I said:

You quoted that as


Now that's dishonest...however it's even worse if you see the whole statement that you cherry picked form:


You turned that to:


How is that remotely honest?

then there was this sentence, exactly as I wrote it:


Which you turned into:


Now THAT is chopping a sentence in half to give it an entirely different meaning as clear as day.



Relax. Nobody is accusing you of breaking the rules. Just of being dishonest in your arguments. It happens all the time, often by accident.

The sources were citing exit polls. Take it up with the exit pollsters not the Green Party if you don't like the stats. You cited a NY Times EDITORIAL so you backed up your emotional rant with that guy's emotional rant where he posted up front numbers but didn't care to dig far enough to cite exit polls.

I believe I've backed up what I said. I don't think I brought empty rhetoric to this site. I link constantly and try to source as much as possible. Lets just say I disagree with you and I don't see any facts in what you wrote. You, in turn, say you don't believe my sources and therefore you don't believe the stats I brought. We are at an impasse which is exactly where I was predicting a conversation with you on this topic would end.

lol, Obama is them.

Don't you see, the politics in your town is all that really matters. Who will be your next D.A.?

Police Chief?

Sherriff?

The presidential elections are a dog and pony show to help you forget the issues that really matter.

Citing the Green Party.... whose candidate was in fact Nader... hardly qualifies as an objective source. My sources also cited exit polls.

I, on the other hand, also cited CNN and Time Magazine. I win... you loose.... get over it... and the only one in this thread that is getting "emotional" is you.

Sorry if this post had a childish tone.... I have been dealing with a lot of cry babies at work today.... my tolerance for it has been completely shot.

I thought it pointless to quote entirely everything you said. I don't believe I took you out of context at all or was dishonestly misleading. I quoted where you where stating what I should have been doing as if you know anything about me. I put your whole sentence in there as you wrote and bolded the part to emphasis what I said you were doing. What does the quoted sentence mean any different than the entire paragraph you wrote? To me it looks like the same sentence within that paragraph than what it is outside of that paragraph.

I'm not a bullshiite artist nor a propogandist. I believe what I believe and I bring that to this site. I'm open to other views and adapt when I believe they are something I'd like to adopt in my views. I knew that being a Nader supporter, I'd have opposition to my views but I'm not dishonest or manipulative. I just happen to have a different opinion.

The arguments I'm facing are the same arguments as usual I've seen elsewhere. "Nader is the reason Bush won in 2000." I totally think that is a load of crap but the debate on that is sooooo predictable, redundant and boring I almost don't care to address it as you can see by my antipathy towards that topic with the other poster in here.

I just hear that garbage too much and it's so far off base from reality and people quoting that stuff are so cemented in their disdain that they can't see beyond the red in their eyes about it all. I can have a conversation with myself about that topic and play out the exact one I'd end up having with these people almost verbatim. I can get my defenses up when I hear that "I hate Nader" or "It's all Nader's fault" crap so if I've come off overly defensive... my bad.

And in so doing, changed the meaning. I'm not assuming much about you...I've never seen you here before to my recollection...you haven't been making the case for Nader on this forum for the last four years. Nobody has that I've noticed.



You cut a sentence in half - in the middle of a prepositional phrase no less. Then used the altered meaning to back up your point.

I suggested that for the last four years you have not worked to prepare a Nader candidacy. Now we can parse whether working vainly for one counts...I don''t think so off hand - and not in the meaning I was putting forward.

Also sucks that there is no "you" plural in english.

Stupid english...



I think that's a load of shit too, for a variety of reasons:

a. Gore won.
b. Gore barely won because he ran a Donna Brazille center strategy swing-state campaign and didn't seriously challenge the case Bush Jr. brought in the SCOTUS.
c. He ran with the dynamic energy of a potato clock.

My arguments against a Nader candidacy now, are that we don't need anything sucking away energy from what could be a populist movement. Energies are better spent reforming and taking over the democratic party. Obama has asked us for feedback on the platform and to arrange platform meetings. Sounds like a good idea to me...why divide our efforts?

I think Nader could cost Obama the election. He would serve to paint Obama as a corrupt politician and work to triangulate and generate headlines for McCain. There is ZERO chance of a Nader win.





No problem. I think it's weak to blame a third party for our party's failure while I also think it's weak to ignore the situation on the board and start moving pieces at will.

No worries. We all have our days.

Excellent post and excellent close. I will defend Nader's right to run. I don't think any of us here dispute that. One of the questions that is frequently asked, and it is a valid one, is: where was Ralph in the in-between years? For a man who made his chops rightfully defending us as consumers, why didn't he speak up the loudest when there was obvious election fraud? Twice?

