Ralph Nader Saying Everything He Can About Ron Paul - Doesn't Mention Ron Paul

[nayjevin]

He's talking about how all the candidates are owned by corporate interests, the citizens need to take the power back, how you could demonstrate with 1000 people right outside the news stations, and they wouldn't cover it.

Slammed Giuliani, Hillary, McCain, Obama, to some extent Edwards, The War, The Election System, both parties, etc etc etc.

BUT DOESN'T MENTION RON PAUL.

It's driving me crazy.

it's on C-Span right now.

saying "They need to hear the rumble of the people!"

[Swmorgan77]

Geez...

[Oddball]

If Ralph Nader mentioned Ron Paul on C-SPAN, would anyone hear him??

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, he says a lot of good things about corporatism, but he sure seems to push the socialist line though.

[ecliptic]

I know that many people especially Republicans roll their eyes at the mention of Ralph Nader. I voted for the man twice and I'm very proud of that fact - he was the only anti-war candidate so I feel a certain redemption after 700,000 Iraqi deaths and likely over 25,000 American soldiers killed and counting....

So anyone who ridicules Ralph Nader is sounding like a fool at this point in time - don't even bother...

Ralph is on the fence at this point and I think he could further widen the already broad coalition supporting the Ron Paul campaign. His interview from June 6 just aired on C-Span and it was a scathing indictment of corporate America, corporate republocrats, and the apathy of the people. I think an endorsement of Ron Paul by Nader would be a huge boost. In addition I think that were Amy Goodman to cover or even endorse Ron Paul it would cause a sea-change in the thinking of millions of "progressive democrats".

These are some key goals to work towards in my opinion. Winning the nomination will require a very big tent and these two leaders are possible participants.

What do you think about engaging Ralph Nader and Amy Goodman perhaps through direct interviews with the good Dr. Paul?

[Oddball]

Yeah, he says a lot of good things about corporatism, but he sure seems to push the socialist line though.
He's all against corporatism except when the biggest multinational corporation of them all -District of Columbia- is running the show.

[nayjevin]

What do you think about engaging Ralph Nader and Amy Goodman perhaps through direct interviews with the good Dr. Paul?

I love it. Contact information needed.

[herepamwas]

I like what he was saying about voting apathy and no accountability of politicians due to the lack of organized effort of groups to have their voices heard.

[nayjevin]

He's all against corporatism except when the biggest multinational corporation of them all -District of Columbia- is running the show.

I understand this sentiment, but this interview seemed different. I urge you to wait until you see it. He was echoing the sentiment of RP. It sounded like he had even learned from RP lately... the only thing I heard him say that wouldn't come out of RP's mouth was about socialized healthcare. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but he seemed even more hardcore in this interview.

[ecliptic]

I understand this sentiment, but this interview seemed different. I urge you to wait until you see it. He was echoing the sentiment of RP. It sounded like he had even learned from RP lately... the only thing I heard him say that wouldn't come out of RP's mouth was about socialized healthcare. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but he seemed even more hardcore in this interview.

Agreed. The socialist lean is unfortunate, yet the bulk of his message sure sounded like the words of a Ron Paul supporter to me....

[herepamwas]

I laughed out loud and clapped when he called Bush "a war criminal" and said Goulini was an authoritarian and that Goulini thought that the patriot act was weak. :)

[beermotor]

Note his usage of RP's diction, heh.

Nader could be a powerful asset... I imagine there are a lot of democrats who would look very hard at where Nader was pointing.

How can we work on him to make this happen? Does he have an organization we can call / email?

[rich34]

People, Ralph Nader talks a good game, but I'm convinced he's bought and paid for opposition. Someone pointed out in the last election cycle that while he goes around touting green groups he himself has huge interests in the oil and gas industry. And I know we can all invest and do what we want, but to me I smelled a rat!

I used to have some respect for Nader, but I don't like him at all any more and the fact that he didn't mention Ron Paul as the only candidate that is not bought and paid for by the corporations prove this. He's a phony.

Tell me this, who benefitted the most by him being in the election the last two cycles?

[cujothekitten]

Nader is setting himself up for another run. I've been getting a lot of e-mail from his office lately so I think he's going to take another shot at it.

