Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCongressional Backbone Needed
Congress needs to show some backbone before the federal government pours more money on the financial bonfire started by the arsonists on Wall Street.
1. Congress should hold a series of hearings and invite broad public comment on any proposed bailout. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of our federal government. It needs to stop the stampede to give Bush a $700 billion check. Public hearings should be held to determine what alternatives might exist to the four-page proposal advanced by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson.
2. Whatever is ultimately done, the bailout plan should not be insulated from judicial review. Remember there is a third co-equal branch of government - the judiciary. The judiciary does not need to review each buy-and-sell decision by the Treasury Department, but there should be some boundaries established to the Treasury Department's discretion, and judicial review is needed to ensure that unbridled discretion is not abused.
3. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. The bailout that is ultimately approved must provide for full and timely disclosure of all bailout details. This will discourage conflicts of interest and limit the potential of sweetheart deals.
4. Firms that accept government bailout monies must agree to disclose their transactions and be more honest in their accounting. They should agree to end off-the-books accounting maneuvers, for example.
5. Taxpayers must be protected by having a stake in any recovery. The bailout plan should provide opportunities for taxpayers to recoup funds that are made available to problem financial institutions or to benefit from the financial institutions' rising stock price and increased profitability after being bailed out.
6. The current so-called "regulators" cannot be trusted. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog," must regularly review the bailout. We cannot trust the financial "regulators," who allowed the slide into financial disaster, to manage the bailout without outside monitoring.
7. It is time to put the federal cop back on the financial services beat. Strong financial regulations and independent regulators are necessary to rebuild trust in our financial institutions and to prevent further squandering of our tax dollars. The Justice Department and the SEC also need to scrutinize the expanding mess with an eye to uncovering corporate crime and misdeeds. Major news outlets are reporting that the FBI is investigating American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers.
8. Cap executive compensation and stop giving the Wall Street gamblers golden parachutes. The CEOs who have created the financial disaster should not be allowed to leave with millions in hand when so many pensioners and small shareholders are seeing their investments evaporate. The taxpayers are bailing out Wall Street so that the financial system continues to function, not to further enrich the CEOs and executives who created this mess.
9. Congress should pass the Financial Consumers' Information and Representation Act, to permit citizens to form a federally-chartered nonprofit membership organization to strengthen consumer representation in government proceedings that concern the financial services industry. As the savings and loan disasters of the 1980s and the Wall Street debacles of the last few years have demonstrated, there is an overriding need for consumers and taxpayers to have the organized means to enhance their influence on financial issues.
10. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional banks from investment banks, helped pave the way for the current disaster. It is time to re-regulate the financial sector. The current crisis is also leading to even further conglomeration and concentration in the financial sector. We must revive and apply antitrust principles, so that banking consumers can benefit from competition and taxpayers are less vulnerable to too-big-to-fail institutions, merging with each other to further concentration.
11. Congress should impose a securities and derivatives speculation tax. A tax on financial trading would slow down the churning of stocks and financial instruments, and could raise substantial monies to pay for the bailout.
12. Regulators should impose greater margin requirements, making speculators use more of their own money and diminishing reckless casino capitalism.
Ask your representative a few questions: "What should be done to limit banking institutions from investing in high-risk activities? What should be done to ensure banks are meeting proper capital standards given the financial quicksand that has spread as a result of the former Senator Phil Gramm's deregulation efforts? And, "What is being done to protect small investors?"
P.S. Shareholders also have some work to do. They should have listened when Warren Buffett called securities derivatives a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction." The Wall Street crooks and unscrupulous speculators use and draining of "other people's money" out of pension funds and mutual funds should motivate painfully passive shareholders to organize to gain greater authority to control the companies they own. Where is the shareholder uprising?
123 Comments so far
Show AllDafoe
First the electorate have to show some backbone, congress has been spineless for decades and the white house inhabited by the sleazy and do they do anything? Nothing, doesn't that give one food for becoming cynical and pessimistic. The system of government is busted, sold to the highest bidders for it matters little who gets into office. Public outrage can't be too enormous, oh they are against putting themselves further in debt wonderfull, now get really mad about the civil rights that are eroding, can you see why one becomes a cynic about this nation etc. I hear all manner of bullshit on radio and TV about the same old brag about this country being great etc etc etc one gets cyncial from listening to the lies and from speakers who are our elected officials. To go from greatness to swamp of mendacity in two generations , sad.
I do have to ask - Why didn't Ralph run for, and hold, a congressional seat? He could have won a House seat and then gone on to be a U.S. Senator by now. Wouldn't that have been a better place from which to affect policy than his Quixotic runs at the White House?
Charlie Jackson
Texas
.
NEWSFLASH:
Ralph Nader will be on the Bill Maher show at 11pm Eastern / 8PM Pacific tonight.
.
Nader is one of the few people that I have both mixed feelings about and strong feelings about. I voted for him in 1996 and 2000 because he said over and over that he was running to build a viable Green Party. Now he's running against the Green Party. I am disgusted when people argue that he "caused" Bush to win (or worse, that the war in Iraq is his fault). It is not the case that my vote belonged to Gore and Nader took it. My vote belonged to me, and I gave it to Nader. If the Al Gore of today (or the Al Gore of 1988) had been running in 2000, I'd have voted for him.
Nader is admirable, even if he shows hypocrisy on many fronts- his investment portfolio is only one area. I'm not going to vote for him this time. If McCain wins power, we will attack Iran. Obama is willing to negotiate with Iran. Despite all the "Lesser Evil" rhetoric, that is a difference that could mean the lives of thousands of human beings. I plan to vote to keep McCain out of office, and I plan to continue activist work, but under a president that can be influenced by public pressure. If I lived in a swing state, I'd probably vote Green. Both Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have stated that Democrats are more likely to be influenced by public pressure, and that the small differences between Democrats and Republicans can lead to large outcomes. Perhaps some of the posters on this website should attack Zinn and Chomsky for being sell-outs, insufficiently radical, etc. etc. as much as they attack others who dare state similar opinions.
Anyways, here's a cool interview with Nader:
http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/ralph_nader
So your claim to lesserevilism is that you have to support the less evil to save lives.
So if you supported Clinton for similar reasons did you not feel like a frackin idiot after Rwanda, or maybe even the children here who were literally allowed to die of treatable health issues and or hunger because of Slick's welfare deform
You go that road if you choose, it's still America, barely.
Some will continue to fight for the values they believe in
While others will justify their capitulation to fearmongering and lesserevilism by offhandedly besmirching those who have the courage and convictions they themselves lack
LesserEvilisimisEvil;
Read the graceful last sentence of the post by seriousprofessor immediately below.
He exhorts us to be respectful and civil in our discourse.
Try it!
Your ENDLESSLY insulting posts denigrate CD and yourself.
People have the right to voice opinions here without being told by you they 'lack concictions' lack courage, are dumb etc.
You are really polluting a web-site I love with your personal ATTACKS. You are constantly trying to bully people. Just Stop.
AGAIN, READ SERIOUSPROFESSOR'S LAST SENTENCE IMMEDIATELY BELOW!
And have a good day.
I'm sorry.