The only hope a third party has of forming in this country is for the Democrats to hold power for a decade. The Republican party has not had a real schism for a hundred years, and will not, especially as is, for another hundred. They want one party rule. Ask Don Seigelman if the republickens haven't been trying to erase the Democratic Party lately.

How can you not join a united front to fight that? That is what I do not forgive Ralph Nader for.

You can intellectualize, rationalize, and make progressive pronouncements all you want. A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. The more people follow your lead the more likely McCain will win the election. You will be just as responsible for the outcome as those that vote for McCain. That is the reality. If that is what you want, fine. However, in the interest of honesty, take ownership of it. Explain it in the context of strategy. Explain to us why it would better for McCain to be President then Obama since that is what your actions would lead to if accepted and acted upon by a significant number of people. The logical conclusion of your strategy under the circumstances is that John McCain will be the next President of the United States. Why do you think that is the best strategy to further the progressive cause?

Ohhhh he was busy as he's always been. I don't have access to his personal calendar but:

You know that Nader is responsible for seatbelts and airbags, but did you also know that he led the campaign against nuclear power, an effort that has blocked the construction of new nuclear plants in America for more than 30 years? You may know that he is largely responsible for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Freedom of Information Act, but did you know that in recent years he secured cheap, generic AIDS drugs for India?
link...

What I know he had to do since 2004 was fight over and over in court all the Democrat lawsuits brought against him for his 2004 campaign. Most of which ended up getting thrown out for their complete absurdity. If and when Bush or anyone in his administration gets taken down, it'll have Nader's handiwork in there you can thank. Most likely because of the Freedom of Information Act you can thank Nader for.

I think he's also turned out a book or two. He's always working. If anyone is interested in knowing more about him, I'd suggest watching the DVD "An Unreasonable Man". Good documentary.

Read back through the posts and you'll see that in a poll between Obama & McCain then one with Obama, McCain and Nader... with Nader in the race, Obama's lead actually expands. Naders votes don't come solely from who'd you'd expect them to. In fact, this article is a good one explaining why Conservatives often find themselves liking Nader. I don't buy his first couple of paragraphs stating that Obama is like Kerry. Obama is NOT like Kerry IMO much at all. Kerry could be a very good man but he was an atrocious prez candidate. Otherwise the story is a good read.

Ralph Nader, the Conservative
A man of the left who's more right than most Republicans

As for Nader, just listening to his voice for 4 years is enough for me to say NO WAY RALPH! I could not stand his self righteous hypocrisy, a man who takes money from Republicans so that Nader will be the spoiler. Ralph has a big ego, and can never admit mistakes, kind of like bush?!.

It is a psychosis. Sadly Ralph has lost his way, and he would make a terrible president of anything.

IMHO

I don't trust polls other than exit polls.

Exit polls in New Hampshire in the 2000 race also proves this. Ralph pulled more Republicans and people who would have not voted at all than he did Dems.

It's a common mistake that people make about Nader when they assume that those who voted for him would have opted for Gore had he not been in the race. As if Gore was completely entitled to all those Nader votes by default and Ralph somehow disrupted that.

Exit polls from 2000 show that two thirds of those who voted for Mr Nader would not have voted otherwise and Mr Nader replies that he took more votes from Republicans in New Hampshire and Mr Gore was defeated because he could not win his own state, Tennessee.
link...

you are brave, jj82.
I'm reading the responses and as usual they attack anyone who gives a different opinion about Obama that does not hold him up for relevance.

At least know you have one person out here who understands your opinion about Randi's ravenous support of Obama.

thank you it seems that randi is giving obama a pass on things she would not give hillary a pass in the primaries and i am calling her out for her hypocrisy.

In New Hampshire...maybe.

Nobody attacked me...

I am sorry if you feel like I am attacking you by saying this, but the sources you hold up as "facts" are extremely weak. This source doesn't even cite a 2000 exit poll. The very quote that you inserted in this post says.



Therefore, this article is stating Nader's opinion and is not backed up by any actual data whatsoever. Here is another quote from your source.



When polls vary, you can't just pick which ones you want to believe. A person would have too look at ALL polls and form an opinion based on which results were the most common. The consensus on Nader is that he cost Gore the election.

Now you have two.

Obama is full of shit!

I know of the exit polls and I'm trying to source them best I can but finding a google on "Nader 2000 new Hampshire Exit Polls" is bringing back a ton of irrelevant crap the usually red-herrings off into "i hate nader for losing 2000 election" editorial rants.

