"Told ya so" on the economy, says Nader, Barr & Ron Paul

[DroppinScience]

In the spirit of letting the third parties have their say...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/21-5

Published on Sunday, September 21, 2008 by Poiltico
Nader, Barr & Paul: 'Told You So'

by Ben Adler

While the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama have stepped gingerly around the financial crisis and the question of government intervention, third party candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader have shown no such compunction.

Instead they have embraced the market meltdown, viewing it as a rare opportunity to highlight bold economic positions and, perhaps as important, claim credit for sounding the early warning alarms.

"We've been hammering it," said Shane Cory, Bob Barr's deputy campaign manager. "When this first came about with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bob was explaining, 'when we bail out Fannie and Freddie, expect more to come.'"

Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia who is running as a Libertarian, now sends out press releases lambasting the administration for indulging in corporate welfare, festooned with headlines such as "I told you so."

"This administration, supposedly devoted to free markets and fiscal responsibility, has bailed out the housing industry, the quasi-government mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the investment house Bear Stearns, and a leading insurer," read a Sept. 17 statement. "And how will we pay for this ever-rising bill for corporate welfare?"

Barr boasts that he was a few weeks ahead of the curve, pointing to an August 15 press release warning that the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bear Stearns would lead to more irresponsible behavior and more bailouts in the future.

"The mere possibility of a bailout will discourage companies and markets from adjusting in the future," said the release.

The Nader campaign claims the independent candidate's prescience in predicting the current meltdown dates back more than a decade.

"Ralph has almost prophetically predicted over the last 15 years of deregulation what the effects might be," said Toby Heaps, a Nader spokesperson. "When Clinton removed the need for banks to pay annually into the FDIC [Nader] predicted the FDIC might be short on cash and taxpayers would need to bail it out."

Nader, a longtime consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 and 2004, also predicted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed for a crisis in his 2000 campaign.

He has seized the opportunity this week to take credit for being ahead of the curve and also to contrast his proposals with McCain and Obama. Nader has issued a detailed 10-point plan with short and long-term proposals ranging from imposing additional conditions on bailout recipients to making the Federal Reserve a Cabinet position that is accountable to Congress.

In an interview with Politico last week, Nader emphasized many of the same issues, calling the Federal Reserve "a government within government" that is unaccountable to the public or to democratic institutions. He also said that the current round of bailouts were worse than the Chrysler Corp. rescue of 1979 because it does not impose sufficient conditions on the companies or benefits to the government.

"[Nader]'s not unequivocally opposed to bailouts but he's opposed to those without reciprocity," explained Heaps. "For Chrysler, the government received stock warrants, so when the company recovered government made a $400 million profit. What happens today is people bow to what big business asks for without conditions whatsoever. He's opposed to unconditional bailouts like this one."

Like Nader, Barr also diverges from the cautious positions expressed by McCain and Obama. There is no hedging whatsoever: He opposes any bailout or additional regulation.

"Barr supports letting the free market run its course," said Cory.

Cory says that the campaign is seeing increased attention in Barr as a result.

"We're getting more people signing up for the email list, donations are up, our press releases are being carried more widely," said Cory. And although major media appearances remain somewhat elusive, there has been a notable uptick.

The Nader campaign reports it hasn't been as fortunate.

"I have never in my life seen someone so in the sweet spot of a story and get so little coverage," complained Heaps. "We've had some articles in small papers but nothing in the major media except a hit on FOX."

The Nader experience stands in stark contrast to the surge in media interest in longshot former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul, who ran in the GOP primary on a platform that strongly opposed deficit spending, called for abolishing the Federal Reserve, and issued dire predictions about the future of the U.S. economy.

Though he is no longer running for president, the crisis has sparked an unaccustomed media boomlet for Paul, who has made recent television appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and Fox Business.
Paul, like Nader, claims that recent events prove the correctness of his economic philosophy. "He thinks this is a long term crises that has been unwinding since 1971," said Jesse Benton, a Paul spokesperson.

Paul shares Barr and Nader's view that the government's response has been inappropriate.

"[The bailouts] prop up a bad system," said Paul on MSNBC Thursday afternoon. "All they've tried to do is patch up a system that is unworkable."

[yeahwho]

This is sort of a "no-brainer" to say "Told Ya So".

I mean c'mon really, haven't the majority of us on here been saying the same thing? Triple debt economy can only sustain itself so much. The correlation between check-cashing and payday loan franchises vs. banking institutions pretty much painted the picture for anyone with an IQ above 100.

What is interesting is the acceptance Obama and McCain have with the US in economic servitude.

What have these third party candidates done as far as regulation and CFR's regarding the current runaway train? The exact same as you and me.

We're fighting a beast beyond our current control.

[kaiser soze]

Nice for them to tell us now, where were they when solutions could've helped

sad to say but third parties are quite irrelevant in the eyes of the powerful

[saz]

nader was talking about this eight years ago, but as usual he's ignored by the corporate media and the democratic party, who are more than welcome to steal his ideas and platform policies.

[afronaut]

The idea that third party candidates not being viable is a self fulfilling prophecy. Your main democratic duty is not to vote, but to inform yourself. We live in a society where the news networks do that job for us, and they inform us on only two candidates, and on only one way of thinking: that going against the status quo is futile.

It's as simple as voting for the candidate who truly represents what you believe in. Third parties are only inviable for as long as you consider them to be so. And if you do, then you're part of the problem.

And it's not about viability anyway. It's not about winning the presidency at this point. Candidates kiss the feet of minority demographics all the time. Jews, blue collar voters, evangelicals. What about the third party demographic? If a large enough chunk of voters are not voting for one of the two candidates, they will be forced to address the issues that truly matter in order to court our vote.

[yeahwho]

I agree only to a lukewarm degree to the validity of any of the third party candidates viewpoints. The main problem is leadership. Have they been significant enough to mobilize any sort of legislative change? NO! Speaking of no, Ron Paul's nickname is Dr. No. Admirable to some perhaps, but in theory it instills an inability to reason or compromise with all of the electorate

Ralph Nader has never even been elected to any political office. Every time I bring this up I'm lambasted for mentioning that one detail about him.

Barr, here is Barr's monetary policy verbatim; He would increase transparency and oversight in the operations of the Federal Reserve, while "reconsidering the Fed’s almost total control over the money supply."

Isn't that special.

These candidates are only pointing out the obvious without any momentum or backing to actually do shit. If all of these financial woes caught you by surprise and now all of a sudden it's news to you, well your probably too far gone to understand why we need to compromise and get the republicans out of office NOW!

Let me repeat this mantra I've been repeating since 2004 on this board,

''this administration and the Republican Congress have presided over the biggest, most reckless deterioration of America's finances in history.''

Please vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

[saz]

yes, you're lambasted because you completely ignore or disregard nader's legislative accomplishments, overall impact on the nation and american lives, and his record over the last three decades or so. you also have claimed numerous times that you're a "kucinich democrat", yet you now state that you "agree only to a lukewarm degree to the validity of any of the third party candidates viewpoints", which includes nader. nader and kucinich stand for the exact same policies, principles, and overall progressive mandate. sorry, i can't buy the "kucinich democrat" claim anymore.

[yeahwho]

yes, you're lambasted because you completely ignore or disregard nader's legislative accomplishments, overall impact on the nation and american lives, and his record over the last three decades or so. you also have claimed numerous times that you're a "kucinich democrat", yet you now state that you "agree only to a lukewarm degree to the validity of any of the third party candidates viewpoints", which includes nader. nader and kucinich stand for the exact same policies, principles, and overall progressive mandate. sorry, i can't buy the "kucinich democrat" claim anymore.

I'm trying to figure out if your describing me or just keyboarding on about something.

Now do not take this as "I'm angry or being aggressive, I supported Kucinich and I actually do like his politics, he is a true democrat. I'm not going into detail about why I like him more than Nader, but because this is actually "Me", yeawho talking, let me set the record straight.

I'm in this to win, on December 18th, 2008 (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=84687) I changed my candidate from Kucinich to Barack Obama. It is documented here on line on this BBMB site.

I have reasons for supporting Obama. I want something different, Nader nor Kucinich are going to deliver. It's math.

[saz]

"keyboarding about something"? wooo yeah, nice unnecessary low blow.

anyways, yes. we all know that you are supporting obama. you've stated this on here a zillion times. we get it. and obama should win. it looks like he is going to win. in fact, if he keeps up a 9-10 poll advantage on mccain, it looks like obama could be well on his way to a landslide, which you'd expect after eight years of bush should transpire. so, i really see no need why you either feel threatened, or have always take a proverbial dump on nader whenever a third party candidacy thread arises. sure, you can comment on whatever you want on a forum, but to me it doesn't make any sense to crap on nader who is the political equivalent and ally of kucinich, someone you profess to support or believe in.

[yeahwho]

i really see no need why you either feel threatened, or have always take a proverbial dump on nader whenever a third party candidacy thread arises. sure, you can comment on whatever you want on a forum, but to me it doesn't make any sense to crap on nader who is the political equivalent and ally of kucinich, someone you profess to support or believe in.

I'm not dumping only on Nader here, I'm dumping on anyone who talks to the American public as if we (meaning the overwhelming majority of folks I know and those who post on this board) could not figure out a huge economic collapse was inevitable.

You know I actually respect and like Nader, I've actually said this at least a half a dozen times on here, I've also explained the gist of my own political compromise on here.

Whatever.

I'm just kind of surprised how you and I can agree on basically 99% of what is happening in American politics yet with this "Nader shit" you get all up in my ass.

Which tells me only one thing, your kind of a bitch. Because literally you've misread me and have tried to discount me when I write exactly what my point of view is.

but to me it doesn't make any sense to crap on nader who is the political equivalent and ally of kucinich, someone you profess to support or believe in.


I have never lied about Nader or Kucinich, the reality of Nader and Kucinich is they're both not going to win, they're both going to be minimized (already have been) and I can't help them, I'm not a PR person or campaign specialist. It takes a machine, it takes a lot of cash and it takes brilliance to actually get out of the political swamplands they're inhabiting right now.

I'm not wavering, I actually thought I was compromising at first, but now after hearing crap like "I told you so" maybe, just maybe I have picked the person closest to my ideals from the get go.

[saz]

but nader isn't speaking down to nor patronizing the american public on the huge economic collapse. he's telling this to the media. he's reminding the powers that be that he predicted years back, that if they continued down this path of reckless deregulation, that an economic meltdown would be a reality.

excuse me? oh, i'm a "bitch"? now isn't that charming. name-calling. what is this, highschool?

how am i misreading you when you patronize nader and try to ridicule him by saying that he hasn't been elected to office? or attempting to take other swipes, such as with obama's anti-poverty initiative, which actually dealt with international aid and poverty, and then attempted to compare that to nader's record. if you actually "respected" him as you claim, you wouldn't be taking little lame shots at him.

so what if nader isn't going to win. he knows that, and so do his supporters. what he wants, what his supporters want, is for the debates to be opened up, and for the domination of american politics by the two corporate parties to be smashed. there has to be room for more parties, or otherwise you may end up with a fascist state, with the corporations calling all the shots (some would even argue that is already a reality). i like many others vote for who and what we believe in, not just for an apparent "winner".

incidently, it was the barr camp that said "told you so", and not nader. plus, barr's "told you so" was directed at the bush administration, and not at the general public. and well, if obama is close to your ideals, and you're no longer compromising, i suppose then that immunity for telecoms is okay with you, opposing single-payer health-care is okay with you, confirming condoleezza rice as secretary of state is okay with you, and of course the latest, that the bailout bill should not include bankruptcy reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/obama-says-bailout-bill-s_n_129482.html).

[yeahwho]

but nader isn't speaking down to nor patronizing the american public on the huge economic collapse. he's telling this to the media. he's reminding the powers that be that he predicted years back, that if they continued down this path of reckless deregulation, that an economic meltdown would be a reality.

excuse me? oh, i'm a "bitch"? now isn't that charming. name-calling. what is this, highschool?

how am i misreading you when you patronize nader and try to ridicule him by saying that he hasn't been elected to office? or attempting to take other swipes, such as with obama's anti-poverty initiative, which actually dealt with international aid and poverty, and then attempted to compare that to nader's record. if you actually "respected" him as you claim, you wouldn't be taking little lame shots at him.

so what if nader isn't going to win. he knows that, and so do his supporters. what he wants, what his supporters want, is for the debates to be opened up, and for the domination of american politics by the two corporate parties to be smashed. there has to be room for more parties, or otherwise you may end up with a fascist state, with the corporations calling all the shots (some would even argue that is already a reality). i like many others vote for who and what we believe in, not just for an apparent "winner".

incidently, it was the barr camp that said "told you so", and not nader. plus, barr's "told you so" was directed at the bush administration, and not at the general public. and well, if obama is close to your ideals, and you're no longer compromising, i suppose then that immunity for telecoms is okay with you, opposing single-payer health-care is okay with you, confirming condoleezza rice as secretary of state is okay with you, and of course the latest, that the bailout bill should not include bankruptcy reform (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/obama-says-bailout-bill-s_n_129482.html).

-Never said Nader was talking down to anybody, Nader isn't ahead of the curve at all informing me or millions of others about this crisis. He is not my economist of choice. I remember sam i am telling me 3 years ago on this very board that I was all fucked up because I said the foreclosure rates in the housing market are climbing at an alarming rate. He informed me under President Bush the housing market is as strong as it has ever been in the History of the USA. I wasn't reading consumer reports or listening to Nader for my information. I can think pretty clearly without political input on the economy.

- Keep belittling me bitch. I'll keep calling you bitch. You do not know me, I'm not even sure if your an US citizen, yet you've decided for me and everyone else on this board I'm compromising by picking my candidate. I've explained to you at least three times explicitly when, why and how come I'm voting for Barack Obama. I don't feel as if you have to respect me for that choice, but respect me for being honest, I'm not a liar nor am I giving a shit who you vote for. I don't care who you vote for, it is your choice and your freedom. Defend Nader all you want. Go through all of the Nader threads and show me where I said I do not like Nader.

- "Told ya so" is the name of the thread, you posted Nader was talking about this eight years ago. I'm not out of context posting here on this thread.

- Finally, let this sink in before you reply again and tell me about me. You are not me, you have not been in my house, my schools, my job or my physical company. You actually know very little about me. Yet from the way your going on you seem to think I'm some sort of joke.

I'm not laughing.

[saz]

well talking down or being patronizing is certainly what you implied, when you stated: "I'm dumping on anyone who talks to the American public as if we (meaning the overwhelming majority of folks I know and those who post on this board) could not figure out a huge economic collapse was inevitable.". all nader did was provide warnings about deregulation well back in the 90s, while practically no one else did. to me, that certainly is ahead of the curve.

that's fine then. if you want to act like a juvenile teenager, go right ahead and suit yourself with the petty insult hurling. no, i do not know you. and no, i am not an american citizen. and no, i have not "decided for" yourself, nor "everyone else on this board" that you're "compromising by picking" your "candidate". you just stated this in your previous reply: "I actually thought I was compromising at first, but now after hearing crap like "I told you so" maybe, just maybe I have picked the person closest to my ideals from the get go.". i didn't make the decision for you to post that, or your previous posts where you've stated that you're compromising.

yes, we all know why you're voting for barack obama. you've reminded us plenty of times. that is your right and your choice. i do respect that. i know you're being honest. if you want to compromise or whatever, that is your right. and no, i don't think you're a "joke".

again, this is the point: obama is very likely going to defeat mccain and you've stated you "respect" nader, right? so, why all the lame shots and contempt for nader then? it doesn't make sense. to me, if you truly respected the guy, while knowing that obama is going to win, there'd be no need to take little shots at him and showing contempt.

[yeahwho]

well talking down or being patronizing is certainly what you implied, when you stated: "I'm dumping on anyone who talks to the American public as if we (meaning the overwhelming majority of folks I know and those who post on this board) could not figure out a huge economic collapse was inevitable.". all nader did was provide warnings about deregulation well back in the 90s, while practically no one else did. to me, that certainly is ahead of the curve.

that's fine then. if you want to act like a juvenile teenager, go right ahead and suit yourself with the petty insult hurling. no, i do not know you. and no, i am not an american citizen. and no, i have not "decided for" yourself, nor "everyone else on this board" that you're "compromising by picking" your "candidate". you just stated this in your previous reply: "I actually thought I was compromising at first, but now after hearing crap like "I told you so" maybe, just maybe I have picked the person closest to my ideals from the get go.". i didn't make the decision for you to post that, or your previous posts where you've stated that you're compromising.

yes, we all know why you're voting for barack obama. you've reminded us plenty of times. that is your right and your choice. i do respect that. i know you're being honest. if you want to compromise or whatever, that is your right. and no, i don't think you're a "joke".

again, this is the point: obama is very likely going to defeat mccain and you've stated you "respect" nader, right? so, why all the lame shots and contempt for nader then? it doesn't make sense. to me, if you truly respected the guy, while knowing that obama is going to win, there'd be no need to take little shots at him and showing contempt.

I am perfectly clear in who I support. I haven't a clue on who your voting for. I have much more respect for RobMoney$ than I do for you. He is clear in his political stance and takes shots from a solid point of view.

You've never once stated who your voting for, so it's pretty simple to criticize behind a veil of not actually stating your own political reasoning.

Snipe away, but remember I have a stance that is documented an unwavering. I'm not shooting any shots across your bow.

When the fuck are you going to compile all of the times I stated I did not respect Ralph Nader? I have no contempt for Ralph Nader, he is mathematically a loser here in the US. He is not supporting anyone but himself. He is actually minimizing his message. That is not contempt, it's facts.

I have a right to criticize Nader's political run, I also defend myself when somebody I do not know tells me what my political beliefs are without any prior investigation or worse, just ignoring the actual posts I've made the past several years right here a few thousand times.

Bitch.

I will call you that until you stop telling me what my beliefs are. You do not know me and you are a troll, of that I am sure.

[yeahwho]

So this thread is dominated by folks who live in foreign countries, explaining to me how my political stance should be less critical?

I am a US citizen and I am registered to vote here in Washington State, USA.

LOL! What a complete waste of energy and time. Shit I was close to contacting the moderator's on this bullshit.

You really have no clue who I am. How are things in bumfuck egypt? Hey you should vote for Borat. Silly foreigners.

Get over your US envy. LOL!

[DroppinScience]

Okay, have you gone off the deep end, yeahwho?

That was over the top and uncalled for. You can feel the way you feel towards Obama and Nader just fine, but that does not mean you compare sazi to RobMoney, call him a troll, or call him a "bitch." Seriously, like-minded people can have a serious debate without resorting to this.

[saz]

well, my ardent support of nader, mckinney etc does demonstrate that i'm an independent voter or thinker. and right, issues such as reverend wright and apparent speech plagarism are from a solid point of view. i'm not american, but i am rooting for nader, mckinney and even hoping that more conservatives will turn to bob barr. that's not exactly a state secret.

that line of argument doesn't really make any sense, because just who are barack obama or john mccain supporting? oh yeah, themselves. but once more you're missing the point regarding the third party candidacies of nader, barr, and mckinney. they are well aware that come january 2009 they won't be walking into the white house. what they are trying to do is change the system, so americans will have more voices and choices, instead of the same old two corporate party malaise.

i'm not attempting to tell you what your beliefs are. what i have been doing is pointing out this claim that you're somehow a "kucinich democrat", yet completely marginalize nader and his character. a "kucinich democrat" would normally be supportive and sympathetic to nader's cause, and not feel threatened by him in the least bit, to the point where they wouldn't marginalize him and attack his character. granted, that is your right of course, but from my perspective it doesn't really add up, especially when you consider that nader and kucinich are ideological twins.

if this is a complete waste of your time and energy, then let it go. i won't think differently or less of you. and what would be the point in contacting one of the mods? i'm not flaming or harrassing you, but rather just trying to ask you a question or two.

i don't know how things are in egypt, but i certainly wouldn't begin to denegrate nor ridicule it either, but i do know that it has an incredibly rich and incredible history, a vibrant culture and apparently is a great tourist destination.

[yeahwho]

Okay, have you gone off the deep end, yeahwho?

That was over the top and uncalled for. You can feel the way you feel towards Obama and Nader just fine, but that does not mean you compare sazi to RobMoney, call him a troll, or call him a "bitch." Seriously, like-minded people can have a serious debate without resorting to this.

I gather intellectually you think I'm resorting to something, hmmm, let's say un-serious. You copy and paste some dorky article, come back a few days later and contribute "0", nada, zip, nothing. Nice. But you'll referee the others without a single opine of your own. Just a tourist. Really, think about it, your not contributing ass to this. RobMoney$ has a political stance and something to win or lose, he's got game. He's unafraid to opine and he really can hang without a lot of copy and paste. I respect him for that. Plus his posts are essentially an insight into an arena that should be taken seriously. I may disagree with him but I am not going to belittle his choice. I will defend my candidate without disparaging Robs character.

well, my ardent support of nader, mckinney etc does demonstrate that i'm an independent voter or thinker. and right, issues such as reverend wright and apparent speech plagarism are from a solid point of view. i'm not american, but i am rooting for nader, mckinney and even hoping that more conservatives will turn to bob barr. that's not exactly a state secret.

that line of argument doesn't really make any sense, because just who are barack obama or john mccain supporting? oh yeah, themselves. but once more you're missing the point regarding the third party candidacies of nader, barr, and mckinney. they are well aware that come january 2009 they won't be walking into the white house. what they are trying to do is change the system, so americans will have more voices and choices, instead of the same old two corporate party malaise.

i'm not attempting to tell you what your beliefs are. what i have been doing is pointing out this claim that you're somehow a "kucinich democrat", yet completely marginalize nader and his character. a "kucinich democrat" would normally be supportive and sympathetic to nader's cause, and not feel threatened by him in the least bit, to the point where they wouldn't marginalize him and attack his character. granted, that is your right of course, but from my perspective it doesn't really add up, especially when you consider that nader and kucinich are ideological twins.

if this is a complete waste of your time and energy, then let it go. i won't think differently or less of you. and what would be the point in contacting one of the mods? i'm not flaming or harrassing you, but rather just trying to ask you a question or two.

i don't know how things are in egypt, but i certainly wouldn't begin to denegrate nor ridicule it either, but i do know that it has an incredibly rich and incredible history, a vibrant culture and apparently is a great tourist destination.

Hey I'm still waiting for you to compile all of this Nader hate I've dispensed here, it'll be hard to do because it isn't going to happen. Also if you google up "Nader's legislative accomplishments (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Nader%27s+legislative+accomplishments&spell=1)" your post here in this particular thread is #5 on the hit list!!! Your one of his biggest legislative fans! I'll never be able to equal that love.

I watched Ralph Nader on Bill Maher Friday, he was as usual right on target and correct in his observations and views. It's interesting how much you discount me. And also decide what I think. Doesn't it sort of make you feel creepy?

[DroppinScience]

I gather intellectually you think I'm resorting to something, hmmm, let's say un-serious. You copy and paste some dorky article, come back a few days later and contribute "0", nada, zip, nothing. Nice. But you'll referee the others without a single opine of your own. Just a tourist. Really, think about it, your not contributing ass to this. RobMoney$ has a political stance and something to win or lose, he's got game. He's unafraid to opine and he really can hang without a lot of copy and paste. I respect him for that. Plus his posts are essentially an insight into an arena that should be taken seriously. I may disagree with him but I am not going to belittle his choice. I will defend my candidate without disparaging Robs character.


Dude, I'm not your enemy so you can call off the dogs on this. I cut and paste "dorky" articles just to share information and viewpoints that are often neglected by the mainstream press. I figured that this is as friendly an avenue to share things with like-minded or open-minded people. Apparently I was mistaken because every now and again when I post the activities of Nader, it somehow offends you and you don't seem to want to understand or accept criticism of Obama from a progressive point of view (and hey, if I were in the U.S., I'd be casting a ballot for Obama too, but I'm still interested in hearing what Nader, Barr, and McKinney have to say).

And I don't opine? Where does this come from? I am very transparent when it comes to opinions and I'm never a fence sitter. Still not understanding the hostility, but whatever.

[yeahwho]

Dude, I'm not your enemy so you can call off the dogs on this. I cut and paste "dorky" articles just to share information and viewpoints that are often neglected by the mainstream press. I figured that this is as friendly an avenue to share things with like-minded or open-minded people. Apparently I was mistaken because every now and again when I post the activities of Nader, it somehow offends you and you don't seem to want to understand or accept criticism of Obama from a progressive point of view (and hey, if I were in the U.S., I'd be casting a ballot for Obama too, but I'm still interested in hearing what Nader, Barr, and McKinney have to say).

And I don't opine? Where does this come from? I am very transparent when it comes to opinions and I'm never a fence sitter. Still not understanding the hostility, but whatever.

I'm getting this distinct feeling that neither sazi or yourself enjoy having somebody on the internet re-interpret what your actually saying and then label you with whatever makes it convenient for their own mind to understand.

It's called branding, which is what is happening to me here. Since I support a certain candidate I must also support every policy this candidate supports.

Since you copy and paste, you must be a copy and paste dude. This isn't about civil debate, this is about my political viewpoint being twisted to fit somebody else's reasoning, then that person having an imaginary debate with somebody who isn't there.

I've started threads about Ralph Nader, I would never start a thread about that blowjob fearing douchebag Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Role_in_Clinton_impeachment) and I've been absolutely clear on my manlove for Kucinich.

Yet rather than acknowledge this, I'm being told I'm a liar. It's pretty fucking ridiculous.

If you know what I mean, perhaps you can copy and paste a response while sazi comes and tells me I do not like Kucinich or Nader. Or that I'm insulting them and their political beliefs.

I'm not going to be insulted. Especially with lies and innuendo.

[DroppinScience]

I'm getting this distinct feeling that neither sazi or yourself enjoy having somebody on the internet re-interpret what your actually saying and then label you with whatever makes it convenient for their own mind to understand.

It's called branding, which is what is happening to me here. Since I support a certain candidate I must also support every policy this candidate supports.

Since you copy and paste, you must be a copy and paste dude. This isn't about civil debate, this is about my political viewpoint being twisted to fit somebody else's reasoning, then that person having an imaginary debate with somebody who isn't there.

I've started threads about Ralph Nader, I would never start a thread about that blowjob fearing douchebag Barr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Role_in_Clinton_impeachment) and I've been absolutely clear on my manlove for Kucinich.

Yet rather than acknowledge this, I'm being told I'm a liar. It's pretty fucking ridiculous.

If you know what I mean, perhaps you can copy and paste a response while sazi comes and tells me I do not like Kucinich or Nader. Or that I'm insulting them and their political beliefs.

I'm not going to be insulted. Especially with lies and innuendo.

...aside from posting threads about Ralph Nader, what did I do to slight you, again? Where did I call you a liar? Where did I "brand" you? Do tell me where this is coming from.

I apologize in advance if you're actually directing those for sazi, but seriously can we have a debate without this turning into a grade school shouting nmatch?

[RobMoney$]

but that does not mean you compare sazi to RobMoney, call him a troll, or call him a "bitch." Seriously, like-minded people can have a serious debate without resorting to this.

Yeah, because it's only cool to put people down if they don't have the same opinions as you, right Lambert?

Do America a favor and just stay up there in your frozen Ivory Canadian campus and keep your opinions about American politics to yourself.

Seriously, why anyone would even bother to take you seriously is beyond me. You can't vote here because you're not a citizen, therefore your opinions are impotent and ineffectual, just like the rest of you.
I have no idea what Diana could possibly see in you.

[DroppinScience]

Yeah, because it's only cool to put people down if they don't have the same opinions as you, right Lambert?

Do America a favor and just stay up there in your frozen Ivory Canadian campus and keep your opinions about American politics to yourself.

Seriously, why anyone would even bother to take you seriously is beyond me. You can't vote here because you're not a citizen, therefore your opinions are impotent and ineffectual, just like the rest of you.
I have no idea what Diana could possibly see in you.

You were just itching for another opportunity to attack me again, weren't you? I thought you were willing to play nice if I was playing nice? I was wrong.

Why bring out the "you're Canadian, you don't count" bullshit xenophobic line? You better tell CNN (http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=87364) not to ask what people from other countries think of the U.S. election too since they are "impotent and ineffectual"? Seriously, why get personal and nasty? Are you this threatened over what I post? Why bring up once again that Diana and I are boyfriend/girlfriend? Is there some kind of sick jealousy or fixation going on? A bit creepy much?

To stoop to your level... I don't even know what Mae would see in a portly, overweight, loutish, racist slob like yourself.

[DroppinScience]

BTW, I'm not the first person to invoke your name in a negative light in this thread or elsewhere. Yeahwho basically said sazi was "worse" than RobMoney. Travesty essentially tells you that you continually post ignorant, uninformed things and tells you to have people read your words to you out loud to point out how stupid you are.

Yet you completely ignored them and chose to target me for simply saying your name? Now I know this is 100% personal. Get over it. You're going to have to get on with your life.

[RobMoney$]

Yeahwho basically said sazi was "worse" than RobMoney.

Yeahwho: RobMoney$ has a political stance and something to win or lose, he's got game. He's unafraid to opine and he really can hang without a lot of copy and paste. I respect him for that. Plus his posts are essentially an insight into an arena that should be taken seriously. I may disagree with him but I am not going to belittle his choice. I will defend my candidate without disparaging Robs character.

I dunno, it kind of sounded like a compliment to me?



Travesty essentially tells you that you continually post ignorant, uninformed things and tells you to have people read your words to you out loud to point out how stupid you are.

travesty is an unknown to me, but he's barely scratched the surface of offending me really. He's said like two offensive things to me, and he criticized things I've said that were open to be criticized. You take shots at me for no apparent reason and completely unprovoked. You're the one looking down that schnozla of yours at me and trying to paint me as some sort of ignorant idiot.
He can criticize and take my comments out of context all he wants. He hasn't made it personal, like you.

Yet you completely ignored them and chose to target me for simply saying your name? Now I know this is 100% personal. Get over it. You're going to have to get on with your life.

I told you to keep my name out of your mouth or I'd continue to flame you right back. THE BALL WAS IN YOUR COURT, REMEMBER?
You said "you go ahead and humor yourself (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1618514&postcount=36)." REMEMBER?
You could have said "OK, I'll ease off the personal attacks and try to stick to political debates Rob.", but no, you had to be an internet toughguy.

Really Lambert, stop being such a whiny bitch and be a man and live with the decisions you make for once in your pathetic life.

Or just keep my name out of your mouth and all your problems will be solved.
We used to have a saying when we were kids..."don't start none, won't be none."
Maybe you should learn what that means Lambert.

[RobMoney$]

To stoop to your level... I don't even know what Mae would see in a portly, overweight, loutish, racist slob like yourself.


She sees a self-sufficient, independent, mature, and caring man with a huge penis.

Too bad your woman can't say the same.

[yeahwho]

I apologize in advance if you're actually directing those for sazi, but seriously can we have a debate without this turning into a grade school shouting nmatch?


This isn't about civil debate, this is about my political viewpoint being twisted to fit somebody else's reasoning, then that person having an imaginary debate with somebody who isn't there.



Yeahwho: RobMoney$ has a political stance and something to win or lose, he's got game. He's unafraid to opine and he really can hang without a lot of copy and paste. I respect him for that. Plus his posts are essentially an insight into an arena that should be taken seriously. I may disagree with him but I am not going to belittle his choice. I will defend my candidate without disparaging Robs character.

I dunno, it kind of sounded like a compliment to me?

It is intended to be a compliment, your input has done a lot to help me understand the way millions of non-democrats think.


-I really respect Ralph Nader's opinions.
-Bob Barr is despicable
-Dennis Kucinich is supporting Barack Obama. On August 26, 2008, Kucinich gave a spirited speech in support of Obama and Joe Biden at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He received a standing ovation.

None of these candidates in this current political race are actually telling me anything I haven't already read about in the media, books and just observations throughout my meager wageslave existence.

Running on Empty, the Shock Doctrine and Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century" and his NYTimes columns. These books have pounded this day of reckoning would come, Greenspan was asked where he invested his money once, I think it was Charlie Rose, this is a few years back, he kept dodging the question. Finally he was nailed on it... foreign currency markets was his answer.

Think about that.

We are so fucked, this is an amazingly bad economical mess. Do the math on the past two weeks. What are we going to get from this as normal people? What is in it for the average American citizen? Scary, no frightening days.

[travesty]

Travesty essentially tells you that you continually post ignorant, uninformed things and tells you to have people read your words to you out loud to point out how stupid you are.
.

FOR THE RECORD.... I know that Rob's comment about alternatives during the election was waaaay out of context. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of the sentence standing on it's own, though I know exactly what he was trying to say.

I enjoy Rob on this board. I don't always agree with him, but he USUALLY makes his point quite well. The New Yorker in me means that I am always going to try and rip someone pretty hard just to see how they can handle it. I think Rob does a decent job of giving it back and I can respect that.

[QueenAdrock]

She sees a self-sufficient, independent, mature, and caring man with a huge penis.

Too bad your woman can't say the same.

Mature? Yeah, I'd love to be dating a 36-year-old who comes online and starts internet wars with pretty much everyone on the board at one time or another. That just screams maturity to me. Oh, and then trying to demean them for being younger than you, too. That's great. Maybe you should tell your kids that their opinions don't matter because they can't vote, or tell them that they don't have enough life experience to make informed decisions.

Brett's intelligent, driven, hard-working, kind, has a good sense of humor, and treats me like an absolute princess. And in absolute complete honesty, I sincerely doubt you can beat his dick size. I know it's a great insult for guys to say others are small, but man, when I read that, I literally laughed out loud. It's a nice thought I'm sure, but ain't the reality.

[travesty]

Oh the plight of mankind.

Politics, Religion, Ideology, Finances, Human Rights, Liberties, Entitlements.......in the end it all comes down to dick size.

Lame for me.

[DroppinScience]

Oh the plight of mankind.

Politics, Religion, Ideology, Finances, Human Rights, Liberties, Entitlements.......in the end it all comes down to dick size.

Lame for me.

Wars have been started over dick size. WMDs ARE pretty phallic, I guess.

[DroppinScience]

Or just keep my name out of your mouth and all your problems will be solved.
We used to have a saying when we were kids..."don't start none, won't be none."
Maybe you should learn what that means Lambert.

Ohhh, I get it. If I say your name out loud, it's the same thing as a personal attack? What a loose definition. No, you're just jumping on any excuse to be petty just because you don't like me. If you throw sand in my face, I'll throw it right back at you.

Eh, I refuse to be intimidated over an overweight, overgrown frat boy on the internet, of all places. If I see you act like an idiot (which happens a lot), I'll call a spade a spade. Like I need to be told what to do or what not to do.

[Knuckles]

Dear Rob and DS,

Both of you are important contributers to this section but t I must say this personal stuff is getting out of hand. Can you two just let it go and start acting civil on here? I doubt I'm the only one that would appreciate it.


Love, Kisses, and Whisker Burns,

Knuckles

[DroppinScience]

Dear Rob and DS,

Both of you are important contributers to this section but t I must say this personal stuff is getting out of hand. Can you two just let it go and start acting civil on here? I doubt I'm the only one that would appreciate it.


Love, Kisses, and Whisker Burns,

Knuckles

Awww... well, I can't really go against Knuckles now, can I?

Tell ya what, make some snazzy Photoshop of me and Rob in a deathmatch and we'll call a cease fire. :D

[yeahwho]

It's odd that this thread would digress to such a hate fest so fast. I take part responsibility and apologize to sazi, droppin' and all others who obviously were and probably are still offended by my self defense mechanisms. In general we can agree on music, transparency in government, international diplomacy issues and mainly the stop to unjust wars and policies of murder.

Communication is key, when I actually slowdown and reread my bullshit I realize that much of the name calling was out of frustration and my inability to not be more nuanced and comprehensive with my dumbass writing skillz.

So go ahead and pummel my ass, I'll take that as apology accepted and leave the thread altogether.

Stupid ass internet anyway.

[saz]

very classy of you to apologize after hurling insults, cheers (y)

but i must reply to your last response...


Hey I'm still waiting for you to compile all of this Nader hate I've dispensed here, it'll be hard to do because it isn't going to happen.







I think it is the very best any of us can do. This leaves all of us "NO" wiggle room now. So go ahead and be an idealist, I care that you may take away votes from the only rational choice. That is all I care about. If Nader et;al really gave a shit about our country he would come out and say he is going to keep his principles in tact, hold his ego and work within the confines of system. I would support his cause 100% then. Otherwise what I've seen happen before borders on complete disregard for life. I feel that strongly about it.



He has absolutely no experience dealing with foreign diplomacy other than "how to regulate".



You see, Mr. Nader hasn't even ventured to be a councilman for his own local community (whatever the fuck his community is? Talk about a private secretive bitch). Yet he calls all the other candidates opportunistic. I'm just getting started on how much of an arrogant ass he is.




If you scroll down and read all of my posts on that thread or throughout the years I've posted on this board you'll see politically I believe Nader is an ass.




His statements on poor people are just that, statements. A very rudimentary search on the internet will find multiple speaking points on the democratic stance on poverty, healthcare and struggling Americans.

I do not see how his poverty discussions are anymore onpoint than Obama's. In fact he knows well enough to not put that line of bullshit on his website (http://www.votenader.org/issues/).

This is more of a financial movement against the major networks, which would take a huge undertaking. He could do it if he wasn't so wrapped up in all issues.



Very bright intelligent people are not backing Ralph Nader.

[yeahwho]

very classy of you to apologize after hurling insults, cheers (y)

but i must reply to your last response...
You had me at "hurling"