Kerry, a.k.a. Bush, supports faith-based initiatives

[CarneVaca]

well, elighten me silly :angel:

If you really want to know, you can find out, Jason. Meanwhile, wasting my time here on explaining something to you that you refuse to accept because you can't open your eyes to the possibility that the facts aren't as you thought they were is getting a little tiring.

To wit:

Or are you too angry with me for saying T H-K was born in Africa was the truth :laugh: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

I could explain that till I'm blue in the face. Technically and legally she was never African. But never mind. You know better. :shrug:

[dissention]

If that's the case, why do you keep wavering on Kerry?


Because I don't know if my conscience would allow me to vote for Kerry. ;)

[dissention]

You're being inconsistent. Sorry, at some point, you're going to have to come to terms with what you want to do. Either you believe building a third-party movement is a worthy cause or you believe nothing supersedes the vote-out-Bush cause. You're wavering, and you're beginning to look like Kerry. ;)

Just because I want Bush out, it doesn't mean that I can't be torn between voting for Kerry or Cobb. Unlike you, I'm not fixed on who I'm voting for at this moment.

[strandinthewind]

Oh yeah!? Well, then, start putting pressure on your party to allow Nader to debate. You, and the Democrats, want it both ways, Jason. It disgusts me no end that when having Perrot in the mix benefitted the Democrats they never batted an eye. He was allowed to debate. But when Nader happened, the Democrats turned up the demonization lever. Too bad they didn't expend the energy that they dedicated to Nader on their Republican opponent, where it belongs. And they're doing the same now. God forbid anyone come right out and openly criticize Bush during the DNC

I think you think I do not agree with this. You are aligning me with people I do not agree with. I never said Nader should not be allowed to debate. If I did, show it to me. BTW - the D are right to demonize Nader because he is a hypocrite and he is an opponent who will take needed votes from them :shrug: Are you saying no one should legally attack Nader because he is the underdog :shrug: If Nader is a candidate, then he is open for discussion and this discussion is about (in case amongst your spin you forgot :cool: ) Nader investing in companies he hates and speaks publicly against and Nader taking assistance from a political party he hates and speaks against. Moreover, Nader does not even admit it is going on or at least I have read no such admission. If you have, let's see it.


I'm all ears. Explain to me how he should stop aid that he didn't solicit and that can happen regardless of his wishes. You have no answer because you know what the answer is.

And as soon as you comb over your 401K and expunge the corporations whose practices you oppose, then we can talk about Nader's investments.

I am not the issue - stop the spin :laugh:. Again, I know exactly with whom and in whom I have invested - do you? Apparently, Nader wants the return on investment and does not care about where it comes from - therein is the issue. Your spin of his investments are just too cloudy or complicated and everyone does it is illogical, esp. when considering we are talking about a guy who was an investigative watch dog - yet he cannot read a prospectus :shrug: To me - that flies in the face of logic.

[strandinthewind]

If you really want to know, you can find out, Jason. Meanwhile, wasting my time here on explaining something to you that you refuse to accept because you can't open your eyes to the possibility that the facts aren't as you thought they were is getting a little tiring.

To wit:



I could explain that till I'm blue in the face. Technically and legally she was never African. But never mind. You know better. :shrug:

Now Now temper temper - you are better than that!!!!!!!

Again, all I am saying is T H-k was born in Africa and she was making a play on words in her speech. I get all you are saying - an occupying class who exploited the natives cannot claim to be from the continent of the country they are expoliting even though they are born there. I just do not agree with every part of that statement for the reasons I said earlier. So, sue me :cool:

[gldstwmn]

If Nader is to play by the same rules, shouldn't the Republicrats allow him to participate in the debates?

Oh they want him to. It would take the attention off of stuttering George.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/08/fraud_and_forge.html#more

Nader Ballot Fraud (BREAKING NEWS) Kari Chisholm
This just in: "Widespread fraud and forgery" has been found in the petitions seeking to qualify Ralph Nader for the Oregon ballot, according to an investigation by an Oregon labor union.

A press conference is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. PST on Monday. No external links available yet, but we'll be posting them here as they become available after the press conference. For now, the text of the press release from SEIU Local 49...

