My thoughts on Nader for 2004

[Michael De Panama]

Someone explain to me, specifically, why they don't want Bush to win the re-election.

Bush has been no worse than Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, or any other American president over the past hundred years.

The only thing that distinguishes Bush from past presidents is his incompetence in being able to color up our government's intentions in a prettier, brighter, happier way.

The war in Iraq is no different than Clinton's assaults on Kosovo or Haiti, or Bush Sr.'s invasion of Panama.

Our government's been doing this shit for over a century now.

Why the fuck are any of you endorsing "the lesser of the two evils"?

Can't you see that it's the worst of the two evils that gets the most attention? It's only with some jackass like Bush that our government is starting to be seen for what it truly is.

Let Bush win.

Appreciate what Bush has done for the world.

Soon, there will be real change.

[guerrillaradio]

I kinda agree. There's no difference between Kerry and Bush.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 6 2004, 12:58 AM
Someone explain to me, specifically, why they don't want Bush to win the re-election.

Bush has been no worse than Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, or any other American president over the past hundred years.

The only thing that distinguishes Bush from past presidents is his incompetence in being able to color up our government's intentions in a prettier, brighter, happier way.

The war in Iraq is no different than Clinton's assaults on Kosovo or Haiti, or Bush Sr.'s invasion of Panama.

Our government's been doing this shit for over a century now.

Why the fuck are any of you endorsing "the lesser of the two evils"?

Can't you see that it's the worst of the two evils that gets the most attention? It's only with some jackass like Bush that our government is starting to be seen for what it truly is.

Let Bush win.

Appreciate what Bush has done for the world.

Soon, there will be real change.
your position is just as bad as those people who want kerry.

You shouldn't encourage Bush to win. Making things worse so they'll get better is bullshit.

Vote for Nader or Walter Brown of course, but don't hope for Bush over Kerry in the hopes things will get really bad

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:00 AM
I kinda agree. There's no difference between Kerry and Bush.
Yes there is...Bush is a lying idiot...Kerry is an oppurtunist

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Mar 5 2004, 08:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lardlad95 @ Mar 5 2004, 08:01 PM)
Michael De [email protected] 6 2004, 12:58 AM
Someone explain to me, specifically, why they don&#39;t want Bush to win the re-election.

Bush has been no worse than Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, or any other American president over the past hundred years.

The only thing that distinguishes Bush from past presidents is his incompetence in being able to color up our government&#39;s intentions in a prettier, brighter, happier way.

The war in Iraq is no different than Clinton&#39;s assaults on Kosovo or Haiti, or Bush Sr.&#39;s invasion of Panama.

Our government&#39;s been doing this shit for over a century now.

Why the fuck are any of you endorsing "the lesser of the two evils"?

Can&#39;t you see that it&#39;s the worst of the two evils that gets the most attention? It&#39;s only with some jackass like Bush that our government is starting to be seen for what it truly is.

Let Bush win.

Appreciate what Bush has done for the world.

Soon, there will be real change.
your position is just as bad as those people who want kerry.

You shouldn&#39;t encourage Bush to win. Making things worse so they&#39;ll get better is bullshit.

Vote for Nader or Walter Brown of course, but don&#39;t hope for Bush over Kerry in the hopes things will get really bad [/b]
As much as I love Nader, I can&#39;t see him fixing any of the problems our government has already caused. He won&#39;t be able to restore Iraq. He won&#39;t be able to restore Afghanistan. He won&#39;t be able to restore relations with the UN. He won&#39;t be able to restore the world&#39;s lost trust in America. He may make things better, but he won&#39;t come close to fixing them.

No politician or government will be able to fix anything.

The Iraqi people will win their own independence. The powers will shift so that the lack of trust in America becomes absolutely irrelevant.

This is the beginning of a radical change in the world, and it should be embraced.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Michael De Panama+Mar 6 2004, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Michael De Panama @ Mar 6 2004, 01:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 08:01 PM

Michael De [email protected] 6 2004, 12:58 AM
Someone explain to me, specifically, why they don&#39;t want Bush to win the re-election.

Bush has been no worse than Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, or any other American president over the past hundred years.

The only thing that distinguishes Bush from past presidents is his incompetence in being able to color up our government&#39;s intentions in a prettier, brighter, happier way.

The war in Iraq is no different than Clinton&#39;s assaults on Kosovo or Haiti, or Bush Sr.&#39;s invasion of Panama.

Our government&#39;s been doing this shit for over a century now.

Why the fuck are any of you endorsing "the lesser of the two evils"?

Can&#39;t you see that it&#39;s the worst of the two evils that gets the most attention? It&#39;s only with some jackass like Bush that our government is starting to be seen for what it truly is.

Let Bush win.

Appreciate what Bush has done for the world.

Soon, there will be real change.
your position is just as bad as those people who want kerry.

You shouldn&#39;t encourage Bush to win. Making things worse so they&#39;ll get better is bullshit.

Vote for Nader or Walter Brown of course, but don&#39;t hope for Bush over Kerry in the hopes things will get really bad
As much as I love Nader, I can&#39;t see him fixing any of the problems our government has already caused. He won&#39;t be able to restore Iraq. He won&#39;t be able to restore Afghanistan. He won&#39;t be able to restore relations with the UN. He won&#39;t be able to restore the world&#39;s lost trust in America. He may make things better, but he won&#39;t come close to fixing them.

No politician or government will be able to fix anything.

The Iraqi people will win their own independence. The powers will shift so that the lack of trust in America becomes absolutely irrelevant.

This is the beginning of a radical change in the world, and it should be embraced. [/b]
I can live with that

[Michael De Panama]

Bush is the emperor with no clothes. I&#39;ll take him over Kerry, Gore, or Clinton any day.

[Michael De Panama]

"Now look at 9-11, for instance. You might go &#39;Wow, that&#39;s a bad thing any way you look at it.&#39; That&#39;s not necessarily the case. There&#39;s always something that sprouts from that. The book itself is an ode to the Hindu goddess Kali, the goddess of destruction AND creation. You have to destroy to create. It&#39;s a give and take, a yin and yang. When you construct a building, you have to destroy some of the earth&#39;s natural resources. But something new is created. 9-11 is a good example of that in many ways, for one because it woke up the American psyche ...

Even with Bush getting elected into office, as much as I don&#39;t like him, I was so excited when he got elected into office. Because I felt the underbelly of all the American values that I consider warped -- the imperialistic ones, the materialistic ones, the dog-eat-dog ones -- were surfacing. I see Bush and the current regime as a whitehead on a pimple. You know, when you have all these toxins inside and you&#39;re trying to get rid of the pimple and finally you get the whitehead. Yeah, that&#39;s the worst part. It&#39;s gross to look at. But you know that once the whitehead pops, the pimple&#39;s gone. It&#39;s the last stage. Bush is the whitehead. Unfortunately to get rid of the whitehead, there&#39;s always a little bit of bloodshed. But then we get to a toxin-free, unblemished reality."

- Saul Williams

[guerrillaradio]

Saul Williams is fucking awesome.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 6 2004, 01:29 AM
Even with Bush getting elected into office, as much as I don&#39;t like him, I was so excited when he got elected into office. Because I felt the underbelly of all the American values that I consider warped -- the imperialistic ones, the materialistic ones, the dog-eat-dog ones -- were surfacing.
Exactly&#33; Most American presidents are not much different than Bush, other then the fact that they keep the truth hidden from view. Presidents like Clinton are so charismatic that people are blinded to whats happening. Bush on the other hand has the least charisma of any president in US history and when he lies it is very obvious, so people start seeing the truth.

I can&#39;t predict the future in it&#39;s entirety, but I do have a vague idea of what will happen.

Bush winning the next election would actually be a good thing. If Bush wins again it will help unite the people of the world against America&#39;s totalitarian capitalist policies. It will bring about widespread hatred of America. The conditions for a workers revoltion would be created.

If Kerry is elected, everyone will keep their happy-have-a-nice-day attitude and nothing will change. He will talk about worker rights and protecting the enviroment, and do the opposite. Corperations will still control the planet, the CIA will still bring tyrants to power, and the third world will still be exploitated and serve as a source of cheap labor for industrialized nations.

Nader won&#39;t be elected because most Americans are right-wing nazis.

So Unfortunately, the best choice would be to vote for Bush.

[davekriss]

There&#39;s nothing said in this thread that I think is inaccurate. Four more years of Bush will further unravel our illusions of "freedom" and "liberty" and the unseamly underbelly of our plutocracy will be exposed for all to see. A perfect storm is just ahead.

The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it&#39;s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
---Frank Zappa

And when unavoidably confronted with that brick wall, some now passive spectators will be moved to action. Much then is possible.

