Ralph Nader's Message to ABB's...

[RedCeltic]

As many may (or may not know) the ABB's ( anybody but bush) have been concerned that Raph Nader.. standing up for his beliefs by running for president of the US again this year, may help George W. Bush win the election. This is a concern of "Greens" and Democrats alike..

This is Raph Nader's responce to an open letter in "the Nation" to Ralph Nader..

"Don't Run, Don't Run, Don't Run, Don't Run..."
Whither The Nation?

By RALPH NADER
February 18, 2004


The following letter is a response to "An Open
Letter to Ralph Nader," which appeared in the
February 16 issue of The Nation
<http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040216&s=editors2>.


As I reread slowly your open letter, which kindly
started and closed with your demand "Don&#39;t run,"
memories of past Nation magazine writing, going
back to the days of Carey McWilliams and earlier,
came to mind. I share them with you. Long ago The
Nation stood steadfastly for more voices and
choices inside the electoral arenas which today
are more dominated than ever by the two-party
duopoly trending toward one-party districts:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation&#39;s pages embrace large areas of
agreement with the undersigned on policy matters
and political reforms, especially the abusive
power of Big Business over elections, the
government and the economy:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has been sharply critical of the
Democratic Party&#39;s stagnation, the corporatist
Democratic Leadership Council and its domination
by Big Money. This is the same Party that has
just ganged up on its insurgents and reasserted
its established forces:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has urgently reported on a tawdry
electoral system -ridden with fraud and
manipulation - that discourages earnest people
from running clean campaigns about authentic
necessities of the American people and the rest
of the world:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation first informed me as a young man about
the deliberate barriers - statutory, monetary,
media and others - to third parties and
independent candidates for a chance to compete,
bring out more votes and generate more civic and
political energies. This led me to write my first
article on these exclusions against smaller
candidacies in the late 1950s:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has often encouraged the longer run
effect of small candidacies (civil rights,
economic populism, women&#39;s suffrage, labor and
farmer parties), which have pushed the agendas of
the major parties and sown the seeds for future
adoption:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has dutifully recorded the hapless
state of the Democratic Party, which for the past
ten years has registered more and more losses at
the federal, state and local levels. The Party
even managed to "lose" the presidency in 2000,
which it actually won, even with all other "what
ifs" considered, both before (Katherine Harris&#39;
voter purge), during (the deceptive ballots) and
afterward (recount blunders by the Party):

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has editorialized about the spineless
Democrats who could have stopped the two giant
tax cuts for the wealthy, the unconstitutional
war resolution, the Patriot(less) Act and John
Ashcroft&#39;s nomination (to mention a few
surrenders). Yet you have not pointed any
external ways to stiffen the resolve or jolt the
passivity of Jefferson&#39;s party, which lately has
become very good at electing very bad Republicans
all by itself:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation believes this cycle is different and
that the Democrats have aroused themselves. This
view is not the reality we experience regularly
in Washington. Witness the latest collapse of the
party&#39;s opposition to the subsidy-ridden
wrongheaded energy and Medicare drug-benefit
legislation - two core party issues:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation&#39;s venerable reputation has been
anything but conceding the practical politics of
servility which brings us worse servility and
weaker democracy every four years:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has intensely disliked being held
hostage to antiquated electoral rules, from the
Electoral College to the winner-take-all system
that discounts tens of millions of votes. Such a
stand would seem to call for candidates on the
inside to highlight and help build the public
constituency for change over time:

"Don&#39;t run."

It doesn&#39;t seem that The Nation would disagree
with the conclusions of George Scialabba, who
wrote last year in The Boston Review, "Two-party
dominance allows disproportionate influence to
swing voters, single-issue constituencies, and
campaign contributors; it promotes negative,
contentless campaigns; it rewards grossly
inequitable redistricting schemes, and it
penalizes those who disagree with both parties
but fear to &#39;waste&#39; their votes (which is why
Nader probably lost many more voters to Gore than
Gore lost to Nader)":

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation&#39;s open letter does not go far enough
in predicting where my votes would come from,
beyond correctly inferring that there would be
few liberal Democratic supporters. The
out-of-power party always returns to the fold,
while the in-power party sees its edges looking
for alternatives. Much more than New Hampshire in
2000, where I received more Republican than
Democratic votes, any candidacy would be directed
toward Independents, Greens, third-party
supporters, true progressives, and conservative
and liberal Republicans, who are becoming furious
with George W. Bush&#39;s policies, such as massive
deficits, publicized corporate crimes, subsidies
and pornography, civil liberties encroachments,
sovereignty-suppressing trade agreements and
outsourcing. And, of course, any candidacy would
seek to do what we all must strive for - getting
out more nonvoters who are now almost the
majority of eligible voters:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation wants badly to defeat the selected
President Bush but thinks there is only one
pathway to doing so. This approach excludes a
second front of voters against the regime, which
could raise fresh subjects, motivating language
and the vulnerabilities of corporate scandals and
blocked reforms that the Democrats are too
cautious, too indentured to their paymasters to
launch - but are free to adopt if they see these
succeed:

"Don&#39;t run."

The Nation has rarely been a hostage to
prevailing dogma and electoral straitjackets. Its
pages have articulated many "minorities of one"
over its wondrous tenure and has watched many of
its viewpoints today become the commonplace of
tomorrow. I have not known The Nation to so walk
away from those engaging in a difficult struggle
it champions on the merits, in a climate of
conventional groupthink - much less with a
precipitous prognosis of a distant outcome
governed by a multitude of variables. Discussions
and critiques from a distance, after all, are a
dime a dozen in an election year.

O apotheosis for the exercise of dissent inside
and outside the electoral commons since 1865:

"Don&#39;t walk."


Ralph Nader can be reached through
http://www.naderexplore04.org

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think he should have ran as a democrat. Even if he would not win the ballot, then at very least he would help brighten up the debate with the more conservative democrats in the way that Kucinich and Sharpton are doing.

[Lardlad95]

I like Ralph Nader but I agree with the ABB&#39;s I cant deal with 4 more years of Dubya. I&#39;m encouraging people to vote for the lesser of two evils.

[SonofRage]

Unless Camejo gets the Green nomination, I&#39;m voting for Nader (not that it really matters).