Widespread fraud and forgery found on petitions to qualify Ralph Nader for Presidential Ballot in Oregon
The petition sheets to qualify Ralph Nader for the presidential ballot in Oregon contain so much fraud, forgery and duplicated signatures that it clearly demonstrates widespread corruption in the campaign, according to an investigation conducted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
SEIU will release preliminary findings of its investigation at a news conference on Monday, August 16th at 10:30 AM. At that time, we will be calling on the Ralph Nader campaign to take immediate action to eliminate the fraud and to report all individuals who have violated state election laws while working on the campaign.
"We were absolutely astounded by what we have found so far," says SEIU International Vice-President Alice Dale. " The evidence of systemic fraud is clear and convincing and goes beyond anything we have seen before in Oregon. We call on the Ralph Nader for President campaign to immediately stop all fraudulent activities and turn over all evidence of fraud and forgery to the state Elections Division for investigation by the Attorney General."

[CarneVaca]

Just because I want Bush out, it doesn't mean that I can't be torn between voting for Kerry or Cobb. Unlike you, I'm not fixed on who I'm voting for at this moment.

I haven't decided who I'm voting for. I've decided I'm not voting for Kerry or Bush.

[dissention]

I haven't decided who I'm voting for. I've decided I'm not voting for Kerry or Bush.

I see. I guess I'm not the only inconsistent one after all. ;)

[CarneVaca]

If I did, show it to me. BTW - the D are right to demonize Nader because he is a hypocrite and he is an opponent who will take needed votes from them :shrug:

So anyone who is a hypocrite is fair game for demonization, then? Do I get that right? Or just Nader?

Nader investing in companies he hates and speaks publicly against and Nader taking assistance from a political party he hates and speaks against.

Not biting, Jason. We're all guilty of this. Get over it.

Again, I know exactly with whom and in whom I have invested - do you?

Yes.

[CarneVaca]

I just do not agree with every part of that statement for the reasons I said earlier. So, sue me :cool:

Your reasons are inconsistent with the larger point, which you say you agree with. Trying to have it both ways again.

[CarneVaca]

Oh they want him to. It would take the attention off of stuttering George.

You didn't read closely enough. I said Republicrats. And I bet you they won't.

[CarneVaca]

I see. I guess I'm not the only inconsistent one after all. ;)

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

[strandinthewind]

So anyone who is a hypocrite is fair game for demonization, then? Do I get that right? Or just Nader?

I think your use of the word demonization is a little harsh. I think that when a candidate puts their altruistic ideals as the foundation of their platform, the opponents have a right to question those ideals. Questioning why Nader invests in companies that he despises and questioning why he aligns himself without hestitation or public distancing from the R's - are two legitimate questions no matter how you try to spin that into demonizing is some hateful way. It is just like when people question Kerry's actions in Nam. He put it out there. It is fair game. So, legitimate questions are great. This swift boat non-sense is not legit though. It is a clear effort to demonize from people who do not know what actually happened because they were not there and from people closely aligned with the R. party yet claim to be unbiased. But, to answer and in some, if a candidate puts it out there, then it is fair game for questioning. How could it not be :shrug:

Not biting, Jason. We're all guilty of this. Get over it.

I was responding to your assertion that Nader's finances were too complicated and that I ought to clean up my own before responding to his. Therefore, there is nothing to get over. Nice try though :wavey:

BTW - you still never responded as to whether you think Pres. candidates ought to disclose their holdings, or does just Nader get the "none of your business" response.

That - BTW and in case you did not notice - is an inconsistency on your part, unless you think all Pres. candidates ought not have to disclose.

We are all awaiting your response. :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

Show me where I've been inconsistent. Questioning various candidates does not equal being inconsistent, mind you.

Someone can easily disagree with a candidate, just as they can also disagree with something that candidate says. It isn't all or nothing. I do both and am not inconsistent.

[dissention]

BTW - you still never responded as to whether you think Pres. candidates ought to disclose their holdings, or does just Nader get the "none of your business" response.

Just Nader.

