I was asked to sign a petition to get Ralph Nader on the ballot

[Walt Starr]

It's truly sad. There was a day when I would not hesitate to sign any petition to get any candidate or issue on any ballot. I always figured, "that's what Democracy is all about, getting as many choices as possible then melting it down in the crucible of ideas to have a single winner."

I told the signature gatherer, "NO I WILL NOT!!!"

Idealism is great. We can't afford idealism this year, not even in the State of Illinois where Kerry should win handsomely.

Of course, the signature gatherer walked down the train platform and gathered signatures from multiple Republicans after I refused to sign.

I must look like a Republican, which is comforting since I could probably "pass" if it comes down to Bushco stealing another election (with Ralph bNader driving the getaway car).

Edited for a spelling error

[mstrsplinter326]

1. Nader....

Too bad no one here has taken a time-out from personal attacks on Nader to debate the issues. I would be an interesting debate.

[John_H]

2. We don't debate with the enemy here. It's against the rules.

And make no mistke. Ralph is indistinguishable from Bush, Naderites from Freepers: They all want Kerry to lose.

[mstrsplinter326]

3. Proving it all over again

Personal Attacks... No issues....

Ahhhh... how straining it is to be liberal in america.

[Walt Starr]

5. Four years ago, I would've been standing up for Nader

This year, he's a narcissistic asshole deserving of as much or more scorn that Bush*.

[mstrsplinter326]

9. It appears to me that fear has changed your perspective

To slightly modify something ben franklin said:

Those who vote for Kerry simply to get bush out of office, deserve to see Bush back in office.

Vote for who stands with you on the issues or democracy fails.

Kerry has womens rights. Besides a mildly better economic program, that's it. That's all he's got. With a clear conscious I cannot vote for him.

Don't get too up in arms, I live in Indiana, and I am voting for Dave Matthews.

[NoPasaran]

24. Whereas those who vote for Nader or some other fringe candidate

because their conscience won't allow them to vote for Kerry are voting directly to put Bush back in office.

This election is a war, friend. It's time to stop deluding yourself as to which side you've chosen.

[silverpatronus]

34. so glad to see...

...how different the democrats here are from the republicans over at freerepublic < /sarcasm > this is just the democratic spin of 'you're with us or you're with the terrorists'. apparently, dissent won't be tolerated in these ranks either. absolutely shameful...

[NoPasaran]

35. Oh that shallow bullshit again

You Naderite Fifth Columnists need to come up with a more clever argument than repeating "this is just the democratic spin of 'you're with us or you're with the terrorists'". The simple fact is that there are only two people who can be elected president on November 2 and if you're not supporting the one then you are supporting the other. Reality may suck, but that doesn't change the fact that it's reality.

[silverpatronus]

38. you are incorrect.

no. if you're not supporting kerry, you aren't automatically supporting bush. that is anti-democratic rhetoric and i certainly didn't expect to find it on this board. i thought silencing the competition was the other side's MO. since our side is all 'right' and shit, we should be able to stand on our principles and win on them. you want to make nader a non-issue, prove him wrong. the sad truth that the party-line-toe-ers haven't yet faced is that the democratic party has been hijacked by the centre/centre-right, and the progressives/hard-leftists are NOT HAPPY! the reason nader even has a toe-hold is because the DEMOCRATIC PARTY candidate is busy abandoning his base and running to the right as fast as his legs can carry him. and don't give me that crap about winning elections...as fast as kerry picks up votes in the middle, he's losing them on the left. the left is being taken for granted. the progressives are essentially being told 'shut up and take what you get, he's better than bush'. well i will say it: kerry is better than bush the way bush is better than saddam.

y'know, i can respect the people who genuinely admire and support kerry. i can even respect the people who are being honest about holding their noses and voting for him. but the people who feel that the only way to win is to crush dissent and toe the party line all the way to hell i have NO respect for. that's neocon thinking, and those are neocon tactics.

[Walt Starr]

39. You are the one who is incorrect.

Accept the consequences of your actions! You, by choosing not to vote for Kerry, are choosing four more years of Bush. There is no getting around the consequences of your actions!

SHEESH! Nader supporters are less likely to accept responsibility for their actions than Dumbass*!

[silverpatronus]

40. the only way that will happen...

is if nader siphons off more votes on the left than kerry picks up in the middle, which is what everybody seems to be scared of. but why worry if kerry is such a great candidate? because he's NOT such a great candidate, and all your screeching at me and everybody else who's pointed that out ain't gonna change that. if he was such a great candidate, y'all wouldn't be so scared of a little competition.

in addition, i find all this caterwauling about nader to be quite hypocritical coming from all the folks who were hollering for roy moore to run.

[Walt Starr]

41. I think Kerry sucks, but he's the ONLY CHOICE!!!

Idealism is great. We can no more afford idealism in America of 2004 than the left could afford idealism in Germany of 1933!

Edited to add the following:

I DAMN SURE WANT ROY MOORE TO RUN BECAUSE RIGHT WINGERS WHO VOTE FOR MOORE WILL SIPHON OFF BUSH VOTES!!!

There's absolutely no hypocrisy there, only a recognition of reality, something Nader supporters cannot do!

[silverpatronus]

44. so bush can have competition on the right...

but kerry must be uncontested on the left, so say you? and you don't see the hypocrisy of that?

[Walt Starr]

48. Right, because I WANT BUSH OUT!!!

Something Nader supporters obviously care nothing about!

[mstrsplinter326]

71. Yup, we vote for Nader cause we don't give a damn.

Caught red handed; you have correctly generalized every nader-supporter. (/Sarcasm)

When staring down the barrel of shotgun, and forced to choose the left or right side to be shot from, people generally will look for a third option. Even if they are lied to about which side hurts more.

[mstrsplinter326]

60. I've said it before, but your posts are still devoid of issues

there are even election law issues that you could debate, and maybe even find that you and naderites are on the same side.

but the "their is only one" bull sounds like an Orson Wells novel about facism and dictatorship. There aught to be ten, and ranked voting, and proportional representation.........

[Touchdown]

73. You mean George Orwell.

Orson Wells was a filmmaker, a radio personality and an actor. Brilliant one at that.

[mstrsplinter326]

91. yup. thanks (n/t)

[SemperEadem]

55. Idealism is such a cute trait in youngsters...

the fact is Nader doesn't have "critical mass" when it comes to galvanizing the voting citizenry of this country so that a win by him would be feasible. He deflates during campaign 'off-season', only to reanimate when election season rolls around.

In fact, I think that the fact that Nader doesn't run for any office during the 4 years between campaigns says a lot about his 'committment' to people and the political process. If he was THAT remarkable, why doesn't he run for a legislative seat? Why doesn't he run for an office in the community in which he lives to prove that he's got leadership qualities and can get his vision co-opted by those who have more tangible interaction wtih him?

The fact that he sits on his butt for 4 yrs then decides, arrogantly, that he's going to run for the highest office in the land, with nothing preparing him for the job except his out of control ego urging him on is not reason enough for me to throw away my vote. I want Bush out of office! Nader can't deliver that right now because he has not done any preparatory work to do the job right the first time. Therefore, he'd be a bad choice for my vote.

[mstrsplinter326]

61. Nader sits on his butt

And writes novels and position papers.

Then he goes and sits on his butt in the court rooms in which he fights for your right to live in the face of major corporations' wishes.

Just because he isn't high profile fighting GM for you doesn't mean he isn't doing anything. I find the people who fight nader the hardest are the ones who know the least about him.

[silverpatronus]

83. i have not said...

that nader can win the election. i have simply said that a) the bashing is counterproductive since it does nothing to endear the democratic party to potential nader-voters and encourage them to vote democratic, and b) to suggest that the man shouldn't campaign or run is counter to the spirit of democracy.

[Walt Starr]

37. The reality of the situation is, if you vote for Nader, you favor Bush

That's an undeniable fact. There are only two valid choices on the Ballot. You either want George W. Bush and four more years of the same bullshit, or you want a change with Kerry.

The reality is, if you are going to vote for Nader, you are no different from any Freeper who will vote for Bush. The end result is the same, and on top of that, you are as much my mortal enemy as any Freeper.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

43. As far as I'm concerned, Nader is no different from Bush

There is absolutely no difference between Bush and Nader because voting for either of the two accomplishes THE SAME DAMN THING!!!

[silverpatronus]

45. don't you dare call me a freeper...

i'm probably more left than you are. and i'm damn sure that i'm more small-d democratic than you, since i can handle competition and dissent.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[silverpatronus]

52. my actions didn't result in a damn thing

considering that i'm not a US citizen and therefore do not vote in US elections.

[Walt Starr]

53. Then you are even worse

You are a foreign citizen recommending a course of action (Nader for prez) which will result in bush getting back into office.

Now I consider you an enemy of the United States an the world.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[mstrsplinter326]

63. ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES

Maybe Nader could join the Axis of evil and pal around with the leaders of NK and China.

Maybe then Rumsfeld and Wolf-o-pitz could send in special ops and crush the left! Then we could rewrite the constitution to ban DEMOCRACY.

Enemy of the united states. Wow.

[silverpatronus]

70. wow ok, my post was deleted...

granted i called the poster a whack job...

anyway, what i said was that i happened to like the US and be grateful to it for currently providing me with a quite decent tertiary education, and that i was probably more opposed to bush than any american since as an international student i've been labelled a potential terrorist as a rule of thumb. enemy of the united states my ass...i simply pointed out, and will continue to point out the folly of blindly following ANYONE, and the additional folly of attempting to demonise nader this time around. as somebody said on another thread, you'll catch more flies with honey...to win progressive voters over to the mainstream democratic cause, it's wisest not to alienate them by insulting them.

i also pointed out that if blame is to be cast anywhere for the current administration being put into office, it would be more accurate to attack katherine harris and not ralph nader, since nader didn't 'lose' gore the election. it so happens that gore won the election.

i would like to add as well, which i didn't put in my previous post, that i am amazed that americans did not take to the streets and DEMAND that democracy be served and their votes be counted. to me (and i may be wrong) it seems that they just shrugged and moved on.

[Touchdown]

75. You want an issue? I'm a union member...

and Nader Busted one in his own office. Since he talks a good talk about worker rights, but when it comes to his OWN organization, then it must not be applicable...that makes him a hypocrit.

His actions in busting unions trump anything good about the man, just as much as your simplistic, know nothing about why he did it- Kerry=IWR. He's explained his position numerous times, yet you refuse to listen (He voted for it, I don't need to know why...so there! Now change my diaper!)...and you have the nerve to lecture us on "debating issues"...DOCTOR! Heal thyself!

[silverpatronus]

77. huh...

this is a reply to me?

[Touchdown]

79. Yes.

You were the one excoriating the Dems on this...a DEM board about debating issues, and not personalities, were you not?

Are you playing dumb, now that an issue has been raised?

[silverpatronus]

84. no i think you need to reread my posts...

my positions are

a) to suggest that nader shouldn't run merely because he could hurt the dem candidate is counter to the spirit of democracy, and

b) the nader-bashing does nothing to endear the party to potential nader voters, who might be persuaded to vote democrat if they thought they might have a chance in hell of getting their voices heard. forget the anti-nader rhetoric, the progressives are LISTENING to him. you want their attention and their votes, it's smarter to pick up a few of his more salient points (which i even pointed out either here on in a similar thread, some of which kucinich, yes, a DEM, is in agreement with) rather than demonising him.

[noiretextatique]

96. that would be people who actually vote for bush: directly

if you believe voting for anyone else but kerry helps bush, that would be indirect support. direct support is actually voting for bush. for example, registered democrats who vote for bush are voting directly to put bush in office, as are republicans.

[indigo32]

26. I think that to say John Kerry has womens right and thats all,

is a huge mischaracterization of his record. To mention things
the environment
civil rights
Bush's tax cuts
the Death Penalty

And beyond that the changes John Kerry would work to put forth with his "mildly better economic program" will benefit far more people than you may realize, and the Supreme Court justices he will appoint will also have a HUGE impact. This is not FEAR, this is common sense strategy.

[mstrsplinter326]

65. Yeah the supreme court is big

But he voted for the war, and that is a huge red X in my book. And the environment.... The DNC will never stand for a revamping of the EPA, so I would doubt he could even touch it a four year term. Bush Tax cuts are mild compared with the corporate welfare that has been continued by every president since JFK, including the first ever catholic president himself, so to end such a practice with out controls and a comprensive plan in place would seem illogical and never carried out. Moreover, the 6 month notice is the typical demcratic 'differ on the timing' bull that means losing money but not gaining votes. Make a real change!!

Kerry is no bush, that's certain. But Kerry is no Dennis or Ralph either.

[sendero]

64. Thank god...

.. that most of the people here see right through that self-defeating nonsense.

[silverpatronus]

33. uhm....

aren't you SUPPOSED to debate with the enemy? you know...to prove that your position makes more sense and all that...

talk about your convenient democracy...

[bigbillhaywood]

98. Logically untenable argument. nt

[lovedems]

4. Nader is most deserving of every personal attack that comes his way.

He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He *knows* he takes more votes away from Kerry yet says "he is concerned about the direction of the country under *". So his solution is to run for office and help the chimp get re-selected?????? That is not concern for the country, that is feeding his enormous ego.

If he was truly concerned, he could help in other ways instead of running for President. He did alot of good in the 70's and 80's without running for office. Unfortunately for Nader, his legacy won't be all of the good he did during his career, it will be GWB*. He doesn't seem to concerned with that notion.

[mstrsplinter326]

13. All I hear are person attacks

Chances are you don't know Ralph Nader, nor his ego. Try voting on the issues.

[lovedems]

18. Well, here is what I do know....

If Nader hadn't run *or* kept his word that he wouldn't run in battleground states, we wouldn't be in Iraq, 800+ troops would still be alive, we wouldn't have record deficits, record tax cuts, environmental laws would still be intact and the wealthy wouldn't be getting richer at the expense of the middle class. How are those issues for you? If Nader would have kept his word and not run in Florida alone, guess what? *Gore would have won* and our country wouldn't be a disaster both domestically and globally!

Nader obviously isn't a man of his word and he has an ego the size of Texas. We already have a person like that in the WH, we don't need another. It is simple, Nader is a spoiler and he doesn't care about the direction of this country. If he did, he wouldn't run this year. He would find another way to fight the cause.

[mstrsplinter326]

66. Instead

We would have gone in Iraq later, lost jobs a few weeks later, we would have corporations dumping chemicals into the water we drink a little more cautiously. If you watched the debates in 2000, you saw Gore and Bush agree 37 out of 40 times. And your trying to tell me we would not have gone into Iraq? That would be considered radically left thinking in America.

[NoPasaran]

50. There is really only one issue in this election

And that is Yes or No to Four More Years of Bush and Nader is on the wrong side of that issue.

It's very easy for Nader to make a lot of noise about all the good things he would do, how much he differs from those mean nasty Democrats (whom he finds indistinguishable from the Bush fascists). Very easy for him because he has never held an elected office, has never had to vote on anything. So all we can do is look at his record in the electoral arena. In 2000, he ran as a Green, but never joined their party. In 2004, he's running as an independent, has been nominated by the Reform Party and accepted their support, and apparently would also accept the support of the Greens again. Nader's sole principle is hurting Kerry's chances. He is a political prostitute, anxious to hop into any bed that will have him. Any political outfit that enables this monster will find that come the day after the election St Ralph will toss them aside like a used condom.

[SemperEadem]

58. well, if he HAD issues to discuss...

Yeah, it'd be a Kumbaya world if we elected Nader--we'd all sit around our Covairs, wearing beads, burning incense and being thankful that someone with no governmental leadership experience, no foreign policy experience (and in the present climate, that should be job experience #1), no experience in running in a winnable election for a small office in the state in which he lives, is one clueless mec when it comes to executing the office of the presidency.

Nader has no tangible experience in elected office... that's like me taking high school biology and then thinking I deserve the Chief of Staff position at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

[mstrsplinter326]

67. Catch-22

He cannot get elected in the backward election, D&RNC controlled arena, so he cannot get experience. So don't vote for him because he's never held office. But he cannot get elected....

I am dizzy from the spinning round and round and round.........

[gratuitous]

6. An old lawyer dodge

When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.

Sorry, but with the future looking as bleak as it does, and the very real possibility of our beloved nation sliding into unbridled fascism, stopping to argue minutiae with the deluded just isn't very high on my to-do list.

[mstrsplinter326]

10. it works just as well from the other side of the court room....

[gratuitous]

20. So, what is Nader going to do?

Who is he going to appoint to the bench? Who is his choice to head up EPA? Who would serve Nader as Attorney General? How would Nader introduce legislation that would have a ghost of a chance of being passed? Who would work with a Nader administration? What sort of caucus or party structure could Nader appeal to to carry out his agenda? What would be his strategy to get his nominees out of committee and to the Senate floor for confirmation?

As soon as I see a few "facts", I'll be more than happy to engage in a conversation. Crossing your fingers, squinching your eyes shut tight, and hoping really, really hard doesn't count as an answer, by the way.

[mstrsplinter326]

68. You wouldn't vote for someone because he doesn't have

recognizable names for his cabinet?????? No wonder Arnold got elected to the most populous state in the union.

[gratuitous]

78. Well, it's about time

I thought you'd gotten lockjaw or something. Just answer the questions, please. I can google whoever you name, and {gasp!} draw my own conclusions about their worth.

But how is Nader going to enact his agenda? How is he going to reach out to the caucuses? Who's going to go to bat for him in the House and Senate? Biden? Lieberman? Just give a few specifics, if you can.

Because if you can't (and I strongly suspect that to be the case), I will tend to think of you as the very personification of 1 Cor 13:1: A clanging gong, signifying nothing.

[mstrsplinter326]

90. The green and reform party platforms

include some sweeping changes but they also have very clear and precise strategies for carry them out.

Sorry about the timing, my computer is not user-friendly, so I don't get on much.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

7. Nader = Bush, no difference whatsoever

When looking at the issues, one must consider reality and the actual outcome. The reality of voting for Nader is an outcome identical to voting for Bush.

I have more scorn for Nader than I do Bush. It is Nader's fault that we are in Iraq. It is Nader's ffault that the environment is being destroyed at such an alarming rate.

Nader doesn't take responsibility for his own ego trips. Fuck Nader.

[mstrsplinter326]

11. AL gore lost the election for him self. Maybe he could carry his own state

for Kerry in the next election.... probably not though....

[freetobegay]

14. Isn't there a website where you can go oogle Nader?

Oh my bad, no there isn't! I wonder why?

[mstrsplinter326]

16. Maybe it's because the two party system

Has so far proved beneficial to the major corporations to whom the two parties cater. Or maybe it's because the major news outlets are owned by the same people who support the DNC and the RNC. Or maybe its because enviromentalism is bad for mjor businesses.

[freetobegay]

19. So who owns DU?

It's not the media! It's private people! So I ask again where is the website to oogle nader?

[mstrsplinter326]

69. Who supports the DU?

People who don't have to give half their income just so the people representing their interests can receive 2% of the country's vote!

[Walt Starr]

28. Nader benefits from those corporations too

Nader is tmore hypocritical than the chimp. He rails against the corporations, yet makes tons of money when they do well.

No wonder the fuckwad wants Chimp to win again.

Nader is as much a fascist as Bush. Fuck Nader.

[woofless]

15. Remind me which election Al Gore LOST please.

[pnb]

23. If this is the case...

...why is everyone here blaming Nader then?

Can't have it both ways.

[SemperEadem]

59. he didn't lose the election.. it was stolen from him

The Supreme Court order the counting to be stopped and handed the presidency over to Bush; then they dared Gore to complain- saying that he should accept it and move on.

Let's see Nader run for a local office, win it and institute some real, progressive changes and programs which can be implemented in other cities around the country successfully. THEN and only then will I give him the consideration of my attention to what he's saying.

[mstrsplinter326]

93. It should have never gotten that far

And I would say that Nader probably finds that the NW corner of the US has already many good represenatives and he needs not run for offices staffed by good people. The rest of the US would probably not vote him into local positions. Henceforth he is forced to run for what he feels he must do: President. This country needs someone who represents the people again. The bigbusiness leaders of yesterday are not going to solve the problems they've created and Kerry is definitely NOT new school in his thinking.

Gore's election could have been won handily if the Dems had been willing to take a stance on ANYTHING in 2000. The party must stop catering to bigbusiness and start with people. Then they must adopt new, radical ways of thinking, or this country will be doomed. In a two party system atleast one party must represent the people or tyranny awaits. (Just as a side note the average age of every 'great' civilization in the history of the world is 200 years.)

[sandnsea]

17. Nonsense

I try all the time. Just yesterday I asked if Iraq having a constitution, free and fair elections, and being able to maintain their own security was what was meant by "staying the course". I got a bunch of goofball answers. I rarely get answers when I bring up Nader's goals in Iraq and ask whether he sees them as critical or not. I rarely get answers when I ask whether there are 130,000 troops from various countries that can be committed to Iraq, especially considering ME countries have said they don't think they should be involved. If the goals are critical and the UN doesn't have 130,000 peacekeepers, does that mean Nader thinks US troops should stay in Iraq?

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. You need to carry a petition for instituting ranked voting

See if you can get them to sign that for you, even if you don't feel you can sign theirs this time around.

[mstrsplinter326]

12. good suggestion (n/t)

[kimchi]

21. Good for you!

I used to sign LaRouche's petition on the grounds that anyone should be able to run.

No longer.

[Egalitarian Zetetic]

85. I always will sign those

if one compromises ethics in times of trouble, then democracy has no hope. Besides people who vote for larouche wern't conservative enough to vote for a dem anyway. How many votes does he get less than 5,000

[jpgray]

22. You know, I would have signed it

I don't imagine many people want Kerry to beat Bush more than I do, but Nader has a right to run. Much as I despise his hypcorisy, the only reason it is uniquely despicable is that he lays claim to being the conscience candidate--otherwise he'd be no worse than any other pol.

[Walt Starr]

29. Nader only has the right to run if he complies with election laws

Failing to get enough signatures means Nader has no right to run.

Fuck Nader.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Where was this?

I'm in Chicago too, and haven't really seen any this year besides Kerry's primary petition and LaRouche primary and general.

Four years ago I remember the libertarians were out in full force, which I actually would sign. I'd like the "potsmoking Republicans" (as someone in college called them) to split off to teach the GOP a lesson in at least respecting civil liberties.

[Walt Starr]

31. Metra train platform

Route 59, this morning.

Yes, I live in the land of mega-churches and Republicans.

Here's to hoping that Judy Biggert gets a whale of a surprise in the thirteenth Illinois Congressional District come November 2nd.

[Zero Gravitas]

30. Good for you

The more candidates and the more viewpoints the better. but Nader is so counterproductive, he does so much harm not only to the Democratic Party he apparently hates so much, but to his own supposed agenda. Although I don't think he cares about anything than making himself seem important anymore. The agenda is now just a vehicle to suck enough votes away from Kerry to "re+ elect Chimpy.

Witness Nader telling Kerry who he should pick for Veep! Its not surprising the two names Nader put forward are commonly regarded to be at the top of the list, so if one is picked Nader can puff himself up and pretend to have "contributed" to the process (for a change).

[mzmolly]

32. In this democracy, you have a right NOT to sign.

I shall do the same if approached. :hi:

[RetroLounge]

36. F*ck Ralph Nader

The guys lucky he didn't get his clipboard tossed in front of the Metra...

RL

[bluestateguy]

46. I have refused several times

There is no constitutional right to be on a ballot. Part of the Democratic process is a voter saying they despise a potential candidate so much they will not sign to put him on the ballot.

[Generator]

47. It comes down to how desperately you really see this election

doesn't it? "Oh the Democratic party just isn't liberal enough for me, Kerry is moving to the Right (what Right is that compared to Stalin Jr?) so I'll show you! I'll vote for Ralph."

Yes, that's it: the snotty teenager, who doesn't realize it's not just about showing that you are a free spirit, and that you are so much smarter than mommy and daddy, when mommy and daddy know it's about life and death.

To us, it's life and death, defend Nader or trash Kerry all you want, the point is we don't want Stalin Jr. to win.

It's NOT ABOUT YOU.

[Walt Starr]

51. Nader supporters are absolutely no different from Bush supporters

In the end, results are all that matters and whether you vote for Nader or Bush, the result is the same.

[Solidarity]

82. Ya!

Ya. What you said! Should we find Nader supporters and beat them up?

[Cleita]

56. Interesting.

If Republicans are pushing to get Nader on the ballot, they evidently don't have any confidence in Bush running on his record. I am laughing as I type this. The party of dirty politics again rises to the occasion.

[messiah]

57. The death of the left has been fast and dramatic

but the rise of right-wing democrats has been just as fast.

[Killarney]

62. Good! Fuck Nader

and anyone that votes for him.

[yolatengo]

72. LOOK at Kerry's record before you paint him.

I don't understand why Naderites think Kerry is some sort of
waffling center-rightist. Look at his VOTING RECORD! Look at
his interest group ratings! Yes, as a CANDIDATE FOR
ALL AMERICANS, *NOT* JUST THE LEFT, he has to APPEAL to
many varied people. But his history in the Senate is clearly
liberal.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103

sample scores:

100 from NARAL
0 from National Right To Life Cmte.
100 from Humane Society
100 from Americans For The Arts
0 from Norquists "Americans For Tax Reform"
0 from US Chambers of Commerce
60 from ACLU
100 from Human Rights Campaign
100 from NAACP
0 from Christian Coalition
0 from Schafly's Eagle Forum
5 from John Birch Society
100 from National Education Association
100 from Sierra Club
92 from League of Conservation Voters
0 from Family Research Council
90 from Children's Defense Fund
0 from anti-feminist Concerned Women of America
100 from American Association of University Women
100 from Brady Campaign
F from NRA
F- from Gun Owners of America
100 from American Public Health Association
0 from anti-environment League of Private Property Voters
20 from anti-immigrant Americans for Better Immigration
102 from UAW
100 from AFL-CIO
100 from AFSCME
100 from United Food Workers
95 from PIRG (Nader's Group!)
95 from State PIRG's Working Together
85 from People for the American Way
100 from Bread for the World
33 from CATO on trade

but wait, there's MORE!

According to the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more conservative on economic policy issues than 0 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2003, Senator Kerry voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 97 percent of the Senators.

I'm left wondering what the F*CK kind of scores from those groups Nader
himself would've garnered over the past 10 yrs? I doubt Mr. "Invited to Grover
Norquist's Wednesday Group Meetings" Nader would even get a 95 from PIRG!

So, Naderites, sorry, you are JUST SUPPORTING BUSH. You KNOW Nader won't
win, you KNOW he can draw votes in key states away from Kerry, and now you
KNOW Kerry is very liberal. Either you're delusional cultists and want 110%
ideological purity or you really want Bush to WIN so he can f*ck up this country
so bad in the next 4 yrs that people will coming running into your waiting arms
to 'save' them from Bush. You're like the goddamn Communist KPD in 1930's
Germany. They did everything they could to undermine the SPD (Socialists)
thinking the working people would come running to them after Hitler and the
Nazis screwed everything up for a few years. Yeah, they came running alright...
with truncheons to beat the KPD down and put them in Dachau. Thank god
that can't happen here, right?

Bigby

[0007]

74. I couldn't sign it!

[Solidarity]

76. That's Unfortunate

It's too bad you no longer believe in democracy and no longer support democratic elections. Perhaps you do belong in the Republican party.

Do you also think that those don't vote for the candidate you support should be shot or at least locked up?

It's amazing how easily and quickly people who consider themselves liberals can so easily drift to the right and become reactionaries!

[Solidarity]

80. Let's Have A Lynching!

When someone is incapable of debating political issues and defending their position they should engage in personal attacks and slanders against those they disagree with. It may not be civil, but it sure helps when you want to avoid serious and intelligent debate.

As poster "lovedems" explained: "Nader is most deserving of every personal attack that comes his way."

So let me join in this lynching.

People who voted or will vote for Ralph Nader are right-wing reactionaries. And that goes for Dennis Kucinich too!

Ralph Nader is a right-wing reactionary scumbag who never did anything good in his life.

Nader will be appointed to Bush's cabinet if he is re-elected.
Nader is telling people to vote for Bush in those states Nader is not on the ballot.

Nader hates the Bill of Rights, supports the Patriot Act and secretly hopes that Bush can win his war against Iraq.

Nader hates all Arabs (except himself) and is anti-semitic.

Nader is only interested in enriching himself and lives in a 10 million dollar mansion.

Nader is a very bad and nasty man. He's no good.

Nader has a huge ego and is a womanizer.

Nader has no ideas worth considering. People should not read what he writes nor listen to what he says if they want to find out what Nader really stands for.

Just count on me for the truth about Nader .... trust me .... and listen to the DLC.

And anyone who challenges me is a Nazi sympathizer! I have spoken so it must be true.

Anybody But Bush! Senator Zell Miller for example.

[mzmolly]

81. He has a democratic right to say NO. And he did.

That's part of our "democracy."

[silverpatronus]

86. that's not the issue!

for the millionth time, the issue is the unneccessary vitriol toward both nader and those who dare to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the reason everyone's so mad about him is that he's making just a teensy bit of sense. the issue is the prepostrous nader=bush slogan being parroted around. the issue is that by behaving like this, the dems make nader's point about the duopoly; 'with us or against us' is not a phrase i ever expected to see on the democratic underground.

[mzmolly]

87. Vitriol? PUHLEEZE!!! Read Naders vitriol against "The Democrats"

and then tell me it's preposterous.

"duopoly" I wondered how long it would be before I heard that word. :eyes:

Let me suggest that Nader is a political opponent, and we have every right to trash his ass into the next life if we choose. That's democracy. ;)

[Solidarity]

89. You Can Trash Or Debate

You can take the easy way out and simply "trash his ass." Or you could decide to debate and challenge Nader's views if your capable of doing that.

You decide!

[mzmolly]

92. LOL ... I would say the same to Mr. Nader.

:hi:

Nader's views? Which views, the one where he says Democrats and Republicans are the same? Believe me, Nader's views have been challenged.

However, this thread isn't about his views, it's about the democratic right to NOT sign a petition.

I shall exercise that right, if given an opportunity.

[TexasSissy]

88. I was asked, too. At courthouse when I was on jury duty.

He was asking EVERYONE, so I don't think he was targeting Repubs.

What he asked: "Are you a resident of _______ County?"
I said, "Yes."
He said, "Would you mind signing this petition to allow a third party on the ballot? We're required to have 75,000 signatures and we only have 65,000."
I said, "Is this for the presidential election in November?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, in my southern, polite way, "Hell, No!"

He said, "Hell, yes." And he walked off and proceeded to get turned down by everyone else I saw him ask.

Notice how he didn't mention Nader's name?

Yes, Nader has a right to try to get on the ballot. And I have a right not to sign a petition that in effect gives a vote to Bush.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

97. are you sure he was for Nader?

i've already been hit up by the libertarians and constitution party here

[robbedvoter]

94. In NY, you can only sign for one candidate! (I signed for Clark)

That gives me a polite "out" - should I chose to be polite - NOT!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

95. i always sign petitions for anyone and always will

ballot access restrictions are always bullshit, no matte rwho the candidate is