The green idea of problem solving…

[TLM]

How does a green prevent a person who has been shot from dying as a result of that gunshot wound?



Stab them.

[Iverson]

1. so tiresome

I cannot agree that demonizing people and groups is a good idea. You just legitmized Limbaugh by embracing those tactics.

[TLM]

4. Really, how do you figure this has anything to do with Rush?

Because we both mocked a group?

Well then that means that pretty much everybody is in that group, since most have made fun of one group or another... and since you just attacked that group as tiresome, then are you not also now a part of the group that attacks groups?

Seems you're attacking yourself in a round about way.

[Terwilliger]

17. You people call yourself a big tent

you're a close-minded group of partisans very similar to other partisans Ive seen roundabouts.

They believe they're right, too, ya know.

[TLM]

66. Heh... so someone who is willing to vote for any dem

In order to get Bush out, even someone with whom they might not agree on a lot of issues, is a closed minded partisan.

Yet someone who refuses to vote for anybody who is not 100% ideologically pure, even at the cost of putting Bush in office for 4 more years, is an open minded non-partisan?

Care to explain how that works?

[Nazgul35]

81. saying "you people"...

doesnt give you any awards for the open minded person of the year!!! You are painting with as broad a brush as TLM is...and you're both wrong...

[TLM]

83. Correction.... his brush is much broader than mine...

As the dems are a much larger and more diverse group than the greens.

My brush is only about 5% of the size of his brush.

[Terwilliger]

134. you try to paint Greens as irrelevant

then say they're a threat?

Your contradictory horseshit knows no bounds does it?

Go back to Al From and tell him you wqant to sign up.

[TLM]

141. Green are irrelevant in the sense that they are too small

of a group to reasonably expect the whole left to bend to their extremist view on things.

However they are quite relevant in being able to split the progressive vote by spewing the "there's no difference" crap and tossing close calls to the republicans.


Irrelevant as leaders... quite relevant as spoilers.

[Terwilliger]

157. what split?

you can never answer a question

[TLM]

162. 100,000 vs 500

that split.


Unless you're claim is that those 100,000 voters in FLA that voted nader were Bush voters.

[Terwilliger]

97. Ive been painted for 3 years

you painted me below

so..........

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. What an idiotic post

I have no understanding of why you would choose to look so foolish, starting a thread like this. Are you well?

Edited after I saw the Dean photo next to your name. I like Howard Dean, and I have no problem with Greens. Why can't you just live and let live? What are you trying to accomplish:
1) Changing the minds of Greens by chastising them or,
2) Causing fence-sitters to jump toward the Democrats instead of the Greens or,
3) Trying to be funny.

If it's any of these 3, I'd say the attempt is a miserable failure so far.

[TLM]

5. Check the latest breaking news froum... Ralphie is saying he'll run.

And greens are starting up their attacks again saying they'll vote for him again.

The point I'm making is that the green way of doing things doesn't make anything any better for anybody... save for republicans running for office.

[Terwilliger]

11. fine...go to another country where they don't have Democracy

you'll like it there, apparently

[liberalhistorian]

24. WE HARDLY HAVE DEMOCRACY HERE

ANYMORE EITHER, and 'ol self-serving Ralphie shares a lot more of the blame than he and his naive greens will EVER admit to!

[ulysses]

29. how is it

that Nader voters share so much blame for the Bush administration, yet get so little recognition in the fight to defeat it?

:mad:

[liberalhistorian]

33. Because they AREN'T fighting to defeat it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

All they're doing is bashing Dems instead of focusing on those who are doing the real damage and who are the real enemy, the repukes and the Bushista Cabal. And running Ralphie again sure ain't gonna help defeat Smirk, either!

[ulysses]

40. were you there

when I - and CatWoman and several hundred others - protested Bush's empty invasion of Iraq in Atlanta's toniest shopping district?

Were you there with me - and CatWoman and several hundred others - at the candlelight vigil in Decatur when the invasion started?

Were you there when CatWoman and I campaigned for Cynthia McKinney?

When I was calling my representative and senators about the war and about the Patriot Acts, were you calling yours?

I'm an unapologetic, two-time Nader voter and a lifelong liberal Democrat. Don't fucking tell me I'm not fighting to defeat the Bush administration.

[TLM]

62. How can you call yourself a democrat...

when you voted for Nader twice?

And here's a thought, maybe you wouldn't have to be protesting Bush's actions and trying to get the patriot act revoked, had Ralphie not worked so hard to get W in the white house in the first place.



Voting for Nader, then working hard to stop Bush... it is like shooting yourself in the foot, then working very hard to stop the bleeding.

[ulysses]

65. ...

How can you call yourself a democrat when you voted for Nader twice?

Quite easily. It's fact. I'm a Democrat who voted for Nader.

And here's a thought, maybe you wouldn't have to be protesting Bush's actions and trying to get the patriot act revoked, had Ralphie not worked so hard to get W in the white house in the first place.

Wank, wank, wank.

Voting for Nader, then working hard to stop Bush... it is like shooting yourself in the foot, then working very hard to stop the bleeding.

Whatever. Try to grasp this - my enemy isn't Bush per se, it's conservatism no matter the label in which it's wrapped. I voted for Clinton in '92, and saw welfare eviscerated for my pains. No. I could have voted for Gore, but I have a memory and I remember his reaction to Desert Storm. No. Want to save money in the budget? There's a WHOLE lot of pork in the defense money that you can cut without fucking the poor. Want to prove what a stud you are on foreign policy? Put a stop to the kind of idiocy that leads us to prop up dictators that we have to remove forcefully a decade or two later when they're no longer as pliable.

[TLM]

71. Seems your actions prove otherwise...

"Quite easily. It's fact. I'm a Democrat who voted for Nader."

Like saying you’re a lesbian who has sex with men. Seems a contradiction in terms.


And here's a thought, maybe you wouldn't have to be protesting Bush's actions and trying to get the patriot act revoked, had Ralphie not worked so hard to get W in the white house in the first place.

"Wank, wank, wank."


Ahh such a well-reasoned and sound rebuttal...


Voting for Nader, then working hard to stop Bush... it is like shooting yourself in the foot, then working very hard to stop the bleeding.

"Whatever. Try to grasp this - my enemy isn't Bush per se, it's conservatism no matter the label in which it's wrapped."

And voting for Nader hindered conservatism how exactly?


"I voted for Clinton in '92, and saw welfare eviscerated for my pains."

Ahh, and voting for Nader helped welfare how?


"No. I could have voted for Gore, but I have a memory and I remember his reaction to Desert Storm."


Oh and clearly voting for Nader has prevented any other unjust oil wars from taking place... good job.


"No. Want to save money in the budget? There's a WHOLE lot of pork in the defense money that you can cut without fucking the poor."


I see, and again voting for Nader has helped the poor how?


"Want to prove what a stud you are on foreign policy? Put a stop to the kind of idiocy that leads us to prop up dictators that we have to remove forcefully a decade or two later when they're no longer as pliable."

