Nader Stumps Moore

[CarneVaca]

There's been an eerie quiet about the first episode of the return of Bill Maher's HBO show. Could it be because Nader stumped even the big-mouthed Michael Moore?

Nader left Moore speechless when he pointed out that Moore's web site says to not support any senator who voted for the war on Iraq. He then pointed out that John Kerry was one of those senators. Moore said nothing.

Maher and Moore then got on their knees to beg Nader not to run. It was funny, but Moore's inability to argue with Nader just points at the very obvious fallacies of the Democratic Party's argument to vote for Kerry.

I still like Moore and I believe what he is doing is very necessary, but I must admit I enjoyed seeing him silenced.

He skewered the congressman from California, some Republican dude Bill Maher seems to like, and that was very funny. The former prime minister of Canada, Kim something or other, gave Nader a run for his money, though.

It was a great show.

[gldstwmn]

There's been an eerie quiet about the first episode of the return of Bill Maher's HBO show. Could it be because Nader stumped even the big-mouthed Michael Moore?

Nader left Moore speechless when he pointed out that Moore's web site says to not support any senator who voted for the war on Iraq. He then pointed out that John Kerry was one of those senators. Moore said nothing.

Maher and Moore then got on their knees to beg Nader not to run. It was funny, but Moore's inability to argue with Nader just points at the very obvious fallacies of the Democratic Party's argument to vote for Kerry.

I still like Moore and I believe what he is doing is very necessary, but I must admit I enjoyed seeing him silenced.

He skewered the congressman from California, some Republican dude Bill Maher seems to like, and that was very funny. The former prime minister of Canada, Kim something or other, gave Nader a run for his money, though.

It was a great show.

David Dreier is the Republican Congressman that got his ass handed to him.

Kim Campbell is the former Prime Minister of Canada.

Moore asked people not to vote for Senators who were running for reelection. He is ABB and realizes this election is too serious to consider a third party candidate whose votes will translate into absolutely nothing come November 4.

[CarneVaca]

Stumped!!!

[gldstwmn]

Stumped!!!

I know you are. I'm trying to help. :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

I know you are. I'm trying to help. :shrug:

If I needed and more evidence that you're delusional, there it is.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nbc10.com/news/3601217/detail.html

Nader Forced To Close Pa. Headquarters Amid Protests
Dozens Of Homeless People Want Money For Circulating Petitions

POSTED: 5:41 pm EDT July 31, 2004
UPDATED: 5:49 pm EDT July 31, 2004

PHILADELPHIA -- Ralph Nader's campaign coordinator said Nader is on track to meet Monday's deadline for filing the nearly 25,700 signatures needed to get on the presidential ballot in Pennsylvania, despite the sudden closure of their state headquarters.

Police were called to the office in Philadelphia on Thursday when dozens of homeless people lined up to collect money they said they were owed for circulating petitions on Nader's behalf.

Petition circulators were told they would be paid from 75 cents to $1 for each valid signature. John Slevin, a ballot-access contractor hired by Nader to run the Pennsylvania petition campaign, said all the ballot circulators would eventually be paid.

Slevin said he had not planned to move out of the office until the end of the month, but that he would no longer be working there.

Despite the unexpected closure, Dan Martino, the campaign's Pennsylvania coordinator, said that Nader remains on pace to get the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot.

[dissention]

I missed the show, but if I recall, Moore's site says not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats. I think there is a clear distinction between getting rid of senators and getting rid of Bush.

[paleshadow]

I missed the show, but if I recall, Moore's site says not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats. I think there is a clear distinction between getting rid of senators and getting rid of Bush.

But if Moore did say not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats, surely he wouldn't want to promote one to President? :rolleyes:

[dissention]

But if Moore did say not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats, surely he wouldn't want to promote one to President? :rolleyes:

Like I said, there's a clear distinction between getting rid of Shrub and getting rid of senators. Moore's goal is to give Shrub the pink slip and it has to be accomplished one way or another. Like it or not, Kerry is the only option right now.

[CarneVaca]

But if Moore did say not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats, surely he wouldn't want to promote one to President? :rolleyes:

Forget about trying to reason with the tunnel-vision Democrats. Their push for Kerry is fraught with problems, and they know it.

Also, keep in mind that Moore has not endorsed Kerry. He merely wants to get Bush out. Yeah, I know it's semantics, but there you have it. I suspect Moore is holding his nose about Kerry as well.

Lastly, that Nader campaign office fiasco smells of dirty tricks. I'd put my money on the Demoncrats being behind that one.

[gldstwmn]

But if Moore did say not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats, surely he wouldn't want to promote one to President? :rolleyes:

Moore is ABB. He understands the importance of removing George Bush from the White House, first and foremnost in the coming election. He's a Democrat and like a lot of Democrats may not be thrilled with who they nominated but who understands that a third party has absolutely no chance of getting elected and votes for said third party will translate into an absolute waste of paper. I will email him and see if he will clarify this, if he hasn't already on his web site.

