Nader can suck on my hairy balls

[Tippster]

Originally posted by Dr. Gaper
Which Nader ideas do you disagree with or deem intangible and why?

Seems all of his take on the issues - or at least the issues he finds most important - completely coincide with the beliefs of the majority on this message board.

I don't "disagree" with any of them, just think they're very "Pie-in-the-Sky" and are anything but realistic. Let me explain point-by-point (since I'm at work and obviously have all the time in the world)

Wants electoral reform that creates a vibrant, active, participatory Democracy

Electoral reform is an issue that's brought up every fucking year. The problem (just like term limits) is that the system in place put these lawmakers in power. No one wants to gut their re-election chances, so many words are spoken, yet not much happens. Look at McCain/Feigold - a truly landmark law that was supposed to take big money out of the equation. The first thing that happened was exploitation of loopholes that were DELIBERATELY left in place.

Wants a crackdown on corporate crime and abuse ... to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power; pay back ill-gotten gains; rein in executive pay; and enact corporate sunshine laws, among others.

This last partsmacks too much of socialism. Will never fly in the US. The rest is common sense - thus a "loaded issue" kinda like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Wants a fair tax where the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share, tax wealth more than work, and tax activities we dislike more than necessities

And this differs from the long-standing Democratic stance on the tax-code HOW?

Opposes media bias and media concentration
The mass media in the United States is extremely concentrated, and the messages that they send are too broadly uniform

How EXACTLY would you propose to regulate this? Remeber - the FIRST amendment says, among other things, that Congress shall enact no laws abridging the Freedom of the Press. Also, if you start charging for the use of the airwaves you're diminishing the pool of broadcasters to those who can afford it. How does this democritize anything? Finally - legislating diversity seems to have the opposite effect than it intends - it causes more divisiveness between the factions since somebody is always getting favorable treatment.

A family farm-consumer agriculture policy

Exactluy what was discussed at the last WTO meeting in Cancun. The end-effect was that unless we (the West) subsidise our farmers we cannot compete with the third world, since their costs are so much less than ours. We cannot compete with a country like Burkina Faso where a pond of potatoes costs pennies to produce. Even if you include the cost of shipping it's still cheaper with them. Look what happened to the cotton industry when we opened our markets to the third world. King Cotton indeed - in EGYPT. Thus the only answer is protectionism - subsidizing farmers. Make no mistake - a family farm gets the same subsidy as a corporate farm. It's simply a matter of scale and overhead that allows the corporate farm to be more profitable.

Wants to end poverty in the United States

Who doesn't? Who wants to pay for this? Why does the name "Karl Marx" keep popping into my mind? Why am I laughing?

Wants to create jobs by investing in America's future, invest in Americans

Seems like I've heard this one before from candidates from ALL parties. Not a single politician on this planet is AGAINST job-creation. Not very ground-breaking.

Education for everyone

"No Child Left Behind" is kinda not working. Clinton had a great idea that would have guaranteed everyone a college education... oops. Again - nothing new here.

Opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq

No shit. Been discussed here for weeks, and in the Dem's campaign for even longer.

Wants to restore and expand civil liberties and constitutional rights

yet the ACLU stands behind...

Wants to reform the criminal injustice system

Yet the policeman's union stands behind...

Wants to end the war on drugs

Nader campaign song: Pass the Dutch on the left hand side. Give me a fucking break. That'll fly like my outhouse.
.
.
Once again - the President only suggests policy. CONGRESS makes all laws. If the Green party truly wants to affect change in these areas they need Senators & Congressmen - not a fringe Presidential candidate with a history of being a blow-hard naysayer.

I welcome your well-reasoned rebuttal.

[iceman]

Originally posted by Dr. Gaper

Anyway, are you guys implying that democrats are gullible?

No more so than Republicans - if Pat Robertson ran as an independent he'd take a lot of votes away from Bush.

[Plakespear]

Originally posted by iceman
No more so than Republicans - if Pat Robertson ran as an independent he'd take a lot of votes away from Bush.

Now there's an idea...

[iceman]

Run, Pat, Run!!!!

[Cornholio]

Funny political schmearing:

http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.swf
http://www.southpoledudes.com/dishonestdubya.html

[up an down]

Originally posted by iceman
Run, Pat, Run!!!!

just tap into that direct line pat has with god and give him some orders iceman. heck you could probably get him to lick his shoe bottoms on national tv if your voice sounds godlike enough

[irul&ublo]

Topic:

Nader can suck on my hairy balls


Thought about a wax? PM Bob Mc.