Wasn't it on this same forum, under this article, several posts below, where I thoroughly exposed you as a liar. Yes, I believe it was right here on the posts under this article.
You didn't keep your slants in order, and I called you on it, pointed it out to you, WITH YOUR OWN WORDS
and now because you've been exposed as a non-truthful person, here comes what yours always do....BOO WHO HE CALLED ME A NAME. When you can't win, you cry.
I do believe that you need to do a re-read of our exchange below, and that maybe you should consider becoming a person of honor. I'm sorry you feel the need to blame me for out-debating you, using your own words to expose you as a liar.
I heard your advice. Now here's mine to you
Don't lie. You won't get caught mixing up your lies if you just don't lie.
"Perhaps some of the posters on this website should attack Zinn and Chomsky for being sell-outs, insufficiently radical, etc. etc. as much as they attack others who dare state similar opinions."
I think that you'll find that Zinn and Chomsky give reasons for what they argue, unaccompanied by phony umbrage, wishful thinking, arrogant presumption, partisan absolutism, false dichotomies, and various other bad argumentation that some discussants here employ to hector lefties into letting Dems have a proprietary claim on their votes.
It is always possible to disagree with dignity when your fellow discussant is rational and civil.
Americans, as a rule, are extremely cynical when it comes to political change. And there’s no reason for that. Lech Walesa and his comrades created a revolution in Poland -- peacefully, and with absolutely no democratic tools at their disposal -- NONE!
No free elections, no open courts, no access to media, no Bill of Rights, no history of free speech and freedom of assembly. Yet they brought the Soviet Union to its knees.
History is filled with similar examples. What democratic tools did Gandhi have at his disposal? India was a colony. What democratic mechanisms could Gandhi and his supporters utilize?
Yet, they were victorious. Why? Because the people who were with Gandhi were cynical and pessimistic? Because they lamely said: "Hey, we suffered a setback, so now let's all go back home and give up." ... Of course not.
Ask the people in Venezuela who they would rather have in charge of their country, John McCain or Barack Obama – or Hugo Chavez.
Ask the people in Bolivia who they would rather have in charge of their country, John McCain or Barack Obama – or Evo Morales.
How likely is it that Chavez and Morales would have come to power if the people of those countries were cynical and pessimistic about electing a progressive leader?
Yes, the political system in the United States has been corrupted. So what should we do, allow that to continue? ... Is that a done-deal? ... Of course not.
Cynicism and negativity give a great deal of comfort and satisfaction to the oligarchic-few. Cynicism and negativity are exactly what they hope for. THE CYNICISM AND NEGATIVITY OF THE GENERAL POPULATION ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE OLIGARCHIC FEW -- THEY CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT IT!
Those in power are greatly relieved, self-satisfied that Americans, for the most part, "give up" so easily. But there's nothing inevitable about that. All that's required is a change of attitude.
Look through these CommonDreams threads and notice the number of posters – highly- intelligent, highly-informed people – who, nevertheless, have cynically "given up"
-- who have nothing but negative things to say about the American public -- who are convinced that all is lost -- who are profoundly pessimistic about the possibility of meaningful change.
Every time I hear a cynical remark or read a cynical post, I hear in the background those in power whispering, "Mission Accomplished!"
Cynicism and negativity need not mean "giving up." I am quite cynical and negative, but I will continue to do the right thing, simply because it's the right thing to do. There's a Leonard Cohen lyric that goes, "but I'm stubborn as those garbage bags that time cannot decay."
Let us not delude ourselves that things are peachy keen or that revolution is just around the corner. That is the same error that the slavish Obama and McCain partisans make, just dressed a bit nicer. There's a mountain of work to do, and it may take longer than some of us will live.
Anyone who reads these CommonDreams posts knows that while there are many posters who are "on the left" politically, many left-of-center CD posters are decidedly cynically, decidedly pessimistic about what the average American can do to affect the political system.
But, once one gives up hope, once one become cynical and starts believing in T.I.N.A. -- that "There Is No Alternative" -- for example, that there is no alternative to the Democratic-Republican duopoly -- then one is doing exactly what those in power are hoping we will do. Give up. Conform. Accept the status quo.
That’s the ruling class' preoccupation -- to make you believe in T.I.N.A. -- to make you accept the lie that there is no alternative to the status quo and, therefore, nothing can or will be changed. … So why bother trying.
Except things are changing all the time! Look how quickly and dramatically the political consensus in the United States moved to the right. That didn't "just happen," did it?
The people in City Hall who are exploiting you love when you say: "You can’t fight City Hall." What could be more accommodating! What could be more enabling!
Those in power, in *any* oligarchic organization -- occupational, religious, governmental -- count on your cynicism and pessimism. They *COUNT* on it!
Because cynicism, negativity and pessimism lead to political apathy and political conformity; and when masses of people become apathetic, when masses of people conform, they are easily controlled, easily manipulated and easily exploited.
As Ralph Nader puts it: "Pessimism is a function of inactivity." And the last thing those in power want are active, progressive-minded citizens challenging the status quo -- organizing and *acting* to change the “what-is” into “what-can-be.”.
The ruling class in the United States, the economic elite, have been successful (no doubt beyond their wildest dreams!) in brainwashing the American public into believing in T.I.N.A., that "There Is No Alternative." … But what of the millions of people that make up the "democratic-many"? The democratic-many's SHEER NUMBERS dwarf the number of people who make up the oligarchic elite.
The economic elite, a numerical miniscule number of people, is waging economic war (class warfare) against *millions* of poor and middle class people. … Think about that for a moment. … Numerically, the oligarchic class is astronomically outnumbered.
Is it therefore any wonder that the economic elite spend countless hours and billions of dollars trying to keep all those millions of people "under control"?
Giving up or wallowing in cynicism and negativity is not only unhealthy, personally as well as collectively, it also plays into the hands of those few at the top who benefit from the "cynicism of the many." It's doing exactly what they hope and pray you'll do (religious as many of them are).
Question: Where can overwhelming numbers of people (the democratic-many) most readily and most dramatically manifest their political power?
Answer: At the ballot box!
This is precisely where the democratic-many can most easily, most readily and most dramatically checkmate the oligarchic few.
This is why the Democratic/Republican duopoly (the political mouthpiece of the economic elite) spend so much time and so much effort during elections brainwashing the American public into believing that their only choice is to vote either Republican or Democrat.
This is why either wing of "The Business Party," the Democratic wing or the Republican wing, WOULD RATHER LOSE AN ELECTION than see a third party movement gain a foothold in the electoral process.
For example, the Democratic Party would much rather lose a presidential election (again!) than see Ralph Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney garner, say, 8-10% of the overall vote.
But that's all it would take to shake up the political establishment. ... McKinney or Nader don't have to win (at least not right away); all they have to do is to, collectively, garner 8-10% of the vote. ... If that were to happen, given that 50% of eligible voters don't vote, the Election Day results would look like something this:
Obama (or McCain) -- 21%
McCain (or Obama) -- 19%
Nader, McKinney, et al -- 10%
(Continued)
During the 2004 presidential, when he was required to disclose his financial worth, it was shown that Ralph Nader gives 80% of his money either to charity or to political action groups.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore was shown to have contributed to charity a sum-total of $3000. Bush, a similarly meager sum. For two multi-millionaires that would equate to about $5 for the average wage earner.