[nayjevin]

I used to have some respect for Nader, but I don't like him at all any more and the fact that he didn't mention Ron Paul as the only candidate that is not bought and paid for by the corporations prove this. He's a phony.


Nader is setting himself up for another run. I've been getting a lot of e-mail from his office lately so I think he's going to take another shot at it.

This is the opposite side of my wishful thinking. I know where ya'all are coming from.

Maybe he's just taking from RP's playbook, like Hillary and Thompson have.

[nayjevin]

Maybe it would be effective to have previous Nader voters contact the campaign saying "I won't vote for Nader this time around, my full support is in the Ron Paul campaign... I suggest Nader support RP as well."

[Kuldebar]

Ralph Nader is a good man...but unfortunately he is a socialist, albeit not a self described one.

He truly believes that more government involvement in social issues would be an improvement as if the last 100 years weren't enough to tell...fervently believing that we need more government because heretofore we always lacked the right budget, or the right president or the right congress or the right party or the right taxes...it's never because we have had too much of all that crap already.

[rich34]

This is the opposite side of my wishful thinking. I know where ya'all are coming from.

Maybe he's just taking from RP's playbook, like Hillary and Thompson have.


Don't get me wrong an endorsement from Nader would be great, but if that bozo runs again he's going to dilute the vote once again. Obviously that won't matter until the general election, but what if Ron Paul don't win the nomination, but has enough support to run as the libertarian candidate? If this does indeed play out imo he could possibly be taking votes from Ron Paul and the publics perception of the lesser of two evils at this point the democrats. Thus, once again ensuring victory for the NeoCons! Put that with his oil and gas interests and it's easy to see that he could have a hidden agenda. Ralph Nader needs to stay the at home!

[atilla]

I think an endorsement of Ron Paul by Nader would be a huge boost. In addition I think that were Amy Goodman to cover or even endorse Ron Paul it would cause a sea-change in the thinking of millions of "progressive democrats".

These are some key goals to work towards in my opinion. Winning the nomination will require a very big tent and these two leaders are possible participants.

What do you think about engaging Ralph Nader and Amy Goodman perhaps through direct interviews with the good Dr. Paul?
i've been emailing amy goodman for months, she won't even respond with a "thank you for your comments". if 10,000 people email and shut down her mailbox maybe she would respond, don't bet on it though she knows who ron paul is and she doesn't like him regardless of his civil liberties and anti-war positions.

[LibertyEagle]

People, Ralph Nader talks a good game, but I'm convinced he's bought and paid for opposition.

Yup.

[LibertyEagle]

Agreed. The socialist lean is unfortunate, yet the bulk of his message sure sounded like the words of a Ron Paul supporter to me....

Yes and unfortunately, it will likely lead some people away from being potential Ron Paul supporters over to Nader's camp. Perhaps that is the intent.

Nader is against big business, which really isn't the problem. The problem is with big business that profits off of government largesse and special interest lobbies. On the other hand, he seems to be all for using government largesse if it furthers his socialist agenda.

[LibertyEagle]

What do you think about engaging Ralph Nader and Amy Goodman perhaps through direct interviews with the good Dr. Paul?

It's certainly worth pursuing.

I once saw a very good schematic showing where different organizations, such as Democracy Now, Greenpeace, etc., etc., etc. received their funding. It was very interesting to see the various Foundations that supported these organizations. Just because a group represents itself as supporting the people, or a good cause, does not mean they aren't bought and paid for. Someone else said it... controlled opposition. Both sides of the spectrum come around and join in the same goal and it has nothing whatsoever to do with individual liberty.

[sunny]

I know that many people especially Republicans roll their eyes at the mention of Ralph Nader. I voted for the man twice and I'm very proud of that fact - he was the only anti-war candidate so I feel a certain redemption after 700,000 Iraqi deaths and likely over 25,000 American soldiers killed and counting....

So anyone who ridicules Ralph Nader is sounding like a fool at this point in time - don't even bother...

Ralph is on the fence at this point and I think he could further widen the already broad coalition supporting the Ron Paul campaign. His interview from June 6 just aired on C-Span and it was a scathing indictment of corporate America, corporate republocrats, and the apathy of the people. I think an endorsement of Ron Paul by Nader would be a huge boost. In addition I think that were Amy Goodman to cover or even endorse Ron Paul it would cause a sea-change in the thinking of millions of "progressive democrats".

