Ralph Nader

1…6791112…14

Comments

  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    hey, you've got to throw your vote away....
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    hey, you've got to throw your vote away....

    The only way I throw my vote away is to vote for someone I don't believe in thus losing the right to have my true voice represented by my vote.


    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-br908pnapr03,0,5783340.story

    Nader's Florida visit deserved more than brief mention
    April 3, 2008


    True journalism is to explore subjects profoundly, presenting readers with the new or unknown. The brief notice of Ralph Nader's visit to Florida failed to reach any level of professional journalism. The article simply rehashed old news about the 2000 elections and even then failed to give the whole story. Were you aware that in the 2000 elections, more than 350,000 registered Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush? Democrats lost because they could not even get their own party members to vote for Al Gore.

    The only person interviewed for the article was the Broward Democratic Party chairman. Do you think Mitch Ceasar will ever think it is a good idea for a third-party candidate to run against a Democrat? His comments demonstrate the core weakness of the Democrat Party. Instead of offering a meaningful political program, they run on the "vote for us, we are not the other guy" platform. They have the arrogance to believe they own all non-Republican votes. And your article gave an approving nod to that farce.

    Nader is running again. He is running because many thousands of citizens have asked him to run. There are many people who are absolutely tired of having only two election choices, neither of which speak to the issues important to us.

    Finally, when you have forgotten that candidates are but the representatives of the dreams and political aspirations of our citizens, then maybe you no longer believe in a truly democratic electoral system. This is not a football game with only two teams allowed to play. This is supposed to be a democracy, where many voices can be heard.
    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
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    I may see Ralph Nader in Chicago today (wednesday). If I get a chance to ask him a question I welcome suggestions.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    SundaySilence wrote:
    I may see Ralph Nader in Chicago today (wednesday). If I get a chance to ask him a question I welcome suggestions.

    Let me think on it and I'll get back to you. :)

    I hope I get to see him when comes around these parts. Be sure to let us know how it went!
    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
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    SundaySilence wrote:
    I may see Ralph Nader in Chicago today (wednesday). If I get a chance to ask him a question I welcome suggestions.


    why doesnt he run for an office he can win, so he can actually be a part of the government and help make the changes he would like to see


    and thats not being a smart ass, that is a legit question
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    SundaySilence wrote:
    I may see Ralph Nader in Chicago today (wednesday). If I get a chance to ask him a question I welcome suggestions.

    Ask him his stance on insider trading.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Ask him his stance on insider trading.



    hahhaahahahahahahahaha



    nice one ;)



    but dont mention that around some folsk around here... nader is fucking jesus to some people...
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    my2hands wrote:
    hahhaahahahahahahahaha



    nice one ;)



    but dont mention that around some folsk around here... nader is fucking jesus to some people...


    ?? everyone here knows you have no clue what youre talking about... lol... whoa re you kidding?? yourself>
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    my2hands wrote:
    why doesnt he run for an office he can win, so he can actually be a part of the government and help make the changes he would like to see


    and thats not being a smart ass, that is a legit question


    once people learn to educate themselves and look at history and facts... maybe he will win... until than... i will keep replying to your ignorant posts
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    macgyver06 wrote:
    ?? everyone here knows you have no clue what youre talking about... lol... whoa re you kidding?? yourself>

    and yet another enlightening post my mr macgyver... keep up the good work!
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    i can't wait for the day that macgyver actually adds something to a conversation around here...

    but i wont hold my breath :D
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Ask him his stance on insider trading.


    Insider trading?

    Owning stocks does not equal insider trading
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    why doesnt he run for an office he can win, so he can actually be a part of the government and help make the changes he would like to see


    and thats not being a smart ass, that is a legit question


    I assume it's because he's running for the position he wants and that the presidential debate gets the most media coverage and draws the in public which helps him to bring attention to the issues he stands for but you'll never hear the other three say a peep about.

    Why do you get to decide who should or should not run for president. It comes across like you don't want any 3rd parties running because you think it's a waste because you think they can't win. What an advocate of democray, you are!
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/04/16/east-coast-corporate-liberal/

    East Coast Corporate Liberal

    Posted by The Nader Team on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM
    East Coast Corporate Liberal .

    Earlier this week, a poll showed Ralph Nader at ten percent in Michigan.

    According to a Fox News poll, one out of seven voters nationwide would seriously consider voting for Nader.

    Support for the Nader/Gonzalez platform of subordinating corporations to the will of the people is growing.

    And yet, the corporate liberal media continues to give the cold shoulder to Nader/Gonzalez.

    Case in point - New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

    Last month, Krugman was looking for a presidential candidacy to take on Wall Street.

    He ran down the list and found Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton lacking.

    But he ignored Nader/Gonzalez.

    Last week, Krugman justifiably took on the ethanol industry.

    He pointed out that producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. And he made the salient point that "land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food - so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis."

    "You might put it this way - people are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states," Krugman writes.

    But then, in typical East Coast corporate liberal fashion, Krugman wrote:

    "Oh, and in case you're wondering, all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue."

    Excuse me?

    From the beginning, Nader has been opposed to the subsidized ethanol industry as inefficient, environmentally damaging, inflationary, and as the primary fuel sustaining the corporate welfare kings.

