What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?

[RCA]

I don't know much about Ralph Nader, but by just doing some basic reading about him he seems very similar to Paul in his long plight against corruption.

[Bradley in DC]

Please search around the forum. We've had long discussions in several threads on this topic already.

[justinc.1089]

Nader is an absolute idiot in my opinion. He wants to do some far out things, and I'm fairly sure he is for insane taxes too.

[Original_Intent]

I would prefer a Paul/Colbert ticket. Only half joking. :)

[francisco]

In the realms of economic liberties and free markets vs. state control, Nader is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul's core philosophy. I get indigestion whenever someone suggests an abject statist as a Paul running mate. (Kucinich is another example).

[fj45lvr]

Paul would never join that ticket....thats for sure.

[quickmike]

What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?

I don't know much about Ralph Nader, but by just doing some basic reading about him he seems very similar to Paul in his long plight against corruption.

Just about sums it up.:D

http://welcometotheinternets.com/images/25595-24315/vomit.jpg

[PMatt]

He can't have someone who is on the opposite end of the political spectrum as VP. Half of the vice president's job is to take over if the president dies or needs to take over for a period of time.

[quickmike]

Naders the nut that lobbied the government to force auto manufacturers to put seatbelts in all their cars.

Nothing wrong with seatbelts, but you shouldnt have to have them if you dont want them. He pretty much guaranteed all the states would pass seatbelt laws.

what a dick.

He wants to be everyones daddy.

[Richandler]

Nader is horrible person. He has backstabbed so many people who questioned the government.

[Perry]

Seatbelts are a great idea. Keeps the taxpayers from having to pay hundreds of million of dollars towards cleaning your blood & brains off the street each year.

Nader is a bad idea.

[DjLoTi]

nadar will never happen... this is politics, not omg how kewl would it b if vprez was nad@r!>!>!?!!??! lolzzz

[quickmike]

Seatbelts are a great idea. Keeps the taxpayers from having to pay hundreds of million of dollars towards cleaning your blood & brains off the street each year.

Nader is a bad idea.

Seatbelts are a great idea, if they are your responsibility instead of the governments. Tax payers shouldnt have to pay for me if I die not using one. Thats the whole point.

[Delaware]

The only thing i like about Nader, Gravel, or Kucinich is that they are honest politicians. I do not agree with their political philosophy.

[francisco]

Better yet, how about Amelia Moon Glampers?

[Akus]

What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?

No.

[Perry]

Seatbelts are a great idea, if they are your responsibility instead of the governments. Tax payers shouldnt have to pay for me if I die not using one. Thats the whole point.

Who is going to scrape your brains up off the pavement? Your kids?
No. A public servant. Without seatbelts we'll have to hire a hell of a lot more public servants.(For starters).

[quickmike]

Who is going to scrape your brains up off the pavement? Your kids?
No. A public servant. Without seatbelts we'll have to hire a hell of a lot more public servants.(For starters).

Let the rain wash it down the gutter, or a cat will surely come along and carry it off. Crows will usually eat road kill before too long.

Socialist!!!!:D

I just dont believe its the governments job to tell me I MUST wear a seatbelt. How about requiring me to wear a helmet when I ride a bike? How about no more food with cholesterol in it since it costs money for an ambulance to come to your house when you have a heart attack caused by the heart disease you got due to the cholesterol you ate? Where does it stop?

Seatbelts dont prevent accidents, so someone would have to come clean up the broken glass and twisted metal anyway right? Whats 3 more minutes cleaning up a splattered guy?

[Perry]

Let the rain wash it down the gutter, or a cat will surely come along and carry it off. Crows will usually eat road kill before too long.

Socialist!!!!:D

I just dont believe its the governments job to tell me I MUST wear a seatbelt. How about requiring me to wear a helmet when I ride a bike? How about no more food with cholesterol in it since it costs money for an ambulance to come to your house when you have a heart attack caused by the heart disease you got due to the cholesterol you ate? Where does it stop?

Seatbelts dont prevent accidents, so someone would have to come clean up the broken glass and twisted metal anyway right? Whats 3 more minutes cleaning up a splattered guy?

