Thank You Ralph Nader!

[HoursHore]

Capt Tex
I am sure there are some Viper drivers in SKF that would like to talk to you about your avatar.

Those who can't, mock

 

[Tim47SIP]

Cpt Dik-I mean Tex

So what is your background. What unit did you serve in. I am sure you were a war hero with lots of medals. I am sure you served your country proudly which gives you the credibility to mock the National Guard or for any other Veteran out there that did't serve in that war during that period.

 

[merikeyegro]

...

Kids - Nader has to get on the ballot first. He doesn't have the Greens this year and has very little support. Many of his old supporters just plain don't like the thought of him giving another election to Bush. Yes, Gore was a moron and should have won anyway. However, FL was won by 537 votes and Nader got 97,000. Let's say that half of them would not have voted at all and the others would have voted for, primarily, Gore. Gore would be president...and we'd all be hugging trees. Nonetheless, Bush would not be in office and this race would be a little different.

Nader will have a tough time getting on ballots. This is NOT 2000 and he has very little support. If he pulls 0.5%, I'll be surprised. Kerry is liberal enough. Get behind him and go for it.

 

[jarhead]

Why will no one state how many votes Pat Buchannan "siphoned" away from Bush? Is that not the same logic as Nader taking votes from Gore?

 

[surplus1]

Why will no one state how many votes Pat Buchannan "siphoned" away from Bush? Is that not the same logic as Nader taking votes from Gore?

I doubt Buchannan siphoned any significant number of votes from Bush. However when thousands of voters from a County that is predominantly Jewish casts votes for Buchannan, there's a fly in the ointment somewhere. That constituency simply doesn't vote for Christian right wing candidate whatever his name may be.

Since both Bush and Buchannan are "bible belt" candidates supported by the Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwells of the world it raises eyebrows when a predominantly Jewish population votes for the Christian right-wing poster boys. Especially when they have "one of their own" on the opposing ballot.

That one has an "odor" that can be whiffed as far away as Patagonia.

 

[jarhead]

My cousin and his wife retired in Florida several years ago. He has told me that both he and his wife voted for Pat Buchannan. (They're both non practicing Lutherans) So, I know at least two people who voted for Pat Buchannan. There surly must be more than that. What was the margin of defeat for Al Gore? 514 wasn't it?

I really am not concerned with an answer to what was really meant to be a rhetorical comment. So many seem to think that any votes given to Ralph Nader, belonged to Al Gore. My contention is that they did not belong to anyone except Nader. Ralph did not steal (or "Siphon") any votes. They were given to him by individual voters. Some, I suspect, did so due to the other choices boiled down to casting their vote for "Dumb and Dumber".
No offense to the actors in that film is intended.

 

[surplus1]

I will, however, set you straight.

I have no problem with your support for George, but the idea that you are setting anyone straight is at best an oxymoron.

The Florida court had been cautioned by the Supremes to not try and "cherry pick" certain counties for recounts. These counties were seen as being likely places where the Florida democrats could maneuver the recount to fit their agenda. The Supremes said no, this wasn't within the scope of their judicial mandate, and the election stood, as finished.

There was a problem, in the view of the US Supreme Court, with a recount by "selected counties." However, that was not an error of the Florida Supreme Court, it was an error on the part of legal counsel for Gore. The Florida court did not come up with the "cherry pick" concept. It was the lawyer's idea to request a recount limited to specific counties as opposed to state wide, not the Florida courts. You can state the facts without attempts to mislead.

So, this idea tha the Supreme Court "placed" Bush in office is whimsical democrat storytelling, or as the rest of us know it, a LIE.

Again you "spin" events to suit your side of the storytelling. If the Supreme Court was interested in a fair procedure for recounting the Florida votes, it could easily have ordered a state-wide recount which it said would be legitimate. Instead it voted five to four to decide the election, thus depriving the people of their franchise and forever casting a shadow on the legitimacy of the election and the current President. That reality does not change regardless of whether you supported Bush or Gore.

Additionally, other courts in Florida, headed by judges of Republican persuasion, allowed the counting of thousands of absentee ballots that did not comply with Florida election law. Had those illegal votes been outcast, the election may have had a different outcome. We don't know.

