Ralph Nader Talks About Why Impeachment Is "Off The Table"

Run time: 03:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA   Posted on YouTube: October 12, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 14, 2007 By DU Member: Syrinx Views on DU: 12112

 
This is a low-quality clip, apparently made with a cell phone.

Nader addresses what may be influencing the collective mindset of our congress critters these days.

Tinfoilish, but worth considering.

Nothing he has to say would induce me to listen to a word from his mouth.

Get over the 2000 election. Get your facts straight. Gore didn't lose because of Nader. Gore lost because the Supreme Court stopped the vote counting. It's already been proven that Gore had the most votes.

Frankly, your comment is deeply offensive. Nader has fought hard for good governance in this country. He speaks truth to power. And you want him to shut up. That's deeply disturbing.

My suggestion - get over the personality crap and listen to what is being said. Then make a judgment on the merit of the discussion.

In 2000 Ralph told everybody that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Now he says Bush is a criminal who must be impeached.

Ralph faults the Democrats for not impeaching. Who is Ralph to talk? Bush wouldn't be there in the first place if it weren't for Ralph and the stupid Greens helping Bush win.

How are we going to get over the 2000 election while Bush and the consequences of Nader are still here? All the Nader supporters offer in defense is finger pointing and wild conspiracy theories. They ignore what Ralph did. If Nader had a conscience he'd be too ashamed to show his face.

to impeach Clinton and Gore for war crimes...

So, yes, Mr. Nader was correct then and he is now.

The difference is merely a matter of degree of the crimes, not the fact that crimes are committed in the name of the Empire by both wings of the Big Business Party...

is what keeps you going in circles --

Obviously, you're also ignoring the supposedly Democrat-inspired "Butterfly ballots" which were traceable to Theresa La Pore, since linked with the GOP.

You might also exercise your mind a bit on what religious fanatics might do for the Repugs in order to establish a "Christian/pro-life" administration which talks with "god."

Meanwhile, the Repugs are about 30 years ahead you on the trail of stealing elections and stealing from our Treasury. Ralph Nader has been the one who understood what they were doing and was telling America about it all along.

The reality of the 2000 election was that Gore won in Florida -- the vote counting was stopped by a fascist GOP rally and the neo-cons on the Supreme Court.

I'm not distracted by Nader supporter finger pointing. If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won. FACT! Nader ran and his followers campaigned for Nader knowing that they could be giving the election to Bush. FACT! Nader and his supporters said that was OK because there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore. FACT!

Nader supporters point fingers every time but I've yet to see one admit and defend what Ralph and his followers did in 2000. They just blame something else for what they intentionally created.

The vote in Florida was within the margins of counting error. There's no way to know who would have won if there had been a recount.

The Nader argument is we didn't do quite enough damage to Al Gore to put the election completely out of reach. Despite our best efforts in Florida and the other tightest states, if every single vote had been counted he would have got just enough to get over the line. NO DEAL.

That doesn't address what Ralph did, intentionally took votes away from Gore, enough that the outcome would have changed. What did Ralph do that for? What was accomplished by it? Was that the right thing to do?

Its as if Ralph pushes an obese person off a cliff and says the death is the fault of the victim for being obese and falling too fast. What about what Ralph did?

What is this bullshit about 'blaming' Ralph Nader for Bush taking over in 2000? Why do all Nader-haters pretend that Nader 'stole' votes away from Gore? Why do they pretend those votes 'belonged' to Gore already? You have to EARN a vote, and if Gore didn't do enough to EARN them from some voters, there's nothing wrong with those votes going to somebody else who DID do enough to earn them.

Your whole point is that guy B can't run for office, because otherwise guy A can't get elected. That is dictatorship. It has nothing to do with democracy, and it has nothing to do with free elections. And above all: it's NONSENSE. It means that guy A (in this case, Gore) can win ONLY if guy B isn't running. That means guy A was a lousy candidate to begin with. Because if he were a GOOD candidate, people who voted for Nader WOULD have voted for Gore. Face it, Gore did a horrible campaign. What was he thinking, picking LIEbermann as running mate?

And then there was the voter suppression (vote caging) of African Americans, the voters fraud, the electronic voting machine fraud, the Florida debacle and the Supreme Court.

You can't ignore all that and blame Americans who have every RIGHT to run for office and have every RIGHT to vote for whomever they like.

Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie Nader is Evil... Boogidie-boogidie-boogidie

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.white-wolf.com/Games/Pages/Artist%20Bios/Snelly%20jack%20o%20lantern%20JPEG

Just think if any citizen could run for office what a dangerous world this would be?

Or if just any old citizen could vote? How would you control that? OMG!!!!

your own actions, so it has to be Nadar's action that are to blame.

He's twice the American you will ever be.

He had the guts to actually run for the office of the Presidency.

That's the American dream. You could grow up to be President, except you can't.
So you bash Nader for believeing in a dream you are too cynical to embrace or deserve.

If you don't want freedom, that's fine. You deserve a system where all your candidates are chosen for you and they are safe.

No wonder you lost. You can't tell the difference between a guy running for President and a stolen election.

You hate that Nader has the American dream and you don't.

Sad. You can't seperate fact from fiction.

Projection (pro-jek-shun): A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed to others.

it is extremely obvious that the whole election was a fixed game from the beginning. I very much doubt that even if gore had won handily he wouldn't have been removed by the cabal. assuming he simply isn't himself a part of the cabal. the only ones that are candidates that I don't think are part of the problem right now are kuchinich and possibly ron paul although paul is the less likable one that isn't corrupted or co-opted.

progressives told him to keep his word on a "safe state strategy?" Maybe Ralph would have learned something from those of us who said "don't help this dangerous man get elected Mr. Nader?" Maybe Ralph should have known that Gore did not equal Bush on ANY issue? Maybe Ralph should have kept his ass out of Florida as he promised?

Sorry, I have NOTHING to learn from this fool.

And, I too want Ralph to shut up, be disturbed if you must.

Then you wouldn't have lost those votes.

Why, he nearly swept the entire electoral vote in 2000 and 2004.

If the progressive vote is insignificant then Nader's campaign was also insignificant. If the progressive vote matters, then the Democratic Party ought to make sure that the progressive voters are going to vote Democratic.

Additionally, I didn't use the words "insignificant."

your claim was that nader voters were not significant. You used the word 'progressive'. You have now descended into sophistry, preferring to quibble over interpretations and definitions rather than defend the substance and obvious meaning of your own post. Not surprising, as you do not have a defensible position.

Platform he would have won," is bullshit. It is you who refused a valid argument by attempting to change the subject. Read the post I responded to if you have any further questions.

On the Jon Stewart Show, Gore stated that he should have spent more time campaigning to the left.


Nader didn't "STEAL" a single vote from Gore. The Democratic Party gave those votes away hoping they wouldn't offend the Republican voters who might cross over.

Case Closed.


Pandering to Conservative Voters?....BIG Mistake.
One the Democratic Party seems to be making again.

I never suggested Gore not run a progressive campaign. Gore has indicated that the mistake he made was "ignoring" Nader, not pandering to the right wing.

"Ah yes, that "progressive values" thing explains why Mr. Nader came so close to winning.
Edited on Sun Oct-14-07 03:01 PM by mzmolly
Why, he nearly swept the entire electoral vote in 2000 and 2004."

And, as I said, if that were true then also blaming Nader for having the election stolen in 2000 is inconsistent.

However, the progressive vote is not insignificant.

"Maybe the Dems should have been a little more progressive..." The person who said this is attempting to say that Nader = progressive, Gore = "conservative." It's bullshit.

