For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.
In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.
===================================
Busted a union among his workers:
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
I totally support Nader’s right to run, and in a sense I applaud his ideals.
If Nader can get say 10% or even 5%, that says something. That means something. If people want to use their vote to make that statement, that’s their right.
It just seems that people like Nader, would rather spend their lives cutting off their nose to spite their face than get into power and start making the small steps which will make a difference. Seems to be all or nothing. Which so often means nothing.
For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.
In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.
===================================
Busted a union among his workers:
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
The stocks have already been brought up and Nader does make a point about the non profit groups. You work for those because you want to support a cause. Those groups would go broke especially considering the limited amount of resources they have and need to stay afloat. If you were working for a non profit for money or benefits then I would say you were a bit misguided and should look elsewhere for these kind of perks because they(non profits) are not going to be able to provide them.
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
why is it anytime someone comes along that's worth voting for people spend all this energy trying to discredit them in any way they can. it happens with all the candidates, but wtf, why can't people discuss the issues, is it that hard, does it require that much brain power.
no one is thinking of or worrying about Ralph Nadar in 2008.
You must have missed all the posts saying how a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain and how he cost Gore the election in 2008 and could do it again. Not to mention all the media I've seen spouting the same thing.
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
There are many things I will knock Nader for. If he really cared for his cause he would form a real party instead of jumping to whatever party will have him. He would stop jumping in every four years to make some noise and begin work at gaining seats at the local and state level. He would spend the four years between elections lobbying for fairer ballot access. All his running does is remind us that these problems exist and that no one, including Nader, want to actually fix them.
What I will not allow people to do is knock Nader for ‘playing spoiler’. Votes are earned - not owed. We still live in America, this is still a democracy, and he still has a right to run. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Gore,The Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and the dragon lady who certified the election, cost Gore the election. If Al really wanted those votes, he would have worked hard and earned them. Nader did work hard in 2000, and Nader did earn those votes.
So to all my fellow Democrats who believe that Nader stole the 2000 election, I say this. Get down off your high horse, and if you really believe in your party and candidate, then get to work and start campaigning for them and help them earn votes.
It’s that simple.
A fascist regime is defined as a 1 party system...that is basically what we have to deael with in the United States. Nader is trying to bring democracy to the table, to give us an alternative. Even if he doesn't win (which he knows he wont'), even if he just gets the message across he's done his job. He's trying to give the people the power.
Nader is going to get even less than he got in 04. Far less.
I don't think so. There's a strong sentiment of wanting more options and choices in our democracy and a sense of no confidence in the two parties who had did so little for us since they have had power. All that has been achieved as far as real rpogress goes is been won the strong movements from the people who forced our gov't to listen to their demands. The two parties have done as little as they thought they could get by and will continue to do so as long as people remain complacent and apathetic. This view that we have to accept these things we don't like because this is the best we can hope for is ridiculous. I don't think Obama or Hillary's healthcare plan is the best we can hope for. I don't think nuclear power is a good idea. I don't think we should let Bush/Cheney slide for their crimes in office, I don't think we need to expand and modernize our military, I don't think so much of our budget should go to defense, I don't believe the Patriot Act or voting to fund this war was a good idea...and on and on. So, I'm not voting for someone who does.
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
Nader is going to get even less than he got in 04. Far less.
I totally agree for the following reasons
1) The people who are so truly anti-corporation and anti-special interest wouldn't be voting for the two big parties anyway.
2) Nader will not get in the debates or on most ballots this time around. It's totally wrong, but the system will fight him every step of the way.
3) Nader is older than McCain (which equals older than dirt)
4) 2000 was a different climate than 2008... in 2000 a lot of us were looking to build on what Clinton accomplished and take it 10 steps forward. And both sides had such pathetic candidates, that Nader seemed more appealing. Now Bush has set standards so goddamn low that most people will view the democrat as light years ahead of where were have been the last two years, and say what you want about Obama, Clinton & McCain, but they are each better candidates than Gore, Bush or Kerry combined.
5) You saw how little media attention Ron Paul got, Nader will get a fraction of that.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
1) The people who are so truly anti-corporation and anti-special interest wouldn't be voting for the two big parties anyway.
2) Nader will not get in the debates or on most ballots this time around. It's totally wrong, but the system will fight him every step of the way.
3) Nader is older than McCain (which equals older than dirt)
4) 2000 was a different climate than 2008... in 2000 a lot of us were looking to build on what Clinton accomplished and take it 10 steps forward. And both sides had such pathetic candidates, that Nader seemed more appealing. Now Bush has set standards so goddamn low that most people will view the democrat as light years ahead of where were have been the last two years, and say what you want about Obama, Clinton & McCain, but they are each better candidates than Gore, Bush or Kerry combined.
