Nader/Gonzalez Issues

dontloseyourheat

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/05/12/no-more-whining/

When he first announced his candidacy, many complained that Ralph Nader's website (http://www.votenader.org) was too vague.

Today he updated his issues page to include more details about the Nader/Gonzalez campaign.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Commy

I like his idea of taxing pollution. and the stock market. As opposed to taxing things people need to survive-like health care etc..

Abookamongstthemany

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3729.html



Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
After Hillary, Voting With Conscience and Pride
Time for Americans to find the courage and vote against the two-party plutocracy.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Friday, May 9, 2008
This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.

Of course, a McCain presidency that pursues much of the same policies and values of the totally inept and morally bankrupt Bush administration is something to loathe. But lesser-evil voting sustains our corrupt political system.


Many say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama's history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker that has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness, he has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by poetic promises of change. In reality, he is just another super-ambitious, lying mainstream politician that has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.


Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots: "Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ...The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies."


Sure, Obama says that small contributors will have access, but Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. Not exactly what $20 contributors get.


I remain troubled that Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospitals when her husband won the US Senate seat was $121,000. Within weeks of his swearing in, her salary went to over $320,000. The following year Obama did an earmark request for $1 million for her employer.


Todd Spivak of the Houston Press has documented how Obama accomplished next to nothing in his first six years in the Illinois legislature. But then Democrat Emil Jones Jr. an African American with thirty years in the legislature became head of the senate and explicitly decided to make the young Obama a US senator. He did this by making Obama a sponsor of 26 bills that became law. This gave Obama exactly what he needed to portray himself as a highly successful legislator. Has Obama repaid Jones? Yes. He has provided tens of millions in earmarks for Jones' district. As to such actions, Jones famously said: "Some call it pork; I call it steak."


Also, Obama's judgments about people he has used to advance his career have been appalling. These include a former domestic terrorist, a radical hate-selling pastor and a federally indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer. While he talks about bringing diverse interests together, he has never done that to any significant degree as a senator or candidate. Voters have been divided along race lines whether or not it was planned. If he was not black he would not be getting over 90 percent of the African-American vote, without which he would not have beaten Clinton. There is no valid reason for making someone president because of his race.


Make no mistake; I was never for Clinton either. And I never appreciated why anyone should prefer her because of her sex. Call me an idealist, but the only candidate for president worth voting for should have nothing to do with their color, gender or religion.


What are better options for voters?


One choice is to boycott the presidential election altogether and not be a co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy that our two-party political system has become. This requires facing the ugly reality that voting for Democrats or Republicans will never deliver the root, systemic reforms our failing democracy requires.


Better yet, if you feel compelled to vote, then vote for Ralph Nader. He has a distinguished record over many decades of working solely in the public interest without succumbing to corporate and other special interests seeking political favors. If honesty, integrity, intellectuality, independence, courageous policy positions and true political reforms matter to you, then Nader merits your support. This man of principles deserves your principled vote.


Here are some Nader positions that Obama and McCain do NOT support but that our nation sorely needs: a single payer universal health care system, aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare and crime, impeachment of Bush and Cheney, ending corporate personhood, adopting a carbon pollution tax, opening up ballot access. And Nader is a genuine supporter of the national peace movement to end the US occupation of Iraq. Note that Obama supported the reelection of Iraq war supporter Joe Lieberman. Unlike Obama, Nader is against government subsidies for turning corn into ethanol.


"We need a Jeffersonian revolution," says Nader. "If it doesn't happen, our democracy will continue to weaken and things will get worse. Right now, we have a two-party electoral dictatorship with each party looking for the highest corporate bidder." Amen.


I have been voting for Nader, the most legitimate populist and progressive, whenever he has been on my ballot. This wisdom by I.F. Stone keeps me committed to him: "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."


The fight is not about electing Nader president, but overthrowing the two-party plutocracy that is killing the middle class and fostering rising economic inequality. Should you have any negative thoughts about Nader because of the 2000 election, the facts refute blaming him for the Bush victory, including more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush (compared to 97,000 votes for Nader, only 25 percent of which would have voted for Gore) and over half of the registered Democrats that did not vote at all because Gore ran a terrible campaign.


Go to http://www.votenader.org to learn more and join this patriotic effort to spark a Second American Revolution. Enjoy yourself. Feel proud.

my2hands

"Single Payer
Nader/Gonzalez favors a Canadian-style, private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public health insurance system.

Right now, the United States spends $7,129 per capita on health care—more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the industrialized world.

And yet, the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality

While other industrialized nations like Canada and Sweden provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, the United States leaves 47 million completely uninsured and tens of millions more inadequately covered.

According to an Institute of Medicine report, 18,000 Americans die because they cannot afford health care.