But what is happening during these Bush years? As Princeton University Professor Emeritus of Politics, Sheldon Wolin, says, a "kind of fascism is replacing our democracy":


A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy
by Sheldon S. Wolin
Published on Friday, July 18, 2003 by Newsday (available here (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0718-07.htm)).

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation&#39;s self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world&#39;s only superpower."

<snip>

No administration before George W. Bush&#39;s ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil"...

<snip>

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

<snip>

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

<snip>

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq&#39;s reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation&#39;s resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

We are witnessing the end of the American Experiment -- or, rather, a second experiment, a new mix of the prerogatives of power over the will and welfare of the many. It&#39;s different because it brings together the worse of all previous administrations; though no previous administration matched Bush in his scope of his failures and his tragicomic calamity of outcomes.

More and more I am convinced that, with the dawn of the new millennium and in face of declining energy supplies, we are witnessing the circling of the wagons, the first steps by a stratum of our US/UK society preparing to protect their privilege and comfort in a dawning age of scarcity. Bye, bye, middle class. Hello, 21st century rentier class&#33; And the joke is on us, as it is happening before our eyes and few are the wiser.

I bet that the perception of the ordinary American is that nothing&#39;s changed; this is still the America of their childhood civics lessons, the land of Jefferson and Madison, of the Liberty Bell and George Washington&#39;s cherry tree. Subtle means, you see, sublte means achieving the same fascist ends (Lipmann-Bernays-Goebbels-Segretti-Rove have all earned their pay)...

One&#39;s perception of "freedom" varies greatly here depending on what cell you occupy on this penal colony. Some cells are quite roomy and comfortable, but others, well -- one of our fastest growing industries is prison construction and services. We have the highest incarceration rate in the first world (one of the highest over the entire world). If you&#39;re black, male, and live in a city, I think the chances that you spend time in prison are as high as 1 in 3. The chances that you&#39;re given the death sentence, another category we lead in, is 8 times higher than if you&#39;re white. A buddy of mine was nearly arrested for sitting on the front porch of his home late on a recent Saturday night, a home his family has owned for 50 years. What does this say about the Land of the Free? So, depending on who you ask, you will get very different answers. Some would call this a locked-down police state, not a Jeffersonian democracy.

Though we haven&#39;t outlawed political parties, we have the same Third Reich effect. I&#39;ve argued on various boards that we have one party in America, the Republicrats; that there are two votes in America, the dollar vote followed by the "democratic" vote. The problem with the first is that you get to vote a lot more if you have more dollars (very un-democratic). The result is that money sets the agenda and class interest prevails. Both Republican and Democrat represent monied interest first and foremost before they differentiate along the lines of their various coalitions. The bottom line: There is no need for Nazi-like laws outlawing competing parties -- the ends have been achieved by more subtle means.

We still have the right to vote, of course, but look at my comments above on the two votes in America and its nefarious final effect; if my choices are limited to factions of one Republicrat party that first and foremost serves the interest of monied elites, and I don&#39;t have money, then what value is this right? Is this why voter turnout in America is so low? I can protest, of course, but locked in pens known as "free speech zones" far from the pResidential rally.

Sure, I&#39;m free to advocate. I can advocate for, say, single-payer universal healthcare, but since that item never makes it past the dollar vote it never gets on the public agenda. The result is 43 million Americans have only charitable (emergency room) access to healthcare. So what is this "freedom to advocate" worth if it is defeated in the oligarchic backrooms of power despite the public will?

I&#39;m still free to speak -- read my many rants on various bulletin boards -- but note the difference in support between progressive and conservative communications channels. The money and power behind conservative media far exceed that behind progressive media and has the result of drowning out the progressive message. It&#39;s not heard over the shouting sludge slopped forward daily by the major media. So, yes, I am nominally free to speak my mind, but to what effect?

Go ahead, buy a T-Shirt that makes your anti-fascist point known. If you&#39;re a highschooler, you could be suspended and have an intimidating visit from the FBI; if you&#39;re in a shopping mall you just might get arrested.

So what do we have here, folks? Yes we have nominal "freedoms" and we have deeply embraced myths about our "freedoms". But are we free? Ask Martin Luther King, Malcom X, JFK, RFK; ask Carnahan and Wellstone; ask Steve Kangas, Voxfux; ask the dead soldier in Iraq. Recall Ari Fliescher&#39;s threats after 9-11, "be careful". I hear Haliburton is rigging Gitmo to be our first death camp. What next? And will that dissolve our long-held myths?

But despite my cynicism I can&#39;t help go back to those miners who approached Emma Goldman after she gave a wowing speech advocating the avoidance of reform in favor of triggering revolution. The miners begged Emma to let them fight for a 12 hour workday. They were aged and tired, they said, and hadn&#39;t long to wait for the revolution, and so much wanted a little time to spend with their families before they die. How can one begrudge a man this peace. Ends don&#39;t always justify the means; victory can only come if we embrace progressive means to achieve our desired ends. I couldn&#39;t force that man back down the mines for 16 hour shifts to force a revolution.

Back to Bush and Kerry: Bush may exacerbate class conflict, stumble into wars, and bankrupt a country -- but at so much pain. Another way forward must be found. I&#39;m voting for Kerry even though he&#39;s centrist and as establishmentarian as they come. This will postpone the revolution but slightly releave the anxiety and deprivations of so many.

Kerry is the lesser evil; ABB in 2004

[dopediana]

vote for nader, give him 5% of the votes so he can get govt funding for the next election. with kerry things might get a little better though he&#39;s awfully fickle and you can&#39;t believe a word he says because he&#39;s done the exact opposite in the past. bush might incite more revolt than kerry but at the present time is it really worth it to have him in office for another four terms to fuck up things worth? kerry knows how huge bush&#39;s deficit is. everyone knows how huge it is. some people dont&#39; want to believe it&#39;s a bad thing, is all. i don&#39;t think kerry would have the poor sense to go start more wars and spend more money that he doesn&#39;t have.

actually though, some economic theorists have speculated that bush&#39;s running up of the deficit is so he can take all the money out of social programs which is possibly true but then it would also mean he is even more of a jackass than we know he is already and that we are truly fucked and that i&#39;m moving out of america once i turn 18 (in 3 months, baby&#33;)

[Guest1]

That&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying&#33; Not only that, but a government in that much debt, even if they are Democrats, couldn&#39;t and wouldn&#39;t even dare to fix social spending.

[Kez]

Of the three, would any radicalise the workers?

Clearly they are all capitalist parties/candidates, however, if one can show that for example Nader&#39;s election will radicalise teh workers and/or increase class consiousness, shouldnt we support it?

Obviously if there was a commie candidate then support should go to them and break with the capitalist parties. Im no expert on American politics in the communist perspective, but i assume the best result we should look for is the one which radicalises and raising the class consiousness of the workers. Who will do this. Also another factor is who does it most directly directly/indirectly?

i mean the workers will pay for Bushes tax cuts with cuts in spending and general arse raping of the workers in the next few years to pay for richest getting tax cuts plus the war etc, is this more effective in raising consiousness than if Nader were to allow all companies to have unions?

However, we should i believe support the party which is best from the 3 for the benefits of the workers, we fight for the workers, so should we not fight for whichever candidate (even along opportunist lines) has best policy for workers?

what are your views?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:39 PM
vote for nader, give him 5% of the votes so he can get govt funding for the next election. with kerry things might get a little better though he&#39;s awfully fickle and you can&#39;t believe a word he says because he&#39;s done the exact opposite in the past. bush might incite more revolt than kerry but at the present time is it really worth it to have him in office for another four terms to fuck up things worth? kerry knows how huge bush&#39;s deficit is. everyone knows how huge it is. some people dont&#39; want to believe it&#39;s a bad thing, is all. i don&#39;t think kerry would have the poor sense to go start more wars and spend more money that he doesn&#39;t have.

actually though, some economic theorists have speculated that bush&#39;s running up of the deficit is so he can take all the money out of social programs which is possibly true but then it would also mean he is even more of a jackass than we know he is already and that we are truly fucked and that i&#39;m moving out of america once i turn 18 (in 3 months, baby&#33;)
There are things more important then funding the next election so that a Green can split the Democrat vote and get a Republican in office again. Getting Bush out of office is more important then financing Nader&#39;s frivilous campaigns. By all means, if you want to see Bush win, then go ahead and vote for Nader, or better yet, don&#39;t vote at all.

[davekriss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 12:39 PM
actually though, some economic theorists have speculated that bush&#39;s running up of the deficit is so he can take all the money out of social programs which is possibly true but then it would also mean he is even more of a jackass than we know he is already and that we are truly fucked and that i&#39;m moving out of america once i turn 18 (in 3 months, baby&#33;)
That&#39;s exactly true, part of the radical right agenda Bush is executing includes the intention to starve the treasury by borrowing to the breaking point in order to shut down left-favored social programs. This was also Reagan&#39;s and GHWB&#39;s agenda. You&#39;re too young to recall the defection of David Stockman during the early Reagan years but Stockman pretty much said this was the purpose then -- i.e., starve the treasury of the funds necessary for continuance of social security, medicare/medicaid, nea, etc. -- everything but corporate welfare and security.