5) You saw how little media attention Ron Paul got, Nader will get a fraction of that.
The main reason Nader might not get support is because our media refuses to cover the issues. If the race were truly based on the issues and not all the other shit, campaign speeches, sleek commercials and who's got the most cash then Nader could stand on his own merit just fine. But we're all still so content with playing ball in a rigged game.
For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.
In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.
===================================
Busted a union among his workers:
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
the truth hurts... manipulating stocks... insider trading... and union busting at his own organizations
it is worse then i thought... but i am still not surprised
The stocks have already been brought up and Nader does make a point about the non profit groups. You work for those because you want to support a cause. Those groups would go broke especially considering the limited amount of resources they have and need to stay afloat. If you were working for a non profit for money or benefits then I would say you were a bit misguided and should look elsewhere for these kind of perks because they(non profits) are not going to be able to provide them.
so you are defending nader busting unions at his own organizations? and the fact that the stocks have already been brought up doesnt change the fact... i am sure this concerns you? stock manipulation and insider trading?
pro union, until it is his people organizing... what a fucking hypocrite...
i am slowly losing respect for Mr Nader... i need to do some more digging
why is it anytime someone comes along that's worth voting for people spend all this energy trying to discredit them in any way they can.
tell me about it...
but i do think the high level of scrutinization is much needed for all candidiates, the ones i support and dont support...and i am glad the left is combing over Obamas record... i hope they will see the light before november
so clearly stating he will end the iraq war in 2009, withdrawl the troops within 16 months, and NOT have permament bases in Iraq is half assed?
if you would like to review what he thinks about the issues and his ideas to address them feel free to check out the 70 page document on his website that you can download to review... i have read the entire thing, and i am impressed
thats the funny thing about people saying "he is only a speech with no substance"... he is the only candidate to put everything in one document available on his website for all to review...
No one fears Nader, he is not the only one who is tired of a two party system where the people are not truly represented. The problem with Ralph Nader is that he likes to think of himself as our poorman's version of Michael Moore. Moore who has gotten wealthy off documenting the plight of the down-n-out people of America at the hands of the corporation, while seemingly very inept in actually HELPING people in these documentaries and one-on-one with corporate heads.
As interesting as the 2007-8 primaries have been, the grassroot message was being spoken by several candidates and the main ones which many people liked are no longer in the running. If it was all about the message, Ron Paul, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich who are rich, powerful, well established political men with strong support and supporters would still be in the running, the people had to feel or know something else.
Nader's raises awareness, but grassroot people don't identify with him. When people inquiry about him, all they get is the tree hugger, save the whale, pink dress kind of guy speech, not necessarily your President material. That doesn't stop old dependable Nader from leaping onto the playing field and blaming everyone else for the problem. Then he is gone, silence. No one hears of his grassroot efforts or the Green Party during an off election years.
Ralph Nader is a multi-millionaire philanthropist/businessman, he could have enter the race from the beginning. He's not in it to win, he is in as an alternative name for placing electoral votes if needed. Does that make him a scab?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
The main reason Nader might not get support is because our media refuses to cover the issues. If the race were truly based on the issues and not all the other shit, campaign speeches, sleek commercials and who's got the most cash then Nader could stand on his own merit just fine. But we're all still so content with playing ball in a rigged game.
No one fears Nader, he is not the only one who is tired of a two party system where the people are not truly represented. The problem with Ralph Nader is that he likes to think of himself as our poorman's version of Michael Moore. Moore who has gotten wealthy off documenting the plight of the down-n-out people of America at the hands of the corporation, while seemingly very inept in actually HELPING people in these documentaries and one-on-one with corporate heads.
As interesting as the 2007-8 primaries have been, the grassroot message was being spoken by several candidates and the main ones which many people liked are no longer in the running. If it was all about the message, Ron Paul, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich who are rich, powerful, well established political men with strong support and supporters would still be in the running, the people had to feel or know something else.
Nader's raises awareness, but grassroot people don't identify with him. When people inquiry about him, all they get is the tree hugger, save the whale, pink dress kind of guy speech, not necessarily your President material. That doesn't stop old dependable Nader from leaping onto the playing field and blaming everyone else for the problem. Then he is gone, silence. No one hears of his grassroot efforts or the Green Party during an off election years.
Ralph Nader is a multi-millionaire philanthropist/businessman, he could have enter the race from the beginning. He's not in it to win, he is in as an alternative name for placing electoral votes if needed. Does that make him a scab?
I really would wish that people could somehow get past their fascination with money and rockstar-type celebrity and vote on the issues. Do you have any opinions on the candidates platforms? And could somebody please, pretty please even...tell me what the differences are between Hillary and Obama's platforms?
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
the truth hurts... manipulating stocks... insider trading... and union busting at his own organizations
it is worse then i thought... but i am still not surprised
this is bad, real bad...
The truth didn't seem to have you flinching too much when it's about Obama. The stuff me and other's have posted on him make these two issues look like small beans.
Unionizing non-profit organizations isn't as cut and dry as you think. Most of the time they have to scrape by with the limited to resources they do have in order to focus on the cause they represent.
People say that a vote for Nader is a wasted vote, I entirely disagree. I live in Oregon, it's going to whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I could vote for McCain (never in my life), or I could vote for whoever wins the democratic nomination (neither of whom I support), but it won't make a difference either way. A vote for Nader, however, is a vote that those in charge of the democratic party know that they lost.
Third parties in this country don't exist to win elections, they exist as watchdog groups. The democrats have to be able to lose votes from the left, otherwise there's no reason for them to cater that voting block.
Either way, real change doesn't happen through presidential politics. Real change has to happen outside of politics if we want to have any hope of getting out of this mess.
You must have missed all the posts saying how a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain and how he cost Gore the election in 2008 and could do it again. Not to mention all the media I've seen spouting the same thing.
I don't equate ignorance with reasoning, Gore lost his presidency of his own doing, period.
Nadar won't even get 1% of any state, let alone the country. Only chance he has of this not being true is if Clinton is the Dem candidate. Some Obama ppl may go to Nadar, and some of the independents will go to McCain, many won't even come out to vote, yet Hillary will still win the White House.
Hopefully that won't be the case and Obama will win the day.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Comments
http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#antiunion
============================================
Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:
For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.
Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.
In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.
===================================
Busted a union among his workers:
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.
Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can’t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
If Nader can get say 10% or even 5%, that says something. That means something. If people want to use their vote to make that statement, that’s their right.
It just seems that people like Nader, would rather spend their lives cutting off their nose to spite their face than get into power and start making the small steps which will make a difference. Seems to be all or nothing. Which so often means nothing.
The stocks have already been brought up and Nader does make a point about the non profit groups. You work for those because you want to support a cause. Those groups would go broke especially considering the limited amount of resources they have and need to stay afloat. If you were working for a non profit for money or benefits then I would say you were a bit misguided and should look elsewhere for these kind of perks because they(non profits) are not going to be able to provide them.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
You must have missed all the posts saying how a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain and how he cost Gore the election in 2008 and could do it again. Not to mention all the media I've seen spouting the same thing.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What I will not allow people to do is knock Nader for ‘playing spoiler’. Votes are earned - not owed. We still live in America, this is still a democracy, and he still has a right to run. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Gore,The Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and the dragon lady who certified the election, cost Gore the election. If Al really wanted those votes, he would have worked hard and earned them. Nader did work hard in 2000, and Nader did earn those votes.
So to all my fellow Democrats who believe that Nader stole the 2000 election, I say this. Get down off your high horse, and if you really believe in your party and candidate, then get to work and start campaigning for them and help them earn votes.
It’s that simple.
I don't think so. There's a strong sentiment of wanting more options and choices in our democracy and a sense of no confidence in the two parties who had did so little for us since they have had power. All that has been achieved as far as real rpogress goes is been won the strong movements from the people who forced our gov't to listen to their demands. The two parties have done as little as they thought they could get by and will continue to do so as long as people remain complacent and apathetic. This view that we have to accept these things we don't like because this is the best we can hope for is ridiculous. I don't think Obama or Hillary's healthcare plan is the best we can hope for. I don't think nuclear power is a good idea. I don't think we should let Bush/Cheney slide for their crimes in office, I don't think we need to expand and modernize our military, I don't think so much of our budget should go to defense, I don't believe the Patriot Act or voting to fund this war was a good idea...and on and on. So, I'm not voting for someone who does.
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 totally agree for the following reasons
1) The people who are so truly anti-corporation and anti-special interest wouldn't be voting for the two big parties anyway.
2) Nader will not get in the debates or on most ballots this time around. It's totally wrong, but the system will fight him every step of the way.