We aren't arguing for no government just small government. I think some laws are so good they need to stay. Seat belt laws are one of these and by the way the only reason we keep Nader around.:D They save 100,000 lives every year. So do speed limit laws. The fact is that on private property you have every right to not wear your helmet or seatbelt or drive whatever speed you like. When however you are on a highway built by the state or government that the state/government takes care of it is a different story. By not making people where seatbelts you are costing taxpays money. people argue "but if they make this law and that law where is the line drawn!?"
Simple, just draw a line.

[Suzu]

Fuggedaboudit.

[fj45lvr]

Hey perry tell me about seatbelts and then tell me how it works out that millions of kids everyday get to school on bus without any on.....the point is having them in cars is a good thing....using them is better....not using them is not a wise decision BUT not a CRIME.

If that is a crime why do we allow kids to have skateboards? People to downhill ski??

"KEEPING THE PEACE" doesn't equal keeping people "buckled"....it is only a revenue thing.

[Perry]

Hey perry tell me about seatbelts and then tell me how it works out that millions of kids everyday get to school on bus without any on.....the point is having them in cars is a good thing....using them is better....not using them is not a wise decision BUT not a CRIME.

If that is a crime why do we allow kids to have skateboards? People to downhill ski??

"KEEPING THE PEACE" doesn't equal keeping people "buckled"....it is only a revenue thing.

You don't want seatbelts on school buses because then you have a bunch of kids stuck in their seats after an accident with only one adult to attend them. Studies have been done on this numerous times and I assure you there is method to the madness. Honestly...I'm already getting bored of this discussion. It's number seven thousand four hundred and sixty one on my priority list see. If you honestly believe you look 1% cooler without the motorcycle helmet then go battle it in court.:D I can't stand however to waist another second thinking about the issue.:p
The argument should be that if you are dumb enough to ride a bike without a helmet then you haven't got brains that need protecting.

[jamesmadison]

Seatbelts are a great idea, if they are your responsibility instead of the governments. Tax payers shouldnt have to pay for me if I die not using one. Thats the whole point.

So, why, exactly is it Nader's fault that the government has mandated seatbelt laws?

He lobbied to give us the opprotunity to protect ourselves and was successful.
The government used this to create a law.

And it's naders fault?

Everyone should thank him for this otherwise you some of us may not be here to think him to begin with.

[Anti Federalist]

Perry wrote:


It's number seven thousand four hundred and sixty one on my priority list see. If you honestly believe you look 1% cooler without the motorcycle helmet then go battle it in court. I can't stand however to waist another second thinking about the issue.
The argument should be that if you are dumb enough to ride a bike without a helmet then you haven't got brains that need protecting.

Whoa, this is a bigger tent than I thought, since I thought I'd never see this argument cropping up.

The argument is not petty by any means, as it sums up the nanny state mentality in a nutshell:

"You are too stupid to know what's good for you, so we will force you to do what we think is good for you".

Follow that line of logic to it's inevitable end, and you get illegal killing wars and death camps.

Just for the record, we in the state that RP is going to win, New Hampshire that is, are the only ones in the nation who are not compelled by law to wear seat belts.

Therefore, we have one of the highest percentages of seat belt use, and one of the lowest per capita driving fatality rates.

[Anti Federalist]

This comes next:

A radical plan to improve the nation's health - including a workplace "exercise hour" - has been unveiled by a leading Government adviser.

New figures today show England is the fattest country in the EU. Now Professor Julian Le Grand, chairman of Health England, hopes to encourage people to improve their diets, give up smoking and exercise more.

He proposed the introduction of a smoking permit, which smokers would be required to show each time they bought tobacco. It is then their choice to go smoke free and not buy a permit.

Companies with more than 500 staff would have an "exercise hour". Employees would have to deliberately choose not to join in. The proposalsare the opposite of the Government's approach which requires people to opt in to healthy lifestyles. Instead it would be up to them to make the unhealthy choice.

And of course, if you "opt out" for whatever reason, then you can forget about any socialized medical "benefits".

[Perry]

Perry wrote:



Whoa, this is a bigger tent than I thought, since I thought I'd never see this argument cropping up.

The argument is not petty by any means, as it sums up the nanny state mentality in a nutshell:

"You are too stupid to know what's good for you, so we will force you to do what we think is good for you".

Follow that line of logic to it's inevitable end, and you get illegal killing wars and death camps.

Just for the record, we in the state that RP is going to win, New Hampshire that is, are the only ones in the nation who are not compelled by law to wear seat belts.