These are some key goals to work towards in my opinion. Winning the nomination will require a very big tent and these two leaders are possible participants.

What do you think about engaging Ralph Nader and Amy Goodman perhaps through direct interviews with the good Dr. Paul?

sorry dude you can praise ralph nader all you want but not me.
as for amy goodman forget it! - the name of her show is dead give away for starters.....
she is just a shill for the nwo like michael moore.......nader probably is too!
look where she gets her funding...

neither one of them will ever endorse dr. paul! they have their own masters to serve!

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

[JTCoyoté]

He's all against corporatism except when the biggest multinational corporation of them all -District of Columbia- is running the show.

Most folks are totally unaware of how right you are with regard to the corporatization of DC. The fact of the matter is that it WAS incorporated as a separate entity on February 21, 1871 with the District of Columbia Organic Act passed in Congress at that time.

This was followed closely by the incorporation of the ACLU, the NRA, and other corporate arms designed to bring the peoples rights into corporate control... This has been an on going encroachment that all started with this Act accomplished under the U.S. Grant administration... A time when much corrupt and obfuscated law was created by the growing federalism within DC, under the stealthful reality of Corporatism.

JTCoyoté

"Fear can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts. " -- Thomas Jefferson

[atilla]

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com
wow, the cia controls ford, i never knew that. of course, i knew they controlled soros.

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

[MozoVote]

Ralph Nader is never going to endorse Ron Paul. However, he may agree that Ron should not be shut out of party debates.

I thought Nader was significant enough that he should have been in the final presidential debates. He did throw the election, after all.

[BuddyRey]

as for amy goodman forget it! - the name of her show is dead give away for starters.....

You mean "Democracy Now!"? What's wrong with that?

[nayjevin]

You mean "Democracy Now!"? What's wrong with that?

I don't know about the original poster's intent, but I disagree with the principles of Democracy. Majority rules Sux. 51% vs 49% means 49% are unsatisfied. That is why the founders set up a republic (not a democracy). The smaller the group of people has to decide on a set of rules for that group of people, the better.

If i make a set of rules for myself, there is 100% agreement among members (me)
If you and I make a set of rules for us, there might be 95% agreement.
If 3 of us make a set, maybe 90%
On and on...

The best form of government I have heard of is among a very small group of people -- a township perhaps.

Any new law requires 98% of the vote.
Repealing any existing law requires 2/3rds of the vote.

That way, very few laws will ever be written, and the ones that are will be widely agreed upon (rape, murder, theft).

Minimizes encroachment of law on the people (what laws are designed to protect!).

[JS4Pat]

I know that many people especially Republicans roll their eyes at the mention of Ralph Nader. I voted for the man twice and I'm very proud of that fact - he was the only anti-war candidate so I feel a certain redemption after 700,000 Iraqi deaths and likely over 25,000 American soldiers killed and counting....

So anyone who ridicules Ralph Nader is sounding like a fool at this point in time - don't even bother...
Amen to that!

I never voted for him. (I supported Pat Buchanan in 2000 and the Libertarian candidate in 2004 - both anti-war) However I contributed money to Ralph Nader's campaign. He is an honest represenattive of the left. He is the candidate the Democratic Party should be nominating.

Imagine a general election where the two candidates were Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. Would that not be an honest & true battle over ideas and differing philosophies as to the role of government?

What do we get instead?

Hillary vs Giuliani?
It's sickening...

I think a Nader endorsement would be HUGE. He really should. On his biggest issue - political corruption - they are on the same page.

[tnvoter]

nader already said he would run if Hillary was the democrat nominee.

[Oddball]

Most folks are totally unaware of how right you are with regard to the corporatization of DC. The fact of the matter is that it WAS incorporated as a separate entity on February 21, 1871 with the District of Columbia Organic Act passed in Congress at that time.

This was followed closely by the incorporation of the ACLU, the NRA, and other corporate arms designed to bring the peoples rights into corporate control... This has been an on going encroachment that all started with this Act accomplished under the U.S. Grant administration... A time when much corrupt and obfuscated law was created by the growing federalism within DC, under the stealthful reality of Corporatism.

