Ralph Nader endorses John Edwards

Whoa...

Holy crap did my thread get hijacked


Point one: I agree that grandiose principles about third parties, falls on deaf ears for me and many others, when it comes to whether election 2000 would have spared this country and Iraq from shedding oceans of blood had Gore been elected.

Second, I'm sure everyone here is capable of attracting and mating with the opposite sex in their personal lives (suprisingly, even watermark :eek: ). So calm down and chill.
 
Cypress said:
Holy crap did my thread get hijacked


Point one: I agree that grandiose principles about third parties, falls on deaf ears for me and many others, when it comes to whether election 2000 would have spared this country and Iraq from shedding oceans of blood had Gore been elected.

Second, I'm sure everyone here is capable of attracting and mating with the opposite sex in their personal lives (suprisingly, even watermark :eek: ). So calm down and chill.
Click to expand...

1. I disagree.

2. Yep.
 
Well this gives me one more reason to not vote for Edwards. Dems you will rue the day you do this IF you do it. America does NOT want a man that hates the wealthy in this country. Because most of us want to be wealthy. If you don't believe me look at all the money wasted on lottery tickets when the jackpot gets up over 100 mil
 
You don't think the no-bid contracts, and corruption associated with Halliburton, Kellogg Brown &Root, and BlackWater, NAFTA, Pill Bill, are evidence that corporate special interests wield too much influence in Washington?

If you don't think its evidence of too much corporate influence, then by all means Edwards is someone one shouldn't vote for.
 
edwards is a moron and has a snowballs chance in hell. He's polling 10% so he's spending all his money in Iowa and New Hampshire and will drop out a month or two later.
Chaney is prob corrupt, do away with him not the system.
There's a reason Edwards was a one term inefectual Senator.
 
Darla said:
There is no doubt that the electoral system f'd us up in 2000. And I'd like to see a straight popular vote, but we will never see it because the little pissants in the flyover states are so freaking squeaky people will give them anything to shut them up so we can get some peace.
Click to expand...

Really Darla???? So you are saying the coastal states are all eager to go by popular vote? Then please, show it. All you have to do is start with NY or CA.... get all those Dems in the two states to rise up and have their voices heard.... get them to change their states electoral process so that they reflect the will of the people in those states and split their electoral votes accordingly.

Oh, but thats right... the little pissants in those states are all talk, no action.

Right? :tongout:
 
Socrtease said:
Well this gives me one more reason to not vote for Edwards. Dems you will rue the day you do this IF you do it. America does NOT want a man that hates the wealthy in this country. Because most of us want to be wealthy. If you don't believe me look at all the money wasted on lottery tickets when the jackpot gets up over 100 mil
Click to expand...


Edwards has said not one word about hating the rich.

His campaign is premised on the fact that corporate special interest wield too much influence in Washington, and is a corrupting influence.

I'm not sure why you would find this premise so offensive. It also happens to be the premise of Ron Paul. Anyone who's watched more than 30 minutes of ron paul on interviews, knows that he also thinks corporations and multinational business conglomerates wield too much influence, and have corrupted our government. The only difference on this between him and edwards, are the solutions. But Paul and Edwards are effectively in agreement on the nature and scope of the problem (if not on the solutions).

But, if you're hostile to Edwards basic premise, then I assume you disagree with Paul's premise too.




Large Majorities Believe Big Companies, PACs, Media and Lobbyists Have Too Much Power and Influence in Washington

87% of Americans feel Corporations Wield too much influence over Government


http://harrisinteractive.com/NEWS/pr...asp?NewsID=447
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Edwards has said not one word about hating the rich.

His campaign is premised on the fact that corporate special interest wield too much influence in Washington, and is a corrupting influence.

I'm not sure why you would find this premise so offensive. It also happens to be the premise of Ron Paul. Anyone who's watched more than 30 minutes of ron paul on interviews, knows that he also thinks corporations and multinational business conglomerates wield too much influence, and have corrupted our government. The only difference on this between him and edwards, are the solutions. But Paul and Edwards are effectively in agreement on the nature and scope of the problem (if not on the solutions).