If Gore himself won't blame Nader, YOU'VE got a big debate problem.

for talking points on the 2000 election. He's a gentleman, I knew that in 2000, I know it now.

If only Dems weren't so hellbent to 'get along and go along' with the neocon agenda you wouldn't be so hard on Ralphie boy. You're "projecting".

!!!

In the weeks before the 2000 election, an internet site was set up to allow Gore supporters in solidly blue or solidly red states to trade their votes with Nader supporters in swing states. It would have allowed Nader supporters to make a statement, and have the same total number of votes, but without screwing up the electoral college and defeating the most pro-environment candidate in history.

Nader condemned it - and concentrated his own election efforts on swing states. That was unconcionable. He was holding big rallies in Florida and received over 95,000 votes in Florida.

Ralph, is about Ralph.

doesn't disturb me any more than any other fascist suggestion would... :shrug:

to call him on his lies.

...actually not true. The study CNN commissioned, which released its findings earlier this year, stated their experts found Gore to be short several hundred votes. That's not much but it's a shortage.

I heard this reported on local media in the Bay Area, not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

Gore lost because he didn't win Florida. PERIOD. If he had won Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia he wouldn't have needed Florida. Clinton failed to carry Florida in 1996 and still won the election because he carried so many other states in the south...

...which brings me to my point. The Democrats MUST find a way to win down there. If they don't, they're likely to disappear as a party. We know this for a fact. One thousand people per day move to Florida. They're not all conservatives but a hell of a lot of them are! Five hundred people per day move to Arizona and they mostly ARE conservatives or libertarians!

You can't sell abortion and gay rights and unionism to someone who carries a Bible in his hand. It doesn't work. It will NEVER work.

The party has to realign, and if the DNC continues to ignore the problem it will only get worse and may even threaten the continued existence of the party itself.

This is how IT IS. Democrats cannot continue to be the party of California, Oregon, Washington, the upper midwest, New England and Maryland. Long term, the party WILL NOT SURVIVE if changes are not made.

in your opinion the Dems have to begin pandering to the most bigoted, close minded, christianists in order to win?

Win what???


However, with your last post, you win the dumbest suggestion of the month award. :party:


I think October 14th is the earliest it's ever been awarded. Way to go!!! :party: :party:

...want to win or not?

If the Democrats pursue the course you seem to suggest and the same course that McGovern pursued in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988 and countless others before them, they will meet a predictable result: they will get the living shit beaten out of them!

The action is in the south. Everyone knows that. The actuaries at the insurance companies know it. The demographers know it. The people who plan infrastructure in places like Austin and Dallas know it. Conversely, the people seeking to change the state constitution in Ohio know it because they say adopting regionalism and drastically cutting back on the size of government is the only way that state will survive. Look at what's happening in Michigan with Granholm. People are going to be in the street with torches and pitchforks before she leaves office.

You can't sell abortion and gay rights and unionism to people who walk around with Bibles in their hands. It doesn't work. It will never work! Your wishing and hoping that the world were different doesn't make it so.

The party HAS to change...and it changes by throwing the special interest left over the side and becoming more like Labour in Great Britain or the Liberals in Canada.

Or you can ignore me, vote accordingly and continue to get your nose bloodied cycle after cycle, year after year. Every cycle, someone comes along and shoves a steel rod up your ass. Hell, maybe you like it.

This is reality. It's been like this since the eighties and there's absolutely no indication things are changing anytime soon. There are many Texas Democrats (including the present governor) who were Dixiecrats prior to the rise of Ronald Reagan. The Democratic party changed, the southern Dixiecrat elite saw what was happening and jumped ship...and it ain't goin' back anytime soon!

god knows I am no Nader supporter but here he has something to say; Something many of us have suspected and been frightened of.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"the left doesn't care about the constitution as long as they get their handouts."


By far, the "handouts" are going to the wealthiest .. and the corporations. Whenever someone claims that the working class should keep more of the fruits of their own labors, if only to have the basics like health care, shelter, food, and education, some agent of the plantation kleptocracy mouths the same ol' inane propaganda that's premised on the (multi-generational) OWNERS having the Divine Right to the fruits of the labor of them field hands ... and they just don't know their "place."

It's not about what government can do for us, it's about finding the right measure for all things and utilizing resources, and institutions wisely for the benefit of all. It's not about handouts, it's about a hand up - because there's no such thing as "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" (a physical *and* psychological impossibility). It's about making the playing field fair so that we don't live in a world ruled by pillagers who believe there is a right to the "spoils of war".

No, you don't get it. Liberal, leftist, marxism...blah, blah, blah. These things are ideas, points of reference. But they aren't people and you can't define people by those labels. Because what works depends on circumstance and desired goal. Any true liberal can think outside the confines of any label - even "liberal" (oh, the paradox!).

You seem to have a problem with government assistance programs. Do you have a problem with the concept of governance in general? After all, isn't it merely the collective organizational body of a society, even if skewed toward a certain class of people? And aren't our "tax dollars" also our collective wealth? The true battle is in getting proper representation and then we can fight the idealogical battles of figuring out how much collective wealth to gather and how to use that wealth, right? So what's wrong with direct intervention into stopping poverty? Maybe you don't trust human nature enough and believe that most people just want to be freeloaders and loafers. I think otherwise.

Just what would human potentiality achieve if we no longer had to worry about basic subsistence? From my observations, liberals believe in the goodness of human curiosity and human ingenuity. If given the chance I believe we could flourish and prosper beyond anything yet achieved in this world. But we've got to overcome poverty and exploitation first and foremost. We've left it up to "market forces", religions, royalty, and individuals with ambitions of power for thousands upon thousands of years. And what has been the outcome? Slavery, exploitation, poverty, starvation, war, and more war. Personally, I'm sick of this shit and want it to end. In the liberal, progressive circles of today, I believe there are real, workable solutions to ending these problems.

You call out the issues well, but your understanding of liberal, progressive ideas for solutions is, in my opinion, way off base. Might I suggest Center for American Progress as a good place to start to get your head straight. Take your time. Don't leap to conclusions.

And don't look for liberals on the deck of the Titanic arranging chairs - we're the ones making sure there are enough life boats, slowing down the captain so he doesn't hit icebergs, making sure the sea traffic controllers have the right equipment to spot icebergs far enough away, and working for safety standards so that in the event of an iceberg collision the hull is thick enough to withstand the hit at normal operating speeds.

the right calls the left liberals cultural marxists i cant help that...it is what it is and that is what you all are called....now back to the point at hand...for right wing gop types who are fed up with the lying neocon admins and basically the entire party, we are now searching for an anti war candidate....what do we find at the alternative party....a commitment to war until 2013, and for the most part supporters who are willing to go along just because....other than dennis kucinich there is no alternative...i will support him until the leadership chooses to bring forth another leader/president decider....i enjoy reading your site and do not be mad at me because liberals are known as cultural marxists...whats in a name anyways?

All but a few of our representatives are really representing we the people at this time. Sad state of affairs, indeed.

and our elections and our "debates" have been privatized and in the hands of corporations now -- !!!!

commitment. BTW, what is a "cultural Marxist?"

Welcome.

A Cultural Marxist is an artistic communist

no...

A Cultural Marxist is one who believes that the style of rugs, the type of music, and kinds of food a people eat should belong to the proletariat and not to some bourgeois social order.

no...

A Cultural Marxist is one who believes that all cultures are inferior to a state run agency that dictates what people should learn, the activities they can engage in, the religions they can practice, and what is acceptable and unacceptable art.

Yea, that's it...

No wait, that's today's republican party. Oh darn, I give up. :shrug:

I actually found some info here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Response to Right-wing criticism of Cultural Marxism

Since the early 1990s, paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan and William S. Lind have argued that "cultural marxism" is a dominant strain in the American left, and associate with it a philosophy to 'destroy Western civilization.' Much of the critique is based on Buchanan's assertion that the Frankfort School commandeered the American mass media, and used this cartel to infect the minds of Americans. Few people have taken seriously the idea that several radical professors from Germany were able to overpower the American corporate media.

According to Bill Berkowitz, "It's not clear whether this diffusion of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory into the mainstream will continue. Certainly, the anti-Semitism that underlies much of the scenario suggests that it may be repudiated in the coming years. But for now, the spread of this particular theory is a classic case of concepts that originated on the radical right slowly but surely making their way into the American mind."<5>

The Southern Poverty Law Center, states that "Lind's theory was one that has been pushed since the mid-1990s by the Free Congress Foundation — the idea that a small group of German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, had devised a cultural form of Marxism that was aimed at subverting Western civilization".

At a major Holocaust denial conference put on by veteran anti-Semite Willis Carto in Washington, D.C., Lind gave a well-received speech before some 120 "historical revisionists," conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites, in which he identified a small group of people who he said had poisoned American culture. On this point, Lind made a powerful connection with his listeners. 'These guys,' he explained, 'were all Jewish.' <6>

Apparently we "liberals" are attempting to undermine western civilization? :P

as including (just a few of its obvious characteristics);

Urban sprawl...

Rural Poverty...

Homeless in the streets...

Processed food and fast food that's bad for you but good for corporate profits...

Over 50% of the population having to take a prescription drug to get through the day...

Too many guns...

Too many hours in the work day...

Overflowing land fills...

Filthy, polluted water, land and air...

The Petroleum Wars...

Eternal conspicuous consumption of resources for corporate profits...

Global Climate Change...

400 channels of mindless shit on the tube...

Perpetual War...

The Corporate Police State...

The Corporate Capitalists in charge through their stooges in the "government"...


Then I declare that I am a PROUD CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE "CULTURAL MARXIST" CLUB!!!!

I promise to continue to do everything I can to bring about the speedy demise of "western civilization"!!!

:hi:

folks you normally argue with... :hi:




I'll bet if we all got into a big hotel ballroom we'd find out we're about 99% in agreement about damn near everything important... :)

I guess some of us are just into adrenaline rushes. It's not really good for us though -- excess adrenaline is converted by the body into bad cholesterol and contributes to heart disease...

Agreed. Luckilly, I don't have high cholesterol! ;)

I do, maybe I should give DU a rest for a bit until the Chlorestin I found takes hold.

It was the last available from Canada, big pharma's fucked up the Canadians too... :grr:

Cheers :)

:rofl: Indeed, I don't want any part of causing anyone here a heart attack! :hug:

don't insult a great man please.

we know because Ralph has been pounding on that point for decades ---

Or are you just another Nader hater? Nevermind, I think I figured it out. :eyes:

Psy-ops here. :eyes:

facts, eh?

here that has happened just about everywhere else.

I know many others had too...over a year ago. It falls right in line with this administration. Pelosi has no justification for keeping impeachment off the table...so why does she?

that there is no way to control a "messianic" as Sy Hersh called Bush -- or a delusion president.

On the contrary, we had a similar situation with Nixon --
In fact, he at one time tried to cultivate the idea with the war that our enemies in VN might think that he was crazy enough to nuke 'em.
Somewhere along the line of investigations and heading towards impeachment, orders went out to the military NOT to obey any instructions from Nixon.

NOW . . . the "cowards" thing hasn't made much sense to me ...
but sadly I think this is believable.

They need to get their heads together on this and make sure that THEY are controlling Bush rather than the other way around --

Meanwhile -- that still leaves Cheney as a very loose cannon with a privatized army at his disposal and maybe some nukes -- ??????

He is welcome to shut his narcissistic fuckmouth.

And the fact that he speaks out about it in favor of public interest is one hell of a reason to let him talk.

See my previous post if your hangup is the 2000 election.

For example, he's someone who is out there fighting to stop corporate monopolies and their exploitation of people. His work gets specific in detail, offers alternatives, and is sane and down to earth. He's not just complaining about things, he's actually out there doing things.

You really ought to know more about the people you criticize. You may not like him personally, but if you really are a democrat or liberal or progressive (which I'm kind of assuming since you're here at DU), you may actually find Nader's work in line with your own values. But if all you do is tell him to "shut his narcissistic fuckmouth", then you only look foolish to someone who actually knows what Nader talks about with his "fuckmouth".

some reporter asked Nader what he would do if he had been president when it happened and he said it wouldn't have happened if he had been president. My first thought was "Now wait a minute, Ralph, don't be so over the top. Even you couldn't have prevented THAT." Then I listened to what he said next which was that if he had been elected president one of his first actions would have been to force the locking and hardening of cockpit doors which he had been advocating for years. If the terrorists had not had access to the cockpits and therefore to controlling the planes, 9/11 couldn't have happened in the way it did. My point is that further listening to what at first appeared to be braggadiccio showed that it was simply a common sense statement of fact. And if Ralph Nader's commonsense statements of fact had been listened to more often over the years much suffering and strife would have been avoided.

Peace,

freefall

They would have heeded warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices,
and the CIA.

One of the first things Bush did when he took office was to order the FBI to
go easy on Saudis, and to shut down investigations of suspected terrorist
financiers, including relatives of Osama.

If Gore had been president, the plan to go on the offensive against the al
Qaeda camps would have been implemented before he even took office. Then
the nation would have been on alert, expecting reprisals.

Bush got the same plan from Richard Clarke, but he ignored it. Condi
demoted Clarke so he no longer had cabinet-level access.

Bush's criminal negligence was essential to the success of the 9/11 attacks.

Which was released in early 2001 I believe. None of its recommendations were followed, which included lockable cockpit doors.

Gee, what's the fucking difference between you and the bushies...

Oh, yeah, the bushies don't mind if someone speaks just so their speech is ineffectual and nothing is done.

You, on the other hand, want to stifle someone's speech, then nothing CAN be done about what's wrong.



I'll take the bushies... :shrug:

is he an alarmist, or is he right?

And not an easy thing to consider

Either way... we the people want inpeachment, they wil not do it... you give me an explanation that makes sense and we don't have the votes ain't gonna cut the mustard

I'm having a hard time deciding.

Seems to me (and maybe I'm crazy) that they are either going to finally pull back the curtain and expose the brick wall at the back of the theater (which seems increasingly likely), or we are are going to be led down the fascist-lite trail a little bit longer, with rigged contests between candidates differing only in the letter that follows their names and a dash.

OR, maybe, just maybe, the people will finally understand what President Eisenhower so obliquely spoke about when he warned about the Military Industrial Complex.

Remember what Frank Zappa said. "Wild" man that he was, he understood what was happening, even thirty years ago.


Needless to say, I'm very concerned for the immediate future, of this country, and of our world.

if people got over it. we might have a chance

...and then get over it, lol.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Frank_Zappa ENJOY!

pnorman
PS: I voted for Nader in 1996, and in 2000 for exactly the same reason.

wait until the F**K Nader Camp gets altered.

He is an alarmist who is right.

I am very much against impeachment because I believe it would be counter-productive. We are in a position to sweep these fascists out of office next year and take solid control of both houses of Congress. In order to do that, we need about 5 million votes from people who normally support the conservatives. We are on track to do exactly that, and that is why you see so many GOP Senators choosing this as their time to retire. The writing is on the wall for them.

