If there were any doubt...

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040625/ap_on_el_pr/nader_convention&cid=694&ncid=2043

This, friends, is truly an act of desperation.  Don't fall for the hype!  People of Oregon, I urge you to resist this callous attempt to sway you!  Please, I'm begging ya....don't let GWB run this country to hell for another four years!

[dogandponyshow]

Living in Oregon, I think Ralph Nader spends most of his time here becasue for some reason people listen to him.  I am not a Nader hater but think that his views and concerns have come and gone and no one real cares any more.  He needs to do something else.  

D.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Well, I for one am glad to hear that.  Sounds like cooler heads will prevail.

I can't tell you how many times I argued and debated with close personal friends on this topic back in 2000.  It's simple math, really-we have a two party system.  Third party candidates (John Anderson, Ross Perot, etc.) have historically siphoned votes from one side or another.  Masking that reality with "it's a choice" or "we need to make a statement" gets us trapped with a subpar, lying, cheating, swindling buckethead of a prez.  Not that the other side has an angel, mind you...but c'mon.  I hardly think Kerry is lacking enough intelligence to do the same as GWB...just my 2 cents.

[Drunkre]

Here's the thing:
Kerry is for the war in Iraq
Kerry is against wholly rolling back Bush's tax cut, and in fact, considers tax cuts for corporations the way to go (although he does say he will "close the loopholes" in tax laws...then give corporations a tax cut)
Kerry is against the Kyoto Protocol
Kerry is for NAFTA and GATT
Kerry has no plans for universal health care coverage
Kerry "wouldn't mind" having an anti-abortion judge nominated for the Supreme Court
Tell me again why I should vote for Kerry and not Nader?
Please check out Alexander Cockburn's crucial essays on this point and more on his website www.counterpunch.com

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

Tell me again why I should vote for Kerry and not Nader?

(cracks knuckles)

Well, for starters, if you would like to repeat the 2000 election, which ended in disaster for you and me and anyone else without a lobotomy scar, then by all means.

For seconds, if you'd like to pick on the current Dem. candidate, by all means, please proceed.  He's not much better than Bush...but therein lies the rub.  "better", even with "not much" in front of it, has GOT to be better than what we've got...which you cannot argue isn't like pretty shitty at this point.

Just look to past elections with a 3rd party candidate.  We have a 2 party system.  We can't change it this way, by dividing into a subgroup.  UNITY is the only way we can win.  Nader cannot get enough of the vote, nor does Nader  have a statistical/financial chance to win.  Period.  End of statement.  That, my friend, is enough to reason to vote Kerry.  We nor the world can afford another 4 years of GWB.

That's the only way out of this.  To make John Kerry the president.  Anything less is scary.

[MMJ_fanatic]

Sorry John but I respectfully disagree.  I have live in Mr Kerry's state my whole life and he is not the better choice for this country at this time in history.  As a matter of fact he has been on the wrong side of history for most of his political life but I won't bore anybody with details his voting history is public record.  I know GWB isn't the best of choices either and Nader has a chance of slim to none after slim left town, but the devil I know (JFK--how quaint, he ain't no John Fitzgerald Kennedy) is not better than the one I sort of know.....not going to be an easy year in the voting booth  :-/

[Drunkre]

I'm not trying to compare the two or anything, but if noone voted for third party candidates, we'd never have had Abraham Lincoln as president either.  Maybe the Dems should just nominate Nader and win both the votes of lifelong Dems and people like me who want to vote for someone who agrees with me.

[MMJ_fanatic]

I'm not trying to compare the two or anything, but if noone voted for third party candidates, we'd never have had Abraham Lincoln as president either.  Maybe the Dems should just nominate Nader and win both the votes of lifelong Dems and people like me who want to vote for someone who agrees with me.

I like this one.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

I'm not trying to compare the two or anything, but if noone voted for third party candidates, we'd never have had Abraham Lincoln as president either.  Maybe the Dems should just nominate Nader and win both the votes of lifelong Dems and people like me who want to vote for someone who agrees with me.

wow, in a perfect world, that would be great.  fact is folks, mr nader isn't even on a lot of state ballots
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-23-nader-green-party_x.htm

22 out of 50 isn't enough to win.  isn't this supposed to be about unseating bush?  how does bush winning help the green or progressive agenda?  how does bush winning help anyone other than the rich?  

please stop to consider that on election day.  you'll be hearing more about this as time wears on.  political change inside of the left of center of things isn't more important than allowing the right of center of things to win again.  it's just what the other side wants-disunion, disorganization, division.  they win if we can't get our shit together...

[Drunkre]

Let me first say that I agree with you, we need to be free of Bush II.  But I diverge from your opinion when it comes to the choices we have.  Supporting a political candidate strictly because he can beat Bush is dangerous and quite possibly unproductive, in this case, definitely unproductive.  Kerry agrees with every Bushism that I disagree with, therefore, what would be the point in voting for him?  Strictly to get rid of Bush, a human being, a figurehead?  Let me pose the question another way, if your two major party candidates were Hitler and Pol Pot which one would you vote for?  Neither right?  The same example works here.  Kerry supports all the wrong issues.  He has his head up his ass, he's deluded himself into thinking that a) the majority of the public agree with most of Bush's policies, and b) the young progressive vote won't be enough to push him over the top.  But here's the thing, if what you're position is saying is true, then most Democrats would vote for Kerry no matter what his agenda and platform issues were.  Therefore, he ought to be supporting a full on assault of everything Bush stands for.  He ought to be Dennis Kucinich (by the way, if the Dems had nominated Dennis, this discussion wouldn't be taking place).  Instead, he's Bush-lite.  And I for one, refuse to vote for someone strictly because they aren't G. W. Bush.  I, and my chosen candidate, may not have a fighting chance of winning, but I can sleep at night knowing that I voted for issues, for pledges, for ideas, not empty promises and useless rhetoric.

[Drunkre]

isn't this supposed to be about unseating bush?  how does bush winning help the green or progressive agenda?  how does bush winning help anyone other than the rich?

 

Sorry, I would've included this in my original post but I thought about it some more.  
This, sadly, is not about unseating Bush.  It's about removing the possibilities of Bush's agenda from the American political forum, and as I said before, Kerry agrees with the most basic ideas of Bush's agenda.  If, God forbid, Bush should win again, it would hopefully push the Democratic Party further to the left.  In 2000, there were no real progressive party members running for President in the Democratic Party.  In 2003, we had legion.  Why?  Because Nader forced the Democratic Party to reexamine their past, reexamine their present, and reexamine their future.  Despite this, they still nominated Kerry, a moderate if their ever was one.  If Bush wins again, if Nader "robs" votes from the Dems again, the Democratic Party will have only one entity to blame...themselves.

it's just what the other side wants-disunion, disorganization, division.  they win if we can't get our shit together

Regrettably, what the other side wants is exactly what you are planning on giving them.  Pizza or tacos, they're both junk food.  Kerry or Bush, they're both figureheads for the larger corporate agenda in America. And they win unless we unseat that basic fundamental unjustice.  The only way to do that is to vote for the person who is against it.

I'm sorry to say these things and write these things.  I know they sound illogical and insane at times to people who disagree, but trust me on this.  History has shown time and again, that before things get better, they've gotta get worse.  Maybe Americans just haven't seen it bad enough yet.

[lfish]

Well as an European I have to say that I'm a little disappointed in Mr Kerry.  I agree with the people who say Kerry's platform isn't so much different then Bush' declaration of policy.  
I thought kerries strengt would lie in the countering of W's big mistakes he made during his presidency: The war in Iraq without international support, more social support for the poor and less to the big fat industries, more criticism against the events in guantanomo bay and Abu Ghraib, the ratification of Kyoto,... All points which make a difference, which makes the world a tiny better world.  

But on the contrary I see a Kerry who is affraid to make hard choices. It's like choosing between pestilence and cholera.