Ok and again voting for Nader accomplished this how?


Can you name one progressive issue that has gained ground because of a vote for Nader? Even one?

[ulysses]

77. oh yes, that makes sense

Like saying you’re a lesbian who has sex with men. Seems a contradiction in terms.

Being a Democrat is not the same as one's sexual orientation. Sorry, but I'm a liberal first.

Ahh such a well-reasoned and sound rebuttal...

No less so than the idea that Nader tried to elect Bush.

And voting for Nader hindered conservatism how exactly?


By sending a message to the DLC. Don't blame me if they were deaf to it.

Ahh, and voting for Nader helped welfare how?

Voting for Gore would have helped welfare how?

Oh and clearly voting for Nader has prevented any other unjust oil wars from taking place... good job.

Again, I was supposed to vote for Gore and congratulate myself on what in this regard? Bill Clinton stopped the bombing of Iraq when?

I see, and again voting for Nader has helped the poor how?

Voting for Gore and a DLC agenda would have helped the poor how? Are you seeing a trend here?

Ok and again voting for Nader accomplished this how?

See above.

Can you name one progressive issue that has gained ground because of a vote for Nader? Even one?

Getting rid of the fucking DLC. There's one.

[TLM]

80. A lot more sense than putting Bush in office to "send a message"

Like saying you’re a lesbian who has sex with men. Seems a contradiction in terms.

"Being a Democrat is not the same as one's sexual orientation. Sorry, but I'm a liberal first."

A liberal who would rather have Bush in office for 4 more years, than vote for a democrat.


Ahh such a well-reasoned and sound rebuttal...

"No less so than the idea that Nader tried to elect Bush."

Um, you admit in the next line that this is exactly what Nader did...


And voting for Nader hindered conservatism how exactly?


"By sending a message to the DLC. Don't blame me if they were deaf to it."

That message being do what we want or we'll elect Bush... and greens did just that. Yet instead of moving the Dems to the left, you succeeded only in allowing Bush to trash all the goals and ideals you claim to care about. And now the greens are setting up to do it again.

Great job.


Ahh, and voting for Nader helped welfare how?

"Voting for Gore would have helped welfare how?"

Thanks to the greens, we'll never know. Though I think it is safe to assume Gore would be more open to fixing problems in welfare than Bush.


Oh and clearly voting for Nader has prevented any other unjust oil wars from taking place... good job.

"Again, I was supposed to vote for Gore and congratulate myself on what in this regard?"

Really there would have been no congratulations, since the war would never have taken place... 10,000 Iraqi civilians would be alive, along with over 200 of our soldiers. But hey... greens hate the status quo so much that they had to vote against the status quo. And boy they sure got exactly what they voted for…a giant change in the status quo.

"Bill Clinton stopped the bombing of Iraq when?"

When was it that Clinton invaded and took over Iraq to steal their oil? I only seem to remember him bombing some weapons sites in Iraq in the no fly zone.


I see, and again voting for Nader has helped the poor how?

"Voting for Gore and a DLC agenda would have helped the poor how?

Well first by not making 2 million MORE of them. Second by not creating a huge deficit with tax cuts for the rich, which cause social programs to be defunded. Third by not bankrupting our states. Fourth by not allowing Enron to rape California. Fifth by not cutting 25 billion out of vet benefits. Seventh by not ignoring intl reports on pending attacks by OBL.

Oh but Gore and Bush are no different right, so Gore clearly would have done all that stuff too, right?

"Are you seeing a trend here?"

Yeah, you can't answer the pointed question regarding the fact that voting for Nader did nothing but harm progressive goals. Because if you did, you might have to admit that doing it again would be a bad idea that had the same fucking result.



Can you name one progressive issue that has gained ground because of a vote for Nader? Even one?

"Getting rid of the fucking DLC. There's one."

Funny I thought the DLC was still around and still quite powerful. In fact I think that sending money to Dean did more to hurt the DLC than anything the Ralph has ever done. Because Dean challenged the DLC from within the party, not as a spoiler.

[ulysses]

96. ...

A liberal who would rather have Bush in office for 4 more years, than vote for a democrat.

Huh?

You: Um, you admit in the next line that this is exactly what Nader did...

Me: "By sending a message to the DLC. Don't blame me if they were deaf to it."

Well, no. I was talking about what I meant to do. I'm not Nader. Do you often have trouble making distinctions between people?

That message being do what we want or we'll elect Bush

Nope. The "pure" theory of Nader voters has been disproven any number of times - you'll notice that more than a few of us support Dean. Oh, the humanity.

Thanks to the greens, we'll never know.

Given Gore's tacit acceptance of the 1996 welfare "reform" bill, we can make a pretty educated guess.

Really there would have been no congratulations, since the war would never have taken place

The war never ended.

10,000 Iraqi civilians would be alive

All of them?

When was it that Clinton invaded and took over Iraq to steal their oil? I only seem to remember him bombing some weapons sites in Iraq in the no fly zone.

Bill Clinton stopped the bombing of Iraq when?

Well first by not making 2 million MORE of them. Second by not creating a huge deficit with tax cuts for the rich, which cause social programs to be defunded. Third by not bankrupting our states. Fourth by not allowing Enron to rape California. Fifth by not cutting 25 billion out of vet benefits. Seventh by not ignoring intl reports on pending attacks by OBL.

Your inability to accurately count to ten aside, you damn pliable elected Dems nationally, and in California re: Enron, with this. The Dems aren't in power? Cry me a goddamned river.

Oh but Gore and Bush are no different right, so Gore clearly would have done all that stuff too, right?

Much as I've never actually believed that there was no difference between the two, you're making a heroic effort at convincing me.

Yeah, you can't answer the pointed question regarding the fact that voting for Nader did nothing but harm progressive goals.

Your questions start from the same assumption. I'm sorry that I'm not stupid.

Funny I thought the DLC was still around and still quite powerful.

As I say, don't blame me if they were deaf to the message. Still, you might note a few chinks in the third-way armor these days.

In fact I think that sending money to Dean did more to hurt the DLC than anything the Ralph has ever done. Because Dean challenged the DLC from within the party, not as a spoiler.

I'm currently supporting Dean. Evil Satan that I am.

[TLM]

106. Well then obviously you've come to your senses... good for you.

"I'm currently supporting Dean. Evil Satan that I am."

Great... now maybe you'll actually be able to make a difference within the party and see some progress on issues you care about.

[ulysses]

109. spare me the condescension

The goal remains the same. Especially given the latest revelations on Lieberman, I certainly haven't ruled out another vote for Nader if it comes to that. I expect to spend the next while defending the right of those here who choose to vote for Nader to do so anyway.

[TLM]

114. Once again nobody says you do not have the right to vote Nader.

Just that doing so helps bush and hurts progressive goals.

You have the right to vote for Bush if you want as well... doesn't change the fact it is a stupid self-destructive idea.