[road trip]

Originally posted by Tippster
Once again - the President only suggests policy. CONGRESS makes all laws. If the Green party truly wants to affect change in these areas they need Senators & Congressmen - not a fringe Presidential candidate with a history of being a blow-hard naysayer.

Just to pull this quote out of the rest so it isn't drowned in context.

[powpig]

If you're gonna vote for the Democrat, probably Kerry, because you really agree with his position and think he's the best candidate, more power to ya.
If the only reason you vote for Kerry is to defeat Bush, that's just a "lesser of two evils" vote. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils" than you're willingly voting for evil!
I will vote for a 3rd Party candidate, someone actually qualified to hold the office. All you fools who delusionally believe that change can be achieved by supporting the staus quo get exactly what you deserve. The empire is proud of you mindless followers!

[KQ]

Originally posted by powpig

If the only reason you vote for Kerry is to defeat Bush, that's just a "lesser of two evils" vote. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils" than you're willingly voting for evil!

Sir, can you tell the court ...... have you stopped beating your wife?

Semantics

[Dr. Gaper]

Originally posted by iceman
No more so than Republicans - if Pat Robertson ran as an independent he'd take a lot of votes away from Bush.

Neeener neeener neeener.

So, your answer is 'yes'?

[mrw]

"Wants a fair tax where the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share, tax wealth more than work, and tax activities we dislike more than necessities "

Business pays little or no taxes no matter what the rate.Those costs are passed along to the consumer which increases the costs of goods and services.It's a ninja tax that gov't loves because most people are too dumb to figure it out.The politicians smile and say "Behold...we have punished the rich" and we wonder why our assholes are sore.

"and tax activities we dislike more than necessities "

Who do we trust to make that determination? No one in office I can think of.

Less government is good government. Pay your own way in life and you will also resent paying for those that have kids they don't want and can't afford, buy cell phones and dvd's instead of health insurance for their families and expect those that get up off their ass and work to pay for those that don't.
I'm also sick of the American taxpayer being the fall guy for politicians that spend trillions more than they have and then tell us we are not paying our fair share while they line their pockets with our hard earned cash.
The United States Government on all levels is out of control.
Local governments are out of control. Check your real estate tax bill. there is no such thing as home ownership in this country. If you don't believe me, stop paying your real estate taxes. You are renting from the government who will kick your sorry ass out if you stop paying what ever rent fee they want.
I don't want a f###ing thing from government. I would let them keep everypenny I have paid into social security if I could opt out today.All I ask is that they stay out of my way and out of my pocket

[KQ]

Originally posted by mrw


I don't want a f###ing thing from government. I would let them keep everypenny I have paid into social security if I could opt out today.All I ask is that they stay out of my way and out of my pocket

There's a nice group of folks living in Idaho just waiting to hear from you.

[mrw]

Originally posted by KQ
There's a nice group of folks living in Idaho just waiting to hear from you.

I guess I'm just not a gulag kind of guy

[bad_roo]

http://ottoperuna.altervista.org/spo...vanni_s016.jpg

Aria Giovanni can suck on my hairy balls but hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Bum Z]

Thanks Tippster for saving me the time.

Most of Nader's stuff is a dream. The biggest problems I see are financial. Capitalism has put our economy where it is today. There is financial incentive to be better than the other guy. (in business terms) Capitalism creates competitiveness, and drives innovation, but the drawback is that the losers are left behind. Nader basically wants to take from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone is happy. Our government does this to a large extent already, and I don't feel it should go to the extremes that Nader supports.

[char]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak

If you think you want to vote for Nader, please tell me exactly what that vote will accomplish?

This year? Nothing because he is running as an independent.

2000? Could have gotten the Green Party into the major debates.

Electoral reform is an issue that's brought up every fucking year. The problem (just like term limits) is that the system in place put these lawmakers in power. No one wants to gut their re-election chances, so many words are spoken, yet not much happens.

And every fucking year somebody makes the same excuse and nothing changes.

[iceman]

I would have to agree with Roo that Aria would be a better choice than Ralph when it comes to hairy ball-sucking-type activities.

[DougW]

Originally posted by iceman
I would have to agree with Roo that Aria would be a better choice than Ralph when it comes to hairy ball-sucking-type activities.

I thought that after the package shaving thread that everone was going sans hair on their balls this year. I'm sure I read a memo.