And inability to pay for medical bills is the leading cause of bankruptcies – they currently contribute to about half the bankruptcies in the United States.

In our current system, there are thousands of different payers of health care fees.

This system is a bureaucratic nightmare, wasting $350 billion—close to a third of all health care spending on things that have nothing to do with health care—overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.

In addition, there is over $200 billion in computerized billing fraud and abuse.

Nader/Gonzalez support a single payer system that would save the $350 billion and apply those savings to comprehensively cover everyone without paying more than we already do.

All Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services.

Patients would have free choice of doctor and hospital.

Costs would also be controlled in part by the single payer negotiating fees and making bulk purchases."






i dont see anywhere in there how they plan on actually implementing this single payer system... not 1 detail on how to actually switch a country of 300 million to single payer... shit, i can lay out what they just did. now how about how the hell you are going to actually make it happen?

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3729.html



Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
After Hillary, Voting With Conscience and Pride
Time for Americans to find the courage and vote against the two-party plutocracy.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Friday, May 9, 2008
This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.

Of course, a McCain presidency that pursues much of the same policies and values of the totally inept and morally bankrupt Bush administration is something to loathe. But lesser-evil voting sustains our corrupt political system.


Many say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama's history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker that has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness, he has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by poetic promises of change. In reality, he is just another super-ambitious, lying mainstream politician that has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.


Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots: "Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ...The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies."


Sure, Obama says that small contributors will have access, but Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. Not exactly what $20 contributors get.


I remain troubled that Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospitals when her husband won the US Senate seat was $121,000. Within weeks of his swearing in, her salary went to over $320,000. The following year Obama did an earmark request for $1 million for her employer.


Todd Spivak of the Houston Press has documented how Obama accomplished next to nothing in his first six years in the Illinois legislature. But then Democrat Emil Jones Jr. an African American with thirty years in the legislature became head of the senate and explicitly decided to make the young Obama a US senator. He did this by making Obama a sponsor of 26 bills that became law. This gave Obama exactly what he needed to portray himself as a highly successful legislator. Has Obama repaid Jones? Yes. He has provided tens of millions in earmarks for Jones' district. As to such actions, Jones famously said: "Some call it pork; I call it steak."


Also, Obama's judgments about people he has used to advance his career have been appalling. These include a former domestic terrorist, a radical hate-selling pastor and a federally indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer. While he talks about bringing diverse interests together, he has never done that to any significant degree as a senator or candidate. Voters have been divided along race lines whether or not it was planned. If he was not black he would not be getting over 90 percent of the African-American vote, without which he would not have beaten Clinton. There is no valid reason for making someone president because of his race.


Make no mistake; I was never for Clinton either. And I never appreciated why anyone should prefer her because of her sex. Call me an idealist, but the only candidate for president worth voting for should have nothing to do with their color, gender or religion.


What are better options for voters?


One choice is to boycott the presidential election altogether and not be a co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy that our two-party political system has become. This requires facing the ugly reality that voting for Democrats or Republicans will never deliver the root, systemic reforms our failing democracy requires.


Better yet, if you feel compelled to vote, then vote for Ralph Nader. He has a distinguished record over many decades of working solely in the public interest without succumbing to corporate and other special interests seeking political favors. If honesty, integrity, intellectuality, independence, courageous policy positions and true political reforms matter to you, then Nader merits your support. This man of principles deserves your principled vote.


Here are some Nader positions that Obama and McCain do NOT support but that our nation sorely needs: a single payer universal health care system, aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare and crime, impeachment of Bush and Cheney, ending corporate personhood, adopting a carbon pollution tax, opening up ballot access. And Nader is a genuine supporter of the national peace movement to end the US occupation of Iraq. Note that Obama supported the reelection of Iraq war supporter Joe Lieberman. Unlike Obama, Nader is against government subsidies for turning corn into ethanol.


"We need a Jeffersonian revolution," says Nader. "If it doesn't happen, our democracy will continue to weaken and things will get worse. Right now, we have a two-party electoral dictatorship with each party looking for the highest corporate bidder." Amen.


I have been voting for Nader, the most legitimate populist and progressive, whenever he has been on my ballot. This wisdom by I.F. Stone keeps me committed to him: "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."


The fight is not about electing Nader president, but overthrowing the two-party plutocracy that is killing the middle class and fostering rising economic inequality. Should you have any negative thoughts about Nader because of the 2000 election, the facts refute blaming him for the Bush victory, including more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush (compared to 97,000 votes for Nader, only 25 percent of which would have voted for Gore) and over half of the registered Democrats that did not vote at all because Gore ran a terrible campaign.