[ulysses]

142. believe as you wish

My point remains that, unless we start holding Democratic candidates to *some* kind of standard, unless we start changing minds instead of simply accepting that so many people have bought the right wing line, we're going to continue to slip toward the kind of world the idea of which makes conservatives wake up in the morning with sticky shorts.

[TLM]

145. I agree and that's why I support Dean.

He wants to do this, but from within the party.

The democratic party does need reform for sure, but doing it at the cost of putting republicans in office is too high a price as Bush has shown. Progressive reform from within is the way to go.

I do not beleive Nader wnats to reform the democratic party... he wants to end the party and replace it.

[Allah Akbar]

179. Slight correction

Helps Bush and doesn't help or hurt proegressive goals either one, since the only one that puts forth Progressive goals is Kucinich and no one wnats to support him except for a few of us die-hard old Democrats.

Back from when they were the party of the little guy I mean, not the current second string of the Republican party.

[IranianDemocrat]

92. What a great way not to get elected...

Campaign on cutting defense spending.

[Terwilliger]

95. what a way to be a liberal

MORE WAR! MORE WAR! GOTTA CRUSH THEM EYE-RAINIANS!

[IranianDemocrat]

104. I'm not saying thats what I believe!

I'm just saying I think that the american sheeple don't understand that cutting some defense budget doesn't mean that we suddenly have a horrible military.

[Terwilliger]

117. I agree with that

but effective communication of intent would go a long way to helping dispel that notion

Saying such and such, and veterans, and so and so...I mean, Dems will never do anything while they equivocate so much

[ulysses]

102. ok, then

Let's try a hypothetical. Say I get elected by campaigning for a greater Pentagon budget and a slashed domestic budget, and never, ever, challenge the ballooning cost of supporting the national defense industry. My successors, following the "path to success", do the same.

How soon, exactly, do we reach the conservative Nirvana of a nation with a bloated military and exactly zero social services?

edit: successors, not predecessors. :dunce:

[IranianDemocrat]

105. I am FOR cutting some defense spending.

But I don't know if the American sheeple are.

[ulysses]

110. and they won't be

if we NEVER, EVER TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

[buddhamama]

68. blaming and wasting precious energy on the 5%

while there are millions of non-voters out there is like pathetic an lazy.

[TLM]

73. Hiding behind non-voters...

to avoid taking responsibility for splitting the left and helping Bush into office to teach the democrats a lesson about being too far to the right, is dishonest and cowardly.

[buddhamama]

75. oh man of...

deflection/projection how you fool no one with your tongue

i split the left? ALL Hail the Power of ME.

your posts are almost as funny as they are well... :kiss: thanks for the laughs

[TLM]

82. Ahhh so now Nader voters did not spilt the left?

How is that? First you claim you'll do it to send a message to the dems... then you do it... then you say you did not do it when you are blamed for doing it.

If you are so ashamed about helping Bush into office that you'd deny Nader saying that is exactly what he wanted to accomplish to send a message to the dems, why are you thinking about doing it again?

[Terwilliger]

85. The DLC split the left

they thought a "third way" was the answer, but then that makes THEM the third-party, doesn't it?

[buddhamama]

87. i didn't claim anything of the sort

i never said i did it to send anyone a message.

show me where i said that.

you can blame me all you want.

and you will

but you know what-- i voted for the party that best represented me.
not Nader,the party. btw, in 2000 i was registered independent
so don't talk to me about being loyal to the DEM party because i wasn't one. the DEMs lost me way before then.

and where did i say i was voting green again?
i'm supporting Kucinich

blah blah blah blah

bye bye

[TLM]

90. It is not about party loyalty...

It is about voting to make progress on the goals the left claims to value. If you voted for Nader the only thing you made progress on was geting bush in offce.

I think of Nader voters as I think of Republican voters, because their votes accomplished the same thing... to hurt progressive goals.

[Terwilliger]

91. more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader

your arguments are specious

[TLM]

99. Yawn... same old cowardly dodges

Greens wanted to send a message to the dems by putting Bush in office, and once they did all they wanted to do was hide from any responsibility for what they did.

And tell me if the greens do it again and Bush is in for 4 more years, will you again deny any responsaibility? Oh what am I asking of course you will... this is a party that was going to run against Wellstone because he wasn't progressive enough.

[Terwilliger]

118. your tired rantings

dispelled

http://prorev.com/greenpages.htm#2004

This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.

OnEdit: added emphasis

[TLM]

143. You can argue about Nader being meaningless...

However it will not change the simple fact that there were over 100,000 votes for Nader in FLA vs a 500 vote difference between Gore and Bush.

Even if only 1% of Nader voters went for Gore it would have made the difference.

But maybe you're right, maybe those Nader voters would have voted for Bush if Nader dropped out, given how badly they wanted to destroy the democratic party.

[Terwilliger]

151. you sound very familiar

could you address anything in the above article? or is hate-filled rhetoric all you have?

[TLM]

161. What do you want me to address?

The fact that after Nader spewing "they are just the same" for months, some dems voted for the guy claiming to be a compassionate conservative?


How does that change teh fact that 1% of the number of folks who voted Nader would have made the difference in FLA had they voted GOre?

[Terwilliger]

164. Address what was stated in the article

[TLM]

170. I just did.

I pointed out that it doesn't make any difference to the real numbers 100,000 vs 500.

Polling percentages through the campaign that shifted here or there, do not change the end numbers. They do not change the fact that even Mike Moore bailed on Nader in FLA in the last days and was telling folks to vote for Gore.

Yet Nader still insited on pushing the "they are just the same" crap.

[buddhamama]

101. doh. now why did you have to go and make a point like that for

i've seen this happen before

first they sputter then cough then if you're lucky you'll get to see their heads spin round and round :crazy:

you might wanna consider stepping back from your monitor.

just a concerned tip.

[buddhamama]

98. nice way to circle the argument

and avoid

but seriously, last time

bye bye

[TLM]

57. I never said that people should not be allowed to vote Green.

Just that it is fucking stupid and self-defeating to do so.

So don't act like I'm attacking democracy, to try and dodge the fact that what I am attacking is a foolish course of action that serves only to put republicans in the white house.

[Terwilliger]

60. I know

Ralph Nader and the Greens are responsible for the problems of the Democratic party...I know...

[TLM]

63. Are you unwilling or simply unable

to respond to what I've said.

I never said Greens are responsable for the problems in the democratic party.



What I said was that voting green is a foolish course of action that puts republicans in office, and does NOTHING to advance progressive issues.


But I guess since that fact is too hard to deal with, you have to make crap up that I never said about attacking democracy and greens being to blame for problems in the democratic party.

Bet you'll accuse me of hating america next too?

[Terwilliger]

70. I did respond

you dont own my vote

the idea that democratic discussion is not helping the progressive cause is laughable

the idea that voting Democrat is helping the progressive cause is equally laughable

The fact is, if everybody voted Green, we could bypass your concerns.

Now, address my concerns. When are "progressive" and "democrat" going to be synonomous again? By voting in the same tired system that resulted in where we are now?