[irul&ublo]

Originally posted by bad_roo
http://ottoperuna.altervista.org/spo...vanni_s016.jpg

Aria Giovanni can suck on my hairy balls but hey, whatever floats your boat.

You do know Aria used to be a guy, don't you?

[SLCFreshies]

A vote for Nader is, for all practical purposes, a vote for Bush.

My mom voted Nader to make a "statement" last election. I talked to her this weekend--she learned her lession. She's so disturbed by our current administration, she said there is no way she's voting Nader again. Thank god too, 'cause she lives in a swing state.

Unfortunately, my vote in Utah counts for sooo little. (stinky electoral college) I'll vote anyways though.

And if you think that both parties are the same--well, I don't know where you've been for the last 3+ years. There have been SO many ill-informed, unilateral, "we-know-better-than-you" decisions that this administration has made that would NEVER have been made if a Democrat were president. Or even if McCain were president.

I dearly hope "W" follows his father's footsteps. One and out.

[KQ]

Originally posted by SLCFreshies
My mom voted Nader to make a "statement" last election. I talked to her this weekend--she learned her lession. .

Yes I would have to agree that Nader is a lesion on this country

[Dr. Gaper]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
You're just following a vision that either refuses to accept or doesn't understand political reality.

No, we're not talking about Democrats.

[char]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
So what? Then you'd have a 7-10 percent minority party in an electoral system that has no way for minority parties to gain any meaningful power. And I'll ask again, what exactly would this accomplish?

Well, at the very least with 3 parties participating in a debate we would get 2 answers for each question asked.

Note: I don't even like Nader that much, I just hate the two party system.

[mr_gyptian]

He sucks more than your hairy balls. He cleans your pockets too.

.


Public Shakedown Artist

"Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes."
- Dave Barry
Crystal Lewis hadn't the slightest idea what "MOPIRG" was. Each semester, she says, the mysterious phrase was listed on her tuition bill at Meramac Community College in St. Louis, Missouri, and each semester the school billed her six dollars. Then she read the fine print. "If you opt not to support MOPIRG, please deduct this amount from your payment," it said.
But her tuition bill gave no explanation of what exactly MOPIRG was.
In researching this piece, I got similar reactions from students at colleges across the country. PennPIRG, MASSPIRG, and CALPIRG - students in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Colorado and California had been paying small fees to all of these groups, and almost none of the students knew at first what it was they were paying for.
If you're putting a kid or two through college, or putting yourself through, there's a good chance you're donating to a PIRG, too.
And Ralph Nader would like to thank you for your support.
Yes, the same man who rails against corporate welfare - because it coercively takes money from taxpayers and funnels it to corporations - has set up a rather ingenious, if underhanded and manipulative, way of coercively taking money from college kids - and funneling it to Ralph Nader.
The PIRG scam is short for "Public Interest Research Group," and there are well over a hundred chapters of the organization spread out across the country. The scams vary from campus to campus, but it basically works like this:
Each time your kid registers for classes, the local PIRG chapter has arranged with the school to tack a fee on to his/her tuition. On most every campus, the PIRG chapter has made attempts to make this "contribution" as secretive and misleading as possible. Just how secretive and manipulative the method depends on how much resistance each chapter has met in trying to get the scheme implemented. At most schools, they first attempt to make the fee both mandatory and nonrefundable. If that doesn't work, they lobby for as underhanded and sneaky a scheme as the school will allow.
This has been going on for twenty-five years.
Eight years ago, I was sitting in my fraternity cafeteria at Indiana University when representatives of the then-startup INPIRG group entered with a petition. They were starting a new student group on campus, they told us, and they'd like our support. We were assured that the group was one hundred percent apolitical. It was merely a group that would advocate for Indiana University students. They needed our signatures, they said, to get the organization up and running.
What they didn't tell us was that our signatures were in effect an endorsement of a "reverse check" system, whereby every single Indiana University student (and there are about 40,000 of them) would automatically donate three dollars to INPIRG each semester, unless he or she specifically knew to "uncheck" a box on the computer screen giving authorization for the contribution.
The INPIRG method has since changed. Today, the group solicits signatures from incoming freshmen - again under the "apolitical" rubric - who, once they've signed, will then contribute each semester for the remainder of their college careers at Indiana. Students say it's almost impossible to remove your name from the list once you've signed.
But at least students at Indiana have the option of not contributing.
On about 1/3 of the state college campuses in New York State, a student's PIRG contribution is mandatory and nonrefundable. The University of Wisconsin and University of Oregon also require mandatory, nonrefundable contributions to PIRG.
You want to go to one of these schools? You pony up to Ralph Nader.
At other schools, such as Trinity College in Connecticut, students not interested in supporting the local PIRG are required to go a Bursar's office or a student activities office, fill out a form, then take the paperwork to a campus PIRG officer to get a refund. That's quite a bit a work for three or five or eight dollars - and that's assuming the student ever notices the charge on his tuition statement to begin with. Not surprisingly, most PIRG chapters don't go to great effort to publicize the refund option. They rely on college student indolence, and they're making a killing.
What's worse is that most of the time, the money these chapters shake out of college students doesn't even stay on the campus where it's generated. This is particularly true in the Northeast. At many New England schools, most or even all of the money coerced from college students goes directly to the state PIRG chapters, where it's used to pay political lawyers and statehouse lobbyists, or is used as "seed money" for further fundraising efforts. And about 10% of campus-collected money goes to the national chapter, USPIRG.
The irony in all of this is that the PIRGs disguise their scam under the "free speech" mantra. The USPIRG site makes the incredible claim that forcing students to pay for causes they don't support is protected by the First Amendment. Yet this same organization, on its campaign finance reform website, claims that voluntary contributions to political candidates isn't protected. Go figure.
PIRG chapters claim that their funding schemes are protected under the recent Southworth v. University of Wisconsin decision, decided by the Supreme Court last year. But Southworth says only that political organizations can receive student dues as disbursed through a general fund. It says nothing about reverse checkoffs or mandatory fees earmarked for political causes. In fact, the opinion stresses the importance of "viewpoint neutrality" in mandating student fees. That is, organizations from all ends of the political spectrum ought to have a crack at the funds. Despite their claims of political agnosticism, few could make the claim that PIRG's policy positions are "viewpoint neutral."
Craig Rucker works for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, an advocacy group that helps grassroots organizers oppose environmental extremists. Rucker estimates that PIRG chapters on at least 70 college campuses have some sort of funding scheme that's either mandatory, or puts the onus on the student to pursue a refund.
PIRG chapters are operational on at least 140 campuses nationwide, and if not funded by mandatory fees, most either employ deceptive sign-up campaigns similar to the one used at Indiana, or lobby usually left-leaning student government bodies to grant them disbursement from more general "activities funds."
Like most of Ralph Nader's puppet and satellite organizations, state PIRGS are notoriously reluctant to divulge financial information (more on that below), so an exact figure on just how much they're collecting is tough to compute. Nevertheless, Rucker estimates that PIRG chapters nationally manage to collect somewhere between $10 and $20 million dollars from college students to advocate for Ralph Nader's causes.
So just what are these "apolitical," "student-oriented" issues PIRG chapters advocate for?
Well, the USPIRG's 2001 annual report demands a moratorium on drilling for oil in ANWR. It criticizes the Bush administration for weakening forest protections. It also advocates for tougher CAFE standards, and it criticizes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation for "not going far enough" toward publicly-financed elections.
If these issues are "apolitical," one wonders what PIRG considers "partisan."
The practice of forcing or tricking college students into financing causes they might not otherwise support seems particularly sleazy when coming from someone like Nader, a "citizen activist" who has always claimed to be on the side of the "little guy" - a public advocate who rails against the injustice of, for example, ATM fees.
Yes, it's sleazy and it's hypocritical, but it's also typical. Nader's public advocacy has always been at odds with his private business practices.
In the 1970's, for example, the labor-loving Nader busted up an attempt by workers at one of his organizations to unionize - an effort instigated by Nader's management style. The website Real Change quotes former Nader lieutenant Jim Turner:
"We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and what happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he starts doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop phoning after midnight."

Those fed up with Nader's tactics have found that taking on Nader, while difficult, is not a hopeless fight. Regents of the state university systems in California and Montana have shot down PIRG requests for mandatory support from student fees (though California schools now use the freshman-pledge approach used at Indiana). And several years ago, the efforts of student activists and local legislators nixed a mandatory scheme at the University of Texas. Rucker says his organization regularly works with local politicians and activists to fight the schemes at the state level, and that they're having some success.

The problem, mainly, is awareness. Campus PIRG chapters can implement their fee scams through petition drives, through student government organizations, or through university administrators, and they generally opt for the method they feel will provide the least amount of resistance. Once instituted, the fees then understandably get lost in the line item listings of various student athletic, health, housing, laboratory and various other academic fees.
So parents rarely notice them. And neither do students.