i never tried to do that... and i have never said nader should not run... i have openly advocated for you guys to scrutinize obama, just as i do, we disagree on a few things... i think you know i dont give a free pass to anyone and that i kind of pay attention and do my research?
i have simply stated that i am voting for Obama, and already have... that i support any 3rd party candidates ability to run... and that i support anyones vote for anyone they want for whatever reasons they want? i am just not voting for Nader, for several reasons
That's great but none of that addresses my concern with your previous post in this thread
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
if that concern is me saying i felt as though you guys had your mind made up a while ago i truly apologize...
Thank you.
But just to clear...I'm not trying to be a hardass here ...but are you saying you acknowledge that our problems with Obama are based on real issues of concern and not just a grudge of some sort?
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
Here are some very detailed plans Nader discussed in an interview about his environmental plans. Though, his website is not detailed Nader didn't hesitate to talk about plenty of innovative ideas as to how we go about switching to more better alternative energies and also mentioned that his record was clear on where he stood on this and has been for years.
An interview with Ralph Nader about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
By Amanda Griscom Little
19 Mar 2008
This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates.
He brought you the seat belt. He launched a consumer advocacy empire. He got 2,883,105 votes in the 2000 presidential election, which critics argue helped put George W. Bush in the White House. Ralph Nader has earned fame -- and infamy -- for many doings over his 40-plus years as a firebrand activist. Perhaps less well-known is his contribution to environmental protection in the U.S.
Nader, who entered the 2008 presidential race in late February, was on the frontlines of environmental advocacy in the 1970s. He went to bat for the first auto fuel-economy regulations and was a major voice against nuclear-power development. He fought for the passage of cornerstone environmental laws including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In the years since, he's pressed on with green advocacy, publishing numerous studies, essays, and editorials decrying coal and nuke power and advocating ultra-efficient cars and a solar-powered economy.
But for all his work in these areas, Nader has done little so far to flesh out an environmental and energy platform for his presidential campaign. The only specifics on his campaign website are that he supports solar energy and a "carbon pollution tax" and opposes nuclear power. To rustle up some particulars, I called Nader on his cell phone as he journeyed from one campaign stop to the next.
Q: Why should voters consider you the strongest environmental candidate?
A: I was a big advocate of renewable energy back in the '70s -- all forms, from wind power to photovoltaic to solar thermal to passive solar architecture. I was a very early opponent of nuclear power. As a lobbyist, I was instrumental in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, along with legislation to control air pollution and other toxic substances. I was also involved in the passage of the first motor-vehicle efficiency laws back in the '70s. So my words on this issue as a candidate reflect what I've done, rather than what I hope to do.
Q: Going forward, what sets your environmental platform apart from the other candidates'?
A: I'm basically promoting a massive conversion from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. I'm not talking about corn ethanol, which has a very poor net energy- and water-usage characteristic. I'm talking about industrial hemp. I'm talking about plant life that can be efficiently converted to fuel -- like sugar cane, agricultural waste, cellulosic grasses, and certain kinds of biomass that can be grown with a spectacular ratio of energy inputs to outputs. I'm talking about a very fundamental remodeling of our economy -- a conversion from industrial-age, 19th-century technologies like the internal combustion engine to renewable, sustainable technologies of efficiency and production. We should have vehicles that get well over 100 miles per gallon. As Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have shown, we can create far greater efficiencies in the use of our natural resources, whether it's copper, iron, oil, gas, timber, you name it.
Q: Let's get more specific about how you would implement this massive shift. You propose a carbon pollution tax, for instance. How would that work?
A: You tax inefficient technology and you tax pollution. The carbon tax would not be a credit exchange [as in a cap-and-trade program], which can be easily manipulated. It would be a straight-out tax on hydrocarbon production at the production source -- where it's far, far removed from consumers and forces better choices of technology from the get-go.
Q: Would energy producers then pass an increase in prices along to consumers in the form of higher gasoline and electricity prices?
A: Not necessarily, because it will provide a competitive opportunity for companies to say, "Hey, it's now more expensive to produce polluting technology than it is to produce non-polluting technology." And they will begin to break ranks from one another in an effort to innovate, and the magnet will be toward the more efficient option.
To protect consumers, you could have an excess profits tax on companies such as Exxon, and rebate it back to the customer. Or we could use the proceeds from the pollution tax to build more alternative public transit -- that would relieve the burden on consumers.
Q: Some people argue that a carbon tax is political suicide because you can't make taxes appeal to voters, period.
A: Look, this is not a gasoline tax. This is not a final product tax that directly hits consumers. It's a tax at the coal mine, a tax at the oil well.
Q: Your website says, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first." How do you plan to phase out nuclear and phase in renewables?
A: Oh, this is easy. The first thing you gotta do to stop nuclear power is prevent government guarantees of Wall Street loans to nuclear power companies to build plants. They will not get private-sector financing without a 100 percent Uncle Sam guarantee. You appeal to conservatives and liberals who don't like corporate welfare and say, "Let's stop rigging the playing field and cut off loan guarantees to nuclear power."
As far as the renewables are concerned, you can do it in two ways: You can basically eliminate all direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear and say, "Let's have a level playing field." Or you could actively increase tax credits and subsidies to solar power because it has superior environmental and geopolitical benefits. Furthermore, the government's a big customer -- it can take its entire procurement power and direct it toward solar energy and sustainable technology.
Keep in mind that we're currently paying six, seven dollars a gallon for gasoline if you include all the military expenditures to safeguard the global oil pipeline. That's something that taxpayers are paying for, even if it doesn't show at the pump.
Q: Nuclear makes up 20 percent of America's electricity supply. Coal makes up more than half. Would you phase out coal as well, or do you believe in the promise of advanced coal technology?