3) Nader is older than McCain (which equals older than dirt)
4) 2000 was a different climate than 2008... in 2000 a lot of us were looking to build on what Clinton accomplished and take it 10 steps forward. And both sides had such pathetic candidates, that Nader seemed more appealing. Now Bush has set standards so goddamn low that most people will view the democrat as light years ahead of where were have been the last two years, and say what you want about Obama, Clinton & McCain, but they are each better candidates than Gore, Bush or Kerry combined.
5) You saw how little media attention Ron Paul got, Nader will get a fraction of that.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
The main reason Nader might not get support is because our media refuses to cover the issues. If the race were truly based on the issues and not all the other shit, campaign speeches, sleek commercials and who's got the most cash then Nader could stand on his own merit just fine. But we're all still so content with playing ball in a rigged game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLaP_-KXPDY
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/election2008/ig/2008-Election-Cartoons/Nader-on-the-Stump.htm
Couldnt help it.
http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/?p=1636
This would make for a hilarious thread
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the truth hurts... manipulating stocks... insider trading... and union busting at his own organizations
it is worse then i thought... but i am still not surprised
this is bad, real bad...
so you are defending nader busting unions at his own organizations? and the fact that the stocks have already been brought up doesnt change the fact... i am sure this concerns you? stock manipulation and insider trading?
pro union, until it is his people organizing... what a fucking hypocrite...
i am slowly losing respect for Mr Nader... i need to do some more digging
tell me about it...
but i do think the high level of scrutinization is much needed for all candidiates, the ones i support and dont support...and i am glad the left is combing over Obamas record... i hope they will see the light before november
so clearly stating he will end the iraq war in 2009, withdrawl the troops within 16 months, and NOT have permament bases in Iraq is half assed?
if you would like to review what he thinks about the issues and his ideas to address them feel free to check out the 70 page document on his website that you can download to review... i have read the entire thing, and i am impressed
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
thats the funny thing about people saying "he is only a speech with no substance"... he is the only candidate to put everything in one document available on his website for all to review...
As interesting as the 2007-8 primaries have been, the grassroot message was being spoken by several candidates and the main ones which many people liked are no longer in the running. If it was all about the message, Ron Paul, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich who are rich, powerful, well established political men with strong support and supporters would still be in the running, the people had to feel or know something else.
Nader's raises awareness, but grassroot people don't identify with him. When people inquiry about him, all they get is the tree hugger, save the whale, pink dress kind of guy speech, not necessarily your President material. That doesn't stop old dependable Nader from leaping onto the playing field and blaming everyone else for the problem. Then he is gone, silence. No one hears of his grassroot efforts or the Green Party during an off election years.
Ralph Nader is a multi-millionaire philanthropist/businessman, he could have enter the race from the beginning. He's not in it to win, he is in as an alternative name for placing electoral votes if needed. Does that make him a scab?
ya, we shouldn't even bother to try and change things :rolleyes:
Ain't that the truth.
This crap is produced and marketed like American Idol or some other bullshit television show.
It's a joke. No issues, just entertainment. It's Desperate Housewives meets Primary Colors.
I know, right? We should all just shut up and wait for someone else to come along and fix this mess for us. :rolleyes:
'We are who we've been waiting for.'
or
'Be the Change you wish to see in the World' ~ Ghandhi
So we better shape up and start acting like it.
And NMyTree, I totally agree with you. It's enough to make a sane person wanna scream 'Wake the fuck up!'
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 really would wish that people could somehow get past their fascination with money and rockstar-type celebrity and vote on the issues. Do you have any opinions on the candidates platforms? And could somebody please, pretty please even...tell me what the differences are between Hillary and Obama's platforms?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The truth didn't seem to have you flinching too much when it's about Obama. The stuff me and other's have posted on him make these two issues look like small beans.
Unionizing non-profit organizations isn't as cut and dry as you think. Most of the time they have to scrape by with the limited to resources they do have in order to focus on the cause they represent.
" The power of a union drive to
divide a nonprofit organization against itself is extraordinarily strong and
profound"
http://www.nonprofitresearch.org/usr_doc/Masaoka.pdf
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Third parties in this country don't exist to win elections, they exist as watchdog groups. The democrats have to be able to lose votes from the left, otherwise there's no reason for them to cater that voting block.
Either way, real change doesn't happen through presidential politics. Real change has to happen outside of politics if we want to have any hope of getting out of this mess.
I don't equate ignorance with reasoning, Gore lost his presidency of his own doing, period.
Nadar won't even get 1% of any state, let alone the country. Only chance he has of this not being true is if Clinton is the Dem candidate. Some Obama ppl may go to Nadar, and some of the independents will go to McCain, many won't even come out to vote, yet Hillary will still win the White House.
Hopefully that won't be the case and Obama will win the day.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf