Ralph Nader is the Joe Lieberman of the left

[Mark E. Smith]

Just because you agree with a backstabbing traitor's opinions on something
doesn't make him any less a Quisling.

And let's face it, Joe and Ralph both have been on the take for a whole lot of
Republican money in their efforts to advance their political careers. And help
the GOP cause, of course. Mustn't forget that.

If a whole bunch of you want to take your unctuous baggage and scamper off
to the Nader camp, why please do. Don't let the door hit you on your strutting
self-righteous ass on the way out.

Personally I believe that Barack Obama has a country to save, and the buzzing
of you gnats is a distraction the adults really needs.

Oh, and please. None of that "How come I can't express my opinion here? How
come I can't say what I want to say?"

You can say all you want. But if you dish it out you have to expect to take it.

Otherwise you're just whining.

[alarimer]

1. Bullshit.

You and people like you are what is wrong with the Democratic Party. You might like the corporate centrist bullshit but the spineless weasel corporatists are why we are still in Iraq.

[CreekDog]

6. Unlike Ralph Nader, Joe Lieberman has actually supported legislation to protect civil rights

including gay rights, to oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, to expand definition of hate crimes and to protect the environment.

now i don't like Joe Lieberman, in fact, I can't stand the guy. but in the past two decades he has done more than Nader on all these issues. Nader was too good to support for imperfect solutions.

i got no use for Nader.

[DerekG]

28. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Nader hasn't supported genocidal war

Awfully hard to wash off the blood of a million Iraqi men, women, children and infants.

[CreekDog]

33. no but then again Nader helped Bush get elected

the war wouldn't have happened but for that and the things Nader said about Gore meant that for all practical purposes, Nader's message was that it didn't matter who among Bush and Gore won.

It did matter. Kind of hard to wash one's hands of that though Nader has tried mightily to do just that.

[DerekG]

34. Gore supported the absolutely horrifying Iraqi sanctions

Let's stop pretending Al Gore was the Prince of Peace. No matter who was appointed in 2000, the Iraqi people were destined to lose out.

[CreekDog]

36. didn't say Gore was the Prince of Peace

but he opposed the war, forcefully.

significant difference or not?

[DerekG]

39. Frankly, I was surprised to hear of his opposition

Between his support of the economic sanctions, the continuous bombings, and Clinton's signing of the 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act--which made "regime change" the policy of the government--I was shocked Gore had some hesitation in murdering brown people.

Fact is: Gore was a member of a centrist-rightist administration, and Ralph Nader had every right to run as a liberal alternative. Had I voted my conscience, as I do now, I would have pulled the lever for the widely despised consumer advocate.

[CreekDog]

41. edited

i don't like what Nader said about a certain group of people in 2000.

[cali]

9. a failure of logic is what you're exhibiting.

Just because the OP does not like Nader, doesn't mean s/he likes "corporate centrist bullshit". And I hate to burst your little bubble but Ralph has taken plenty of that dirty corporate money.

Nader is a shameless egotist and self-promoter who hasn't done jackshit for anyone but Nader in decades.

[BrklynLiberal]

38. I am forced to agree totally with your assessment of Nader.

He seems to become invisible between Presidential elections, and then reappears every four years just to jump up and down and throw tantrums. He was once a force to be reckoned with, but his arrogance and ego have caused him to self-destruct.

[hfojvt]

2. the adults, eh?

I suppose that would be the bigshots in their suits looking out for the Chambers of Commerce, as opposed to the dirty effing hippies who support the canaille.

[mdmc]

3. I suggest we all spend our energy fully supporting Obama's agenda

In 2003 there was a freeper that opposed torture as a tool in the fight against terrorism. Another freeper suggested that the first freeper should focus on supporting Presiden't Bush 100%, and forget about his opposition to torture.

There is nothing wrong with the DLC or corporatism. America will be fine, either way. Clinton was better then Bush. Better then Dole. Obama was better then McCain. Will be better then the 2012 GOP. That is more then enough for us to support him with.

Taking GOP money is very different then taking corporate money. How?