A: There's no such thing as clean coal. Anybody who's been down in a coal mine knows that. You've got to phase out all fossil fuels: first coal and oil, then natural gas.
Q: How quickly would you phase out fossil fuels?
A: If we had the will, we could convert most of [the infrastructure] in 20 to 25 years, and that includes a significant portion of the housing and building stock, which you'll replace with different types of structures and solar architecture, and retrofit existing buildings for solar water heating and photovoltaic.
I think solar energy is on the verge of exploding in this country. California is adding jobs by the day. The beauty of solar energy is, the jobs it adds are very decentralized, right down to "fix it yourself" firms in little towns. It's wonderful for climate, it doesn't promote wars abroad, and we've got a 4-billion-year supply. And Exxon cannot eclipse the sun in order to produce a shortage.
Q: Do you see renewable energy costing consumers more than conventional electricity?
A: If you include the costly military and environmental externalities of fossil fuels and nuclear, solar has been cost-competitive for years. If you exclude the externalities of finite fuels, wind power is already competitive, passive solar architecture is competitive. Meanwhile, the price of photovoltaics and other forms of solar-generated electricity are coming down very fast every year, and are on an upward curve of innovation -- with new technology, refined ways of producing the film, etc. They will be uniformly competitive within the next 10 years.
Remember that consumers are paying [for today's energy system] in many other indirect ways: strip mines, acid runoff into lakes and streams, pollution in their lungs, medical costs. Sixty-five thousand people a year die from air pollution, half of them from coal-burning utility plants. Those are just a few of the external costs operating here.
Q: Would you use revenues from your carbon tax to provide incentives and tax breaks for renewable innovation?
A: Industry argues for public subsidy, but I think renewable energy technologies are moving very, very fast toward a competitive posture with fossil fuels. It's happening on its own. That's even without accounting for the horrendous external cost, military cost, pollution, health cost, and damage to land and water. Once you've incorporated all of those burdens, the cost comparison is not even close. If the geopolitical and environmental costs are so compelling, government tax credits can reverse the uneven playing field that has existed for decades to the advantage of fossil fuels and nuclear, and direct them toward solar consumers and the fledgling solar industry.
Q: Companies from Wal-Mart to GE have been launching green initiatives and building clean energy solutions. What do you think of these efforts? Do you see corporate America today as a breeding ground for transformative change?
A: Oh yeah. Why not? I mean, when they start competing over light bulbs and things like that, that's a sign the solar age has come of age. After General Electric monopolized and stagnated the electric light bulb for decades, costing billions of dollars and many, many megawatts of waste, it's nice they've finally recognized that consumers want efficient lighting systems.
Q: Many argue that the U.S. shouldn't commit to a global greenhouse-gas reduction target that doesn't involve China and India. Do you agree with this? How would you bring them to the table?
A: You bring them to the table by restricting imports of badly emitting greenhouse-gas technologies. Then you devise an international treaty where you analyze very carefully which countries really need aid in this area, which countries don't need aid, and you proceed accordingly. You have a deliberative process under an international body with a global goal of restricting greenhouse gases and acid rain and other things.
Q: What do you think is the most important environmental issue we face after climate and energy?
A: It's all about solar, in all its manifestations -- from passive solar to active, including photovoltaics, solar thermal, and efficient biomass [plant life fed by sunlight]. Wind is also a form of solar energy, because the sun creates the earth's climate, including the winds within it. Solar is the greatest universal solvent for environmental hazards.
Q: What do you think of Al Gore's climate activism? Has he been an effective agent of change?
A: At last. Where was he when he was vice president? We couldn't get him to make a speech on solar energy. But now, like Martin Luther King Jr. said, he's "free at last, free at last," and he's made a major contribution.
Q: Many have called George W. Bush America's worst environmental president, and some critics have said that if you hadn't entered the 2000 race, Gore would have been president, and therefore Bush's irreversible environmental damage never would have happened.
A: Well, tell those critics to take a course in elementary statistics and engage all variables, each one of which would have put Gore in the White House. Gore won, but the Republicans stole his victory in Florida. The Electoral College stole his victory nationally after he won the popular vote. The Supreme Court stole his victory. And 250,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. We've got to stop playing the spoiler game and treating third-party candidates as second-class citizens.
If you're going to blame me for Gore's loss -- and Gore doesn't blame me, by the way -- then you've got to credit me for Gore's Nobel Prize for his alerting the world to global climate change, for all of his successes with books, and for his millions of dollars of appreciating Google stock.
Q: Maybe you should get an honorary percentage. On to another topic: Who is your environmental hero?
A: There are several. One is David Brower. Another is Barry Commoner, who wrote Making Peace With the Planet, among other great books on the environment. The third one is Amory Lovins.
Q: What was your most memorable wilderness or outdoor adventure?
A: Camping in Yosemite National Park when I was as a student at Princeton. I thought it was the most beautiful place on earth, in spite of the haze from 25,000 vehicles in the valley below.
Q: If you could spend a week in one natural area of the U.S. now, where would it be?
A: The Green Mountains of Vermont.
Q: What do you do personally to lighten your environmental footprint?
A: I consume very little except newspapers, and I recycle them. I don't have a car. I'm the antithesis of the over-consumer.
Q: How are you getting around for your campaign?
A: We use planes and cars and trains. When we get there, we spend very few resources in getting our message across.
Q: Are you going to offset your footprint from the planes and cars?
A: I think that's an indulgence. I don't trust these offsets. We can do a lot more than that.
Q: If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or animal would he be?
A: Poison ivy. As for an animal, I wouldn't demean any animal species that way. It's easy to say coyote, but that's a stereotype of animals. What carnivore has ever, as a species, done what Bush has done to the Iraqis?