But I also agree with John, who says it's still better to have kerry as president than another four years of bush.  

Another point is that the president isn't the only one with ideas.  Think of Bush as president without Rumsfeld, without Wolfowitz, without Cheney and you would have a new and less strict policy.

If Bush gets elected, the same team will continue.  If kerry gets elected, he has the chance to compose a whole new team and I believe that this team will be less ideological inspired as the current team supporting Bush.

I rest my case.

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

I thought kerries strengt would lie in the countering of W's big mistakes he made during his presidency: The war in Iraq without international support, more social support for the poor and less to the big fat industries, more criticism against the events in guantanomo bay and Abu Ghraib, the ratification of Kyoto

hey man, the election hasn't even really kicked into high gear yet.  give a few weeks, the democratic convention will be the impetus to point those and other horrifying facts out.  think of the debates between these two men.

kerry:  "explain why prisoner abuse has occurred in iraq..."

w:  "i like shiny things...oh man, where's some shiny things....what prisoners?  prisoners of terrah, that's what we are, i tells ya.  gimme billions of dollars otherwise spent in america to rebuild the oil pipeline to my buddies oil companies.  whoops, should have used the inside voice."

har har

[lfish]

I recently heared that Kerry and Edwards will focus more on the big mistake of dubbya: Iraq.  

Every European would say, well if they focus on this topic well they sure will win the elections, won't they? No, definitely not.  I think the average American is not interested in foreing politics, only in internat domestic politics.  And why should they.  

Here in Europe, centuries after centuries we lived at war with other nations.  During the middle ages there were constant troubles, then came Napoleon and dislocated hole europe. Then we had the three French German Austrian wars in the 19th century. Then came the two world wars. At last, we know some piece.  So for us Europeans, foreing policy and fear to be intruded has always been very important.  America had their war for independance and then maybe the internal civil war in 1865 but so far America has never been intruded by another nation.  

And that's one of the reasons why average American isn't interested in foreign politics.  Only during the Vietnam war, people opposed themselves against the war, because there were so many casualties for one (still a lot more then in Iraq right now) , and two after seeing the images of life at the battlefield.

So I really hope that Kerry and Edwards don't focus to much on Iraq and offer a positive alternative for the domestic policy.  

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

the average American is not interested in foreing politics, only in internat domestic politics.  And why should they

well, this average american is VERY interested in foreign politics...but in a much different way than what the current administration projects onto the world.

instead of seeing everything like territory to conquer, i see the world as one big interconnected family.  and we've done a great job of pissing off our relatives with our destructive and self defeating parlays abroad, all in the name of cheap petroleum.

maybe soon we'll have a regime change and these policies will stop...as The Dude so famously says...

"this aggression will not stand, man...."
 

[lfish]

well, this average american is VERY interested in foreign politics...

By now, I know that you have a more broader view on the world john.  So don't take it personal.  But a lot of people (not only americans) don't have this broader picture, and I think it's a pitty.

"this aggression will not stand, man...."

The way it is pronounced by the dude is priceless  :D.
Makes me laugh every time I see the movie.

Why is there such a big Lebowski movement in the states?

Seen any other movies of the Coen brothers?

I personally like "fargo" very much.  

[SMc55]

Fargo is a really cool picture  8)

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

hey lfish, i was just makin' sure the readers out there don't confuse the one Amerika from the other America...it's like we're a two headed monster at this point, very volatile period here in 'merikan History...half of the country is one way, the other half is another, and both hate each other pretty badly at this point...

and I highly recommend:

Miller's Crossing
O Brother Where Art Thou?
Barton Fink

say, what IS it with John Goodman, John Turturro, et al always in the same movies together?

[EC]

say, what IS it with John Goodman, John Turturro, et al always in the same movies together?

I think it's because separate, they're wonderful, but together, they rock.

p.s.  Congratulations!  I think I forgot to say so in the other thread...

[peanut butter puddin surprise]

hey, thanks!

you're right, they are pretty cool together...