[Snotcicles]

7. Taking money isn't the problem. It's what the money buys. nt

[mdmc]

10. can't be bought if it is not taken

:shrug:

[mdmc]

4. I love Nader AND Lieberman

:)

[madinmaryland]

15. ..

:popcorn:

[Lasher]

5. It seems lots of Nader supporters are showing up here.

Not so much at the polls on election day. Nader got 0.56% of the popular vote.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

8. The difference between Nader and Lieberman is

that Lieberman, awful as he is, has actually succeeded in winning elected office a number of times. When he was a Democrat, his victory actually helped the Democrats gain a senate majority in 2000. Even in 2006, he helped the Democrats gain a senate majority.

Nader just helps the GOP win office

[lib2DaBone]

11. Did Ralph Nader take Republican Money?

I thought of Ralph nader as a "consumer crusader", but he could be a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Too late now, the damage is done. But in this recent election... the DEMS stood united.. they didn't split their vote.

What convinced me was Tom Hartman and Randy Rhodes. They said DEMS "Could Not" let the Republicans make another Supreme Court Judge appointment. If nothing else, at least this election completed that goal.

I give Thanks on this Thanksgiving Day ... That the Alcoholic Psycopath War Monger Asshole George Bush is History.

Please.. IMPEACH Bush and Cheney!

[Two Americas]

22. we all "take Republican money"

You take "Republican money" or you starve, one way or the other. The Republicans represent those who control the wealth in the country. Want to eat? Then you had better do what they want, and not get "too radical" or speak out too much or rock the boat. We are so comfortable in our cages, so accustomed to the chains, that we don't even see them.

[Two Americas]

12. so authoritarian and suppressive

Why must we be forced to make these nonsensical choices about personalities - seeing them as evil incarnate or else as saints?

Guess I am "whining."

The "buzzing of the gnats" that you find so irritating is a representative democracy in action.

Your rant is so spiteful and malicious - you don't deny that you are trying to bully people and intimidate them into silence, and others into dismissing and discrediting those with whom you disagree - you self-righteously justify your attacks and smears.

[Mark E. Smith]

13. Laughable

Representative democracy in action was the election of Barack Obama.

What you're doing here is whining on a message board.

[depakid]

14. "What you're doing here is whining on a message board."

I guess that comment just goes to show that irony impairment is not solely a Republican trait....:hide:

[Mark E. Smith]

16. Sure pal.

There was tons of irony in Two Americas post.

Unfortunately it was buried underneath all the bullshit.

[Two Americas]

17. I am not a Nader promoter

And I wouldn't vote for him.

But I will always defend the right of people to post his ideas here, and the right of all of us to hear them in an atmosphere free from bullying and ad hominem attacks, smears and character assassination, mocking and ridiculing.

Elections are but one small part of self-government. we have a moral obligation and s civic =duty to express out opinions, even when they are unpopular. Elections are the effect of the ongoing national political discussion, not a cause, and should never be seen used to justify restricting or constraining a free and open discussion where all ideas can get a fair hearing.

There was a time when Abolitionists were in the minority and mocked and ridiculed, and when the Republican party started as an anti-slavery third party they were accused of being spoilers.

We have a moral obligation to speak the truth as we see it, not merely to side with the "winners" or with the powerful or what happens to be popular today. What is right should always be more important than what is popular.

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them." - John Stuart Mill

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Either both or neither.

If people are right to post his ideas here, other people should be free to criticise them.

"Bullying" is a mostly subjective term in the context of a message board; it's basically means "disagreement I don't like".

[Two Americas]

20. agreed

But attacking the messenger is what I am objecting to, not to people countering the message.

I do not believe that people are able to counter the message, or fear that they cannot, so they resort to character assassination and personal attacks. That is what I am objecting to, and I don't care which "side" it is coming from I will always object to it.

Calling other people names, intentionally mischaracterizing what they are saying, maligning their character, speculating on their motivations in the absence of any objective evidence, accusing them of being traitors and telling them to shut up is all clearly suppressive and a threat to freedom of speech, and people doing that should not then hide behind the claim that they have the right to do that under the auspices of "free speech."