Really
The police try to protect the banks
And everything else is secondary
---D.A. Levy

Why? someone surely asks, what&#39;s the purpose of eliminating the social safety net? The intent, by the more demonic amongst them, is to render the working class dependent, not on each other (mediated by democratic institutions), but on the corporate cash nexus, an inescapable spider web of control -- the more easy for them to suck surplus value out of our daily toil. :angry:

So Bush is more of a jackass than, as you say, "we already know"...

Consider this: Bush has given the top 1% the lion&#39;s share of the two trillion dollar tax cuts (the amount aggregated through 2010). The tax cuts are responsible for two-thirds of the deficit run-up (and the deficit now equals one-third of all expenditures). This year&#39;s deficit, after subtracting the surplus generated by the social security trust fund, is expected to be about &#036;540 billion. The pentagon budget plus the bill for Iraq totals about the same. A certain closed coterie of friends-of-Bush benefit inordinately from military spending. In effect, Bush has put into place a tax-advantaged casino-like skim for the benefit of a tight-knit oligarchy. He&#39;s borrowing from future generations to pad the present financial fortresses of a few. Of late he&#39;s had his agents out (e.g., Greenspan) floating trial balloons advertising the "necessary" future cuts in Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for this class-based largess. We no longer live in a democratic republic (if we ever did), it&#39;s now a LOOTOCRACY hitting on all cylinders; and the locomotive mows all down that get in the way.

You&#39;re young. Get angry. Get active. It&#39;s your future you struggle for.

"Get off the internet; I&#39;ll see you in the streets&#33;"

[Christopher]

I cannot say that what I read here contains misperceptions. However I would add something very significant that should totally change perspectives if indeed the human unconscious is 86% of the human mental potential.

All US presidents except for 2 were members of the Masonic Order.

Can we wonder why it doesn&#39;t matter who we vote for?

Ever hear of the "Bohemian Club" (http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/bohemian-grove/).
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/bohemian-grove/bohemian_owl_shrunk.jpg

Kerry and Bush are both Masons as well as Skull and Bones members. Notice Kerry wouldn&#39;t use Bush&#39;s awol status against him.

Do any realize that the shamanic medicine communities RAN the old world? History was not written down it was contained in peoples memory by using hypnosis to a depth of somnambulism and the circadian rhythm kept the time (circ. in old history books).

Good perceptions, different. Try and expand the scenario to include unconscious events. Remember, each of us does not know what we are doing with our mind for 1/3 of our lives, while we sleep.

The awakening that 9-11 provides is one that compels us to realize that secret societies built the towers to demolish and that the crusades are still raging. Our past controls us.

[Redalias]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 6 2004, 01:29 AM
"Now look at 9-11, for instance. You might go &#39;Wow, that&#39;s a bad thing any way you look at it.&#39; That&#39;s not necessarily the case. There&#39;s always something that sprouts from that. The book itself is an ode to the Hindu goddess Kali, the goddess of destruction AND creation. You have to destroy to create. It&#39;s a give and take, a yin and yang. When you construct a building, you have to destroy some of the earth&#39;s natural resources. But something new is created. 9-11 is a good example of that in many ways, for one because it woke up the American psyche ...

Even with Bush getting elected into office, as much as I don&#39;t like him, I was so excited when he got elected into office. Because I felt the underbelly of all the American values that I consider warped -- the imperialistic ones, the materialistic ones, the dog-eat-dog ones -- were surfacing. I see Bush and the current regime as a whitehead on a pimple. You know, when you have all these toxins inside and you&#39;re trying to get rid of the pimple and finally you get the whitehead. Yeah, that&#39;s the worst part. It&#39;s gross to look at. But you know that once the whitehead pops, the pimple&#39;s gone. It&#39;s the last stage. Bush is the whitehead. Unfortunately to get rid of the whitehead, there&#39;s always a little bit of bloodshed. But then we get to a toxin-free, unblemished reality."

- Saul Williams
I for one don&#39;t think the pimple is about to disappear. Imperialism has been showing its ugly white head for how many centuries? What makes you think that is about to change?

So Bush, Kerry or Nader? I think the only thing you can and should do is vote for the one you agree with the most. If I had a choice between Kerry and Bush though I&#39;d take Kerry. Maybe that way a few more gay couples can get married, among other things.

[Christopher]

Originally posted by Redalias+Mar 8 2004, 03:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Redalias @ Mar 8 2004, 03:17 AM)
Michael De [email protected] 6 2004, 01:29 AM
9-11 is a good example of that in many ways, for one because it woke up the American psyche ...

Even with Bush getting elected into office, as much as I don&#39;t like him, I was so excited when he got elected into office. Because I felt the underbelly of all the American values that I consider warped -- the imperialistic ones, the materialistic ones, the dog-eat-dog ones -- were surfacing......... Unfortunately to get rid of the whitehead, there&#39;s always a little bit of bloodshed. But then we get to a toxin-free, unblemished reality."

- Saul Williams
I for one don&#39;t think the pimple is about to disappear. Imperialism has been showing its ugly white head for how many centuries? What makes you think that is about to change?

So Bush, Kerry or Nader? I think the only thing you can and should do is vote for the one you agree with the most. If I had a choice between Kerry and Bush though I&#39;d take Kerry. Maybe that way a few more gay couples can get married, among other things.[/b]
Michael De Panama may be right. We can hope with what he says about 9-11. I would be with Redalias on the lesser of 2 bad choices.

Redalias asks, "for how many centuries". I would answer and say, "Since Roman persecution of natural knowledge disguised as imperilism. Crusades.

Now the natural knowledge is unknown, or at least unrecognized. Behind that default veil of secrecy hidden soieties flourish and glean great power by heretical uses of the same natural knowledge and we know not how it is done.

[antieverything]

Let&#39;s not forget that Kerry is one of the most liberal senators in congress&#33;

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Nader should not run, the only thing he is going to do is ensure that Bush wins reelection.

[DarkAngel]

Maybe everybody hates bush because of his inability to pronounce (its N-U-C-L-E-A-R), or maybe his lack of people skills, or maybe the fact that he held a grudge against Saddam because he attemtempted to kill his father, or maybe its because he is close minded (&#39;&#39;America is a free country, thats why 2 people of the same sex shoudn&#39;t be able to marry&#39;&#39; idiot...). Whatever it is. BUSH SUCKS&#33;

[Som]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 12:32 AM
Nader should not run, the only thing he is going to do is ensure that Bush wins reelection.
Hardly, Nader does not drag off anywhere near the amount of democratic votes the ABBs like to think he does.

In the 2000 elections, based on exit polls, 25% of Nader voters were registered republicans, 37% democrats, and 38% said they wouldn&#39;t have voted otherwise.

Thats a 13% margin of difference. So 87% of Nader voters are entirely guilt free about a Bush white house.

In one of the states narrowly lost, new hampshire, Nader got more votes from republicans than democrats.

Now take into account the current status quo and the fact that Naders pull is with the dissaffected of the two parties, in 2000 that was the democrats, and GWB was the candidate that appeared less inclined for international warmongering (ironic I know), so now there are going to be a shitload more dissafected republicans turning to Ralph Nader, as well as much fewer democrats.

Its easy to simply think of what you&#39;re voting against when you vote for kerry, but a vote for kerry is a vote for the patriot act, for the war in Iraq, for the clinton era policies that cut welfare more than any republican, for NAFTA, for the FTAA, for the skull and bones secret society and a man richer than bush, for the usual romps around the third world in the name of american hegemony, so a vote for kerry is a vote for buisness as usual in american politics.

[Fknugly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:56 AM
Maybe everybody hates bush because of his inability to pronounce (its N-U-C-L-E-A-R), or maybe his lack of people skills, or maybe the fact that he held a grudge against Saddam because he attemtempted to kill his father, or maybe its because he is close minded (&#39;&#39;America is a free country, thats why 2 people of the same sex shoudn&#39;t be able to marry&#39;&#39; idiot...). Whatever it is. BUSH SUCKS&#33;
Oh thank you&#33;&#33;&#33;
A sensible person. It is hard for me to deal with ppl posting on a Che site to let Bush do his job, he is clearly an enemy of the working class, how is that??
It starts with tax breaks for the rich and subsidizing giant corporations.
Granted i dont think Kerry is ideal but i do think he is better than Bush.
You have to understand, someone who sends men and women to their deaths and at the same time went AWOL is repugnant.
At the same time his bulldog Paige is guilty of calling the teachers of America terrorists because their halfwitt "no child left behind" plan is failing.
Not to mention to preserve his interests in oil by saying Global warming isnt real at the stake of the planet and it&#39;s ppl even after the pentagon sent him a warning is unforgivable.
If you vote for Nader you are voting for Bush, dont kid yourselves. If you vote for Bush you are against the working class, so dont go off and pretend you care.
Actions speak louder than words.