And yet Gore and Bush in 2000, Kerry and Bush in 2004, and Obama and McCain in 2008 claim(ed) had/have the nerve to claim to speak for "the little man," the average American. ... That insulting, outrageous lie, in and of itself, should be enough to laugh the lot of them off the stage.
Getting back to Ralph Nader, it's quite clear the kind of life Ralph Nader has lived. He's an ascetic. He's never driven a car. He's hardly what you would call a "fashion plate." He never takes a vacation. He works 12-hour-plus days.
Quoting from an interview by University of Iowa professor Nicholas Johnson:
"Ralph Nader has passed more legislation -- researched, written and gotten it enacted -- in the 1970's than virtually any United States senator. He has done more research and written more books than virtually any University of Iowa professor. He’s given away more money than any philanthropist that I know, in terms of his funding of other people's organizations with the money earned from his books and his lectures.
"I mean this guy comes as close to a genuine Twentieth Century American hero as anybody you’re ever likely to meet."
Ralph Nader has founded 40-plus political organizations, and is responsible for more progressive, *life-saving* legislation than Obama and McCain combined. ... Talk about experience! ... Who better to battle the greed and criminality of Corporate America than Ralph Nader?
The legislation Ralph Nader worked to get passed has saved the lives of *millions* of people. By contrast, the Democratic/Republican duopoly is responsible for the *death* of millions of people, not the least of which is the mass murder currently taking place in Iraq -- the war in Iraq being the latest war fought on behalf of the economic elite. See the following -- "Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis: Survey" -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
By the way, Ralph Nader did not lose the 2000 election for Al Gore. Al Gore lost that election all by himself. Al Gore lost the election by running a campaign that didn’t speak to the needs and interests of millions of Americans. Had he and Kerry done so, they would have wiped the floor with George Bush. The elections would have been landslides!
Barack Obama should be *slaughtering* John McCain in the polls. ... So why is that not happening? ... The answer is simple – because Obama and the Democrats know that if they stray at all to the left, i.e., if they speak to the needs and interests of millions of average Americans, their corporate sponsors will turn on them in a minute. Because the Democratic/Republican duopoly doesn’t represent the democratic-many, it represents the oligarchic-few.
Either party would rather lose an election than turn their back on their corporate paymasters.
Gore and Kerry lost because they followed the DLC-inspired strategy of moving to the right, i.e., “Republicanizing” the Democratic Party. The Democrats and the DLC were enamored of Bill Clinton’s two victories. They loved the fact that by moving to the right they could get in on all those corporate millions, just like the Republicans.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton lost nearly 50 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, over 1200 state legislative seats, 9 state legislatures, and over 400 Democratic officeholders.
The Democratic and Republican parties were never oppositional parties; now they’re virtually indistinguishable; with Obama agreeing with McCain on countless issues, both domestic and international.
Finally, if you don't like Ralph Nader, you can always vote for Cynthia McKinney, or a socialist. The point is -- do you support a third party movement, or do you consider the Democratic Party to be an oppositional party, vis-a-vis the Republicans?
If you believe the latter, seek psychiatric help immediately!
The truth is so frackin refreshing
Come on folks, any idiot could have predicted this --
unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.
The FDIC insurance is there to protect INDIVIDUAL bank failures ---
not capitalistic speculation fever -- when the RULES are changed
the responsibilities also have to change --
Nader is, as usual, making the most sense --
We have a DLC running the Democratic Party and they're protecting the
FED banks --
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Come on folks, any idiot could have predicted this --
unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.
The FDIC insurance is there to protect INDIVIDUAL bank failures ---
not capitalistic speculation fever -- when the RULES are changed
the responsibilities also have to change --
Nader is, as usual, making the most sense --
We have a DLC running the Democratic Party and they're protecting the
FED banks --
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Excellent article by Ralph. As always. No mainstream media coverage on this huh? Hell no the pigs don't want people hearing this kind of thing. It too reality based. What I like best about this is the term Congressional backbone. I bet you all thought the same thing I did. What a great oxymoron!
VOTE RALPH NADER 2008! (Or you can vote for one of the two pigs wearing lipstick!)
I think the point you folks are missing is that Nader HAS built a party. But, it's in the same way that he built a consumer movement. You could call it a "citizen movement". He has a national organization that is doing much better at organizing, fundraising and petitioning than the GP could dream. I say that as a Green who works at the national and local level. And the split came in 2004 because he was trying to put together a national Independant movement by seeking the endorsements of several smaller parties, hoping to bring them all together under one umbrella. But, the GP insisted on "nominating" someone of their own, and then gamed the convention rules to make sure the Nader idea would not work.
He's on the ballot in 45 states this year. Can the GP say that? No.
He has "the old guard", fairly well off contributers who have supported him for decades; "the new guard", disaffected Greens (and there are a lot of them), college students and idealists; and he has experienced state coordinators in all 50 states.
And NOW he has Matt Gonzalez to carry the torch.
In regards to him not helping the GP over the past 8 years, that's convenient bunk. 90% of the contributors and volunteers still with the GP came to the party in the 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign. The GPUS leadership has been abysmal at keeping Nader folks in the fold. Not just abysmal, but insulting and underhanded. When I ran for state office as an endorsed Green in 2002, Nader did two fundraiser's for us and participated in a nicely covered press conference at the capital. He did dozens of fundraisers between 2000-2004 for GP candidates. And how was he thanked? Right, he wasn't.
Dissing your best source of funds and volunteers is just stupid.
McKinney is a good candidate (and Rosa Clemente rocks), but even she was ready to pass this year based on the in-fighting and petty squabbling in the Green National Committee. They had to pretty much beg and plead to get her to run.
The McKinney and Nader campaigns HAVE worked in solidarity. Clemente has appeared at Nader rallies, and both Nader and McKinney appeared at the Ron Paul event two weeks ago.
So, get a grip. It's OK to have multiple progressive candidates. McKinney/Clemente are going to bring a lot of new and different people into the GP. Let's hope they don't get driven out again in 4 years, like many of the Nader folks were.
Lastly, for the people who constantly bring up his finances, he doesn't own Cisco. He owns mutual funds that own Cisco. And I'll bet you do too. He donates almost all the money he makes to the various orgs he's founded. His statements are so long because he has to report each check from each college/civic group, etc. that pays him to speak.
And if you are an Obama supporter, you ought to take a look at his finances before you start throwing stones in your well insulated, "Hope" and "Change" filled glass house.
TwinSkippy, your report is most welcome and the proverbial breath of fresh air!
Modern day Democrats have veered so much to the right they are basically slightly left of center Republicans.
I was sparring with a DPA on a thread the other day and attempted to make him hang his head low by pointing out the Dems: refuse to stop war funding, are on board with the financial bailout, refuse to impeach Bush or hold him accountable for breaking the law etc. To my amazement he rationalized all of it away. I guess for him Democrats are still the champions of the little people. You figure.
So basically Democrats are defenders of the policies they claim to oppose. As long as Dems are for it they can somehow rationalize it. They claim you must vote for them or the Big Bad Wolf will get you even as they give the Big Bad Wolf a pass and a get-of-of-jail card for free.
