The only thing Nader is good for these days is confusing democrats to vote for him. I'd love to see him on the ballot but really overall he just doesn't matter.
You give too much weight to executive orders. They are typically nonsense/fluffy orders that can be overturned by either court orders or the next president.
Just like laws passed by the legislature can be overturned by the courts or not enforced by the President? I don't think I give too much weight and I suspect that the men who designed our system of checks and balances would agree.
Lol...I'm afraid the men who created the system of checks and balances didn't have anything to do with the abomination that is executive orders. Perhaps a little history [halexandria.org]on the subject is in order.
LOL or cry in silence, it doesn't matter to me which you do. Executive Orders are not fluff or nonsense and are enforced even when they contravene the Constitution. You should read
one
[whitehouse.gov]
or
two [sfsu.edu] before you pooh pooh them as impotent foolishness. And how do you expect anyone to take seriously your link to a crackpot website? [halexandria.org] Did you know what kind of "fluffy nonsense" that site contains, or did you find that particular page in Google and so accept it as gospel truth?
Having no opinion on the argument over executive orders in the preceding posts... that is one f*ed up link. Wow, their views are so far outside mainstream science that it might be a fun read for an afternoon. Sometimes I think that these sites are setup by reasonable people hoping to discredit ludicrous views by exposing them, but then other times I worry that these are legit websites and people really believe that stuff!
Ignoring all other points... Is homosexuality based in thought or genetics? The problem is that mental health is based on normal behavior, dictated purely by statistics. Assuming a free environment where homosexuality is accepted without prejudice, what percentage is there for homosexuals? 5%? Good, bad or indifferent, it would still stand to be considered a "mental" illness if not genetic.
Conversely, if, as I heard recently on TV (not accepting it as fact, instead just an illustration) that 60% of adu
Mod this down quick! before too many people see it and realize that Dubya really was just a CHICKEN HAWK who never had the balls to fight for his country.
And I bet your posting that from Iraq right now...
And I bet you have several hundred hours in high performance jet aircraft where the time between "small mistake" and "death" is a fraction of a second.
And I'm sure you are aware that (Air) National Guard units did serve in combat in Vietnam and Korea.
effectively overturn Roe v. Wade through executive order
And through the Republicans into political disorder? Though the religious right is one of Bush's constituancies, there are still more people who either belive that 1. it isn't the government place to say, right or wrong and 2. that women should have the choice. Please don't argue with me because I'm halfway between banning and number 1, but leaning towards the latter, and I really don't care what strangers think on this.
If you begin to seriously challenge RvW, you lose the next election.
That goes back to a major point of my original post. Presidents who go a second term don't have to worry about losing the next election. I guess I assumed wrongly that everyone knows this but... here in the U.S. no one may hold the office of the presidency for more than two consecutive terms.
So to recap: if Geourge Bush remains in the Whitehouse then he can reward his rightwing, conservative constituents whose hottest button is abortion
The point I was trying to make was the if you do challenge it, your *party* loses the next election. But I do agree with you that a 2nd term president has a lot more leeway than the 1st. I guess my main point is that as president your actions reflect on the party and will impact the next elect whether you are in it or not.
You're so contemptuous of democracy, and the people, that you'll root for Nader, who opposes Bush more extremely than Kerry, if he helps your boy to game another election. Of course you're a Republican - and of course you're proud - you people have no shame.
they are registered Democraps (yes, demo-craps, because the democrat party is a bunch of CRAP!)
Aah, political discourse in 2004.
You'd better be careful. Right now you're a far more effective and damning indictment of our educational system than a Kerry campaign commercial could ever hope to be. (Yes, indictment, because I'm saying u r teh SHEEP!)
Make the best use of your next 4 years until your first presidential election, so you'll understand the consequences of the means to your ends. You wind up getting stuck with the means, whether you achieve your ends or not. If you listen carefully, you will learn, regardless of what they try to teach you.
2) Are you accusing Kerry of being socialist? He's a bloody free trade advocate, and took a lot of slack for it in the democratic primary!
3) A "tax raising Kerry" - hopefully you're aware that his only proposed increases are repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top several percent. Bush's tax cuts have left us with a 4-5 hundred billion dollar defecit. Is this fiscal responsibility? It's like putting huge amounts of money on your credit cards - and don't try and claim that Democrats are derailing associated budget cuts, since the Republicans control all branches of government. Also, don't pretend it's short term - even Bush's budgets don't hold that out, let alone the GAO, and he's pushing for even more tax cuts.