The last thing we should do at this point is inflame the angers on the right, and in the process give assholes like Rudy Guiliani another issue to demagogue about. Tactically, impeachment is the absolutely worst thing we could do at this moment. And never mind the fact that we have zero possibility of passing it. Hell, we can't even get SCHIP passed and that has the support of about 90% of the public.

Having said that, I'm glad Nader spoke out and continues to speak. He didn't call for impeachment in that talk. He called for us to look at the Congressman's words. If the Congressman actually said those things, that is outrageous or at least unbelievably stupid.

Can you be sure that he won't attack Iran -- ??

That another 100,000 Iraqis might be dead --??

That there will be anything left of our Constituttion -- ???

That there will be anything left of our Treasury -- ???

Or that he won't pull another 9/11 and declare Martial Law -- ????

Cancel the elections for 2008 -- that was Nixon's plan, btw, if you don't know it . . .
to pull a "Huston Plan" which was based on "Operation Northwoods" and CANCEL the elections -- !!!!

IF the Congressman actually said those words . . . ????
Are you trying to kid yourself or do you honestly think that Nader came to lie to the public?
If you can't figure out the answer to those two choices, then I think you'd better rethink all your decisions.

Nader did call for impeachment --
you just didn't hear it.

So -- maybe listen a little harder and think about those questions above.

Sounds like mental masturbation to me.

Bush's head on a stick. Republicans will be trampling each other
to sign on for impeachment.

The central problem is that our fine "opposition party" has basically endorsed all of his criminality. With very few exceptions they either explicitly endorsed or at least tactly approved of all of the major things that could be considered impeachable:

The Iraq invasion
Abu Ghraib
Institutional torture and renditions
Warrantless wiretaps

right on down the line. Democrats were right there every step of the way, voting to give him the Patriot Act, voting to give him the decision to invade, voting to give him every penny he asked for to fund Halliburton and Blackwater. So who are you gonna find to back impeachment? They are all culpible. ANd in my mind the Democrats are MORE culpible than Bush. Bush did his job. He said he was going to invade and he did it. It was the Democrats who didn't do their job.

They are not going to impeach. Maybe you missed the fact that Hillary and others just gave Bush all the legal ground he needs to invade Iran. Maybe you didn't notice that the Democrats are continuing to pass every penny of funding for this war without objection.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but nothing good can happen until we can get a critical mass of Democrats in charge including a handful of leaders with some real backbone. Those leaders are there: Webb, Waxman, Rangel, Obama, Biden, and enough others to make it work. But they need NUMBERS. They can't turn the fascists out with the number they have, and an impeachment sideshow would be absolutely the most counter-productive thing they could do at this stage.

The general spinelessness of Dems on the floor does not have to stop
committees such as Conyers's and Waxman's from pursuing investigations.
We don't have to wait for a critical mass. I have heard the news media
complain that they can't tell a story until the Dems give them some
kind of official action to hang it on. Investigations can get reported.
Public sentiment can be galvanized. Congress can be pressured.

Obstructionists on 9/11 love to claim that until we can offer proof,
there's no demonstrated need for investigation.

Obstructionists on impeachment claim that until we have enough numbers
to impeach, there's no point in pursuing investigation.

Baloney on both.

Presumably someone inside the Democratic Party is telling us why they have this great fear of Bush ---well, I think there was great fear of Nixon's delusions, as well -- and it is frightening.

Military stepped up re Nixon and made sure he couldn't do anything too wild!

In this case, with Cheney, and privatized armies -- who knows?
And with a few nukes on the loose--???

causing a fresh bleed?

"Democracy is a conversation" - Al Gore

Since when do we tell each other to shut up?

Is that the response to hearing something you disagree with?

What is your rebuttal? - that Congressman Olver did not say what what was quoted?

for some reason. There is nothing "tin foil" about what he is saying. The "shut yer piehole" remarks are scary - vote caging (also illegal) and probably electronic tampering stole the election, not Nader - a third party candidate has the right to run...and speak.

might actually do re bombing VN --

Not that he wasn't largely insane --
but there were actually instructions to the Military to not follow out any orders to attack.

...standing in the way of impeachment right now are Democratic contributors on Wall Street. They want Hillary to win next year because they think it'll be good for the market. I'm not so sure I agree with them but they have the money and they make the decisions and that's what they think.

You would do well to learn that lesson.

Either the Congressman said it, and we are in deep doo-doo, or Ralph Nader is a lying sack of shit. Now I never voted for Nader, but I don't think he lies. He may be foolhardy at times and may have really screwed things up in 2000, but I don't think he lies. Which leads me to the other conclusion.

Prove me wrong on this one and ... I'll feel very relieved. Then we'd just be back at having incompetents running things, rather than that other very scary proposition.

I put "tinfoilish" in there in an effort to not scare away the people that still mistakenly believe that Bush and Cheney are at least partially human.




http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24358

I hope Speaker Pelosi really has such a grand strategy up her sleeve, but I'm skeptical about that.

She's a member of the upper-capitalist class.

What's good for BIG business is good for USAmerica...

She will do what's good for BIG business first...

And if there's any time or money left over, well...maybe some crumbs for the lower classes.

In other words, her grand strategy is the "kinder" form of "compassionate conservatism"...

I don't know that congressman. Isn't it possible that he's off the wall?

I do think we're in deep doo-doo. But even if the congressman did say it, who knows what he was really told? All of Washington is so scared that the Bush admin will pull another 9/11 -- and this time impose martial law -- that they won't impeach? It *could* be true, but it's the sort of thing you can't really believe second hand; it gets distorted in the telling.

There is further evidence, like Nancy Pelosi's behavior, her repetition of "off the table" with a refusal to discuss the matter further. But it's all circumstantial. Needs further investigation.

Pelosi is giving the Repubes enough rope to hang themselves. Let's hope she doesn't give them enough to hang the rest of us with them.

Yes, Olver did say that.

Maybe this is corroboration, or maybe this is just Nader's source:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24358

Bob Feuer reports 7/05/07 on a meeting with Cong. John Olver:

"He is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections. He sees ending the war as his primary goal, and he believes the brilliant Nancy Pelosi has a strategy more potent than impeachment. He thinks impeachment is a futile waste of legislative energy, will be harmful of democratic '08 victories, and further tighten the "gridlock" he has complained of for the past few decades."


Rep. Olver has has three months to deny that he said this. Did he ever do so?

i.e., that this is a Democratic Congressman delivering the information to us --

that Democrats FEAR that Bush might attack Iran and declare Martial Law --

are simply avoid reality --

They don't want to know --

They're not up to it --

But -- keep in mind this is NOT Nader giving you this info --
It is a Democratic Congressman --

Put your tin foil hat away. Thats totally believable to me.
I also think that some of them have been threatened.
Is there even one person anywhere on this board that thinks they aren't capable of doing
such things?
I think not.

I agree.

Why would they if they can Diebold it?

Two reasons, diebold isn't enough, creeksneakers.

One, election manipulation is only effective if you're close. For instance, if you manage to swing 5 points of an election, it only changes the outcome if you were within 5 points. It would be hard to make it swing a landslide, the difference from forecasts and exit polls would be so ridiculously off that even more flags would be raised than have been.

Second, Diebold etc. might be able to swing a close election, but cannot in any scenario keep GWB president after Jan 2009. Martial law can, and the legal foundation for what Nader described does currently exist based on policies Bush has put in place. Similarly, Hitler came to power in a democracy. He took over not through a violent coup, but by slowly giving himself more power.