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
so its ok for nader to openly state it will be a profit motivated health care system... i thought that was what we were trying to get away from?
i don't see as much of a problem w/ hospitals being a for-profit operation, i'm sure many parts of it are very stressful and the obvious reasons of how needed a profession it is. anyway, i don't see as much of a problem w/ hospitals not being a non-profit thing the same as obama's plan where he still has the health INSURANCE companies in charge and most definitely FOR PROFIT. at least nader is getting rid of the leeching insurance rackets
i dont think this can be glanced over... do you have any idea how many people are employed by the medical insurance industry and healthcare induatry in this country? this is one of the reasons i am not so sure this country can do a complete overhaul to SPHC... our system is so entrenched and large that it may be nearly impossible for a dramatic shift... so obama proposes utilizing the massive system currently in place to help provide coverage for everyone... while putting in place regulations and oversight to ensure a smooth transition
i agree, but it's not like every single one will be laid off. obviously. the sphc program will need ppl to do the same jobs
obama is letting the health insurance racket keep and hold too much power. much less, look at naders plan you posted, he put in specific numbers '<4 payroll tax' (which i bet MANY employers pay more towards health care for their employees) and other parts...what about obamas plan??
how much will my monthly premium be under obamas plan? 'affordable' or i can get coverage from someone else and pay a 'fair price'
how much will my deductible be under obamas plan? 'affordable'
how much will be my co-pays be? 'affordable'
how much will prescriptions be? 'affordable'
he says 'The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)' similar how? different how?
as far as i know my friend currently pays nothing, small organization and he cant afford to provide the benefits... i think it is obvious that ANY added tax burden on the citizens and small business right now would be catostrophic to them... can you afford another 4% taken out of your check right now? not to mention if you had 2 kids and a wife...
well, a couple months ago when we had our yearly benefits meeting and they told us they were raising not only our monthly premium but the deductible as well and they won't pay anything towards prescriptions until i meet my deductible and even after that i will have to pay full price for them at the pharmacy then mail them the receipt for a refund....and the insurance agent for blue cross and blue shield swore to us it was 'affordable' and the best they could give
i have addresed his PERCIEVED vagueness... i actually think he has provided a detailed agenda and ideas to move that agenda forward... the guy has a 70 page document for everyone to read with his exact plan on his website... i have read it more then once, how about you?... he has said quite clearly that there would be NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ and that he will end the iraq war and all the troops will be removed within 16 months... that is 150,000 troops plus equipment... and a massive privatized force as well... you think they can come home in 2 weeks? you se vague, i see details for good ideas... the only vague people in this election are mcbush, hillary, and nader...
you addressed it???? where???? i said obama's health care plan was vague, you posted it and asked for my thoughts which i gave and asked for yours....you still have yet to reply, i guess it's one of the many ones you need to 'do some more research on and get back to ya!'
and you also conveniently leave out the last half of his agenda in iraq
'He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda'
so if someone says al qaeda is still there he will keep more troops there, right??
ok... so he has been a street level community organizer in poor neighborhoods of south chicago (after graduating from Harvard Law School and being the first black Harvard Law Review President... he could have walked into any firm in the country and demanded any salary he wanted... but he chose to follow his passion, then he was a civil rights attorney, again choosing not to go towards a more lucrative direction in law, he has been a publicly elected state official serving the people of illinois and was highly popular and respected, has been a publicly elected senator serving the citizens of this country and for being a junior senator has been quite effective and popular... not to mention hsi extremely diverse background and travels... so you say he just SAYS stuff, i think you are completely wrong... people choose to glance over these things because they have already made up their mind quite some time ago and have chosen "their side" so to speak... the mans record is out there and his agenda os out there, yet anti-obama folks continue to call them into question as "vague" or "all he does is talks"... quite the opposite...
oooook, i don't care what college he went to, i don't care he was the first african american to be president of the law review at harvard, he was an attorney and did work w/ sleazebags like rezko, then he bought a house next door to rezko, bought part of rezkos later (i know nevermind rezko was on his campaign finance committee and obama gave money back in both his senatorial campaign and presidential, maybe he should've had better judgement that 2nd time? nevermind rezko gave fundraisers for obama at his house) and i don't care he was elected to the senate, look at a lot of the fools that get voted in
his record is out there, and every time i bring it up you and others REFUSE to address it, off the top of my head i can think of twice i brought up obama and your ONLY response was posting something about kucinich and i know there's more. myself and abook have asked you and everyone else in threads and by pm what it is you like about him and SPECIFIC issues and none of you will address them!!
his record! his record of not voting on the fisa issue? or real id? or voting for to renew the patriot act everytime....christ, why rehash it, you will just ignore them all like you have been for the past few weeks....you will either ignore it or post what kucinich didn't vote on instead of addressing it...what's the point in even answering you when you are unwilling to ever answer anything yourself? if you want the list post one more time to answer let me know
I have no issue with Naders body of work, never have and never claimed too... i have never said i am anti nader, just pro Obama see above... he has done quite a bit
that's why you harp on the union 'busting' bullshit and 'war stocks' that are tied into a mutual fund??? ya, know i actually can believe that statement of yours, i think you just bring up these things to dodge the questions posed to you
i see this election and Obama differently then you and Abook, thats all... it's cool with me, i support your vote for Nader, i support a persons right to vote for anyone they want, John McCain included (but please dont )
i think you guys made up your mind on Obama a long time ago and are just kind of looking for reasons to perpetuate that and justify that... why no scrutinizing Hillary or McCain? you would rather have Bill, i mean Hillary Clinton on the democratic ticket?
and maaaaaaaany here made up their minds to back obama more than a year ago, back when he had no actual plans on his site. and yeah, i did research and didn't like what i found so i made up my mind not to vote for him...then i would ask obama supoorters about certain things or a simple 'but why should i support him, sell him to me' it's never answered!!
in fact all anyone who doesn't approve of obama is attacked by the majority of pro-obama ppl here, it's crazy to see how far some have sunk while others have always been dicks.
maybe you haven't been as nasty as the others but i feel you have been intellectually dishonest along w/ them
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
her dodge is the fact that Nader supporters cannot tell me what his agenda and actual plan to fulfill it is...
sooooo....her dodge is what others are doing.....? do i have that right?