We are all awaiting your response. :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

No, we are all awaiting his spin. ;)

[CarneVaca]

But, to answer and in some, if a candidate puts it out there, then it is fair game for questioning. How could it not be :shrug:

So Nader has blasted the average American bloke for playing the stock market!? :shrug: Evidently I missed that.

I was responding to your assertion that Nader's finances were too complicated and that I ought to clean up my own before responding to his.

Never said that. You're putting words in my moth.

BTW - you still never responded as to whether you think Pres. candidates ought to disclose their holdings, or does just Nader get the "none of your business" response.

I did. Go back and read it.

That - BTW and in case you did not notice - is an inconsistency on your part, unless you think all Pres. candidates ought not have to disclose.

It isn't. Again, Jason, I really don't know why it is so hard for you to follow my posts. Do you skip half of them and then keep asking the same questions and making assumptions? I've already addressed this.

[CarneVaca]

Show me where I've been inconsistent. Questioning various candidates does not equal being inconsistent, mind you.

You haven't shown me where I've been inconsistent because you can't. With you it's easy:

One day you'll say we have to get rid of Bush and that's the one overriding concern. You'll defend Kerry and implicitly state that he has to win. Today in this very thread you made that point.

Next day you'll say you can't vote for Kerry because you can't stomach. Well, today you've made that point too.

My position is consistent: I won't vote for Kerry because he doesn't represent me. And I certainly don't think the world will come to an end if Bush is reelected.

[CarneVaca]

Just Nader.

Never said it. Prove I did.

No, we are all awaiting his spin. ;)

I think you have me mistaken with Gldstwmn of one of the other Democrat apologists on this board. ;)

[strandinthewind]

It isn't. Again, Jason, I really don't know why it is so hard for you to follow my posts. Do you skip half of them and then keep asking the same questions and making assumptions? I've already addressed this.

I have not read anywhere where you said it was ok for W, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards not to post there holdings because it was none of our business or any contrary position. Please cut and paste that for me or refer me to the post number.

Also, apparently others have missed your blatant reply because they commented on me asking you why you have not replied.

Again, I must have missed it and cannot find it. Please point me in the right direction.

[dissention]

You haven't shown me where I've been inconsistent because you can't. With you it's easy:

One day you'll say we have to get rid of Bush and that's the one overriding concern. You'll defend Kerry and implicitly state that he has to win. Today in this very thread you made that point.

Next day you'll say you can't vote for Kerry because you can't stomach. Well, today you've made that point too.

My position is consistent: I won't vote for Kerry because he doesn't represent me. And I certainly don't think the world will come to an end if Bush is reelected.

Fortunately, I have the luxury to say those things because I live in a solid blue state. He'll win regardless if I vote for him or Cobb. I know you have the same luxury.

Just because I say Bush is the big concern and that Kerry needs to win, it doesn't mean I'm inconsistent when I question the guy, which I will continue to do because he's looking more and more low-rent. If you don't agree, all I can say is tough ****. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Carne - Here is the exchange about my basic question of whether you think it is okay for all pres. candidates not to post their financial holdings because although the law requires it it is none of our business. Again, you have assertd the non of our business excuse for Nader but no one else. I think that is an inconsistency.

Here is the exchange (note - some emoticons transfered some did not - please review for accuracy):

In post 219 - you said it was none on Johnny Stew's business

Then in post 226, I asked the question in respose to your reponse to JS:

I thought all nominees for President had to disclose theirholdings. Plus, I cannot believe you actually made this argument. So, Cheney, Bush, Kerry, etc. all shoul;d not disclose their holdings because it is none of our business - they could be controlled by who knows whom and its none of our business

Then, in post 233 you responded to my question in post 226 by saying:

You're saying it, not I. I said Ralph Nader's finances are none of our business. Think about it, Jason. I know you know the difference.

In post 234, I pointed out the law requires such disclosure of financial holdings of Pres. candidates and asked you to answer my question in post 226 yet again.

Instead of answering my question, in post 240, you spun it by saying:

If Nader is to play by the same rules, shouldn't the Republicrats allow him to participate in the debates?

Then we went on about playing by the rules, etc., and in post 244 I again asked you:

BTW - you never answered my question about whether you think Pres. candidates ought to have to provide full financial disclosure?

