Kerry getting elected would hurt nation.

[Flex]

First off our Army would not be allowed to do anything except under the command of UN mandates. We would lose the ability to control our own army.

Second off Kerry would place the UN International Court as superior to our own Supreme court. That would give the UN control of 1/3rd of our country's leadership. You know, Executive, Legistlative, and Judicial.

The supreme court would be made up of more left wing nimwads who tend to ignore the constitution in their judgements. The rights, even the far anti-abortion rights believe in following the constitution before following their own biased beliefs. As such because of their moral standards they would not be able to fully apply their philosophy through the Supreme Court because the same philosophy forces them to restrict themselves within the constrains of the US. Constitution. Something the Left would never do. They seem to think their own opinions or beliefs are more important than the rule of law or our constitution.

Terrorist would be free to pick and choose targets in our country as a means to blackmail us for a variety of concessions. Instead of retaliating and trying to stop them at the source we will hold a defensive action and when that fails attempt to pay them off to leave us alone. This in turn will breed more terrorism because others will see that terrorims is profitable and copy those already engaged in it.

Bush isn't a prime choice, he is the better choice.

[Ugg]

First off our Army would not be allowed to do anything except under the command of UN mandates. We would lose the ability to control our own army.

Second off Kerry would place the UN International Court as superior to our own Supreme court. That would give the UN control of 1/3rd of our country's leadership. You know, Executive, Legistlative, and Judicial.

The supreme court would be made up of more left wing nimwads who tend to ignore the constitution in their judgements. The rights, even the far anti-abortion rights believe in following the constitution before following their own biased beliefs. As such because of their moral standards they would not be able to fully apply their philosophy through the Supreme Court because the same philosophy forces them to restrict themselves within the constrains of the US. Constitution. Something the Left would never do. They seem to think their own opinions or beliefs are more important than the rule of law or our constitution.

Terrorist would be free to pick and choose targets in our country as a means to blackmail us for a variety of concessions. Instead of retaliating and trying to stop them at the source we will hold a defensive action and when that fails attempt to pay them off to leave us alone. This in turn will breed more terrorism because others will see that terrorims is profitable and copy those already engaged in it.

Bush isn't a prime choice, he is the better choice.

Trolling already, sly? And here I thought you had truly turned over a new leaf.

Where's the proof? We've established that if you post outlandish claims that they need to be backed up or if you really believe it then to state that this is your opinion. I see neither here.

As you well know, International treaties as established by the US Const. become a part of the Const. Nothing sinister about that, there are well over 200 years of precedent for that. Nor can these treaties trump US law. Also a well established precedent.

The funny thing about SC Judges is that sometimes they don't play the way it is hoped they would. Clarence Thomas and his Luddite approach is only one example.

gw has no business in taking the high moral road on terrorism when his actions in Iraq and inaction in Afghanistan have led to more terror not less.

Links please, sly......

[Flex]

Trolling already, sly? And here I thought you had truly turned over a new leaf.

Where's the proof? We've established that if you post outlandish claims that they need to be backed up or if you really believe it then to state that this is your opinion. I see neither here.

As you well know, International treaties as established by the US Const. become a part of the Const. Nothing sinister about that, there are well over 200 years of precedent for that. Nor can these treaties trump US law. Also a well established precedent.

The funny thing about SC Judges is that sometimes they don't play the way it is hoped they would. Clarence Thomas and his Luddite approach is only one example.

gw has no business in taking the high moral road on terrorism when his actions in Iraq and inaction in Afghanistan have led to more terror not less.

Links please, sly......
If this is trolling than so is this http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79431

And here is the links http://www.johnkerry.com/front/splash.html http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html
Kerry isn't hidding his agenda, he is ignoring the long term consequences of his agenda though.

[SuperChuck]

First off our Army would not be allowed to do anything except under the command of UN mandates. We would lose the ability to control our own army.

If you seriously believe that any nation would give authority of its military over to the UN, you are a lost cause. What Kerry has touted is respecting the U.N. and its member nations - in other words, showing respect to the world. The fact that we're the only superpower does not give us the right to tell the world "you're with us or you're irrelevant." Of course we retain the right to control our own military, but with our awesome might comes great responsibility. We don't want to be a nation that is feared by the world - we want to be respected, and you have to give respect to get it.

FYI: The Pew Research Group recently conducted a worldwide survey. The vast majority of the world said that the U.S. was "untrustworthy" and the majority of the Arab world (including 55% of Jordanians - the most moderate Arab country of all) said they supported Osama Bin Laden. We went from the highest level of good sentiment from the world in our nation's history to THIS in less than 3 years. If that is not the all-time greatest failure in US foreign policy, I don't know what is.

Second off Kerry would place the UN International Court as superior to our own Supreme court. That would give the UN control of 1/3rd of our country's leadership. You know, Executive, Legistlative, and Judicial.

The UN International Court only hears matters that involve disputes between two sovereign nations. Our own Supreme Court does not hear such cases, so the notion that anyone could place the UN "over" our court is ludicrous. It is beyond the bounds of the UN Court to intervene in the domestic justice system of sovereign nations.

What Kerry does argue for is respecting the authority of the UN International Court, as well as the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. If the world's only superpower does not recognize the authority of these bodies, the very important work they do becomes irrelevant - Why should any other nation submit to the court if we don't?

Of course, you may support seeing mass-murderers like Slobodan Milosevic go unpunished - because without these courts, they would.

The supreme court would be made up of more left wing nimwads who tend to ignore the constitution in their judgements. The rights, even the far anti-abortion rights believe in following the constitution before following their own biased beliefs. As such because of their moral standards they would not be able to fully apply their philosophy through the Supreme Court because the same philosophy forces them to restrict themselves within the constrains of the US. Constitution. Something the Left would never do. They seem to think their own opinions or beliefs are more important than the rule of law or our constitution.

The "left wing nimwads" you refer to had the wacky idea of desegregating public schools using the Constitution as their basis. It's called interpretation of the constitution. I assume you are in favor of interpreting the constitution? Or would you prefer that they had said "Well, the signers of the constitution had slaves, so when they suggested that all men were created equal, they weren't talking about people who aren't white." You think Brown vs Board wasn't controversial? You think the right wing of America didn't fight like Hell to stop it? It's called progress. Show me one elected Republican today who thinks Brown vs Board was a bad ruling. And without those "left wing nimwads" we'd still be "seperate but equal."

Terrorist would be free to pick and choose targets in our country as a means to blackmail us for a variety of concessions. Instead of retaliating and trying to stop them at the source we will hold a defensive action and when that fails attempt to pay them off to leave us alone. This in turn will breed more terrorism because others will see that terrorims is profitable and copy those already engaged in it.

Bush isn't a prime choice, he is the better choice.

The United States has NEVER officially paid off terrorists to "leave us alone" John Kerry has never suggested such an idea, and to suggest that this is the Democratic strategy is a really bad, unsupportable lie. There was only one time in the history of our nation when we made a deal with terrorists. That was called the Iran/Contra affair where the Reagan administration traded arms for hostages. But, I guess giving in to terrorists was a great idea when Reagan did it, huh?

[Chip NoVaMac]

And here in Virginia, they were one of the last states to desegregate even after Brown. They still have not rewritten the sodomy law to match the SCOTUS ruling.

It seems like this election is going to be more about fear than facts.

[Leo Hubbard]

The UN International Court only hears matters that involve disputes between two sovereign nations. Our own Supreme Court does not hear such cases, so the notion that anyone could place the UN "over" our court is ludicrous. It is beyond the bounds of the UN Court to intervene in the domestic justice system of sovereign nations.


Actually it wasn't too long ago the UN International court tried to stop Texas from executing criminals the committed crimes in their state, was captured in their state, and were tried in their state. I then heard rumors that there was talk about sanctions against the US because Texas told the UN International Court where to stick their rulling and executed the criminals anyhow.

[CandelLife]

I have a really bad feeling about Kerry....but that's all it is, perhaps from all I have heard about him in pm and many message boards.....just get a real bad feeling about him being President.

At the same time, Bush has crossed so many lines that I can't see him being reelected.....I saw 911 last night and think this movie will hurt him in a big way and send even more people over to Kerry just because of the fact that they don't want Bush...which shouldn't be a reason for voting for Kerry.

What's up with Nader? I hear tons about Kerry and Bush....What's Naders story? I think I have alot of reading up to do before November rolls around.

And how much truth do you think there is in the stories wrapped around the videos in the 911 movie? The used alot of pain and suffering and crying to get their point across....that adds deception as far as I'm concerned, even when some of it appears true.....

[skunk]

I then heard rumors that there was talk about sanctions against the US because Texas told the UN International Court where to stick their rulling and executed the criminals anyhow.
We don't deal in "rumors" on this part of the site, only facts. :rolleyes:
<slight wobble on the ironimeter>
Links please!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually it wasn't too long ago the UN International court tried to stop Texas from executing criminals the committed crimes in their state, was captured in their state, and were tried in their state. I then heard rumors that there was talk about sanctions against the US because Texas told the UN International Court where to stick their rulling and executed the criminals anyhow.

I hope that you can provide some news links on this topic.

What I did find was these:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/euro_080900.html

While Mr. Cruz has admitted his guilt for the crime, it is our opinion that his execution would additionally violate the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Resolution 1989/64 of 24 May 1989 on the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. This resolution recommends that United Nations Member States eliminate the death penalty for persons suffering from mental retardation or extremely limited mental competence, whether at the stage of sentence or execution. The EU considers that the execution of Mr. Cruz would be contrary to these generally accepted human rights norms.

http://www.ccadp.org/javiermedina.htm

Dealing with a Mexican national denied Mexican consular notification and assistance during his trail.

Please note that I gave these websites as reference points, and understand that they have biased perspectives.

But that does not change the fact that as a member of the United Nations we as a Nation have agreed to following aspects of UN treaties and the such.

We can not pick and choose what and where we as a Nation will follow the UN. If we want to take the moral high ground and invade a sovereign nation, because it was the right thing to do, then we should be willing to follow the moral high ground on basic human rights.

It is time to take the cowboys out and given them a taste of their own medicine.

[2jaded2care]

My main problem with Kerry getting elected would be the obligatory new dollar coin. (Is this requirement hidden in the Democratic platform somewhere? I can't find it.)

Of course it would be the same size, shape and thickness as a quarter, so as not to be easily distinguishable. And of course it'd pay homage to some famous female historical figure... If we're lucky, maybe it'd be someone like Carmen Miranda.

Sorry, pet peeve... plus I'm feeling silly today. :eek:

You're just lucky I didn't start a new thread called "Re-electing Grover Cleveland would hurt nation"...

Yes, I am sick of politics already.

[pooky]

But that does not change the fact that as a member of the United Nations we as a Nation have agreed to following aspects of UN treaties and the such.

We can not pick and choose what and where we as a Nation will follow the UN. If we want to take the moral high ground and invade a sovereign nation, because it was the right thing to do, then we should be willing to follow the moral high ground on basic human rights.


Before one of SlyHunter's many faces can beat me to it, I'd like to point out that the typical right-wing song in response to this is that we really should get the heck out of the UN. Why should we follow UN treaties at all? Close the borders, kick all the "furriners" out, and leave 'merica to the 'mericans. I don't want no Frenchy or some creep in Libya telling me how to live my life. That includes my right to drive a vehicle designed for invading small desert nations on the streets of Los Angeles, my right to execute whoever I please whenever I please regardless of their national origin, and my right to invade any country I want to with any reason I can make up off the top of my head. Screw the UN.

[skunk]

That sounds about right.

But you forgot "Screw the poor, the sick and the unemployed..."

[skunk]

And screw Einstein... :rolleyes:

[2jaded2care]

Before one of SlyHunter's many faces can beat me to it, I'd like to point out that the typical right-wing song in response to this is that we really should get the heck out of the UN. Why should we follow UN treaties at all? Close the borders, kick all the "furriners" out, and leave 'merica to the 'mericans. I don't want no Frenchy or some creep in Libya telling me how to live my life. That includes my right to drive a vehicle designed for invading small desert nations on the streets of Los Angeles, my right to execute whoever I please whenever I please regardless of their national origin, and my right to invade any country I want to with any reason I can make up off the top of my head. Screw the UN.

Yep, lease we right-wing 'mercuns don't discrimnate as fer as our executin' goes, which makes us better'n those Al Kada types. Only gotta point out these hear Hummers ain't quite bomb-proof enuf t'suit summa us here in th' big city, much less some dessert countrys with there mil'tents.

Now if'n y'all will 'scuse me, I gotta go beat some sense into the lit'l woman and git those no-good kids-a-mine to bizness cleanin' sum sidearms, yessir...

Hope y'all can rec'nize meaninful contr'butions to th' dilog. A-yep.

[Sayhey]

Yep, lease we right-wing 'mercuns don't discrimnate as fer as our executin' goes, which makes us better'n those Al Kada types. Only gotta point out these hear Hummers ain't quite bomb-proof enuf t'suit summa us here in th' big city, much less some dessert countrys with there mil'tents.

Now if'n y'all will 'scuse me, I gotta go beat some sense into the lit'l woman and git those no-good kids-a-mine to bizness cleanin' sum sidearms, yessir...

Hope y'all can rec'nize meaninful contr'butions to th' dilog. A-yep.

LOL, feeling picked on today, 2jaded?

If it makes you feel better, I agree with you about Grover Cleveland. He's a bum! :p

[pooky]

Yep, lease we right-wing 'mercuns don't discrimnate as fer as our executin' goes, which makes us better'n those Al Kada types. Only gotta point out these hear Hummers ain't quite bomb-proof enuf t'suit summa us here in th' big city, much less some dessert countrys with there mil'tents.

Now if'n y'all will 'scuse me, I gotta go beat some sense into the lit'l woman and git those no-good kids-a-mine to bizness cleanin' sum sidearms, yessir...

Hope y'all can rec'nize meaninful contr'butions to th' dilog. A-yep.

LOL, I semi-retract my statement. I didn't mean to imply that all republicans/conservatives were painted by my caricature, only the more hardcore sections of the party. Every group has extremists, that's who I was (attempting) to poke fun at.

[Neserk]

We don't deal in "rumors" on this part of the site, only facts. :rolleyes:




You are joking, right? We deal with rumors all the time. The gov't doesn't believe in giving us facts!

[skunk]

Yes and no. Hence the :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Yes and no. Hence the :rolleyes:


Gotcha! What do you say we run amuck? This forum is going to be b-o-r-i-n-g w/o Sly/Voltron/Flex.

[skunk]

Gotcha! What do you say we run amuck? This forum is going to be b-o-r-i-n-g w/o Sly/Voltron/Flex.
That's properly "amok". It's Malay :D

You first!

[Neserk]

That's properly "amok". It's Malay :D

You first!


*runs amok*

[skunk]

*runs amok*
*keeps head down*

[Backtothemac]

That sounds about right.

But you forgot "Screw the poor, the sick and the unemployed..."


HEY, that is my line! :D

[Neserk]

*keeps head down*


Hey! You are supposed to be joining me!

[CandelLife]

Are we running amok in here then? :p Did we spell it right? :D

[Neserk]

Have to run amuck somewhere! I looked it up, Skunk. Amuck is just a variant of amok! :p

[Griffon]

We don't deal in "rumors" on this part of the site, only facts. :rolleyes:
<slight wobble on the ironimeter>
Links please!
It appears this isn't a rumor as I have just read a story on this same topic.

Texas, which is holding two of the Mexicans, says it is not bound by the World Court and will go ahead with the executions. Oklahoma, holding the third, is still considering its position.

Such defiance of the World Court is nothing new: Previous orders have been disregarded by states claiming the order was not binding. But legal scholars say this time it's different. For the first time, the court has made it clear that the mandate is binding.

That means the international court can sanction the US for disobeying it, should Texas go ahead with the executions - which could spur international tension. The case comes at a critical time for the US, whose relations with some countries are already strained because of conflict over Iraq.
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0224/p02s01-usju.html

[Neserk]

Interesting article, thanks for posting!

[zimv20]

Gotcha! What do you say we run amuck? This forum is going to be b-o-r-i-n-g w/o Sly/Voltron/Flex.
.../Leo Hubbard/Griffon

[Griffon]

.../Leo Hubbard/Griffon
huh?

[mactastic]

huh?

I think Sly's gunning for the Most Times Banned trophy.

[themadchemist]

Persistence is a charm and this is downright charming. But tell me--every time we see a "Registered User" in the political forums from now on, is someone going to say, "Sly's up to his old tricks again?"

[zimv20]

every time we see a "Registered User" in the political forums from now on, is someone going to say, "Sly's up to his old tricks again?"
i have my ways of telling...

[mactastic]

Persistence is a charm and this is downright charming. But tell me--every time we see a "Registered User" in the political forums from now on, is someone going to say, "Sly's up to his old tricks again?"

Nah, not every time. Only within a day or so of his most recent banning will I be suspicious. New posters are rare enough here.

It's like when you hear Miles blow his horn or Mark Knopfler play his guitar. The sound is unmistakeable. ;)

[blackfox]

i have my ways of telling...
As do most of us, but this time I wasn't going to comment as I wanted to let him have his go, as per the *unpleasantness* of his departure...still, if he has a dynamic IP or something, no way of knowing for sure...moving on...

[themadchemist]

Nah, not every time. Only within a day or so of his most recent banning will I be suspicious. New posters are rare enough here.

It's like when you hear Miles blow his horn or Mark Knopfler play his guitar. The sound is unmistakeable. ;)

After having my own battlescars from combat with SlyFlexTron, I'm inclined to agree.

[jelloshotsrule]

What's up with Nader? I hear tons about Kerry and Bush....What's Naders story? I think I have alot of reading up to do before November rolls around.


what do you want to know about him? feel free to ask me if you want...

in the meantime, check out www.votenader.org

[Sayhey]

.../Leo Hubbard/Griffon

Leo Hubbard? as in this Leo Hubbard from Lillian Hellman's The Little Foxes?

Oscar's son Leo Hubbard (played by Dan Duryea), represents the rising generation of the Hubbard family.* He is unscrupulous, uncouth, sneaky, restless and confused.* In the scene at left -- a defining moment in the establishment of his character -- Leo catches a fly in his hand while sitting in the living room, listening to his cousin Alexandra play the piano.

Must be something I'm missing because I don't see Sly even knowing who Lillian Hellman was much less understanding the irony in taking the name.

[IJ Reilly]

Must be something I'm missing because I don't see Sly even knowing who Lillian Hellman was much less understanding the irony in taking the name.

Ha. Hearing this name I can't help but think of the line, "Lillian Hellman, in her extremity."

Source, trivia buffs?

[Neserk]

Persistence is a charm and this is downright charming. But tell me--every time we see a "Registered User" in the political forums from now on, is someone going to say, "Sly's up to his old tricks again?"

Yes. It is part of how "liberals" harass people. I hesitate to call them liberals because it makes those of us who are true liberals look bad.

[Lyle]

Yes. It is part of how "liberals" harass people.Be careful, Neserk. The way things are going, that kind of disrespectful talk will get you banned next.

[Neserk]

Be careful, Neserk. The way things are going, that kind of disrespectful talk will get you banned next.

Disrespectful? Truthful is what it is.

[jelloshotsrule]

Yes. It is part of how "liberals" harass people. I hesitate to call them liberals because it makes those of us who are true liberals look bad.

yeah, like the "liberals" in the democratic party harassing nader et co. to stop their run for president... i hear ya!

[Sayhey]

Yes. It is part of how "liberals" harass people. I hesitate to call them liberals because it makes those of us who are true liberals look bad.

Neserk, do you want to name names are you going to spread innuendo because you didn't agree with Sly's banning. By the way, that's up to the mods and no one else. If you've got a beef with some one say it or send them a PM, but enough with talk of harassment. In Sly's case it is turning history on its head.

[Stelliform]

yeah, like the "liberals" in the democratic party harassing nader et co. to stop their run for president... i hear ya!

I am surprised that Nader's story isn't getting more press time. Maybe it isn't the liberal media at all. It should be called the Democrat Media. ;) :D

[Sayhey]

yeah, like the "liberals" in the democratic party harassing nader et co. to stop their run for president... i hear ya!

jello - what harassment are you talking about? Some of your anger with Democrats I may agree with, but the checking of signatures on petitions and challenging fraudulent ones is part of the process. If you have ever participated in such campaign you know this. What's the martyr act about? Just collect enough valid signatures and the Dems can't do a thing. You've already heard my complaints about Nader and the GOP so I won't repeat them, but Ralph is not the victim of some horrible Democratic Party conspiracy. It all out front - meet the requirements or be challenged. It's not the way I'd do it, but it isn't something to moan about either.

[Neserk]

yeah, like the "liberals" in the democratic party harassing nader et co. to stop their run for president... i hear ya!

You got it!

[Neserk]

Neserk, do you want to name names are you going to spread innuendo because you didn't agree with Sly's banning. By the way, that's up to the mods and no one else. If you've got a beef with some one say it or send them a PM, but enough with talk of harassment. In Sly's case it is turning history on its head.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
well. that cleared that up.

[Sayhey]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'll take that as a "no."

[blackfox]

yeah, like the "liberals" in the democratic party harassing nader et co. to stop their run for president... i hear ya!

OK, first of all, I admit I am biased against Nader...I do not think he is a bad man, and I feel he has been excellent as a consumer advocate for many years, but I do not feel he would make an excellent President. I will comment on why in a moment...

As to the quote, however, the Democrats are not so much "harassing" Nader as they are the quasi-legal maneuverings of the Republicans with regards to his drive to be on the ballots come November.

While I do not think the Democrats' intervention is something to be proud of, it is at least a defensive maneuver, to a calculated offensive move by the Republicans. Nader, as someone running to be the "leader of the free-world", should imo, have enough leadership ability to divorce himself from any meddling in his campaign from either side, whether it helps or hurts him...because as it stands now, he looks like a pawn of the two larger parties, and a potential wedge come election time.

As to why Nader should not be President (at least now), is simple...although I admire many of his policies and platforms, they are too much a shift from the current norms, and I do not believe the country is ready for such a turn-around, especially at a time when we are so over-extended and vunerable. I believe change should be meted out slowly and incrementally, if only for pragmatic reasons.

If Nader won the Presidency come November, it would be unlikely that he would be able to get any of his policies through Congress and into law, which would prove highly ineffectual...unless he was willing to compromise, which imo, takes someone with a larger knowledge of how the system works. Furthermore, some policy ideas, like the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq (replaced w/ UN troops) seem difficult to realize, and quite possibly an irresponsible and dangerous course of action considering the realities we have created for ourselves in the Region.

Finally, I will not vote for Nader because it is my upmost priority to get Bush and the NeoCons out of the WH and positions of power. The damage they have done is simply mind-boggling. I am not overly-enthusiastic about Kerry, although I believe he may be better than many credit him, but considering the stakes here, he has to be the choice.

I will be happy to elaborate on anything if asked, but if so, please begin a new thread...actually, it might be ok to continue in this one...either/or

[Neserk]

I'll take that as a "no."

Try: Mind your own business.

[blackfox]

Try: Mind your own business.
Neserk, if you have an issue, please use PM to discuss...

As for the quote, I believe Sayhey was, if not for your suggestive comments in the first place...once again, if you have a problem please deal with it constructively...which means using PM to specific members or discussing with the mods...

For the record, I was of your opinion about the Sly issue, and used both the options above and everything is sorted...

[Neserk]

well. that cleared that up.

That is right. You are the one who hates :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: and tried to keep me and Skunk from using them.

[Neserk]

Neserk, if you have an issue, please use PM to discuss...


Perhaps they should take your advice, as should you.


As for the quote, I believe Sayhey was, if not for your suggestive comments in the first place...once again, if you have a problem please deal with it constructively...which means using PM to specific members or discussing with the mods...


IF you read the whole discussion you will see that you, to be fair, should be addressing this to both of us.

[Krizoitz]

As entertaining as this squabbling is (its better than TV!) I wanted to point out my problem with the topic of this thread.

Criticism of Bush is based on what he has done. Criticism of Kerry seems to be based on what they think/claim he will do. Now I realize you can't criticize him on what he has done as President, since he hasn't done anything yet, but shouldn't the conservatives be touting the good things Bush has done? All the adds I see are how evil the democrats are, how Kerry can't make up his mind, and will be a bad president, etc etc etc. Meanwhile Kerry's ads talk about why he wants to be President and what he wants to do. Where are the ads talking about the good that Bush has done...oh wait...tough to find those...then again Bush seems to be pretty good at lying, so you'd think they could at least make something up :D

[blackfox]

Criticism of Bush is based on what he has done. Criticism of Kerry seems to be based on what they think/claim he will do. Now I realize you can't criticize him on what he has done as President, since he hasn't done anything yet, but shouldn't the conservatives be touting the good things Bush has done? All the adds I see are how evil the democrats are, how Kerry can't make up his mind, and will be a bad president, etc etc etc. Meanwhile Kerry's ads talk about why he wants to be President and what he wants to do. Where are the ads talking about the good that Bush has done...oh wait...tough to find those...then again Bush seems to be pretty good at lying, so you'd think they could at least make something up :D
Well, it is hard to disagree...another thing, not really noticed (and related) is that w/ only four months or so till the Election, Bush has not outlined any agenda for his second term...pretty remarkable in a sad sort of way.

[takao]

Well, it is hard to disagree...another thing, not really noticed (and related) is that w/ only four months or so till the Election, Bush has not outlined any agenda for his second term...pretty remarkable in a sad sort of way.

perhaps because the agenda will be the same like in the first term ;)

seriously i can't see how kerry could do worse in his foreign policy than bush

[jelloshotsrule]

jello - what harassment are you talking about? Some of your anger with Democrats I may agree with, but the checking of signatures on petitions and challenging fraudulent ones is part of the process. If you have ever participated in such campaign you know this. What's the martyr act about? Just collect enough valid signatures and the Dems can't do a thing. You've already heard my complaints about Nader and the GOP so I won't repeat them, but Ralph is not the victim of some horrible Democratic Party conspiracy. It all out front - meet the requirements or be challenged. It's not the way I'd do it, but it isn't something to moan about either.

you're right, it's reasonable to ask for valid signatures, but it's just a sign of how unfair the system is to third parties. how lopsided it is... also, we all know the democrats have a selfish reason for challenging (using 3 law firms, one of which is a republican firm) the signatures....

and i suppose you didn't hear about oregon where nader needed 1000 signatures at a rally. they locked the doors when a littler over 1000 people had come in, and it turns out that over 100 of them were democrats in nader supporter clothing, and they refused to sign, thus DIRECTLY impeding on the democratic process....

and then in illinois, when democratic state employees when and sat in on the signature challenge on tax payers dollars... that is actually against the law.

so, it's all out in front, and it's not all legal....

why dont' the democrats demand more from their candidate, rather than spend millions of donor dollars trying to stop democracy??

[jelloshotsrule]

OK, first of all, I admit I am biased against Nader...I do not think he is a bad man, and I feel he has been excellent as a consumer advocate for many years, but I do not feel he would make an excellent President. I will comment on why in a moment...

As to the quote, however, the Democrats are not so much "harassing" Nader as they are the quasi-legal maneuverings of the Republicans with regards to his drive to be on the ballots come November.

While I do not think the Democrats' intervention is something to be proud of, it is at least a defensive maneuver, to a calculated offensive move by the Republicans. Nader, as someone running to be the "leader of the free-world", should imo, have enough leadership ability to divorce himself from any meddling in his campaign from either side, whether it helps or hurts him...because as it stands now, he looks like a pawn of the two larger parties, and a potential wedge come election time.

As to why Nader should not be President (at least now), is simple...although I admire many of his policies and platforms, they are too much a shift from the current norms, and I do not believe the country is ready for such a turn-around, especially at a time when we are so over-extended and vunerable. I believe change should be meted out slowly and incrementally, if only for pragmatic reasons.

If Nader won the Presidency come November, it would be unlikely that he would be able to get any of his policies through Congress and into law, which would prove highly ineffectual...unless he was willing to compromise, which imo, takes someone with a larger knowledge of how the system works. Furthermore, some policy ideas, like the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq (replaced w/ UN troops) seem difficult to realize, and quite possibly an irresponsible and dangerous course of action considering the realities we have created for ourselves in the Region.

Finally, I will not vote for Nader because it is my upmost priority to get Bush and the NeoCons out of the WH and positions of power. The damage they have done is simply mind-boggling. I am not overly-enthusiastic about Kerry, although I believe he may be better than many credit him, but considering the stakes here, he has to be the choice.

I will be happy to elaborate on anything if asked, but if so, please begin a new thread...actually, it might be ok to continue in this one...either/or

i addressed what the dems are doing in my previous response to sayhey

the republicans are doing something entirely on their own. nader campaign has no control over it. in fact, if the nader campaign did step in and say "stop" that would legally be getting involved, and therefore would become illegal... how can nader campaign be expected to control the entire world and what it does in support of its campaign (for whatever motives)?? also, getting back to oregon... while the dems definitely disrupted the signature gathering, there is no evidence that the conservative groups' "efforts" to get signatures did anything, otherwise it wouldn't have been such a struggle. as for disavowing them, i guess you didn't hear the nader/dean debate. ralph explicitly said i disavow those groups...

nader doesn't know how the system works? how else would he have gained so much for the consumers of the country except by knowing the system, and fighting it? just because he doesn't agree with the system, and in every step fights against it, doesn't mean he doesn't understand it...

as for getting nothing done as pres... i think the main reason voters don't vote for such "radical" ideas (universal health care, electoral reform, etc) is because that's simply not the 2 parties. and the 2 parties control all the media (with money) and therefore, the 3rd parties' messages never get heard... which is exactly why ralph is running.. also, if ralph starts with the "right" position in an issue, and then compromises with congress or whoever, it's more likely to be closer to "right" than if you start wrong and compromise, like i feel kerry (and of course bush) would..

feel free to ask more

hopefully this remains a good discussion, not a heated argument. :)

[jelloshotsrule]

oh yeah, a great article about nader, etc

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/071404op_gonzalez

[Sayhey]

jello,

great posts. I read the Matt Gonzalez article (I voted for Matt in his run for Mayor) and liked it. Let me respond to your points. First, while I think it is perfectly acceptable, although politically stupid, to challenge Nader's signatures, I think the packing of the convention in Oregon with Democrats that would not sign for Nader's nomination was an example of going over the line into the kind of sleaze that is so often associated with the GOP. I don't know about the Illinois example and if you can give a link I'd appreciate it. If true, it is no doubt the worst example I've heard so far of Democratic overreaction to the Nader campaign.

Second, let me say I don't buy your reasoning for Nader not condemning and distancing himself from the underhanded Republican tactics to use his campaign for their own purposes. In Oregon, the call went out to support his ballot access convention from one of the most reactionary, anti - gay groups in the state. Add to this his acceptance of the Reform party line in some states from groups that have pushed the Pat Buchanan anti-immigrant message and you get a picture of who Nader is in bed with. To date, I haven't seen word one from Nader condemning this type of activity and divorcing himself from these types of groups. If I'm wrong please correct me - I'd love to hear from the old Ralph that I knew and respected. This gets me to my main problem with Nader. It is his repeated statements, in 2000 and today, that there are no differences that matter between the Gore, now Kerry, and Bush.

This equivalence is justified with all kinds of references to corporate domination of US society. While I can agree with many of Nader's anti-corporate message (I spent many years fighting as a trade unionist, along with many others, to pry some of that corporate money and power from them and into the hands of average Americans) that doesn't mean the differences between Kerry and Bush are not vitally important for all of us.

On a whole host of issues, from preemptive war and multilateralism, the right to abortion, enshrining hate in the US Constitution, Labor Union rights, environmental protections, an on and on the differences between Bush and Kerry are enormously important for average Americans. With his myopic anti-Corporate criticisms of the Democrats, while in many cases he is justified in his criticism, Nader obscures the importance of removing Bush from office and supporting Kerry's stance on many issues. If he was running and saying at the same time it is important to vote to remove Bush from office in whatever state the race is close (the stance of the Green Party standard-bearer,) I would have no problem with his candidacy. He doesn't do this and this failure plus his playing games for ballot access with some of the worst forces in the country open Nader to some justified criticism of his own. If Nader wants to be the voice of progressive politics in this country, then he needs to listen to the criticisms of progressives. He doesn't have that mantle by divine right.

[jelloshotsrule]

I don't know about the Illinois example and if you can give a link I'd appreciate it. If true, it is no doubt the worst example I've heard so far of Democratic overreaction to the Nader campaign.

Second, let me say I don't buy your reasoning for Nader not condemning and distancing himself from the underhanded Republican tactics to use his campaign for their own purposes. In Oregon, the call went out to support his ballot access convention from one of the most reactionary, anti - gay groups in the state. Add to this his acceptance of the Reform party line in some states from groups that have pushed the Pat Buchanan anti-immigrant message and you get a picture of who Nader is in bed with. To date, I haven't seen word one from Nader condemning this type of activity and divorcing himself from these types of groups. If I'm wrong please correct me - I'd love to hear from the old Ralph that I knew and respected. This gets me to my main problem with Nader. It is his repeated statements, in 2000 and today, that there are no differences that matter between the Gore, now Kerry, and Bush.

This equivalence is justified with all kinds of references to corporate domination of US society. While I can agree with many of Nader's anti-corporate message (I spent many years fighting as a trade unionist, along with many others, to pry some of that corporate money and power from them and into the hands of average Americans) that doesn't mean the differences between Kerry and Bush are not vitally important for all of us.

On a whole host of issues, from preemptive war and multilateralism, the right to abortion, enshrining hate in the US Constitution, Labor Union rights, environmental protections, an on and on the differences between Bush and Kerry are enormously important for average Americans. With his myopic anti-Corporate criticisms of the Democrats, while in many cases he is justified in his criticism, Nader obscures the importance of removing Bush from office and supporting Kerry's stance on many issues. If he was running and saying at the same time it is important to vote to remove Bush from office in whatever state the race is close (the stance of the Green Party standard-bearer,) I would have no problem with his candidacy. He doesn't do this and this failure plus his playing games for ballot access with some of the worst forces in the country open Nader to some justified criticism of his own. If Nader wants to be the voice of progressive politics in this country, then he needs to listen to the criticisms of progressives. He doesn't have that mantle by divine right.

i don't have a link. i might not even be supposed to talk about it.. but hopefully it will come to light more in the coming weeks... will keep you posted.

as for oregon/republican groups. what have you seen that shows that nader campaign is working WITH these people? the campaign manager called the fec before any of this even went down, and said "if there are independent expenditures, that we disapprove of, and we tell them to stop, is that inherently becoming involved and thus illegal?" they didn't know the answer. my point is simply that while ralph HAS disavowed these croups (i'll get to that in a sec), it's another thing to tell them to stop... one problem i do see with this situation is the difference b/w ralph and peter camejo in whether to take republican money... ralph says "we'll take all legal money from individuals, it's ridiculous to try to discern everyones' intent in donating"... meanwhile camejo says we should turn away money from people who don't really support us....

as for reform party. it has been made clear (if only between nader campaign and the party) that they have no influence on nader's positions. it's an effort to use party lines and thus enable nader to actually reach people via ballot access, and hopefully debates. i don't know a ton about the history of the reform party, but i don't place as much importance on the title of a party as some... that's why i'd never register any party, even green or whatever...

nader disavowing the anti gay groups, etc... check out npr's justice talking. or cspan. you should be able to find audio of the debate... or a transcript or something. i was there, and at some point dean charged nader to disavow himself from those groups. and he did. that's the only instance i know of concretely.

gore/bush and kerry/bush... i agree that they're not exactly the same. as does ralph "anyone's better than bush"... however, why does that mean we should settle? first of all, i think ralph offers a great voice on issues that matter (2 pro-war candidates, 2 "free" trade candidates, 2 pro-patriot act candidates, 2 anti-abortion judge appointing candidates, 2 pro-death penalty candidates - admittedly, kerry is at least semi anti dp, but he's wavered recently... and has voted to increase the number of crimes that are eligible for dp sentences)... if ralph could simply get into some debates, i think that would be huge for 1. opening the nation's eyes about what these candidates are missing, 2. urge kerry to embrace a much more progressive platform... 3. opening the door for more progressive candidates in smaller races, and in the future..

would i rather have kerry win than bush? yes. but i'd rather have nader win than kerry. and to say that he has no chance is accepting the system that in my opinion keeps him down only because he isn't in a major party, and supported by big $. it also is a self-defeating attitude. if everyone thinks "he can't win, i won't vote for him (though i want to)" then of course he'll lose...

to drop out of states where the race is close would do a few things... give the dems approval, saying that they can do whatever they want, because no one is as bad as bush, thus pushing them further towards the right... and also deprives millions who *want to vote for nader*. that's their right. why should it be taken away from them?

[Sayhey]

jello, I'll be looking forward to any further info on the Illinois situation.

I did watch the CSPAN video of Nader and Dean, but I must have missed Nader's denunciation of these groups. I'll go back and watch it again. Not questioning your memory; it is entirely possible I missed it.

My take on the question of "settling" for Kerry is that one must have a strategy for moving progressive politics forward. To push a strategy that could well mean victory for forces that are the antithesis of progressive politics is not something I'd care to support. I'd much rather push for a progressive agenda in a way that looks to have a chance of winning. I'm not as interested in the candidacy of individuals as the winning of real changes in a whole host of areas.

I'm not in anyway advocating Nader drop out in states that are battleground states, but he can campaign saying that in such close races it is more important to vote for Kerry. As to the legal issues of telling right wing groups to stop in their effort to get him on the ballot, he doesn't have to tell them to stop to disavow any connection and condemn the groups. If he has done so, it is not in any meaningful way that I can discern. Returning the contributions from large GOP contributors, as Camejo suggests, would be an important first step.

jello, you and I probably have much more in common than differences in this election and I don't for a moment think the many folks who are dedicated workers for the Nader campaign don't want many of the same things that progressive Democrats, Greens, and Independents throughout the country want. My only question with Nader is how his candidacy and and campaign tactics advance the causes we all support in the real world of 2004 politics. It is something that shouldn't be outside the realm of debate among progressives.

[jelloshotsrule]

jello, I'll be looking forward to any further info on the Illinois situation.

I did watch the CSPAN video of Nader and Dean, but I must have missed Nader's denunciation of these groups. I'll go back and watch it again. Not questioning your memory; it is entirely possible I missed it.

My take on the question of "settling" for Kerry is that one must have a strategy for moving progressive politics forward. To push a strategy that could well mean victory for forces that are the antithesis of progressive politics is not something I'd care to support. I'd much rather push for a progressive agenda in a way that looks to have a chance of winning. I'm not as interested in the candidacy of individuals as the winning of real changes in a whole host of areas.

I'm not in anyway advocating Nader drop out in states that are battleground states, but he can campaign saying that in such close races it is more important to vote for Kerry. As to the legal issues of telling right wing groups to stop in their effort to get him on the ballot, he doesn't have to tell them to stop to disavow any connection and condemn the groups. If he has done so, it is not in any meaningful way that I can discern. Returning the contributions from large GOP contributors, as Camejo suggests, would be an important first step.

jello, you and I probably have much more in common than differences in this election and I don't for a moment think the many folks who are dedicated workers for the Nader campaign don't want many of the same things that progressive Democrats, Greens, and Independents throughout the country want. My only question with Nader is how his candidacy and and campaign tactics advance the causes we all support in the real world of 2004 politics. It is something that shouldn't be outside the realm of debate among progressives.

illinois- no promises. depends how much becomes public and when. last i heard they were checking into if all the employees took vacation during that time to challenge the signatures, or if they were on payroll at the moment. will keep you posted.

yeah, he definitely denounced them. i was in the first row! :)

you raise real concerns and i respect people who vote for kerry with these things in mind. i do not respect people who blindly trash nader as egotistical and attempt to keep him off the ballot. what is more anti-democratic than trying to keep people from having free elections (matt gonzalez says it far better than i of course)

nader has come close to saying what you mention (ie, vote for kerry in close states)... he said that no one will know who they vote for ("no one goes into the booth with you..."), and he has said that in states that are no contest, vote your conscience. and that he hopes people can feel like they can vote their conscience in other states too... that said, he of course hasn't said to vote for kerry straight up. my issue is that these dirty dem tricks are only hurting the chances of nader ever saying that.....

as for returning gop contributions... would you demand the same of kerry?? many of his top contributors give to both parties.... why is that ok? though i'd agree that what's right for kerry doesn't make it right for nader... we hold him up as above the two parties, so he should be expected to act like it.. i think i'd support giving back such money, as long as we know it's not really "clean"... the fact is, usually, we don't. (i know firsthand)

finally, i totally agree that we agree on almost all issues (most likely). and that's exactly my point. don't you think that if everyone had a slate of issues, and voted without names/parties on the issues alone, that nader would get far more than 5%? possibly even MORE than kerry???

i realize that doesn't affect your decision given bush as the other option, but it's an interesting thing nonetheless. i agree that it's ok to discuss the merits of nader's running. but i also think it's ok to discuss the failings of kerry, and how we can demand more from him, rather than giving him a clear slate just because he's NOT bush

[blackfox]

Jello, Do not get me wrong, I also agree with Nader on many issues, and would love a third-party candidate to ascend to the Presidency.

The point is NOT NOW. For me, it is of overriding importance to un-seat Bush come November. His Administration is too dangerous and damaging to America to not focus completely on it's removal. For me, it is that simple. Kerry is the only man who has a chance to do this. I admit that this is a somewhat cynical view to take, but it is also one of pragmatism.

In the future, perhaps a Third-Party candidate will have his day...

[Sayhey]

jello, I agree with most of your last post, especially the part about the need to criticize Kerry when he goes wrong. I've got to do a lot of running around so I'll get back with a longer answer later. Good stuff!

[skunk]

For me, it is of overriding importance to un-seat Bush come November. His Administration is too dangerous and damaging to America to not focus completely on it's removal. For me, it is that simple. Kerry is the only man who has a chance to do this. I admit that this is a somewhat cynical view to take, but it is also one of pragmatism.
Just think: you could be saying this all over again after four years of Kerry...

[jelloshotsrule]

Just think: you could be saying this all over again after four years of Kerry...

exactly... though in his defense, we *know* bush is horrible, we don't know for sure how weak kerry will be... (though we might have an idea)


what if the anti-abolitionists were told "not now"?

[zimv20]

Just think: you could be saying this all over again after four years of Kerry...
you mean:
it is of overriding importance to un-seat Bush come November.
yes, i suppose it is possible that, after a kerry victory, we'd still need to toss out bush in four years...

[blackfox]

Skunk, I will cross that bridge when I come to it...

I also have a concern about an Election with a third-party candidate. Although I would like it, as would many...I can see the following happening:

The GOP painting the Independent position as Liberal, out-of-touch with America, as indeed many of the aspects of Nader's(for example) campaign are very left, bordering on socialist (like Nationalized health care)...many people find socialism a dirty word. The amount of Republicans who would be interested in the Independent candidate might be quite small, due to differences in opinion over policies, pre-conceived notions of the far-left, and GOP spin to amplify these worrys and encourage Party unity.

Then there is the Democratic Candidate, who will either be forced to the center to differentiate himself/herself and platform from that of the Independent, or move into similar ground in the left, and battle head-to-head with the indy candidate. This will be a major crisis for the democratic party, and the GOP will make the most of this situation to manipulate it to their advantage. This could leave the left in complete chaos.

There is also the matter of money. Although a third-party candidate could conceiveably manage to get Federal Funds for the Election, they would be vastly out-spent by the Major Parties, who have sophisticated fundraising apparati in place. In fact, with the Democrats on the defensive,and the GOP on the offensive, fundraising could reach an all-time high. Although grass-roots campaigning and fund-raising could help the Independent, the lack of mass exposure on TV and other mass-media could be a serious or fatal disadvantage.

So back to the Election...with Democratic/left-centrists divided between the Independent and the Democratic candidates, the GOP candidate would coast to victory with much less than a majority of the popular vote. It is true that some center-leaning republicans would also vote for the INdependent, but not to the same degree as on the Democratic side. This would be bad, although it may eventually re-energize the Democratic Party, or bring up a situation such as this:

That the Independent and Democratic camps form a split-ticket, or a coalition to run against the Republicans. In fact, imo, I believe the first step to the legitimate success of a INdependent Presidential Campaign, is to have an Independent as VP on a Democratic Ticket, although I am not sure the Democrats would like that...

So how would you solve this mess? Campaign reform? Electoral reform? This would all have to be legislated and voted upon by the very two parties who have something to lose (or maybe gain) by the system being changed...what say you?

*EDIT* Upon further reflection, there is also the WOT/threat of terrorism to consider...the US public may be less-inclined to go for a change to the system under this situation, as fear is a powerful motivator, and one that the established parties would certainly hit upon if seriously challenged by the Independents.

It is my opinion that the best way to implement a genuine mulit-party system or Independent President, is from the bottom, not the top. I would suggest that independent parties must first concentrate on State-level Office (Governerhip, State Senate), then US Senate and House. Assuming they do a good job, and find themselves in a position of power by numerical strength, they might be able to get much accomplished, change the rules of the game in Congress, and possibly get Election Reform Legislation passed.

Even if they fall somewhat short of this, they will be seen as a legitimate force by the US voting public,as they will have experience and recognition as Legislators and come Presidential Elections, the Independent Candidate(s) will actually be seen as a legitimate possibility by many voters.

This will take some time, as it is an incremental approach. While I can understand people's impatience with our current system, I belive this has the best bet to ultimately suceed. I admit, although I am Liberal in my ideology, I am conservative in my methodology...so take as you will.

[skunk]

Skunk, I will cross that bridge when I come to it...
Well, take care, because we'll all be crossing it with you...

I also have a concern about an Election with a third-party candidate.
I didn't think you HAD a third party.

So how would you solve this mess? Campaign reform? Electoral reform? This would all have to be legislated and voted upon by the very two parties who have something to lose (or maybe gain) by the system being changed...what say you?
Find a candidate from an existing party who has a bit of vision, for a change. Or be REALLY patient, build a third party. There is no other way. There are times when a party needs to implode and reinvent itself to regain the confidence of the electorate. (Y)our choices are pretty grim right now, and I'd almost rather see Bush hoist by the petards he has primed, so that his policies become totally discredited even with his own electors, than watch Kerry waste a term trying to limit the damage.

[Neserk]

Just think: you could be saying this all over again after four years of Kerry...


Entirely possible. *sigh*