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's crazy to see how far some have sunk while others have always been dicks.
maybe you haven't been as nasty as the others but i feel you have been intellectually dishonest along w/ them
1. no need to personally attack me, even in roundabout ways... i have always been more then nice to you and abook... this shit isnt personal chief, it's politics...
2. i support him, you dont... i dont owe anyone an explanation
3. you know my morals? you determine my intellectual honesty? i dont even want to say anymore because i like you, but bottom line is you dont know me so dont judge me... and i will do the same good friend
what the fu*k are you guys taking so personal about this?
1. no need to personally attack me, even in roundabout ways... i have always been more then nice to you and abook... this shit isnt personal chief, it's politics...
2. i support him, you dont... i dont owe anyone an explanation
3. you know my morals? you determine my intellectual honesty? i dont even want to say anymore because i like you, but bottom line is you dont know me so dont judge me... and i will do the same good friend
what the fu*k are you guys taking so personal about this?
He didn't say he was taking it personal. He said certain people here can act like dicks when people express dislike for Obama.
How is that taking anything personal? If anyone here went personal it was you when you tried to say we dislike Obama not based on politics but rather because we made our minds up long ago and are just being stubborn. I can't recall either of us making that kind of assumption about anyone here.
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
1. no need to personally attack me, even in roundabout ways... i have always been more then nice to you and abook... this shit isnt personal chief, it's politics...
I don't think he was attacking you here. I think he was, however, expressing frustration with the way this discussion has played out on the Obama/Nader topic.
2. i support him, you dont... i dont owe anyone an explanation
Of course you don't owe anyone an explantion. But we are only doing the same thing you did when you started this thread....ask questions about why should we support this guy.... Ask why you think he is the best option. Surely you're aware that when you express an opinion around here, people are going to ask you to back it up...nothing new there. That's debate.
3. you know my morals? you determine my intellectual honesty? i dont even want to say anymore because i like you, but bottom line is you dont know me so dont judge me... and i will do the same good friend
He didn't bring up your morals. I think he was talking about you not answering his questions and then demanding answers from us when he made the intellectually dishonest remark. A bit harsh, I'll admit but I do understand his frustration there. And again, when you said earlier that we simply 'just have our minds made up' about Obama, that's using a bit of judgment yourself there, eh?....also based on something you don't actually know about us.
Anyway, I think there's no where to go with this, so let's just drop it and try to communication a little better next time, my2hands.
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
yeah, that's about par for the course w/ you, eh? don't know why when i saw you had replied i had this crazy notion you might've actually addressed any of the numerous points posed to you.
i guess you couldn't find some article about kucinich to post as a rebuttal?
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 seems as though you are taking this all a little too personal for some reason so i am backing off for a while man... no hard feelings, see you around
it seems as though you are taking this all a little too personal for some reason so i am backing off for a while man... no hard feelings, see you around
not at all, man
don't leave on my account
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
"Ralph Nader is a candidate who, not unlike yourself, campaigns outside of the mainstream. What are your thoughts on his entering the race? "
"I think it's fine. It's interesting. I think he represents some of the Democratic principles better than the Democratic candidates themselves. And I actually believe him when he says he doesn't want this war. Even though I disagree with him on some other issues, at least he stands for what he believes in. But he will be marginalized--he won't be able to get into the debates, because we don't have a true democracy in this country. The two parties are essentially the same, and a Libertarian candidate, a Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader--they are going to get nothing. Unless of course they are Ross Perot and have $10 billion, in which case they put you right in front on TV. The media isn't really interested in issues, they are more interested in notoriety. "
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"Ralph Nader is a candidate who, not unlike yourself, campaigns outside of the mainstream. What are your thoughts on his entering the race? "
"I think it's fine. It's interesting. I think he represents some of the Democratic principles better than the Democratic candidates themselves. And I actually believe him when he says he doesn't want this war. Even though I disagree with him on some other issues, at least he stands for what he believes in. But he will be marginalized--he won't be able to get into the debates, because we don't have a true democracy in this country. The two parties are essentially the same, and a Libertarian candidate, a Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader--they are going to get nothing. Unless of course they are Ross Perot and have $10 billion, in which case they put you right in front on TV. The media isn't really interested in issues, they are more interested in notoriety. "
Nice quote and so true! Thanks Roland
It's so nice to see when people of differing ideologies can put those differences aside, still respect each other and give credit where credit is due.
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
Don't Knock Nader!
I had to chuckle at Joel Stein's essay in which he argued that Ralph Nader should apologize for running for President in 2000 [March 10]. Stein and the Democrats don't understand the Nader voter. I voted for him because I didn't feel the Democrats deserved my vote. As a longtime liberal, I'm interested in a truly progressive Democratic Party, not one that is Republican lite. If Nader weren't running this year, I still wouldn't vote for a Democrat. The party should stop complaining about Nader and try to earn my vote. I for one hope Nader runs every year until the Democrats offer a more convincing set of politics.
Don Debelak,
Mounds View, Minn., U.S.
I have been an Obama supporter since spring 2007, but Stein's Essay made me want to vote for Nader in November. Stein's disrespect for Nader was shameful. Nader has served the people of the United States more courageously than has any of the current Democratic or Republican candidates. If the Democrats want my vote next fall, they need to get over it, get it together and get something done. Stop blaming Nader for Gore's loss in 2000, and recognize Nader's numerous contributions to our society.