In light of what you said however about needing more than one poll to verify... it doesn't seem to take any polls for you to lay the accusation of him losing the election. You can't just say Nader got X votes more than what Gore lost by therefore Nader cost Gore the election. You are jumping to conclusions. Then you say my stats/polls can't be counted as accurate therefore you are drawing the conclusions that you know how many people that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. Those are blatant assumptions without proof and your sources don't say otherwise.

Not to mention that no one in here is standing up to explain why over twice as many registered Dems in Florida voted for Bush than Nader pulled as a whole in Florida. Yet its still "blame Nader". It just doesn't fly.

Maybe you get a Whiners party going now!

If you would cite a source besides Nader or the Green Party, then I would not agrue the point of credibility.

I disagree that my argument are blatant assumptions, because I did in fact provide multiple sources, which included polling data.

Ok Ok OK... I'll give you this.... BOTH Nader and Dems who voted for Bush were the spoilers. I hope that makes you happy.

The main reason I consider Nader a spoiler is not because I dislike him or that I am bitter. The reason is that he never had a chance to win. He changed the entire course of the last 8 years for nothing. I like Nader as a human being.... I am thankful to him for all his has done to fight the corporate man. But I don't think you can change the political system of this country by going straight to the top. Moving away from a 2 party system would be a welcomed change for me, but I think we need to start a little smaller.

These Democrats?

Abused by Fat Bastard. Eww.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I just have to add, Randi partakes of the Cspan probably more than any human I've heard of - maybe Simon does - and he's probably almost human or a kitty, I don't know .

This poster (jj82) talks about Randi's gullibility or judgment?

As L-Rey says, the Limbaugh shills for corporations and admits as much in the New Yorker.

Randi relies on reading, study, laying out the facts before her, and relies on some of the world's best thinkers who come on her show as guests. Sometimes others even steal her guests after she's found them.

But my original point is, Randi relies on Cspan, where there is no commentary, no spin, no oil commercials. And then she grasps from there. That is her starting point.

I love Obama too. I love him because he includes me in trying to save my country. I'm working for him now, because he is a natural born leader.

Leaders, generally, are not egomaniacs. They know, they cannot lead by themselves. So they are ego-less. They stand on a ladder, and reach a hand down to the person below and says, "come with me," I know how WE can get through this.

A leader does not shut out dissent, but welcomes dissent, as well as listening to new ideas. Yet, the leader has a responsibility, if they are to succeed: to remain vigilant and always curious about the ever-changing world about them; which prevents the leader from becoming encased in what is called, "the bubble."

This is a flaw in our society and in our system. That's why we must have a more open society and continue this conversation that Barack Obama has dared to start. We have to help him do that always. And we have to help him to be aware of the dreaded bubble.

By the way, what I just described above, about leadership? is what Randi does everyday on her Randi Rhodes Show, or should I say her magnificent magical 3-hour tour.

Some may disagree with me on this, but that's okay. I welcome dissent, but I just can't handle "silly" sometimes, and especially bad intentions. I know it when I see it, or hear it and it must be shut down at the root, because we cannot survive at this point with that kind of non-thinking, or non-caring. Peace.

Maybe. Not sure. I grew up in the DEEEEEEEEEP South and was said their that Florida the most Southern Yankee state because it was considered to be pretty much filled with retired Northerners.

Could be dixiecrats or their more modern name... "blue dog" Democrats. I think the dynamic has been changing and what's happening is that the Repubs are trying to play the South the same way with divisive hate preaching. It's going to blow up in their face.

If Hillary were the nominee, she would've voted for the FISA bill.

I love Randi but I think she's exhibiting 'battered dem' syndrome. She's making excuses for Obama's FISA vote, she's blaming others for his behavior, she's saying it may look bad but it's really justified. What he did was wrong. How many times will he have to do it before Randi sees the truth?

the warren court contributed to the salvation of this country, yes, all politics are local, but you need a supreme court willing to protect the constitution so that local politics are possible in the first place, this election is extremely important

How do you know its an excuse? How do you know it isn't exactly what she said it was? Come on, give us something to back up your argument, otherwise all you are doing is spinning your wheels.

Seriously, if you can prove that vote was more than just the first step in fixing the problem by bringing the FISA court back in on the spying instead of just allowing the government to run totally wild (cause even a weak cop is better than no cop at all), then show us.

Otherwise, I'm sorry but I think you are all over reacting. The dog has already shit on the rug, taking him out now is really a waste of time.