Why is it that we cannot object to attempts at suppressing the free and open discussion without ourselves being accused of suppressing free speech? That "logic" is used continually by the right wing propagandists. One cannot speak out against racism without being accused of "reverse racism." One cannot speak out against the war being waged against the poor by the wealthy without ourselves being accused of "fomenting class warfare." we cannot support affirmative action without being accused of prejudice against white people. We cannot speak out for gender equality without being accused of persecuting men. Wee cannot advocate equality for same sex couples without being accused of threatening heterosexual marriages. we cannot question the actions of the US military without being accused of helping or siding with the enemy.

Speak out against hate speech, and some racist thug will bellow "hey what about my freedom of speech?? You liberals are hypocrites!" Call for tolerance of minorities, and some racist thug will bellow "what about tolerance toward me? Don't I get my equal rights?"

I wish the conservatives here would argue their points of view, would express their opinions openly an honestly. I welcome that. Instead, too often they attack the Left, and use tactics that are suppressive of freedom of speech, and destructive to the free and open exchange of ideas.

[Mark E. Smith]

43. Overweening pomposity dressed up as indignation

Nobody is saying anywhere that anyone needs to be denied their right to speak whatever
is on their mind. And your claim that somehow you are somehow exercising your "moral
obligation and civic duty" by defending those attacking Barack Obama while exercising
your suspect umbrage solely on those who defend him is sanctimony in its most extreme.

And if this bombastic claim if yours is something to be taken seriously, why are you in such
a snit over my having posted an opinion?

Hmm?

Claiming to speak for a higher morality while posting patent bullshit has made you the
following:

[Two Americas]

44. I answered that above

Attacking the messenger is what I am objecting to, not to people countering the message.

I do not believe that people are able to counter the message, or fear that they cannot, so they resort to character assassination and personal attacks. That is what I am objecting to, and I don't care which "side" it is coming from I will always object to it.

Calling other people names, intentionally mischaracterizing what they are saying, maligning their character, speculating on their motivations in the absence of any objective evidence, accusing them of being traitors and telling them to shut up is all clearly suppressive and a threat to freedom of speech, and people doing that should not then hide behind the claim that they have the right to do that under the auspices of "free speech."

Why is it that we cannot object to attempts at suppressing the free and open discussion without ourselves being accused of suppressing free speech? That "logic" is used continually by the right wing propagandists. One cannot speak out against racism without being accused of "reverse racism." One cannot speak out against the war being waged against the poor by the wealthy without ourselves being accused of "fomenting class warfare." we cannot support affirmative action without being accused of prejudice against white people. We cannot speak out for gender equality without being accused of persecuting men. Wee cannot advocate equality for same sex couples without being accused of threatening heterosexual marriages. we cannot question the actions of the US military without being accused of helping or siding with the enemy.

Speak out against hate speech, and some racist thug will bellow "hey what about my freedom of speech?? You liberals are hypocrites!" Call for tolerance of minorities, and some racist thug will bellow "what about tolerance toward me? Don't I get my equal rights?"

I wish the conservatives here would argue their points of view, would express their opinions openly an honestly. I welcome that. Instead, too often they attack the Left, and use tactics that are suppressive of freedom of speech, and destructive to the free and open exchange of ideas.

[tama]

18. Let's get real

Obama does not bring "change". Just same'o same'o. He's traitor to the progressives who got him elected.

[Steepler0t]

21. I think at one point Ralph would have made a good Democrat.

He is way too hard-headed to work together.
Now there is way too much bad blood with Dems harassing him a few campaigns back illegally about getting on the ballots in certain states.
Regardless, he is no real help. About the only good thing I can say for him is that he keeps progressive issues in the spotlight.
Sometimes issues that are too politically hot for Democrats to get behind.
His campaigns are run TERRIBLY, I worked for him for a few weeks this time around (left when it seemed Obama would get the nod -I am not a HRC fan).
I am pretty embarrassed now to admit it to friends, but it felt good to let my old employers know I voted for Obama.

I washed my hands of him forever after the little crack he made about Obama on election night.. He can go suck eggs.
The Democratic Party may frustrate me at times with Lieberman and off-the-table Pelosi but with folks like Kucinich on our side I am damn proud Democrat. Obama is going to be a great President, I am pumped!