Like it or not, the truth is that the "people of Florida" did not elect George Bush. The courts, the head of the state's electoral commission, the governor and the state police, more than did their part to ensure who would emerge the victor in a very close election.

It is of course merely a coincidence that all of those entities happen to be dominated or controlled by the current president's political party. (You see, I can spin doctor too.)

Back to the thread topic, Nader just made a speech at the National Press Club. He used all of the expected keywords, such as "big business", "worker", "corporate", "private financing", and a whole laundry list of other words that are part and parcel to any good socialist call-to-arms.
God bless this man.

Based on past experience with your rhetoric, I know that if I had said the equivalent with respect to the mantra of neoconservatism and GWB's right-wing club, at this point you would be calling me a "hate-America- first, left-wing liberal extremist and questioning my patriotism.

What should I call you?

 

[merikeyegro]

Blinded by the right.

 

[surplus1]

Priceless!

 

[flying4life]

I know this is flightinfo.com, but religion and politics ...why not.
As far as finding the right guy for the dems goes... the stuff that comes out of their mouths... "We don't care who, just as long as he beats GWB." I'll tell ya, that's best for the country (NOT). "We don't care what the guy stands for, or what his positions are just so he takes out GWB." What kind of joke is this, is this the best dems can come up with? That's the dumbest stuff I've ever heard.
Oh I can already hear it... "That's just how bad we want him out." Yea ok, just throw anybody in there, we'll take care of the rest. I'm voting for GWB because he is GWB. Not because he can beat the other guy, his chances are the best..etc. To listen to the democrat runners... as they bowed out (except for Clark).."I'll support whoever gets the nomination." You guys don't care who's there, you'll support anyone.... that's sad!

 

[jarhead]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I don't recall where the above quote comes from (Native American, perhaps), but it seems to fit the situation here.

This country even cozied up with Joe Stalin as ally against Hitler, who was the greater evil. That did not make Stalin a "nice guy"

 

[secks]

Again you "spin" events to suit your side of the storytelling. If the Supreme Court was interested in a fair procedure for recounting the Florida votes, it could easily have ordered a state-wide recount which it said would be legitimate. Instead it voted five to four to decide the election, thus depriving the people of their franchise and forever casting a shadow on the legitimacy of the election and the current President. That reality does not change regardless of whether you supported Bush or Gore.

Additionally, other courts in Florida, headed by judges of Republican persuasion, allowed the counting of thousands of absentee ballots that did not comply with Florida election law. Had those illegal votes been outcast, the election may have had a different outcome. We don't know.

No, he's not spinning. Here are the facts:

1) The original margin was about 1700 votes out of 6 million.

2) Under Florida state law, a machine recount was required. The gap narrowed to around 300 votes. The thousands of overseas absentee votes were NOT counted at this time.

3) The Gore campaign lawyers petitioned to have manual recounts in four heavily democratic counties. The Flordia courts erroneously permitted this to occur, as the state law only allows manual recounts in cases where vote tabulation was in error. Voters are not tabulators. Machines are tabulators, and the machines we're defective. Enter the hanging chad.

4) On Dec. 8, the Florida SC then ruled that a manual, state-wide hand recount would be conducted. Again, this is not consistent with Florida law. Furthermore, it introduces subjectivity into the vote tallying process.

5) The SCOTUS stopped the manual recount and declared Bush the victor.

 

[GogglesPisano]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I don't recall where the above quote comes from (Native American, perhaps), but it seems to fit the situation here.

This country even cozied up with Joe Stalin as ally against Hitler, who was the greater evil. That did not make Stalin a "nice guy"

Actually it comes from "Wrath of Khan," when Khan (aptly portrayed by Ricardo Montalban complete with a plastic chest) ... no wait, that was about revenge being a dish best served cold. Nevermind!

 

[jarhead]

If Khan said that in the movie, he had borrowed it from centuries before. I have known of that quote way before the movie you mention was ever produced. It may have come from the orient however. Japan or China history....or maybe Native American. I'll have to do a search on that now to see where in antiquity it comes from.

 

[mar]

I'd bet five bucks...