Go to http://www.votenader.org to learn more and join this patriotic effort to spark a Second American Revolution. Enjoy yourself. Feel proud.

another nader article that is really just mostly anti-obama

how refreshing :rolleyes:


does the Nader campaign have any other plays in its playbook? or are they just going to keep going to the anti-obama well over and over and over? or the "i am a third party candidate so that makes me better!" routine...


i dont even know why i read the shit anymore, it is the same EXACT thing every time.

VictoryGin

my2hands wrote:

i dont see anywhere in there how they plan on actually implementing this single payer system... not 1 detail on how to actually switch a country of 300 million to single payer... shit, i can lay out what they just did. now how about how the hell you are going to actually make it happen?

ah right. details. why bother with details when you have idealism?

i favor ponies and ice cream for everyone. pear ice cream with pecans and magic dust and love spinkles.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

ah right. details. why bother with details when you have idealism?

i favor ponies and ice cream for everyone. pear ice cream with pecans and magic dust and love spinkles.

Being an Obama fan, I can see how you might like happy thoughts and pretty words over any actual accomplishments and actions to back the rhetoric up.

Yes We Can!

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Being an Obama fan, I can see how you might like happy thoughts and pretty words over any actual accomplishments and actions to back the rhetoric up.

Yes We Can!

i was being facetious. actually i favor detailed plans and realism so that i, and many others in america, can get some dang health coverage.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf

i'm confident his plan above can be realized. i'm also pleased by past accomplishments in health care:

Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.

Women’s Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

yes we can, indeed.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i was being facetious. actually i favor detailed plans and realism so that i, and many others in america, can get some dang health coverage.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf

i'm confident his plan above can be realized. i'm also pleased by past accomplishments in health care:

Health Insurance: In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.


Women’s Health: Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

yes we can, indeed.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Health_Care.htm
http://www.greeninformation.org/NADEERHEALTHCARE.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/24/8502/
http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr02212007.html

Nader on health care

He supports a single-payer, government-funded health care system similar to Canada's. Think of it as full Medicare for all.

"We now spend $7,100 per capita on health care in the U.S. and still don't cover almost 50 million people. The $7,100 is double what the next highest figure is, which is Switzerland," he says. "Obviously there's something wrong."

The current system, Nader says, produces $350 billion in unnecessary administrative expenses and overhead and more than $200 billion in annual computerized billing fraud and abuse. That's half a trillion dollars available to fund a universal plan.

"You'd have not 1,500 jealous insurers, but one government insurer," he says.

On the differences between his health care plan and Obama's and Clinton's

"The key is their plans don't replace the health insurance industry," he explains. "You can't have a highly wasteful, highly rationed, highly inefficient health care system and then expect to reform it from the top."

Obama and Clinton don't favor a single-payer system, and their proposed plans wouldn't be funded solely by the government. Nader says a new poll shows 59 percent of the doctors favor a single-payer system "because doctors want to practice medicine rather than bookkeeping."

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Health_Care.htm
http://www.greeninformation.org/NADEERHEALTHCARE.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/24/8502/
http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr02212007.html

Nader on health care

He supports a single-payer, government-funded health care system similar to Canada's. Think of it as full Medicare for all.

"We now spend $7,100 per capita on health care in the U.S. and still don't cover almost 50 million people. The $7,100 is double what the next highest figure is, which is Switzerland," he says. "Obviously there's something wrong."

The current system, Nader says, produces $350 billion in unnecessary administrative expenses and overhead and more than $200 billion in annual computerized billing fraud and abuse. That's half a trillion dollars available to fund a universal plan.

"You'd have not 1,500 jealous insurers, but one government insurer," he says.

On the differences between his health care plan and Obama's and Clinton's

"The key is their plans don't replace the health insurance industry," he explains. "You can't have a highly wasteful, highly rationed, highly inefficient health care system and then expect to reform it from the top."

Obama and Clinton don't favor a single-payer system, and their proposed plans wouldn't be funded solely by the government. Nader says a new poll shows 59 percent of the doctors favor a single-payer system "because doctors want to practice medicine rather than bookkeeping."

i'd ask for details on the transition fund, for example, but i'll just wait until nader becomes supreme dictator of the united states and see it for myself. because even if he were to become president, because of the checks and balances and who actually makes up the other parts of our government, there is no way this country is making an immediate transition to single payer.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i'd ask for details on the transition fund, for example, but i'll just wait until nader becomes supreme dictator of the united states and see it for myself. because even if he were to become president, because of the checks and balances and who actually makes up the other parts of our government, there is no way this country is making an immediate transition to single payer.