[EneME]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:50 AM
Unless Camejo gets the Green nomination, I&#39;m voting for Nader (not that it really matters).
I LOOOOOOOOOOVE CAMEJOOO....he&#39;s the fuckin BOMB

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:53 AM
I like Ralph Nader but I agree with the ABB&#39;s I cant deal with 4 more years of Dubya. I&#39;m encouraging people to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Please kill me now

[praxis1966]

Go ahead and toss away your vote on another third party candidate. You can help Bush win another term, and when one of the remaining pro-choice Supreme Court justices retires allowing Bush a nominee, I&#39;ll let you explain to all the women in this country why it&#39;s not your fault Roe v. Wade got overturned. Until we actually manage to get a third party candidate into the national debates, there will be no chance of one winning.

I live in Florida and I voted for Nader last time around. If I had known then that I was basically handing bush the decisive electoral votes, I would have voted for Gore.

[Exploited Class]

There&#39;s always going to be a reason to vote Democratic and not socialist. One year it will Supreme Court justices, then it will be to save social security, perhaps one year it will to stop the other guy. None of them good reasons but they will always be there. That is the sad fact of living under the polarized 2 party system in the US and this is how the leaders want it. They want you to have no other option and they want you to think that you have thrown your vote away by placing it on a third party canidate.

Well bravo to all socialists that betray their party to be able to play politics with beaugoise. The socialist party isn&#39;t asking you to send money, to work at the office orpick up a gun and revolt. They are asking of the people that have one vote and a socialist heart to give them that piece of paper. The other members standing alone, feeling a million miles from each other is asking you to show solidarity with your comrades by voting with them not against them.

ABB should be Anything But Bourgeoise&#33;

When a socialist votes democratic, that socialist should have to appologize to every hard working member of the socialist party for stealing another one from them like the Bourgeoise has done for the past 100 years.

Yes Bush is bad, yes he comes bundled with many terrible things that I did not look forward to in 2000 and will not look forward to in 2004 when he wins with his 200 million dollar campaign fund. But I and many people around me will survive no matter how bad it gets. If millions of socialist all over the world could risk their lives and family for this ideal, some losing those very same lives and families for this ideal, I can handle 4 years of Bush.

What does it take to make a Socialist fold over for his/her ideals? Not much, just an above normal run of the mill presidential canidate for the republican party. I might be able to get to vote for a President 13 times in my lifetime, if I give up just one of them I have handed over 9% of my only controlled power to the Bourgeoise, I have taken away from 9% of what I control away from the socialist party.

You know the saying "When the going gets tough, the tough get going&#33;" Well it is tough not to take the cowards way out and vote for your party against such adversity. One of the Bourgeoise&#39;s favorite weapons is fear and they are hoping to scare you into voting in their election. You have to be tougher than that and as a socialist vote with your comrades.

Bush will not beat me with fear, he will not back my into a corner and force me to turn my back on my ideals. The Bourgeoise will not have my vote, they may have my 8 hours a day at a job, my taxes, my free time, my awaiting economic freedom, but they will not get me to hand over something I can control.

[BOZG]

I&#39;ll let you explain to all the women in this country why it&#39;s not your fault Roe v. Wade got overturned.

Actually Roe herself wants that case overturned which I fight quite interesting.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:56 PM
Go ahead and toss away your vote on another third party candidate. You can help Bush win another term, and when one of the remaining pro-choice Supreme Court justices retires allowing Bush a nominee, I&#39;ll let you explain to all the women in this country why it&#39;s not your fault Roe v. Wade got overturned. Until we actually manage to get a third party candidate into the national debates, there will be no chance of one winning.

I live in Florida and I voted for Nader last time around. If I had known then that I was basically handing bush the decisive electoral votes, I would have voted for Gore.
I&#39;m glad someone finally has the sence to put 1 and 1 together. You said exactly what I&#39;m thinking.

[BOZG]

There&#39;s just no fucking end to your fools.

[RedCeltic]

I think that the conservatives are smart enough to know that limiting access to abortions without actually overturning the law is the way to get what they want. If they overturn the law there will be a huge public outrage against them, and it will be extremely unpopular with everyone except the “moral minority.”

Blaming me, or any voter for George W. Bush getting elected displays a complete ignorance of third party politics. The only one to blame for Al Gore loosing the 2000 election is Al Gore. He didn’t get my vote because he didn’t deserve my vote. He failed to convince enough people in “swing states” to vote for him, which is why he losses the election.

That said, I should also point out that I do not live in a “swing state” but rather a “safe state.” I believe that the safe state strategy… that of only running an election in states like New York where the democrat has like an 80% chance of winning is superior to voting for the “lesser of two evils” or being blamed for the short comings of democratic candidates by people like you that would compromise their political beliefs for a little security.

If George W. Bush is turned out of office by some democrat, and there is still rising unemployment, still no universal healthcare, the US still continues it’s path to neo-liberalism with NAFTA and FTAA, and the US still acts as the worlds policemen, still supports Israel’s apartheid war on the Palestinians, and still continue to have troops in the middle east…. Don’t complain that nothing has changed.

I wish I could vote for the Socialist Party Candidate Walt Brown. I like him much better than any of the other candidates running… yet the SP doesn’t have ballot access in New York, and would need 15,000 signatures to get on it. There is also no local party near me, so while I’m officially a member of the SP I have no contact with them. Which is sad really, Walt Brown’s campaign is one I would like to work on actually.

[LuZhiming]

If many of you people had any sense, you would realize in the long term voting for the Green Party could build up its popularity, which could result in it actually standing a chance in time. Unfortunately, thinking in the long term isn&#39;t something many of you do very often it seems. Giving in to the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is only strengthening the claim.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by BornOfZapatasGuns+Feb 21 2004, 07:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BornOfZapatasGuns @ Feb 21 2004, 07:29 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 12:53 AM
I like Ralph Nader but I agree with the ABB&#39;s I cant deal with 4 more years of Dubya. I&#39;m encouraging people to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Please kill me now [/b]
ok...so you want permanent tax cuts for the rich? A constitutional Ammendmant banning gay marriage? A total ban on abortions. Yeah fine go ahead and give teh republicans what they want.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:00 PM
If many of you people had any sense, you would realize in the long term voting for the Green Party could build up its popularity, which could result in it actually standing a chance in time. Unfortunately, thinking in the long term isn&#39;t something many of you do very often it seems. Giving in to the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is only strengthening the claim.
NO if you had any sense you&#39;d realize what bush plans to get done in his next term. Permanent tax cuts for the rich, ban on gay marrage, ban on abortions.

You aren&#39;t thinking in the long term my friend.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 22 2004, 04:26 AM
There&#39;s always going to be a reason to vote Democratic and not socialist. One year it will Supreme Court justices, then it will be to save social security, perhaps one year it will to stop the other guy. None of them good reasons but they will always be there. That is the sad fact of living under the polarized 2 party system in the US and this is how the leaders want it. They want you to have no other option and they want you to think that you have thrown your vote away by placing it on a third party canidate.