He characterized all my accusations and smears devoid of details, which is false, and wondered out loud whether I was a "Republican troll" which is a DPA staple here on CD used to discredit anyone opposed to the Dims or Obama.
yea! finally an article by nader here on CD. he posts quite a bit over at counterpunch and i enjoy reading his and other articles there by thoughtful posters who support nader's candidancy overall.
it's time that the media and other news outlets give him a voice as he has decades of experience and knowledge about the financial markets and wall street shenanigans and real, concrete solutions about what to do regarding this bailout mess that NONE of the other candidates have yet.
it was worth campaigning for nader back in july. and i got his wonderful book, "ralph nader: the good fight," personally signed by him.
on the second page: "to (my name), for justice through citizen action, ralph nader." a very good and thoughtful note. the book was an eye-opener and i recommend it in case you haven't read it.
Nebraska Nathan,
Yes, she has posted here before. I was referring to this:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/09/10903/
"cindysheehan August 9th, 2008 8:42 pm
Dear Friends,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR AMAZING SUPPORT!
As you know, I often read the posts on Common Dreams because I find it to be one of the last bastions of non-partisanship and I get some great insight here...but also great support even though they don't post my articles anymore due to CD's non-profit status, I think.
I promise not to disappoint you and to stick to progressive principles to help humanity: peace, environmental sustainability, economic equality, single-payer healthcare and free, quality education as a human right.
It was an extremely difficult task to qualify for the ballot, but we did it and we did it with our integrity intact...win or lose (and I think we have a great chance of winning even though we haven't raised "2.3" million dollars) we will do it with our integrity intact.
But, win or lose, I promise that the struggle to wrest the control of our nation (and world) from the hands of the corporate fascists will continue.
This is huge, I am only the 6th candidate in California history to qualify as an independent...it hasn't been done by a Congressional candidate since 1996, and then it wasn't in SF against the Queen of the Corporatists, Nancy Pelosi.
Again, I am deeply grateful for your support, for you love and for your integrity.
Love
Cindy
(Happy Birthday Sioux Rose, I received your beautiful book, it is on my desk at Campaign HQ)"
What a shame that the best candidate by far in 2008, this liberal marvel, probably the greatest living American, is torn to shreds on sites like these by disgusting, intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant Democrats. Love for these human dung piles to take the same telescope to their corporate candidates that they do to Nader. They probe for the slightest possible misalignment in Nader's public and private life...... while giving an absolute free pass to some truly horrible candidates, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. So dishonest. So unbalanced. So FOX
Ralph really was correct, not a dimes worth of difference
Hey "lesserevilism" (you are promoting lesserevilism in your own rant)
And a Nice Rant. But you definitely did not refute one syllable I said regarding Nader's investments in Wall Street and the DOD.
Instead you acknowledged it and said apply the same measure to Obama!
Well that is lesserevilism! It's okay for Ralph to have $ in Raytheon who makes cluster bombs? In Wall Street? Because someone is even worse in your opinion?
Lesserevilism? Hilarious. Now it is the only vehicle you can find to excuse Nader the creeps investments in the corporations he simultaneously rails against.
Checkmate Loser. Checkmate. And I again challenge anyone on this thread or any thread to refute this: Nader is invested up to his ears in Wachovia, Merril Lynch and GOLDMAN SACHS. And weapons systems. And most of all in Cisco, who Naomi Klein says "works hand in glove" with the Chinese government on spying on it's people.
Bring it on.
Bring it on. I have thrown down. Anyone wanna pick up my dare, come one.
I did not address your specific accusations against Mr. Nader. I brought forth the obvious point that Democrats take a telescope to Mr. Nader's entire life, straining to find any blemishes, no matter how far fetched and or irrelevant and at the same time, like the hypocrites, cowards and dishonest people they are, go out of their way to ignore the corporate criminality their candidate is saturated in. No need for a telescope to find corporate influence and or criminality in the mighty corporate approved Democratic Party presidential candidates (Kucinich not approved and discarded by our corporate masters before the 1st vote is counted), just look at their voting record(s), look who they surround themselves with, their advisors. The words of my previous post are still up for any and all to read and see that you are a slanter of words, a hack, a truth twister to fit your narcissistic needs.
lesserevilism; "I did not address your specific accusations against Nader."
You sure didn't! Why not?
You did what Republicans and naderites do instead; You insulted me!
So my challenge goes unanswered. By ANYONE.
Sorry to unmask your hero, I know it angers you....
(p.s. Cluster bombs/Raytheon-Fidelity Magellan, in which Ralph the Puke is invested are not "blemishes" if you excuse investing in cluster bombs as a 'blemish,' which you did, you need psychiatric help.
Ralphy the Charlatan has No Clothes! And NO integrity.
Well, one of you doesnt at any rate.
The world is going to shit and you rant on and on and on and on about Nader's mutual funds. Whatthefuck is wrong with you anyway?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
lesserevilism; "I did not address your specific accusations against Nader."
You sure didn't! Why not?
You did what Republicans and naderites do instead; You insulted me!
So my challenge goes unanswered. By ANYONE.
Sorry to unmask your hero, I know it angers you....
(p.s. Cluster bombs/Raytheon-Fidelity Magellan, in which Ralph the Puke is invested are not "blemishes" if you excuse investing in cluster bombs as a 'blemish,' which you did, you need psychiatric help.
Ralphy the Charlatan has No Clothes! And NO integrity.
translucent September 26th, 2008 11:27 am
Hey "lesserevilism" (you are promoting lesserevilism in your own rant)
And a Nice Rant. But you definitely did not refute one syllable I said regarding Nader's investments in Wall Street and the DOD.
INSTEAD YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IT and said apply the same measure to Obama!
LesserEvilismIsEvil September 26th, 2008 1:37 pm
I DID NOT ADDRESS YOUR SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MR. NADER. I brought forth the obvious point that Democrats take a telescope to Mr. Nader's entire life, straining to find any blemishes, no matter how far fetched and or irrelevant and at the same time, like the hypocrites, cowards and dishonest people they are, go out of their way to ignore the corporate criminality their candidate is saturated in.
translucent September 26th, 2008 1:55 pm
lesserevilism; "I did not address your specific accusations against Nader."
YOU SURE DIDN’T! WHY NOT ?
_______________________________________
In your first propaganda piece you state that I “acknowledge” your claims against Mr. Nader and used that as an argument against my postion.
In your second propaganda piece you state that “you sure didn’t” when I pointed out that I had not acknowledged your claims against Mr. Nader and used that as an argument against my position.
And within these boundaries you wish to have a debate. It appears to me, that in a vain, less than honest effort to attack Mr. Nader you have started a debate..... with yourself
ding!
Double ding!
Nader is vilified by democratic party supporters, common dreams, move-on, not because of his issues and positions, but because of some artificially pronounced personality defect that they are personally aware of without ever reading his words (www.nader.org ) and parroting some Nader Limbaugh equivalent or seeing him speak.
When the Obama supporters use the same measuring stick to evaluate the two candidates, then is when I will enter in discussion with them.
www.NotOneMore.US
I examine the logical arguments, not the messenger.