JTCoyoté

"Fear can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the facts. " -- Thomas Jefferson
16 Stat. 419


351.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.

http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/351.html

[sunny]

You mean "Democracy Now!"? What's wrong with that?

yes, that's what i mean!
in the simplest terms - "democracy = mob rule"
democracy is the next step to socialism
it is huge government intervention
listen to dr. pauls's speech in iowa. he talks about that.

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, I know some of you guys will probably just hate who wrote this treatise, but it nonetheless is the best delineation between Republics and Democracies , that I have ever read.

http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Welch.htm

[Oddball]

Here's another good link, with the transcript from Training Manual No. 2000-25, published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

[ecliptic]

I agree that Amy Goodman's show is a leftgatekeeper funded / controlled to a point... but I also give Amy Goodman the human being the "benefit of the doubt" that she might realize that people really like freedom and less government.

Freedom is popular!

Ralph sure as hell spoke to me in the interview aired this morning on C-Span from a june 6 interview... He is the only other person that gets me pumping my fists in the air and yelling at the tv "YEAH!!!" other than Ron Paul. Notice that he isn't part of that "Leftgatekeeper" chart... His investments have done well and if he made money off his corporate "enemies" ( likely a blind trust situation anyway ) then more power to him. No one else speaks against the Corporation like he does.... and YES CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM.

The Corporation (http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Mikela-J-Mikael/dp/B0007DBJM8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0014975-6294540?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1183782670&sr=1-1)

[Bradley in DC]

http://ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=32755&postcount=22

[PatriotOne]

and YES CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM.

The Corporation (http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Mikela-J-Mikael/dp/B0007DBJM8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0014975-6294540?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1183782670&sr=1-1)

I just watched The Corporation a few days ago (I highly suggest it to everyone. Click on link above).

Even I, who thought I had heard it all, was shocked about Bechtel owning the water rights to that one city in Bolivia and had even criminalized citizen's collecting rain water. Holy crap! That was insane :eek: .

[quickmike]

This is just my opinoin, so I hope that any Nader fans dont take offense.

I think Ralph Nader is actually worse than Repulicans or Democrats. He's the guy in the 70's and 80's who pushed for the auto manufacturers to be REQUIRED to put safety belts in all vehicles. While it may be a good idea for them to voluntarily put them in, I dont think in a free society that the government should tell anyone what they have to do with their business. He thinks it should be law that everyone who rides a bicycle should have to wear a helmet. He wants to be our "mommy" because he thinks we are not capable of making these decisions on our own. Not much I like about the guy personally. Just another big government stooge who would force all kinds of big government ideas on us, while at the same time talking about freedom. I dont think RP would agree with him on many things at all.

[Oddball]

I just watched The Corporation a few days ago (I highly suggest it to everyone. Click on link above).

Even I, who thought I had heard it all, was shocked about Bechtel owning the water rights to that one city in Bolivia and had even criminalized citizen's collecting rain water. Holy crap! That was insane :eek: .Corporations are chartered , and given their rights to limited liabilities , by gubmints.

Corporations are only the Capos, gubmints are the Dons.

[ecliptic]

http://ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=32755&postcount=22

WOW! Good work and good information. A very big tent will be required to win this thing. I know it's an outside chance... a long shot, but I suggest we give it a try. Do you have some "insider pull" to make a backchannel offer ( should the campaign people agree?)

My suggestion is this be tried first. Same for Amy Goodman...

[ecliptic]

Corporations are only the Capos, gubmints are the Dons.

yes, I like this "analogy" ( or stark reality? )

1. elect Ron Paul
2. elect a better congress
3. reform government
4. reform corporations
5. get a hammock, crack open some flouride-free beer, and listen to a nice breezy summer day go by without fear of jack-booted thugs poking you in the back of the neck with semi-automatic military assault weapons

[Oddball]

It's even easier than that.


Get rid of the perqs sold to corporations, and there won't be any trying to buy them.

[propanes]

Nader was on Hardball a few weeks ago and basically guaranteed Paul, Gravel or Kucinich would be in the race in November of 2008. Paul is one of the canidates Nader previously 'saluted'.

Paul is bought up at 4:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSkIpSDMIOA

[JS4Pat]

Just sent the following e-mail reply to: naderteam@votenader.org
(I am on their mailing list because I have given money in the past)

Hello!

I have been a Ralph Nader supporter and contributor not because I agree with him politically - I am a small government conservative - but because I believe it is important to promote people who are genuinely working to bring integrity back to our government.

This election cycle we are fortunate to have someone who is "using" one of the two establishment parties to do just that. His name is Dr. Ron Paul.

I am asking (actually begging) that Ralph Nader and your organization get behind this movement! This might be a once in a lifetime chance...

http://www.youtube.com/aravoth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

What do you say?

[CurtisLow]

I watched Nader on Democracy Now. Interviewed by Amy Goodman and for over an hour and did not hear a peep about Ron Paul.

Most likely because his plan to run again for President.

I think this is it.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/131226&mode=thread&tid=25

[JTCoyoté]

16 Stat. 419



http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/351.html

OB,

Thinkin'... and a likin' it! You too, eh?!:D

JTCoyoté

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann W. Von Goethe

[SeanEdwards]

I think Ralph Nader could be a good choice for Attorney General. Or even a supreme court appointment.

*edit* After listening to more of this interview I'm retracting my previous comments. I think Nader puts way too much faith in government agencies.

[Mesogen]

Speaking of the term "corporation" etc.

This is an interesting interview. This guy Vyzygoth talks to all sorts of people. The interview here is a man who uses semantics and legalese to make the case that the US is really just a big corporation. Not too sure about all of it, but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://vyzygoth.com/audio/iman7-2-07.mp3

[nayjevin]

People, Ralph Nader talks a good game, but I'm convinced he's bought and paid for opposition. Someone pointed out in the last election cycle that while he goes around touting green groups he himself has huge interests in the oil and gas industry. And I know we can all invest and do what we want, but to me I smelled a rat!

I used to have some respect for Nader, but I don't like him at all any more and the fact that he didn't mention Ron Paul as the only candidate that is not bought and paid for by the corporations prove this. He's a phony.

Tell me this, who benefitted the most by him being in the election the last two cycles?

Boy was rich34 right about that!

[dannno]

2 years later..

[emazur]

YouTube - CNN: Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on Situation Room 9/10/08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3HwQtLFLbo)

[satchelmcqueen]

everytime i hear any politician or news channel mention how the last nominees were all bought and paid for and "we need to change the system so honesty can be heard"...but NEVER mentions ron paul, i lose all interest in the rest of what they want to say.,

[SimpleName]

I hate when people claim him to be a "consumer advocate." He is absolutely not a consumer advocate. Maybe in his mind, but he usually works against consumers by restricting their choices. I'm sure he has done good work keeping up a voice against corporatism, but I still cannot get over his major accomplishment of forcing away the classic muscle cars via emissions/mpg restrictions. Plus, that seatbelt crap? Really more controlling than anything. But as I've suggested many times on this forum (I just did w/Michelle Bachmann), we should still embrace honest, full hearted politicians who have the best of intentions. Obviously outright socialists, racists and the like aren't wanted, but Nader isn't a socialist and definitely not a racist. He himself kind of summed it up at one of the third-party debates, stating that he "never could've imagined being on the same side as Bob Barr." (slight paraphrase) We need to get allies and Nader could be one. Maybe not on economic issues, but civil liberties and defense.

Nader should still have mentioned RON PAUL!

[free.alive]

Ralph Nader is out for Ralph Nader... and Vladimir Lenin.

:eek: Did I say that?!

[nobody's_hero]

I hate when people claim him to be a "consumer advocate." He is absolutely not a consumer advocate. Maybe in his mind, but he usually works against consumers by restricting their choices. I'm sure he has done good work keeping up a voice against corporatism, but I still cannot get over his major accomplishment of forcing away the classic muscle cars via emissions/mpg restrictions. Plus, that seatbelt crap? Really more controlling than anything. But as I've suggested many times on this forum (I just did w/Michelle Bachmann), we should still embrace honest, full hearted politicians who have the best of intentions. Obviously outright socialists, racists and the like aren't wanted, but Nader isn't a socialist and definitely not a racist. He himself kind of summed it up at one of the third-party debates, stating that he "never could've imagined being on the same side as Bob Barr." (slight paraphrase) We need to get allies and Nader could be one. Maybe not on economic issues, but civil liberties and defense.

Nader should still have mentioned RON PAUL!

I'll agree with you on the allies bit. It's cool how Ron Paul got four political parties together, some from opposite ends of the spectrum, and got them to agree on four issues.

—Not just any four issues, but the four most critical issues facing our nation. If just one of those four small parties had won the race and worked to rectify just these four issues, this nation would be much better off than it is now.



We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

[jmdrake]

He's talking about how all the candidates are owned by corporate interests, the citizens need to take the power back, how you could demonstrate with 1000 people right outside the news stations, and they wouldn't cover it.

Slammed Giuliani, Hillary, McCain, Obama, to some extent Edwards, The War, The Election System, both parties, etc etc etc.

BUT DOESN'T MENTION RON PAUL.

It's driving me crazy.

it's on C-Span right now.

saying "They need to hear the rumble of the people!"

If Ralph Nader was slamming bad politicians should he have mentioned Paul? Did he mention any politicians that he liked? I would see your concern if he mentioned someone like Dennis Kucinich (closer to Nader IMO) and didn't mention Paul. Or if he did a Glen Beck. During the election in an NPR interview Beck mentioned all of Paul's talking points, but when asked if he could think of any republicans who fit them he said "I can't think of any". If Nader was on an anti bad politician rant and wasn't asked about politicians he agreed with then not mentioning Paul is understandable.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[acptulsa]

Nader.

Old fossil never was good for anything but pointing out how Machiavellian General Motors is. Wish he'd make himself useful and do a number on that damned bailout. If he wants us to be informed and involved, let him get back in the expose' business. Make himself useful.

Unless, of course, he has been controlled opposition all along. God knows what he did to the American car fit into the oil companies' plans well enough.

[jmdrake]

everytime i hear any politician or news channel mention how the last nominees were all bought and paid for and "we need to change the system so honesty can be heard"...but NEVER mentions ron paul, i lose all interest in the rest of what they want to say.,

I'm sorry. When did Ron Paul get nominated? I missed that. :rolleyes: If we're going to have a "Did they mention Ron Paul in every interview" litmus test than this is going to get ridiculous.

[jmdrake]

Nader.

Old fossil never was good for anything but pointing out how Machiavellian General Motors is. Wish he'd make himself useful and do a number on that damned bailout. If he wants us to be informed and involved, let him get back in the expose' business. Make himself useful.

Unless, of course, he has been controlled opposition all along. God knows what he did to the American car fit into the oil companies' plans well enough.

You really think Ron Paul endorsed "controlled opposition"? :rolleyes: Nader was very outspoken the TARP bill and even called it corporate socialism. That made him a better friend of free markets than John McCain and Sarah Palin. (I know that's not saying much). He's against the Iraq war and all of the attacks on our civil liberties. He's also endorsed auditing the fed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02112006.html

Is he perfect? Of course not. But "controlled opposition"? Don't make me laugh.

[acptulsa]

Is he perfect? Of course not. But "controlled opposition"? Don't make me laugh.

Well, I don't intend to make you laugh. But he spawned a cottage industry around automobile safety which has done at least as much harm as good, has been no boon to our attempts at energy independence, and led to the rise of people like Joan Claybrook. Now, I'm not saying he set out to do all of that. But I think he was silly enough to let himself be used in the early days. May even be why he's such a grumpy old fossil these days...

[jmdrake]

Well, I don't intend to make you laugh. But he spawned a cottage industry around automobile safety which has done at least as much harm as good, has been no boon to our attempts at energy independence, and led to the rise of people like Joan Claybrook. Now, I'm not saying he set out to do all of that. But I think he was silly enough to let himself be used in the early days. May even be why he's such a grumpy old fossil these days...

Wait sec. I thought your only "praise" for Nader was that he pointed out how "Machievellian GM was"? Were you being sarcastic then? Anyway I agree that we have too much regulation in the auto industry. The fact is that car fatalities were already going down when the NTSB legislation was passed. We would probably have higher fuel standards now if the entry into the car market was lower. Remember the inner city high school kids that built that 50 mpg diesel sports car that could go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds (http://www.metafilter.com/44415/50-MPG-and-0-to-60-sub-four-seconds)? But there's no way they'd be able to go into business making cars because of all the regulations. By contrast you see all kinds of innovations in the motorcycle industry which isn't as highly regulated.