[TLM]

78. Once again, I didn't say you did not respond...

...simply that what you responded with had nothing to do with what i actually wrote.

"you dont own my vote"

I never claimed to own your vote... you're perfectly within your rights to vote in a way that helps to elect republicans. You can even cut right to the chase and vote for Bush if you want to help him that much.

Stop trying to claim that I'm attacking democracy or your right to vote simply because I'm pointing out that voting for Nader is stupid, destructive, and does nothing to advance progressive goals.


"the idea that democratic discussion is not helping the progressive cause is laughable"

It also IS NOT what I said. Why can’t you respond to what I said, instead of making shit up I did not say. Discussion is great... it is that voting for Nader that helps elect republicans thereby hurting progressive causes.


"the idea that voting Democrat is helping the progressive cause is equally laughable"

Hardly, since progressive issues make progress under democrats that they do not make under republicans. And NO progress has ever been made on any progressive issues as a result of voting for Ralph Nader.

Are you really so intellectually dishonest and desperate to rationalize supporting republicans by voting green that you'd ignore the fact that progressive issues always do better under Democrats than republicans?


"The fact is, if everybody voted Green, we could bypass your concerns. "

And the reality is that everybody doesn't agree with the greens... in fact the vast majority of the left doesn't even agree with the greens. So to act like everybody should just vote green is laughable.


"Now, address my concerns. When are "progressive" and "democrat" going to be synonomous again?"

I suspect when spoiled instant gratification greens figure out that you can't go from point A to point Z in one election cycle, and then get this idea out of their heads that if some candidate is not 100% as ideologically aligned with them, that they are just as bad as the candidate who is 100% ideologically OPPSOSED to them.

The far left seems to have forgotten the key to being progressive is MAKING PROGRESS!

"By voting in the same tired system that resulted in where we are now?"

Where we are now... you mean voting rights for women and blacks, affirmative action, legal abortion, gay rights, hate crime laws... etc. Seems to me we've come pretty damn far by taking small progressive steps over time and making progressive compromises.

Greens seem much too shortsighted to comprehend the idea of a net progressive gain vs a net loss. Under dems we have a net gain, under republicans a net loss.

Do you really honestly believe Gore would have done as much to set back progressive goals as Bush has done and continues to do, simply because Gore was not as progressive on as many issues as you'd like?

[Forkboy]

79. You might want to read my earlier post TLM

before continuing this silliness.This argument is fruitless for both sides.

[TLM]

84. Forkboy, I disagree...

I notice the number of greens who will maintain this hatred from dems is getting smaller and smaller.

It seems that many have figured out that voting for someone who supports only 50% of your agenda is better than voting for Ralph and getting someone who opposes 100% of your agenda.

[Forkboy]

139. Well,let me ask you

Greens seem much too shortsighted to comprehend the idea of a net progressive gain vs a net loss.

In my earlier post I asked you if you pissing on the 3 Greens who were ready to vote for Dean was the right thing.Would you consider the way you are acting,which may be alienating the very people who will vote for your guy (and mine so far),to be shortsighted? What "net progressive gain" do you hope to achieve by telling childish jokes about people who could (and want to,I might add) help you?

[TLM]

146. I do not think you understand what i mean...

When I say greens I'm not talking about people who have decided to vote Dem. Those folks who figured out voting for Ralph isn't going to fix anything are not who i am talking about.

They've clued into the whole net progressive gain idea.

I'm talking about the folks, like those posting in the news forum about Nader running, who say they'll support Nader AGAIN rather than vote for a Dem to get Bush out.

[Nazgul35]

86. learn the rules of the game for the country your in...

cause we dont have proportional voting here. Our electoral laws are such that voting for a third party only makes sense if 1) you see absolutely no difference between the 1st and 2nd parties' candidates positions, hence your only choice is in essence between two candidates or 2) the 2nd and third partie's candidates are statistically polling at the same percentage and it is unclear who to switch too using strategic voting....

I suggest a good book called "Making Votes Count" by Gary Cox...it explains why parties act the way they do and why citizens vote the way they do based upon the electoral laws in the country....

If you dont meet the two criteria stated above, then you probably dont understand how the system works...and you vote means absolutely nothing...might as well stay home on election day

[thermodynamic]

35. Yup, that 5% is so much more powerful than the man who can't even get 50%

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Get a candidate who'll convince the voters and shut the frick up about "Wah wah wah, that guy who can only get 5% of the voters is such a powerful influence."

Your priorities are skewed and warped if you choose to think that a mouse has more power; a mouse that can't even get a shred of cheese, let alone the whole 2 pound package... Sheesh.

[TLM]

64. Wow, could you try that again, in English this time?

First off why is it that Greens spent months talking about how they'd throw the election to republicans to teach the dems a lesson about not being left enough... then when they did just that, suddenly they do not want to take any responsibility for it?

It doesn't take more than a few percentage points to make the difference, and that's exactly what greens were counting on.

[RichM]

3. The Democrats' method of solving the same problem...

Run away & pretend they never saw it.

[Iverson]

6. don't respond in kind, RichM

It is graceless.

[TLM]

8. Ahh yes take the highroad....

because it is so much easier to throw insults at people when you can look down on them from way up there.

[Terwilliger]

20. ...

Isn't that in Tenneesee?

[Iverson]

22. no matter

This thread is dedicated to insult, not to meaningful dialogue. Your efforts to rehabilitate it will not succeed, so I encourage you to choose a more worthy one.

[liberalhistorian]

26. LOL!

eom

[TLM]

7. Nope, the dems would call an ambulance...

While the green would poo poo that as simply serving the evil corporate death industry and their status quo corporate control.

My point is that the green solution does nothing but make the real problem worse.


But feel free to show I’m wrong by pointing out one progressive issue that has gained ground and made progress thanks to a vote for Ralph in 2000.

[liberalhistorian]

9. I have to agree with TLM here,

the very thought of Nader running makes me physically ill. Do you oh-so-superior greens realize just what that will do? We have already suffered through 2 1/2 years of *'s presidential selection, he is the worst and most dangerous WH occupant we've ever endured as a nation, and I truly believe that if he is actually elected this time to wreak four more years of havoc, there is a very strong chance that we will simply not survive as a nation and the world itself will be even more of a dangerous tinderbox than it is now. And, being an amateur historian (my degree is in history, though I don't have a professional job in that field), I am not exactly known as a Chicken Little when it comes to these things.