It is also worth remembering that Rudy Guiliani attempted to get the 2001 NYC mayoral election postponed so he could stay in power longer.

As the opposition grows, they have to come out more into the open --

In 2000, they had to get the Supreme Court to do it for them --

That's why !!!!!

That's what Bush says. He wont leave the Iran 'situation' for the next president.
The Impeachment Process might piss them off to just act sooner.
See, I'm afraid they're going to attack Iran anyway.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for impeachment.
It would be a statement to the world - we don't stand with Bush & Cheney.
I think other countries should know that most Americans are NOT behind these criminals and what they do. Show other nations that this group does NOT represent us.

Let's IMPEACH Cheney and Bush and stop them ---

he knew Congressional Reps on the Hill who believe Wellstone was murdered.

There's a book on it; Dr. David Ray Griffin's review summarizes it so
well there's no need to read it:

"The evidence includes several facts suggesting that the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) colluded with the FBI in a cover-up:"

(lists 10 succinct points)

"The evidence also includes some facts strongly suggesting the falsity of the NTSB's official conclusion, which was that the plane crashed because the pilot failed to maintain proper speed, causing the plane to stall."

(lists 3 points)

"The evidence also includes facts suggesting that the plane was instead brought down by an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon:"

(lists 5 points)

"An important part of the authors' case is the fact that the Bush administration would have had several motives:"

(lists 5 points)

http://www.amazon.com/American-Assassination-Strange-Senator-Wellstone/dp/0975276301

This is a line of reasoning I've been curious about since the event. Certain problems with the NTSB report have always bothered me.

Thanks, I'll probably order that book. If they did do the Wellstone crash then we're far worse off than most realize.

And if you believe it about Wellstone, I'm willing to entertain the same theory about the death of JFK Jr.

people are mighty quick to accept the story that he flew the plane into
the sea without realizing it. There's this thing called an altimeter.
Not knowing your altitude is like not knowing how fast you're driving.

As planes descend, the engine speeds up noticeably.

I'd certainly be interested in hearing the comments of pilots.

...halfway toward getting my license, but my father had all but his Instrument check ride and was a Commercial plus Private ticket holder including high performance and complex aircraft endorsement. My brother has his Private and is on the way to getting his CFI. I even once worked for a CFI/MEI in the computer business who flew corporate jets for a living until his wife got tired of hearing hangar stories where he almost died. There was the story about how his Falcon depressurized in the middle of the night. Then there was the story about this little problem with the front gear on a Lear not going down and having to press a little plunger under the front panel that shoots out a nitrogen charge and blows the gear down so there won't be a gear up landing. Shannon (his wife) got fed up and said get another job or get another wife.

I basically grew up at the airport.

John-John had no business transporting two innocent, naive young women in that airplane. I think I'm pretty hot shit but one of the things the FAA teaches is that it CAN happen to you! No one is infallible. NO ONE.

He had no business even owning that airplane. He was in a turbocharged Saratoga (retractable Cherokee Six for the old timers, flies like a grand piano with wings, also sometimes known as a Lance, supposedly the SUV of general aviation) and that's both a complex AND high performance aircraft! Complex means retractable gear, high performance means in excess of 200 HP and adjustable speed prop. There's NO WAY he was ready for that. No way in hell. He probably got disoriented and didn't have the instrument training to keep him focused. That happened to my dad once over water and it almost killed him. It happens a lot.

The Cessna 182 I've flown is high performance and for a low time guy, it's a handful. In a crosswind? You don't even want to know. We were in it several weeks ago for a cross country from Torrance to Camarillo and got into some nasty bumps across the Santa Monica mountains. I was flying with both hands, looked over at the instructor changing frequencies and I'd swear he was turning green. He was okay after we landed but I was worried.

Having an airplane in your hands is a serious responsibility. You'd better have your shit together.

I feel sorry for the women and for their families, but him? He had an opportunity to take a CFI along and declined the offer. That's negligence.

Richard Collins (editor emeritus of Flying Magazine) has written a fairly long and detailed opinion on this. It's worth reading even for non-pilots. Dick is 73 years old and still flying his pressurized Cessna 210 on a regular basis. I'd listen to anything he had to say.

He had no business flying two women. Maybe so,
but that has nothing to do with whether it's
reasonable to think someone ignored the racing
engine and the altimeter and flew into the sea.

The plane was complex. Maybe so, but that has
nothing to do with whether it's reasonable to
think someone ignored the racing engine and
the altimeter and flew into the sea.

Having an airplane in your hands is a serious
responsibility, and he had an opportunity to
take a CFI. Maybe so, but that has
nothing to do with whether it's reasonable to
think someone ignored the racing engine and
the altimeter and flew into the sea.

If what the Congressman from Mass. fears is true, lets impeach Bush and Cheney now! Try them, Convict them, Put them in jail... then send them to the Hague to perp walk there! Get those maniacs out of power...legally.

On the other hand will the impeachment process pass the senate? They can't even pass a bill or override a veto to give US children of the poor and working poor hospitalization coverage.. How can we expect them to impeach criminals? Remember these are the people who voted for war and left the Gulf Coast in a cesspool.

Granted, there were a few Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle back then with spine and principles and character but...

In 1972, when the Watergate break-in story hit the papers, and in early 1973 when nixon was sworn in after a huge landslide win over a great patriot, you couldn't find 100 people in the country who would have been for impeachment (I was one of that 100) and almost none in the Congress.

By early 1974, after the hearings exposed his crimes and the courageous media told the population of those crimes on national network TV the votes were there. Granted, there is no longer any courage in the M$M but there are other ways to publicize events now.


I think the main reason they haven't been impeached is my first statement above...that some Dems are cowards. I think that the other main reason is that they are, like Pelosi, quite satisfied with the status-quo and the phenomenal growth of their stock portfolios and don't want to rock the capitalist boat.

Oh, and by the way, his book on the Corvair was a BUNCH OF CRAP!!!

My Corvair dumped all of its oil when it hit 80,000.

My friend's Corvair dropped all four of its wheels on a mountain road in Montana and nearly killed him.

GM fucked up a great design and Ralph called them on it along with many other sins and crimes Detroit has committed over the years...

As for your stupid remark about 2000, check out Post #67 for the real reason bush is residing where he is...

They're right . .. just give someone a scapegoat and they're set for life -- !!!!

BULLETIN . . . REPUGS STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION . . . AND PROBABLY 2004 . ..
AND PROBABLY ELECTIONS GOING BACK 30 YEARS . .. SEE VOTESCAM

Yo. my fellow americans... there was a coup d'etat in US in 2000; HAL overthrew the gov't... America: 1776 - 2000 RIP. Get it? it's over... Might as well just get some while the getting is good... GulagWealthFund.com for gulag stocks; here's the mandate...

"All companies or investments listed must either be involved in prison, intelligence, surveillance, or military operations or be directly positioned to profit from tyranny and collapse in civil society. They must have oligarchic rights over essential resources/infrastructure/contracts in a sovereign nation or must receive government subsidy, guarantee or monopoly protection, thus freeing the investment from competition costs."

Presented by KarmaBanqueRadio.com,
Max Keiser & Stacy Herbert

Gulag Wealth Fund Index: 685.22 0.00 0.00%
GULAG YTD 19.84%

sorry if i've repetated this a few times; but it bears repeating; US is over... it was a great experiment while it lasted... but it's over now... it's nature; things come and go; let's not get over sentimential.. rock on (somewhere else)

I don't think so. That doesn't mean we are not heading into a direction where the republic may eventually fall, but we are far from it.