[Kookoman]

Simply a quote
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to chi the laws of nature and of nature&#39;s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation." -Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

If people are forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils" then they are stripped of their rights.
Good day.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:23 PM
Let&#39;s not forget that Kerry is one of the most liberal senators in congress&#33;
No he isn&#39;t. And if he were that wouldn&#39;t say much. Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq & the patriot act.

[antieverything]

No, it doesn&#39;t say much--the senate, with an average cost per seat of 20 million--is an incredibly conservative body.

But what I said is true&#33;

Check this out:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_cat...=S0421103#Labor (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Labor)

I never said the guy was Wellstone...he does vote almost exactly like Ted Kennedy, however.

[redstar2000]

I can&#39;t imagine why anyone would want to vote in a bourgeois "election"...it&#39;s like picking out new furniture in a garbage dump.

However, should you feel the "burning itch" to vote, by all means vote for Nader. Since he won&#39;t win, you won&#39;t suffer any remorse for having voted for a guy who does shitty things after he&#39;s elected.

Whereas if you vote for Kerry and he wins, the blood will be on your hands.

Also, the size of Nader&#39;s vote will be a crude measure of the left&#39;s "market niche"...I think he got about 3% of the vote in 2000. Maybe that will go up a little this year.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

Vote for one of the various socialist candiates. In Florida apparently they all got more then 2000 (can&#39;t remember exact number but more then) total.

An even better idea would be to push for electoral reform. Kill the electoral college. Enable preferential voting. (So you can vote one Nader, two Gore, three Bush (assumming three candidates).) This would eliminate things like happened at the last prez election where Green voters, who would have supported Gore over Bush, voted Nader and got Bush. (Assuming that the lying democrates who blame Nader for Gores, stupidness were right.)

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:47 PM
I can&#39;t imagine why anyone would want to vote in a bourgeois "election"...it&#39;s like picking out new furniture in a garbage dump.

However, should you feel the "burning itch" to vote, by all means vote for Nader. Since he won&#39;t win, you won&#39;t suffer any remorse for having voted for a guy who does shitty things after he&#39;s elected.

Whereas if you vote for Kerry and he wins, the blood will be on your hands.

Also, the size of Nader&#39;s vote will be a crude measure of the left&#39;s "market niche"...I think he got about 3% of the vote in 2000. Maybe that will go up a little this year.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Don&#39;t you have a coup to organize against the president of your nursing home?

The point isn&#39;t that we&#39;ll win. It&#39;s that we start to gain more people. And when we have more people our vote will have a greater affect, and then a greater and a greater until...you see where I"m going with this.

[Som]

An even better idea would be to push for electoral reform. Kill the electoral college. Enable preferential voting. (So you can vote one Nader, two Gore, three Bush (assumming three candidates).) This would eliminate things like happened at the last prez election where Green voters, who would have supported Gore over Bush, voted Nader and got Bush. (Assuming that the lying democrates who blame Nader for Gores, stupidness were right.)

The democrats and republicans wouldn&#39;t let it happen, they&#39;ve got a good grip on power and know that if they don&#39;t run on the principle of the lesser evil they&#39;ll lose quite a few votes, anyway around that theyre not fond of.


Vote for one of the various socialist candiates. In Florida apparently they all got more then 2000 (can&#39;t remember exact number but more then) total.

The socialist party candidate in florida also got more votes than the difference needed for gore to win.

Are the ABBs going to jump on that one too?

[pandora]

Nader&#39;s campaign manager came on a local program here, and was questioned intensely.
He basically said that Nader&#39;s only running because Kerry has become to right wing:
Kerry is pro-Charter schools which takes money out of the main schools doing most of the real work [ESL, students with disabilities, behavioral students, low income students] Most of whom could never get in a charter school, he also voted for NAFTA and all the rest of the garbage.
The idea is that he will force Kerry more left the way Dean did and then [I hope] drop out.
Not that I trust Kerry, it&#39;s just you can bring his ass to the nego. table, but Bush&#39;s thugs just kick the negotiating table over and call you a terrorist.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:47 AM
I can&#39;t imagine why anyone would want to vote in a bourgeois "election"...it&#39;s like picking out new furniture in a garbage dump.

However, should you feel the "burning itch" to vote, by all means vote for Nader. Since he won&#39;t win, you won&#39;t suffer any remorse for having voted for a guy who does shitty things after he&#39;s elected.

Whereas if you vote for Kerry and he wins, the blood will be on your hands.

Also, the size of Nader&#39;s vote will be a crude measure of the left&#39;s "market niche"...I think he got about 3% of the vote in 2000. Maybe that will go up a little this year.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
That is exactly what Bush wants you to think.

[davekriss]

This from here (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0309-02.htm) (sums up my position quite well):


Published on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by the Bangor Daily News (Maine)
Ralph Nader&#39;s Untimely Campaign in Perspective
by John Buell

<snip>

Nonetheless, I will not be voting for Nader in 2004. Two-thousand four is very different from 2000. In office, Bush has been the social conservative most of us expected and feared. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11 another side of his conservatism has gained traction: an extremely repressive agenda with respect to civil liberties and a willingness to use every procedural trick at his disposal to impose his views. American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has recently documented changes in U.S. House of Representatives procedures that centralized lawmaking in the hands of House leadership while also denying information and input to the rank and file of both parties.

We on the left too often bandy about terms like fascism, but there is a confluence of forces in American life that will make dissent ever more tenuous if we cannot arrest these trends. The repressive Patriot Act combined with the consolidation of the media, the centralization of congressional leadership, and the packing of the federal courts constitutes a complementary and destructive mix. A victory over George W. Bush, even by a centrist Democrat, will at least create more space for political discussion.

<snip>


(Emphasis added.)

[Christopher]

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Mar 10 2004, 03:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Mar 10 2004, 03:42 AM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 10:47 AM
I can&#39;t imagine why anyone would want to vote in a bourgeois "election"...it&#39;s like picking out new furniture in a garbage dump.

However, should you feel the "burning itch" to vote, by all means vote for Nader. Since he won&#39;t win, you won&#39;t suffer any remorse for having voted for a guy who does shitty things after he&#39;s elected.

Whereas if you vote for Kerry and he wins, the blood will be on your hands.

Also, the size of Nader&#39;s vote will be a crude measure of the left&#39;s "market niche"...I think he got about 3% of the vote in 2000. Maybe that will go up a little this year.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
That is exactly what Bush wants you to think. [/b]
I agree absolutely, and thank you for pointing that out. The dictator wants us to believe we cannot remove him. They, the puppetmasters wish we would loose our hope and fight amongst ourselves an abandon our democracy just because media hijacked it.

[redstar2000]

That is exactly what Bush wants you to think.

Oh? Been sitting in on his strategy sessions, have you?

Well, I haven&#39;t...and I&#39;m really not interested in what Bush "wants" me to think.

I&#39;m not accustomed to taking his hypothetical views into account when I draw my own conclusions from the available information.

Indeed, I think such attempts to "figure out what the ruling class is up to" and then "outsmart them at their own game" are exercises in futility.

For example, Pandora&#39;s suggestion that Nader is running to "force Kerry to the left" and will then withdraw from the race. If that is what Nader actually intends to do, it is the act of a fool.

Once in office, Kerry will be an imperial Democrat in the exact same sense as Bush is an imperial Republican.

Imperialism is the default option of modern capitalism and all of its political parties.

Whatever the left "does" (or "thinks" its "doing") in modern bourgeois elections will make no perceptible difference in the outcome.

It is always better to do something else...anything else.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:24 PM
Oh? Been sitting in on his strategy sessions, have you?


It doesn&#39;t take a rocket scientist to see that ALL of what you say you stand against wants us to abandon hope and the US democracy. Have you got anymore to contribute to their cause?

[Som]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:15 AM
This from here (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0309-02.htm) (sums up my position quite well):


Published on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 by the Bangor Daily News (Maine)
Ralph Nader&#39;s Untimely Campaign in Perspective
by John Buell

<snip>

Nonetheless, I will not be voting for Nader in 2004. Two-thousand four is very different from 2000. In office, Bush has been the social conservative most of us expected and feared. But in the aftermath of Sept. 11 another side of his conservatism has gained traction: an extremely repressive agenda with respect to civil liberties and a willingness to use every procedural trick at his disposal to impose his views. American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has recently documented changes in U.S. House of Representatives procedures that centralized lawmaking in the hands of House leadership while also denying information and input to the rank and file of both parties.

We on the left too often bandy about terms like fascism, but there is a confluence of forces in American life that will make dissent ever more tenuous if we cannot arrest these trends. The repressive Patriot Act combined with the consolidation of the media, the centralization of congressional leadership, and the packing of the federal courts constitutes a complementary and destructive mix. A victory over George W. Bush, even by a centrist Democrat, will at least create more space for political discussion.

<snip>


(Emphasis added.)
Here again, they speak in negatives.

this part here,
The repressive Patriot Act combined with the consolidation of the media, the centralization of congressional leadership, and the packing of the federal courts constitutes a complementary and destructive mix.

None of which John Kerry even pretends he has any intention of changing.

They always like to leave that out.


That is exactly what Bush wants you to think.

And thats what John Kerry wants you to think.

So do his corporate sponsors, military buddies, ruling class friends and well, you know, the usual suspects in the rest of the evil cabal.


It doesn&#39;t take a rocket scientist to see that ALL of what you say you stand against wants us to abandon hope and the US democracy. Have you got anymore to contribute to their cause?

and that would just be doublespeak when voting for a lesser evil.

If you&#39;re picking between two guys with the same interests and calling it &#39;fighting for your democracy&#39;, then you&#39;re the one they&#39;ve got tricked.

[Sean Reynolds]

What was it that Howard Dean use to say? You can&#39;t change Bush with Bush-lite? What exactly will Kerry do that is different from Bush? Last I checked Kerry supported Bush&#39;s unilateral war in Iraq. Last I checked Kerry is NOT for gutting all of Bush&#39;s tax-cut, which has gutted social spending. Last I checked Kerry supported No Child Left Behind, which has raped inner-city America school districts. Last I checked Kerry supported the PATRIOT ACT. Last I checked both Kerry and Bush supported the idea of free trade.

I&#39;m sorry, but small change isn&#39;t change at all. Just imagine if people thought we needed SMALL change after Hoover&#39;s administration. We probably wouldn&#39;t have ended up with FDR.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Did we not have a chance for a somewhat leftist candidate with Kucinich that failed miserably? The only thing we can do is choose the best guy of the two. If nothing else, Kerry will at least slow/stop the damage that Bush has done. Maybe not undo much damage, but at least make things not as bad as they could be.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by Sean [email protected] 10 2004, 10:24 PM
What was it that Howard Dean use to say? You can&#39;t change Bush with Bush-lite? What exactly will Kerry do that is different from Bush? Last I checked Kerry supported Bush&#39;s unilateral war in Iraq. Last I checked Kerry is NOT for gutting all of Bush&#39;s tax-cut, which has gutted social spending. Last I checked Kerry supported No Child Left Behind, which has raped inner-city America school districts. Last I checked Kerry supported the PATRIOT ACT. Last I checked both Kerry and Bush supported the idea of free trade.

I&#39;m sorry, but small change isn&#39;t change at all. Just imagine if people thought we needed SMALL change after Hoover&#39;s administration. We probably wouldn&#39;t have ended up with FDR.
kerry is against the tax cuts for the wealthy...... and plans to cut them.... Kerry supportED the war, but is against it now and says that it needs to be handled differently whatever that means.......... i don&#39;t believe that he supports the no child left behind policy but i could be wrong...... i&#39;m still voting for kerry, until there is a run-off style election in the united states like what france has (first round you vote for whoever and second round you vote for the lesser of 2 evils) i will vote against republican........ :hammer:

[redstar2000]

It doesn&#39;t take a rocket scientist to see that ALL of what you say you stand against wants us to abandon hope and the US democracy. Have you got anymore to contribute to their cause?

Anyone who hasn&#39;t "abandoned hope" in bourgeois "democracy" has either not thought the matter through or is a cretin.

What have the last four decades of bourgeois "democracy" given us but war, corruption, and the gradual but steady descent into fascism?

Why don&#39;t you place your hopes in "Santa Claus" or "Jesus"? Your chances are identical...zero.


Have you got anymore to contribute to their cause?

Yeah, I thought on election day I&#39;d walk around downtown with a sign that said:

If voting made any difference, it would be illegal&#33; :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

The only thing we can do is choose the best guy of the two. If nothing else, Kerry will at least slow/stop the damage that Bush has done.

No he won&#39;t. Kerry has called for sending more troops into Iraq and has said he&#39;ll be a bigger "war president" (ie. warmonger) than Bush. The last time the democrats were in office they killed over 2 million people (Iraq sanctions, genocide in Turkey, bombing a gazillion countries) while the highest estimate I&#39;ve seen for Bush is .25 million.

[davekriss]

redstar, I don&#39;t disagree with you very much. However, I liken the current moment as something akin to drowning and keeping one&#39;s nose wet but just above water -- Bush is a radical rightwinger intent on dismantling many of the progressive gains of the last century (paltry as they are). Kerry is less so and thus gets my vote. Nader puts my choice at risk and thus those very same progressive gains, so I am displeased to see him run.

"Anyone who hasn&#39;t &#39;abandoned hope&#39; in bourgeois &#39;democracy&#39; has either not thought the matter through or is a cretin."

Well, yes. I think I said this earlier, but ... (I&#39;d check but I already have the "reply" window up)...

There are two votes in America, the "dollar" vote followed by the "democratic" vote. Nothing gets on the democratic ballot that hasn&#39;t first passed the dollar vote. The problem with this is that if you have a lot of dollars you get to vote a lot more (very un-democratic). The result is that money sets the agenda and class interest prevails. Both Republican and Democrat represent monied interest first and foremost before they differentiate along the lines of their various coalitions. So what does it matter to those of us without dollars?

Our voice is not heard; our interests are not advanced. Except, when we&#39;re lucky, by coincidence. But more often we&#39;re not so lucky. A Taft-Hartley act is passed that cuts our power to organize across industries, muting the power of labor. NAFTA is passed, providing cover for ruthless globalization which pits worker against worker, resulting in the export of many good jobs to areas with cheaper labor. I could draw a very long list here. Democrat, Republican -- both screw the man without means.

But I come back to a discussion of Emma Goldman&#39;s when she was approached by several older miners after giving one of her speeches (I wish I could find it again and post here). The old, broken men said the Revolution was all very good but they so very much justed wanted to win a 12-hour work day. They were old, and didn&#39;t have much time to live, and they would welcome winning a little of their remaining time to spend with their families.

In a sense, a vote for Kerry is a vote for the comforts of a 12-hour workday (gruelling though it still be). And a vote for Nader is a vote for Revolution in some ever-advancing future while most of us die dusty in the mines. That&#39;s the stark choice right now.

And: Having said that, even a cursory glance at history reveals that capitulation to the promise of reform yields little except cover for continued exploitation (think Zinn). So I make my choice for Kerry while conflicted; from a morally grey space -- desperate, I guess, to keep my nose wet but still breathing.


"If voting made any difference, it would be illegal&#33;"

Now that is truly a great line&#33; I like that&#33; :lol:

[Morpheus]

In a sense, a vote for Kerry is a vote for the comforts of a 12-hour workday (gruelling though it still be).

No, it&#39;s voting for another 40,000 troops to be sent to Iraq and for an additional million people to be killed.

[Sean Reynolds]

Originally posted by I chicorazon I+Mar 11 2004, 01:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I chicorazon I @ Mar 11 2004, 01:01 AM)
Sean [email protected] 10 2004, 10:24 PM
What was it that Howard Dean use to say? You can&#39;t change Bush with Bush-lite? What exactly will Kerry do that is different from Bush? Last I checked Kerry supported Bush&#39;s unilateral war in Iraq. Last I checked Kerry is NOT for gutting all of Bush&#39;s tax-cut, which has gutted social spending. Last I checked Kerry supported No Child Left Behind, which has raped inner-city America school districts. Last I checked Kerry supported the PATRIOT ACT. Last I checked both Kerry and Bush supported the idea of free trade.

I&#39;m sorry, but small change isn&#39;t change at all. Just imagine if people thought we needed SMALL change after Hoover&#39;s administration. We probably wouldn&#39;t have ended up with FDR.
kerry is against the tax cuts for the wealthy...... and plans to cut them.... Kerry supportED the war, but is against it now and says that it needs to be handled differently whatever that means.......... i don&#39;t believe that he supports the no child left behind policy but i could be wrong...... i&#39;m still voting for kerry, until there is a run-off style election in the united states like what france has (first round you vote for whoever and second round you vote for the lesser of 2 evils) i will vote against republican........ :hammer: [/b]
So what you&#39;re saying is that Kerry supports tax-cuts in times of economic trouble? Tax-cuts that will GUT social programs? Remember, we&#39;re in a budget deficit. That means PROGRAMS will have to be cut to prop up a tax-cut. Are you willing to support the raping of our social programs JUST to get &#036;300 in the mail?