1) He was a war hero before he was an anti-war hero before deciding that being a war hero would help him get elected. "I voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it!" How about: "...Christmas in Cambodia is SEARED into my memory." Well, maybe it was just near Cambodia after all. Do I really need to continue?
2) He may be less of a socialist than some of his European pals rooting for him, but by U.S. standards he is, in fact, a socialist.
He was a war hero before he was an anti-war hero before deciding that being a war hero would help him get elected.
You can be both. Dubya is nothing...I mean "neither".
... but by U.S. standards he is, in fact, a socialist.
Your opinion is not a fact. Do not presume to speak for the U.S., thank you.
"Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes".
That's just like "Not pressing Congress to continue the assault weapons ban" == "Being in favor of letting it lapse despite statements to the contrary". Flip
Hey, you asked... Kerry is, for example, a proponent of socialized medicine. I never said Bush wasn't, I was answering your query.
Second, which part of "Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes" do you not understand? Or are you denying they are the same thing? So maybe we should never have called Bushes tax cuts "tax cuts", we should have said he repealed previous tax increases?
Again, I never said anything positive about Bush, I answered your questions... if you can't handle the truth, you shouldn't ask
As you consider both presidential politics, and the job markets they manage, you might be interested in the job growth under the past 10 US presidents [sagarmatha.com]. Unless you're some kind of Republican martyr, or corporate welfare candidate, your parents' Democrat alliance will start to make a lot more sense when you finally free yourself from the tyranny of their allowance.
Don't give me this "both parties are the same" nonsense. In 9 out of 10 votes, the vote largely splits along party lines - and they're *ideologically consistant* splits. You may not agree with all points that both sides adopt, but their platforms on the vast majority of votes are starkly different.
And since you say "single party of the interest of the wealthy above the common citizen", apparently you've never compared the Democratic tax policy with the Republican tax policy, the Democratic party's trade
I think Nader's heart is in the right place, but he's starting too big. It's too soon to break the two-party system at the presidential level.
America's left leaning voters need to start by putting a few more members of the green party into congress, and into their state municipal governments. Once there's more of a tradition of voting outside the big two, voting for someone like Nader wont just be a wasted vote. It sucks, but that's the reality.
I once thought that his heart was in the right place (I voted for him in 2000, in a state that was going for Gore, so don't call me a spoiler, I just want to see the Greens get their 5% for matching funds). But he has forsaken his morals and accepted signatures and $ from republicans that are helping him only to pull votes from Kerry. Soooo, this leads us to only believe one thing: Ralph is playing both sides and taking whatever he can get for Ralph, and not for any third party.
I have hunted around for some statistics and haven't found anything yet. He usually votes with Democrats, rarely with republicans. I don't think that there has been a case where 'neither' was an option since a vote for a bill is either one side or the other unless it is an abstention.
It is easy to identify his voting when you do come across any data; He is an Independent and you can see the only 'I' listed there and where he lands.
If you want to see what he is all about see his web site. [house.gov]
He is progressi
Another problem with Nader's candidacy is that it is pure idiocy to try to split the left while the right is still 100% united. Until there is a split between finanical conservatives and religious conservatives, the left needs to stick together unless they want those financial and religious conservatives to have all the power.
Nader is a zealot, he will stick to his philosphy regardless of the cost. You would think open source/linux folks would be able to recognize this type of behavior.
I think your anti-W hatred is blinding you. I did not support Nader in 2000, I am not supporting him now, but you guys who are pissed off at Nader are so friggin stupid. Nader has uttered a lot of nonsense but he was right on the mark when he said (paraphrasing) that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any Democrat's vote, that they have to earn it.
Actually, I'm not convinced that Nader will draw more Democratic voters than Republican ones.
In 2000 he represented a more liberal choice that many Democrats found attractive, especially with their particularly uninteresting candidate. Nader convinced people that Gore and Bush presented no real differences, and the candidates didn't do much to fight that perception: they were both boring.
Four years later the Democratic candidate is not significantly more interesting, but the opponent is far more unattrac
"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale."
-- Adlai Stevenson
Nader is just an attention whore (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:1)
vote for dubya, or the terrorists will *win*.
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:1)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:1)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Conversely, if, as I heard recently on TV (not accepting it as fact, instead just an illustration) that 60% of adu
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
Seriously, you forgot a critical distinction: Illness generally requires harm (to one's self or others). Where is the harm?
Re:Conservatives! Quick! (Score:2)
And I bet your posting that from Iraq right now
And I bet you have several hundred hours in high performance jet aircraft where the time between "small mistake" and "death" is a fraction of a second.