The reality is most people don't realize it yet, but the tide is turning. The midterms were the start of that very weak turnaround

What do you think the people thought during the McCarthey period?

The civil rights was an historical, and very painful period in our country

Everything must be looked at within its own perspective

I think the poster you addressed was saying that capitalism is suicidal --
and I agree --

We can stop that . . . if we have time . . . and courage -- I think -- !!!

presence. Or are we that easy to herd?

Is this the Dems blanket excuse for being completely subservient to the GOP? Or are they
all corporate shills?

I agree with Nader that whatever one believes, there is no real representative government or opposition party.

instead of bread crumbs leading to the gingerbread gas chamber - just line the path with Prozac - americans will follow the phama wherever it leads... here kitty, kitty!!!

GulagWealthFund.com

But that hasn't stopped them from doing everything they want. Scared people and controls in the right places especially Judicial and media pretty much stops and misinforms the somnambulist public attempts at change.

they're the occupying force for the corporate capitalist masters...


How many cops in this country -- about 3 or 4 million???

Hallburton/Homeland Security concentration camp ---

Nader relates how Olver reportedly said that he believes the 2008 elections will be cancelled, and Nader discusses two possibilities: first, that Olver is correct, which would be frightening, and second, that Olver is incorrect, which shows that there's a lot of paranoia on Capitol Hill.

Surely Nader knows that there's a third possibility, that Olver never said it.

That story was posted here at DU back in July, and I've never been able to find any confirmation of this alarming statement other than the original report at AfterDowningStreet.org.

For Nader to uncritically repeat this rumor and use it to make a political point really diminishes his credibility in my view.

who is kind enough to meet with them. I don't trust a word from AfterDowningStreet.org.

or at least that what you would think if you read some of the crap that people have written.

Personally I love Nader. He would make a great president.

And the pukes would have stole Florida if Nader had not run, so I wish people would stop saying that he cost Gore the presidency. The repukes and the supremes did that.

...Plus in 2000 over 300,0000 turncoat DEMS in Fla alone CROSSED THE AILSES and voted for Bu$h. I am a Dem, I was raised a Dem and my mama taught me to never EVER truat a Republican, but those Dems who crossed over and voted for this disgusting administration should be ashamed of themselves to blame it on the few voters who did vote for Nadar instead of looking in the mirror and see the real problem. Dems who refuse to say out loud that to turn one's back on their party like those turncoats did, are purposefully wearing blinders for refusing to learn from it and look in the face what was happening instead of pointing a finger at their illusion that somehow turncoats Dems do not matter.

I also love Mr Nadar, he has done a lot of good for this country with consumer safety and that he DARED to point out that, at one point, the parties were more alike than different, was a service IMO. Because the elephant was in the living room and it needed to be said, sorry but it is true. Dems were becoming pretty insipid, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, they deserted the president in droves. While I think Mr Nadar has other problems, he has been more often right on the money to point out what he has.

It should be said loud and clear instead of blaming the paper tiger called Greens: Any Dem across the country who voted Repig in 2000 and 2004 should be ashamed of themselves! Don't hide behind the true blue colors of a Dem, either say you made a mistake or come out of the closet and become a Repig, if that is what you are! It has been cowardly for letting Ralph take the brunt of what they caused in far greater numbers than the few Green votes that did not even make a blip in the shadow of turncoats.

And because of those turncoats, the damage is huge causing death and destruction of our Constitution and death around the world. Because turncoats allowed the gap to narrow and some blind Dems refuse to learn from it, progressive people have had twice the fight to push the Democratic party back to the left where it should be and we still have a long hard way to go. Now if we can just get those DLC-ers to grow a spine and do the progressive thing, perhaps we will have a better party!

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

And still do, He shakes up the corporate DLC for obvious reasons. If Clinton gets the nom I hope there will be a candidate somewhere I can trust and vote for.

Nobody here seems to be aware that hundreds of thousands of black voters were barred from the polls. If they had been allowed to vote, Nader would not have mattered. Then of course there's the fact that Gore actually did beat Bush in Florida and that Katherine Harris just pulled the official results out of her ass. Then of course we have the Supreme Court....

I think I know why people hate Nader, though. He challenged Gore. He pointed out that all through the 1990s Gore did nothing to aid the environment or fight corporate power, despite his image. People here worship Gore, and they just don't like when someone challenges their image of him.

I don't know so much that Nader would make a good President, but I certainly love him. He is really quite admirable. He fights the good fight no matter what, and he really doesn't care what people think about him.

to taking money from the Republicans to run in 2000? A huge lapse of judgment if true.

by blaming it on Nader. I bet they laughed they asses off!

not the GOP financed fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs which stopped the vote counting ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court -- !!!

That didn't happen . . . ignore it -- don't see it -- !!!!

Bulletin: Gore won Florida ---
the GOP stole the 2000 election and if you understood that you might have to try to do something about --

On the other hand, as they say, give a non-thinker a "scapegoat" and they're set for life -- !!!

That's a documented fact.

So our representatives don't represent us - what's new about that? As long as they can get away with it, nothing will change about that.

and the cancelling of 2008 elections . . .

You're trying to ignore reality ---

Like Nader says, if others think like this guy does, things are
a lot worse than we know or the Dems are a lot more paranoid than we
know--and either way you have to question their effectiveness as
an opposition party.

...gee, Ralph, how's that Nobel Peace Prize working for you? Oh, wait, it was President Gore that won.

Thanks, Ralph.

I don't think he thought it would move so quickly --

Two parties: One an express to Auschwitz -- one a local
both under corporate control

Nothing he he can say is relevant anymore.

FUCK YOU RALPH.


:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

... that you should be reading TownHall to get a perspective on random, frothing hate talk. Want to hear somebody say EXACTLY the same thing about Cinton, Obama, Gore, etc.? Then read the reader comments or sometimes the articles themselves. It will make you sick.

It is fortunately rare that there are so many childish responses. Anyone asking Mr. Nader, who had done so much for this country and is certainly smarter than most candidates that he is no longer relevant hasn't been reading or listening.

Anything sellitman says is now suspect to "nothing he he(sic) can say is relevant anymore". Gore lost because of many reasons worth being angry about, but if you are blaming Nader, then you may want to take that hate to a hate site.

Nader sold the left out long agao equating bush and Gore as one in the same. He lost his credibility when he accepted money from the Conservatives. he lost his credibility when all he ever does hurts the very Democrats he is suppose to be helping.

His votes in Florida were enough to loose the election in 2000 for Gore. That isn't conjecture. That is fact. Without King Ralph it never would have made it to the Supreme Court.

Am I mad at Nader? Yep.

You should be too.

He tipped the 2000 election from Gore to a standoff, enabling a subsequent Bush coup. And then content with the results of that fiasco, set about to attempt the same in 2004.

Gee, Thanks alot Ralph! I guess your place in history is secure.

look away -- look away -- don't see reality 'cause you might have to do something about it!

The GOP stole the 2000 election -- Gore won in Florida --
you were given a scapegoat to take to beddie-bye to make you feel better

The GOP fascist rally outside Miami-Dade Election HQs STOPPED the vote counting ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court --

Then . . . the Supreme neo-cons gave the WH to Georgie --

I swear that is Perry's applause track in the backgrounds.

Ralph, I love you, but you really need to give that speech in front of a bookshelf.

Ignoring the fact that he made a similar statement in 2000, by asserting there was no difference between the two parties, I find his view outrageous. Based on alledgedly one Congressman's view of why they can't impeach, he extrapolates that to all Congress persons, which is not true. Congress is made up of a heterogeneous set of people, with different views.