In post 246, you quoted my post post (244) and responded:

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

Then in post 264, I asked yet again:

I was responding to your assertion that Nader's finances were too complicated and that I ought to clean up my own before responding to his. Therefore, there is nothing to get over. Nice try though

BTW - you still never responded as to whether you think Pres. candidates ought to disclose their holdings, or does just Nader get the "none of your business" response.

That - BTW and in case you did not notice - is an inconsistency on your part, unless you think all Pres. candidates ought not have to disclose.

We are all awaiting your response because you in fact have geven no clear answer as to whether you think Bush, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards ought not to have to disclose their financial records under the same "its none of your business" excuse you readily give to Nader.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :)

[dissention]

Carne - Here is the exchange about my basic question of whether you think it is okay for all pres. candidates not to post their financial holdings because although the law requires it it is none of our business. Again, you have assertd the non of our business excuse for Nader but no one else. I think that is an inconsistency.

Here is the exchange (note - some emoticons transfered some did not - please review for accuracy):

In post 219 - you said it was none on Johnny Stew's business

Then in post 226, I asked the question in respose to your reponse to JS:

I thought all nominees for President had to disclose theirholdings. Plus, I cannot believe you actually made this argument. So, Cheney, Bush, Kerry, etc. all shoul;d not disclose their holdings because it is none of our business - they could be controlled by who knows whom and its none of our business

Then, in post 233 you responded to my question in post 226 by saying:

You're saying it, not I. I said Ralph Nader's finances are none of our business. Think about it, Jason. I know you know the difference.

In post 234, I pointed out the law requires such disclosure of financial holdings of Pres. candidates and asked you to answer my question in post 226 yet again.

Instead of answering my question, in post 240, you spun it by saying:

If Nader is to play by the same rules, shouldn't the Republicrats allow him to participate in the debates?

Then we went on about playing by the rules, etc., and in post 244 I again asked you:

BTW - you never answered my question about whether you think Pres. candidates ought to have to provide full financial disclosure?

In post 246, you quoted my post post (244) and responded:

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

Then in post 264, I asked yet again:

I was responding to your assertion that Nader's finances were too complicated and that I ought to clean up my own before responding to his. Therefore, there is nothing to get over. Nice try though

BTW - you still never responded as to whether you think Pres. candidates ought to disclose their holdings, or does just Nader get the "none of your business" response.

That - BTW and in case you did not notice - is an inconsistency on your part, unless you think all Pres. candidates ought not have to disclose.

We are all awaiting your response because you in fact have geven no clear answer as to whether you think Bush, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards ought not to have to disclose their financial records under the same "its none of your business" excuse you readily give to Nader.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :)

Oh my word, Jason. :xoxo: That's quite a beast. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Fortunately, I have the luxury to say those things because I live in a solid blue state. He'll win regardless if I vote for him or Cobb. I know you have the same luxury.

Just because I say Bush is the big concern and that Kerry needs to win, it doesn't mean I'm inconsistent when I question the guy, which I will continue to do because he's looking more and more low-rent. If you don't agree, all I can say is tough ****. :wavey:

OMG - I agree with you here as well (WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AARRGGHHHHHHHH)


Seriously, I think no candidate has ever 100% agreed with me or 100% represented me. So, I am going with the one that most does. That person is Kerry.

[dissention]

OMG - I agree with you here as well (WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AARRGGHHHHHHHH)

Freak-kay. :nod:

Seriously, I think no candidate has ever 100% agreed with me or 100% represented me. So, I am going with the one that most does. That person is Kerry.

No one will ever find a candidate that agrees with them 100% or represents them 100%, it just isn't reality. The trick is finding the one who will most do those things.

[CarneVaca]

I have not read anywhere where you said it was ok for W, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards not to post there holdings because it was none of our business or any contrary position. Please cut and paste that for me or refer me to the post number.

Because I never said it. I think you're now confusing yourself.

[CarneVaca]

Carne - Here is the exchange about my basic question of whether you think it is okay for all pres. candidates not to post their financial holdings because although the law requires it it is none of our business. Again, you have assertd the non of our business excuse for Nader but no one else. I think that is an inconsistency.