[CarneVaca]

Moore is a Demoncrat!? Could've fooled me. From watching Columbine, Fahrenheit and his constant attacks on the Clinton administration in the Awwful Truth, he comes across as anything but. He also supported Nader in 2000.

Interestingly, it ain't just Moore and me that Kerry has failed to move. The latest poll results show that he didn't really ge the bounce he should have received from the convention.

Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Last week's Democratic convention boosted voters' impressions of John Kerry but failed to give him the expected bump in the head-to-head race against President Bush, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds.

In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.

The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention. (Related PDF: Kerry-Edwards plan for America)

USA TODAY extended its survey to Sunday to get a fuller picture of what's happening.

A Newsweek poll taken Thursday and Friday gave the Democratic ticket a 49%-42% lead. Over three weeks, that reflected a 4-point "bounce" for Kerry, the smallest ever in the Newsweek poll.

More at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/business/02jobs.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091464794-JxEGtdrUM9IaLXb4RAdmOg

Recent Layoff Rate Was Highest Since Early 1980's
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

Published: August 2, 2004

Layoffs occurred at the second-fastest rate on record during the first three years of the Bush administration, a government report has found.

In the government's latest survey of how frequently workers are permanently dismissed from their jobs, the layoff rate reached 8.7 percent of all adult jobholders, or 11.4 million men and women age 20 or older. That is nearly equal to the 9 percent rate for the 1981-1983 period, which included the steepest contraction in the American economy since the Great Depression.

Recession and weak economic growth characterized most of the period from 2001 to 2003, and millions of jobs disappeared. But while layoffs normally rise in hard times and fall in prosperous years, the new survey published Friday by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the statistical evidence that layoffs are more frequent now, in both good times and bad, than they were in similar cycles a decade ago.

The anecdotal evidence is abundant on this point, but the statistical evidence is only beginning to tell the same story. "It appears there is more displacement now; this latest number is quite high," said Henry S. Farber, a Princeton University labor economist who has challenged the anecdotal evidence, wondering whether it overstated the case.

The layoff rate over the last three years, for example, was greater than in the 1990-1991 recession, the displacement survey found. The rate was also higher in the late 1990's boom years than in the late 1980's, a parallel period of strong economic growth.

"No one should be surprised by the increasing frequency of layoffs," said James Glassman, senior United States economist for J. P. Morgan Chase. "It is the echo of globalization. Companies are shifting production around more frequently to take advantage of low-cost centers."

A Bush administration spokeswoman, Claire Buchan, asked for comment, responded with a statement that focused on the surge in job creation in recent months and made no mention of the worker displacement report. A Kerry campaign economist, Jason Furman, said the survey showed that jobs in America were increasingly insecure.

While job displacement has gradually increased during the 23 years covered by the surveys, the unemployment rate has trended down. For some labor economists - Mr. Farber and Jared Bernstein at the Economic Policy Institute, for example - that makes the rising layoff rate even more striking.

"If you plot the displacement rate in relation to the unemployment rate, it is a staircase going up," Mr. Bernstein said. "You are more likely to be laid off now than in similar levels of unemployment in the past."

The falling unemployment rate also suggests that most job losers are re-employed relatively soon, and that is borne out by the surveys. In each of the surveys, about two-thirds of those who said they had lost jobs over the previous three years also said they were working again at the time of the survey. The percentage was even higher - 10 points higher - in the tight labor markets of the late 1990's.

Pay is another matter. In the latest survey, 56.9 percent of those who said they were re-employed also said they were earning less in their new jobs than in the jobs they had lost. That compared with 46.6 percent from 1991 through 1993, a similar period of recession followed by weak recovery, and 42.2 percent from 1997 through 1999, which were boom years.

The worker displacement survey has been conducted in January or February of each even-numbered year since 1984. The members of 60,000 households, a cross section of the population, are asked if they lost a job at any time in the previous three years because a factory or company closed, there was insufficient work or the position they occupied was abolished. A "yes" answer meant the job was permanently gone, without prospect of recall.

President Reagan instituted the job displacement survey in response to grumbling from Congress as layoffs surged. The surveys initially focused on workers who were laid off after holding a job for at least three years. These "long-tenured" workers still get a lot of attention in the biennial reports; 5.3 million were displaced in the 2001-2003 period, or 6.3 percent of all workers age 20 or older with at least three years of tenure.

The 6.3 percent was the highest layoff rate on record for long-tenured workers, slightly above the 6.2 percent in the 1981-1983 period.

[CarneVaca]

Gldstwmn, good article, but shouldn't you have started a new thread for it?

