Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
What is worst? To have money handed over to you for free from one of your opponents or to have money handed over to you by the buisness you have pledged to protect your voters from? We know why Nadar is handed money and is being helped from the republicans. Its obvious to everyone. It will never be open to us what the democrats have to do for their.
Why on earth won´t the democrats not bind themselves to election reforms? If they did more than half of Nadars arguments in this election will dissapear and he may even stop his campaign (and if he doesn´t the democrats can play the ego-card).
Because campaign finance reform is a fine line between the first amendment and public interest. Nadar wont say that though. Nadar will only say we need reform but Nadar will never get reform if he is elected. Nadar has no way of getting the congress to support him. Any and all finance reform eventually goes to the Suprem Court, but Nadar wont say that. Nadar will use the same dried up rhetoric without lookiing at the balancing act needed. Kerry is still proposing finance reform, but Kerry also knows there is a fine line. One can't ban all contributions or political speech (as Nadar would have us do--well maybe not that extreme) without butting into the good'ol constitution.
I´m not talking about finance reforms. I´m talking about working for reforming the election process.
All the democrats have to say is "The most importent thing in this election is getting GWB out of the office. Thats what people have to vote for [this is the message already] BUT we recognise that the two party system, electoral college aso. doesn´t give us the the best democracy and we will work for reforms that allow voices other than the mainstream space in the political system"
I´m not talking about finance reforms. I´m talking about working for reforming the election process.
All the democrats have to say is "The most importent thing in this election is getting GWB out of the office. Thats what people have to vote for [this is the message already] BUT we recognise that the two party system, electoral college aso. doesn´t give us the the best democracy and we will work for reforms that allow voices other than the mainstream space in the political system"
How I would like to reform it is not an issue even if I have very strong opinions on the matter. I´m talking about how Nadar and the democrats can meet and help eachother.
Go see the Dean/Nadar debate if you want their views on election reforms. They talk a great deal about it there.
Nader should find a more constructive method for getting his message out. Look at the destructive effect he had on the last election. He put a Republican in the Whitehouse! What would the last four years have been like with Gore at the helm?
Saw F9/11 last night. Hard to watch. Felt really betrayed by our government.
Fantasizing about strapped down my right-wing brother-in-law Clockwork Orange style and making him watch it.
It seems to me you all really don´t get it. Your agenda is not the same as Nadars. Opposition to Bush is not a single thing. Nadars agenda against Bush is also an agenda against the democrats: That the current political system doesn´t work and need to be changed. the SYSTEM won´t change by replacing Bush with Kerry (or Dean). The basic political system will continue, just under new leadership.
That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.
Remember that Bush was wrong when he said your either with us or against us. Not just in the war against terrorists but in all politcal questions.
It seems to me you all really don´t get it. Your agenda is not the same as Nadars. Opposition to Bush is not a single thing. Nadars agenda against Bush is also an agenda against the democrats: That the current political system doesn´t work and need to be changed. the SYSTEM won´t change by replacing Bush with Kerry (or Dean). The basic political system will continue, just under new leadership.
That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.
Remember that Bush was wrong when he said your either with us or against us. Not just in the war against terrorists but in all politcal questions.
Yeah, but you don't get it . . . we, who live here, might feel a little more of the sense of Necessity with regards to getting Bush out of office . . .
. . . its nice to have a multi-party systems and everything is hunky dory and one day you can play ultra lefty with a small group of cool dressing comrades, or decide to go Green for a day and change your hair color too . . . but right now, that kind of posing . . . posing with a vote and trendy 'ideological' clique, is detrimental to US and the rest of the world!
And reform is definitely not going to happen when Nadir hands the election to the thieves again!!
It will only happen at the ground level, and will take realistic work by many many individuals . . . not just people who pose and rant about absurd extreme positions that only have value as empty principles.
It seems to me you all really don´t get it. Your agenda is not the same as Nadars. Opposition to Bush is not a single thing. Nadars agenda against Bush is also an agenda against the democrats: That the current political system doesn´t work and need to be changed...
That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.
Four years ago I brought up the issue of swaying the vote to the Nader campaign via email. The campaign manager wrote back stating that there was no possibility of Nader hurting Gore's chances in the election. The Electoral process would protect that from happening. They just wanted to be heard and make a statement. Some statement. Nader took 2% of the popular vote in Florida, and changed the world:
But the $10000 question is this: If Nador wants to run and someone wants to vote for him based on his agenda who are you to say its wrong (other than that you don´t share their ideology). There is three different ideologies in play now not two.
Those voting for him know that their votes aren´t going to the democrats. They made the decision that they want to support someone else than the democrats. It looks like two party system made everyone think that the votes not going to the party in power is for the other of the two large parties to grab.
If I could vote in US I would problably vote for the Edwards/kerry ticket but the more we discuss this the less I think Bush is the problem and Nadur has presented your countries most imminent political problem.