Eleanor Cox,
Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.
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
he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.
That is some absolutely ridiculous and ignorant logic. The votes don't belong to the Democratic Party, they belong to the voter. And that voter will vote for whoever is most appealing to them. If the Democrats stood apart from the Republicans, maybe people would vote for them instead of Nader.
That is some absolutely ridiculous and ignorant logic. The votes don't belong to the Democratic Party, they belong to the voter. And that voter will vote for whoever is most appealing to them. If the Democrats stood apart from the Republicans, maybe people would vote for them instead of Nader.
hehe you're right. I pulled that out of my ass. simple question, who would (few/some/many) nader supporters vote for if he wasn't in the race
maccain or obama?
or am I being absolutely ridiculous and completely illogical? :rolleyes:
he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.
The democrats have to earn those votes, nothing's given.
I am voting for Nader, and if he wasnt' running a democrat wouldn't get my vote. So in my case, and for the people I know voting Nader, that statement is incorrect.
The democrats have to earn those votes, nothing's given.
I am voting for Nader, and if he wasnt' running a democrat wouldn't get my vote. So in my case, and for the people I know voting Nader, that statement is incorrect.
so for you and the 2 other people you know, I'm wrong. but I still say my statement is correct. al gore 2000, florida..anyone anyone?
he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.
I am voting Obama, and like that Nader is running. Hopefully he can keep the Dems in line and hold them to their promises.
Anyway, you are the dumbass with this logic. If Obama can't beat McCain with Nader running, then there is something seriously wrong in this world. Now if Chuck Hagel had the Republican nomination, I may have been a little worried.
Comments
That's great but none of that addresses my concern with your previous post in this 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
if that concern is me saying i felt as though you guys had your mind made up a while ago i truly apologize...
Thank you.
But just to clear...I'm not trying to be a hardass here
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://www.grist.org/feature/2008/03/19/nader/
Nader on the Record
An interview with Ralph Nader about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
By Amanda Griscom Little
19 Mar 2008
This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates.
He brought you the seat belt. He launched a consumer advocacy empire. He got 2,883,105 votes in the 2000 presidential election, which critics argue helped put George W. Bush in the White House. Ralph Nader has earned fame -- and infamy -- for many doings over his 40-plus years as a firebrand activist. Perhaps less well-known is his contribution to environmental protection in the U.S.
Nader, who entered the 2008 presidential race in late February, was on the frontlines of environmental advocacy in the 1970s. He went to bat for the first auto fuel-economy regulations and was a major voice against nuclear-power development. He fought for the passage of cornerstone environmental laws including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In the years since, he's pressed on with green advocacy, publishing numerous studies, essays, and editorials decrying coal and nuke power and advocating ultra-efficient cars and a solar-powered economy.
But for all his work in these areas, Nader has done little so far to flesh out an environmental and energy platform for his presidential campaign. The only specifics on his campaign website are that he supports solar energy and a "carbon pollution tax" and opposes nuclear power. To rustle up some particulars, I called Nader on his cell phone as he journeyed from one campaign stop to the next.
Q: Why should voters consider you the strongest environmental candidate?
A: I was a big advocate of renewable energy back in the '70s -- all forms, from wind power to photovoltaic to solar thermal to passive solar architecture. I was a very early opponent of nuclear power. As a lobbyist, I was instrumental in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, along with legislation to control air pollution and other toxic substances. I was also involved in the passage of the first motor-vehicle efficiency laws back in the '70s. So my words on this issue as a candidate reflect what I've done, rather than what I hope to do.
Q: Going forward, what sets your environmental platform apart from the other candidates'?
A: I'm basically promoting a massive conversion from a hydrocarbon-based economy to a carbohydrate-based economy. I'm not talking about corn ethanol, which has a very poor net energy- and water-usage characteristic. I'm talking about industrial hemp. I'm talking about plant life that can be efficiently converted to fuel -- like sugar cane, agricultural waste, cellulosic grasses, and certain kinds of biomass that can be grown with a spectacular ratio of energy inputs to outputs. I'm talking about a very fundamental remodeling of our economy -- a conversion from industrial-age, 19th-century technologies like the internal combustion engine to renewable, sustainable technologies of efficiency and production. We should have vehicles that get well over 100 miles per gallon. As Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have shown, we can create far greater efficiencies in the use of our natural resources, whether it's copper, iron, oil, gas, timber, you name it.
Q: Let's get more specific about how you would implement this massive shift. You propose a carbon pollution tax, for instance. How would that work?
A: You tax inefficient technology and you tax pollution. The carbon tax would not be a credit exchange [as in a cap-and-trade program], which can be easily manipulated. It would be a straight-out tax on hydrocarbon production at the production source -- where it's far, far removed from consumers and forces better choices of technology from the get-go.
Q: Would energy producers then pass an increase in prices along to consumers in the form of higher gasoline and electricity prices?
A: Not necessarily, because it will provide a competitive opportunity for companies to say, "Hey, it's now more expensive to produce polluting technology than it is to produce non-polluting technology." And they will begin to break ranks from one another in an effort to innovate, and the magnet will be toward the more efficient option.
To protect consumers, you could have an excess profits tax on companies such as Exxon, and rebate it back to the customer. Or we could use the proceeds from the pollution tax to build more alternative public transit -- that would relieve the burden on consumers.
Q: Some people argue that a carbon tax is political suicide because you can't make taxes appeal to voters, period.
A: Look, this is not a gasoline tax. This is not a final product tax that directly hits consumers. It's a tax at the coal mine, a tax at the oil well.