But, if you're hostile to Edwards basic premise, then I assume you disagree with Paul's premise too.
Click to expand...
Edwards Proposes Tax System to Honor American & Faith Values
Click to expand...
: In an April speech at New University, John Edwards proposed an overhaul of the US tax system to reflect the Constitutional and faith-filled values of equality and work with its tax policies.
This article uses speech excerpts to briefly sum his ideas. Please invest time to read the entire text.

About Bush tax policy, he said, "They don't believe work matters most. They don't believe in helping working people build wealth. They genuinely believe that the wealth of the wealthy matters most. "
Click to expand...

This is classic class envy populism. It says NOTHING about corporate and multinational influence is says that the wealthy should be taxed more.
 
Superfreak said:
Really Darla???? So you are saying the coastal states are all eager to go by popular vote? Then please, show it. All you have to do is start with NY or CA.... get all those Dems in the two states to rise up and have their voices heard.... get them to change their states electoral process so that they reflect the will of the people in those states and split their electoral votes accordingly.

Oh, but thats right... the little pissants in those states are all talk, no action.

Right? :tongout:
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah, let's split up electoral votes in the coast states, like they are trying to pull in CA., but only in those states. Let's leave states like Texas as is.

Nah. It happens across the board, or it doesn't happen at all.
 
Socrtease said:


This is classic class envy populism. It says NOTHING about corporate and multinational influence is says that the wealthy should be taxed more.
Click to expand...


His position is that the tax rates on investment income, should be similiar or equal to the tax rate paid by working americans in their wage income.


sounds fair to me.
 
Cypress said:
We wouldn't be in Iraq if Al Gore were president. Our national standing in the world wouldn't be in tatters. Yeah, I think in hindsight, in 2000 there were only two realistic choices. Choices that ultimately were a decision between life and death. War and peace.

I'm not advocating that nobody not vote for third parties. I'm simply pointing out the consequences of Bush attaining office, in part due to Nader
Click to expand...

Bush is in office because the democrats were too cowardly to challenge the fraud of electronic voting and monumentally stupid to allow republicans to be the only ones who counted the votes in the first place.

Add to that the incredibly mindless campaign of Gore when Clinton virtually handed him the presidency.

If the choices were war or death then neither the Democratic Party nor democratic voters acted with the courage required to stop war from coming.

Are all Americans required to vote for democrats?

Were Bush voters required to vote for Gore?

Was everyone who voted for a 3rd party required to vote for Gore?

Were those who didn't vote at all required to vote for Gore?

Why should anyone be required to vote for a do-nothing cowardly political party?

Every year democrats will whine that THIS year is too important to do anything other than vote for them .. even when all they ioffer is the same bullshit "leadership" that they're exhibiting now.
 
I really think the dems in 2000 had no idea the extent of the fraud the Rs were using and thought they were trying to not look like sore losers. Kerry really should have called for investigations. I blame his inaction more.
 
Desh said:
I really think the dems in 2000 had no idea the extent of the fraud the Rs were using and thought they were trying to not look like sore losers. Kerry really should have called for investigations. I blame his inaction more.
Click to expand...

The democrats are weak as shit and when the evidence was presented to them about the impending fraud they ran like sissies .. even when the CEO of Diebold essentially told them he was going to steal the election they ran like sissies.

There was a mountain of evidence against the fraud coming from some of the best technical minds in the country .. all of which has been proven to be exactly as they said 6 years ago .. and to top that off, this election is STIKLL not protected against the very same fraud that helped put Bush in office.

How brilliant does oner have to be to recognize that if republican owned and operated voting machine companies were going to be the SOLE proprietor of the vote then fraud would most surely happen?

REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED VOTING MACHIONE COMPANIES OWNED AND OPERATED BY DEMOCRATS TO BE THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE VOTE. .. NEVER

This is why democratic voters can't make their party do a goddamn thing .. they are as WEAK as the party

It wasn't Kerry's responsibility alone to challenge the all-too obvious fraud that STILL may change this election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top