Therefore, we have one of the highest percentages of seat belt use, and one of the lowest per capita driving fatality rates.

Yeah...I just don't have the energy for this particular debate. Thankfully, even under a Ron Paul presidency, common sense sense will win out and seat belt laws will stay as they are. This way people like you will always have something to bitch about.:D

[Anti Federalist]

Perry wrote:


Thankfully, even under a Ron Paul presidency, common sense sense will win out and seat belt laws will stay as they are. This way people like you will always have something to bitch about

People like me??? Who might that be?

Ok, maybe I'm just up too late and missing something here, are you a troll? A redstate lurker?

What the fuck, over: am I to assume that under a Paul adminstration, the federal extortion of state's highway funds are going to continue, with things like seat belt laws, drunk driving laws and so on, being "forced" on the states by the fedgov under pain of losing those dollars?

If the IRS is abolished how could the fedgov even make that threat anymore?

[Perry]

Perry wrote:



People like me??? Who might that be?

Ok, maybe I'm just up too late and missing something here, are you a troll? A redstate lurker?

What the fuck, over:

You anti seat-belt people. You are like Nazis i swear. Next thing you know it'll be the chair for people like me.:D
Chiill man. I really don't care. I was caught up in the subject on a tangent.

[Anti Federalist]

You anti seat-belt people. You are like Nazis i swear. Next thing you know it'll be the chair for people like me.:D
Chiill man. I really don't care. I was caught up in the subject on a tangent.

I am anti-government coercion for any reason, good or bad.

I was going to go on, but I won't...

So I'm a nazi...right...:confused:

Chilled.

Good nite.

[johngr]

Naders the nut that lobbied the government to force auto manufacturers to put seatbelts in all their cars.

Nothing wrong with seatbelts, but you shouldnt have to have them if you dont want them. He pretty much guaranteed all the states would pass seatbelt laws.

what a dick.

He wants to be everyones daddy.

I supported for him to protest the 2 fake candidates in 2000. I was attending UCLA at the time and drove around LA with a Nader sticker on my 1962 Corvair (which I refused to retrofit). I got a few amused looks from the gridlock denizens who appreciated the irony.:)

[Perry]

I am anti-government coercion for any reason, good or bad.

I was going to go on, but I won't...

So I'm a nazi...right...:confused:

Chilled.

Good nite.

I WAS KIDDING!

[Orat]

So, why, exactly is it Nader's fault that the government has mandated seatbelt laws?

He lobbied to give us the opprotunity to protect ourselves and was successful.
The government used this to create a law.

And it's naders fault?

Everyone should thank him for this otherwise you some of us may not be here to think him to begin with.

He lobbied "give us the opprotunity" [sic]!? Who do you think he lobbied!? The government! Does the government hand out "opportunities"? No! They hand out fists with pistols clenched in them. He lobbied to make it a law. So heck yeah, it's Nader's fault!

[ValidusCustodiae]

"For your own good" laws restrict freedom and free choice and imply that you do not own your body (or your car) but the government does, hence controlled substances etc. Responsibility is not stressed enough.

If by not wearing a seatbelt I cause someone else to be injured then I am responsible. The earlier post was correct, the whole seatbelt thing is just there to give the state revenue while at the same time giving officers an excuse to pull a lot of people over that normally they would have to leave alone.

I tend to believe if someone wants to drink and drive, let them, but the minute they cause an accident you lock them up and throw away the key. A lot fewer people would drink and drive since there is the prospect that lo and behold they might be held responsible for the consequences of their actions!

I could go on with this subject all day, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the Constitution allows for all of these "for your own good" laws that we have in this country.

[fj45lvr]

No one is arguing that seatbelts "generally" provide more safety....the argument is whether it is the function of government to make a company HAVE to install them in their cars (along with a whole bunch of other things as to design and structure/function)....then there is whether the gov. can FORCE people to do things for the benefit of society OR the individual (from their opinion) ......

This is "pandoras box" and the "limits" are purely "arbitrary" as to HOW FAR this goes.

If I want to make cars I sure as hell don't want the Gov. to tell me how I have to do it. Where in the Constitution do they derive this POWER???

[jamesmadison]

He lobbied "give us the opprotunity" [sic]!? Who do you think he lobbied!? The government! Does the government hand out "opportunities"? No! They hand out fists with pistols clenched in them. He lobbied to make it a law. So heck yeah, it's Nader's fault!

Uh.. so you must be against airbags, front collapse zone, and all other precautions that car manufacturers take to create cars safer for the average human being. I do not see the rationale that supporting seat belts in cars is supporting seat belt legislation in this country. If I am correct seat belt laws are state laws, not federal crimes - thus lobbying the federal government to force private industry to produce a safer product has nothing to do with states passing laws that enforce that safe product.

This is pretty ridiculous.

[jamesmadison]

No one is arguing that seatbelts "generally" provide more safety....the argument is whether it is the function of government to make a company HAVE to install them in their cars (along with a whole bunch of other things as to design and structure/function)....then there is whether the gov. can FORCE people to do things for the benefit of society OR the individual (from their opinion) ......

This is "pandoras box" and the "limits" are purely "arbitrary" as to HOW FAR this goes.

If I want to make cars I sure as hell don't want the Gov. to tell me how I have to do it. Where in the Constitution do they derive this POWER???

Should a government require cars to pass federal crash tests?

One is an intrusion on corporations; the other issue you bring up is a states issue of intrusion on the individual. They are not really related. I would go further and state that if a government’s function is to provide access to networks of transportation for its citizens that this gives them the some power to legislate safety of transportation on this network which includes speed limits, traffic laws, automobile regulations, etc. It is simply to ensure that people who use this, and pay for it, are not harmed by others who may recklessly be accessing it. But I do believe that seat-belt legislation is fairly intrusive as an argument can be made pertaining to the situation of whether a seatbelt is actually beneficial or a hazard.

I'm sorry, but when the constitution was written there were no automobiles.

[ValidusCustodiae]

What's ridiculous is your assumption that a state can pass a law just because the federal government can't.

Legislating safety is very much against libertarian principles. If you understood this you wouldn't be arguing in favor of state "for your own good" laws.

States have no more right to pass laws telling me how to behave than the federal government does. What they can do is pass laws that will hold me responsible for destroying or damaging other people's property. Forcing auto makers to make cars a certain way is not a free market approach. If people really want airbags and there is a demand for them, auto makers stand to sell more cars that are equipped with them.

In other words, it's a sad day when people are being forced to wear seatbelts when they should be doing it on their own volition and not for fear of some government-imposed penalty.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Should a government require cars to pass federal crash tests?

One is an intrusion on corporations, the other issue you bring up is a states issue of intrusion on the individual. They are not really related.

I'm sorry, but when the constitution was written there were no automobiles.

You think the founders were so lacking in intelligence that they could not see progress at work in the sciences? You think they could not envision advances in technology? These arguments are about principle, and principle doesn't change just because you invent something new. Self-determination and responsibility should always be paramount in a free society.

[jamesmadison]

What's ridiculous is your assumption that a state can pass a law just because the federal government can't.

Legislating safety is very much against libertarian principles. If you understood this you wouldn't be arguing in favor of state "for your own good" laws.

States have no more right to pass laws telling me how to behave than the federal government does. What they can do is pass laws that will hold me responsible for destroying or damaging other people's property. Forcing auto makers to make cars a certain way is not a free market approach. If people really want airbags and there is a demand for them, auto makers stand to sell more cars that are equipped with them.

In other words, it's a sad day when people are being forced to wear seatbelts when they should be doing it on their own volition and not for fear of some government-imposed penalty.

I never said I was in favor of seat-belt legislation and i'm not certain where in my post you find this. I said that there is a difference between seat-belt legislation and mandating automobile manufacturers to produce automobiles with certain safety precautions.

The argument is not really logical. It's like saying let drug companies make whatever they want without any oversight - and when 1,000,000 people die because drug x proved to be toxic years later - so be it. When there is a potential for human death there is no litigation that can revive that human being, so the freedom of corporations must be limited to ensure personal liberty.

[jamesmadison]

You think the founders were so lacking in intelligence that they could not see progress at work in the sciences? You think they could not envision advances in technology? These arguments are about principle, and principle doesn't change just because you invent something new. Self-determination and responsibility should always be paramount in a free society.

I'm sorry but people who act as if the constition is a document of which we derive our liberties do not deserve liberties. Liberties are a product of man and man is a product of the universe. The founders were not infallible, although they were better than most.