Q: Your website says, "No to nuclear power, solar energy first." How do you plan to phase out nuclear and phase in renewables?
A: Oh, this is easy. The first thing you gotta do to stop nuclear power is prevent government guarantees of Wall Street loans to nuclear power companies to build plants. They will not get private-sector financing without a 100 percent Uncle Sam guarantee. You appeal to conservatives and liberals who don't like corporate welfare and say, "Let's stop rigging the playing field and cut off loan guarantees to nuclear power."
As far as the renewables are concerned, you can do it in two ways: You can basically eliminate all direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear and say, "Let's have a level playing field." Or you could actively increase tax credits and subsidies to solar power because it has superior environmental and geopolitical benefits. Furthermore, the government's a big customer -- it can take its entire procurement power and direct it toward solar energy and sustainable technology.
Keep in mind that we're currently paying six, seven dollars a gallon for gasoline if you include all the military expenditures to safeguard the global oil pipeline. That's something that taxpayers are paying for, even if it doesn't show at the pump.
Q: Nuclear makes up 20 percent of America's electricity supply. Coal makes up more than half. Would you phase out coal as well, or do you believe in the promise of advanced coal technology?
A: There's no such thing as clean coal. Anybody who's been down in a coal mine knows that. You've got to phase out all fossil fuels: first coal and oil, then natural gas.
Q: How quickly would you phase out fossil fuels?
A: If we had the will, we could convert most of [the infrastructure] in 20 to 25 years, and that includes a significant portion of the housing and building stock, which you'll replace with different types of structures and solar architecture, and retrofit existing buildings for solar water heating and photovoltaic.
I think solar energy is on the verge of exploding in this country. California is adding jobs by the day. The beauty of solar energy is, the jobs it adds are very decentralized, right down to "fix it yourself" firms in little towns. It's wonderful for climate, it doesn't promote wars abroad, and we've got a 4-billion-year supply. And Exxon cannot eclipse the sun in order to produce a shortage.
Q: Do you see renewable energy costing consumers more than conventional electricity?
A: If you include the costly military and environmental externalities of fossil fuels and nuclear, solar has been cost-competitive for years. If you exclude the externalities of finite fuels, wind power is already competitive, passive solar architecture is competitive. Meanwhile, the price of photovoltaics and other forms of solar-generated electricity are coming down very fast every year, and are on an upward curve of innovation -- with new technology, refined ways of producing the film, etc. They will be uniformly competitive within the next 10 years.
Remember that consumers are paying [for today's energy system] in many other indirect ways: strip mines, acid runoff into lakes and streams, pollution in their lungs, medical costs. Sixty-five thousand people a year die from air pollution, half of them from coal-burning utility plants. Those are just a few of the external costs operating here.
Q: Would you use revenues from your carbon tax to provide incentives and tax breaks for renewable innovation?
A: Industry argues for public subsidy, but I think renewable energy technologies are moving very, very fast toward a competitive posture with fossil fuels. It's happening on its own. That's even without accounting for the horrendous external cost, military cost, pollution, health cost, and damage to land and water. Once you've incorporated all of those burdens, the cost comparison is not even close. If the geopolitical and environmental costs are so compelling, government tax credits can reverse the uneven playing field that has existed for decades to the advantage of fossil fuels and nuclear, and direct them toward solar consumers and the fledgling solar industry.
Q: Companies from Wal-Mart to GE have been launching green initiatives and building clean energy solutions. What do you think of these efforts? Do you see corporate America today as a breeding ground for transformative change?
A: Oh yeah. Why not? I mean, when they start competing over light bulbs and things like that, that's a sign the solar age has come of age. After General Electric monopolized and stagnated the electric light bulb for decades, costing billions of dollars and many, many megawatts of waste, it's nice they've finally recognized that consumers want efficient lighting systems.
Q: Many argue that the U.S. shouldn't commit to a global greenhouse-gas reduction target that doesn't involve China and India. Do you agree with this? How would you bring them to the table?
A: You bring them to the table by restricting imports of badly emitting greenhouse-gas technologies. Then you devise an international treaty where you analyze very carefully which countries really need aid in this area, which countries don't need aid, and you proceed accordingly. You have a deliberative process under an international body with a global goal of restricting greenhouse gases and acid rain and other things.
Q: What do you think is the most important environmental issue we face after climate and energy?
A: It's all about solar, in all its manifestations -- from passive solar to active, including photovoltaics, solar thermal, and efficient biomass [plant life fed by sunlight]. Wind is also a form of solar energy, because the sun creates the earth's climate, including the winds within it. Solar is the greatest universal solvent for environmental hazards.
Q: What do you think of Al Gore's climate activism? Has he been an effective agent of change?
A: At last. Where was he when he was vice president? We couldn't get him to make a speech on solar energy. But now, like Martin Luther King Jr. said, he's "free at last, free at last," and he's made a major contribution.
Q: Many have called George W. Bush America's worst environmental president, and some critics have said that if you hadn't entered the 2000 race, Gore would have been president, and therefore Bush's irreversible environmental damage never would have happened.
A: Well, tell those critics to take a course in elementary statistics and engage all variables, each one of which would have put Gore in the White House. Gore won, but the Republicans stole his victory in Florida. The Electoral College stole his victory nationally after he won the popular vote. The Supreme Court stole his victory. And 250,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. We've got to stop playing the spoiler game and treating third-party candidates as second-class citizens.
If you're going to blame me for Gore's loss -- and Gore doesn't blame me, by the way -- then you've got to credit me for Gore's Nobel Prize for his alerting the world to global climate change, for all of his successes with books, and for his millions of dollars of appreciating Google stock.
Q: Maybe you should get an honorary percentage. On to another topic: Who is your environmental hero?
