Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Ralph Nader speaks out about the 2004 Election

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostMon Feb 23, 2004 6:47 pm  Reply with quote  

JBE -- DO YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL???

Your last post wreaks negativity and an anti-voting, anti-hope message!


At least the consideration of the Diebold manipulation of the voting is plausible. But you seem to go overboard into total belief in total usurpation no matter what party gains control. I happen to disagree.

First of all, the government is run by groups of people -- not one person. Bush has never been in power, as you know, and what would make this any different with Kerry or any other Dem? It will be the cabinet, the whole administration and their interaction with the Pentagon that will change the course of events, not to mention a Dem majority in both houses. If you think Kucinich, Edwards, and the Dem candidates and other active Dems would let a neocon agenda continue, you're just plain nuts!

We have been discussing the neocon agenda on this board for months. Are they not different than the Dems in foreign policy?

The issue of health care? Is not the Dem version different than the Repub? Handouts to HMO's! Penalizing seniors who have worked hard and continue to work by making them pay MORE for pharms! Putting no restrictions on the cost of pharms and allowing no imports! Dismanteling medicare as socialized medicine, fair for all?

Corporations? Don't the Republicans and the Bush family, Cheney, et al, have connections and deeper ones to oil? Look at John Kerry's corporation affiliation. None of them are involved with oil! NONE! I already posted this info, too!

Environment? Do you think a Dem president would have reversed so many environmental laws the way Bushco did? Do you think they would have gone into Iraq in the same way or even gone into Iraq if their group pockets weren't to benefit? And as that relates to fossil fuels, do you think the Dems wouldn't have tried to pass laws to get us off the oil tit if the Republicans hadn't blocked it at every turn? Remember Jimmy Carter? He tried way back then to institute alternative energies and then Reagan came into office and ruined all of the progress toward it. Bush Senior simply continued to block it, in favor of the oil companies.

Foreign policy and peace values? Do you honestly think a Democratic party majority or administration would have created the same PNAC and arrogant attitude toward the UN and other countries? A total usurpation of space and communications technologies?

And if you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was known about in advance and even conspired with on various levels -- do you think this would have occurred under a Dem president who didn't have oil connections and a neocon agenda?

No, I do not believe John Kerry is controlled by the Skull and Bones Illuminati. Nor was Clinton. Clinton might have furthered and encouraged trade, and intervened in Afghanistan, and he's no saint, but he's no neocon!

Do you think a Dem president would have restructered the tax system in the same way?
NOT!

And education? Please!

The cloak and dagger theory of total control by the "dark forces" would love to have us all give up and figure voting is a waste of time and the two party system is powerless -- oh yes, they would love this! All the more easier for them to gain total control. But with all the organizations, the individuals, and the population waking up to the injustices, the dismanteling of the Constitution, the extended powers of the government reaching into areas of church and state, into areas of privacy, into our pocket books and all for greed and power -- do you honestly think the battle is for nought?

There is a battle being waged. The Dems ARE more open, are more able to see the grey areas, are more socially conscious and peace- aware and could stop this backward dark force that has appeared suddenly and with seeemingly great force. But it ain't so! It can be changed and pushed back, other areas brought to light that were secret, and other reinstitutions of our democracy.

Yes, we have problems with the climate. Yes we will be challenged by the WTO, but if you think a Bush continuency will be no different than a Dem takeover of the reigns of power -- you are sadly deluded!

The good and light will conquer the dark and the purpose of the neocons and the Bush darkness was to stimulate awareness and public responsiblity and their role has been quite successful. Now it's up to us.

If you tout no participation and no faith, you are assuring that no change will occur.

Please get positive and see that it is still up to us to change the course of human history. The whole world can come together to solve the various problems we will encounter. The dialogue about free trade and cheap labor will more likely occur under a Dem administration -- no way for Bushco. The attitude of our government helping other nations in trouble is more likely fostered by a Dem administration as well. Not a warlike, scare tactic from the Pentagon about climate change or any other problem. And do you think chemtrails would ever be discussed openly by Bushco? No WAY! But, a Dem House and Senate and a Dem White House will more surely tackle such DOD projects and more surely bring things out in the open.

What you have to fear most, is that Bush would win the election, not that Kerry would win!

How misguided!

Sorry, JBE! You know I respect you. But I had to express my true views on this!

I listened to a NWO, Luciferian last night on Coast to Coast and he said that the plan for a world takeover is in progress. There will be chip implantation, there will be population control, over control, demonic ruling of the planet and it is for our human race survival. BAH! A lie! You uncannily sound like this deranged human and please take a step back and realize there is a spiritual battle raging here. Pick the light side, please, the side of hope, the God energy, the faith in our human ability to choose the way of free will and democracy, technology for the good of all, care for the planet itself, and reject the notion of a world government founded on false premises and furthured by evil entities!

If you know evil exists and it is there trying to take over -- you know that you have the choice to not give it credibility nor credance by giving it any power in your mind. You say -- we have no choice -- you are giving it power. You say -- it doesn't matter what party -- you are giving it power. It wants the power, it wants the fear and wants us to fear, and we won't give it to them and we won't entertain fear! Period!

We fight! Like in Star Wars, don't give in to the Dark Force!


 View user's profile Send private message
JerseyBluEyz





Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast
PostMon Feb 23, 2004 8:35 pm  Reply with quote  

Boomer Chick:

You can think whatever you want about the whole political process and so can I. That is the beauty of being an individual. We are allowed to have varying view points. I canít help what I think and see - any more than you can. Would you like for me to tell you that you are misguided? Even if I thought someone was, I would not ever say it. And who said anything about giving in to the negative forces or giving up spiritually? One must NEVER do that! This discussion was political (not spiritual) and was dedicated to Reps vs. Dems.

In my opinion, there is no difference between the agenda of the two parties. The Dems are just MUCH more subtle in their approach. As I said, that is my opinion and it will not change. Kerry will more than likely be in office. Does this mean I wonít vote? No. Will I vote for Kerry? Definitely not! For Bush? OMG no! I would love to see Kucinich in office - but do I think heíll win? Unfortunately no. BTW, why is it ok for Sylvia Browne to give a presidential prediction and not me? Because I have not written any books, been on TV interviews, or charge money to do readings? Does any of that invalidate what I see? You know as well and I that this view can change in a moment - nothing is ever set in stone. As far as the presidential election goes, that was where I stood last night and still where I stand today. (Note: I make no claim in being "psychic").

Since spirit was brought up and Iím on a roll, Iíd like to add that NOTHING IS EVER HOPELESS. It is up to us to realize our connection to God Mind and our oneness with the world around us. Once we are aware of these connections, we must work to release ourselves from the victim mentality. Only then can we help bring others to spiritual awareness. Once we raise the collective consciousness higher, we will bring on a new world. This vision is lacking in our reality at this time, but is NOT impossible to achieve.

P.S. I respect you too - you know that!
 View user's profile Send private message
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostMon Feb 23, 2004 10:05 pm  Reply with quote  


quote:
In my opinion, there is no difference between the agenda of the two parties. The Dems are just MUCH more subtle in their approach. As I said, that is my opinion and it will not change.


Well, I tried to ask you questions that you could respond to, but you refuse. In this way I tried to get you to think.

We just disagree on this two party idea and obviously I have expressed points that support my position.

It is not hopeless and if Kerry is nominated, I do hope you vote for him and not a third party choice.

This is all I can say. Your freedom of expression was never compromised. Your choice is always in front of you.

And yes, if you believe in the illuminati, then it is a spiritual battle.

What is "subtle" in the Dem's approach as compared to the neocon's at this time? I don't see subtleness at all! I see a definate opposition!

bc

 View user's profile Send private message
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostTue Feb 24, 2004 5:40 am  Reply with quote  

I do agree with what Lobe has to say here! But I doubt Nader will get the signatures he needs to run a candidacy and beyond that, I doubt he'll attain the primary voter base that will get him into the debates, which is the only value he'll really have at that point-- debating.

The Lone Ranger Of Righteousness

By Paul Loeb, AlterNet
February 22, 2004

It's my right to run.


This is Ralph Nader's core case in announcing his 2004 presidential candidacy. Yes, Nader has a legal right to run. He also has a legal right to donate $100,000 to the Republican Party and become a Bush Pioneer, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.


So much of Nader's career has been built on reminding us of our common ties. It's wrong, he's argued, for companies to make unsafe cars, pollute our air or pillage shared resources. Actions have consequences, he's pointed out with persistence and eloquence.


Now, he's taking the opposite tack, fixating on his own absolute right to do whatever he chooses, while branding those who've argued against his running as contemptuous censors, who "want to block the American people from having more choices and voices." This argument would seem familiar coming from an Exxon executive. Coming from Ralph Nader, it marks a fundamental shift from an ethic of responsibility to one of damn the consequences, no matter how much populist precedent he tries to dress it up with.


The reasons to defeat Bush escalate daily. The administration enacts regressive tax cuts; wages pre-emptive wars and lies about their justification; hacks away at civil liberties and appoints hard-right judges to shut down challenges; and undermines the union movement. The Bush administration attacks root structures of democracy by disenfranchising tens of thousands of Florida voters, redistricting dozens of Texas, Pennsylvania and Michigan Congressional seats in raw power grabs, and jamming Democratic phone banks in New Hampshire. It brands those who oppose it as allies of terrorism.


That doesn't even count global warming, which (as sources from Fortune Magazine to the New York Times and a Pentagon study have recently warned) now brings the potential for melting polar ice caps to shutting down the Gulf Stream and plunging Europe and northeastern North America into a man-made ice age.


How can Nader know this and still run? He says he'll raise the otherwise buried hard issues. He says he'll bring disenchanted citizens back into politics. He offers Byzantine explanations of how he'll actually help defeat George Bush by raising fresh subjects and approaches, opening up "a second front of voters against the regime," and offering an alternative for moderate Republicans. But he can raise the issues on his own, as he has throughout his life. He can do it without critiques of the "two-party duopoly" that may discourage some for voting for the Democratic nominee. He can do it without offering the illusion that a purely symbolic vote will do anything to get Bush out of office.


Nader seems to have forgotten his own historical contribution to a different, more hopeful path, where he encouraged thousands of citizens to join in challenging illegitimate actions of power. He once recognized that progressive politics gathers its strength from the breadth of citizen movements. Now he acts with an almost messianic fervor, a Lone Ranger intent on holding onto his own moral purity whatever the pleas of his compatriots. By denying the real choices we face, he betrays the best of his legacy.


Will Nader's candidacy ultimately matter? Maybe not. Many of his supporters have bolted. He may not get on the ballot in every state. But if the 2004 election is as close as it was in 2000, his candidacy could still have a devastating impact. The Nader vote made the difference in New Hampshire and Florida, and his support in states like Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, New Mexico and even California forced Al Gore to divert time, money and resources away from other close races he might well have otherwise won.


Assuming the admittedly flawed John Kerry becomes the Democratic nominee, progressives do not have to support him blindly. We can work to unite historically separated progressive movements and keep raising core issues no matter who's elected in November. But this election we're faced with as critical a choice and challenge as we've experienced in our lifetime. It's too bad that by prizing his own righteousness over the risks of his actions, Ralph Nader has just made that challenge a little bit harder.


Paul Loeb is the author of "Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time."

 View user's profile Send private message
JerseyBluEyz





Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast
PostTue Feb 24, 2004 6:48 am  Reply with quote  

Since it was requested that I back up my NWO political statement, I will provide some info. There was never a refusal on my part to answer any questions. I already stated my views and did not see a need to repeat myself. It is not my intention to try and change anyoneís perception of what their political reality is. Just like EVERYTHING else that is posted at this board, this information can be accepted or rejected by the reader. I will try to point out why I believe that Clinton (a Democrat) was involved in further implementing the NWO agenda. If it becomes necessary to respond any further, I will not be able to do so for a few days. In other words, my lack of a response will not be due to purposeful avoidance (I have a presentation I must finish first and then give).

Here are a few Clinton quotes from the time he was in office that I believe point to the NWO agenda:

The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people. Bill Clinton 1993

We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...
Bill Clinton 1993

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. Bill Clinton 1994

There are a lot of very brilliant people who believe that the nation-state is fast becoming a relic of the past. Bill Clinton 1997

To learn about the Shadow Government (FEMA) there is an excellent site, full of additional links, where Richard J. Boylan Ph.D. gives an in depth analysis. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/shadow.htm


Iím throwing this in because, as most of you know by now, Iíve researched quite extensively into symbolism (spiritual-based and Illuminati), mind control methods, and the NWO agenda for about 10 years. This article is one of my favorites Ė called WIZARD OF OZ and the ILLUMINATI MIND CONTROL. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oz.htm


From my NWO Agenda timeline, I copied the following bits of information. These are all NWO-type bills that were signed and implemented during Clintonís reign:

1992 - Implemented NAFTA and signed a bill allowing US troops to be under UN command.

1994 - H.R. 666 (LOVE that number) passed by congress allowing illegal search and seizure.

1994 - GATT agreement signed.

1994 - Executive Order 12919 gives the president the power to declare an emergency which instantly gives FEMA the authority to take control and would virtually suspend the greater portion of liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

1998 - Issued Presidential Decision Directive 63, which provides that, in the event of an emergency beyond the capabilities of the private sector to handle, the full authorities, capabilities and resources of the government including law enforcement, regulation, foreign intelligence and defense preparedness shall be available, as appropriate, to ensure that critical infrastructure protection is achieved and maintained. This plan is to be put in place no later than the year 2000.

1998 - Issued Executive Order 13083, amounting to a complete inversion of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which states that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are to be retained by the States or by the people). It claims the authority to dispense with constitutional limitations, the separation of powers and the reserved powers of individual states when the President or his subordinates in the executive branch believe such action is "necessary."

For anyone that is interested in reading more on the NWO Agenda, you can start at Educate-Yourself. They cover quite a bit of territory: http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

This paragraph from Educate-Yourself sums it up: The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United States, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (E.g. members of the "G7/G8" ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. In this century, the degree of control exerted by the Illuminati has advanced to the point that only certain hand-picked individuals, who are groomed and selected by the Illuminati are even eligible to become the prime minister or president of countries like England, Germany, or The United States. It didn't matter whether Bill Clinton or Bob Dole won the Presidency in 1996, the results would have been the same (except maybe for Zipper Gate ). Both men are playing on the same team for the same ball club. Anyone who isn't a team player is taken out: i.e.President Kennedy, Ali Bhutto (Pakistan) and Aldo Moro (Italy). More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also killed because they were either unwilling to go along with the conspiracy to destroy America, weren't cooperating in some capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the Takeover agenda.


[Edited 1 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 02-23-2004]
 View user's profile Send private message
halva





Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 515
Location: Greece
PostTue Feb 24, 2004 8:15 am  Reply with quote  

Taking this kind of information on board doesn't necessarily presuppose becoming a defeatist. The task is to work out how to translate it into interventions in a political world which views it as extremist conspiracy theory.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostTue Feb 24, 2004 6:51 pm  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by halva:
Taking this kind of information on board doesn't necessarily presuppose becoming a defeatist. The task is to work out how to translate it into interventions in a political world which views it as extremist conspiracy theory.


Yes, this is a truth. But the purpose of asking for supportive evidence is to clarify positions so that "extremist conspiracy theory" assumptions can be nullified! Good information that presents open facts is just that. Knowing, like you said, which legislative factions to support and what personal activism contributions one should then make -- becomes the next stage of participation.

Thanks, JBE! Your clarification is so appreciated and so well done!

In comparison with the Bush administration, however, the process toward the NWO was slowed during Clinton's presidency regardless of the facts presented.

But the underlying threat based in our way of life and TO our way of life is the Peak Oil situation described at this link. This is so important -- I can't stress it enough!
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html

This is not propaganda, nor is it a scare tactic. You throw in the NWO agenda, the changing weather climate and Gulf Stream due to natural and mitigating atmospheric pollution all working together to create global warming and ironically, a mini ice age-- and people,

WE BETTER GET READY!

On page five the recommendations given are quite sound! Please read in the "Ecology" thread under "Peak Oil."

 View user's profile Send private message
shatoga





Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1297
PostSun Feb 29, 2004 10:05 am  Reply with quote  



Anyone who supports Nader has never driven a corvair.

His book (that made him) "Unsafe at any speed"
is a total fraud!

My 1964 Corvair Spyder could outhandle any Corvette and drove like a Porsche.

I have discussed this with John Delorean and an engineer on the corvair design team who does not authorize me to identify him by name.

the illustration in that book, show corvairs stressed beyond physical abilities.
eg;
corvairs could only exhibit such geometry if significant structural members were either removed or broken off.

After reading Nader's book,
several Corvair owners tried to roll our corvairs.
(with helmets etc, safety related)
We found our corvairs would only roll if they skidded into and struck a curb at speed.
Like any other car.
Nader lied!
Nader lied!
Nader who personally owned over 6 millions in corporate stock when Republicans paid for his campaign commercials in 2000?
Nader is like a leopard who has never changed his spots:
a trojan horse serving Republcan corporate interests via disinformation.

Same as he ever was.

Meet the new boss..
same as the old boss...

Nader has become a multi-millionaire shilling for corporations.

he will not change.

will we see him for the corporate shill he is?


 View user's profile Send private message
shatoga





Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1297
PostSun Feb 29, 2004 10:26 am  Reply with quote  

Out of context, I can neither dispute nor confirm the statements attributed to Clinton.
I do know however his executive orders regarding the powers of the Federal Government repeatedly tried to reign in the out of control monster.
(after WACO woke him up to just how out-of-control the gov't is)

I provide context and sources to bolster my statements. http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/disposition_tables.html

President Clinton tried in vain to get the Executive Branch to "obey the Constitution in all actions and all regulation"


Federalism: EO 13083; EO 13095; EO 13132
-the latter, section "C" affirms the 10th amendment as a principle of government

I give national "National Archives and Records" actual text of Executive orders and challange any Clinton basher to give such unquestionably unbiased authoritative reference.

Let us deal in facts only/ please

IMWIO/conservative opinion is not based on nor similar to actual facts



[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 02-29-2004]
 View user's profile Send private message
shatoga





Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1297
PostSun Feb 29, 2004 11:09 am  Reply with quote  

Roosevelt signed the first Executive order declaring that "in a National Emergency type situation" the Executive branch could take total control of the nation.
clinton revised the nixon--through bush executive orders and conservatives blamed him for what his predecessors did (as if they did nothing)

Executive Order 12919
National defense industrial resources preparedness

Signed: June 3, 1994
Federal Register page and date: 59 FR 29525; June 7, 1994
Amends: EO 10789, November 14, 1958; EO 11790, June 25, 1974
Amended by: EO 13286, February 28, 2003
Supersedes or Revokes: EO 8248, September 8, 1939 (in part); EO 10222, March 8, 1951; EO 10480, August 14, 1953; EO 10647, November 28, 1955; EO 11179, September 22, 1964; EO 11355, May 26, 1967; EO 11912, April 13, 1976 (in part); EO 12148, July 20, 1979 (in part); EO 12521, June 24, 1985; EO 12649, August 11, 1988; EO 12773, September 26, 1991 (in part)

Let us please all deal in actual facts preferably from unbiased sources. http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1994.html#12919

Before NAFTA,
there was the Carribean Base initiative which paid american companies to shut down and transfer production overseas.
Bad as it is, NAFTA is not as bad as what existed before it.
a system that actually subsidized businesses with tax dollars, as they laid off american workers and moved to use cheap foreign labor.

(the truth about NAFTA) http://www.ca-bc.com/zip_internacional/affecting_laws.html
>Within the context of the CBI, the Reagan administration sought to stimulate private investment in the Caribbean via tax breaks and risk insurance<
(before NAFTA)Our tax money actually subsidized moving business overseas!
>The centerpiece of the Initiative, however, was neither aid nor investment, but one-way duty-free trade with the United States.<
ONE WAY duty free trade
NAFTA made it both ways duty free, and the rightwing media kept quiet. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/dominican_republic/do_appnb.html
Before NAFTA, tax money subsidized US companies shipping production machinery overseas and even paid to move executives and supervisors to the new foreign factories.
(while former wage earners and taxpayers/ US employees were unemployed or learned to ask 'Do you want fries with that?")

the misinformation about NAFTA was a major cia/RNC disinformation propaganda success

american corporations got cheaper labor/ got paid to move overseas, and got laid off workers tricked into voting for the very politicoes (R) who had funded thier' job losses via their own tax monies!

the lies about NAFTA astill are rampant.
Truth:
It was worse before NAFTA!

No!
I do not argue that NAFTA is good for america.
I believe FAIR trade is better than free trade.

Match tariffs with tariffs, inspections with inspection etc.

One percent of Japanese cars imprrted into the USA are inspected.
100% of american cars exported to japan are inspected.

make it equal!

but never believe NAFTA made a paradise into hell.

Reagan/Bush's CBI was hell. (no tariffs into america but tariffs on american exports)

NAFTA is a "lesser evil" no tariffs either way.

Please,
let us all respect the truth about issues


 View user's profile Send private message
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostMon Mar 01, 2004 7:25 pm  Reply with quote  

Excellent informative post, shatoga, thanks!

Interesting about the corvairs!

Nadar's not a threat and neither is he a lone ringing voice of truth! He just is out of date.

Fair trade? YES! Corporate responsiblity for taxes, fair hiring, working standards, environmental standards? YES! Jobs for Americans! YES!

bc
 View user's profile Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostMon Mar 01, 2004 7:42 pm  Reply with quote  

Something that is not mentioned by Liberals Who Hate Nader is this:

Patrick Buchanan took away many votes from Republicans, close to the same amount as Nader took away from Democrats.

Just because soembody is older does not mean they are out of date. DiVinci, Leary, Einstein, and Messiaen are dead and old, but their ideas are still 100 years in the future.

Is Eminem a more advanced musician than Keith Emerson because one is twice the age of the other?

You get my point.

Some things evolve....some things devolve.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostMon Mar 01, 2004 10:13 pm  Reply with quote  

Nobody mentioned the word, "hate," swamp!

I do not hate Nadar! Never did! Nor do liberals!

In fact, I like him as a person!

He is out of date under the criteria I first gave which was: the Dems running this election have mentioned and are concerned about every issue he mentions! No new ground here!

I am well aware of ageism and would never presume to put that kind of judgment on anyone! His messages on issues are out of date, his so called enlightened state is not-so-enlightened nor different than the most enlightened of the Dems running!

This has nothing to do with attitudes toward those who are older in age!

Don't put words in my mouth, swamp!

And I do agree that Nadar didn't influence the Gore-Bush race, although a look at close states might prove otherwise, as Gore won the popular vote and had the Dems in Florida not been swindled out of votes the outcome would have been much different.

Your notion that "liberals hate Nadar" is a notion Mech mentioned and I never agreed that that is the case. In fact, Nadar's Raiders were and are liberals! DUH!

Are you baiting me my fine man? Not you? Oh please let it not be!



bc

 View user's profile Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostMon Mar 01, 2004 10:37 pm  Reply with quote  

Where did I say "Boomer hates Ralph Nader?"

It would seem you are assuming I meant you.

I am talking about rags like "The Nation' magazine, and some of the turncoats like Chris Hitchens, Marc Cooper, ad nauseum. They blame Nader as The Spoiler, but never mention Buchanan as a repuplican "Spoiler". Care to comment on that?

His ideas out of date? I am saying that many so-called "Modern" people seem to think that if something is newer, it is automatically more advanced. I did not mention you in particular.

Since there will be no Kucinich in the final days of the debate, who will carry the torch of Anti-Globalization into those debates? Kerry...Who voted for The Patriot Act, Iraq War 1 & 2, NAFTA/GATT, and is now talking about more police, more military, and more CIA.

No, I am not baiting you. I am stating my opinion, and there's is nothing else to it, and please don't take it personal.





[Edited 4 times, lastly by swamp gas on 03-01-2004]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Boomer Chick





Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado
PostTue Mar 02, 2004 1:33 am  Reply with quote  

Well, now that you condition your term, "liberal" I can see it more clearly.

But I am also a "liberal."

If you think the issues on the Patriot Act, immigration, job-outsourcing, terrorism and such will disappear with Kucinich and Sharpton out of the race (after the nominations) you're kind of assuming and crystal balling here, aren't you?

Won't all those issues be addressed to whoever runs? You think the public, the various organizations, and the liberal agenda against corporations and protecting civil rights will simply disappear because Kucinich and the like will be behind the scenes?

Come on!

These are issues dear to the American people, dear to all citizens and they won't go away! Kerry wants "fair trade" and yes, he doesn't want the WTO or NAFTA dismantled, but as I have said before, you'll get more discussion and openness about trade in general with a Dem administration and majority in the houses than this present one!

Kerry isn't perfect, how would you like the Busishtas for another four years?

Yes, the Netherlands has a great system and they don't put up with such archaic processes as the electoral system, either!

We have a lot of restructuring of our electing system to do! More parties, more fair financing, fair media exposure, and a final "good-bye" to the electoral college!

Think you'll have a chance at changes with Bush still in office? HUH! ?

Don't get caught up in Kerry propaganda, either! Kerry still offers more opportunity for change than the neocons!

Remember, it's not just the president who wields power in the system -- it's the whole team, the juciary as well, and the Congress!

bc
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:34 pm


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum