mudcat.org: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004

Don Firth 16 Jul 03 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,pdq 14 Jul 03 - 06:26 PM
GUEST 14 Jul 03 - 05:00 PM
sloop 14 Jul 03 - 04:55 PM
Don Firth 14 Jul 03 - 01:42 PM
Don Firth 14 Jul 03 - 01:36 PM
Nerd 14 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM
GUEST,pdq 14 Jul 03 - 11:39 AM
Nerd 14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,pdq 13 Jul 03 - 11:50 PM
Bobert 13 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM
GUEST,pdc 13 Jul 03 - 05:28 PM
Don Firth 13 Jul 03 - 05:08 PM
sloop 13 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM
GUEST,pdc 13 Jul 03 - 02:58 PM
GUEST,B 12 Jul 03 - 11:21 PM
Bobert 12 Jul 03 - 10:45 PM
GUEST,pdq 12 Jul 03 - 10:28 PM
Janie 12 Jul 03 - 09:00 PM
GUEST,B 12 Jul 03 - 04:30 PM
Don Firth 12 Jul 03 - 03:49 PM
Alice 12 Jul 03 - 03:40 PM
GUEST,B 12 Jul 03 - 03:15 PM
Don Firth 12 Jul 03 - 02:37 PM
GUEST,pdq 12 Jul 03 - 12:58 PM
GUEST,pdc 12 Jul 03 - 12:03 AM
Don Firth 11 Jul 03 - 04:38 PM
Don Firth 11 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM
GUEST,pdq 11 Jul 03 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,pdc 11 Jul 03 - 12:36 AM
GUEST,The First 10 Jul 03 - 10:38 AM
DougR 10 Jul 03 - 12:05 AM
Don Firth 09 Jul 03 - 02:14 PM
Ron Olesko 09 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM
Ron Olesko 09 Jul 03 - 01:37 PM
GUEST 09 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM
GUEST 09 Jul 03 - 12:22 PM
GUEST,The first 09 Jul 03 - 12:06 PM
Ron Olesko 09 Jul 03 - 09:28 AM
GUEST,pdc 09 Jul 03 - 01:15 AM
Don Firth 09 Jul 03 - 01:09 AM
GUEST 09 Jul 03 - 12:20 AM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 08 Jul 03 - 11:00 PM
GUEST 08 Jul 03 - 10:38 PM
Don Firth 08 Jul 03 - 09:11 PM
NicoleC 08 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM
Don Firth 08 Jul 03 - 02:11 PM
GUEST 08 Jul 03 - 09:11 AM
An Pluiméir Ceolmhar 08 Jul 03 - 08:32 AM
GUEST 08 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 02:15 PM

Excerpted from something I just posted on the "Quagmire" thread. It occured to me after posting it, that it really belongs in this thread:--

Last night, having fried my eyes by sitting in front of my computer monitor all day, I naturally turned on the television set. Nothing but summer re-runs. The most likely candidate for watching was a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I had already seen that episode at least eight times, and it wasn't one of my favorites anyway. So I channel-surfed. When I hit CSPAN-2, John Kerry was speaking, so I watched.

It turned out that it was a presentation for a large audience made up of gay/lesbian groups and individuals who were there to hear what the Democratic presidential candidates had to say about the civil rights of gays and lesbians re: civil domestic partnerships, same sex marriage, place in the military, etc., along with a number of other issues. I came in late, so, at the time, I didn't know who all it included, but I did hear John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosley-Braun, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, and Dick Gephardt. Each candidate had a two minute opening statement. Then Sam Donaldson plied them with questions about a number of issues. Then each one made a two minute closing statement. Here is the New York Times story about the forum (PLINK!!).

Being a flaming, out-of-the-closet heterosexual, the subject under discussion was not an issue for me personally, but it is for a number of friends and acquaintances, and it is a civil rights issue, so I was interested in what they all had to say. Also, it was an opportunity to hear at least seven of the nine all in a row and make some comparisons. I have no particular ax to grind here (other than getting the Bush administration the hell out of there!), and what I am really looking for now is a candidate that I can support whole-heartedly and who will even get me enthusiastic enough to get up off my butt and go to work for.

Impressions:— The candidates I found the most interesting were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Next in line was John Kerry. These three had real "fire in the belly." Their remarks were solid, clear, and unequivocal. No waffling here. And all three were very dynamic speakers, particularly Kucinich and Sharpton. I have heard that some people, including Democrats, regard these two as something of a joke, with no chance of ever winning, but to my mind, they were the ones who offered the most clear-cut, least ambiguous ideas and intentions, and who also offered an unmistakable alternative to the current administration. Kerry was very good also. Pretty much up there with the other two. So far, that would be my short list: Kucinich, Sharpton, and Kerry.

Carol Mosley Braun was impressive, as was Dick Gephardt. Regarding Howard Dean, having heard him before and learning something about his background, he was the one I preferred as the Democratic candidate (and I may still, depending), but after last night, I'm back to pondering again. He was very good, but he was not as clear-cut and dynamic as those on my "short list." If Joe Lieberman turns out to be the Democratic candidate after the convention, I will work for him and vote for him in preference to letting the current administration stay in, but only with reservations. He said some good things, but I was not as impressed by him as I was with the others.

Two WOWs!!

When Sam Donaldson asked Kucinich if he would appoint an openly gay or lesbian person to the Supreme Court, he responded, "Certainly! Provided they support Roe v. Wade!" (Audience explodes in cheers and applause).

Al Sharpton, while talking about political activism and participation in civil rights marches and peace marches, said, "Anyone who has reached the age of fifty and has not been thrown in jail for supporting an important cause has no reason to brag!" (Another powerful audience response).

I, personally, am not endorsing anyone at this point. I'm still watching, reading, and thinking, and I will continue to do so for many months to come. But after seeing these Democratic candidates in this forum, believe me, any reports that the Democratic Party is dead or no longer relevant is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republican Party.

Hang in there, people! It ain't over 'til it's over!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 06:26 PM

Thanks Don, we agree more often than you probably would like. Note that my big, bad SUV is union made, so is the beer, and the bar-b-que. The ballplayers are even union, making more money than you or I can imagine. Peace.                      PS:(go Sharpton!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 05:00 PM

With all the electronic touch screen voting booths run by a Texas Republican firm, no one need worry about the outcome of the election.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: sloop
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 04:55 PM

History will be written by the victor,regardless of which mask captain america decides to wear,and it's got bugger all to do with us commoners .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 01:42 PM

By the way, Nerd, I do agree with what you (14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM).

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 01:36 PM

GUEST,pdq, I don't agree with much of anything that you say.

And I take it from your remarks that you are anti-union? Don't care diddly-squat about teachers? Well, at least you're consistant.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM

Bobert, I may have disagreed with some of what you said up there, but you're exactly right in your math. It ain't rocket science, indeed!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 11:39 AM

Well said, Mr. Nerd. Let's see, Nader gets 5%, Sharpton 12%. Wow! Most of us blue-collar working people will have the man WE want for the next five years easy! Think I'll pop a beer, maybe wash my SUV, check out the ballgame, maybe get my special sauce ready for the bar-b-que tonite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM

Okay, here's what bugs me...I do agree that there are some blinded by right wing propoganda stating that Nader is evil, etc. But not many. Because, you know what? People interested in right wing propaganda wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

But what burns me up is the left-wing propoganda that claims we have "republicrats" or "repubrocats" or that "reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." "Reality shows?" Nice you've cited your evidence there, buddy!

I, too am a lefty, and anyone who thinks there is no difference between the Democrat and Republicans is fooling him/herself. This is where Nader lost my respect: claiming that there would be no difference between Gore and Bush, and that he therefore represented the only viable alternative. You know what? We have gone to war with Iraq and killed hundreds of innocent people along with the guilty ones. We have enacted legislation harmful to the environment and to our rights to free speech and information. We have curtailed civil liberties to an alarming extent. And none of this would have happened under Gore.

So Nader was lying, and he knew he was lying when he said it, and most Americans knew he was lying too. Does it make it better that he wasn't trying to win but to get 5% of the vote? No, it makes it worse. He sacrificed human lives and human rights in a low-stakes gamble.

Do I think he's evil or a demon? No. But I think he screwed up big-time, lied as badly as any other candidate, compromised his much-touted integrity, and, as Ron points out, hasn't the skills to run a country anyway. Why would anyone vote for him?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 11:50 PM

For those who went to public schools and were taught by members of the AFT, the term "tenacious curmudgeon" means the same as "stubborn ass". Mr Firth would probably agree.

Little Hawk: Your statements elsewhere are clear and well-composed. Shure you won't try to explain "society building" where "nation-building" seems to fit? My feeling is that we could not impose this society on anyone else if we wanted to, and we should be flogged if we tried!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM

sloop:

Whereas there is a part of me that says "Screw it. It's out of our hands" there is another part that says "Fight the bastards." Fortunately the "Fight the bastards" prevails about 90% of the time.

When we throw up our arms in defeat we will learn exactly what Boss hog has in mind for us, and it ain't purdy. Hey, there are a lot of folks still razed over the abolition of slavery. So they passed 14-B of the Taft-Hartley Act which reintroduce slavery. Don't think so. Drive through the Confederate states and check it out. Slavery is alive and well.... Only problem is that there are way too many folks living just above the poverty line that need someone to step on their knuckles. And Bush and Co. are doing the best they can to make those greedy folks happy.....

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:28 PM

Let's hear it for tenacious curmudgeonry! I'll join you, as long as you don't call me a curmudgeonette.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:08 PM

Yes, Janie, you may indeed. Feel free to use it as you wish--and thank you!

And, GUEST,pdq, that's the current cry of the Bush administration about a lot of things: hanging chads, WMDs, promises to rebuild Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?). A whole batch of promised make and lies told that they hope the voters will forget about. But I'm a tenacious curmudgeon, and I'm not going to quit just because some folks find it embarrassing to be reminded.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: sloop
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM

Bush,Nadir,Captain America,what difference does the face of the puppet make?The controlling parties at the top of the pyramid will continue to rape the world in the name of a fast buck,without a moments thought for the human race.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 02:58 PM

Guest B: Can someone be a whore who does it for free?

I guess you have your social levels, and others have theirs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,B
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 11:21 PM

Clinton gets 100 grand a nite for Bush-bashing, you folks do if for free! Can someone be a whore who does it for free?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:45 PM

Ahhh, what am I missin' here on the deficits. They are less about spending than ill-timed tax cuts. This ain't rocket science, folks. Ahhh, like if I have monthly bills of X$'s and I'm making X$'s then things are fine buit if I decide I don't want to work as much and satrt making less than X$'s, then I have a problem. Like I say, it ain't rocket science...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:28 PM

Hey Firth: You're still counting hanging chads. Know the cords to "Time to Move On"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 09:00 PM

Don,

You say it so well. May any of us reproduce it to share with others?

Janie


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,B
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 04:30 PM

Don Firth: Thanks, I feel better now. Still want poeple to look at a graph of the national debt and note that it has never gone down, not even in Bill's adm. Someone (don't take that personally) has a definition of "surplus" that comes from Madison avenue, not from Main Street and not from an economics book.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 03:49 PM

Social programs did not increase all that much during the Clinton administration. In fact, a number of social programs were reduced or cut (remember Clinton's "welfare reform?"). There was a substantial budget surplus that, unless messed with, would have stayed in the black indefinitely and, in fact, would have continued to increase, leaving room for a whole menu of possible programs. Then Bush took office it was Bush's massive tax cuts along with equally massive increases in "defense" spending that is primarily responsible for the abrupt nosedive.

Part of the Bush administration's plan is to increase and maintain a high level of military spending while, at the same time, deepening budget deficits sufficiently that the country will not be able to afford social programs for the forseeable future. Bush never saw a social program that he didn't want to cut. For example, don't be snowed by Bush's Medicare prescription drug program. Sounds good, but read the details and see how it (doesn't) work.

"Compassionate conservative" indeed!!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 03:40 PM

GO HOWARD DEAN. Dean is the only one I would vote for and the only one wtih a chance of beating Bush.

Alice, an Independent


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,B
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 03:15 PM

Don Firth: "Spending on social programs has increased so much that we would have 3/4 of the current deficit even without liberating Iraq." (ex me)         

"In not many months, the Bush administration squandered the biggest budget surplus this country has ever had..." (ex you)

You did not explain well here. The budget deficit is from social programs advanced, for the most part, by non-conservative types. If I do not understand, it is not because I don't want to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:37 PM

GUEST,pdq, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Perhaps it's because you don't want to.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:58 PM

Don Firth: Thanks for point about f**ts in Demos. Hate to think you're one-sided.

Guest pdc: Is this for a class in our public schools? AFT member? Salary paid from taxes on working people?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:03 AM

pdq, what Don Firth was advocating is sanity, which you may not recognize or understand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:38 PM

And GUEST,pdc, yes, you may use my name, or not, as you wish. I'm not proprietary about what I wrote. I am eager to get the ideas out there to as many people as possible, so have at it! Thanks again!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM

GUEST,pdc, thank you, and feel free.

GUEST,pdq, not stale at all. If you took the trouble to read all of my "rant," you'd see what I'm really advocating. There are many old f**ts in the Democratic Party who would not like what I said at all!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:32 AM

Spending on social programs has increased so much that we would have 3/4 of the current deficit even without liberating Iraq. The rest of the Firth rant sounds like he is reading from an old copy of Democrat talking points. Stale air is what it is. Go Nader!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 12:36 AM

To Don Firth:

I applaud your last post -- the position you take is the sanest I have seen posted anywhere. Good for you.

May I have your permission to copy and quote you on another forum to which I belong? It is a political forum, and it needs your words like a breath of fresh air.

If you would prefer that I not use your post, I won't, nor will I adapt it to my own purpose and claim it as mine. If you do grant permission, I will not use your name unless you say so. I will not state from where it came.

Even if I don't repost it elsewhere, I cannot congratulate you strongly enough for your stance -- would that there were many more like you. You give me hope.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,The First
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:38 AM

Said DougR, as he took the leap into the abyss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 12:05 AM

Right on, I say. Go Nader!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:14 PM

GUEST accuses me (us) of only being AGAINST Bush and not FOR anything. But there is plenty that I stand FOR. There is no political party extant in this country that consistently reflects my beliefs about the direction this country should go. I hold no brief for either of the two major parties, but of the list of candidates currently lining up for the 2004 elections, there are three who stand for a number of things that I find I can pretty much agree with. They just happen to be Democrats. About they're not having a prayer of beating Bush in 2004, I would not be so hasty or defeatist. Whether or not they have a real chance remains to be seen. The election is not for sixteen months yet, and a lot can happen in that time.

We may be the richest, most powerful country in the world, but there are countries that are far more civilized than the United States. With far less resources and wealth, they are much more advanced in terms of social programs and safety nets, and they have no desire to go to war with or otherwise dominate other countries. Their citizens are healthy, happy, and free, they have universal health care, excellent educational systems, no poverty, no homelessness, they take care of the elderly and disabled, and they have labor laws that provide for fair wages and allow for leisure time in which they can enjoy the fruits of their labors, not just live to work as many do in this country. These countries seem to care for the welfare—not just a monthly check that many Americans seem to find so hateful, but the overall general welfare—of their citizens in a way that seems to be alien to the thinking in the United States. Americans turn pale, scream "socialist," and refuse to examine what they do and how they manage it. Am I a socialist? No. But I am interested in the "healthy, happy, and free" part of it. And many of these countries have not gone to war for generations, and whenever they did, they were not the aggressors. They are more interested in cooperation and trade, and maintain military forces or memberships in organizations such as NATO, not out of any militarism or fear of their neighbors, but out of apprehension about what some bellicose Superpower might do.

The Republican Party under George W. Bush and the neo-Conservative cabal that is pulling his strings is leading this country in the exact opposite direction from the one I believe it should go. In not many months, the Bush administration squandered the biggest budget surplus this country has ever had and it has lead us into an unnecessary war of aggression (that had been planned since 1992), in the process lying to the American public to garner support. It has also squandered the outpouring of good will that the peoples of the world felt toward us in the wake of 9/11 and turned it into justifiable suspicion and apprehension about our motives and intentions. When questioned on certain sensitive points such as "in what way was Iraq connected with 9/11?" or "where are these WMDs?" they change the subject or stonewall. Domestically, corporate corruption and blatant cronyism has reached heights hitherto undreamed of, and when caught, if any action is taken at all, it is "justified," excused, or given a token slap on the wrist, generally accompanied by a wink. Bush has made many promises during speeches (e.g. education, and local level homeland security), but consistently the funding needed to implement these programs is not forthcoming. In fact, the Bush administration is in the process of tearing the guts out of social programs and safety nets that have taken almost a century to build (including education, Social Security, and Medicare), and—worst of all—when it finds the Constitution and Bill of Rights inconvenient, it ignores them—then accuses those who object of being "unpatriotic" (!!). These are the symptoms of authoritarianism and tyranny in the making. Any student of history can see this.

This country has the potential of being a shining example to the rest of the world. But the Bush administration is following a domestic policy of Social Darwinism and a foreign policy of geopolitical domination and empire building. Much of the world now regards the United States as a rogue nation, and with good cause.

Am I AGAINST Bush and the neo-Conservative administration? You bet I am! I'd campaign for SpongeBob SquarePants if I thought he had a chance of getting the Bush administration out of there. But in any case, I will work FOR someone who, I believe, has a real chance of, if not turning this country around, at least stopping its current plunge toward the Abyss.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:38 PM

oops... your spelling is better than mine. You did a FINE job spelling albatross.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:37 PM

Guest 12:22 PM   - You did a find job spelling albatross.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM

"When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."

Ain't necessarily so. Tony Blair managed to get not only elected but reelected as a Labour (cf Democrat) politician advocating Conservative (cf Republican) policies.

Now the Conservatives reckon that their only way back to power is to posture as saviours of the public services that they themselves wrecked, which is as close as you can get to a reversal of polarity by both parties.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:22 PM

Sorry Ron and Don. The gentleman who just made his point is more likely to side with you two than with me. How do you spell albatross? God Bless all. (end of my stay here, honest!)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,The first
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:06 PM

The state of political graft and corruption is equal opportunity. No party has a lock on it. The polarization in this country is not Dem vs Rep or even liberal vs conservative. It has to with corrupt vs. not corrupt.

I believe the latest guest, who's politics I disagree with, is right about one thing. The conservative elements of this society (whom are also quite splintered, but can agree to vote as a bloc) have displaced the liberal elements of this society in politics and business. The liberals have been effectively marginalized and are very much dead in the water. They don't have a prayer for beating Bush in 2004.

The true polarization in this society is between forward looking progressives, and backward looking conservatives. Liberals are irrelevant, and they are represented politically by the Democrats, despite the occassional conservatives (like that young, black House member from Tennessee the right wing of the Dem party is grooming for greatness, whose name escapes me right now) here and there.

The progressives in this party will eventually do battle directly with the conservatives, and they will win. That is the nature of human progress. Conservatives can't hold us back forever, only for a short time in the big scheme of things. I do take that sort of long view. The current turn to the right is millenial inspired fear mongering by people terrified of what the world will look like when it is ruled by more enlightened egalitarians from all over the globe, and when this nasty capitalist virus runs it's course, and we have a whole new economic model.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 09:28 AM

Yes guest, thank you so much for proving my point.   I guess we understand where you are coming from.

I enjoy my status as a lefty and I'm glad you were able to pick up on that. If you feel that organized crime has not flocked to the Republican Party then you are blind.   

Child molester?   Who are you referring to?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:15 AM

Hail to the Thief!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:09 AM

Okay, GUEST. Got you pegged.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:20 AM

The only thing to apologise for is the guest status. Guest statements come from at least four different people here. This is confusing. I came in after others and did not use A, B, 1 or any
such distinguishing marker. My fault.

Typical lefty, you jumped on the divisive words only and ignored the truth. The Democrats are in trouble because they represent the marginal left-overs of society. A child-molester is much more comfortable with Demos. Organized crime is not flocking to Repubs. Maxine Waters is a hideous joke yet Demos embrace her, at least in public. Read what I said. I stand by it.

We do have a decent, Christian man in the White House now, and we both wish him the best. No fights. No Bile. God bless, and let us all get back to music or anything that is fun and positive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 11:00 PM

Sure we have a decent honest man in the White House right now. But the chef doesn't make national policy.

Guest, you talk about there being noight "attractive about people who must destroy honest and decent people" after you write a sentence where you blame the Democrats for having "freaks, crooks" and "perverts" in their ranks.   What kind of hypocrite are you?

I'm not denying the Democratic party is screwed up, but for you to sit there and pass judgement and then hide under your electronic hood really speaks volumes about your character.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:38 PM

Mr. Firth: Your statements do show a "Democrat, right or wrong" attitude by assuming that any reasonable person wants the current administration changed. WE DO NOT. Changed a little, maybe. Pick a left or right adjustment. That is democracy.

I have asked many a liberal what he stands FOR. They usually answer with a statement of who they are AGAINST. Not the same thing. Calling people Neo-whatever is childish. We have a decent, honest man in the White House now. You may not think so but you are surely wrong about other thing too. Give him the benefit of the doubt and the country has a chance to unite.

The true, honest, liberal Democrats are gone. The people you see now are "pods". Remember the movie? If the Dems hope to save themselves, the few (any?) true beleivers must purge the freaks, crooks, the Hil-Billary wannabes and perverts and start over. There is nothing attractive about people who must destroy honest and decent people as their only way to get elected.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:11 PM

Harmann is not advising you to vote blindly for the Democratic Party no matter what, he's advising you to get in there yourself and stir the soup. Don't just sit back and complain, jump in, join forces with other like-minded people and do everything you can to steer the party in the direction you think it should go.

This is the way the Neo-Cons took over the Republican Party. He's just saying "What's sauce for the goose, etc. . . ."

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 03:07 PM

Unfortunately, Mr. Hartmann's solution (and he's written on this subject many times over the years) is for nobody to vote the way they want to. In other words, he proposes that you vote for a Democrat even if you don't agree with them or their politics, no matter how bad it gets, because after all, it's the "other" party.

Poppycock, sez I.

First of all, reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." There ARE exceptions of particular individuals, but as a political force the Democratic Party is dead in the water.

Second, even if one accepts the hypothesis that the US exclusively a 2 party system (which I don't entirely), no one says those two parties get to be the "Democrats" and the "Republicans." History bears this out -- political parties come and go and their philosophies change over time.

We could be witnessing the death of one party and the rise of another to take it's place. Nobody hold your breath; it won't happen overnight. The Democrats aren't dead yet, but if they don't start acting like ANYTHING they will be dead. I'd rather they act like a real party again -- otherwise it'd be an ugly ride.

Mr. Hartmann's periodic insistance that one should blindly vote for a party instead of candidate only accelerates the downward spiral of lackluster, lame, corrupt candidates on "both" sides of the aisle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 02:11 PM

The problem right now, and the problem with the Democratic Party within recent elections, is not that the nation is polarized, but that it is not polarized enough. The Democratic Party has been oozing to the right for years, and it has finally reached that point that Harry Truman was warning about when he said (quoted above, but I'll repeat it here), "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."

The Republican Party pretty much knows what it wants, and we're seeing the results of that now. If the Democrats don't like it, standing around with their thumbs in various parts of their anatomy and saying, "Well, gee whiz, me too, only maybe not quite so--uh--you know--like--so much." What the Democratic Party has to do if they want to have any chance of winning at all is to offer a genuine alternative to the Republican Party, and not be wishy-washy about it. In short, polarize the nation.

And to clarify the matter of the two-party, winner-take-all system that we have: I wasn't saying that I like it or recommend it (nor is Thom Hartmann in the article I linked to), I'm merely pointing out the reality of the situation. When have you ever known a third party to win a national election? When did a third party not draw votes away from the party it's most closely allied to? That's just the way it is, and if we want a regime change in this country in 2004, we're just going to have to deal with it.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:11 AM

Let's see. A third party is only righteous is it does not run a candidate?

The U.S. should have numerous parties to fight and snipe at each other, making shure nothing gets done?

Voter fraud is just fine as long as your side does it?

Whoa Dude!!!!!!! What a country!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 08:32 AM

Don't know if the Cattery is going to solve the democratic conundrum of reconciling representativeness with effective government, but it's an important debate.

Electoral systems sometimes outlive their usefulness, but they have profound symbolic value which makes it difficult to change them. The US collegial system belonged to an earlier era when the public could not be expected to know the individual candidates, but is now an artifice which simply distorts the results of what in fact is a single-constituency electorate trying in vain to elect a president directly.

Any thoughts from UK Catters on the proposition that the UK now has a presidential régime with the House of Commons functioning as an electoral college?

For parliamentary elections, the first-past-the-post system is brutally unfair and produces results which make a mockery of democracy. On the other hand, pure proportionality leads to a situation where splinter groups hold the balance of power and wield disproportionate power. The UK and Israel spring to mind as exemplars of the defects of both systems.

I still have a strong attachment to the form of PR which I grew up with (STV, the single transferable vote, with multi-seat constituencies for parliamentary elections). It's not perfect, but if engineered with the public interest in mind (OK, that's a big "if") it can introduce enough viscosity into the system to reconcile the representativeness/effectiveness dilemma and help to ensure that minorities are represented. It also works effectively in presidential elections where the whole country becomes a single constituency and the president who scores highest on the combined scales of most favoured/least disfavoured wins.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 07:11 AM

For me, the most negative manifestation of the tyranny of two party rule is exactly what we have now: a polarized nation that can't agree on anything. That leads to voter apathy, which leads to the most manipulative, corrupt, and greedy winning elections to maintain their own status quo.

So strong campaigns by third parties are the only true corrective we have in this debased political system in the US. And as we saw in the 2000 election, when the corrupt political system controls the media (that FCC thing we all heard so much about in June), as is the case now, third party candidates can't even mount a strong campaign, because they don't receive media coverage without having to buy it. Whereas the Democrat and Republican candidates get free media coverage 24/7, year in and year out.

The US political system is, without doubt, the most corrupt in the world at this time. Billions of dollars have been spent on graft in the form of "campaign donations" in the post-Vietnam era. Billions. The US business community has spent more bribing elected government officials than many countries have for a national budget for a year.

So if Ralph Nader has the guts to address that by running for president in ANY party, as he did in 2000, he has my vote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 31 October 7:38 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.