As for Kerry voting for the war and then not supporting it. He only did that because the war turned sour. He&#39;s a flip-flopping, self serving whore. If the war had gone right he&#39;d of been there pimping out his vote&#33; Remember when Saddam was caught in December? Kerry said "well I voted for the war...." As for Kerry&#39;s different means of handling the war, that would be adding 40,000 MORE troops into Iraq. How is that more progressive than what Bush is doing?

Fact is, Kerry VOTED for NCLB and NAFTA. Kerry OPENLY supported FREE TRADE during the 1990s and still to this day supports the belief of free trade. I can&#39;t vote Republican-lite - even if it means getting Bush out of the WH.

[redstar2000]

[Kerry&#39;s] a flip-flopping, self-serving whore.

Though I&#39;m sure unintentional, that&#39;s an insult to sex workers. There are some things prostitutes won&#39;t do for money.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Sean Reynolds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:17 PM

[Kerry&#39;s] a flip-flopping, self-serving whore.

Though I&#39;m sure unintentional, that&#39;s an insult to sex workers. There are some things prostitutes won&#39;t do for money.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
My bad...I&#39;ll just continue to use the term Bush-lite.

:D

[Morpheus]

http://colorado.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/2/CHUCKMAN_-_KERRY_-_BUSH_LITE.jpg

[Severian]

I couldn&#39;t care less about Nader, but I think this (http://www.counterpunch.org/roar02282004.html) letter to Counterpunch pretty well summed up the Democratic demand that he not run:

Who are they to get in the way of our election? This is not what democracy looks like. Democracy is when everybody but the good candidate pulls out of the race.

I think that the only way to save democracy is for all candidates except Kerry to withdraw from the race. That should include Bush too, of course.

If there is more than one candidate, the horror of 2000 may be repeated&#33; More than one candidate means vote-stealing, reactionary advertising campaigns, the possibility of Republican and Green and socialist candidates, and unpredictable outcomes. The good candidate may not win. The result will be the ruin of democracy.

Only a one-candidate election with Kerry as the candidate can save the nation&#33; Just to be on the safe side, voters who oppose both Kerry and Bush should be required to vote for Kerry. Why should they be allowed to possibly affect the outcome by staying at home or abstaining on the Presidential vote? The Democratic primaries have spoken. Anybody But Bush is named Kerry. For any reasonable, ego-free, other-directed individual, this should be enough to settle the matter.

Four candidates is treason&#33; Three candidates is a crime&#33; Two candidates is one too many&#33; In a democracy, there must be one candidate and all democratic-minded people must vote for him as one&#33; Lets make our vote count in 2004&#33;

Fred Feldman

[CheViveToday]

For anyone who believes in gradual change, a vote for Kerry is the best choice. Although I think Nader is the best man, he&#39;s just trying to make a point, and knows the shit will hit the fan if he does the same thing this year that he did in 2000. He&#39;ll drop out a month or two before the election. For those of you who don&#39;t believe that gradual change can work and are completely disillusioned by American Democracy....I can&#39;t really blame you. However, In the 10 months since I had last posted here, I have become a Democrat. I admit, they don&#39;t exactly live up to my extreme-left ideals, but with no communist/socialist revolution imminent here, I decided voting and campaigning is the best thing I can do to bring about change. Even if it is slow, slight, and gradual. <_<

P.S. Oh yeah, talk of Kerry&#39;s "flipflopping" has been completely overdone by the right. Don&#39;t give in to Bush&#39;s fake fire-fighter ads.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:08 PM
For anyone who believes in gradual change, a vote for Kerry is the best choice. Although I think Nader is the best man, he&#39;s just trying to make a point, and knows the shit will hit the fan if he does the same thing this year that he did in 2000. He&#39;ll drop out a month or two before the election. For those of you who don&#39;t believe that gradual change can work and are completely disillusioned by American Democracy....I can&#39;t really blame you. However, In the 10 months since I had last posted here, I have become a Democrat. I admit, they don&#39;t exactly live up to my extreme-left ideals, but with no communist/socialist revolution imminent here, I decided voting and campaigning is the best thing I can do to bring about change. Even if it is slow, slight, and gradual. <_<

P.S. Oh yeah, talk of Kerry&#39;s "flipflopping" has been completely overdone by the right. Don&#39;t give in to Bush&#39;s fake fire-fighter ads.
Did you read all the other posts in this thread?

It sure doesn&#39;t sound like it. I really urge you to do so.

You shouldn&#39;t decide something like this on whimsy.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[SittingBull47]

Kerry is accusing Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter of being "100% too liberal".

Plus, the only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry is for a tax hike.

[truthaddict11]

Does anyone remember during the 1992 "election" when Clinton made all sorts of promises such as healthcare for all. Notice that he never kept them? Remember when we went to war all over the world and killed millions of people? Was he really much better than the asshole before him?

Or what about when Lydon Johnson said he would take troops out of Vietnam?

Then what makes you think that Kerry will be much of a better "leader" than Bush Jr? The fact he is a "lesser evil"? A imperialist asshole is still an asshole no matter how much you pretty them up. You also have to realize this is an "election" year. Kerry could tell you he would give you a blow job if it meant he got your vote. And if he does get "elected" what changes do you think will happen? Do you think that we will stop our imperialist occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think things will be better for the working class?
Do you anticipate any real difference at all?

There is an old saying "If Voting Changed Anything It Would Be Illegal"
this is absolutly true about the bourgeosie "election" system. Ever since the founding of the United States. There is no working class representation in a bourgeosie government so why are you blindly throwing your support behind a capitalist, imperialist, bourgeosie scumbag?

The only way for any real change to happen is through revolution, not by giving into the capitalist system for temporaly relief.

[Morpheus]

Plus, the only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry is for a tax hike.

And Kerry wants to send an extra 40,000 troops to Iraq.

[Sean Reynolds]

I think it&#39;s obvious that Kerry is a Clinton Democrat.

As for the LBJ post, Johnson may have fucked up on the war, he actually was one of the more progressive presidents we&#39;ve had. Remember his great society? Fact is, LBJ helped the under-class of this nation. He was just bogged down in a war he didn&#39;t start, and was too afraid to end. IMO, Kerry is no LBJ - he might be Hawkish, but on the domestic front, he&#39;s just Republican-lite.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

lmao sorry, i worded that one piece wrong... i&#39;m strongly against tax cuts for the rich, i said cut tax cuts or somethin which might&#39;ve sounded confusing........ nevertheless, i&#39;m voting Kerry..... 15 minutes of my time is worth it to get somebody even slightly better than Bush.......

[davekriss]

You know, all this debate about Nader is, I think, academic. Bush wins in 2004. He said so confidently on his Meet the Press fiasco a short while back (the only thing he said with confidence). Why? Because I think he knows the "fix" is in.

The 2004 Election Has Already Been Rigged (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00131.htm)
By Schuyler Ebbets
September 2, 2003

The pollsters have recently been forced to admit that the majority of Americans are against the re-election of George Bush. Two wars, thousands of dead human beings, and nine million lost jobs later and people are beginning to realize that something is very wrong. In spite of this gradual awakening most registered voters continue to depend on TV for their news and they are kept woefully in the dark about issues like election reform and touch screen voting. The media has gone to great lengths to foster an illusion of legitimacy and normalcy surrounding the electoral process. People have been intentionally lead to believe that their vote counts and Bush could actually be booted out of office on Election Day. No way is Bush going to lose, it just can&#39;t happen. The 2004 election has already been rigged. The corporations and the military industrial complex have bought them selves a government and they aren&#39;t going to let some silly little presidential election jeopardize their investment.

<snip>

The Neocon election rigging juggernaut lurches forward unstoppable in the guise of so-called election reform. Two Republican dominated corporations, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Diebold Voting Systems, now control 80% of the vote count in the United States. As this transition has moved forward, a pattern of election upsets which overwhelmingly favor Republican candidates is emerging. These are test runs in preparation for the 2004 presidential selection. The Neocons have determined that elections can be manipulated easily with the new touch screen voting systems and when accompanied by a media pounding of lies the public will accept the rigged election results as fact. The greatest advantage of the new touch screen voting scam is the removal of a paper trail and the blockage of access to the inner workings of the software. ...

It would be admirable if the American people could resist the next rigged presidential election as they did the scam of 2000. Of course the &#39;Supreme Court five&#39; would uphold the "proprietary/trade secrecy" protections and the bogus election results would be ruled as legitimate. The coming election fraud has been so well planned that it probably won&#39;t make it into the courts. With the help of the media, the Neocons will deliver the deathblow to democracy at the touch screen voting terminals.

And don&#39;t forget the &#036;200 million spin of the Rovian Media Wurlitzer.

And, topical as it is, there&#39;s the "convenient" (March 12) death of Athan Gibbs, the post-2000-turned-activist and CEO of TruVote International, who engineered a high quality paper-trailed alternative to ES&S and Diebold electronic voting machines. See here (http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/031904Fitrakis/031904fitrakis.html).