[creeksneakers2]

23. Recommended

And very well put. Nader folks have rights but that doesn't mean I have to like hearing Nader's name. I don't like the "everybody is corrupt but us" attitude either. No good will ever come from Nader.

[superduperfarleft]

24. Nevermind.

Fuck it, continue on with the irrational Nader-hate. :eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Lieberman and Nader have both sold out.

Lieberman is willing to compromise on individual liberties "for the greater good" (that good being the supposed safety of Israel but in fact it is the lining of the pockets of some very wealthy families within the country of Israel). Nader is willing to compromise on individual liberties "for the greater good" (recall that he wanted the nation to suffer through W. believing that it would lead to a turn to the left---that is jackass politics practiced from a penthouse).

[zeos3]

37. I'm not sure how Nadercompromised on individual liberties,

but it seems his belief was on target about the country's left swing after suffering through bush.

[pam4water]

26. No Comparison: Lieberman sold out! Nadar stayed true to his principles to the point

of not being able to bend or compromise at all. Nadar doesn't see shades of gray anymore, and doesn't know how to compromise, which sadly is required in life. Lieberman got tired of taking the heat and became a boot lackey for the Republicans. I don't see any comparison. In fact they are kind of opposites.

[KG]

27. funny, i don't consider nader any kind of leftist.

and no particular hero of mine. he's a died in the wool capitialist who's made millions. he has no need of 'GOP money' so ya'll can drop that bit of sophistry.

he has a narrow political agenda: how corruption in corporate america is screwing this country. not much else this looney leftist can find to hang his hat on.

over 40,000 people voted for someone other than nader, gore or bush in FL 2000.

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11/7/2000&DATAMODE=

so, really, the claims that nader cost gore the election is plain and simple intellectual dishonsty. but really, why bother with critical thinking when there's a convenient emanuel goldstien for the proles to vent on?

[the other one]

29. Duh!!! LIEBERMAN is the Joe Lieberman of the left.

Time for more group hate!
Damn you Goldberg!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. A "Quisling" to what? Last I heard, Nader ran as an Independent.

Did he take some sort of oath of fealty to the Democratic Party?

[Two Americas]

45. all your leftist base are belong to us

How on earth do you expect them to be able to force the Democratic party to the right if they are going to tolerate anyone straying from the fold?

[EFerrari]

31. The liquor stores are still open.

[pam4water]

32. H'ah?

[ProfessorGAC]

35. Well, They Are Here

We live near a fishing area, so they open at 6am, and stay open until 1am.

Practically need shift work to run a liquor store!
The Professor

[Fading Captain]

40. You're whining about Nader.

Any Democrat who blames Nader for the problems in this country is SO FUCKING FAR REMOVED from values of peace, the environment, sivil rights and prosperity for the working class that they may as well be Republicans.

Nader is a sign post.

We can either get on track. Or we can let the corporations own both parties.

[struggle4progress]

42. Nader-bashing primarily distracts attention from his policy and organizational legacy

Nader pushed in the right direction for decades and he founded a number of effective organizations to do the necessary work

Those interested in reform cannot ignore the examples set by his Public Citizen or the invaluable Multinational Monitor: http://www.citizen.org/ http://multinationalmonitor.org/

[ShortnFiery]

46. Total Bullshit! Nader has done many good deeds protecting consumers.

Didn't vote for him but he has earned my respect.

[sellitman]

48. Nader has done more good for Republicans than Liberals.

Or the flip side...he has done far more damage to Liberals than he is worth.

[ShortnFiery]

49. No, stop that crap LABELING. Nader has helped AMERICANS in the past. He may be a little arrogant

now in his later years but that doesn't negate all his good works during his early years.

[sellitman]

50. It's not crap.

All the good he has ever done was negated many times over. It's sad but very true.

[ShortnFiery]

51. We disagree.

Have a good day. :hi:

[Catshrink]

47. Has Nader ever been elected to any public office?

Or is he just a perennial also-ran spoiler?