Here is the exchange (note - some emoticons transfered some did not - please review for accuracy):

In post 219 - you said it was none on Johnny Stew's business

Then in post 226, I asked the question in respose to your reponse to JS:

I thought all nominees for President had to disclose theirholdings. Plus, I cannot believe you actually made this argument. So, Cheney, Bush, Kerry, etc. all shoul;d not disclose their holdings because it is none of our business - they could be controlled by who knows whom and its none of our business

Then, in post 233 you responded to my question in post 226 by saying:

You're saying it, not I. I said Ralph Nader's finances are none of our business. Think about it, Jason. I know you know the difference.

In post 234, I pointed out the law requires such disclosure of financial holdings of Pres. candidates and asked you to answer my question in post 226 yet again.

Instead of answering my question, in post 240, you spun it by saying:

If Nader is to play by the same rules, shouldn't the Republicrats allow him to participate in the debates?

Then we went on about playing by the rules, etc., and in post 244 I again asked you:

BTW - you never answered my question about whether you think Pres. candidates ought to have to provide full financial disclosure?

In post 246, you quoted my post post (244) and responded:

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

Then in post 264, I asked yet again:

I was responding to your assertion that Nader's finances were too complicated and that I ought to clean up my own before responding to his. Therefore, there is nothing to get over. Nice try though

BTW - you still never responded as to whether you think Pres. candidates ought to disclose their holdings, or does just Nader get the "none of your business" response.

That - BTW and in case you did not notice - is an inconsistency on your part, unless you think all Pres. candidates ought not have to disclose.

We are all awaiting your response because you in fact have geven no clear answer as to whether you think Bush, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards ought not to have to disclose their financial records under the same "its none of your business" excuse you readily give to Nader.

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :)

The answer is in there, Jason. Sorry, but if you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

You are trying to draw parallels where they don't belong. The issue comes down to matching funs. Don't play dumb. That's what it's all about. Again, it's all there.

[strandinthewind]

The answer is in there, Jason. Sorry, but if you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

You are trying to draw parallels where they don't belong. The issue comes down to matching funs. Don't play dumb. That's what it's all about. Again, it's all there.


Well, then I and others must be great big ole dummies, because we do not see it.

The only thing approaching an answer was this:

In post 246, you quoted my post post (244) and responded:

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

But, that did not answer the sep. question of whether you think W, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards should not be required to disclose their financial holdings because they are none of our business -- if you do not, then why are Nader's finances none of our business.

I get the matching funds, but I am talking about something diff. You assert Nader's finances are none of our business because he is not bound to disclose them like W., Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards. I want to know why. I think that is a hypocritical position for you to take. I know you ordinarily not to be such. So, I was just curious and asked for an explanation and/or even an answer, all of which you refuse to provide. Instead, you start talking about something else and/or allege that you are fed up with my slow on the uptake nature and try to move on.

Please clarify for the meek of mind like me :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

I have not read anywhere where you said it was ok for W, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards not to post there holdings because it was none of our business or any contrary position. Please cut and paste that for me or refer me to the post number.

Jason, I HAVEN'T SAID THAT. We've already established it. What's the issue?

[CarneVaca]

Well, then I and others must be great big ole dummies, because we do not see it.

The only thing approaching an answer was this:

In post 246, you quoted my post post (244) and responded:

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

But, that did not answer the sep. question of whether you think W, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards should not be required to disclose their financial holdings because they are none of our business -- if you do not, then why are Nader's finances none of our business.

Please clarify for the meek of mind like me :xoxo:

By quoting this back to me you've answered your own question. Really, I am shocked you don't see it.

[strandinthewind]

Nope - you are being patently inconsistent.

You said it was okay for Nader not to disclose his financial holdlings because they are none of our business. Are you backing off of that now? If so, please say so directly and without spin.

[CarneVaca]

Nope - you are being patently inconsistent.

Wrong again.

You said it was okay for Nader not to disclose his financial holdlings because they are none of our business. Are you backing off of that now?

No. I stand by that.

[strandinthewind]

Wrong again.



No. I stand by that.