...it came from The Art of War. And I can't remember the author.

Go Nader.

I heard him interviewed last night by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. He said he would support a movement to impeach Bush on abuse of office (you know, things like an unconstitutional war, etc.).

Goodman followed up by suggesting that may be unsuccessful due to the republican controlled congress and besides the electorate themselves can just vote Bush out of office if they like.

Nader's response: Impeachment is not a conviction it just gets the ball rolling and besides if this isn't the time to use it then when is?

I say, get the ball rolling. I'm sick of the Federal Government playing fast and loose with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

To hell with Bush.
Thank you for your attention.

 

[jarhead]

The Art of War is an ancient Chinese book written by a Chinese general over a thousand years ago. The book still requied reading at West Point and other Army war colleges.

I believe the quote in the movie "The Wrath of Khan" about "Vengence is a dish best served cold" comes from Herman Melville's "Moby Dick"

I have also seen the interviews with Nader on several programs. I like a lot of what he says. I believe he will take more votes away from Bush than he would from the Democratic nominee. Many conservatives are very unhappy with GWB, and I am one of them.

 

[jarhead]

SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD

Sun-Tzu is the Chinese general who wrote "The Art of War" over 2400 years ago. Good stuff on the internet about it.

 

[prodigal]

Run Ralph run!

Now if only Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would run as independents as well.
Serious though, Jarhead, I'm a life-long Republican as well (but with a strong Libertarian streak) and am also somewhat disappointed by Bush, mostly on spending; however, when it comes to national security and the war on terror, he is the real deal. And I would submit that these are still the issues most important to America right now, way above the economy. The economy is getting so much attention from the dems and the media precisely because the Presidents actions in the terror war have so far been so successful. And really I don't understand this because the economy is in pretty good shape and improving.
Moreover, there is absolutely NO doubt Bush is head and shoulders superior to any candidate the dems can come up with. As far as Nader is concerned, totally aside from issues, he is simply not electable. That is the same reason I will not waste my vote on a Libertarian.
Respectfully, I urge you to reconsider.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Run Ralph run!

Serious though, Jarhead, I'm a life-long Republican as well (but with a strong Libertarian streak) and am also somewhat disappointed by Bush, mostly on spending; however, when it comes to national security and the war on terror, he is the real deal. >>>>> Moreover, there is absolutely NO doubt Bush is head and shoulders superior to any candidate the dems can come up with.

I'm curious .... What is it that you see as being "the real deal" about Bush a) with respect to national security and b) with respect to the war on terror?

For example, we were attacked on 9/11. As a result, Mr Bush ordered our military into Afghanisan in pursuit of the perpetraors. That's good. Given the same circumstance, do you actually think that any sitting American President would not have done the same thing?

What, precisely, about Mr. Bush do you see as being "head and shoulders above any candidate" the opposition could come up with?

Please don't tell me what's bad about Kerry or Edwards or the others, just tell me what is "special" about GWB as you see it.

 

[Dubya]

I'll take a crack at that.

There is good and bad with any president and this one is no different. What stands out with GWB is he has done what he said he would do. No wavering, no excuses. He said we would go to war against terrorism in their front yard, not ours....and thats where we are. He said the price would be paid by our military...servicemen and women will be killed in service...and they are paying the price. He said tax cuts would stimulate the economy...and they did. Say what you will....he doesn't let the polls and the media dictate his policy. He has made tough decisions and followed through. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has done....but he is a leader.

A reminder....the previous administration was faced with terrorist attacks....and the response was?

After the USS Cole attack...Clinton quote "We will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes..."

Clinton said of the victims that "All these very different Americans, all with their different stories, their lifelines and their love ties, answered the same call of service and found themselves on the USS Cole headed for the Persian Gulf '........our forces are working to keep peace and stability in a region that could explode and disrupt the entire world."

"To those who attacked them, we say: you will not find a safe harbor. We will find you, and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world. "

Each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack-the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole-Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

So you say that any sitting president would have acted similarly....the facts prove you wrong. I wager that had GWB been in office the first time the WTC was attacked, the rest would never have happened. The difference is one is a leader...the other is not.

First you get the facts...then you argue.

W