|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2004 : 02:56:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's something that might be of interest:
C'mon Ralph, You've Got Nothing to Lose
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
If I were Ralph Nader, (and given the number of people screaming at me about stabbing Kerry in the back I sometimes think I am) I'd get on the plane to Palestine, and Baghdad and spend less time on ballot access fights with lawyers working for the Democrats.
There's about six weeks left to run in this campaign, and Nader, the outsider candidate, needs to finish off with a bang, not a whimper. The Democrats have got him stuck in the trenches, running from one courtroom to another. It's the only campaign they know how to fight. They can't sell Kerry. Their hearts aren't really in it anyway, but when it comes to stopping people from being able to vote for Nader, they're firing on all cylinders.
http://search.searchenhancement.com/nph-enhanced.cgi?affid=sesm&sstring=C'mon+Ralph,+You've+Got+Nothing+to+Lose
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2004 : 05:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Nader reminds me of a used car salesman. Y'know...the kind that when you tell him clearly: "I'm only looking for a Toyota or a Honda", he tries to sell you a Buick because he doesn't have Toyotas or Hondas. He'll also tell you how crappy Toyotas or Hondas are and how great Buicks are. I guess I'm the only one that sees a credibility gap here...most everyone else seems to see Nader as this pure guy on a white horse who will rescue us from the horrors of the two-party system.
I still want a Toyota.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2004 : 12:28:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
But I also realise that many of you who share the "anybody but Bush" philosophy haven't really heard the other side.
Logically speaking the other side of "anybody but Bush" is "Bush". I don't get it... Bush is a f***ing disaster, every vote not laid for Kerry is a vote to keep Bush in office. This include of course everyone that don't give a shit about voting. They are the traitors of your nation.
As long as Kerry has a good marginal for victory, I don't mind people voting for other candidates. It's a necessity for the survival of your (currently dying) democracy. Bush needs to be removed from office, by any means possible. The damage to your country is great, and Paladin, I'm telling you truly: People in other nations than yours thinks that Bush is the recipe for total disaster, quite possibly world-wide. Bush has your nation jumping out of an air plane, and you can't open the parachute before he's out of office. Question is: are you going to let Nader withhold enough votes from Kerry thus keeping Bush where he is? It won't take 4 years before you hit the ground...
quote:
I only hope that I've offered a reasonable explanation of why we Nader supporters are so firmly committed to his candidacy and platform. I hope I've demonstrated that we're not wild-eyed zealots on a mission to destroy democracy or, as some of you have rather shamelessly suggested, Bush operatives.
It sure looks that way.
quote:
We love our country just as much as you, and we won't give up fighting for it just because others insist their way is better.
I sympathise with you struggle, and hope that one day intelligence and sanity can rule your country. It's just that I think you are doing it the wrong way. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2004 : 08:02:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
While I believe this topic is vitally important and worthy of discussion, I believe the current debate here in the Skeptic Forums has reached that inevitable point where every possible argument of significance has already been introduced and examined. I admit I've only scanned the most recent replies, but I'm beginning to see more repetition of points that have already been made. And any replies I may offer in rebuttal would likewise start to sound familiar.
Thus, I'm going to bow out of this discussion and get back to work. Hopefully, I'll have the sense to stay away until after the election, for I know that, if somebody lays down yet another gauntlet, I won't be able to resist picking it up. And I'd lose yet another week of valuable time.
I realize that most - perhaps all - who've read my comments here already have their minds firmly made up. In their minds, Ralph Nader is either an egomaniac, a megalomaniac, a spoiler, a narcisist, a cynic, a 'suicide-bomber', a vendettist, a hypocrite, a traitor, an authoritarian, a madman, or a Republican stooge. And those are just the ones I've seen and heard.
But I also realize that many of you who share the "anybody but Bush" philosophy haven't really heard the other side. I only hope that I've offered a reasonable explanation of why we Nader supporters are so firmly committed to his candidacy and platform. I hope I've demonstrated that we're not wild-eyed zealots on a mission to destroy democracy or, as some of you have rather shamelessly suggested, Bush operatives. We love our country just as much as you, and we won't give up fighting for it just because others insist their way is better.
I certainly accept that you have more pressing matters and that internet discussions is of lesser importance, but if you bow out you have to accept that I'll have the last word. 
I can't say that I have noticed any real effort from you to address the points that me and others have raised against Naders candidacy. On the contrary I feel that you have avoided most of our points, turning to red herrings "like Nader is a good candidate", "Kerry is a bad candidate" and "the Democratic party is anti-democratic". All these things might be true and worthy of discussion, but it is here beside the point.
You did make half an effort to claim that the long term consequences of a Kerry victory would be bad, but you failed to explain why a Bush victory would be better (or equal) or address any of our counter arguments.
Even though this might not be the case this time, I have found that this behavior usually mean that a person knows that he is wrong, but don't want to admit that.
Here are my arguments on why Nader shouldn't participate in the election and why a Nader supporter should vote for Kerry. - Nader will not win this election. Bush and Kerry are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning
- If you don't vote for one of these two candidates, you waste your chance of influencing the presidential election.
- With only these two candidates to choose from, a person agreeing with Nader on the issues, should find that Bush as a worse candidate than Kerry.
- If Nader is on a ballot some people who would otherwise have voted for Kerry, will vote for Nader.
- If even a small number of people vote for Nader instead of Kerry, this might result in Kerry geting fewer votes than Bush in that state, which might result in Bush winning the presidency which would otherwise be won by Kerry.
- Ralph Nader should be aware of this.
- You should take responsibility for the result of your actions or lack of actions.
- The responsibility to elect government is lies on the voters.
- The responsibility of the results of the Nader candidacy belongs to Ralph Nader.
- The responsibility of the results of your vote belongs to you.
- The risk of Bush being president for another four years far outweights any possitive effect a Nader vote might have. (As Nader will not win the election.)
Please feel free (anyone) to contest any of these points, with arguments.
My mind is not firmley made up but I have yet to hear any real argument from you except for the red herrings metioned above .
I cant' wish you luck with the presidental election in Michigan, as I fear your effort might have terrible consequences, but I hope that you eventually will find a way to be able to make your part of the world a better place.
I hope to see you on SFN again after the election, on this subject or another.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2004 : 08:11:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin
While I believe this topic is vitally important and worthy of discussion, I believe the current debate here in the Skeptic Forums has reached that inevitable point where every possible argument of significance has already been introduced and examined. I admit I've only scanned the most recent replies, but I'm beginning to see more repetition of points that have already been made. And any replies I may offer in rebuttal would likewise start to sound familiar.
Thus, I'm going to bow out of this discussion and get back to work. Hopefully, I'll have the sense to stay away until after the election, for I know that, if somebody lays down yet another gauntlet, I won't be able to resist picking it up. And I'd lose yet another week of valuable time.
I realize that most - perhaps all - who've read my comments here already have their minds firmly made up. In their minds, Ralph Nader is either an egomaniac, a megalomaniac, a spoiler, a narcisist, a cynic, a 'suicide-bomber', a vendettist, a hypocrite, a traitor, an authoritarian, a madman, or a Republican stooge. And those are just the ones I've seen and heard.
But I also realize that many of you who share the "anybody but Bush" philosophy haven't really heard the other side. I only hope that I've offered a reasonable explanation of why we Nader supporters are so firmly committed to his candidacy and platform. I hope I've demonstrated that we're not wild-eyed zealots on a mission to destroy democracy or, as some of you have rather shamelessly suggested, Bush operatives. We love our country just as much as you, and we won't give up fighting for it just because others insist their way is better.
I certainly accept that you have more pressing matters and that internet discussions is of lesser importance, but if you bow out you have to accept that I'll have the last word.
I can't say that I have noticed any real effort from you to address the points that me and others have raised against Naders candidacy. On the contrary I feel that you have avoided most of our points, turning to red herrings "like Nader is a good candidate", "Kerry is a bad candidate" and "the Democratic party is anti-democratic". All these things might be true and worthy of discussion, but it is here beside the point.
You did make half an effort to claim that the long term consequences of a Kerry victory would be bad, but you failed to explain why a Bush victory would be better (or equal) or address any of our counter arguments.
Even though this might not be the case this time, I have found that this behavior usually mean that a person knows that he is wrong, but don't want to admit that.
Here are my arguments on why Nader shouldn't participate in the election and why a Nader supporter should vote for Kerry. - Nader will not win this election. Bush and Kerry are the only ones with a realistic chance of winning
- If you don't vote for one of these two candidates, you waste your chance of influencing the presidential election.
- With only these two candidates to choose from, a person agreeing with Nader on the issues, should find that Bush as a worse candidate than Kerry.
- If Nader is on a ballot some people who would otherwise have voted for Kerry, will vote for Nader.
- If even a small number of people vote for Nader instead of Kerry, this might result in Kerry geting fewer votes than Bush in that state, which might result in Bush winning the presidency which would otherwise be won by Kerry.
- Ralph Nader should be aware of this.
- You should take responsibility for the result of your actions or lack of actions.
- The responsibility to elect government is lies on the voters.
- The responsibility of the results of the Nader candidacy belongs to Ralph Nader.
- The responsibility of the results of your vote belongs to you.
- The risk of Bush being president for another four years far outweights any possitive effect a Nader vote might have. (As Nader will not win the election.)
Please feel free (anyone) to contest any of these points, with arguments.
My mind is not firmley made up but I have yet to hear any real argument from you except for the red herrings metioned above .
I cant' wish you luck with the presidental election in Michigan, as I fear your effort might have terrible consequences, but I hope that you eventually will find a way to be able to make your part of the world a better place.
I hope to see you on SFN again after the election, on this subject or any other.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2004 : 10:56:47 [Permalink]
|
| Just a note, "If you don't vote for one of these two candidates, you waste your chance of influencing the presidential election." I would change to "You waste your chance of your influence to be meaningful." I think Nader voters believe voting for an alternative candidate has influence on future elections at least. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