Many in Congress believe it would be a waste of time because they don't have the votes to bring a conviction, or even a simple majority to have impeachment proceed. Some believe that strategically it would hurt the Democrats in 2008, because they would immediately point to the speaker, and say she was doing this so she could become president. Others are saying there isn't enough time, and then of course you the republicans who most likely would vote lock in step against it, and you couldn't get a simple majority.

Kucinich talks a lot about bring up impeachment for a vote. Why hasn't he done so? Could it be because he realizes he couldn't get a simple majority in the House to go along with it, and it wouldn't get off the ground?

In my view this is the same Nader as in 2000, saying there is no difference between the Democrats and the republicans. Well, there is a difference, if on nothing else then the social programs:

A woman's right to choose
Stem Cell research
Social Security
Medicare
Healthcare
Environmental

and so many other points which make 2008 so critical for the Democrats to win if nothing else than the Supreme Court

into law concerning:

A woman's right to choose
Stem Cell research
Social Security
Medicare
Healthcare
Environmental



Trick Question: the answer is Budkis -- Nada -- Nothing...

IT doesn't matter if you love Nader or hate him. The issue is: Is the claim he made true?

Form a well regulated Militia, to protect the security of a free State, and enlist the people who bear Arms to march on Washington, and tell Congress our rights shall not be infringed.

It would be much easier to win an election.

Recipe for Impeach Pie

Take large portions of George Bush and Dick Cheney
Coarsely chop into large pieces
Boil over a high flame for several days
Add Sauce: 4 parts Supreme Court, the entire Justice Department,
Add spice to mixture: the heads of the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security.
Stir the sauce and simmer for several more days.
Pour into Chinese gluten & melamine pie crust, and bake
at 500 degrees for 30 days.
Let cool to courtroom temperature, and feed it to the dog.
After the dog is finished with it, scoop it up and drop it
into paper sacks.
Then take it to the midwest and place it on the doorstep of evangelical
pseudo-Christians. Light the sacks on fire, and ring the doorbells.

Enjoy

Serves all Republicans and the right-wing Media.

Why wasn't this in any of the newspapers or on the air. Usually comments like that from Congressional reps get notoriety.

You're the reason Bush is in office, dipshit.

Here's the reason bush is in office, dipshit...

Both he and the Supremes were needed for Bush to be installed.

The Republicans would like you to think Nader had something to do with Gore losing the election, but the facts are HE DIDN'T. Florida and the supreme court are what did it. Thanks for pointing this out ProudDad - maybe Zandor will do a little research and a bit less hating next time.

For Ralphie to pontificate and bleat about why impeachment is off the table.

Impeachment wouldn't even need to be considered if Ralphie HADN'T HELPED BUSH STEAL THE ELECTION.

Ralphie can kiss my ass.

:eyes:

Thank goodnes for the "Internets" and the "M$Media."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html

But Nader also served up disturbing untruths. Most notable was his insistence that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum"—they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get. I went home angry. But it took me a while to understand that my progressive hero had turned suicide bomber—that Ralph Nader had strapped political dynamite onto himself and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow it up.

<snip>

Later I was introduced to Nader's closest adviser, his handsome, piercingly intelligent 30-year-old nephew, Tarek Milleron. Although Milleron argued that environmentalists and other activists would find fundraising easier under Bush, he acknowledged that a Bush presidency would be worse for poor and working-class people, for blacks, for most Americans. As Moore had, he claimed that Nader's campaign would encourage Web-based vote-swapping between progressives in safe and contested states. But when I suggested that Nader could gain substantial influence in a Democratic administration by focusing his campaign on the 40 safe states and encouraging his supporters elsewhere to vote Gore, Milleron leaned coolly toward me with extra steel in his voice and body. He did not disagree. He simply said, "We're not going to do that."

"Why not?" I said.

With just a flicker of smile, he answered, "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."

There was a long silence and the conversation was over.

Fuck Nader AND his nephew...

he doesn't need defending...

I'm trying to help you see the facts so that you don't continue to allow the right-wing to pull the wool over your eyes...

Physician, heal thyself.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Never try to reason with someone who keeps a well-worn photo of Nader under his pillow.

Oh well.......

But obviously you're having trouble with giving up scapegoating and actually looking at reality --

The congresscritter from upstate N.Y. thinks that bush will nuke Iran, institute marshal law and cancel the 2008 elections if the Dems begin hearings into the impeachment of bush and cheney and for that reason will not support impeachment even though his constituents overwhelmingly support impeaching them...

Says Nader, "If this is accurate, <the situation with bush and cheney in power is> a lot worse than we though and if it's not, <the Dems are> a lot more paranoid than we thought. Either way, they're not a proper opposition party."

Hardly tinfoil...

I'd call it the most accurate portrayal of the cowardly Dems that ANYONE has made since they "took power" in January...

Better for us to know than not know --

but many here want to avoid reality ---

<snip>

Forty towns in Vermont and the State Senate had already presented their Congressional delegation with similar petitions.

Impeachment advocates reported the results to Cong. Olver from each town meeting. Leverett's vote was 339-1; Great Barrington was 100-3. No vote in any of the towns or cities was less than a two-third majority "yes" in favor of impeachment, according to long-time activist, Atty. Robert Feuer of Stockbridge, Mass.

With three fourths of reports completed Cong. Olver, who voted against the war, raised his hand and said, "Spare me, I know full well the overwhelming majority of my constituency is in favor of impeachment." He then told them he would not sign on to any impeachment resolution whether against Bush or against Cheney (H.Res. 333 introduced by Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)). He was quite adamant.

In taking this unrepresentative position, Rep. Olver's position was identical to that of the House Democratic leadership and many of his Democratic colleagues.

The Democratic Party line on impeachment is that Bush and Cheney are the most impeachable White House duo in American history (they believe this privately). The Democrats do not want to distract attention from their legislative agenda, and need Republican votes for passage. Moreover, they do not have the votes to obtain the requisite two-thirds of the members present for conviction in the Senate.

Strangely, none of these excuses bothered Republicans when they impeached Bill Clinton in the House for lying under oath about sex and proceeded to a full trial in the Senate where they failed to get the required votes. Can Clinton's "high crimes and misdemeanors" begin to compare with this White House crime wave?

The last question to Cong. Olver was from a young veteran back from Iraq and Afghanistan. "What could we possibly do to bring you around to our way of thinking," he asked?

Cong. Olver's response, after several seconds of silence, was "You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive."

Members of Congress should apply the same standard to themselves that they like to apply to members of the Executive and Judicial branches-namely to honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Oath is supposed to transcend political calculations.

<snip>

Link: http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10132007.html

Spare Me indeed, congressman!

:wtf:

Instructions went out to stop him --

even BEFORE the impeachment investigations --

So, we've been in this situation at least once --

the question is Cheney and how doubly insane this makes the whole thing and controlling him ---

does he have two nukes -- who knows????

But . . . let's not proceed in fear --

Let's investigate -- let's start impeachment investigations --

I think they'd prefer resignation to the possibility of jail --

I figured the Dems had been threatened with something like this. They're scared....because they know this evil cabal will do anything. Actually, I think they'll still attack Iran (or something even worse) even though the Dems DON'T impeach.

There goes that damn Nader again...speaking truth to power...

Oooooooooh, he makes me soooooo maaaadddddd!!!! :grr:


Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring: Fuck Nader :boring:






:sarcasm:

SCOTUS appointees and then some.