The 2004 election is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL, it is the most critical election we will ever face as a nation. It is VITAL that ALL who oppose the Bushista Cabal unite and focus on ONE THING ONLY-RE-DEFEATING BUSH!!!!!! We MUST do this, or we will simply not survive as the nation we once knew. As a matter of fact, the nation we once knew almost doesn't exist anymore after 2 1/2 years of * and his merry band of criminals, thieves, and nazis. And Nader shares a lot of the blame for that, particularly for his campaigning in the swing states right before the election when even his own family and staff begged him NOT to do so! And why the hell does he have to always run for President? Why can't he feed his enormous, insatiable, self-serving ego by running for a lesser office, say senator or congressman? And why does he continue to insist on chanting that same old bullshit mantra that there's no difference between the parties? And why does he insist on always bashing Dems instead of the nazi repukes who are doing the REAL harm? And why is it that he's a lot cozier with the corporate world, through his investments and associations with Grover Norquist (who so desperately wants to privatize and, therefore, greatly endanger Social Security) than his supporters want to admit? His running has actually done tremendous damage to liberal, progressive, and even a lot of moderate causes, the environment alone has suffered horrendous setbacks and damage the likes of which hasn't ever been seen!

So, I'm sorry, but the poster has a tremendously valid point, because that's exactly what the greens will be doing if selfish short-sighted egotistical self-serving Ralphie runs again, and that is treating a person with a gunshot by stabbing them!!!!!!!!!

GO THE GODDAMNED HELL AWAY RALPH! JUST SHUT UP, SIT DOWN AND GO THE GODDAMNED HELL AWAY! WE DON'T NEED YOUR "HELP" ANYMORE!!!!!!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

30. Oh, but I already AM in hell, I'm afraid.

I'm living in *'s America with the all-too-real possiblity of suffering through another term, if we even make it that long.

[Terwilliger]

36. I'm really afraid too

afriad that some of you dont realize just how complicitous the Democrats are for our current problems, and setting up the straw-man of "just get a Dem back in the white house! just get a Dem back in the white house!!" will only set us all up for a harder, further fall.

[TLM]

94. ANd you really buy that crap?

That a dem would be just as bad as Bush... so why not just leave Bush in there?

[Terwilliger]

126. you read right over what I say and Im supposed to listen to you?

the fucking democratic party has lost both houses of congress and the presidency in recent years...why are you so dense?

[TLM]

147. You did not answer the question...

"democratic party has lost both houses of congress and the presidency in recent years"

Would those be the years the Dems had to run against republicans AND greens?

You attack people for voting dem, then you attack dems for not winning?

Now back to my question... do you really buy that crap that a dem is just as bad as a republican so why not let republicans win?

[Allah Akbar]

180. Yes, it is bad today

but it wasn't a walk through a garden for average people for 30 years now.

I have held my nose and pulled the Dem lever for going on 25 years. At this point I can't see it any more of a waste in voting for Mickey Mouse than it would be for a Nader.

Unless I could vote for Kucinich. Oddly enough, I saw Ralph say he may not run if the Democrats put up a REAL candidate like Kucinich. If they don't, then he will give us a choice between Repuke and Repuke-Lite.

[TLM]

88. It is a democracy... and you're free to support Bush.

By voting for Ralph Nader. Nobody says you should be allowed to make the choice to vote for Nader.


We're just saying it is a stupid fucking shortsighted spoiled self-destructive idiotic thing to do that will serve only to keep Bush in office and further destroy progressive goals.

If that's what you WANT to do, you have the right to vote to that end.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

108. I'm quite progressive...

As my votes and actions have actually HELPED progressive goals, rather than hindering them. But then that's because I understand the idea of progressive compromise and net progress over time. I do not insist on an all or nothing philosophy that gets me NOTHING every damn time. I understand that a candidate who only supports 50% of my goals is better than one who actively opposes 100% of my goals.

And lucky for the nation, more and more greens seem to be figuring this out as well.

[Trek234]

74. Why even worry about the Greens?

Although I like the Greens personally, is it not likely the democrats will totally floor Bush regardless? Seriously - does Bush have a chance in hell of taking even 40% of the vote? He barely did it last time - what makes you think after all his screw ups he'll do any place near as well?

[Terwilliger]

10. that makes LESS than no sense

and coming from me, thats quite a damning statement

[liberalhistorian]

13. Put it this way:

The country has suffered an extremely serious, and potentially fatal, gunshot wound and there isn't much time left to heal it, and what do the greens want to do? Stab it in the back by running 'ol Ralphie again, instead of working together with those who can heal the country, And that's exactly what they would be doing, stabbing the country in the back!

[Terwilliger]

15. put is this way

that's garbage...if america was so mortally wounded, Dems wouldnt have ceded a stolen election, they wouldn't have voted for the Patriot act, they wouldnt have allowed Bush his own illegal war.

Maybe its Democrats who are stabbing the country after they shot it...ever think of that?

[liberalhistorian]

23. Oh, I see, I get it now!

NOTHING is the fault of the nazi repuke Bushista Cabal juggernaut that rigged the Florida election and got themselves appointed by the Supreme Court and has ripped through the country ever since, destroying everything in its path like nothing that's ever been seen before in this country and actually blinding most Americans to what they're really doing and getting Americans to brand anyone who disagrees with them as "unpatriotic" or "un-American" or "treasonous", including a disabled Vietnam veteran serving as a senator (Max Cleland). EVERYTHING is actually the fault of the Dems, and his Imperial Majesty the Boy King is totally innocent! Praise be to the Lord, mine eyes hath been opened and I Can See Clearly Now the Rain is Gone!!!!!!

[Terwilliger]

38. come on,

Im not praising Bush...end that shit, would ya?

[TLM]

111. Sure you are... Blame the dems...

then work hard to split the vote and get Bush in there again.

Dems take all the blame for not being apt enough to to stop the damage that Bush is doing. Nevermind the Greens who worked so hard to get Bush in the white house in the first place so they could teach the dems a lesson about being too conseravtive.

Nope it is all the dems fault.

I think you hate the dems as much, if not more, than the average freeper repuke. Are you sure you're on the right site?

[Terwilliger]

127. split what?

what split are you talking about?

People keep telling me that more people voted for Gore than voted for any Democrat in the 20th century...

WHO THE FUCK SPLIT ANYTHING?!

[TLM]

148. Oh ok you're right... Greens are meaningless.

They make no difference and have no effect at all.

If fact, there's no reason to talk to them since they clearly do not matter one bit according to you.

So bu bye.
:hi:

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

14. by the way, who shot the dying person?

So, the dying person is America and it was shot by the Repukes? Was that when Democrats conceded the 2000 sElection?

[liberalhistorian]

16. The Dems didn't "concede"

anything, the felonious five on the Supreme Court decided the election for them and for everyone else! THEY are the ones, along with the Bushista Cabal, that shot the nation! Why is that so hard for people like you to understand, that the NAZI REPUKES are the enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Terwilliger]

19. But Kerry said "Get over it"

So he doesnt feel like you do.

Also, there is not ONE Democrat in this country that will call a Republican a Nazi. Until they do, your blather sounds like so much partisan hatred. Going to win an election like that? Ya think?

[liberalhistorian]

28. And that is one of the reasons why I am not,

and never will be, a Kerry supporter.

[Terwilliger]

39. but he's Democrat

and you HAVE to vote for him if he wins the primary, right?

PERIOD! is what you people keep telling me.

