Kerry, a.k.a. Bush, supports faith-based initiatives - Page 18

gldstwmn · #**256** 08-16-2004, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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 · #**257** 08-16-2004, 11:05 AM

http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/08/fr...orge.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 · #**258** 08-16-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #**259** 08-16-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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 · #**260** 08-16-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Yes.

CarneVaca · #**261** 08-16-2004, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

CarneVaca · #**262** 08-16-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 · #**263** 08-16-2004, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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

Show me where I've been inconsistent.

strandinthewind · #**264** 08-16-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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

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.

dissention · #**265** 08-16-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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 · #**266** 08-16-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

We are all awaiting your response.

No, we are all awaiting his spin.

CarneVaca · #**267** 08-16-2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

So Nader has blasted the average American bloke for playing the stock market!?

Evidently I missed that.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #**268** 08-16-2004, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #**269** 08-16-2004, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Just Nader.

Never said it. Prove I did.

Quote:

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 · #**270** 08-16-2004, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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.