Why do some think that the "progressive" fool who helped Bush enter the OO by lying to vulnerable young white guys, has any credibility here?

Bite me Ralf.

Let's quote the SOB again..

He even defends the Republicans: "And the Republicans didn't whine the way the Democrats did as if they were entitled to those votes."

"Q. You've said you spent a great deal of time in California rather than focusing on swing states. Yet in the last week or so of the campaign you spent a lot of time in the swing states.

A. That was making up for not spending time in them before. I mean, I went to Wisconsin three times, Gore went nine times and Bush went 11 times. Actually, it was Buchanan who cost Bush four states -- Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and New Mexico. He gave them to Gore by taking them away from Bush. And the Republicans didn't whine the way the Democrats did as if they were entitled to those votes.

Q. Will you run again?

A. Too early to say.

Q. Any regrets?

A. Yeah, I didn't get more votes. The Democrats' scare tactics in the last month took millions of votes that were leaning my way. The Washington Post said that there were five million votes that were leaning my way that got cold feet. People get cold feet. That happens a lot with third party candidates. . . .

Q. Anything you'd like to add?

A. Just that basically, for us, the future is party building, corporate reform and promoting a pro-democracy agenda. We've got to make the term corporate reform as popular as tax reform. That's the goal.

"The Democrats' scare tactics in the last month took millions of votes..."

Bush isn't at all scary, but he should be impeached for war crimes or Democrats should pay! ~ Ralph Nader

:eyes:

Thanks for the quotes. :hi:

Naderspeak upsets me to the point that I even forgot to include the link...sorry.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E6D91030F93BA25751C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

hating Nader...and not placing the blame for bush where it belongs:

Gore, DLC, right-wing pukes stealing elections and Sandra Day O'Conner...


you just keep helping the bushies and the right-wing Dems.


But, I guess it's some kind of perverted fun for you... :shrug:

BULLETIN: Gore won Florida --

The GOP-financed fascist rally STOPPED the Miami-Dade Election HQs vote counting which was ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court -- !!! No arrests.

The Gang of 5 neocons on the Supreme Court then permanently stopped the count and put George in the WH . . .

Those who fear knowing this reality fear it because if they understood it they'd have to do something about it rather than trying to personally attack Nader --

And, Nader, btw, has been the one who for decades has been warning us of this corporate-fascism...

BULLETIN: Nader said he would only run in "safe states."

BULLETIN: Nader is a self described Political Opponent of The Democratic Party.

BULLETIN: This is a website for Democrats.

BULLETIN: If I were into "personally attacking" Nader I'd bring up his history of Union Busting hypocrisy - for starters.

Nader makes a nice strawman.

Your argument is Nader didn't do quite enough damage to Al Gore to put the election completely out of reach. Despite his very best efforts in Florida and the other tightest states, if every single vote had been counted he would have got just enough to get over the line. NO DEAL.

to "stop the vote count."

herrings here. What is Nader saying here and who is he quoting? If this is not the most chilling news of the history of the United States, people have lost sight of what is truly important and at this moment. What Nader and his Ego did in 2000 was so dangerously flippant and off the wall it was moraly criminal yet it is beside the point of this important clip.

had Nader not assisted in placing us in this position.

""FKh: What is your personal political affiliation? Is it true that you voted for George W. Bush?

SR: I declare my affiliation to be American first and foremost. I’m a registered Republican and I did vote for George Bush in 2000 primarily because the Clinton administration had betrayed my ability to support it through its Iraq policies. George Bush was the only alternative to it. There’s no way I could’ve voted for Al Gore as an extension of Clinton policies that I condemned.""


Iraq, Iran, and WMDs
Scott Ritter interviewed by
Foaad Khosmood Jan. 29, 2007

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11993

and instead of Cheney we'd have the equally barf-producing Joe Lieberman. Maybe just a different shade of red, ooglymoogly. We need true BLUE to prevail in these elections (or 'selections').

I repeat, Nader makes a covenient straw man in your arguments. What WERE the Clinton Iraq policies that make Scott Ritter say this and by extension to Gore ?

"Indeed, the strong support for the bombing by leading congressional Democrats will no doubt embolden the Republican administration to engage in further military actions regardless of its dangerous legal, moral and political implications."

Published on Sunday, February 25, 2001 in the San Jose Mercury News
Bush Continues Failed Clinton Policy on Iraq
by Stephen Zunes

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0225-03.htm

Yes, blame Nader, by all means. Look, over there !

And mzmolly claims we'd be in 'similar situation' had Nader not assisted in placing us in this position. No, it wasn't NADER's fault. Look at the congressional Democratic support for the policy that enabled * and the neocons all along. Too much triangulation for my stomach and Scott Ritter's.

WillyT's post #64 needs to be read to you guys s-l-o-w-l-y. That and bvar's post #177, where Gore admits as much.

to which I say BULLSHIT.

I don't care what Bush/Nader voters say about what Gore would have done on Iraq. I shall take the noble peace prize winner's OWN words to heart on that matter.

Look at the congressional Democratic support for the policy that enabled * and the neocons all along. Too much triangulation for my stomach and Scott Ritter's.

1. Congressional Democrats were lied to after the trauma 911 - much like the American Public.
2. In spite of the lies over 100 CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS voted against the war "as a last resort."

Besides, read the Sept 2001 AUMF and the Oct 2002 AUMF.

Both give * the "...as he determines..." abilities with a wink and a nod to the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of '73. The Congressional Democrats should be bringing this stuff up RIGHT NOW but they are not. To which I say bullshit, mzmolly, since 81 House Democrats went along on the IWR AUMF of Oct 2002 and 29 in the Senate (see Passage)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution .

If Democrats want to go along just to get along, as YOU are with this continued support for letting them right now, then those enablers are the "Good Germans" that Frank Rich mentions.

Nader and his supporters are the ultimate "Good Germans."

and Vice President Joe Lieberman would scoff at your 'credibility' statement, I'm sure.

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

just tweak 'Saudi Arabia' and say 'Iraq' and voila !

Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oil Fields
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

now superimpose the 'permanent bases' that the Quakers were spied upon by the NSA for showing, see link embedded in DU post at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=969423&mesg_id=969985

and you find that the '70s document estimates a ten year minimum time stay in Iraq. I find that consistent with the DoD's and Sen McCain's position that our occupation will remain intact for at least that long. Unless Dems are willing to stand up and deny the permanent base building you're credibility really doesn't matter.

How do the Dems in Congress prevent further occupations and wars ? That's the question. They didn't do well in preventing the fiasco we have NOW. What makes you think they've seen the light and are willing to go the extra effort to PREVENT more ?

"How do the Dems in Congress prevent further occupations and wars ?" By getting the Presidency! I'd much rather have a Joe Lieberman for VP than Cheney, who Mr. Ritter voted for. Lieberman has a progressive voting record Iraq aside. And, Iraq would not have been an issue had Gore been President.

you can delude yourself into believing if it makes you feel better.

If Monica hadn't run in Florida, SCOTUS wouldn't have had a change to stop the vote count makes just as much sense as your idiotic blather...

eom

Unless you can explain to me how you document something that never happened.

This conclusion requires the assumption that all those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. Maybe some of them were going to stay home or write in Vladamir Lenin instead (I've known some Nader voters and I wouldn't put this past some of them). There are no guarantees that Gore would have won Fl with an unchallengeable majority

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives."

"BULLETIN: Nader is a self described Political Opponent of The Democratic Party." <-- AND the republican party -- both of the right-wings of the Big Business Party -- as ANY good progressive should be.