A: There are several. One is David Brower. Another is Barry Commoner, who wrote Making Peace With the Planet, among other great books on the environment. The third one is Amory Lovins.
Q: What was your most memorable wilderness or outdoor adventure?
A: Camping in Yosemite National Park when I was as a student at Princeton. I thought it was the most beautiful place on earth, in spite of the haze from 25,000 vehicles in the valley below.
Q: If you could spend a week in one natural area of the U.S. now, where would it be?
A: The Green Mountains of Vermont.
Q: What do you do personally to lighten your environmental footprint?
A: I consume very little except newspapers, and I recycle them. I don't have a car. I'm the antithesis of the over-consumer.
Q: How are you getting around for your campaign?
A: We use planes and cars and trains. When we get there, we spend very few resources in getting our message across.
Q: Are you going to offset your footprint from the planes and cars?
A: I think that's an indulgence. I don't trust these offsets. We can do a lot more than that.
Q: If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or animal would he be?
A: Poison ivy. As for an animal, I wouldn't demean any animal species that way. It's easy to say coyote, but that's a stereotype of animals. What carnivore has ever, as a species, done what Bush has done to the Iraqis?
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 don't see as much of a problem w/ hospitals being a for-profit operation, i'm sure many parts of it are very stressful and the obvious reasons of how needed a profession it is. anyway, i don't see as much of a problem w/ hospitals not being a non-profit thing the same as obama's plan where he still has the health INSURANCE companies in charge and most definitely FOR PROFIT. at least nader is getting rid of the leeching insurance rackets
i agree, but it's not like every single one will be laid off. obviously. the sphc program will need ppl to do the same jobs
obama is letting the health insurance racket keep and hold too much power. much less, look at naders plan you posted, he put in specific numbers '<4 payroll tax' (which i bet MANY employers pay more towards health care for their employees) and other parts...what about obamas plan??
how much will my monthly premium be under obamas plan? 'affordable' or i can get coverage from someone else and pay a 'fair price'
how much will my deductible be under obamas plan? 'affordable'
how much will be my co-pays be? 'affordable'
how much will prescriptions be? 'affordable'
he says 'The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)' similar how? different how?
well, a couple months ago when we had our yearly benefits meeting and they told us they were raising not only our monthly premium but the deductible as well and they won't pay anything towards prescriptions until i meet my deductible and even after that i will have to pay full price for them at the pharmacy then mail them the receipt for a refund....and the insurance agent for blue cross and blue shield swore to us it was 'affordable' and the best they could give
you addressed it???? where???? i said obama's health care plan was vague, you posted it and asked for my thoughts which i gave and asked for yours....you still have yet to reply, i guess it's one of the many ones you need to 'do some more research on and get back to ya!'
and you also conveniently leave out the last half of his agenda in iraq
'He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda'
so if someone says al qaeda is still there he will keep more troops there, right??
he also wants to increase the military
oooook, i don't care what college he went to, i don't care he was the first african american to be president of the law review at harvard, he was an attorney and did work w/ sleazebags like rezko, then he bought a house next door to rezko, bought part of rezkos later (i know nevermind rezko was on his campaign finance committee and obama gave money back in both his senatorial campaign and presidential, maybe he should've had better judgement that 2nd time? nevermind rezko gave fundraisers for obama at his house) and i don't care he was elected to the senate, look at a lot of the fools that get voted in
his record is out there, and every time i bring it up you and others REFUSE to address it, off the top of my head i can think of twice i brought up obama and your ONLY response was posting something about kucinich and i know there's more. myself and abook have asked you and everyone else in threads and by pm what it is you like about him and SPECIFIC issues and none of you will address them!!
his record! his record of not voting on the fisa issue? or real id? or voting for to renew the patriot act everytime....christ, why rehash it, you will just ignore them all like you have been for the past few weeks....you will either ignore it or post what kucinich didn't vote on instead of addressing it...what's the point in even answering you when you are unwilling to ever answer anything yourself? if you want the list post one more time to answer let me know
that's why you harp on the union 'busting' bullshit and 'war stocks' that are tied into a mutual fund??? ya, know i actually can believe that statement of yours, i think you just bring up these things to dodge the questions posed to you
see above
and maaaaaaaany here made up their minds to back obama more than a year ago, back when he had no actual plans on his site. and yeah, i did research and didn't like what i found so i made up my mind not to vote for him...then i would ask obama supoorters about certain things or a simple 'but why should i support him, sell him to me' it's never answered!!
in fact all anyone who doesn't approve of obama is attacked by the majority of pro-obama ppl here, it's crazy to see how far some have sunk while others have always been dicks.
maybe you haven't been as nasty as the others but i feel you have been intellectually dishonest along w/ them
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
sooooo....her dodge is what others are doing.....? do i have that right?
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
1. no need to personally attack me, even in roundabout ways... i have always been more then nice to you and abook... this shit isnt personal chief, it's politics...
2. i support him, you dont... i dont owe anyone an explanation
3. you know my morals? you determine my intellectual honesty? i dont even want to say anymore because i like you, but bottom line is you dont know me so dont judge me... and i will do the same good friend
what the fu*k are you guys taking so personal about this?
He didn't say he was taking it personal. He said certain people here can act like dicks when people express dislike for Obama.
How is that taking anything personal? If anyone here went personal it was you when you tried to say we dislike Obama not based on politics but rather because we made our minds up long ago and are just being stubborn. I can't recall either of us making that kind of assumption about anyone here.
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 don't think he was attacking you here. I think he was, however, expressing frustration with the way this discussion has played out on the Obama/Nader topic.
Of course you don't owe anyone an explantion. But we are only doing the same thing you did when you started this thread....ask questions about why should we support this guy.... Ask why you think he is the best option. Surely you're aware that when you express an opinion around here, people are going to ask you to back it up...nothing new there. That's debate.