So, you think that because Nader is an underdog and did not qualify for matching funds, etc. like W and Kerry did, it is okay for Nader not to have fuill financial disclosure because it is none of our business. My issue with that is, he is running for the Pres. of the U.S. I think to have any merit, he has to show who he is beholden to and that includes his financial investments. For all we know, he could be invested with the Carlyle Group. But, if you are okay with not knowing who the Pres. of the U.S. has invested with, so be it. I am just surprised why you are implying that you are loathe to apply that logic and the conclusion to W., Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards. - and you refuse to explain it.

[CarneVaca]

So, you think that because Nader is an underdog and did not qualify for matching funds, etc. like W and Kerry did, it is okay for Nader not to have fuill financial disclosure because it is none of our business. My issue with that is, he is running for the Pres. of the U.S. I think to have any merit, he has to show who he is beholden to and that includes his financial investments. For all we know, he could be invested with the Carlyle Group. But, if you are okay with not knowing who the Pres. of the U.S. has invested with, so be it. I am just surprised why you are implying that you are loathe to apply that logic and the conclusion to W., Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards. - and you refuse to explain it.

Jason, for the last time: If they apply the same rules to third-party candidates they apply to themselves, fine. But they don't, and therefore third-party candidates should run how they see fit.

You don't think the guy has a snowball's chance in hell anyway, so what do you care?

[Johnny Stew]

:laugh:

Man, this thread is funnier than them there "Blue Collar" boys. ;)

I see that, as I expected, Carne white-washed, excused, and basically overlooked Nader's hypocritical ways. He found a very tenuous excuse for Nader's behavior, and then once again returned to holding Kerry and the Democratic party responsible for everything and anything he can think of.

I still stand by my opinion that you cannot be a consumer's advocate, demonizing companies for their actions, and then turn around and make money off of them.

Nader knows which companies he makes his money off of, and it's his choice not to. But he accepts that money, and has built a 3.8+ million dollar bank-account from it.

He is absolutely no better than anyone else... and possibly worse, because he claims to be above all of that.

I readily admit that Kerry is flawed, and isn't the "perfect candidate"... but I see Carne isn't willing to budge one single bit on Nader.
I think our friend has more trouble admitting he's wr-wr-wrong, than The Fonz. ;) :laugh: :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

I see that, as I expected, Carne white-washed, excused, and basically overlooked Nader's hypocritical ways. He found a very tenuous excuse for Nader's behavior, and then once again returned to holding Kerry and the Democratic party responsible for everything and anything he can think of.

Bull****.

I still stand by my opinion that you cannot be a consumer's advocate, demonizing companies for their actions, and then turn around and make money off of them.

Is that more incongruous than your support of an anti-gay marriage candidate? Or an anti-war candidate? Or a faith-based initiative-supporting candidate?

Explain to me why and how.

Nader knows which companies he makes his money off of, and it's his choice not to. But he accepts that money, and has built a 3.8+ million dollar bank-account from it.

Why would you begrudge the man a few million after all the work he's done for you and me? Should he send us all checks? Would that make you happy?

He is absolutely no better than anyone else... and possibly worse, because he claims to be above all of that.

Better than some, yes. Worse? Not even close.

I readily admit that Kerry is flawed, and isn't the "perfect candidate"... but I see Carne isn't willing to budge one single bit on Nader.

You haven't been paying attention. I've already stated many moons ago I'm not sure if I'll even vote for him. The gratuitious attacks on him on this thread are what I'm reacting to. Was it you who brought him up? And I pointed out he's done more for you, like it or not, than Kerry has or will. Isn't it silly you have to try to discredit him to try to make your candidate look better?

I think our friend has more trouble admitting he's wr-wr-wrong, than The Fonz. ;) :laugh: :xoxo:

Very funny, but inaccurate as usual.

[The Tower]

I've been lurking and reading, but not posting.

Why would you begrudge the man a few million after all the work he's done for you and me? Should he send us all checks? Would that make you happy?

Cop-out!!

I think Ralph Nader is pretty cool. However, one has to admit that he can't have things both ways. Either be the consumer advocate Superman with a clean record, or own up to the fact that you've invested in (and therefore potentially propagated) the same companies that you abhor.

