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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

That's pretty simple, Johnny. Because it's none of your business.

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

You guys crack me up. So Nader owns a few shares.

Have you looked in your 401Ks, mutual funds, IRAs or whatever you have?

Give it up. You and I are all supporting the big corporations to that extent. It's virtually impossible not to.

Besides, Nader owning a few shares hardly compares to Kerry sucking the teat of the huge corporation he married into.

Get real, people, you crack me up.

I am real. I readily admit I invest in the company that will return the greatest profit. I readily admit I would shop at Wal Mart if I thought they had anything I wanted. I readily admit I do not care that much that these companies are horrible in some areas because I know that all companies do things I hate, but I have to shop somewhere

Nader on the other hand came out publicly against corps. and said he would fight them if elected. It is impossible to believe that if he is profiting from their malfeasance as we speak. That is just wrong. Moreover, no one makes him choose those investments. He can always choose lower yielding govt. securities. But, he does not. Why? Because he wants the money and apparently does not care that it is given to him by the same evil he protests. Then again, this hero of American truth and justice also has no problem with taking assistence from the R's in this election. If that is not a hippocrite, then I do not know what one is.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I believe you're misdirecting your disgust. If Republicans are helping him unsolicited, how is he to blame? Furthermore, this kind of thing is at least as old as you and I are. The Democrats did the same with Goldwater. It's silly to harp on this.

Ole Ralphie has no qualms about accepting that unsolicited help. He's accepting help from the very people he claims to despise. Nothing will ever erase what Nader has done for the people of this country, but one has to question his motives at this point and time. I'm all for change and getting rid of the two-party system, but Ralph will not even be able to make a valiant effort to do so this time because of the rampant Bush hate. If it was another time with a different incumbent president, I'd probably be supporting Nader. But with this race, I think he's shown his true colors. Of course he has the right to run, but what needs to be questioned is why he's running now. I don't see the point because the only change people are dreaming of at this moment is getting rid of Bush, not changing the two-party system.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

If you believe that he can actually "take away" or "steal" votes from another candidate, then I will grant you that he may be talking crap there. But if a candidate's objective is to get votes, then there is no such thing as "taking away" or "stealing" votes. The Democrats need to get over this loser argument and start focusing on providing palatable candidates that stand for something.

He said it, not me. We can spin it in either direction, but he's stated on numerous occasions that his candidacy will take votes away from Bush. Like I said, it's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

It's only stupid when you bring the sense of entitlement into the discussion. If Republicans and Democrats are the only ones entitled to getting votes, you may have a small point. But the fact that the two parties have colluded to corrupt the electoral process doesn't, contrary to what you or anyone else may believe, entitle them to all the votes.

They aren't the only ones entitled to get votes. What I'm trying to say, eloquently or not, is that his run is futile at this point and time. There's no purpose for it. I'd love to see the party system shaken up and have Greens and Indepependents made to feel welcome. But no matter how much the two of us want that to happen, it won't be happening this year and I suspect that Ralph's candidacy will only invite more scorn and a longer battle for ridding the country of a two-party system.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Why are you so willing to blast this guy, who has done so much for the American people, whom you yourself voted for? Why are you siding with the Democrats on demonizing the guy? The Democrats need only one little speck of sand to amplify and make him out to be some kind of devil, when their own candidate cannot seem to articulate a good enough reason to get himself elected. You yourself last week even lashed out at the faith-based initiative stuff. Why is it that John Kerry can screw up on a weekly basis but Ralph cannot have a small flaw?

Simply put, his political affiliations and actions over the past year have become questionable. I'm not looking to blast the guy, I'm calling it as I see it, whether you or anyone else likes it. Bush is the embodiment of the anti-Christ, Kerry is a coward who's more dull than wet crackers, and Nader is an egomaniac with questionable judgement. It can't get any simpler. I don't see his actions as "one small flaw," I see them as affecting his judgement. To say that it's only the Dems who demonize Nader is to forget reality. This is the same Nader who refused to attend the Green's convention in June, then had the balls to call them "crazy" and "stupid" after they wouldn't endorse him. Nice way to get votes, eh?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I readily admit I would shop at Wal Mart if I thought they had anything I wanted.