I'll tell you what I've told others: MY VOTE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEMOCRATS! Make me WANT to vote for Dems, NOT because the other guty is bad.

[TLM]

113. I will vote for Kerry even though i do not like him.

If he wins the primary I will vote for him.

Because I am not so arrogant, ignorant, and self-centered as to place my self-important feeling of moral superiority over the good of the country.

Getting Bush out is more important that whatever disagreements I might have with Kerry on some issues. He's far from being perfect, but he is infinitely further from being Bush.

And again... nobody owns you're vote. You are free to support Bush or Nader if destroying the democratic party is more important to you than saving the country from a monster.

Given the 10,000 dead Iraqis, 200+ dead US soldiers, millions out of work, 400 billion deficit, bankrupted states, and soon to be defunded social programs... your moral superiority sure came at one hell of a high price didn't it?

[Terwilliger]

133. WHO PUT BUSH IN OFFICE??? THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!

If he stole the FUCKING election, then the Democrats are traitors. Period. Whats so hard to understand about that?

[TLM]

149. What is hard to understand ... is why you are defending Bush.

"If he stole the FUCKING election, then the Democrats are traitors. Period. Whats so hard to understand about that?"

So don't blame the thief, blame the victim who wasn't able to stop the thief... and his little green helper.

Do you really honestly believe that if Nader hadn't run and hadn't pushed his "there's no difference" crap Gore wouldn't be sitting in the White House right now?

Greens made Gore fight a campaign on two fronts. Yet you still want to attack him and the democrats for not being able to fight both the greens and the republicans at the same time.

[Terwilliger]

155. You keep saying that Nader and the Greens are irrelevant

yet THEY are the ones responsible for 2000

absolute contradiction

[TLM]

163. Not at all... I already answered this...

Irrelevant as leaders... quite relevant as spoilers.

[Terwilliger]

165. only because you say so

not because there are any facts that support your claim

[TLM]

173. There are fact that support my claims...

Irrelevant as leaders... 3% nationally.

Relevant as spoilers... 100,000 votes in FLA vs a 500 vote difference between Gore and Bush.

[TLM]

112. Because apparently, they have the same exact goal in mind...

the destruction of the democratic party. What greens and republicans want more than anything.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TLM]

177. Nader wants to destroy the democratic party.. he said so himself.

Here is a link now kindly retract your personal attack on me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,393674,00.html

Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. "When lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters," Nader told an audience in Madison, Wisconsin, a few months ago, according to a story in the Nation. "We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."

That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party". Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California. "I hate to use military analogies," Nader said, "but this is war on the two parties."

[KG]

31. the wound was self inflicted.

the nader-haters can scream thier fool heads off all they want, but clintons dalliance with monica cost al gore a walk-off homer in 2000.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Is this your idea of problem solving?

Just asking.

[ulysses]

21. not to answer for TLM

but has the Naderhater idea of problem solving ever been anything but?

Here we go again, kids, live on DU this time. Save your strength - if Nader does run, this will be long-lived.

[Terwilliger]

41. I'll probably leave DU at that point

I wouldn't want to hate Democrats being one myself

[ulysses]

43. Robbie, my friend,

after all the noise I made in chat last October, I'll only say that you'll be missed deeply if you do leave.

[KG]

44. oh, heck, i wanna watch.

i used to get digusted, now i just am amused.

[ulysses]

45. heh!

"I'm not proud...or tired..."

:D

[buddhamama]

51. me too. pass the popcorn

:hi:

[Terwilliger]

53. awwwwwwwwwwwwww

gimme some sugar! :*

Don't tell Midori! ;-)

[ulysses]

55. oh please

I'm just trying to maintain our legendary leftist chokehold on DU. :D

[Terwilliger]

59. oh! *hrrmph* hrm* *tongue out of ear* ok...

;-)

[buddhamama]

61. you guys have given me a great idea

selling tickets to the MDP

think of it

the passion the drama the insults the laughs the tears--as good as any movie

ok,ok, terwilliger i wouldn't want you to leave DU.

[Terwilliger]

72. you too, buddh!

:*

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Nader will run again. From and Reed have made their choice clear

The Democratic primaries are doomed to be a bloodbath.

[KG]

54. not a bloodbath, teena

they will run liebermann, and the loyalists will be shocked, SHOCKED, when a real liberal/progressive runs as a 3rd party candidate and draws alot of support.

but this should not be a problem, cause the DLC is only looking for the votes in the squishy center.

they have little use for the votes of the 'activist elite'. :eyes:

[TLM]

168. And then the far left will teach the DLC a lesson...

THe greens will show the DLC they can't elect a conservatives, by voting for a 3rd party and helping elect Bush again.

HA HA! That will teach the DLC... because we know how much they'd hate it if there was a conservative president.


And you thik dems are the ones locked into a losing philosophy because we might get someone like Lieberman instead of Bush?

Lieberman is 100 times better than Bush… but with the Nader plan, you get Bush. So who is being duped into supporting a conservative agenda?

[indigo32]

135. High Five!

ya know I was just going to write a post expressing my concern over getting Bush out of the white house, just over the judiciary alone. But then I come down here, Nader has apparently decided to run, and all hells broke loose.
This just isn't the way to solve our problems.

[KG]

25. how profound.

:eyes:

[SOteric]

27. Forgive my stupidity...

I'm failing to see how this contributes to the advancement of goals for the Democratic Party.

I'm failing to see how this contributes to unity amoung liberals.

I'm failing to see how this favourably impacts discussion.

I'm failing to see how this promotes a liberal and progressive victory over a well-organised and ruthless conservative opponent.

I'm failing to see so very much in your post that I fear I must be unusually blind and remarkably stupid.

[ulysses]

32. welcome to the glories

of the Massive Disciplinary Project.

[SOteric]

46. Oh...?

:spank:






There. Most folks into pain, humiliation and discipline should have found something in all this to amuse themselves.

Might we be moving along now?

[ulysses]

49. a white russian causes a lot of pain

on its way out the nose. FYI. :D

Might we be moving along now?

Would that it were so.

[Terwilliger]

58. that must be Ralph!

[thermodynamic]

34. Oh enough already

Your message is just trolling for trouble.

And user is what message does.

Why am I even bothering, you're not worth it.

Next time I'll hit the alert button.

[liberalhistorian]

37. That's right, hit the Alert button

on anyone who dares to have a different opinion than you!

[SOteric]

42. The original post in this thread

is not 'a differing opinion' it is a snide and disparaging statement about a liberal subgroup. No opinion, just a divisive, mean-spirited statement.

:hi: - Hope you're doing well, LH! Got your message in DU1.

[buddhamama]

48. or a different candidate than you

what's the difference.

silence everyone.

i'm gonna' start my own party,maybe
how's this sound
I believe in Democracy Vote for Me and only Me--ALL Hail Hypocracy

[TLM]

115. I would wonder about greens alerting on dems

for the dems making fun of the green agenda to destroy the dems.

Why are greens even here if they hate dems so much?