Four years ago I brought up the issue of swaying the vote to the Nader campaign via email. The campaign manager wrote back stating that there was no possibility of Nader hurting Gore's chances in the election. The Electoral process would protect that from happening. They just wanted to be heard and make a statement. Some statement. Nader took 2% of the popular vote in Florida, and changed the world.
You decide what you vote for and you know the risk if you want to "make a statement". Gore didn´t lose because of Nadær but because he didn´t appeal to the majority.
Its so freaking easy guys. Tell the democratic party to promise to work for the same ideas. Then he has no platform and you will grab his votes. As long as they are not ready to change their policies the votes are not theirs.
You decide what you vote for and you know the risk if you want to "make a statement". Gore didn´t lose because of Nadær but because he didn´t appeal to the majority.
Tell that Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose ticket.
Anders, it is fairly ironic you said Gore didnt appeal to the majority. If my memory serves me correctly, he had half a million more votes.
But he didn´t appeal to a majority of the electoral college and thats what count in your democracy. And that makes Nadårs message even more importent. Ironic, no?
Nader should find a more constructive method for getting his message out. Look at the destructive effect he had on the last election. He put a Republican in the Whitehouse! What would the last four years have been like with Gore at the helm?
Saw F9/11 last night. Hard to watch. Felt really betrayed by our government.
Fantasizing about strapped down my right-wing brother-in-law Clockwork Orange style and making him watch it.
Why don't you make your right-wing brother-in-law a deal, tell him you'll go with him to the next showing AND both of you read the critics of the film (e.g. 57 deciets)analysis prior to its showing.
In other words, offer to share both sides of the story (or even see the upcomming anti-Moore film).
Piece of advice: wait until something remotely legitimate comes out rather than citing trash like that. One would hope moore's critics would be smarter than to promote something like that, but apparently not.
Piece of advice: wait until something remotely legitimate comes out rather than citing trash like that. One would hope moore's critics would be smarter than to promote something like that, but apparently not.
Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?
Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?
Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?
It's the point if you look at everything as black and white.
Really, there shouldn't be any 'sides' when dealing with getting down to the truth of the matter. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I haven't seen F911, but there is at least one deceitful part of the trailer. On the other 'side' you have a paper that is totally FOS from top to bottom.
So what side am I on? I want to see a good run-down of the facts (or lack thereof) in F911 and the only thing anyone can point to as a substantial rebuttal is a trashy article that considers simply talking about the WTC a michael moore "deceit."
The point as I see it is that "59" isn't the "side" of anything except for the lunatics that think it's worth citing as an opposing viewpoint.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's just say I had the pleasure of having Bush as my governor.
The Democrats here sicken me. They are absolutely worthless wimpy Republican-lites.
Originally posted by Anders
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
What is worst? To have money handed over to you for free from one of your opponents or to have money handed over to you by the buisness you have pledged to protect your voters from? We know why Nadar is handed money and is being helped from the republicans. Its obvious to everyone. It will never be open to us what the democrats have to do for their.
Why on earth won´t the democrats not bind themselves to election reforms? If they did more than half of Nadars arguments in this election will dissapear and he may even stop his campaign (and if he doesn´t the democrats can play the ego-card).
Because campaign finance reform is a fine line between the first amendment and public interest. Nadar wont say that though. Nadar will only say we need reform but Nadar will never get reform if he is elected. Nadar has no way of getting the congress to support him. Any and all finance reform eventually goes to the Suprem Court, but Nadar wont say that. Nadar will use the same dried up rhetoric without lookiing at the balancing act needed. Kerry is still proposing finance reform, but Kerry also knows there is a fine line. One can't ban all contributions or political speech (as Nadar would have us do--well maybe not that extreme) without butting into the good'ol constitution.
All the democrats have to say is "The most importent thing in this election is getting GWB out of the office. Thats what people have to vote for [this is the message already] BUT we recognise that the two party system, electoral college aso. doesn´t give us the the best democracy and we will work for reforms that allow voices other than the mainstream space in the political system"
Originally posted by Anders
I´m not talking about finance reforms. I´m talking about working for reforming the election process.
All the democrats have to say is "The most importent thing in this election is getting GWB out of the office. Thats what people have to vote for [this is the message already] BUT we recognise that the two party system, electoral college aso. doesn´t give us the the best democracy and we will work for reforms that allow voices other than the mainstream space in the political system"
How would you propose reform?
Go see the Dean/Nadar debate if you want their views on election reforms. They talk a great deal about it there.
Saw F9/11 last night. Hard to watch. Felt really betrayed by our government.
Fantasizing about strapped down my right-wing brother-in-law Clockwork Orange style and making him watch it.
That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.
Remember that Bush was wrong when he said your either with us or against us. Not just in the war against terrorists but in all politcal questions.
Originally posted by Anders
It seems to me you all really don´t get it. Your agenda is not the same as Nadars. Opposition to Bush is not a single thing. Nadars agenda against Bush is also an agenda against the democrats: That the current political system doesn´t work and need to be changed. the SYSTEM won´t change by replacing Bush with Kerry (or Dean). The basic political system will continue, just under new leadership.