Well bravo to all socialists that betray their party to be able to play politics with beaugoise. The socialist party isn&#39;t asking you to send money, to work at the office orpick up a gun and revolt. They are asking of the people that have one vote and a socialist heart to give them that piece of paper. The other members standing alone, feeling a million miles from each other is asking you to show solidarity with your comrades by voting with them not against them.

ABB should be Anything But Bourgeoise&#33;

When a socialist votes democratic, that socialist should have to appologize to every hard working member of the socialist party for stealing another one from them like the Bourgeoise has done for the past 100 years.

Yes Bush is bad, yes he comes bundled with many terrible things that I did not look forward to in 2000 and will not look forward to in 2004 when he wins with his 200 million dollar campaign fund. But I and many people around me will survive no matter how bad it gets. If millions of socialist all over the world could risk their lives and family for this ideal, some losing those very same lives and families for this ideal, I can handle 4 years of Bush.

What does it take to make a Socialist fold over for his/her ideals? Not much, just an above normal run of the mill presidential canidate for the republican party. I might be able to get to vote for a President 13 times in my lifetime, if I give up just one of them I have handed over 9% of my only controlled power to the Bourgeoise, I have taken away from 9% of what I control away from the socialist party.

You know the saying "When the going gets tough, the tough get going&#33;" Well it is tough not to take the cowards way out and vote for your party against such adversity. One of the Bourgeoise&#39;s favorite weapons is fear and they are hoping to scare you into voting in their election. You have to be tougher than that and as a socialist vote with your comrades.

Bush will not beat me with fear, he will not back my into a corner and force me to turn my back on my ideals. The Bourgeoise will not have my vote, they may have my 8 hours a day at a job, my taxes, my free time, my awaiting economic freedom, but they will not get me to hand over something I can control.
Exploited Class don&#39;t give us the sob story. We aren&#39;t stealing anything for anyone. We shouldn&#39;t even be focusing our attention on getting elected president, not yet.

We should be building up our parties (like I outlined in my Socialist Action in Modern America thread thats in theory). We are to far gone to consider any real chance of winning. Don&#39;t be so unrealistic. The fact of the matter is we are too weak to win anything yet, we build up our parties first.

Also if you want permanent tax cuts for the rich then why not just vote for Dubya?

Also as a lesbian I&#39;d expect you to want to get Bush out of office. Kerry may only be for civil unions, but atleast he wont create a constituional amendmant banning gay marriage like Bush would

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:39 PM
I think that the conservatives are smart enough to know that limiting access to abortions without actually overturning the law is the way to get what they want. If they overturn the law there will be a huge public outrage against them, and it will be extremely unpopular with everyone except the “moral minority.”

Blaming me, or any voter for George W. Bush getting elected displays a complete ignorance of third party politics. The only one to blame for Al Gore loosing the 2000 election is Al Gore. He didn’t get my vote because he didn’t deserve my vote. He failed to convince enough people in “swing states” to vote for him, which is why he losses the election.

That said, I should also point out that I do not live in a “swing state” but rather a “safe state.” I believe that the safe state strategy… that of only running an election in states like New York where the democrat has like an 80% chance of winning is superior to voting for the “lesser of two evils” or being blamed for the short comings of democratic candidates by people like you that would compromise their political beliefs for a little security.

If George W. Bush is turned out of office by some democrat, and there is still rising unemployment, still no universal healthcare, the US still continues it’s path to neo-liberalism with NAFTA and FTAA, and the US still acts as the worlds policemen, still supports Israel’s apartheid war on the Palestinians, and still continue to have troops in the middle east…. Don’t complain that nothing has changed.

I wish I could vote for the Socialist Party Candidate Walt Brown. I like him much better than any of the other candidates running… yet the SP doesn’t have ballot access in New York, and would need 15,000 signatures to get on it. There is also no local party near me, so while I’m officially a member of the SP I have no contact with them. Which is sad really, Walt Brown’s campaign is one I would like to work on actually.
I too support walt brown...but I live TN. There is no socialst party here. I am a registered member of the national party though. I can&#39;t encourage people to vote for him because he isn&#39;t on the ballot here.

Lets be realistic people, Kerry/Edwards are the lesser of two evil.

And Kucinich really should be the nominee, atleast he&#39;s for alot of the stuff we are. He isn&#39;t a socialist, but he is pretty much a leftist.

but once again, you aren&#39;t building up teh party by givng walt brown.02% of the vote. You help socialism by making the party stronger, and teh party doesn&#39;t get stronger through losing the presidential race.

Also for the record I too want to work on Walter&#39;s campaign...but the national headquarters is in NYC so I guess we are both out of luck.

I personally support teh Sp candidate, and I&#39;ve been telling people about him, but I tell them since he isn&#39;t ont he ballot vote for he democrat

[Lardlad95]

I wonder if we can&#39;t come to a solution on this matter. Lets see what everyone thinks on this suggestion.

1. If you are in a state where Nader or Walter Brown are on teh Ballot vote for either of them

2. If you are in a swing state, take time to consider your vote, provided Nader or Brown are on the ballot. If they aren&#39;t, vote for the democrats

3. If you have the ability to write in Nader or Brown please do.

4. If you hate bush to the poin where you can set aside your hatred for the democrats then by all means get bush out of office.

5. Even if you don&#39;t agree with what i said atleast just get out and Vote...

[Sabocat]

I&#39;ll be voting for whichever Socialist is on the ballot. If for no other reason, I have to hope that people will sit back on election day and say: " Gee, who is this socialist candidate and why does he have 2 million votes?" Maybe people will get interested in the platform of the socialists. Maybe more will join our ranks.

Also, voting for Kerry or Edwards is no guarantee of a kinder gentler administration. Clinton appointed middle of the road centrist/conservative judges, Clinton helped dismantle welfare, and Clinton bombed Iraq as much as anyone else. This is a guy that was considered centrist/liberal. I live in Kerry&#39;s state. Believe me, he&#39;s no left winger. He&#39;s big money all the way. He will never help the left. It&#39;ll be nothing more than some weak lip service to shut the far left up.


I refuse to settle for the scraps off of the bourgeoisie table. I can&#39;t help but think of the Rage Against the Machine line..."If we settle for nothing now, we&#39;ll settle for nothing later".

GW Bush has done more for the left than any other president I can think of. Another term of him and we should be closer to revolution here than we&#39;ve been in years. :D

Here&#39;s an interesting article from the WSWS.