It's important to have someone look at the bailout in a positive light, as in, what can be improved. Ralph Nader has done a good job. Nobody else in America has done a good job so far.
Does anyone know why CD will post articles by Nader but (apparently) not by Cindy Sheehan (supposedly due to their non-profit status)?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/09/10903/
(thanks Atheist)
Cindy Sheehan's articles have been posted on this site before.
I think we need to have a meeting of all 50 governors and dissolve this government immediately.
Then send the weasels home --to US. (heh, heh!)
That's a start!
Nader would make an excellent leader and has great ideas to rescue America even better than FDR. Unfortunately, he lacks the support he will need in Congress and on the courts. In addition, the corporate media would do anything to smear him and go overboard on propping up support for the two parties attempts to bring up false charges on Nader and impeach and remove. The reason I say this is Congress does have a backbone. It's just that they're not putting it to use where it actually counts but are in fact ABUSING it. Nader needs support in both chambers of Congress if he's to get anything done. The system is rigged against him. Even for outstanding Democrats and Republicans such as Kucinich and Ron Paul, the system torpedoed them. We are going to have to focus on individuals and not on parties in the long run. We need new blood in the Progressive/Liberal movements and hence younger Ralph Naders out there.
There is an underlying falsehood here, Nebraska. Congress cannot abuse a backbone it does not possess. Criminals are criminals for that exact reason and I'm not talking about a dope smoker, someone who steals a loaf of bread during a disaster, without using a gun. I'm not even talking about desperate young men unable to get a job, even if they're trained in three vocations.
I'm talking about lying to your face with a smile surrounded by Secret Service men. I'm talking about people who hide their pedophilia, pass laws for corporations and put con-men on the SCOTUS. Who collude in their power to ravage this Constitution without blinking an eye.
Nader is still the only honest one out there. If Kuicinich and Feingold had the decency they throw out to the public, they would tell the Dems to stick it and form a meaningful alternative with Nader and McKinney and the millions of honest people with no voice and no ulterior motives.
.
Ralph Nader is greatly equipped to “work” with congress.
He has been doing it for 40 years…
40 years is one heck of an amount of experience.
All working as being an advocate for justice.
Oh yes he will be able to work with congress.
.
Nader may have been able to get the Congress of the 1960s, 1970s, and even into the 1980s to pay attention to the people's needs and concerns but today's Congress is entirely different. And he has been unable to influence Congress these past 2 decades. Take a look at the voting record in Congress and the way the pols shut down their own in both parties for even being remotely like Nader. Today's Congress is strongly pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-sellout, and must be REFORMED first. Nader, or any president like him, will remain irrelevant otherwise. He's up against a system that's completely rigged against him and 3rd party candidacies in general. In fact, this same system is pretty well rigged to stifle even truly independent GOP and Democratic pols who actually stand up for what's right for Main Street.
Fuck Congress
National backbone needed.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Always good to hear from Ralph. Too bad he isn't interested in building a third party to counter the ubiquitous corporate party (despite his many protestations to the contrary.)
Check the links here for the McKinney and Green Party response.
http://www.gp.org/
In times like these when it is necessary for a third option, Nader didn't want to wait around for the Green Party to figure out how to properly organize and push a McKinney campaign. The GP couldn't get matching funds. They failed to raise enough money in each state. They were initially running a "safe state" strategy. Now, McKinney wants to go all out but it's too late.
This time you can talk about how you wish Nader did more in between elections, but look...Do you want to make Congress work for the people? His campaign is building an apparatus to just that after November. Each district will be called upon to establish a watchdog group for their representative.
Backbone needed? Definitely, and that's why Ralph Nader is organizing
Coyote says, is there a broken record in here?
Sure ain't Green and McKinney links and articles.
What do you mean "wait around"? What do you mean "it's too late"? Nader could have been supporting McKinney from the time she was nominated. All he has done is undermine her campaign, regardless of the "progressives sticking together" story. Others might not want to say it, but I will.
"Do you want to make Congress work for the people? His campaign is building an apparatus to just that after November. Each district will be called upon to establish a watchdog group for their representative."
Well, good. I'm glad he is doing it. He is good at that kind of thing. But it doesn't look like helping build a third party to me. In fact, it looks like evidence that he still hasn't reached the, "Jesus, we need an opposition party" stage of consciousness yet.
I'm sure many CD readers share the "reform" view. I'm not knocking it or Public Citizen, etc. It's good work. I am making a simple point that Nader is not helping to build a third party. Those who are interested in building a third party should support Cynthia McKinney.
I agree, that's why with all due respect to Nader, I am voting for Cynthia McKinney. You are right to say Ralph isn't building up a party.
.
You may want to read this. It's very long but most informative about the Green Party and Ralph Nader...
http://www.counterpunch.org/camejo04062005.html
April 6, 2005
The Crisis in the Green Party
The Magic Number 39 and My Meetings with Cobb, Kucinich and the Steering Committee
By PETER CAMEJO
.
Actually, it is inaccurate, somewhat irrelevant, and a bit paranoid. But that's Peter. (Other than that, I respect Peter...really.)
Peter and I disagree profoundly on how the Green Party can be most effective. This is not to say that I supported the "safe state" strategy. Actually, I didn't, but there is no rule book that says the alternatives have to be to my liking.
The fact is Cobb was right in that if the progressive Democrats had registered Green, it would be a different nation today; not just what we want, but with the materials to effect a change over and above the the embedded two-headed corporate party.
His view of Nader's effectiveness is blind to numerous factors and is hardly "disinterested" as is his analysis of the Nader dynamic on the Green Party and public perception of Greens.
Wow, I was in a bad mood last night. Sorry, folks. Not to discount Peter's accomplishments. I enthusiastically supported him for governor three times. He was the best and most intelligent candidate. I have had some wonderful conversations with him. In fact, we were usually completely simpatico.
I thought he was far off the mark in his espoused broad Green Party strategy. I didn't think it would lead anywhere at all. My dreams of the Green Party becoming a kind of pervasive cultural enzyme look farther away all the time, and it is painful and sometimes causes me to overreact.
I've been out of the loop for awhile and was unaware of Peter's recent death.
RIP, Peter. You were one of the good guys.
Thanks I saved the link to read it.
.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/28/ralph_nader_on_the_democrats_corporate
(DN interview in August)
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much, Ralph Nader, for joining us. Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate, longtime consumer advocate and corporate critic, he is running for president for the third time on the Independent ticket. Last question: why not the Green Party ticket? Why didn’t you go for the nomination? Cynthia McKinney won that nomination.
RALPH NADER: Because it’s just too disorganized. They can’t—they can’t put it together. They bicker a lot, and they drive out a lot of good Greens who want to focus on agendas. I wish them well. I wish Cynthia McKinney well. I wish people would continue to support us and send contributions to votenader.org. But the liberal, progressive press, if they do not support those of us who are taking their agenda inside the presidential election arena—a propos my letter to Jim Hightower, Bill Greider and Bob Kuttner—they’re going nowhere. They’re just whistling in the dark. And most of them, with the exception of John Nichols, have been ignoring or actually undermining the Nader-Gonzalez campaign. So we’re going to generate this kind of debate within what I like to call the liberal intelligentsia.
.