    A rudimentary news search turns up a September 17, 2004 Des Moines Register article reporting that Nader took on the ethanol industry while he was campaigning in Iowa.

    And as recently as yesterday, Nader was in Illinois telling students that corn ethanol is devouring huge acreage, shortening the supply of wheat, soy and other food, and resulting in the increased prices being seen in the U.S. and abroad.

    "Historically, food prices have been a source of consumer revolt," Nader said yesterday in Illinois. "It has toppled governments in other countries."

    But being dissed by the corporate liberal media is nothing new - and it is predictable.

    After all, the Nader/Gonzalez platform would subordinate corporate power to the will of the people.

    That's not exactly conducive to the corporate liberal platform of subordinating the will of the people to corporate power.

    Here's what we need from you today as we move forward.

    As we mentioned yesterday, we are very close to securing federal matching funds.

    But to secure matching funds, we must first collect $5,000 in matchable donations in each of at least 20 states.

    We've crunched the numbers, and thanks to you, we're almost there.

    But we need your help today to put us over the top.

    Wherever you may be, we need your help now.

    But especially if you live in six states:

    Wisconsin, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Nevada and Colorado.

    If you live in any of these six states please donate now as much as you can.

    If you have any family or friends who live in those six states please email them ask them to contribute.

    This is a people-powered campaign and we're moving up in the polls thanks to your continued support.

    So, please, be as generous as you possibly can be.

    Give whatever you can now - to help push us over the top.

    Together, we can make a difference.

    Onward

    The Nader Team

    PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
    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
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups often amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year, and have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph refuses to reveal in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who are interested can get the information by getting every year's annual report and doing the math. So much for openness.)
    The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.

    One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and influence.

    For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.

    Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

    In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.


    http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:

    Why do you get to decide who should or should not run for president.
    i dont
    It comes across like you don't want any 3rd parties running because you think it's a waste because you think they can't win.
    i have never said nader or any other 3rd party candidate should not run... i just dont support nader, that doesnt mean i dint think he should run. he is irrelevant at this pioint anyway. i actually think he is doing harm to the 3rd party theory
    What an advocate of democray, you are!
    so because i dont think nader is the best choice for president i am anti democracy? people disagree. that is democracy.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    i dont i have never said nader or any other 3rd party candidate should not run... i just dont support nader, that doesnt mean i dint think he should run.

    Then why are you questioning why is running then?

    my2hands wrote:
    he is irrelevant at this pioint anyway. i actually think he is doing harm to the 3rd party theory

    How so?

    my2hands wrote:
    so because i dont think nader is the best choice for president i am anti democracy? people disagree. that is democracy.


    No, it's because you seem to be saying he shouldn't run with your lines like:

    'Why run for president? Why not congress? I say why not the presidency...answer that one.


    and your new line of:

    'He's doing more harm to 3rd party runs' Wtf? Where do you get this from? It's baseless.
    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
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    SundaySilence wrote:
    I may see Ralph Nader in Chicago today (wednesday). If I get a chance to ask him a question I welcome suggestions.

    ask him how it feels to be partialy responsible for the iraq war and the collapse of the american economy.

    and Abook, we have two parties, sorry. I'd love to have a realistic third possiblity but there isn't one.

    as for having your vote "representing" something, try the lesser of two evils.

    that's the best it gets in the real world.
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    'He's doing more harm to 3rd party runs' Wtf? Where do you get this from? It's baseless.

    you are right it is baseless...

    he IS doing harm to the two party system which is the only realistic scenario right now.

    he should form a new party called the woulda, coulda, shoulda party.

    (didn't and won't)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    ask him how it feels to be partialy responsible for the iraq war and the collapse of the american economy.


    Why should Nader feel responsible? He didn't call for the Iraq war and make the policies that sank our economy...sorry but your logic is off a bit here. Nader was the one giving us an alternative to those problems and telling us how the Dems and Reps were dragging us down a road of corporate power reigning over people's rights and representation. You guys decided to go along and vote for Gore who wasn't worth a shit and he lost because of it. Quit playing the blame game and own up....America gets the president she deserves. Everyone, each one of you, had the same opportunity to vote for whom ever they pleased and they picked Bush. No one automatically owes the Democratic Party their vote...what kind of shit is that?! That's supposed to be democracy????! What a croc of shit! If you'd bother reading these threads before coming in here spouting off, you'd know these silly and ignorant arguments have been shot down time and time again.

    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    and Abook, we have two parties, sorry. I'd love to have a realistic third possiblity but there isn't one.

    as for having your vote "representing" something, try the lesser of two evils.

    that's the best it gets in the real world.

    It's not happening because of people like YOU, stupidcorporatewhore. People like you who keep buying into the system...the same system that's not working for the american people and the same system that you'll start back to complaining about as soon as Obama is elected in. 'Oh this system sucks' 'They are corrupt and don't listen to us'....then it's 'Oh, I've got a bright idea! Let's keep supporting that horrible system we've been complaining about!' Brilliant guys, really.

    Things don't change until people change them. And I'm out here trying. I stopped supporting something I disagree with. When will you?

    What's unrealistic is to think we can keep voting in these ineffective parties who go against our best interest time and time again and that good will come of it or that our country will get better somehow.

    'Be the Change you wish to see in the World' ~ Gandhi

    If you want to see things change it HAS to start with YOU first.
    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

Categories