It&#39;s time to stick a fork in American Democracy, it&#39;s done. Bush wins in 2004. :(

[Severian]

In response to the last post: Election cheating - by both sides - is a normal part of bourgeois democracy, not its death.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting:
Chomsky calls Kerry "bush-lite", endorses him anyway. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0320-05.htm)

I guess it&#39;s better that he&#39;s willing to recognise the reality of what Kerry is...but Chomsky ignores the fact that if a politician&#39;s image is slightly more liberal, that sometimes helps him carry out policies that are even more reactionary. Most U.S. imperialist wars of the 20th century were launched by Democratic administrations...it was Clinton who "ended welfare as we know it", and pushed through many of the anti-democratic laws currently being used by Ashcroft.

It&#39;s the consciousness and actions of millions that are important, not whether it&#39;s "Bush" or "Bush-lite" that&#39;s in the White House.

Uff da, so much for the great revolutionary thinker Chomsky....

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m thinking: should Kerry win and subsequently invade and occupy still another country with dark-skinned people and even darker colored resources, what will Chomsky say then?

Can the world&#39;s greatest linguist figure out a way to say shit tastes good...and make it sound convincing?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[El Che]

He will say: Bush is worse. And Hes right.

[Lefty]

Bush is worse. If Kerry wins, he might decriminalize marijuana, change the foreign policy a bit for the better, and stop the rape-age of our national forests. Also, he might legalize gay marriage. All of these things are pretty frickin&#39; sweet. I&#39;m not worried about a revolution or anything come November. I just want Bush out of office so the government stops raping the Bill of Rights and we can begin making progress again. Bush lite is better than Bush.

[EL CHICO ROJO]

I as a socialist would love to see bush out of office but Kerry is nothing but a lieing capitalist which will hurt the working class cause without opposition the more moderate liberals will push the socialist,communists and liberatarian socialists further to the fringe making us sound more insane to the misguided masses. Right now liberals both moderate and far left are united against Bush but the election of kerry will cause a further split in te left wing. I would love to see Walt Brown win even Nader but its not going to happen. The mass population will be told that they are anti american or similar lies .The media determines who wins but the media is corperate controlled.I am in high school in NY and when i talk polotics most of my class agrees with me but if i told them the were agreeing with socailism they would freak.
Bring bush back he has done more for the revolution than anyone knows right now. he just needs to push the people a little further and the people may start listening to the socialists, greens and in time communists and liberatarian socialists

[Som]

If Kerry wins, he might decriminalize marijuana,

Now, lets see what Kerry has to say about that:

However, when asked whether he supported decriminalizing the possession and use of marijuana as a public policy, he replied: "No, not quite. What we did in the prosecutor&#39;s office was have a sort of unspoken approach to marijuana that was almost effectively decriminalization. We just didn&#39;t bother with small-time use. It doesn&#39;t rise to the level of nuisance, even. And what we were after was people dealing with heroin and destroying lives, and people who were killing people. That&#39;s where you need to focus."


I&#39;ll take it as a no.

on foreign policy:

change the foreign policy a bit for the better

“Americans deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but vital issues of our own national security.”

Thats another no.


Also, he might legalize gay marriage.

Civil unions to be fair. He&#39;s afraid of the M word, doesn&#39;t want to sound liberal or like he has an actual opinion or anything, that&#39;d be dirty.


I just want Bush out of office so the government stops raping the Bill of Rights and we can begin making progress again.

Its too bad that all the little things the governments using to rape the bill of rights (patriot act) have john kerrys name on them.

Such an optimist.

[redstar2000]

A brief note of interest. In yesterday&#39;s Anarchist News Service, anarchists from Vancouver labeled Chomsky as an "anarcho-poser".

People are evidently beginning to grow weary of his radical pretensions.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[davekriss]

No&#33; Don&#39;t start knocking the Chomster&#33; Hey, Manufacturing Consent and Deterring Democracy were important eye-openers (at least for me).

Regarding Kerry -- I am still in the ABB camp, but to be honest I view Kerry as the worst choice from the array of Democratic primary candidates this year. As I said with my first post, he&#39;s as establishmentarian as they come -- which means strongly aligned with the ruling class, no friend to the working class. My support is, as I say above, the difference between drowning and keeping my nose wet but still above water.

Putting on my tin-foil hat, however, I thought it strange how fast Kerry emerged from the middle of the pack to wrap up primary victory after victory. I did not see the popular support. I acknowledge that primary voters are not a good cross-section of the Democratic party, but in these days of Black Box Voting on top of the traditional back-room power brokering it occured to me that Kerry very well may be an active expression of the ruling class to replace the failing bafoonery of the Bush administration. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss&#33;" -- but maybe with a little more polish, just enough to quell any populist stirrings and allow a return to business as usual.

However, a vote for Nader helps nothing. The choice is Revolution or Kerry, and I don&#39;t see any massing of consciousness on the horizon that could lead to the former. While waiting for the Revolution, I&#39;ll vote for Kerry.

(On edit: Added last sentence, above, and this: America is closer to a theocratic revolution, the dominionist achievements of Christian Reconstructionism -- now won&#39;t that be fun&#33;)

[Som]

No&#33; Don&#39;t start knocking the Chomster&#33; Hey, Manufacturing Consent and Deterring Democracy were important eye-openers (at least for me).

Well the knocking is becuase he&#39;s fallen for the same shit and given his support to kerry (though in his defense, very reluctantly)

But the real point here is, either way you&#39;re drowning, Kerry isn&#39;t keeping your nose just above water, he&#39;s drowning you just the same.


However, a vote for Nader helps nothing. The choice is Revolution or Kerry, and I don&#39;t see any massing of consciousness on the horizon that could lead to the former. While waiting for the Revolution, I&#39;ll vote for Kerry.


and a vote for Kerry helps what?
Well it helps the victims of american imperialism die just as fast, if not faster.

Generally speaking as well, it takes a Democrat like Kerry to pull off the crap the conservatives couldn&#39;t get away with, Lyndon B Johnson escalating the war in Vietnam, or Clinton destroying welfare for example.

I said this in the other thread but as of now, Naders getting 6% of the vote in the polls, should he hold that and to get at least 5% he&#39;ll get federal matching funds, and he&#39;d have a much better go in the next election, and with him, a progressive view point will get a much louder voice.

Or you could pander to the two party system, and accomplish just as little.

[Severian]

Well, I&#39;ve always thought Chomsky was good at one thing. Explaining the total rottenness of the system, in both its liberal and conservative wings. How their debates are only within narrow doctrinal limits, with everything outside that invisible to the priests of almighty dollar.

By endorsing Kerry, he&#39;s undermined that. He&#39;s stepped into their framework himself, and closed off options outside it.

And y&#39;know, that&#39;s one of a limited number of useful ideas you can get from Chomsky, although he certainly does prove &#39;em thoroughly with a great number of examples.

[davekriss]

I am almost convinced not to vote for Kerry. How, then, can we effect enough incremental change to save lives and protect what paltry progressive gains we&#39;ve achieved this centrury?

Here&#39;s a contrast between Bush and Kerry: Bush panders to the dominionist urges of Christian Reconstructionism; Kerry does not. The Christian Recontsructionist believes all social programs should be stopped in their tracks because wealth is a sign of God&#39;s favor and poverty a sign of the individual&#39;s iniquity. Biblical (Old Testament) law should prevail, trumping the Enlightenment values embedded in the Constitution. These laws, the Reconstructionist would tell you, include denying citizenship (and certainly the right to vote) to anyone insufficiently "Christian" -- Christian as they define it -- and they (Rushdoony, North, others) even go so far as to extend Capital Punishment to adulterers, those that stray from the missionary position in the bonds of marriage, even to kids who show persistent juvinile deliquency. Bush runs with this crowd; Kerry does not.

Is this not a reason for you to consider ABB -- voting for the lesser evil?

(BTW, Severian, your characterization of what Chomsky is good for is, IMO, right on the money.)

(On edit: To the poster who suggested Nader achieving better than 5% will set him up with federal funds in 2008 -- keep in mind that Nader is 70. While still sharp, will he be up to an election run and Presidency at 74? Will the electorate perceive him as too old? I don&#39;t believe Nader is running with 2008 in mind, at least not for him personally.)

[truthaddict11]

give me a fucking break&#33; do you really think that by putting a "nicer" guy in office is going to stop those asshole like Pat Robertson from crying thier dumb heads off? Even those in the Christian Right hate Bush.

[Som]

Bush panders to the dominionist urges of Christian Reconstructionism; Kerry does not.

Who they pander to is pretty much irrelevent unless they turn this pandering into genuine action.

Bush will pander to one group, and kerry will pander to another group, but their policies will remain exactly the same, which is the important part here.

You mentioned capital punishment, Bush may pander to the religious far right in his support of it, but Kerry supports it all the same. It does not matter what their speech is like, the effects are the still the same, people will die.

Furthermore, most of the time Bush&#39;s pandering are really not that much of a threat, for all his gay marriage rabble, a constitutional amendment won&#39;t pass to ban it, and if it did, who the president doesn&#39;t even matter since the president isn&#39;t even involved in the process.

The fact that his buddies are complete nut jubs doesn&#39;t really matter much since he&#39;s an agent of the degenerative status quo, just like Kerry.

Its sort of an illusitory contrast overall, its there to appease the real nutjobs that he has to rely on since even the supposed &#39;swing voters&#39; in american politics are turning out not to be dumb enough to follow for bush&#39;s shit, (too bad they end up falling for Kerrys shit, but no matter there).


(On edit: To the poster who suggested Nader achieving better than 5% will set him up with federal funds in 2008 -- keep in mind that Nader is 70. While still sharp, will he be up to an election run and Presidency at 74? Will the electorate perceive him as too old? I don&#39;t believe Nader is running with 2008 in mind, at least not for him personally.)

That is a good point, and I shouldn&#39;t assume he&#39;s any long term plans, but looking at the Naders history, he seems the stubborn type that&#39;ll run for office till the day he dies. So thats just a guess.

But still, even with that, I think any time a progressive does good in an election and mounts a campaign with high hopes, progressive views have a much better chance of being heard, which even if it doesn&#39;t seem to change much now, still takes a knock at the idea the republicrats are the peoples only choices.

[Michael De Panama]

Sadly, it appears that most all of you ignored what the main point of this thread was.

Of course Bush is worse than Kerry and Nader. Of course he&#39;s a lousy president. Of course he&#39;s corrupt. Of course he&#39;s incompetent.

And that&#39;s exactly why the world would be better off if he stayed another four years.

[Zapatista207]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:46 PM

(On edit: To the poster who suggested Nader achieving better than 5% will set him up with federal funds in 2008 -- keep in mind that Nader is 70. While still sharp, will he be up to an election run and Presidency at 74? Will the electorate perceive him as too old? I don&#39;t believe Nader is running with 2008 in mind, at least not for him personally.)

That is a good point, and I shouldn&#39;t assume he&#39;s any long term plans, but looking at the Naders history, he seems the stubborn type that&#39;ll run for office till the day he dies. So thats just a guess.

But still, even with that, I think any time a progressive does good in an election and mounts a campaign with high hopes, progressive views have a much better chance of being heard, which even if it doesn&#39;t seem to change much now, still takes a knock at the idea the republicrats are the peoples only choices.
This brings up an interesting question. When Nader dies/retires, who will replace him as the voice of the progressive in America? Is there anyone, currently, who would be a good choice to replace Nader in that sort of situation? Or are we going to have to find a new voice to carry our message forward?

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:03 AM

It doesn&#39;t take a rocket scientist to see that ALL of what you say you stand against wants us to abandon hope and the US democracy. Have you got anymore to contribute to their cause?

Anyone who hasn&#39;t "abandoned hope" in bourgeois "democracy" has either not thought the matter through or is a cretin.

What have the last four decades of bourgeois "democracy" given us but war, corruption, and the gradual but steady descent into fascism?


Have you got anymore to contribute to their cause?

I guess you are unable to factor in the secret societies that controlled the U.S. democracy through all of that.

How convienent, with your kind of ignorance we could war forever.

[redstar2000]

I guess you are unable to factor in the secret societies that controlled the U.S. democracy through all of that.

What are you babbling about here?

The Freemasons? Opus Dei? The Illuminati? The Bohemian Club? The Council on Foreign Relations? Skull & Bones?

I daresay there are probably many quasi-secret "societies" that form and dissolve and re-form as vehicles for various ruling class purposes...not to mention on-going "social" groups that actually have political and economic functions.

So what?

I repeat: bourgeois "democracy" is a fraud, period&#33;

There&#39;s no way you can "fix it" so that it will genuinely represent the people. You can only overthrow and smash it.

Or not.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Originally posted by EL CHICO [email protected] 23 2004, 01:22 AM
even Nader but its not going to happen. The mass population will be told that teven Nader but its not going to happen. The mass population will be told that they are anti american or similar lies .The media determines who wins but the media is corperate controlled.

Nader is the classic puppet and any who might vote for him might re consider on this information.

News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
March 27, 2004
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

GOP donors double dipping with Nader --&#39;Independent&#39; presidential candidate Ralph Nader [Barf Nadir] is getting a little help from his friends - and from George W. Bush&#39;s friends. Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least &#036;250 each have a history of supporting the Republican dictator, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News. Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.
Address to receive newsletter: [email protected]
Address to not receive newsletter: [email protected]

[redstar2000]

Excellent post, Christopher...and most instructive as to exactly why bourgeois "democracy" is a complete fraud.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:09 AM

I guess you are unable to factor in the secret societies that controlled the U.S. democracy through all of that.

The Freemasons? Opus Dei? The Illuminati? The Bohemian Club? The Council on Foreign Relations? Skull & Bones?


Excellent post, Christopher...and most instructive as to exactly why bourgeois "democracy" is a complete fraud.

Did you know that all but 2 presidents of the U.S were Masons?

Now, please tell me why?

Recently our democracy has been a fraud, and I&#39;m not saying it ever worked very well. All systems are corruptable and for democracy to be corrupted it must be totally controlled by the powerful. That has been the case for 30 years and now the people are corrupted as ALL media is controlled by only 3 corporations&#33;

[Som]

GOP donors double dipping with Nader --&#39;Independent&#39; presidential candidate Ralph Nader [Barf Nadir] is getting a little help from his friends - and from George W. Bush&#39;s friends. Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least &#036;250 each have a history of supporting the Republican dictator, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News. Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP.


and what about the campaign contributions from the other half of the corporate cabal, the democrats?

Nader also gets a large percentage of republicans that vote for him (a quarter of his votes would&#39;ve gone to gw had he not run) so its understandable that if some republicans would vote for him, they might toss him a few dollars.

What nader said about it,


In 2000, exit polls showed that 21% or 25% of my vote would have gone to Bush, 38% or 41% to Gore, and the rest would not have voted. Counter-intuitive, isn&#39;t it? Not if you know that conservative and libertarian Republicans have not been happy with the corporate Republicans who dominate the party and concede to their right wing the verbal platforms to keep them in line. Now, many conservative or libertarian Republicans are furious with Bush over the massive deficits, taxpayer-funded, corporate subsidies, the Patriot Act&#39;s invasion of privacy and undermining of civil liberties, the impaired sovereignty issues in NAFTA and GATT, uncontrolled corporate pornography beamed to their children in violent commercial entertainment -- to name some points of serious disappointments.

Just because theyre republicans doesn&#39;t necesarily mean theyre all corporate cabal loving flag waving mason, Naders definately got his faults, but to say that because he gets a bit of his money from people who may just be frustrated with their party automatically makes him a puppet is quite a stretch.

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 12:45 AM
Just because theyre republicans doesn&#39;t necesarily mean theyre all corporate cabal loving flag waving mason, Naders definately got his faults, but to say that because he gets a bit of his money from people who may just be frustrated with their party automatically makes him a puppet is quite a stretch.
Repeated:
Did you know that all but 2 presidents of the U.S were Masons?

Is this fact a "stretch".

Now, please tell me why?

Because there is no answer forthcoming on the above, which statistically is profound, something like a searchlight on a dark night, it is safe to assume that everyone uniformly know to ignore the Masonic order and whatever they are doing.

My step bother, a scientist, used to say, "If you always do what you&#39;ve always done you&#39;ll always get what you&#39;ve always got." Is that what his group of posters is after?

By not talking our deep fear of the occult connections to our collective unconscious is revealed. The response here on this board of "revolutionaries" is no exception. There are no spiritual heavies here that will discuss this issue relevant to every nations politics on this earth.

I&#39;m explaining the essential situation here; for the record.

The Masons have been infiltrated and need our help. We have to help them to help ourselves. All we have to do to help them is understand them. This is a big order for the western mind because it&#39;s been carefully conditioned to "not know" about the unconscious.
When we understand their methods of collusion we will be able expose the infiltration and the fascist, imperialism of the US will end abruptly. It will purify them (http://truthasaur.com/secret_history/islam_saddam_hussien.html) .

Nader is mind controlled by the order or branches of it as a brilliant liberal sounding puppet that can herd a bunch of votes away from whatever democratic candidate seems to lead.

[Som]

Nader is mind controlled by the order or branches of it as a brilliant liberal sounding puppet that can herd a bunch of votes away from whatever democratic candidate seems to lead.

Conspiracy theory lunacy aside,

Why would they care to herd votes away from one of their candidates?