Ralph Nader to run as independent in US presidential race
By Patrick Martin
23 February 2004


Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who ran for president in 2000 as the candidate of the Green Party, declared Sunday that he would join the 2004 presidential campaign as an independent candidate. He made the announcement in an interview on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” following several weeks of public discussion of a possible candidacy on his own web site and in the media.

Nader’s decision to run has been denounced by a wide array of his former supporters in the liberal and middle-class “left” milieu. Most prominently, the Nation magazine published an editorial appeal last month urging him not to run, on the grounds that this would take away votes from the prospective Democratic nominee and help reelect President Bush. A group of Greens, liberal Democrats and former Nader 2000 campaign activists established a web site devoted to opposing the launching of a Nader 2004 campaign.

Read the rest.. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/.../nade-f23.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/nade-f23.shtml)

[Saint-Just]

I would vote for a third party candidate, although I may think twice if I was very poor living in the U.S., in which case I really might want Bush out and not want to have to live another 4 years with him as president.

Any increase in the popularity of a party such as the Green Party changes the consciousness of Americans in general and as a result the Republicans will lose out in the long-term.

[DEPAVER]

When is the "right" time to vote for a third party candidate? Four years from now? Eight?

The GOP will just run another Bxxx-type candidate, and you&#39;ll be faced with the same situation. All of the GOP candidates (and Kerryish, traditional Democrats) support the expansion of world wide capital and the continuation of the status quo.

The media campaign that marginalized Kucinich is now declaring Nader a egoist, non-factor candidate to be dismissed and ignored like a benign underarm growth. All third party candidates or anyone issuing a serious challenge to "the way things are" are dismissed in this fashion.

Jefferson&#39;s dream of a free and independent, democratic citizenry has been purloined in the dark of night, scuttled away in a dirty burlap sack and hidden in the alley beneath a pile of rotting industrial garbage, until
the people have forgotten it ever existed. It only takes a generation, two at the most, to completely change the dreams and expectations of the people, when their access to information is controlled by an elite minority who despise and fear the people.

Let&#39;s bring freedom and democracy back out into the bright light of day&#33; Support third party candidates&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Agent provocateur]

Every person who loves liberty and justice should vote for Ralph Nader and should tell others to vote for him. If Nader does not win another 4 years of Bush will make the country more revolutionary instead of more effete like the Democrats or more reactionary like the Republicans. Washington like Nader says is a "corporate-occupied territory."

And remember this is the first presidential election since the corporate scandals, 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unfair counting of ballots of 2000.

Besides, I think that the situation in Iraq will get even more worrisome than it already is. Remember the Vietnam Tet offensive in the election year of 1968. The situation in Vietnam made Lyndon Johnson decide not to seek another term. I doubt if Bush would follow the Lyndon Johnson course but the violent insurgent escalation in Iraq will influence the elections.

Above all I want to vote for a presidential candidate that will lift the embargo against the people of Cuba. Kerry and Edwards both suck, roost and lick corporate cocks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cuba.html <_<

My vote for Nader will tell the corporate-catamites my own special message, "Defiance I hurl at your teeth."

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 23 2004, 03:03 PM
Every person who loves liberty and justice should vote for Ralph Nader and should tell others to vote for him. If Nader does not win another 4 years of Bush will make the country more revolutionary instead of more effete like the Democrats or more reactionary like the Republicans. Washington like Nader says is a "corporate-occupied territory."

And remember this is the first presidential election since the corporate scandals, 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unfair counting of ballots of 2000.

Besides, I think that the situation in Iraq will get even more worrisome than it already is. Remember the Vietnam Tet offensive in the election year of 1968. The situation in Vietnam made Lyndon Johnson decide not to seek another term. I doubt if Bush would follow the Lyndon Johnson course but the violent insurgent escalation in Iraq will influence the elections.

Above all I want to vote for a presidential candidate that will lift the embargo against the people of Cuba. Kerry and Edwards both suck, roost and lick corporate cocks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cuba.html <_<

My vote for Nader will tell the corporate-catamites my own special message, "Defiance I hurl at your teeth."
So let me get this straight you think that Bush winning will make the US more revolutionary? So you&#39;d let more poor people suffer just to further your own cause?

If we can alliviate even a little of teh suffering why not do it? certainly Kerry and Edwards are not going to dismantle capitalism, but atleast they are to teh left of Bush

I agree that we should vote for Green Part Candidates/Socialist Candiidates, I just disagree with that one statement you made

[Alejandro C]

"alleviate a little of the suffering" is a perfect turn of phrase. by not voting for nader in favor of kerry you would simply be trying for some short term goal. American politics is a machine. That machine has steadily been building internal pressure against the whole of the american population. Stances like voting for kerry instead of nader is releasing a small amount of the ever building pressure in order to alleviate some of the conflict. I&#39;m voting for nader, putting more pressure on the machine. someday the motherfucker&#39;s going to blow; someday that is, unless we keep releasing a little pressure at a time.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 23 2004, 03:03 PM
Every person who loves liberty and justice should vote for Ralph Nader and should tell others to vote for him. If Nader does not win another 4 years of Bush will make the country more revolutionary instead of more effete like the Democrats or more reactionary like the Republicans. Washington like Nader says is a "corporate-occupied territory."

And remember this is the first presidential election since the corporate scandals, 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unfair counting of ballots of 2000.

Besides, I think that the situation in Iraq will get even more worrisome than it already is. Remember the Vietnam Tet offensive in the election year of 1968. The situation in Vietnam made Lyndon Johnson decide not to seek another term. I doubt if Bush would follow the Lyndon Johnson course but the violent insurgent escalation in Iraq will influence the elections.

Above all I want to vote for a presidential candidate that will lift the embargo against the people of Cuba. Kerry and Edwards both suck, roost and lick corporate cocks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cuba.html <_<

My vote for Nader will tell the corporate-catamites my own special message, "Defiance I hurl at your teeth."
Aren&#39;t you a Trotskyist? Most agent provocateurs are.

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Feb 24 2004, 01:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lardlad95 @ Feb 24 2004, 01:55 AM)
Agent [email protected] 23 2004, 03:03 PM
Every person who loves liberty and justice should vote for Ralph Nader and should tell others to vote for him. If Nader does not win another 4 years of Bush will make the country more revolutionary instead of more effete like the Democrats or more reactionary like the Republicans. Washington like Nader says is a "corporate-occupied territory."

And remember this is the first presidential election since the corporate scandals, 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unfair counting of ballots of 2000.

Besides, I think that the situation in Iraq will get even more worrisome than it already is. Remember the Vietnam Tet offensive in the election year of 1968. The situation in Vietnam made Lyndon Johnson decide not to seek another term. I doubt if Bush would follow the Lyndon Johnson course but the violent insurgent escalation in Iraq will influence the elections.

Above all I want to vote for a presidential candidate that will lift the embargo against the people of Cuba. Kerry and Edwards both suck, roost and lick corporate cocks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cuba.html <_<

My vote for Nader will tell the corporate-catamites my own special message, "Defiance I hurl at your teeth."
So let me get this straight you think that Bush winning will make the US more revolutionary? So you&#39;d let more poor people suffer just to further your own cause?

If we can alliviate even a little of teh suffering why not do it? certainly Kerry and Edwards are not going to dismantle capitalism, but atleast they are to teh left of Bush

I agree that we should vote for Green Part Candidates/Socialist Candiidates, I just disagree with that one statement you made [/b]
I take the greatest possible exception to the fact that you are implying that I am less than revolutionary&#33; Let&#39;s examine the facts, shall we? Clinton during the 8 fucking years he was in office what did he do? Passed NAFTA, passed WTO, passed corporate-welfare for the rich, cut social welfare for the poor, made all the headlines in the newspapers focus on his oral escapades with Monica Lewinsky and that&#39;s forgeting other things he did like supplying arms to the fascist Turkish regime to torure and kill hundreds of thousands of people. You are a fool if you think Kerry or Edwards is an acceptable choice to fucking Bush. Democrats suck corporate cocks and I for one am not going to be a party to it.

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Feb 24 2004, 10:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Feb 24 2004, 10:41 AM)
Agent [email protected] 23 2004, 03:03 PM
Every person who loves liberty and justice should vote for Ralph Nader and should tell others to vote for him. If Nader does not win another 4 years of Bush will make the country more revolutionary instead of more effete like the Democrats or more reactionary like the Republicans. Washington like Nader says is a "corporate-occupied territory."

And remember this is the first presidential election since the corporate scandals, 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unfair counting of ballots of 2000.

Besides, I think that the situation in Iraq will get even more worrisome than it already is. Remember the Vietnam Tet offensive in the election year of 1968. The situation in Vietnam made Lyndon Johnson decide not to seek another term. I doubt if Bush would follow the Lyndon Johnson course but the violent insurgent escalation in Iraq will influence the elections.

Above all I want to vote for a presidential candidate that will lift the embargo against the people of Cuba. Kerry and Edwards both suck, roost and lick corporate cocks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cuba.html <_<

My vote for Nader will tell the corporate-catamites my own special message, "Defiance I hurl at your teeth."
Aren&#39;t you a Trotskyist? Most agent provocateurs are. [/b]
I&#39;m---like Che was--- a pragmatic revolutionary.

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 24 2004, 02:31 AM
"alleviate a little of the suffering" is a perfect turn of phrase. by not voting for nader in favor of kerry you would simply be trying for some short term goal. American politics is a machine. That machine has steadily been building internal pressure against the whole of the american population. Stances like voting for kerry instead of nader is releasing a small amount of the ever building pressure in order to alleviate some of the conflict. I&#39;m voting for nader, putting more pressure on the machine. someday the motherfucker&#39;s going to blow; someday that is, unless we keep releasing a little pressure at a time.
Thanks for the brain food&#33; Don&#39;t listen to these chickens here. Do what your consciense dictates to you.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 24 2004, 06:23 PM

Aren&#39;t you a Trotskyist? Most agent provocateurs are.
I&#39;m---like Che was--- a pragamatic revolutionary.
Fair enough, thats pretty good. A lot of people who call themselves agent provocateurs in Britain are Trotskyists.

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Feb 25 2004, 10:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Feb 25 2004, 10:55 AM)
Agent [email protected] 24 2004, 06:23 PM

Aren&#39;t you a Trotskyist? Most agent provocateurs are.
I&#39;m---like Che was--- a pragamatic revolutionary.
Fair enough, thats pretty good. A lot of people who call themselves agent provocateurs in Britain are Trotskyists. [/b]
Well don&#39;t get me wrong. I admire Trotskyism but it wouldn&#39;t be good idea right now for the Cubans to adopt a Trotskyists foreign policy because we no longer have the aegis of the Soviet Union to deter yanqui invasion. But back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s the opportunities were endless.

[BOZG]

I take the greatest possible exception to the fact that you are implying that I am less than revolutionary&#33; Let&#39;s examine the facts, shall we? Clinton during the 8 fucking years he was in office what did he do? Passed NAFTA, passed WTO, passed corporate-welfare for the rich, cut social welfare for the poor, made all the headlines in the newspapers focus on his oral escapades with Monica Lewinsky and that&#39;s forgeting other things he did like supplying arms to the fascist Turkish regime to torure and kill hundreds of thousands of people. You are a fool if you think Kerry or Edwards is an acceptable choice to fucking Bush. Democrats suck corporate cocks and I for one am not going to be a party to it.

Don&#39;t waste your time with the social-democrats, they&#39;re too busy trying on their suits.

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:15 PM

I take the greatest possible exception to the fact that you are implying that I am less than revolutionary&#33; Let&#39;s examine the facts, shall we? Clinton during the 8 fucking years he was in office what did he do? Passed NAFTA, passed WTO, passed corporate-welfare for the rich, cut social welfare for the poor, made all the headlines in the newspapers focus on his oral escapades with Monica Lewinsky and that&#39;s forgeting other things he did like supplying arms to the fascist Turkish regime to torure and kill hundreds of thousands of people. You are a fool if you think Kerry or Edwards is an acceptable choice to fucking Bush. Democrats suck corporate cocks and I for one am not going to be a party to it.

Don&#39;t waste your time with the social-democrats, they&#39;re too busy trying on their suits.
Ha&#33;&#33;&#33; I too have read my State and Revolution but have you considered the following:

http://www.nader.org/history_bollier.html

http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Agent [email protected] 25 2004, 06:10 PM

Well don&#39;t get me wrong. I admire Trotskyism but it wouldn&#39;t be good idea right now for the Cubans to adopt a Trotskyists foreign policy because we no longer have the aegis of the Soviet Union to deter yanqui invasion. But back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s the opportunities were endless.
The possibilities were endless when China was socialist, the problem was the both China and the USSR became capitalist countries. I disagree that Trotskyism, exclusively, is internationalism, I think Marxism-Leninism is internationalist. Mao was a great internationalist and advocated bringing spreading the revolution across the world, unfortunately he had little support from the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was only concerned with self-preservation, which did involve helping socialism to some degree.

