Nader: Obama 'talking white'

MrBrian wrote:

And wait until they find out he's an Arab.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5584065&postcount=45

Gibberish! Hornswaggle!~ Oh how this perturbs me so!!! Ralph Nadar?!! The man Eddie & myself would once follow through the gates of hell talking dirty about my spiritual leader Barack Obama?! Bolderdash!!! Brickbracklewort & bullshit! Nadar is a pest that must be dealt with accordingly by my accordian. Play music for him Johnny - play him off the stage, he's done for! Your time is up Nadar!

"Your time is up, my time is now! You can't see me - my time is now!" - Barack Obama
Beloved President

Good grief, Ralph !!

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/06/20/nader/

But if Nader is in the clear for the amount of personal wealth he has accumulated, his choice of stock-holdings is a good deal more questionable. In defending his choice of stocks to own Nader told the Post, "No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons."

But that's a problem. Because, by many definitions, the company in which Nader owns most of his stock, Cisco Systems Inc., is a monopoly.

The computer industry has three companies which have monopoly or near-monopoly control over their various industry sectors: Microsoft, which controls the PC operating system and much of the applications market; Intel, which controls the PC microprocessor market; and Cisco, which controls a dominant share of the "router" market, basically the plumbing that makes up the Internet and various other computing networks. Cisco controls a bit more than half of the overall data-networking market but has, for example, 89 percent of the market for high-end routers.

Cisco has also been investigated by several government agencies for possible anti-competitive or monopolistic practices. In fairness, none of these investigations have led to charges against the company. But Cisco does pursue many policies aimed at locking in its dominance of the router market and freezing out other competitors. Its market power is so great that three of its strongest competitors have simply dropped out of the running in the last year and Cisco has dealt with many of its smaller competitors by simply buying them and folding them into the Cisco empire. (In one particularly striking move, Cisco entered into an agreement with IBM in which the latter agreed to drop out of the computer-networking business in exchange for payments from Cisco.)

In fact, one of the reasons Cisco has been able to evade serious antitrust scrutiny is that the company goes to such lengths to train employees to avoid Microsoft's mistakes. As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, Cisco's training for its new employees warns employees to avoid inflammatory language in written communications and reminds them that "e-mail, notebooks and hard disks can be looked at by lawyers."

None of this means Cisco is a bad company, but it is an odd choice for Nader. And there's more. As with many other high-tech giants, Cisco's Washington lobbying has been concentrated on objectives like making it harder for disgruntled shareholders to sue their companies -- something Nader and his various groups have vociferously opposed. It has also focused on passing legislation to issue more H1-B visas to foreign workers, while Nader has taken a strong stand against the visas.

So what does the Nader campaign have to say about all this? When I raised the charges of Cisco's monopolistic practices with Nader spokesman Teresa Amato, she asked whether any of the government inquiries into Cisco's behavior had resulted in sanctions or prosecutions. They hadn't, but then that's setting the bar rather low, isn't it? And what about Cisco's lobbying for legislation that Nader has strenuously opposed? "We don't know anything about that," she told me. "Send us whatever information you have. I am sure if we found out anything about that, Ralph would take appropriate action."

flywallyfly wrote:

Dont forget blind following. It cracks me up how supporting a fraudulent and hypocritical candidate is considered progressive to Nader followers. Sad but true. *Sigh*

I don't think he is anything remotely close to the way you described him. I think he is a great man who has done so much for this country. His owning and selling stocks doesn't change any of that.

And for all the people ripping on Nader, I suggest you protest his running by yanking out the seatbelts in your cars. to start off with of course.

flywallyfly wrote:

How about his lying about them? Guess that doesnt bother you either. I have to thank you guys for one thing - without you putting him on a pedestal i never would have spent time researching Nader and found all of the crap he has been pulling. I think maybe it might be a good thing for you to research Nader as much as Obama. Mind-blowing stuff out there if you really look. I thought he was just a egomaniac but now see what a conman he is.

Nader's system summed up :

(1) Invest in stocks in the very corporations he rails against.

(2) Use the profit from this investing to "donate" to his various nonprofits that are setup to fight against the same corporations he invested in to fund his nonprofits.

(3) Use the noteriety from "fighting" these corporations he invests in to make more money on the lecture circuit and booksales.

(4) Build a 3.8 million dollar nestegg (year 2000 figure, much bigger by now) for himself using the lecture fees and money from his booksales. His sister "owns" a 1.5 million dollar mansion that Ralph stays in often, as well as luxury condos.

(5) Claim he lives off of $25,000 a year even though he wont release his tax documents to prove this, but why shouldnt we take him at his word?

(6)Repeat 1,2, and 3 to keep a continuity of this lifestyle as a "fighter" of the corporations he invests in. Nice little cycle.

This is actually pure genius on Nader's part. The man has setup his own little dog and pony show to support himself using that which he supposedly hates as a means to profit and fund his empire of nonprofits to continue the cycle. The man plays a mean fiddle.

Nader doesn't do what he claims to hate. He's never said you shouldn't invest in the stock market. He's railed against the corrupt actions of corporations and found to get them to clean up their act. He's made money off them and used the money for great things. Until he starts a corporation and then starts doing all the things he calls bad corporations out for doing then I don't see this as a big deal.