He didn't bring up your morals. I think he was talking about you not answering his questions and then demanding answers from us when he made the intellectually dishonest remark. A bit harsh, I'll admit but I do understand his frustration there. And again, when you said earlier that we simply 'just have our minds made up' about Obama, that's using a bit of judgment yourself there, eh?....also based on something you don't actually know about us.
Anyway, I think there's no where to go with this, so let's just drop it and try to communication a little better next time, my2hands.
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 guess you couldn't find some article about kucinich to post as a rebuttal?
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 seems as though you are taking this all a little too personal for some reason so i am backing off for a while man... no hard feelings, see you around
not at all, man
don't leave on my account
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
Corrupt Democrats
Posted by The Nader Team on Monday, March 24, 2008 at 08:29:00 AM
What do -
Code Pink
Move On
The Nation
The Progressive
In These Times
And the liberal intelligentsia have in common?
They all see clearly that the Democrats will not get us out of Iraq.
They all see clearly that the Democrats will not crack down on corporate crime.
They all see clearly that the Democrats will not support a single payer national health insurance system.
They all see clearly that the Democrats will not cut the bloated, wasteful military budget.
And yet, they refuse to stand up to the Democrats and say - out!
Get out!
Get out now!
We are going to start new.
You are a corrupt party.
And your time has passed.
Time to build something new.
Instead, the liberal intelligentsia continues to hope.
Against hope.
That Clinton.
Or Obama.
Will stand up to the military corporations and their bloated, wasteful military budget.
Even though they know deep down that they will not.
Even in the face of 4,000 Americans dead.
And more than a million Iraqis dead.
And tens of thousands wounded.
They refuse to abandon hope in a corrupt party.
The Democratic Party is gone.
And the liberal intelligentsia is gone.
Yet, as we have seen over the past two months.
Tens of millions of Americans are ready for change.
To move past the two parties.
Toward something new.
And that is what Nader/Gonzalez is about.
Step by step, we are getting on ballots all across the country.
In New Mexico, our volunteers are well on their way to getting Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
In Arizona, more than 456 of you have given $36,402 in just one week.
So, we are well on our way toward meeting our goal of raising $50,000 to get us on the ballot in Arizona.
We need just another 150 of you to donate $100 each now, and we can get started in Arizona.
We will not wait for the liberal intelligentsia to give their stamp of approval.
They are gone.
We are organizing against the corrupt two party system.
And we invite you to spread the word to friends and family who are ready to defect.
If you have already given, thank you again.
But please, we need just 150 of you to give $100 now - or whatever you can give - to help get Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in Arizona.
State by state, we will challenge the corrupt two party system.
Time to start anew.
Onward.
The Nader Team
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
"I think it's fine. It's interesting. I think he represents some of the Democratic principles better than the Democratic candidates themselves. And I actually believe him when he says he doesn't want this war. Even though I disagree with him on some other issues, at least he stands for what he believes in. But he will be marginalized--he won't be able to get into the debates, because we don't have a true democracy in this country. The two parties are essentially the same, and a Libertarian candidate, a Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader--they are going to get nothing. Unless of course they are Ross Perot and have $10 billion, in which case they put you right in front on TV. The media isn't really interested in issues, they are more interested in notoriety. "
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Very true. But we will still try.
Nice quote and so true! Thanks Roland
It's so nice to see when people of differing ideologies can put those differences aside, still respect each other and give credit where credit is due.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Don't Knock Nader!
I had to chuckle at Joel Stein's essay in which he argued that Ralph Nader should apologize for running for President in 2000 [March 10]. Stein and the Democrats don't understand the Nader voter. I voted for him because I didn't feel the Democrats deserved my vote. As a longtime liberal, I'm interested in a truly progressive Democratic Party, not one that is Republican lite. If Nader weren't running this year, I still wouldn't vote for a Democrat. The party should stop complaining about Nader and try to earn my vote. I for one hope Nader runs every year until the Democrats offer a more convincing set of politics.
Don Debelak,
Mounds View, Minn., U.S.
I have been an Obama supporter since spring 2007, but Stein's Essay made me want to vote for Nader in November. Stein's disrespect for Nader was shameful. Nader has served the people of the United States more courageously than has any of the current Democratic or Republican candidates. If the Democrats want my vote next fall, they need to get over it, get it together and get something done. Stop blaming Nader for Gore's loss in 2000, and recognize Nader's numerous contributions to our society.
Eleanor Cox,
Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.
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
how is he a dumbass? do people simply owe the democrats their vote or is it supposed to be earned? they haven't earned mine, that's fo sho!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
he is a dumbass because he is taking away votes from the democrats.
That is some absolutely ridiculous and ignorant logic. The votes don't belong to the Democratic Party, they belong to the voter. And that voter will vote for whoever is most appealing to them. If the Democrats stood apart from the Republicans, maybe people would vote for them instead of Nader.
hehe you're right. I pulled that out of my ass. simple question, who would (few/some/many) nader supporters vote for if he wasn't in the race
maccain or obama?
or am I being absolutely ridiculous and completely illogical? :rolleyes:
I am voting for Nader, and if he wasnt' running a democrat wouldn't get my vote. So in my case, and for the people I know voting Nader, that statement is incorrect.
so for you and the 2 other people you know, I'm wrong. but I still say my statement is correct. al gore 2000, florida..anyone anyone?
I am voting Obama, and like that Nader is running. Hopefully he can keep the Dems in line and hold them to their promises.
Anyway, you are the dumbass with this logic. If Obama can't beat McCain with Nader running, then there is something seriously wrong in this world. Now if Chuck Hagel had the Republican nomination, I may have been a little worried.
You're a bit behind us...we've already had this discussion
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276261
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde