Unless there's some HUGE shift and the US becomes socialist...
corporate america will always have a say in politics.
And while I agree that their influence must be watched closely and at times curtailed... to say there's no difference between the candidates because they listen to corporate concerns or take corporate donations is ludicrous.
You can look at Kerry and Bush and see a very distinct difference in how they think corporate interests should participate.
All you have to do is look at Bush's environmental policies... and who his secretaries of energy, the interior and the epa are.
No, the numbers above were 2-1 (Gore-Bush) for Nader voters. That's 66%. That is not "damn near" universal.
I do not believe you. Cite?
Quote:
I think "crush" is a melodramatic description.
I don't. Do you know how much this deficit will be when it comes time for me to spend the rest of my paying taxes to service it? Counting compounding interest, the slow rate of payback, and inflation, well over $1 trillion.
Foisting heavy deficits on future generations solely to pay for excess today is immoral. It is punishing the future to help today. Bush must really hate children.
Quote:
You are kidding, right?
Not at all. By doing what he has done to help Bush get into power he has done more damage to the environment, workers protections, global trade and other issues he claims to care about than can be estimated.
Even using your suspect numbers, had there been no Nader, Gore would have won Florida handidly and New Hampshire narrowly. That would have prevented Bush's trampling over our civil liberties, our environment (yum, yum, arsenic in the water!), so on and so forth.
Quote:
Political party allegiances are bad, just ask George Washington.
Washington was many things. A great political thinker was not one of them.
Quote:
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
Comments
corporate america will always have a say in politics.
And while I agree that their influence must be watched closely and at times curtailed... to say there's no difference between the candidates because they listen to corporate concerns or take corporate donations is ludicrous.
You can look at Kerry and Bush and see a very distinct difference in how they think corporate interests should participate.
All you have to do is look at Bush's environmental policies... and who his secretaries of energy, the interior and the epa are.
Originally posted by groverat
No, the numbers above were 2-1 (Gore-Bush) for Nader voters. That's 66%. That is not "damn near" universal.
I do not believe you. Cite?
Quote:
I think "crush" is a melodramatic description.
I don't. Do you know how much this deficit will be when it comes time for me to spend the rest of my paying taxes to service it? Counting compounding interest, the slow rate of payback, and inflation, well over $1 trillion.
Foisting heavy deficits on future generations solely to pay for excess today is immoral. It is punishing the future to help today. Bush must really hate children.
Quote:
You are kidding, right?
Not at all. By doing what he has done to help Bush get into power he has done more damage to the environment, workers protections, global trade and other issues he claims to care about than can be estimated.
Even using your suspect numbers, had there been no Nader, Gore would have won Florida handidly and New Hampshire narrowly. That would have prevented Bush's trampling over our civil liberties, our environment (yum, yum, arsenic in the water!), so on and so forth.
Quote:
Political party allegiances are bad, just ask George Washington.
Washington was many things. A great political thinker was not one of them.
Quote:
I may be interested in Kerry but I sure as hell wouldn't mention it to a freak zealot, you might crawl up my ass and die. Jesus, someone get this kid some Xanax.
Thanks.
Kirk