And I'm sure you are aware that (Air) National Guard units did serve in combat in Vietnam and Korea.
Anyone who served even one day in combat de
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
And through the Republicans into political disorder? Though the religious right is one of Bush's constituancies, there are still more people who either belive that 1. it isn't the government place to say, right or wrong and 2. that women should have the choice. Please don't argue with me because I'm halfway between banning and number 1, but leaning towards the latter, and I really don't care what strangers think on this.
If you begin to seriously
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
That goes back to a major point of my original post. Presidents who go a second term don't have to worry about losing the next election. I guess I assumed wrongly that everyone knows this but... here in the U.S. no one may hold the office of the presidency for more than two consecutive terms.
So to recap: if Geourge Bush remains in the Whitehouse then he can reward his rightwing, conservative constituents whose hottest button is abortion
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:1)
brownshirt (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:brownshirt (Score:3, Funny)
Aah, political discourse in 2004.
You'd better be careful. Right now you're a far more effective and damning indictment of our educational system than a Kerry campaign commercial could ever hope to be. (Yes, indictment, because I'm saying u r teh SHEEP!)
Re:brownshirt (Score:1)
Re:brownshirt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:brownshirt (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Are you accusing Kerry of being socialist? He's a bloody free trade advocate, and took a lot of slack for it in the democratic primary!
3) A "tax raising Kerry" - hopefully you're aware that his only proposed increases are repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top several percent. Bush's tax cuts have left us with a 4-5 hundred billion dollar defecit. Is this fiscal responsibility? It's like putting huge amounts of money on your credit cards - and don't try and claim that Democrats are derailing associated budget cuts, since the Republicans control all branches of government. Also, don't pretend it's short term - even Bush's budgets don't hold that out, let alone the GAO, and he's pushing for even more tax cuts.
Re:brownshirt (Score:2)
2) He may be less of a socialist than some of his European pals rooting for him, but by U.S. standards he is, in fact, a socialist.
3) "Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes". Perhap
Re:brownshirt (Score:1)
He was a war hero before he was an anti-war hero before deciding that being a war hero would help him get elected.
You can be both. Dubya is nothing...I mean "neither".
Your opinion is not a fact. Do not presume to speak for the U.S., thank you.
"Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes".
That's just like "Not pressing Congress to continue the assault weapons ban" == "Being in favor of letting it lapse despite statements to the contrary". Flip
Re:brownshirt (Score:2)
Second, which part of "Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes" do you not understand? Or are you denying they are the same thing? So maybe we should never have called Bushes tax cuts "tax cuts", we should have said he repealed previous tax increases?
Again, I never said anything positive about Bush, I answered your questions... if you can't handle the truth, you shouldn't ask
Re:brownshirt (Score:1)
Re:brownshirt (Score:2)
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
And since you say "single party of the interest of the wealthy above the common citizen", apparently you've never compared the Democratic tax policy with the Republican tax policy, the Democratic party's trade
Nader (Score:4, Insightful)
America's left leaning voters need to start by putting a few more members of the green party into congress, and into their state municipal governments. Once there's more of a tradition of voting outside the big two, voting for someone like Nader wont just be a wasted vote. It sucks, but that's the reality.
Re:Nader (Score:1)
Re:Nader (Score:2, Informative)
For the Greens to become rel
Re:Nader (Score:2)
Just out of curiousity, how often does he vote with the Democrats, and how often with the Republicans? And how often with neither?
Re:Nader (Score:1)
Re:Nader (Score:2)
It's his head thats too big.
This is just one big ego trip for Ralph. He has made his millions and he is going to be alright even if Bush is elected or re-selected.
Re:Nader (Score:1)
Nader is a zealot, Nader-haters are in denial (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your anti-W hatred is blinding you. I did not support Nader in 2000, I am not supporting him now, but you guys who are pissed off at Nader are so friggin stupid. Nader has uttered a lot of nonsense but he was right on the mark when he said (paraphrasing) that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any Democrat's vote, that they have to earn it.
Re:Nader is a zealot, Nader-haters are in denial (Score:2)
Not to invoke Godwin, but so was Hitler. I don't want a zealot of any stripe in the White House.
Re:Nader is just an attention whore (Score:2)
In 2000 he represented a more liberal choice that many Democrats found attractive, especially with their particularly uninteresting candidate. Nader convinced people that Gore and Bush presented no real differences, and the candidates didn't do much to fight that perception: they were both boring.
Four years later the Democratic candidate is not significantly more interesting, but the opponent is far more unattrac