You would? I'm all for getting stuff cheap, but I wouldn't give a single nickel to that corporation.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Nader on the other hand came out publicly against corps. and said he would fight them if elected. It is impossible to believe that if he is profiting from their malfeasance as we speak. That is just wrong. Moreover, no one makes him choose those investments. He can always choose lower yielding govt. securities. But, he does not. Why? Because he wants the money and apparently does not care that it is given to him by the same evil he protests. Then again, this hero of American truth and justice also has no problem with taking assistence from the R's in this election. If that is not a hippocrite, then I do not know what one is.

On the first day of Air America, Randi called him out on that and that's why he hung up. She made a crack about him speaking to her on the phone from his "comfortable" home and he hung up on her.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Dissention, I have given you more credit for being astute then your quote above appears to warrant. You're either deliberatly missing the point, or you're just being reluctant to entirely concede. I won this little side battle, so just admit it.

Nope, never will. Your argument is flawed because it rests on the premise that only people from Africa that were hauled over here on slave ships or similar acts can call themselves African Americans. I submit that is not so. In reality, non-enslaved African immigrants call themselves African Americans, some with non-pure African blood. I see this all of the time. So, I think your def. of the word is too restrictive. I mean can Egyptians immigrating to America call themsleves AA? I think they can. YOu call it splitting hairs. I call it a flaw in your argument. I think you are just angry because T H-K used this truth (she was born in Africa period - there is no getting around that) as a kind of charm in her speech. I seriously doubt she meant to say her people were enslaved, which is what they apparently would have to be under your def. of AA. I think she was trying to be charming and sweet. I think you are blowing this way out of proportion because you think T H-K is saying she is a descendant of slaves when she says she is an AA - I am arguing the term AA is not that restricitive beacause many people use it who do not fit that def. In any event, I know you will never admit your argument if flawed. So, I think this ought to be the end of this

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You would? I'm all for getting stuff cheap, but I wouldn't give a single nickel to that corporation.

We already had this argument awhile back. Again, I think all companies are flawed and all do horrible things. So, you gotta shop somewhere Again, this is academic for me because there is no Wal Mart anywhere in like a 20 mile radius of me and I have never really shop there. I am more of a boutique store person and I LOVE Mall air, esp. in Neimans!!!!

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I thought all nominees for President had to disclose theirholdings.

Says who?

Plus, I cannot believe you actually made this argument.

Why not?

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

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.

[strandinthewind]

If they do not have to disclose, then why do they do it. I think you are being purposefully antagonistic because if you are not, then you agree that Bush, Chaney, Kerry, and Edwards do not have to disclose. Do you believe that - note this is a yes no question

BTW - the Fedeal Elections Act requires such disclosure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...n-Campaign-Act

But, I think you still should anser my question because I want to see if you hold the R and D candidates to the same standard

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It is impossible to believe that if he is profiting from their malfeasance as we speak.

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Then again, this hero of American truth and justice also has no problem with taking assistence from the R's in this election. If that is not a hippocrite, then I do not know what one is.

It's "hypocrite." But that's beside the point. A hypocrite is a candidate who lambasts a sitting president of waging a war and then turns around and declares he would have done the same thing. That's a hypocrite.

Second, this campaign assistance crap is a non-issue. The Democrats have done the same thing when it benefits them. They did it with Goldwater. Was it OK then?

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

Ole Ralphie has no qualms about accepting that unsolicited help. He's accepting help from the very people he claims to despise.

And how, pray tell, should he "refuse" this unsolicited help? I'm all ears on this one.

I don't see the point because the only change people are dreaming of at this moment is getting rid of Bush, not changing the two-party system.

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

He said it, not me. We can spin it in either direction, but he's stated on numerous occasions that his candidacy will take votes away from Bush.

I know he said it, but that's not the point. I've already explained why.

They aren't the only ones entitled to get votes. What I'm trying to say, eloquently or not, is that his run is futile at this point and time. There's no purpose for it. I'd love to see the party system shaken up and have Greens and Indepependents made to feel welcome. But no matter how much the two of us want that to happen, it won't be happening this year and I suspect that Ralph's candidacy will only invite more scorn and a longer battle for ridding the country of a two-party system.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Nader asserts these companies make money via bad acts and corporate corruption - hence the term malfeasance. When these companies make money, their stock value rises and some pay dividends. Nader profits from these. Any questions?

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

It's "hypocrite." But that's beside the point. A hypocrite is a candidate who lambasts a sitting president of waging a war and then turns around and declares he would have done the same thing. That's a hypocrite.

Second, this campaign assistance crap is a non-issue. The Democrats have done the same thing when it benefits them. They did it with Goldwater. Was it OK then?

First of all I think all of us should watch it when correcting someone else's typos lest they do it to us Plus, I cannot spell, so sue me.

Ah the hypocrite to a varying degree of evil agument. WHen it sinks to this level it usually means the one asserting it is losing as you are in this argument. Yes, W is a hypocrite. But, that does not in any way negate Nader's hypocrisy does it.

As for the campaign assistance, I think it is wrong of Nader to say he is the champion of the people wanting to get rid of the status quo in Wash. and then play their game. At the least, he should at least have the sand to say it is going on and he see and recognizes that, which I have not heard the great orator and exposure of lies say If you can't see that (which I think you can but your heels are dug in ) - then this debate is pointless.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Nope, never will. Your argument is flawed because it rests on the premise that only people from Africa that were hauled over here on slave ships or similar acts can call themselves African Americans. I submit that is not so.

Never said it. That's your assumption. I suggest you re-read my very last post on this. I suspect you're misreading my posts again.

I mean can Egyptians immigrating to America call themsleves AA? I think they can. YOu call it splitting hairs. I call it a flaw in your argument.

You're the one going down the path of definition of who is and isn't. It is besides the point. Saying my argument is flawed betrays sheer ignorance of the cold reality of how European colonizers saw themselves and those they were exploiting. You can talk around it all you want, come up with millions of flawed analogies, but the fact remains the following is technically inaccurate:

I think you are just angry because T H-K used this truth (she was born in Africa period - there is no getting around that) as a kind of charm in her speech.

It is not a "truth." Portuguese people born in African from Portuguese parents during colonial times cannot truly be called Africans. You just don't know enough about the situation, which is why you're making this silly argument. Not everything around the world can be viewed through the lens of the North American experience. You would do well to understand that.

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion because you think T H-K is saying she is a descendant of slaves when she says she is an AA - I am arguing the term AA is not that restricitive beacause many people use it who do not fit that def. In any event, I know you will never admit your argument if flawed. So, I think this ought to be the end of this

And yet again. You think by repeating yourself your point gets clearer? No, you repeat yourself because you're on rhetorical thin ice and the repetition serves as self-reassurance that you have a point. But you don't. You're plain wrong here. I never said she was claiming she descended from slaves. For you to draw that conclusion is pretty goofy.

[strandinthewind]

So, only people actually from Africa who were not an accupying force can call themsleves AA? I submit that is not the way the term AA is used in practice. But, if you want to believe that, great.

BTW - it is a truth - I simply said T H-K was born there. That is the truth

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If they do not have to disclose, then why do they do it. I think you are being purposefully antagonistic because if you are not, then you agree that Bush, Chaney, Kerry, and Edwards do not have to disclose. Do you believe that - note this is a yes no question

BTW - the Fedeal Elections Act requires such disclosure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...n-Campaign-Act

But, I think you still should anser my question because I want to see if you hold the R and D candidates to the same standard

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