I don't see it that way. Big pharma and insurance can not longer be allowed to dictate, as you say...and if the people and the physicians all mostly favor a single payer system then in a democratically ran country...single payer would only make sense.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't see it that way. Big pharma and insurance can not longer be allowed to dictate, as you say...and if the people and the physicians all mostly favor a single payer system then in a democratically ran country...single payer would only make sense.

i didn't say single payer wouldn't make sense. i said because of our government structure and who makes up the government in ginormous total, we will not see an immediate transition to single payer now. it's impossible with our current system to see all of what we think makes sense reflected in their actions. this country is too big and there are many many people in congress who will never allow that to happen. and there are many similar people continuing to vote them into office.

you state often that the majority of america shares nader's values. why do you think you don't see these values reflected in congressional action?

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i didn't say single payer wouldn't make sense. i said because of our government structure and who makes up the government in ginormous total, we will not see an immediate transition to single payer now. it's impossible with our current system to see all of what we think makes sense reflected in their actions. this country is too big and there are many many people in congress who will never allow that to happen. and there are many similar people continuing to vote them into office.

you state often that the majority of america shares nader's values. why do you think you don't see these values reflected in congressional action?

If Congress doesn't and isn't representing it's people's ideals then we should already be doing something about that not folding under them and saying corruption and pandering is just how it is.

You already know why Congress doesn't reflect the views and demands of the people especially the ones Nader calls for...you've been posting about it for years.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If Congress doesn't and isn't representing it's people's ideals then we should already be doing something about that not folding under them and saying corruption and pandering is just how it is.

You already know why Congress doesn't reflect the views and demands of the people especially the ones Nader calls for...you've been posting about it for years.

personally i know i'm not folding. i am proud to support senator obama for president. and i guess posting about these things for years has also made me more realistic, and actually hopeful. whateves. i'm set, you're set. there's no point in this.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

personally i know i'm not folding. i am proud to support senator obama for president. and i guess posting about these things for years has also made me more realistic, and actually hopeful. whateves. i'm set, you're set. there's no point in this.

There is room for realistic and idealistic people in this world and both are needed.

I like this quote...it does a great job of describing the mindset of idealism and all the things idealist have fought to bring into this world that weren't a reality until people decided to fight for them.


"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Health_Care.htm
http://www.greeninformation.org/NADEERHEALTHCARE.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/24/8502/
http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr02212007.html

Nader on health care

He supports a single-payer, government-funded health care system similar to Canada's. Think of it as full Medicare for all.

"We now spend $7,100 per capita on health care in the U.S. and still don't cover almost 50 million people. The $7,100 is double what the next highest figure is, which is Switzerland," he says. "Obviously there's something wrong."

The current system, Nader says, produces $350 billion in unnecessary administrative expenses and overhead and more than $200 billion in annual computerized billing fraud and abuse. That's half a trillion dollars available to fund a universal plan.

"You'd have not 1,500 jealous insurers, but one government insurer," he says.

On the differences between his health care plan and Obama's and Clinton's

"The key is their plans don't replace the health insurance industry," he explains. "You can't have a highly wasteful, highly rationed, highly inefficient health care system and then expect to reform it from the top."

Obama and Clinton don't favor a single-payer system, and their proposed plans wouldn't be funded solely by the government. Nader says a new poll shows 59 percent of the doctors favor a single-payer system "because doctors want to practice medicine rather than bookkeeping."

yeah, i get that... like i said, i can put the same thing on my webpage

but the important part is completely missing, how does he plan on doing that?

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

if the people and the physicians all mostly favor a single payer system

then why didnt they vote for kucinich or edwards when they had the chance? and why dont they support nader now?

they should have won in a landslide

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

then why didnt they vote for kucinich or edwards when they had the chance? and why dont they support nader now?

they should have won in a landslide

damn, how many times do I have to keep saying it?

media and corporate money/backing

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

yeah, i get that... like i said, i can put the same thing on my webpage

but the important part is completely missing, how does he plan on doing that?

The numbers and taxes where given.

It's all words on Obama's site, too or haven't you noticed. There's no contract he has signed saying he will actually do any of it. And if history can serve as any representation...he won't be doing much of what he likes to say he's behind.

However with Nader, he has tons of actual action put behind his rhetoric. He has fought hard and accomplished for decades now what other's have told him couldn't be done. I have much more faith in that than I do long, detailed plans from someone who doesn't have a hill of beans to back up his supposed 'concern'.

VictoryGin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The numbers and taxes where given.

It's all words on Obama's site, too or haven't you noticed. There's no contract he has signed saying he will actually do any of it. And if history can serve as any representation...he won't be doing much of what he likes to say he's behind.

However with Nader, he has tons of actual action put behind his rhetoric. He has fought hard and accomplished for decades now what other's have told him couldn't be done. I have much more faith in that than I do long, detailed plans from someone who doesn't have a hill of beans to back up his supposed 'concern'.

therein lies the impasse. nader will never be president so you will never get a chance to see if his rhetoric would be realized in that capacity.

obama has a chance. sing it brothers and sisters: YES WE CAN!

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The numbers and taxes where given.

where?