I pledge to restrain my Nader remarks because I like most of what Nader says and respect many Nader supporters (but that has never affected my points)...but this time...
Sometimes, I can't figure out whether or not Nader is hypocritical or just naive. He doesn't support the Greens because they are too disorganized? Well, where's his respected organizational ability? Of course, an independent candidate doesn't have to "bicker" with anyone other than himself. Easy for him to say, "they can’t put it together. They bicker a lot, and they drive out a lot of good Greens who want to focus on agendas." Yeh, well, the Greens are a party. Political parties aren't easy to put together. If you think it's worth it, you work hard to build it.
This is the kind of malarky that turned me off Nader to begin with. I'm sorry, there is just something phony about him. I just can't shake the perception. Why doesn't he just come out and say, "It is more important to put forth the issues from a well-known public figure like myself and skip building a third party on a national level for the time being." But he doesn't. He wishes the Greens well. No, he doesn't. They could drown in the bathtub as far as he is concerned. They didn't select *him*.
He spent a good part of 2004 (prior to his independent run) saying anyone who didn't understand the history and necessity of third parties just didn't know history. Later, anyone who rejected his candidacy hated freedom and wanted to "escape from freedom."
Well, he doesn't know anything about history, I guess. (Or Erich Fromm, for that matter.)
I can't abide him, brilliant as he obviously is in many areas. Lord knows, I've tried. :-)
I know I'm swimming against the current tide.
I think the point you folks are missing is that Nader HAS built a party. But, it's in the same way that he built a consumer movement. You could call it a "citizen movement". He has a national organization that is doing much better at organizing, fundraising and petitioning than the GP could dream. I say that as a Green who works at the national and local level. And the split came in 2004 because he was trying to put together a national Independant movement by seeking the endorsements of several smaller parties, hoping to bring them all together under one umbrella. But, the GP insisted on "nominating" someone of their own, and then gamed the convention rules to make sure the Nader idea would not work.
He's on the ballot in 45 states this year. Can the GP say that? No.
He has "the old guard", fairly well off contributers who have supported him for decades; "the new guard", disaffected Greens (and there are a lot of them), college students and idealists; and he has experienced state coordinators in all 50 states.
And NOW he has Matt Gonzalez to carry the torch.
In regards to him not helping the GP over the past 8 years, that's convenient bunk. 90% of the contributors and volunteers still with the GP came to the party in the 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign. The GPUS leadership has been abysmal at keeping Nader folks in the fold. Not just abysmal, but insulting and underhanded. When I ran for state office as an endorsed Green in 2002, Nader did two fundraiser's for us and participated in a nicely covered press conference at the capital. He did dozens of fundraisers between 2000-2004 for GP candidates. And how was he thanked? Right, he wasn't.
Dissing your best source of funds and volunteers is just stupid.
McKinney is a good candidate (and Rosa Clemente rocks), but even she was ready to pass this year based on the in-fighting and petty squabbling in the Green National Committee. They had to pretty much beg and plead to get her to run.
The McKinney and Nader campaigns HAVE worked in solidarity. Clemente has appeared at Nader rallies, and both Nader and McKinney appeared at the Ron Paul event two weeks ago.
So, get a grip. It's OK to have multiple progressive candidates. McKinney/Clemente are going to bring a lot of new and different people into the GP. Let's hope they don't get driven out again in 4 years, like many of the Nader folks were.
Lastly, for the people who constantly bring up his finances, he doesn't own Cisco. He owns mutual funds that own Cisco. And I'll bet you do too. He donates almost all the money he makes to the various orgs he's founded. His statements are so long because he has to report each check from each college/civic group, etc. that pays him to speak.
And if you are an Obama supporter, you ought to take a look at his finances before you start throwing stones in your well insulated, "Hope" and "Change" filled glass house.
TwinSkippy -- Tell me more about Nader's national organization. How does it work on a community level? How does it advance decentralization, for example? I'm serious. I'm not asking just to come back with some snide remark. How Green is it really? Maybe the parting of the ways isn't quite a simple as you make it appear.
Nevertheless, there seems to be some kind of circular stuff here. Of course, Nader brought in volunteers and funds. He's well-known and ran as a Green Party candidate. And he's good at raising funds. No one denies that.
Actually dissing your best source of funds is logical if that best source of funds becomes too insistent on setting an agenda. Too bad, but logical. So, "dissing" the Greens for failure to raise sufficient funds is only a partially valid criticism, valid only on one level.
Really, you've given no sufficient reason for multiple progressive candidates. If Nader supported McKinney/Clemente, of course it would be a big added bonus of bringing in folks (beyond McKinney and Clemente doing the same) and funds. All you are doing is describing a situation, not analyzing it in terms of value or efficacy in movement toward green goals.
"Lastly, for the people who constantly bring up his finances, he doesn't own Cisco. He owns mutual funds that own Cisco. And I'll bet you do too."
Nope. I don't. In fact, I don't invest in the corrupt system at all, least of all in such corporations. Nader shouldn't either. I guess if we all spend our profits on good things, it's OK to help prop up a murderous system? Somehow it evens out?
Nevertheless, I will agree with you that the GPUS leadership has been...less than professional. It needs an overhaul. (At least it did a year of so ago when I got kinda disgusted with it.)
It is obvious to most of us the Democrats are traitors and sellouts, but I can understand DPA reasoning. It's simple lesser-evilism. I don't agree with it but that's okay. I respect their opinion and right to have it.
Attacking a candidate that waaaaaaaaaay more progressive than Obama and the Dems, like Ralph is not cool. It reveals an almost fascist tendency that is indicative of where our nation is heading. The Pugs are steering and the Dims are rowing.
Nader haters are actually apologists for the status quo that gives us a choice between Republicans and Republican-lite. They hate alternatives to the duopoly. I guess they don't really believe in democracy.
Any true progressive would at least acknowledge Nader is far superior to Obama and then apologize for voting for Obama. Then they could explain their lesser-evilist thinking and we could maybe even forgive them for voting for the sellouts. But no, they come out in force to tear down Ralph. That is totally uncool.
Alan MacDonald
This whole situation is not about a 'bailout' but about the ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire which controls our country by hiding behind the thin facade of their two-party, 'Vichy' government, needing to be excised (like the cancerous tumor on democracy that Empire always is).
Only Ralph recognizes and will fight to defeat our Empire problem.
This time, "it's not the economy, stupid" --- It's the corporatist Empire (behind the economic tyranny), stupid.
The 2008 election is all about democracy vs. Empire -- and only Ralph is on our side for democracy and dead-set against Empire.
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned decades ago in the era of the Nazi Empire, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home."
This corporatist Empire brought us the imperial war abroad -- and now its brought us this economic tyranny. looting, spying, and soon police-state at home!
Opal
Thank you Ralph. You predicted this mess and now you are offering sane suggetions to address it. I am grateful for your thoughtful analysis and insight.
Nader isn't for the bailout. Like he said today if Congress is going to go for it, the 12 items listed in this article should be addressed and written into any bill.
.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for
RALPH NADER: Well, so far, it’s wish fulfillment. If you watch what Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Banking Committee, said yesterday, nothing has really been decided.
