soulsinging

KosmicJelli wrote:

One question popped in my mind...

Why do we elect officials? To do our bidding for us (at least in theory)...

But what has happened? My answer is that corporations have undermined "the people"...

When we have undermined "the people"... we have lost one of the greatest resources... humans.

Humans collectively have done great things together... but we have become pitted so against each other through greed, race, etc ...

wrong. historically, humans only work well together when pressed to by a strong ruler. alexander. xerxes. the rich roman senators. roman emperors. spanish monarchs. the kings and queens of england. the educated aristocrats of america. churchill and fdr in ww2.

humans are naturally competitive for resources and security and advantage. there is nothing new about this. they only cooperate when forced or pressed to do so by more powerful leaders.

Urban Hiker

MasterFramer wrote:

Nader owns McDonalds stock... he must be ok with Animal cruelty... I would never own a fast food stock. Would you?

Ralph Nader has never represented himself as a vegan. However, vegans have a hard time not supporting businesses who in one way or another participate in animal cruelty. I haven't found a single grocery store that does not sell meat or products containing animal ingredients, not even little co-ops etc.

So, I may not own their stock, but I am supporting them (and their cruelty) financially. :(

The world is not perfect, but I want it to live it its greatest potential.

PaperPlates

Commy wrote:

pipe dream?............

........A one party system is the definition of fascism,and we're pretty damn close at this point. He's trying to give us options.

Or "they" are trying to make us think we have options.

DriftingByTheStorm

This was too good to let die.
Found it on the last page and had to save it.

VictoryGin

RainDog wrote:

So Nader wouldn't have run if Edwards was nominated? Really?

Edwards? No real beef with the guy, but talk about a candidate whose rhetoric doesn't match his record. But, yeah, I heard about Nader making this announcement long after it became apparent that Edwards wasn't going to get the nod. Safe bet there. Like me saying "I'm here to announce that if Time doesn't stop, I will leave work for home this evening!"

oh man, i've missed this.

Mutiny! he cried

my2hands wrote:

i havent seen any liberal "outrage" at Nader running... certainly not to the level this writer is seems to be claiming... i fully support his run, i would prefer multiple choices and support anyone running for president... and i love his platform and what he stands for

also, the whole obama "hype" thing... perhaps the writer of the article is missing the reason for the hype... the american people believe in hope and collective progress... and have been starving for a message of inspiration from their leadership... a message of what we can do, as opposed to doom, gloom, and fear at all times...

i say the obama "hype" is authentic and that he will be the most progressive president in US history... not as progressive as I would like, but certainly the most progressive in our history... a ship needs to change course before throttling to full speed ahead... and this ship needs to make a U turn in my opinion

other will disagree that it is authentic, thats fine, one of us is right though... and i will take my chances on this one

most progressive president in our history you say????????

but I thought the post-election line was no one thought he was progressive and everyone knew he would govern from the center and that coupled with changing the -R to a -D was the only change implied?

RainDog

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

most progressive president in our history you say????????

but I thought the post-election line was no one thought he was progressive and everyone knew he would govern from the center and that coupled with changing the -R to a -D was the only change implied?

Most Progressive does not mean Not Centrist. It's a comparitive statement - sort of like saying George Bush is anti-war compared to Hitler.

But you seem to have a mission on your hands right now. I'll let you get back to stumbling around with one foot asleep.

digster

This reminds me of my problem with many absolutists, both on the far-left or the far right. If you disagree with such a person on any issue, not only are you in disagreement, but you're a "zombie", and sucking on the teat of society. Simply because you are not them, you and your arguments are automatically illegitimate, and therefore require no actual, reasonable debate in response. You find this type of thinking all across the political map, but you see it most extremely, and most consistently, with those at the far ends. I don't really understand why many supporters of Nader, for example, view a more moderate liberal not only as someone they have strong disagreements with, but as someone who is a zombie without any possible logical points to make. And since they don't have to respond to those arguments, they no longer have to make any arguments themselves.

unifiedscene

digster wrote:

This reminds me of my problem with many absolutists, both on the far-left or the far right. If you disagree with such a person on any issue, not only are you in disagreement, but you're a "zombie", and sucking on the teat of society. Simply because you are not them, you and your arguments are automatically illegitimate, and therefore require no actual, reasonable debate in response. You find this type of thinking all across the political map, but you see it most extremely, and most consistently, with those at the far ends. I don't really understand why many supporters of Nader, for example, view a more moderate liberal not only as someone they have strong disagreements with, but as someone who is a zombie without any possible logical points to make. And since they don't have to respond to those arguments, they no longer have to make any arguments themselves.

Amen.

Mutiny! he cried

You 3 seem to be missing the point. It goes a little like this

-Obama supporters now claim no one ever thought Obama was progressive (and sorry RainDog, being centrist is FAR from progressive) or anti-war. I've even seen some here say only an uneducated idiot tought these things of Obama.

So I pointed out were several people seemed to have these ideas in their head and instead of addressing that you nmake petty comments. Whatever works for you, I guess.

RainDog

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

You 3 seem to be missing the point. It goes a little like this

-Obama supporters now claim no one ever thought Obama was progressive (and sorry RainDog, being centrist is FAR from progressive) or anti-war. I've even seen some here say only an uneducated idiot tought these things of Obama.

So I pointed out were several people seemed to have these ideas in their head and instead of addressing that you nmake petty comments. Whatever works for you, I guess.

Petty comments? Ah. Still no word on how you completely misinterpreted me when you called me out in the Iranian thread?

Most people understand that when they call Obama "anti-war" they are refering to the Iraq war. If you, however, thought that Obama was against all wars - despite him repeatedly saying otherwise - then that's more your problem than ours.