Kerry's got my vote because I know he will beat Dubya. He's not perfect, but neither am I. I trust Kerry to be at minimum a good caretaker President (I've never considered that term pejorative). I know the things I truly care about (social tolerance, the environment, education) will vastly improve from Dubya's failures under his administration. The other stuff can be ironed out over time....

[Johnny Stew]

Is that more incongruous than your support of an anti-gay marriage candidate? Or an anti-war candidate? Or a faith-based initiative-supporting candidate?

Explain to me why and how.

I'm just going to use your tactic from here on out:
We're not talking about me here, so I don't have to explain anything. :D


Why would you begrudge the man a few million after all the work he's done for you and me? Should he send us all checks? Would that make you happy?

I begrudge anyone who makes money off of companies that they publically decry as being "evil."
And yes, I'd be thrilled if he shared that money with others... starting with the people who have been wronged by those companies he's making his money from.



And I pointed out he's done more for you, like it or not, than Kerry has or will. Isn't it silly you have to try to discredit him to try to make your candidate look better?

I have no desire to make John Kerry look better. The only person he needs to look better than, is George W., and he can do that without even trying.
I was merely pointing out that, while you demonize Kerry for any hypocrisy, perceived or real, you still tout Nader as some bastion of all that should be respected.

Very funny, but inaccurate as usual.

Nah, I think that was one of my more astute observations. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Kerry's... not perfect, but neither am I. I trust Kerry to be at minimum a good caretaker President (I've never considered that term pejorative). I know the things I truly care about (social tolerance, the environment, education) will vastly improve from Dubya's failures under his administration. The other stuff can be ironed out over time....

And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much how I feel about it, too. :)

[dissention]

I begrudge anyone who makes money off of companies that they publically decry as being "evil."

Amen, Brother Stew. :wavey:

How anyone can argue over that statement is beyond me.

[CarneVaca]

Cop-out!!

I think Ralph Nader is pretty cool. However, one has to admit that he can't have things both ways. Either be the consumer advocate Superman with a clean record, or own up to the fact that you've invested in (and therefore potentially propagated) the same companies that you abhor.

Are you serious!? The man is not allowed to invest in the stock market because he's a consumer advocate!? Surely you can't possibly believe that. I am puzzled that anyone living in this country, benefitting from things like mutual funds, 401ks, IRAs, stock options, etc., would have the temerity to suggest that.

Even I, an unabashed critic of capitalism, would have to be remiss not to acknowledge that mutual funds, stock options and 401ks have benefitted me. Let's get real here.

I know the things I truly care about (social tolerance, the environment, education) will vastly improve from Dubya's failures under his administration. The other stuff can be ironed out over time....

Don't bet on it. He's already made all kinds of concessions, including to the big corporations. Don't think the environment will be saved by this man.

[Johnny Stew]

Are you serious!? The man is not allowed to invest in the stock market because he's a consumer advocate!? Surely you can't possibly believe that. I am puzzled that anyone living in this country, benefitting from things like mutual funds, 401ks, IRAs, stock options, etc., would have the temerity to suggest that.

Even I, an unabashed critic of capitalism, would have to be remiss not to acknowledge that mutual funds, stock options and 401ks have benefitted me. Let's get real here.

That's not what's at issue here, and you know it.
The issue is that Nader VERY publicly decries these companies and their actions, and THEN turns around and makes money from them.

The last I looked, neither you nor anyone else here on this board, had gone on national TV to criticize any of these companies. Nader has made a career out of doing that, and then made a fortune off of those very same companies.

[CarneVaca]

I'm just going to use your tactic from here on out:
We're not talking about me here, so I don't have to explain anything. :D

Whatever, dude. I guess some questions are just too uncomfortable for you to answer.

I begrudge anyone who makes money off of companies that they publically decry as being "evil."

But you don't begrudge a guy who votes for a war, then says he is against it, then says he would have voted for it anyway after it becomes clear it was fought under false pretenses, and that he would have done the same thing the sitting president did?

Yeah, that makes sense.

while you demonize Kerry for any hypocrisy, perceived or real, you still tout Nader as some bastion of all that should be respected.

I haven't done either. You brought up Nader, attacked his character, and I merely pointed out he's done far more for you than Kerry has or will.

