|
Hey, imisshimbad, you have 59
messages.
Jul 24th, 2004, 6:14pm
|
Author |
Topic: URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
(Read 2050
times) | |
Batchain115
L.O.R.D.
Ultimately, who gives a
fuck anyway?
Posts: 2229
|
 |
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #135 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 2:10am » |
 Quote
 Modify
|
on Apr 15th, 2004,
6:27pm, jimmie
d wrote:
New Hampshire (4 electoral votes)
and Florida (25 electoral votes) were the two
states in which George W. Bush's margin of
victory was less than the number of
votes
for Ralph Nader.
Do the math. A
vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Note: In the 2000 census
redistricting, Florida gained two electoral
votes. (now
27) | |
jimmie,
How many times does this have to be repeatedly
pointed out if not thrown in the faces of those
who should understand it before they "get it"?
Well, there's that common phenomenon in our
strange human species of crazy ape that makes way
too many of us unbendably shout, "Don't bother me
with evidence and don't you dare try to
confuse me with facts! I know what I know
and and no one is going to sway me with their
devious ruses of hard figures!"
There's not much doubt left to the
assertion that, "Facts are such stupid things...",
is there?
--Bat |
|
 IP
Logged |
"If Frank Zappa had ever pissed in my
minestroni soup I'd have had something to eat and
and something to listen to, too." --
Batchain115
| | |
Citizen of
Canarsie
Full Member
can you tell me how to
get...
Posts: 148
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #136 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 2:27am » |
Quote
Modify
|
A VOTE FER
NADAR...IS A VOTE FER ONES INABILITY TO SEE WHA
THA FUCK IS REALLY GOIN ON...COME ON
NOW...YOU OUTTA KNOW BY NOW THAT A THIRD PARTY
VOTE IS AS VALID AS A THIRD PARTY CHECK FER SUM
PUSSY........GO ON BE PRETENDIST TYPE
WISHBONERS, BUT THE TRUTH WILL
NOT SET YOU FREE
OR MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER
WHEN YER CANIDATE IS BOUNCED BY A TEXAN WITH NO
HEART TO GIVE AWAY |
|
IP
Logged | | | |
MentalTossFlycoon
L.O.R.D.
That's why I'm movin'
to Montana...
Posts: 3608
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #137 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 2:40am » |
Quote
Modify
|
on Apr 15th, 2004,
6:27pm, jimmie
d wrote:
New Hampshire (4 electoral votes)
and Florida (25 electoral votes) were the two
states in which George W. Bush's margin of
victory was less than the number of
votes
for Ralph Nader.
Do the math. A
vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
| |
Not
only that: dig this...
If Gore had
won New Hampshire, Bush would have won the
election by one electoral vote. That one
vote would have belonged to the delegate in D.C.
who chose to abstain.
Gore won D.C.
with 85% of the vote. If the whole election came
down to that one delegate who abstained, Florida
probably wouldn't have been the main story of that
election. |
|
IP
Logged |
This is the Central Scrutinizer. As
you can see, music can get you pretty fucked up.
Take a tip from Joe - do like he did - hock your
imaginary guitar, and get a good
job...
| | |
Zardoz
L.O.R.D.
Distant cousins, there's
a limited supply
Posts: 1673
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #139 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 7:35am » |
Quote
Modify
|
Well, seeing were approxamiately 6
1/2 months from elections. I see the same BS is
going to happen as in 2000. I'll cast my vote for
the less of the two evils, the Democrats. Anything
to try and kick the Shrub out of the oval office.
 |
|
IP
Logged |
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #140 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 8:26am » |
Quote
Modify
 Remove
|
In that it's a plain fact that TWICE
as many Republicans are going for Nader as
Democrats, then I guess the following is true:
"A vote for Nader is a vote for
Kerry"? |
|
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #141 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 8:46am » |
Quote
Modify
Remove
|
"Nearly half of Kerry's biggest
financial supporters contributed more money to
Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this
year, according to the non-partisan Center for
Responsive Politics' study of campaign finance
reports filed this month with the Federal Election
Commission"
|
|
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #142 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 9:08am » |
Quote
Modify
Remove
|
WEALTH DISTRIBUTION IN U.S.
U.S. Wealth Distribution: I Get $38, You
Get 23 Cents -- That's Fair, Right?
Distribution of Our Wealth Is Terribly
Askew
Most people have no idea that
the vast bulk of the wealth of the United States
is in the hands of a relative handful of people.
The wealth distribution chart below
shows that the top 1% own 38.1% of the wealth in
the country, the next 4% own 21.3%, and the next
5% own 11.5%. That is to say, the top 10% of
the country owns 70.9% of the wealth of this
nation!
Ninety percent of the
country owns a mere 29.1%.
Another way to put it:
Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split
up. No one expects it to be divided
perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone
involved expects that some basic fairness will be
used in the process that will split up the money.
Now let's say the $100 winds
up being divided as follows:
1
person gets $38.10
4
people get $5.32 each
5
people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent
each
The 40 people getting 1/2
cent each might be a bit annoyed at the person
getting $38.10. The 20 people getting 23
cents each would probably not be happy with the 4
people receiving $5.32 each. And so on...
This is how our economic
system has distributed the wealth of our country.
It's so far from any type of fairness as to
be laughable, were it not a direct cause of
certain segments of our society lacking adequate
resources for food, clothing, shelter, medical
care and other necessities, let alone any
amenities of a beyond-subsistence life.
"Vote Corporate!"
|
|
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #143 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 10:15am » |
Quote
Modify
Remove
|
Full Article by Rabbi Michael
Lernery:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/2000-11-03-1.html
"...Second, lesser evilism
disempowers liberal and progressive forces because
it gives the Democratic Party no incentive to
respond to progressive ideals. Secure in the
certainty that liberals will always respond to the
demand of lesser evilism, the Democrats can put
their full attention at repositioning their party
to accommodate those who might otherwise vote
Republican, thus dramatically decreasing the
differences between the two parties. And your vote
for a lesser evil gives the corporate media the
excuse they seek to ignore progressive views
throughout the next four years-because the
media will say that your progressive views were
shown to have no real constituency since you and
others didn't vote for the candidates who
articulated those views (Kucinich. (inserted by
baddy)),
but chose to empower people who
champion the status quo."
"...Third,
lesser evilism is based on an arrogant certainty
about the consequences of your lesser evil
winning. In fact, those of us who voted for
Clinton as the lesser evil in 1992 found that
eight years later the gap between the rich and the
poor had increased and the social supports for the
poor had decreased. "
"...Fourth,
lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy. If
people consistently feel obliged to vote for
candidates in whom they do not believe, they end
up feeling they are without representation, and
hence feel that our government itself is less
legitimate. Many stop voting altogether." (baddy's
quote on this: If you can't vote for who you want,
you are not free. Remember, Nikita Kruschev was
"elected" every time. To pull the handle for
someone you don't want is an anti-American act).
"...Finally, voting for a lesser
evil entails abandoning and helping to dispirit
those who share your principles. Many Nader people
are standing up for the principles that you
believe in, and instead of supporting them for
doing so you are attacking them. Don't be
surprised if many these people eventually give up
on trying to change the world. So the next time
you look around for allies for some visionary idea
or moral cause that inspires you, you will find
fewer people ready to take risks, and ironically
you may then use that to convince yourself that
nothing was ever possible and that's why you "had"
to vote for the lesser of two evils. "
------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal comments are thus:
First, 'thanks' to the Nader fans
here, don't get discouraged 'till the corporate
D's and R's manage to lock Nader out of the
debates.
Second, I'm kinda amazed at
this forum because it's a music forum and we're
adamantly discussing politics, (and also
uncharactaristically in todays world "without any
personal insults"). Everyone's standing up for
what they believe in, which is a bit unusual for a
non political forum. A lot of folks come here and
read what we write, although they never post...so
certainly a forum as popular as Zappa's is
changing the political landscape with our
opinions.
Third, I know all you
Kerry fans sometimes I think I'm dense sometimes
and I think that of some of you guys sometimes,
but I think we BOTH know that each other is trying
to save this country, we just have different views
of how to do it.
Fourth, I've put a
lot of information about Kerry's record,
especially his pro-corporate positions on NAFTA
and promoting job exports, promoting the PATRIOT
act, and voting for the war that we all
knew was horrid, (and I'm being asked to vote for
someone who voted for the horrible
confusion of killing fields, that is very
difficult to do because I cannot decide about
another person's death, nor can I promote the hard
feelings that are promoted by killing someone's
relatives, (the survivors, the one's we diddn't
kill), but all I'm seeing in return is a very
undemocratic, unfree idea of voting for less evil
because of worse evil, and something that I can't
put my finger on that's causing peole to "already
know they're right that corporate money must win",
so they're afraid to even hear Nader in the
debates.
And what I'm NOT seeing is any kind
of real reasons that nader is "bad", even in the
face of an avalanch of information showing Kerry
is the same corporate money that Bush is. The only
reasons I'm seeing against Nader is" He can't
win", "Bush might win", ...those are NOT reasons
against Nader, they are actually reasons against
free speech. It seems to me (IMHO), that the other
side is failing to come up with any substance
either against nader, or for Kerry.
Although
Nader is clearly better, the only reason I'm not
supposed to vote for him is "He can't win". For
me, especially when consiering what the other
choices are going to do to the people of this
country, and the innocent in oppressed countries,
"He can't win" is not a good enough reason for me
to close my mind and stop trying to get Nader into
the debates.
Lastly, I ain't giving
up for what I believe in until Nader is blocked
from the debates, and if he is, I have a real hard
moral choice to make about my vote after that. I
hope I'm not put in that position to have to
decide about that. I hope you guys can respect
that, as I respect all of you.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr
17th, 2004, 10:30am by
imisshimbad » |
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
jimmie
d
L.O.R.D.
"You can't write a chord
ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes,
so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with
whipped cream." - FZ
Posts: 3648
|
|
|
URGENT: STOP RALPH
NADER!!
« Reply
#144 on: Apr 17th, 2004, 10:41am
» |
Quote
Modify
|
from the 2000
campaign
Inside Nader's Stock Portfolio
A recent financial statement
shows the Green Party candidate invests in
companies he rails against -- including Dick
Cheney's former employers.
By Jake Tapper (salon.com)
October 28, 2000 | MADISON, Wis. --
Supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader
are angrily lining the streets on the way to a
rally for Vice President Al Gore. They hold up
Nader signs, looking scornfully at the motorcade
that passes by.
Lefties like
to bash Gore for being a tool of corporate
America. More specifically, Gore incurs their
wrath because the trust of his mother, Pauline,
owns stock in Occidental Petroleum which,
according to Nader running mate Winona LaDuke, "is
working to exploit oil reserves under U'wa land in
Colombia." The U'wa are an indigenous tribe in
Colombia, and became the champions of an anti-Gore
rally at the Democratic National Convention.
"As I listen to the vice
president espouse his views on campaign finance
reform, I look at his investment portfolio and
have to ask how that might influence public
policy," LaDuke has said, slamming Gore
erroneously for "own[ing] substantial stock in
Occidental Oil Co."
If LaDuke
is looking for Occidental stockholders to
criticize, she might want to look a little closer
to home. In the financial disclosure form Nader
filed on June 14, the Green Party presidential
candidate revealed that he owns between $100,000
and $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity
Magellan Fund. The fund controls 4,321,400 shares
of Occidental Petroleum stock.
The Rainforest Action Network
-- whose members no doubt include myriad Nader
Raiders -- has slammed Fidelity for "investing in
genocide," and called for the fund to divest its
Occidental holdings.
"The
Occidental projects are so beyond the pale about
what's reasonable and moral in this modern era,"
says Patrick Reinsborough, grass-roots coordinator
for the Rainforest Action Network. Reinsborough
says that his group has been primarily targeting
Gore and Fidelity Investments in general, Fidelity
Magellan being part of the Fidelity Investments
mutual funds network, as well as the one with the
largest quantity of Occidental stock. "We have
called upon Ralph Nader -- as we would call upon
any citizen -- to either divest from Fidelity or
to participate in shareholder activism,"
Reinsborough says. "Gore has much more
long-standing links to Occidental Petroleum."
But even if Fidelity were to
divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares
in so many companies Nader has crusaded against,
it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's
participation in the fund is supremely
hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in
the Halliburton Company, where George W. Bush's
running mate, Dick Cheney, recently worked as
president and COO. The fund has investments in
supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the
Limited, both of which have been the target of
rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as
well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores
from coast to coast.
Nader
spokeswoman Laura Jones says that only the
candidate himself can answer questions about his
personal investments. Nader could not be reached
for comment. |
|
IP
Logged |
"If Frank Zappa cut a fart and mixed
it to stereo, I'd buy it!!!" - jimmie d
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #145 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 10:49am » |
Quote
Modify
Remove
|
Finally, something with possible
substance, Jimmie-d, you may have begun the
redemption of "the other side". First I've heard
of such a thing, I gotta check it out(:
Do you have more? |
|
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
jimmie
d
L.O.R.D.
"You can't write a chord
ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes,
so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with
whipped cream." - FZ
Posts: 3648
|
|
|
URGENT: STOP RALPH
NADER!!
« Reply
#146 on: Apr 17th, 2004, 11:05am
» |
Quote
Modify
|
on Apr 17th, 2004,
10:49am, imisshimbad
wrote:
Finally, something
with possible substance, Jimmie-d, you may have
begun the redemption of "the other side". First
I've heard of such a thing, I gotta check it
out(:
Do you have more?
| |
Yes,
I do, but I didn't wanna pile it all on at once.
However, if ya want somemore, then here's
somemore.
"Anti Labor Chapter
Surfaces in Nader's Past ", by Heather Szerlag,
Pacifica Radio News, October 31, 2000 (starting at
10:45 into the half hour broadcast - slide your
RealAudio player forward to that point.)
http://www.webactive.com/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/pacifica/pac20001031.ra&proto=pnm
|
|
IP
Logged |
"If Frank Zappa cut a fart and mixed
it to stereo, I'd buy it!!!" - jimmie d
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #147 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 11:12am » |
Quote
Modify
Remove
|
Pile it on all at once if you got
it...that's what i'm doing...It's better than
don't vote "nader because he can't win" stuff I've
been seeing. We'd like to know the truth where it
lays.
BTW, Occidental may not be all
that avalache of bad stuff that salon wrote it as
above.
Thanks for the link.
|
|
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
Batchain115
L.O.R.D.
Ultimately, who gives a
fuck anyway?
Posts: 2229
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #148 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 11:31am » |
Quote
Modify
|
on Apr 17th, 2004,
10:49am, imisshimbad
wrote:
Finally, something
with possible substance, Jimmie-d, you may have
begun the redemption of "the other side". First
I've heard of such a thing, I gotta check it
out(:
Do you have more?
| |
But
divestiture only means putting it in the hands of
someone or something else. You still have the
money and that inevitably means buying "other
stock". Think back to when Harvard University
wanted to "look good" by selling its stock in
Apartheit-supporting South African corporations.
The corporations lost nothing at all and Harvard
lost nothing at all. It just "looked good" for
Harvard's P.R. purposes.
--Bat
|
|
IP
Logged |
"If Frank Zappa had ever pissed in my
minestroni soup I'd have had something to eat and
and something to listen to, too." --
Batchain115
| | |
imisshimbad
L.O.R.D.
Posts: 1050
|
|
|
Re:
URGENT: STOP RALPH NADAR!!
« Reply #149 on: Apr
17th, 2004, 11:33am » |
Quote
Modify
Remove
|
Three workers got fired for running a
story against strict orders from the magazine
owner (Nader, who was keeping it afloat at a loss
with his own money), not to run it in effort to
scoop the NY times, and as disgruntled employees
they went after Nader accusing him of anti-labor
practices in this non-profit magazine? Need to
know more on this, but if you do exactly what your
boss tells you not to do...and get fired for it,
then I'd consider subsiquent accusations as
originating from a 'hostile sourse'(the three
fired workers).
This shakey
story of three fired workers doesn't compete with
voting for the invasion of Iraq, voting for losing
our rights with the PATRIOT act, not exporting
jobs for corporate profit by promoting NAFTA as
Kerry does.
|
|
IP
Logged |
Blitzer: One of the major differences
between you on the one hand, and the Democrat and
Republican presidential tickets on the other hand,
is that you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as
possible.
| | |
|
Frank Zappa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP
1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights
Reserved.
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Profile
Notification
Logout
Reply
Send
Topic
Print