And also, it’s not clear at all why a bailout is needed. That’s part of the stampede in the pack and the panic that Bush and Paulson and Bernanke are pushing Congress toward. You know, it’s eerily reminiscent, when you listen to Bush yesterday, of how he stampeded the Congress and the country into the criminal war invasion of Iraq in 2003. I mean, look at all his statements: this could do this, this would do that, farms failing, small business, tada, tada. The first question we have to ask as citizens is, why is there a need for a bailout?
.
Shame on CommonDreams for not mentioning Nader as a Presidential candidate.
I heard him today on DemocracyNow. I really like Amy Goodman but I think she was out of line when asking Nader if he would support Obama. I wonder if she would ask the same of Ron Paul, McKinney or Bob Barr? Frankly it was a dumb question and beneath her usual high standards.
If Congress was doing it's job correctly, it would have asked Nader to be on panels while discussing this situation because it's obvious to even me that he has the expert knowledge of corporate and banking law.
People are fed up with the bullshit run around rip off. Want change, Vote Nader.
.
I loved Nader's one-liner back to Amy's question:( among other things he said...)
"I’d like Barack Obama, actually, to support the Nader-Gonzalez ticket. "
.
I disagree with Paulson and all the multitudes that claim there is some perilous bonfire, consuming the economy. If there is anything I have learned in the last 8 years, is DO NOT believe what this government leads us to believe. Like blaming Wall Street for this 700b swindle.
True, Wall Street is the 'excuse of the day', but this 700b swindle is directly submitted by our trusty government leaders...repleat with threats, fear, and some vague 'pie in the sky' goal of continuing/shoring up of creditdriven conmen.
They naturally claim security threats, and all sorts of BS, more impressively they threaten 'American Jobs', and someones 'sacred pension' these are their typical excuses! The leaders in this government have 'saved us' into the 'age of filth'.
Thanks to this government's furtherence, this country is Bankrupt. Everyone should know that. This government practices daily: bankruptcy, war, fraud, and this 700b swindle is just another perverted example of 'business as usual'.
To be clear, no one should be on the fence about this 700b swindle. This vote will be yes or no. This vote will NOT be yes with 12 cavets. Get off the fence Ralph and tell those vipers no. Gee whizz let the likes of Obama & McCain present their hogwash cavets...we already know they are 'yes' to the 700b swindle, but Ralph your position could be much clearer...how about an article entitled "no". I know that you said today on Amy's DN today 'there is no need for a bailout'. We are all watching your lead Ralph.
Senators Shelby & Benning had no problem showing their contempt for the 700b swindlers, "bad, bad" was simple enough answer, where even I could understand them.
ps. with supporters like me, it may be a long Presidency
smillllllllllleeeeesssss & kissssssssseeeeeesssss
wild ;)
.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Their backbone is as stiff as an 80 yo's woody, and lasts no longer than a minuteman. Pathetic. Just vote against anyone who votes for this bail out. Throw them out of office. The crooks will own the White House, Obama or McCain will do their bidding, just make their life a bit harder throwing their supporters out of Congress (Dems or Republicans). Fire them, and let them know to polish up their resume before sending it to Goldman Sachs.
Quickstepper HE IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
Ralph is on in 45 states!!
Nader/Gonzalez is a ticket for the majority of Americans. Single payer health care, complete corporate and military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, a real minimum wage adjusted for inflation, and decades of experience fighting the very corporate structures that have not only led to the current crisis, but also have led to the corporatization of the two major parties. A majority believe the system is broken. What's your breaking point!!!!
He should be included in the debates and his agenda should be accessible to the public. No more media blackout. Cheers to CommonDreams for publishing this piece, shame on them for not listing his run as a legitimate Independent Presidential Candidate at the bottom of the page.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ!!!
"What's your breaking point!!!!"
It's getting very close.
Lot of Nader lovers here.
Does a single one of you deny Nader is invested in Wachovia, Merril Lynch or GOLDMAN SACHS?
Follow His money. Know Ralph by the Companies he Keeps. Words are cheap.
A smart poster below asked how much good Nader might do as a Senator? Too much. That is why he has carefully not gone there.
Come on; ANYONE deny ralph is invested in Wall Street and the DOD? I challenge anyone to allege this.
Raytheon, who makes cluster bombs too! Easy to verify. Follow instructions in post below!
Bye Now.
Give it up. You can post but apparently cannot bother to read the rather effective rebuttals to your smutty distortions about Ralph Nader.
If he were what you characterise him as being then why would he be working so hard to deny Wall Street their bailout money? Wouldnt that be working counter to his investments? You are really and truly in need of some critical thinking, or maybe you should think prior to posting.
That sound you hear is the laughter of smarter folks than you, why not remain silent and have people think you are dumb rather than posting and removing all doubt?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I see you do not deny Nader is currently heavily invested in Wachovia, Merril Lynch or GOLDMAN SACHS.
Because it is a matter of record. I did not characterize him, I made exact specific allegations.
Which no one refuted, least of all you.
What you did do was cast aspersions upon my intellect and trot your tired quote out again.
Check this out. Reality 101 for you: You see things not as they are, but as you want them to be.
Still waiting for someone to deny Nader's invested in the companies he's correctly bad-mouthing while simultaneously being invested in them.
Insult me some more. It's epidemic among Nader Lovers/GOP trolls this season.
"effective rebuttals?" you skiipped that part and went to the personal insult.
(ardee; your ugly mouth and insults are a reflection of your heart, not of me. I know you want to chime in and be back-patted on the thread, but you can achieve that without getting personal.)
Horses ass much?
You fail to understand that your sophomoric comments about Nader are an insult to many people, a pity you are only sensitive to your own feelings.
I wonder how you can accomplish a post with your hands clasped firmly over your ears, your eyes tightly shut and your mind closed? Several folks here have rebutted your silliness concerning Nader portfolio issues but, as there is nowhere else for you to go you ignore them.
I will continue to post my opinions, both of issues and of the responses to those issues, in spite of stupidities like you have posted concerning my opinions. It is a pity you cannot debate with any degree of honesty or intellectualism, a real pity that your ego gets in the way of your analysis.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee; you are a liar. No one has refuted my allegations re Ralph's investments in Wall Street or the DOD. No one. How about on this thread? Point to it. The best they do is say Obama is not pure either. Lesserevilism!!!!!!!! How convenient for you all!
Why don't YOU refute what I've said.
"We see things not as they are, but as we wish they were."
Equestrian Posterior? Oh, I'm destroyed. You are just another insulting ugly entity on CD once a layer or two are peeled away. Esoteric quotes are trivialized by your denigrating foulness. Didn't take long either.
And ardee; You're ugly insulting words reflect your heart, not mine, do you even know that?
Have a nice day.
Actually they express, and eloquently, the contempt I have for your positions and your Washington Times like editorial style. You do the work of the GOP , and far better than do they. You refuse to see the words about Obama's portfolio, and refuse to read the words of Ralph Nader that would, if enacted, bring harm to his own holdings.
Most folks with extensive portfolios have stock, generally from the purchase of various funds, with which they are not entirely comfortable. Many of those purchases are made by one's broker with a minimal acknowledgement as one must trust ones broker. If you did more than wash cars for a living you might understand such elemental truths about ones investments.