[brandon]

I never said I was in favor of seat-belt legislation and i'm not certain where in my post you find this. I said that there is a difference between seat-belt legislation and mandating automobile manufacturers to produce automobiles with certain safety precautions.

The argument is not really logical. It's like saying let drug companies make whatever they want without any oversight - and when 1,000,000 people die because drug x proved to be toxic years later - so be it. When there is a potential for human death there is no litigation that can revive that human being, so the freedom of corporations must be limited to ensure personal liberty.

What you fail to recognize is that mandating auto manufacturers to include seat belts in cars is "seat belt legislation".

We should not set a precedent of allowing the government to control how products are produced. It does not work and it limits liberty.

Cars would have seat belts in them even without the government mandating it. People would realize seat belts are a good idea, one car manufacturer would start including them because there is a market for it, and then almost every other manufacturer will follow suit to retain there market share. We dont need the government to do what the market can do. We need the government to do as little as possible.

[jamesmadison]

What you fail to recognize is that mandating auto manufacturers to include seat belts in cars is "seat belt legislation".

We should not set a precedent of allowing the government to control how products are produced. It does not work and it limits liberty.

Cars would have seat belts in them even without the government mandating it. People would realize seat belts are a good idea, one car manufacturer would start including them because there is a market for it, and then almost every other manufacturer will follow suit to retain there market share. We dont need the government to do what the market can do. We need the government to do as little as possible.

This reasoning is fallacious because it contends that the rights of a corporation (which is an unknown entity) equal the rights of an individual. The main concern is the liberty of the individual and to this, the rights of a corporation, are second in nature. We have a product, a free market exchange, and the consumer in a transactions. When this product is found to be detrimental to the consumer, litigation may ensure and the recipient of the product can be reimbursed. The issue arises when the product is of possible harm in either a permanent manner or resulting in death. This situation cannot be rectified and the creator of this product, the corporation, is now to be held liable. This is direct infringement through gross negligence on the liberty of an individual and thus, the reasoning for which the regulation of industry exists. Now, to rectify this situation we may have private testing or we may have government regulation. With the former there is no barring what a corporation can bring to the free market and, subsequently, products that infringe on the liberty of an individual are allowed to enter the market place and thus, gross negligence. This would also be problematic with who would pay for it and why an individual should pay for the protection of another. Another, simpler way is to have government regulations in certain areas that regularly test and verify products are safe for consumption and or use (through a scientifically measurable way). This provides that the whole population is contribution to the safety of all and that items are not issued to the marketplace that infringe on the liberty of individuals.

So, i think the issue is simple and one which requires a certain amount of government regulation to ensure the liberty of the individual is not threatened. The only way a free-market can function is if there is individual liberty and individual liberty triumphs any issue relative to the marketplace.

[ValidusCustodiae]

A free market is one without regulations.

As long as the government ENFORCES CONTRACTS and holds drug or other companies responsible for selling bad products then you don't need the regulation! The industry will regulate itself due to self-interest. If it kills 800 thousand people it's not so be it, it's time to shut down the drug company and hold the people responsible for it being put on the market.

If I start selling snake oil and tell everyone it cures everything and everyone buys it but people start getting sick, there is plenty of recourse they can take because my claims were false and I didn't warn them of any side effects. In a free market, consumers make educated choices and it is the self-interest of corporations to regulate themselves.

In other words, I'm not against seatbelts, I wear one every time I drive down the road. What I take issue with is the government's assertion that it can force me to wear one and force auto makers to put them in every car. If I want to put my life at risk, it's my life to risk and it DOES NOT belong to uncle sam!

This is all very easy to understand but you have to let go of your preconceived "the government will look after me and keep me safe" mentality.

[brandon]

This reasoning is fallacious because it contends that the rights of a corporation (which is an unknown entity) equal the rights of an individual. The main concern is the liberty of the individual and to this, the rights of a corporation, are second in nature. We have a product, a free market exchange, and the consumer in a transactions. When this product is found to be detrimental to the consumer, litigation may ensure and the recipient of the product can be reimbursed. The issue arises when the product is of possible harm in either a permanent manner or resulting in death. This situation cannot be rectified and the creator of this product, the corporation, is now to be held liable. This is direct infringement through gross negligence on the liberty of an individual and thus, the reasoning for which the regulation of industry exists. Now, to rectify this situation we may have private testing or we may have government regulation. With the former there is no barring what a corporation can bring to the free market and, subsequently, products that infringe on the liberty of an individual are allowed to enter the market place and thus, gross negligence. This would also be problematic with who would pay for it and why an individual should pay for the protection of another. Another, simpler way is to have government regulations in certain areas that regularly test and verify products are safe for consumption and or use (through a scientifically measurable way). This provides that the whole population is contribution to the safety of all and that items are not issued to the marketplace that infringe on the liberty of individuals.

So, i think the issue is simple and one which requires a certain amount of government regulation to ensure the liberty of the individual is not threatened. The only way a free-market can function is if there is individual liberty and individual liberty triumphs any issue relative to the marketplace.


You obviously don't understand what a free market is.

Individual liberty and rights of corporations are very closely related. This issue we are talking about effects individual liberty as well.

When the government makes a law saying all cars produced must have seatlbelts, it infringes on the rights of the car-munfacturer to make the car how they want, and it infringed on the right of an individual to buy a car without a seat belt.

[constituent]

Just about sums it up.:D

http://welcometotheinternets.com/images/25595-24315/vomit.jpg

ditto.

nader's a tool and he knows it (and that's what pisses me off).

[wgadget]

UGH. Yuck.

[MS0453]

Yeah...I just don't have the energy for this particular debate. Thankfully, even under a Ron Paul presidency, common sense sense will win out and seat belt laws will stay as they are. This way people like you will always have something to bitch about.:D

lol There's a Ron speech on youtube where he praises New Hampshire for not having seatbelt laws. I think it might be from when the whole family went to NH to go door-to-door.

[sunny]

NO!!!

[runderwo]

Part of the problem with the seat belt issue is that dead people can't sue.

[Bossobass]

Nader is a shill.

He got his start by an out of court settlement from GM of $400,000.00

He is a dictator who has refused to mentor any successor to his 'cause'.

The free market (research Tucker, who had many safety features included in his auto) would improve automobile efficiency and safety. Unfortunately, we don't have a free market in the US. We have Rockefeller monopolies that have squeezed out, bought out and/or destroyed people like Tucker.

In over 100 years of the automobile, the average MPG hasn't changed at all. Seatbelts may be a good thing but guys like Tucker had them in the late forties, along with safety glass, pop-out windows, a padded dash and disc brakes...all in one model, not spread out over decades.

Just look at GM's role in the death of the zero emissions vehicle. They bought the innovative battery technology company and later sold it to Texaco, where it languishes on a shelf.

Meanwhile, the small handful of innovative zero emissions vehicle companies in the US lay starving for investment capital, which will keep the delivery times and prices unacceptably high.

In Ralph Nader, whom they financed with a tax-free out of court (and tidy) sum of cash, they have the token consumer advocate to give the appearance of a balance between the monopoly and consumer protection...a giant crock of BS, IMO.

Ron Paul will move to finally end the corporate political muscle and welfare for Exxon and GM that has kept us in a time loop for a century, during which we have gone from horse and buggy to Windows. :mad::rolleyes::confused:

The all new GM cars!!! 4 rubber tires, an internal combustion gasoline driven engine with a steering wheel and everything, averaging 20.3 MPG. That's a huge leap of technological advance for only 100 years, eh?

I'm just sayin'...NADER...NO.

Bosso

[BillyDkid]

Seatbelts are a great idea. Keeps the taxpayers from having to pay hundreds of million of dollars towards cleaning your blood & brains off the street each year.

Nader is a bad idea.
Yes, which is why the market would have taken care of it. If it was what people wanted in a car, manufacturers would have put them in. We don't need the government telling companies how they must manufacture their products. If you have a better product - say, a car that comes with seat belts - and it's what consumers want, you will win in the marketplace.

[pcosmar]

In a word, NO
In two words, HELL NO!!!

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Nader would be the kiss of death

[Starks]

People absolutely hate Ralph Nader.

[Kregener]

Perry has bought the socialist line!

[Anti Federalist]

Perry wrote:


I WAS KIDDING!

I don't doubt you.

But you have to understand, I'm more than a little punchy, after a year into this campaign, and others like them, the constant drumbeat of, "'yer a kook, a nazi, a pinko, a liberal, a right wing nutjob, a tinfoil hat conspiracy wacko" and every other name in the book, has put me in the "fight mode". Especially coming from a user friendly site.

That being said, you will never convince me that forcing people to do what is considered good for them, through force of law, is ever a good idea.

[Anti Federalist]

Jamesmadison wrote:


I'm sorry, but when the constitution was written there were no automobiles.

Neither were there autoloading rifles and high speed internet links.

I'm assuming you think these need to be regulated for the common good as well?

[shepburn]

Nader endorement = okay
Nader VP = hell no

[me3]

What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?
If people don't stop day dreaming about the Presidency and actually start focusing on doing what it takes to win (canvassing, donating and getting delegates) my thoughts are that this election run will be lost because we were not able as a grassroots to stay focused on the job and got distracted with hypotheticals about the prize.

[erowe1]

"What are your thoughts about a Paul/Nader ticket?"

Worst idea I have ever heard. I once said that the Kucinich VP idea was the worst. But nope, this beats that one.

Every single idea Nader espouses entails a greater removal of our liberties than the entire Bush tenure. Just his minimum wage hike would be a far more egregious offense against our freedoms than 10 Patriot Acts.

[Brian4Liberty]

He wants to be everyones daddy.

Wrong!

He wants to be our mommy... ;)

[Adamsa]

Huckabee sounds more like Paul every day, just give it a while till he changes his name to Paul Jr. :P I think he'd be the best VP in terms of getting votes.

[Abyss19562]

Ron Paul would never buy into this ticket. I wonder who he has in mind for VP though....

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Nader is dumb on numerous issues.

[davidkachel]

Nader is a super-government nut job. He believes all corporations are evil and would prefer a worker's paradise. The only similarity between him and Ron Paul is that they both speak the same language... sorta!

[Orat]

Uh.. so you must be against airbags, front collapse zone, and all other precautions that car manufacturers take to create cars safer for the average human being. I do not see the rationale that supporting seat belts in cars is supporting seat belt legislation in this country. If I am correct seat belt laws are state laws, not federal crimes - thus lobbying the federal government to force private industry to produce a safer product has nothing to do with states passing laws that enforce that safe product.

This is pretty ridiculous.

No, what you are saying is ridiculous. Just because I am against the government (state OR federal) SHOVING IT DOWN MY THROAT, does not mean I'm against the thing itself. When I go buy a car, the safety of that vehicle is one of the factors in my buying decision. If a company can produce a safer car, the market will reward it with higher sales. What I object to is the government (state or federal) FORCING the car company to implement certain "safety" features. And indeed, some such features have proven to actually decrease safety in certain circumstances.

And by the way, you are not correct. Most mandated safety measures in vehicles are FEDERAL requirements. But in terms of how that aligns with the principle of individual rights, it doesn't make any difference what level of government is doing it. It is still a violation of the rights of the individual.

Quick factoid (among hundreds) on Nader: he believes we should have a "maximum wage". Meaning the government would confiscate ALL earnings over a certain amount.

Another factoid: Nader is a total hypocrit. He is very wealthy, far more wealthy than he has proposed allowing people to be under his system.

[constituent]

Nader is a shill.

He got his start by an out of court settlement from GM of $400,000.00

He is a dictator who has refused to mentor any successor to his 'cause'.

The free market (research Tucker, who had many safety features included in his auto) would improve automobile efficiency and safety. Unfortunately, we don't have a free market in the US. We have Rockefeller monopolies that have squeezed out, bought out and/or destroyed people like Tucker.

.....

Just look at GM's role in the death of the zero emissions vehicle. They bought the innovative battery technology company and later sold it to Texaco, where it languishes on a shelf.

........

In Ralph Nader, whom they financed with a tax-free out of court (and tidy) sum of cash, they have the token consumer advocate to give the appearance of a balance between the monopoly and consumer protection...a giant crock of BS, IMO.

Ron Paul will move to finally end the corporate political muscle and welfare for Exxon and GM that has kept us in a time loop for a century, during which we have gone from horse and buggy to Windows. :mad::rolleyes::confused:

The all new GM cars!!! 4 rubber tires, an internal combustion gasoline driven engine with a steering wheel and everything, averaging 20.3 MPG. That's a huge leap of technological advance for only 100 years, eh?



know what this reminds me of?

this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KjnuOehwGJA). :D

[lucius]

No, no, no...