[gldstwmn]

Moore is a Demoncrat!? Could've fooled me. From watching Columbine, Fahrenheit and his constant attacks on the Clinton administration in the Awwful Truth, he comes across as anything but. He also supported Nader in 2000.



You watched Bill Maher the other night didn't you?

[CarneVaca]

You watched Bill Maher the other night didn't you?

Yes, I did. I noticed that he didn't come out and endorse Kerry. I also noticed he called the Democrats "War Party Lite" in Fahrenheit. I noticed that in one episode of The Awful Truth he said even though the South lost the Civil War, the south effectively has won since because of the conservative bent of both parties. During the 2000 season, he went out of his way to show that Democrats and Republicans weren't that different.

He still ain't saying the Democrats are better, from what I can tell. He's just saying we need Bush out.

[gldstwmn]

Yes, I did. I noticed that he didn't come out and endorse Kerry. I also noticed he called the Democrats "War Party Lite" in Fahrenheit. I noticed that in one episode of The Awful Truth he said even though the South lost the Civil War, the south effectively has won since because of the conservative bent of both parties. During the 2000 season, he went out of his way to show that Democrats and Republicans weren't that different.

He still ain't saying the Democrats are better, from what I can tell. He's just saying we need Bush out.

He declared he was a Dem on RT w/BM. And yes, he agrees we need Buh out. He did defend Kerry to congressman David Dreier. I'll get the transcript if you want.

[CarneVaca]

He declared he was a Dem on RT w/BM. And yes, he agrees we need Buh out. He did defend Kerry to congressman David Dreier. I'll get the transcript if you want.

I've defended Kerry on occasion too, not because I support him, but because god knows we've got to take pity on the man once in a while.

[gldstwmn]

I've defended Kerry on occasion too, not because I support him, but because god knows we've got to take pity on the man once in a while.

To that extent, I even pity you at times. :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

To that extent, I even pity you at times. :wavey:

Well, then it's mutual. ;)

And I'll even magnanimously take you back in on Nov. 3, regardless of who wins. :lol:

[dissention]

Yes, I did. I noticed that he didn't come out and endorse Kerry. I also noticed he called the Democrats "War Party Lite" in Fahrenheit. I noticed that in one episode of The Awful Truth he said even though the South lost the Civil War, the south effectively has won since because of the conservative bent of both parties.

I just bought The Awful truth on DVD and that show is brillaint. It should've lasted longer than two seasons, IMO. The DVDs are ridiculously priced, too. :laugh:

[paleshadow]

Moore is ABB. He understands the importance of removing George Bush from the White House, first and foremnost in the coming election. He's a Democrat and like a lot of Democrats may not be thrilled with who they nominated but who understands that a third party has absolutely no chance of getting elected and votes for said third party will translate into an absolute waste of paper. I will email him and see if he will clarify this, if he hasn't already on his web site.

Yes, I understood this the first time you wrote it, but that only addresses why people shouldn't vote for Nader. Saying that people shouldn't re-elect senators for a second term if they supported the war doesn't have anything to do with people voting for a third party in the Presidential election.

[CarneVaca]

Yes, I understood this the first time you wrote it, but that only addresses why people shouldn't vote for Nader. Saying that people shouldn't re-elect senators for a second term if they supported the war doesn't have anything to do with people voting for a third party in the Presidential election.

Don't wait for an answer. It's not something that can be answered logically from their viewpoint. As soon as you try to explain that away, you're stepping into the realm of obfuscation and inconsistency. This is why Moore kept his trap shut on this issue during the show.

[gldstwmn]

Well, then it's mutual. ;)

And I'll even magnanimously take you back in on Nov. 3, regardless of who wins. :lol:

Feel I need a little sypmathy... :angel:

[gldstwmn]

Yes, I understood this the first time you wrote it, but that only addresses why people shouldn't vote for Nader. Saying that people shouldn't re-elect senators for a second term if they supported the war doesn't have anything to do with people voting for a third party in the Presidential election.

Here's your question:
But if Moore did say not to re-elect senators who supported the war to their current seats, surely he wouldn't want to promote one to President?

:shrug:

[paleshadow]

Here's your question:


:shrug:

It wasn't meant to be taken as a question literally, it was to show the irony that he said not to re-elect senators who supported the war, and yet he is supporting a senator who did just that in his campaign for the Presidency. Even if that was taken as a literal question though, your response was an answer to a question that wasn't asked. Now, since we clearly know why he wouldn't want Nader to run, what do you think about the fact that he would reccomend not re-electing senators who supported the war, and yet wishes to elect one President, which was the original point of this thread. This is the kind of contradiction Moore enjoys pointing out in others whose views he dissagrees with, so I think it's nice to catch him at it. No?

[paleshadow]

Just a bump.