Ralph Nader has decades of speeches and letters and opinions on the record, every freaking one of which makes your stupid accusations exactly that. You are a tiresome little flea with the brainpower of a moss covered rock. Little troll living under your bridge.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
To Translucent: Use the same measuring stick against Obama as you do Nader, and you will see who measures up in putting the general public's interest first and foremost.
Nader has consistently provided rational and thought-out solutions to problems that the mainstream candidates are just moaning, 'what to do? what to do?'
The mainstream candidates have the same unresolved approach, never moving closer to resolving the core issue of any problem. Why? They don't want to. They are beholden to corporate interests, which don't benefit you or me (unless you are Exxon's CEO and just surfing here to see what the rabble are talking about).
A great day will be when the the people of the US honor Nader, because that would mean that we have had a sea-change where society chooses to act on integrity and community rather than fear and greed.
I can't think of a single voice that has so consistently spoken for the the people rights and justice; and against the corruption that is prevalent in all levels of our society- government, economy, military, police, and media.
I was debating between voting for the Green party or Nader (I support Nader more, but wanted to give a 'strategic' vote for the green party).
unrepentant Nader supporter
PS - I think McKinney is also a great speaker and politician, but no one says it like Nader. http://www.nader.org/ An archive of Nader articles, concise, to the point, and usually correct.
We see things differently. But I want to thank you for your intelligent, calm post.
I hope the sun is shining wherever you are!
But, as is your wont, you wont think about this excellent post. Instead you will continue a silly and propagandised rant against a man so much more astute than are you......sad really to be so very closeminded.
Try studying the various ways your party has been complicit, cowardly and vaccuous. Better you should spend your time fixing it.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Don't you have a slumlord to be propping up.
Would you care to look at his record with similar vigilance
Wanna start with his republican voting record or his corporate advisors ?
Hypocrite
Is it true that CD won't carry articles written by Cindy Sheehan? Where can I find information on this? Anyone got a link?
If this is true, then CD won't get any donations from me until they allow her back on the site, and start endorsing every progressive running for office. This isn't just a news site.
I found it. Here's a comment from her to a CD article about her Congressional campaign.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/09/10903/
cindysheehan August 9th, 2008 8:42 pm
Dear Friends,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR AMAZING SUPPORT!
As you know, I often read the posts on Common Dreams because I find it to be one of the last bastions of non-partisanship and I get some great insight here...but also great support even though they don't post my articles anymore due to CD's non-profit status, I think.
I promise not to disappoint you and to stick to progressive principles to help humanity: peace, environmental sustainability, economic equality, single-payer healthcare and free, quality education as a human right.
It was an extremely difficult task to qualify for the ballot, but we did it and we did it with our integrity intact...win or lose (and I think we have a great chance of winning even though we haven't raised "2.3" million dollars) we will do it with our integrity intact.
But, win or lose, I promise that the struggle to wrest the control of our nation (and world) from the hands of the corporate fascists will continue.
This is huge, I am only the 6th candidate in California history to qualify as an independent...it hasn't been done by a Congressional candidate since 1996, and then it wasn't in SF against the Queen of the Corporatists, Nancy Pelosi.
Again, I am deeply grateful for your support, for you love and for your integrity.
Love
Cindy
(Happy Birthday Sioux Rose, I received your beautiful book, it is on my desk at Campaign HQ)
Hmmm, CD just posted a Nader essay, so apparently the fact that someone is actively seeking office isn't a stopper.
I just sent CD A donation and if it is true about Cindy Sheehan; then I WANT MY DONATION BACK!
Sioux Rose
SAMSON: Bill Clinton made the same allegations in favor of NAFTA. One wonders if these people truly did not understand the likely results of these political maneuvers or just like Arthur Miller's Willie Loman, knew they could get by on a shoeshine and a smile. Clinton is foremost a salesman, and as Michael Moore related, our best REPUBLICAN prez. We see the same salesmanship, even on cooked evidence, for Iraq down to controlling the media, embedded reporters, no photos of caskets returning, etc to promote the LIE that things are going swimmingly well over there. And lots believe it, after all to their minds, "If it's on CNN, it's got to be news!"
BACKBONE!!??? We donn got to show you no stinkin' BACKBONE!!
Sorry Ralph... looks like it's a day late and 700 BILLION dollars short.
Congress kowtowed and kissed the monkeypuppet's errr... ring. We're screwed.
.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for
As Bush Admin Pushes $700B for Wall Street, Ralph Nader Asks, “Why Is There Need for a Bailout?”
As the Bush administration intensifies its pressure for Congress to quickly approve a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, we get reaction from Independent presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Nader calls Democratic claims of White House concessions “wish fulfillment” and says the bailout might not be needed in the first place.
.
.
From the DN site, Nader says:
It’s quite interesting how the Bush regime is creating its own panic. When the government keeps saying Chicken Little, Chicken Little, the market is going to react in a very nervous manner. It’s a reversal of what the government usually does, which is to counsel stability and patience, etc.
So, the first question Congress should ask in detailed hearings, which aren’t occurring, is simply, why is there need for a bailout? Second is, if there is a need for a bailout, why $700 billion? And third, if there is a need for a bailout, what kind of bailout? Taxpayer equity? So the taxpayer can recover if these companies make a profit, they can recover surplus, perhaps the way they did on the taxpayer bailout in 1979 with Chrysler, where Jimmy Carter demanded that Chrysler issue stock warrants to the Treasury, and Chrysler turned around, and the Treasury sold the warrants for a $400 million profit.
.
Quite frankly I think we should wait until Obama takes office before a bailout is discussed.
Why, so he can implement it after the election ?
I think we need to see what kind of people these candidates are BEFORE the election. Right now they're not looking too different, the Dem and Repub candidates at least.
Uh-oh.
Ralph Nader has suggested something.
Count the minutes until Congressional Dems do the opposite.
Lets apply some basic logic, translucent.
If Nader was a Pied Piper he would be promoting a bailout to bolster his vested interests in Wall Street so that he could offload them in the short term.
Nader HAS NOT questioned the efficacy of the financial industry. He HAS admonished the US electorate and elected officials to restore the tried and true New Deal financial industry regulation that resulted in more than fifty years of no US financial crisis and would still be preventing financial crisis if Ronny Raygun and his successors had not dismantled financial industry regulation.
Lets apply some basic logic, translucent.
If Nader was a Pied Piper he would be promoting a bailout to bolster his vested interests in Wall Street so that he could offload them in the short term.
Nader HAS NOT questioned the efficacy of the financial industry. He HAS admonished the US electorate and elected officials to restore the tried and true New Deal financial industry regulation that resulted in more than fifty years of no US financial crisis and would still be preventing financial crisis if Ronny Raygun and his successors had not dismantled financial industry regulation.
Lets apply some basic logic, translucent.
If Nader was a Pied Piper he would be promoting a bailout to bolster his vested interests in Wall Street so that he could offload them in the short term.
Nader HAS NOT questioned the efficacy of the financial industry. He HAS admonished the US electorate and elected officials to restore the tried and true New Deal financial industry regulation that resulted in more than fifty years of no US financial crisis and would still be preventing financial crisis if Ronny Raygun and his successors had not dismantled financial industry regulation.