[BOZG]

I was referring to the social-democrats on this site.

[Sandino111]

Vote Nader&#33; Follow my example, I have gotten ten of my friends to vote for him. They were not planning to vote, but I convinced them to give Nader their vote since they didn&#39;t care. This will make the spineless democrat&#39;s "spoiler" argument invalid, because votes are not being taken from the democrats. It&#39;s time abolish the two party sluts and their corporate pimp&#33;

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:46 PM
NO if you had any sense you&#39;d realize what bush plans to get done in his next term. Permanent tax cuts for the rich, ban on gay marrage, ban on abortions.

You aren&#39;t thinking in the long term my friend.
Actually, I very much am. Bush is already having a hard time controlling the matter of gay marriage, tax cuts for the rich is something that defines U.S. Presidents, and I really don&#39;t see the importance of the last issue is comparison to the long term results.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 24 2004, 02:31 AM
"alleviate a little of the suffering" is a perfect turn of phrase. by not voting for nader in favor of kerry you would simply be trying for some short term goal. American politics is a machine. That machine has steadily been building internal pressure against the whole of the american population. Stances like voting for kerry instead of nader is releasing a small amount of the ever building pressure in order to alleviate some of the conflict. I&#39;m voting for nader, putting more pressure on the machine. someday the motherfucker&#39;s going to blow; someday that is, unless we keep releasing a little pressure at a time.
I&#39;ve already stated that everyone should vote for Nader or Walter brown, twice. I did say before that we should focus on beating bush but I relinquished that statement.

However I&#39;m saying that I dn&#39;t like people to suffer, and I"m not willing to let them suffer more than they have to for the sake of my ideologial goals and I think it is wrong to do so. If i can find a way to help out people even in a minute way I"m still going to do it, as opposed to letting them suffer so I can accomplish my own personal goals.

Not saying that that is what you are doing, but to claim that because the more people suffer the faster the revolution will come is wrong, in m personal opinion. The revolution will come anyway, we don&#39;t need to alow people to suffer any more than they have to to push it aloong

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Agent provocateur+Feb 24 2004, 06:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agent provocateur @ Feb 24 2004, 06:20 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:55 AM

Agent [email protected] 23 2004, 03:03 PM
Every person who loves liberty and justice should vote for Ralph Nader and should tell others to vote for him. If Nader does not win another 4 years of Bush will make the country more revolutionary instead of more effete like the Democrats or more reactionary like the Republicans. Washington like Nader says is a "corporate-occupied territory."

And remember this is the first presidential election since the corporate scandals, 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unfair counting of ballots of 2000.

Besides, I think that the situation in Iraq will get even more worrisome than it already is. Remember the Vietnam Tet offensive in the election year of 1968. The situation in Vietnam made Lyndon Johnson decide not to seek another term. I doubt if Bush would follow the Lyndon Johnson course but the violent insurgent escalation in Iraq will influence the elections.

Above all I want to vote for a presidential candidate that will lift the embargo against the people of Cuba. Kerry and Edwards both suck, roost and lick corporate cocks&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cuba.html <_<

My vote for Nader will tell the corporate-catamites my own special message, "Defiance I hurl at your teeth."
So let me get this straight you think that Bush winning will make the US more revolutionary? So you&#39;d let more poor people suffer just to further your own cause?

If we can alliviate even a little of teh suffering why not do it? certainly Kerry and Edwards are not going to dismantle capitalism, but atleast they are to teh left of Bush

I agree that we should vote for Green Part Candidates/Socialist Candiidates, I just disagree with that one statement you made
I take the greatest possible exception to the fact that you are implying that I am less than revolutionary&#33; Let&#39;s examine the facts, shall we? Clinton during the 8 fucking years he was in office what did he do? Passed NAFTA, passed WTO, passed corporate-welfare for the rich, cut social welfare for the poor, made all the headlines in the newspapers focus on his oral escapades with Monica Lewinsky and that&#39;s forgeting other things he did like supplying arms to the fascist Turkish regime to torure and kill hundreds of thousands of people. You are a fool if you think Kerry or Edwards is an acceptable choice to fucking Bush. Democrats suck corporate cocks and I for one am not going to be a party to it. [/b]
First off if you actualley got what I was trying to say, I was noting that both Kerry and Edwards would roll back the tax cuts for the rich. Somethiung which will keep my children and yours from having to pay off Bush&#39;s dumbass economic program. IE, I was trying trying to say that even though this is a minor change within teh system atleast it will help out the working class a little, as opposed to not at all.

I don&#39;t personally like Kerry, I don&#39;t personally like Edwards. But you are under the allusion thatanyone that isn&#39;t a marxist it pure evil. That simply isn&#39;t true. Kerry and Edwards are a better alternative to Bush, and Nader is a better alternative to Kerry and Edwards.

I&#39;m not encouraging anyone to vote for Kerry, and I apologize for being part of the ABB group. In fact on every other messege board I belong to I have links to nader and walter browns campaign sites in my sigs. I&#39;m encouraging people to vote for socialist/independant candidates.

But I will not however apologize for the truth, which is even though Kerry and Edwards are capitalists, they are better than bush, and I tend to think that future generations that have to pay off Bush&#39;s deficit would agree with me.

I&#39;d love to see Nader or Walter Brown win, that doesn&#39;t mean however that I&#39;d group Kerry and Edwards with Bush. They are similar yes, but they are not one in the same.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:15 PM
Don&#39;t waste your time with the social-democrats, they&#39;re too busy trying on their suits.
1. I&#39;m not a social-democrat, and I&#39;ve asked you repedetly before not to call me one. If you are going to be childish and give one line responses that are attacking me you don&#39;t belong in the discussion. If you want to attack my statements thats fine, hell I even admit that I was wrong when i said we should beat Bush at any cost. However personal attacks on me aren&#39;t warranted. In fact fuck that, if you are going to make presonal attacks atleast incorporate them into posts that consist of more than one line about how you think I"m a sellout.

2. Eugene v. Debs wore suits, Marx wore nice clothes, as did Engels and Lenin. They Were sell outs right?


Actually, I very much am. Bush is already having a hard time controlling the matter of gay marriage, tax cuts for the rich is something that defines U.S. Presidents, and I really don&#39;t see the importance of the last issue is comparison to the long term results.

Well if we look at Clinton&#39;s passing of the Defense of Marriage Act I think it&#39;s fairly easy to predict the out come of the ban on gay marriage, it&#39;ll be close, but the two thirds majority wont be hard to get if the administration plays their cards right.

Also Bush&#39;s tax cuts for the rich, exceed most other president&#39;s tax cuts for the rich. He&#39;s letting corporations walk off scott free when it comes to taxes. Energy and oil companies are writing our enviromental legislation. This isn&#39;t just abou rich americans, but rich corporations.

Also as far as the abortion thing, i just don&#39;t want to see it banned personally

[BOZG]

By implying that you&#39;re a social democrat (you can call yourself what you like), I am attacking your statements, as that of bourgeois socialism.

But there priority wasn&#39;t looking nice for the people, in case they might think some dirty old crusty was going to steal all their valuables. They had some content in their ideas, not idealistics hopes.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

By all means, vote for Nader if you want Bush to win.

[Maynard]

Great Article &#33; (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5042)

"The implication by Democratic Party apologists that all 2000 votes for Ralph Nader would have gone to Al Gore is dishonest in the extreme. Exit polls showed that if Nader had not been in the race, then of the almost 3 million who voted for him, 25% would have voted for Bush, 38% for Gore, and 37% would not have voted. Two things are clear: [a] the net gain from Nader voters for Gore would have been 13% (=38% - 25%), not 100%; and [b] Nader brought at least a million voters to the polls who Gore could not bring out and whose votes the Gore machine threw away by not endorsing IRV. "

Anyway, I am not an American so I won&#39;t be voting but I think the most important issue, if you want to participate in these elections is changing the god damn awful winner take all style voting. That would be the most pressing issue and replace it with a preferential system , which allows everyone to vote for who they actually want, without this "strategic" voting or lesser of two evils, I could vote Socialist without any fear of this lesser of two evils rubbish. Obviously both parties there, have an interest in maintaining the current system , if it was changed the democrats would have won last time most likely

I can&#39;t understand any progressive urging Nader not to run, he brings up issues that none else does on a national level at least and the issues he raises are more likely to be heard.
He won&#39;t get nearly as many votes this time from the scare tactics used by the Democrats to "blame" him for attracting votes, instead of there own failures.

Liberal democracy stinks but if you want to participate or have too, like me, vote for who represents your ideals more so than anyone else, because this argument of "throwing your vote away" will always be there. The Simpson&#39;s portrayed it the best I believe when Kang and Kodos became Clinton and Dole :)

[Lardlad95]

By implying that you&#39;re a social democrat (you can call yourself what you like), I am attacking your statements, as that of bourgeois socialism.

No you are insulting me, not attacking me statements. Those are two different things. Attacking my statements would be finding flaws in the ideology and arguementation of them, not calling me names. Learn the difference it may help you down the road, should you ever actualley decide to debate someone.


But there priority wasn&#39;t looking nice for the people, in case they might think some dirty old crusty was going to steal all their valuables. They had some content in their ideas, not idealistics hopes.

1. who said my priority was looking nice? THe only thing I&#39;ve ever said on teh subject, was that when you are viewed in the media, it would help if you weren&#39;t wearing a stained hemp shirt, and some old fatigue pants. If you want to wear that at a rally, fine, I probably would too. But I would suggest making your self look presentable when you are to be viewed by people who don&#39;t agree with you, but you are trying to convince of your position.

2. You are the last person who should be talking about content.

[Lardlad95]

Did anyone see the debate tonight?

Anyone catch how larry king called Kucinich a socialist, it pisses me off because

1. Kucinich is stealing socialist ideas

2. Kucinich isn&#39;t a socialist...he&#39;s to the left granted, but he is no Socialist

[davekriss]

Nader is unwittingly serving as a "Happy Idiot" for the ruling class. He will siphon off some votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrats and, though I tout the "Republicrat" meme far and wide, traditionally the ruling class is more free to rape and pillage under Republicans than Democrats. (It&#39;s a matter of degree.) If anyone has the courage and stomach to venture into any rabid U.S. rightwing sites, you&#39;ll see champagne corks popping all over the place -- this I submit as people&#39;s exhibit #1 in judgment on this matter.

On the one hand I admire Ralphie&#39;s temerity in trying to pull the Democrats leftward, but the stakes are just too high right now. Bush fronts for a radical right-wing militarist-fascist plutocrat regime of the most dangerous kind and needs to go. I&#39;d rather not see anything impede from this goal, no matter how small the effect.

There is value in third-party campaigns in that their success (when they are successful) is to shift the political agenda by forcing the splintered party to reconcile with the heretical third-party. I think Kerry&#39;s success in the Primaries have led Nader to his decision. Kerry is as centrist, as pedestrianly establishmentarian, as a Democrat can come. Nader must believe any leftward pull from his 2000 campaign has ebbed and he needs to revive his pull -- but this time, hopefully, he pulls out in final full support of the Democratic candidate (I very much am ABB in 2004 -- Anybody But Bush).

[Guest1]

If you wanna be a traitor, go ahead, don&#39;t try to guilt us into being traitors too though.

Don&#39;t go about blaming capitalism on the few Socialists with some integrity. You guys piss me off.

This is the reason you should vote Nader/Green/Socialist/any third party you actually feel represents you instead of the "strategic voting"/"strategic bending over and getting fucked up the ass along with all the workers of america for the hundredth time" that the assholes here have been advocating:

[DEPAVER]

What is your source for the graph, immediately above?

[BOZG]

No you are insulting me, not attacking me statements.

I&#39;ve attacked your bourgeois statements time and time again and your "take it in the ass" approach time and time again. It&#39;s tiring.




Learn the difference it may help you down the road, should you ever actualley decide to debate someone

So you have different names. You all end up going down the same path, selling out the workers to the bourgeoisie.




THe only thing I&#39;ve ever said on teh subject, was that when you are viewed in the media, it would help if you weren&#39;t wearing a stained hemp shirt, and some old fatigue pants. If you want to wear that at a rally, fine, I probably would too. But I would suggest making your self look presentable when you are to be viewed by people who don&#39;t agree with you, but you are trying to convince of your position.


Break out the vaseline.



Anyone catch how larry king called Kucinich a socialist, it pisses me off because

1. Kucinich is stealing socialist ideas

2. Kucinich isn&#39;t a socialist...he&#39;s to the left granted, but he is no Socialist

Anyone catch how Lardlad calls himself a socialist, it pisses me off because

1. Lardlad is stealing socialist ideas

2. Lardlad isn&#39;t a socialist...he&#39;s to the left granted, but he is no Socialist

[Lardlad95]

I&#39;ve attacked your bourgeois statements time and time again and your "take it in the ass" approach time and time again. It&#39;s tiring.

...Bring me some links from some of these so called attacks, and if anything was left unresolved I"ll bbe sure to reply to your arguements.

Also that "take it in the ass" comment is totally unecassary and childish. Maturity would do you some good.


So you have different names. You all end up going down the same path, selling out the workers to the bourgeoisie.

....I&#39;m sorry when did you become a fortune teller. Listen friend, just because you don&#39;t happen to like me doesn&#39;t mean your in any position to judge my character. I&#39;ve never considered selling out, I&#39;ve never given any indication that I&#39;m going to sell out, and there is no way in hell I"m selling out.

Just because I"m not out pretending to be Che Guevara, and becase i"m actualley trying to figure out real ways to apply socialism in the world, unlike you, doesn&#39;t mean I"m a sell out.

Going to a rally doesn&#39;t make you a true socialist, it makes you a participator.



Break out the vaseline.

What the fuck is this? You honestly couldn&#39;t come up with anything better than a "taking it up the ass joke". You really need to contemplate making real arguements.



Anyone catch how Lardlad calls himself a socialist, it pisses me off because

1. Lardlad is stealing socialist ideas

2. Lardlad isn&#39;t a socialist...he&#39;s to the left granted, but he is no Socialist

You see people Once again BOZG resorts to attacks on my chharacter without any substantial evidence backing it up. You can go to Kucinich&#39;s website and see that he is stealing socialist ideas. Not to mention the fact that replacing Kucinich with Lardlad is far from creative.

But BOZG has in no way shape or form proved that i am not a socialist.

Grow up, or atleast back up your statements. And I&#39;m wondering, why is it that you resort to lewd comments instead of trying to initiate debate? Why is it that you single me out specifically, to attack(not in a very effective way I might add).

Also would you care to tell me how I"m bourgeois? Ifon one hand you are implying that I"m well off you&#39;ve got another thing coming. My family is by no means well off, I"ve lived in poverty for over half my life, and my family i still in debt. Or if your trying to imply that i"m bourgeois because I&#39;m a democratic socialist and not a communist, then please explain why democratic socialism is bourgeois.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 27 2004, 08:10 AM
If you wanna be a traitor, go ahead, don&#39;t try to guilt us into being traitors too though.

Don&#39;t go about blaming capitalism on the few Socialists with some integrity. You guys piss me off.

This is the reason you should vote Nader/Green/Socialist/any third party you actually feel represents you instead of the "strategic voting"/"strategic bending over and getting fucked up the ass along with all the workers of america for the hundredth time" that the assholes here have been advocating:
not that I disagree with your reasons for voting green/socialist, since you are indeed right we should support our parties.

However I"m questioning the graph. Where did you get it from. It seems odd to me that John Kerry would be to the left of Howard Dean.

[BOZG]

...Bring me some links from some of these so called attacks, and if anything was left unresolved I"ll bbe sure to reply to your arguements.


I always keep links to the arguments I have with you.




Listen friend, just because you don&#39;t happen to like me doesn&#39;t mean your in any position to judge my character.

I have nothing wrong with you at all. Personally I think you&#39;re a nice guy but that your politics are complete and utter bullshit.




Just because I"m not out pretending to be Che Guevara, and becase i"m actualley trying to figure out real ways to apply socialism in the world, unlike you, doesn&#39;t mean I"m a sell out.

Going to a rally doesn&#39;t make you a true socialist, it makes you a participator.

You should read your above quote on judging characters. You don&#39;t know what I do or don&#39;t do.



Why is it that you single me out specifically, to attack(not in a very effective way I might add).


For one, you&#39;re the most prominent of the democratic socialists on this board so I&#39;m more likely to see your posts. As for singling you out, have a look around the board, you&#39;ll see I&#39;ve attacked quite a few liberals.



Also would you care to tell me how I"m bourgeois? Ifon one hand you are implying that I"m well off you&#39;ve got another thing coming. My family is by no means well off, I"ve lived in poverty for over half my life, and my family i still in debt.

My apologies if you understood it that way, I was in no way implying that.



Or if your trying to imply that i"m bourgeois because I&#39;m a democratic socialist and not a communist, then please explain why democratic socialism is bourgeois.

It is bourgeois because it does not seek to smash the bourgeois state or the bourgeois parliament and in fact, in the course of history has been shown to support these institutions.

[Lardlad95]

I always keep links to the arguments I have with you.

You don&#39;t? Well now I&#39;m really insulted. Fine do you have any recolection to these arguements, because I sure don&#39;t.



I have nothing wrong with you at all. Personally I think you&#39;re a nice guy but that your politics are complete and utter bullshit.

Fair enough. I don&#39;t see why you would think that though. I&#39;m all for violent revolution as a last resort. I just happen to think that changing people&#39;s minds has a more powerful effect than killing people. If the only way I can in is by ending my opponents life then I must not be a very effective debater.


You should read your above quote on judging characters. You don&#39;t know what I do or don&#39;t do.

You are absolutely right, I Should practice what I preach. I will no longer make assumptions about your charazcter. I hope that you will do the same for me in the future, because as we&#39;ve both seen it isn&#39;t very fun when someone assumes things about you, without even really knowing you.


For one, you&#39;re the most prominent of the democratic socialists on this board so I&#39;m more likely to see your posts. As for singling you out, have a look around the board, you&#39;ll see I&#39;ve attacked quite a few liberals.

Oh I don&#39;t deny that, but for the past week or so I noticed that you were making snide remarks towards me. This is what really made me mad, not that you would attack my ideas, but that you would insult me as a person. You didn&#39;t attack any of my ideas, had you done that I would have been fine with your posts.


It is bourgeois because it does not seek to smash the bourgeois state or the bourgeois parliament and in fact, in the course of history has been shown to support these institutions.

...And if you look at history Communists have supported the opression and executions of millions. Does that make communism inherently opressive? I wouldn&#39;t think so.

You, as a communist, should be the last one to cite historical examples, when you know that history(or atleast history as written by capitalists) hasn&#39;t been kind to your movement.

Also just because I don&#39;t advocate rmed revolution as the best solution doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t want to smash the capitalist state. The difference is how we arrive at the same destination.

I believe that if the people are united we can use their system against them, get rid of that system, and build up our own system.

You believe that we must slaughter every cappie in our path. And once they are all dead and their society is in ruins, we build up a classless society.

I too want that society, I just arrive at it in a different way.

Just because socialists in the past have sold out, that doesn&#39;t mean I Will. You can not judge me based on the actions of others.

Also I apologize if I got your beleifs wrong, if I did please explain them.