Nah, I think that was one of my more astute observations. ;)

Nah... I think your best one was when you said we should elect Kerry because he hasn't had a chance to do the job yet. You know, I went to the Disney board of directors last week. I said, "Hey, Michael Eisner is doing a crappy job lately. Why don't you let me take a crack at running the company? Huh? Give me a chance? I haven't done the job yet, so it's the least you can do." They didn't buy it. I can't figure out why. :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

That's not what's at issue here, and you know it.
The issue is that Nader VERY publicly decries these companies and their actions, and THEN turns around and makes money from them.

Who doesn't, Johnny? Have you looked at your 401K? It's nearly impossible not to if you want to have some money for your retirement. Stop begrudging the man his nest egg. It's sillly and unamerican to do that. ;)

The last I looked, neither you nor anyone else here on this board, had gone on national TV to criticize any of these companies.

Every chance I get. If they let me on national TV, I'd be glad to do it.

[CarneVaca]

Amen, Brother Stew. :wavey:

How anyone can argue over that statement is beyond me.

Just did. So:

Na na na na naaa na! :p

[dissention]

Just did. So:

Na na na na naaa na! :p

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/asshole2.gif

I get what you're saying, but at the same time, I get what Johnny is saying. We all may make money off of the big corporations via our 401k's and mutual funds, but none of us have made a career out of fighting the corporations and lashing out at them as being "evil." In the end, he's paid for his consumer advocate work that is principally founded on his disdain for those corporations, then he turns around and makes even more of a profit off of those corporations by buying their stock. He's denouncing the SUVs, but putting gas in them at the same time.

[CarneVaca]

[IMG]In the end, he's paid for his consumer advocate work that is principally founded on his disdain for those corporations, then he turns around and makes even more of a profit off of those corporations by buying their stock.

Don't you see? It's the ultimate irony. Savor it. It's delicious.

[Johnny Stew]

But you don't begrudge a guy who votes for a war, then says he is against it, then says he would have voted for it anyway after it becomes clear it was fought under false pretenses, and that he would have done the same thing the sitting president did?

I'll just use your answer: "Don't you see? It's the ultimate irony. Savor it. It's delicious." :D


I haven't done either. You brought up Nader, attacked his character, and I merely pointed out he's done far more for you than Kerry has or will.

The only reason I brought up Nader in the first place, was as an example to you that ALL politicians can be accused of hypocritical behaviour. Not just Mr. Kerry.
Mr. Nader is most certainly not exempt... even though you'd sure like to make it sound like he is.

Nah... I think your best one was when you said we should elect Kerry because he hasn't had a chance to do the job yet. You know, I went to the Disney board of directors last week. I said, "Hey, Michael Eisner is doing a crappy job lately. Why don't you let me take a crack at running the company? Huh? Give me a chance? I haven't done the job yet, so it's the least you can do." They didn't buy it. I can't figure out why. :shrug:

This surely isn't a "no-spin zone." :p I explained what I meant by my statement, and you still continue to twist my comment. I said that: You can't know positively that John Kerry will do as bad of a job as George W. Bush... which you have stated he would... without him having even held the office.
If you say you don't have confidence in him, fine. That's understandable.
But to say he would be "as bad as" someone else, is an assumption.

[Johnny Stew]

Who doesn't, Johnny? Have you looked at your 401K? It's nearly impossible not to if you want to have some money for your retirement. Stop begrudging the man his nest egg. It's sillly and unamerican to do that. ;)

Well, here you go... I only work part-time at a public library, and I don't have a 401K plan.
So I'm not making a cent off of any "evil corporation." ;)

(By the way, in what tax-bracket is 3.8 MILLION dollars considered a "nest egg"?) :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Well, here you go... I only work part-time at a public library, and I don't have a 401K plan.
So I'm not making a cent off of any "evil corporation." ;)

(By the way, in what tax-bracket is 3.8 MILLION dollars considered a "nest egg"?) :laugh:

Actually cotributions to a 401k are pre tax deductions. :)

[strandinthewind]

Actually cotributions to a 401k are pre tax deductions. :)


Yep - and thank goodness for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!