Anyhow I digress. Nader's not perfect (nobody is) but he was helpful in attacking the first bailout and he's helpful now in endorsing audit the fed.

[acptulsa]

Wait sec. I thought your only "praise" for Nader was that he pointed out how "Machievellian GM was"? Were you being sarcastic then?

Nope. There was a problem. It probably didn't need Nader to solve it, and it sure didn't require the scads of legislation that did not, in fact, address the specific problem. The first generation Corvair was the vehicle--excuse the pun--which he drove to stardom. The problem it had was rear wheel camber which was variable--swingarm rear suspension. Read Unsafe at Any Speed for an explanation. Well, the regulations had nothing to do with that. In fact, Ford put a swingarm front suspension called 'Twin I-Beam' under their trucks for years afterward. Those damned things are still killing rednecks today, when they forget what they're driving and get in a hurry...

Now you have me digressing. Nader sparked a big, fat movement that didn't address the problem, but instead caused a number of different ones. He also led the free market to demand a better rear suspension system for the Corvair, and that did work in 1965. So, I had better give him a decidedly mixed report card, hadn't I? But I still blame him for the fact that I know Joan Claybrook's name, and I have a hard time forgiving him for that...

[BillyDkid]

he was the only anti-war candidate so I feel a certain redemption after 700,000 Iraqi deaths and likely over 25,000 American soldiers killed and counting....


I'm sorry, did you really just say this above??? Did you really say he was the only anti-war candidate??? You are familiar with Ron Paul, right??? I see you mentioned his name, so you must be familiar.

[acptulsa]

I'm sorry, did you really just say this above??? Did you really say he was the only anti-war candidate??? You are familiar with Ron Paul, right??? I see you mentioned his name, so you must be familiar.

He's the anti-war candidate I voted for on Super Tuesday. I had to leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank in the general. I suspect ecliptic will tell you a similar story. Did you vote for Ron Paul in November?

[CUnknown]

Well, I don't intend to make you laugh. But he spawned a cottage industry around automobile safety which has done at least as much harm as good [...]

Seriously... seatbelts and airbags have done at least as much harm as good? :confused:

Nader is one of the greatest Americans of the 20th Century, next to Ron Paul of course. I voted for him after Paul didn't run 3rd party.

[acptulsa]

Seriously... seatbelts and airbags have done at least as much harm as good? :confused:

Not seat belts. Air bags? Ask someone who let their child ride in the front seat--just like they did when they were kids--and got in a minor fender-bender. You may find that the accident would never have killed the kid, but the air bag did.

And there's more to it than even that. Side door guard beams that do little for safety--and energy absorbing bumpers that do nothing--but do help keep us from becoming independent of imported oil. Recalls that keep independents out of the car business. And so much more...

How do you feel about Dr. Frankenstein? Well, Nader created a monster, too.

[Athan]

I think he is talking about Congress not Ron specifically.

[BillyDkid]

I hate when people claim him to be a "consumer advocate." He is absolutely not a consumer advocate. Maybe in his mind, but he usually works against consumers by restricting their choices. I'm sure he has done good work keeping up a voice against corporatism, but I still cannot get over his major accomplishment of forcing away the classic muscle cars via emissions/mpg restrictions. Plus, that seatbelt crap? Really more controlling than anything.
Could not agree more. Yes, not everything Nader stand for is awful and I agree with some of it, but much of what he does stand for IS awful. He is largely responsible for getting government deeply involved in regulations that ultimate hurt the poor and limit all of our choices. There is no way around the fact that Nader is ALL about big government. He just doesn't want that big government doing things he doesn't approve of.

[acptulsa]

He just doesn't want that big government doing things he doesn't approve of.

Isn't that always the problem? Isn't the main cause of the failure of socialism pretty much always a matter of too many cooks spoiling the broth? And if not, doesn't that always run a very close second to thievery?

[BillyDkid]

Isn't that always the problem? Isn't the main cause of the failure of socialism pretty much always a matter of too many cooks spoiling the broth? And if not, doesn't that always run a very close second to thievery?No, the failure of socialism is that it is a corrupt philosophy. It is about a handful of people deciding for everyone else how they should live and what they are entitled to have.