You don't see me on green underground ripping on greens.

[messiah]

47. A Typical Comical Nader/Green Bash Thread

:nuke::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::nuke:

[buddhamama]

50. they're a political party

what do you expect them to do

this is bigger than Ralph, they have supporters people who believe as i assume we all do in Democracy and the right to be represented.

just want to add a bit of info
Greens hold offices across the country
more so than Libertarians but i haven't heard a single person talk about denying their right to elect a candidate
or what about the Reform party...

edit to add missing words

[Terwilliger]

56. those Reformers came in handy in 92

oh I FORGOT! Perot didn't assure Clinton's win :eyes:

[RummyTheDummy]

123. Horseshit!!

Pure horseshit.

[Terwilliger]

132. hahah

you people are soooooo predictable

[Forkboy]

67. TLM

I know 5 Greens.Of those 3 are saying they will vote for Dean BEFORE they would vote for Nader.As a Dean supporter yourself,are you sure these are the people you want to piss on?

[buddhamama]

69. stop that

i might discover he has a rational side.

:hi:

[TLM]

116. They are not the people I am pissing on

I'm pissing on the ones who say Nader before any dem... the ones who want to destory the democratic party more than they want to get rid of Bush.

I have no problems with greens that have figured out they can accomplish reform from within the party, and get Bush out at the same time.

[Forkboy]

144. Your joke singles out no one

and makes no effort to differentiate between those you say you are pissing on and those you claim not to be.

Also,just because they are thinking of voting Dean doesn't mean they've suddenly been born again Dems.Many of their freinds,and mine,are still Green and don't agree with you,so by pissing on them you might as well be pissing on their friends.We can disagree without being a child,and your approach will only help to make the very goals you profess to care about that much harder to achieve.

[TLM]

150. You know what, you're right.

I'm behaving exactly like a green... hard to shake old habits I guess.

But I suppose I'm in a bad mood after seeing a thread in the news forum about Nader running and seeing people pop up to say they'd vote for him, again, even after seeing the trouble Bush has brought.

However by just attacking greens and not specifically pointing out I'm talking about Nader voters, I do risk offending those who still consider themselves green, even though they're voting dem. Then them I apologize, as it was never my intent to mock those who have clued into the fact that voting for Nader is a bad idea.

So in the future I'll make sure to preface my comments with more descriptive terminology like "those jackass Nader voters who want to destroy the democratic party."

[Forkboy]

160. I give up

have fun.

[Trek234]

76. Dems should just run a republican

Get a 3rd party setup... Hell maybe the libertarians. Get Bush supporters to vote for him. That would offset any votes "lost" potentially because of Nader.

[Sterling]

89. See I told you Dean could win

He unites the rabid Nader haters and the Greens. I voted for Ralph and if we gat another Republican dressed as a Democrat I will do it again.

Bitching at Greens on DU is stupid. The Dems backing a candidate who appeals to them makes sense.

GO Dean! or Go Green!

[TLM]

119. Heh good point!

I do have good reason to hate Nader, not simply the election. I was a green and I was a Nader supporter in 2000. I worked for him.

He is a total hypocrite douchbag who treats his employees like shit.



It was not Nader's message I disagreed with, but his methods... and the fact he lied to me about campaigning in swing states.

[Terwilliger]

121. hypocrite douchebag?

do we know you worked for Nader, or does someone who calls him "hypocrite douchebag" tend to lie to keep his hatred at fever pitch?

[TLM]

138. Yeah yeah yeah Ralph can do no wrong... he's like a god to some greens.

But what would you call a guy who stomps out a union among his own workers, who are working 40 and 50 hour weeks and yet always seems to take home about 50 bucks... while he runs around trying to present himself as the poster boy for labor rights and corporate reform, if not a hypocrite douche bag?

Hell I got treated better, and paid better, working for Pacific Movie Theaters than working for Ralph Nader.

I saw so many kids fucked over... idealistic kids who were used and toss off like trash. These kids would work getting donations for Nader, work hard. And these kids, 20 or 30 going out every day, would bring in hundreds of dollars a week, each. But it was set it up so you only got paid if you reached a donation quota, 80 bucks a day, and then you got paid a percentage of what you brought in over that quota amount. So kids could work a full week, bring in 400 bucks, and not get paid a fucking dime.

And since the areas where the kids worked on a given day were assigned, whenever kids would get close to, or hit their quota for the week, they'd immediately be moved to dead areas. Places where most of the people were at work or were very conservative etc. So NONE of the kids seemed to ever make much over quota, no matter how hard they worked.

One buddy of mine worked almost 50 hours one week, and brought in a little over 500 bucks. His take home pay, after taxes, about 35 bucks. See he made most of the 500 in the first two days of the week and was then moved to an area filled with mostly unoccupied apartments. After I asked around I found out several other guys had the same thing happen to them.


And if that wasn’t fucked up enough... I busted up my knee bad while doing this door to door begging for donations for this asshole, and you know what they told me when I limped back to the office that day and said I hurt myself on the job, and asked what I was supposed to do, what forms I needed to fill out etc?

You're Fired!

So I don’t really give a shit if you want to stick your head… in the sand, and act like Nader is the second coming. I know the truth from first hand experience that he’s nothing but a greedy opportunistic lying sack of shit as bad as any republican, if not worse.

[Terwilliger]

154. prove it

I dont think anything you've said merits any consideration...given your hate

[TLM]

172. And I don't think any amount of proof would shake

your sycophantic worship. So what's the point?

Telling a worshipful Nader voter that Nader is a lying ass is like trying to argue evolution with a creationist.

But here's a link or two just in case...

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/1288.html

Date: Wed Jun 14 11:39:15 2000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nader is a union buster


I read the reports about the UAW and Teamsters considering a vote for
Ralph Nader and interviews like Kuttner's and think - I must be living in never-never land.


Ralph Nader fired me and two other editors from Multinational Monitor in 1984 for trying to organize a union in our shop. You can look it up in the Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review and Labor Notes.


I was fired the day after we filed our union recognition papers with the NLRB; in the hours that followed, Nader 'transferred' ownership of MM to Essential Information run by John Richard (who would become his H.R. Haldeman if by some stretch Nader was ever elected prez) and let them do the dirty work, which included trying to get the cops to arrest me for allegedly 'stealing' my own files. Myself, my two fired colleagues and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies, our closest supporter, were then sued by Essential Information for trying to 'destroy their business,' a pure harassment tactic designed to make us shut up about what happened.


And now the guy has the balls to say his key campaign theme will be
reforming US labor laws so its easier for workers to form unions? Simply amazing for a man who has used those laws to prevent his own workers from organizing - and MM is not the only place he's done it.





http://resist.ca/story/2003/1/11/134058/749

David Sanford writes:


According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades--you can't have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, "if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day." Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.

Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. Not exactly a thread rating but a suggestion for a more useful activity

than reading this thread

[buddhamama]

103. i was afraid to leave this thread for lack of fun

but now...