That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.
Remember that Bush was wrong when he said your either with us or against us. Not just in the war against terrorists but in all politcal questions.
Yeah, but you don't get it . . . we, who live here, might feel a little more of the sense of Necessity with regards to getting Bush out of office . . .
. . . its nice to have a multi-party systems and everything is hunky dory and one day you can play ultra lefty with a small group of cool dressing comrades, or decide to go Green for a day and change your hair color too . . . but right now, that kind of posing . . . posing with a vote and trendy 'ideological' clique, is detrimental to US and the rest of the world!
And reform is definitely not going to happen when Nadir hands the election to the thieves again!!
It will only happen at the ground level, and will take realistic work by many many individuals . . . not just people who pose and rant about absurd extreme positions that only have value as empty principles.
Originally posted by Anders
It seems to me you all really don´t get it. Your agenda is not the same as Nadars. Opposition to Bush is not a single thing. Nadars agenda against Bush is also an agenda against the democrats: That the current political system doesn´t work and need to be changed...
That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.
Four years ago I brought up the issue of swaying the vote to the Nader campaign via email. The campaign manager wrote back stating that there was no possibility of Nader hurting Gore's chances in the election. The Electoral process would protect that from happening. They just wanted to be heard and make a statement. Some statement. Nader took 2% of the popular vote in Florida, and changed the world:
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
Those voting for him know that their votes aren´t going to the democrats. They made the decision that they want to support someone else than the democrats. It looks like two party system made everyone think that the votes not going to the party in power is for the other of the two large parties to grab.
If I could vote in US I would problably vote for the Edwards/kerry ticket but the more we discuss this the less I think Bush is the problem and Nadur has presented your countries most imminent political problem.
Originally posted by notaclone
Four years ago I brought up the issue of swaying the vote to the Nader campaign via email. The campaign manager wrote back stating that there was no possibility of Nader hurting Gore's chances in the election. The Electoral process would protect that from happening. They just wanted to be heard and make a statement. Some statement. Nader took 2% of the popular vote in Florida, and changed the world.
You decide what you vote for and you know the risk if you want to "make a statement". Gore didn´t lose because of Nadær but because he didn´t appeal to the majority.
Its so freaking easy guys. Tell the democratic party to promise to work for the same ideas. Then he has no platform and you will grab his votes. As long as they are not ready to change their policies the votes are not theirs.
Originally posted by Anders
You decide what you vote for and you know the risk if you want to "make a statement". Gore didn´t lose because of Nadær but because he didn´t appeal to the majority.
Tell that Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose ticket.
Originally posted by MajorMatt
Anders, it is fairly ironic you said Gore didnt appeal to the majority. If my memory serves me correctly, he had half a million more votes.
But he didn´t appeal to a majority of the electoral college and thats what count in your democracy. And that makes Nadårs message even more importent. Ironic, no?
Originally posted by notaclone
Nader should find a more constructive method for getting his message out. Look at the destructive effect he had on the last election. He put a Republican in the Whitehouse! What would the last four years have been like with Gore at the helm?
Saw F9/11 last night. Hard to watch. Felt really betrayed by our government.
Fantasizing about strapped down my right-wing brother-in-law Clockwork Orange style and making him watch it.
Why don't you make your right-wing brother-in-law a deal, tell him you'll go with him to the next showing AND both of you read the critics of the film (e.g. 57 deciets)analysis prior to its showing.
In other words, offer to share both sides of the story (or even see the upcomming anti-Moore film).
Originally posted by MaxParrish
(e.g. 57 deciets)
Piece of advice: wait until something remotely legitimate comes out rather than citing trash like that. One would hope moore's critics would be smarter than to promote something like that, but apparently not.
Originally posted by giant
Piece of advice: wait until something remotely legitimate comes out rather than citing trash like that. One would hope moore's critics would be smarter than to promote something like that, but apparently not.
Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?
Doesn't sound too open minded to me.
Originally posted by jimmac
Doesn't sound too open minded to me.
The approach is open-minded, the sources are partisan. There are a lot of critics of Moore, it might be worth reading a few prior to seeing the film.
Now, if one just wants to feel 'good' about the film's message and enjoy the show, by all means don't read anything critical.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?
It's the point if you look at everything as black and white.
Really, there shouldn't be any 'sides' when dealing with getting down to the truth of the matter. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I haven't seen F911, but there is at least one deceitful part of the trailer. On the other 'side' you have a paper that is totally FOS from top to bottom.
So what side am I on? I want to see a good run-down of the facts (or lack thereof) in F911 and the only thing anyone can point to as a substantial rebuttal is a trashy article that considers simply talking about the WTC a michael moore "deceit."
The point as I see it is that "59" isn't the "side" of anything except for the lunatics that think it's worth citing as an opposing viewpoint.