[Terwilliger]

120. OMG

get with the 20th century nsma! ;-)

[JohnKleeb]

128. oh god

sorry found something better to do but just to let you all know I am on terwill and uly's side. The DLC is who split us up. Progressivism is what wins things McGovern didnt lose because of that.

[SOteric]

107. This continued bickering is absurd. Nader didn't put Bush in office.

The Supreme Court did; Jeb Bush and some poll-boosting thugs did; 20 years of conservative scheming and conspiracy did.

Would you like to know what's really dividing The Left right now, TLM?

You are. You and people like you who would rather ruminate their pain, their anger, -who would rather engage in so much pointless mental masturbation, -waiting for what exactly? And apology? A time-machine that'll give you a 'Do-Over?' A magic incantation that will make everyone in the Left-leaning voting U.S. public think with a hive-mind? What do you hope to gain by posting snide, baiting comments such as the initialisation of this thread?

We have no time for this.

A campaign season is upon us. Now. You have a choice to gnash your teeth, to wail, to piss-off everyone who voted for Nader and has now redirected their priorities to ending the totalitarian tone of the current administration.

Or you can find some way to work with the Greens and progressives and 'Democrats who may have voted for Nader in the past.'

That is your personal choice, confronting you in this campaign season. Now. Not tomorrow. Not in a few months. Now. It is every bit an echo of the Nader choice.

You become that which you so revile.

[TLM]

124. This is not about what was or what has happened...

as much as it is about what is happeneing again.


Ralphie is saying he'll run again... and some are already saying they'll vote for him again.


The point of dwelling on the past is to learn from it and to not make the same mistakes again. Many have learned, and some have not.

[Terwilliger]

131. I live in California

I'm not worried about state electoral votes going to Bush

[SOteric]

136. Bollocks.

You are here being snide, baiting and contentious (read your initial post for supporting example) with individuals who read Democratic Underground. These are people who are already open to the Democratic Party if not outright members in good standing.

You decry people who are open to and interested in the Democratic candidates, simply because they were interested in Nader in the past, - how do think that is helping the Democratic Party?

Do you truly believe sardonic, insulting, condescending and derogatory statements will cause someone who has voted for Nader in the past to look with favour upon the Democrats? Will calling you names cause you to look with favour on my opinions?

If you honestly believe that a vitriolic browbeating will change the minds of a progressive, any progressive, -shouldn't you be taking your screed to a Green-run forum and assaulting those who aren't already considering the Democratic ticket?

Instead, it seems you've choosen the more progressive members of a productive Democratic forum to vent your spleen with regard to your Daddy/Betrayal issues with Ralph Nader. You are sending a clear message: We don't want or need your vote.

I do not concur with your message.

I say it again: You become the thing you revile.

This IS about NOW. This is about you sending off a potential voter pool because you're too petty to put away your anger.

Because I am not; I shall hence remove myself from this thing no thinking person would call a debate.

[TLM]

140. Oh make no mistake about it...

some of those who voted green did so because they were fooled into buying the "there's no difference" garbage. Many have come to their senses, as I did in 2000, and seen this guy for the ego-driven liar he is.


"You decry people who are open to and interested in the Democratic candidates, simply because they were interested in Nader in the past"

No I decry people who are interested in Nader now and in this election and refuse to vote for Democrats because they are not idealogialy pure enough. I simply use the last election as an example of how stupid that course of action is.

[noiretextatique]

169. that's nonsense

someone even did a poll here. no one here who voted for nader did so because of the "no difference" rhetoric. no a single person.

[TLM]

178. Is it not fair to say that DUers

are more informed than the average voter?

[Cheswick2.0]

125. You are missing the point and making way to much of this

first of all Nader helped. His constant campaigning against Gore cost plenty.

2nd, there are a handful of Greens here who shit on the democrats 24/7. It becomes a bore and a half, but we all deal with it. For TLM to tell a joke, whether you like it or not, doesn't make him any of the things you claim.

If there is so little time, why are you spending it lecturing people like the post police?

[Terwilliger]

129. please quantify "plenty"

more people voted for Gore than in the history f pres races in the 20th century...dsc will tell you...

So what did Nader "cost" Gore?

[JohnKleeb]

130. yes you are right

Gore would had won with Nader if Bush hadnt stolen the damn thing Gore would be president.

[SOteric]

137. No, I do not miss the point.

The point is that those who rail against the Greens, Nader, the former Greens and the former Naderites are shaving off a potential voter pool.

Isn't that the very thing those same people complain of with regard to Nader?

There isn't time for the division TLM and his/her ilk are fomenting.

Do you suggest that I should just not care about the upcoming presidential campaign?

[Forkboy]

171. So if we post a Gore joke

you wont bitch,right Cheswick?

Somehow I suspect you'd be one of the first to scream about it.

[RummyTheDummy]

122. Truer words have never been written TLM.

This would be hilarious, a gut buster, if it weren't so dead on and frankly sad.
It's the old cut off your nose to spite your face do-da.

[TLM]

153. More like cut of your

Head to spite your body.


Cut off the nose just makes you ugly... the (jackass Nader voters who want to destroy the democratic party)* want this party dead.



*An effort not to offend those who still consider themselves green even though they're considering voting dem.

[jpgray]

156. Bad thread

You're hurting your avatar, like it or not. Take on the Greens if you want, but being insulting and negative doesn't help anything.

[Terwilliger]

159. as opposed to your crap

which addresses even less than TLM's hatred

[jpgray]

166. Which point do you dispute in my thread? Nader let me down

.

[Terwilliger]

167. Democrats let me down

anything else?

[pasadenademocrat]

175. you are always welcome at ...

WWW.GREENUNDERGROUND.COM

Just kidding:) :-)

[pasadenademocrat]

174. I have no problems with the Greens

Except in close elections.

The old saying is "don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good" Now, if Zell Miller is the democrat, by all means run against him, but to say Gore and Bush are the same is really ascinine. We would be in much better shape with President Gore, but because he wasn't Green orthodox, they had to throw the election.

[TLM]

176. I agree...

I was a green... it is not the ideas I disagree with, but the methods.

[Forkboy]

181. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

This is the whole point I'm trying to make in talking about you starting this thread.You say you're working for progressive goals,yet in your anger you're so chuffed to attack Greens that you forgetting that there a lot of Greens that are still undecided,and a lot them might very well decide to vote for Dean.You're being an ass to a whole group of people who might be a valuable asset,and that's just stupid.If we really need to get Bush out at all cost,how can you afford to do this?

If this is your idea of logic than I have to start checking your Dean facts even better....you may be basing that more on emotion as well.

Your seeming hatred for them,and your continued off hand remarks to amuse me ( *An effort not to offend those who still consider themselves green even though they're considering voting dem.--So in the future I'll make sure to preface my comments with more descriptive terminology like "those jackass Nader voters who want to destroy the democratic party." ) tell me you're not so much interested in your own stated goal of working for progressive values as you are in posting self-serving mastubatory anti-Nader stuff.