portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

faith & spirituality | government | imperialism & war selection 2004

Why Help Nader

Worse ramifications and there probability. Bus seeds his destruction every time he opens his mouth. The Dem are not much better. So play that wild card. Let the dialog begin.
New Hope
New Hope
Nader gets on the oregon ballot. Nader does not get on the ballot.

People whine People whine.

Nader is ruining nice Bush's chances. Nice bush is not so bad as Bush.

Nader is ruining nice Bush's chances. Nice bush is going to win the war nicer.


What will Ralph say If he Gets on The Ballot(as if I know - but I presume)

Corporate greed is lowering are standard of living
Corporate leadership is corrupting our government
Corporate investment is leaving this Nation

What will be said by a candidate(dem/repub) in Oregon if Ralph is or is not on the Ballot.
Not Much new. Not much but mush.

They may screw you out of your retirement and social security to pay for the war we will loose.

Note It would be Nice to ask Ralph where is Oregon's Aluminum and steel Industry going? What does he suggest?

Yes, Kerry is better than Bush, but how much better? If Either is elected the State is on a course that is not clear that it can be effected. An example that comes to mind is when you say that we should just pull out of Iraq. Period. People respond, saying that this would cause a civil war or something as that. Well What the hell do they think is going on now?

Old Zen saying- Loosing is winning. Winning is loosing.

The out come of oil addiction, corporate wealth, and your standard of living is at play.
Senate 4in Intel 25.Jun.2004 23:56

Whyden

Doh---I and bi-den were on a comittee looking for wmd's. Da dun said da vas der. yes das der. So we dems ok der var. CIA say so 2. Colin got a vial from colin-so must be true-ouch

Dis all bushys falt.

Please vote 4 hairy Kerry.

OKA DEN 26.Jun.2004 00:48

OKA DEN

oka den i vote 4 k ree

Who will it help if Nader gets on the ballot? 26.Jun.2004 01:19

PHH

Will it help Nader? No, because he will not be elected.
Will it help Kerry? No, because Nader will draw votes away.
Will it help Bush? Yes, because Nader will get Kerry's votes.

Tune into hate radio. They are mobilizing to get Nader on the ballot. There will be plenty of Republicans there tomorrow.

If you want to help Bush, go and join them.

hmmm, interesting 26.Jun.2004 01:54

reader

PHH, you seemed to neglect the most important point. Let me help you.

Will it help the people of Oregon? Yes, because they will have more choice in the democratic process.

Funny, and conspicuous, how you left that one out.

But hey, if the dems want a repeat of 2000 go ahead and attack Nader. If you want a repeat of 1992, well, better start learning the lessons. They're not hard, trust me.

Hey reader 26.Jun.2004 03:11

Leroy Brown

You're a Republican, right? I can tell. They the only ones that talk down like that.

please check 26.Jun.2004 06:15

Z magazine

For Norman Solomon's coherent and thought provoking arguments against Nader's run for office. It is really worth considering- who exactly is Nader- a man who refuses to listen to some of the best advice that the left has to offer? Plus, Nader has some strange bedfellows (see Z mag).
Kerry may be Bush-lite, but Nader isn't the left's best hope, either.
Until Bush gets prosecuted for his war crimes, the country can't just hand another election over to Bush & Nader isn't helping.

What is 4 Oregon 26.Jun.2004 07:31

False Choices

Will oregon go Bush with Nader on the Ballot. I don't think so. Too many Dems wont vote for Bush again. There is risk. History shows no - not last time - That is Gore won Oregon.

What will Bush do that Kerry won't do for Oregon?

Fear for the democrats is good. It may turn in thier ballots and get Dems elected.

Were stuck however thinking and hoping. Thats Bad. Can Nader change the establishment? Can he
save our Old growth, withdraw from iraq and central asia, or create jobs? Listen to how Nader suggest what he will do for Oregon.

You know the Democrats and Republicans will be listening. Watch who you give your money to.

Get Nader on the Ballot. Vote for kerry. Get local people elected and create and energy plan for Oregon.

Good Luck

agreed 26.Jun.2004 12:51

ex-democrat voter

The democrats have lost some support, myself included, over the last 4 years as they supported all of Bush's policies. But for the millions of democrats who voted for Bush, Kerry is their man. There are also substantial numbers of republicans planning on voting for Kerry. I don't think Kerry can get fewer votes than Bush barring some extremely significant event or revelation.

I won't tell others how to vote, but I do want the democrats to know that their unflagging support for Bush has cost them some voters. I guess it won't matter to the leaders if they can pick up enough republicans and Bush voters. But then, that's all the more reason we'll need some new political parties to represent those of us who aren't being represented.

It's a fallacy to say that we have more choice with Nader 26.Jun.2004 15:28

-

Whether or not Nader is on the ballot, there are only two choices for presidency: Bush or Kerry.

The only way Nader offers a third choice is in an opinion poll. If he's on the ballot, you will be able to voice your opinion in the election. It will mean nothing more than that. And if he manages to get 8%, which I highly doubt, your opinion will quickly be forgotten, and the country will move forward with either a new president, or that moron Bush.

Anyone who says that Nader will offer a choice in the real election is misleading people.

Perplexed 26.Jun.2004 15:54

confused

What I read here and other places is that Nader supporters have no problem with GW being elected to a second term as long as their guy is on the ballot. WTF? Please explain to me why Nader supporters are perfectly OK with bush & co being elected in '04. Neither Ralph Nader nor any other third party candidate will ever be elected to the presidency of the US in your's or your grandchilren's lifetime. I'm not a big fan of the current two party system we have, but it is what it is. You keep blaming the dems for all of this. WTF?

Confused, it's because they're armchair 26.Jun.2004 16:38

.

revolutionaries. Anyone out in the trenches working seriously for the environment, animals, women's right to choice etc. isn't going to throw away their vote on a luxury pie in the sky candidate. The environmental and animal activists who are being handed huge prison sentences for their activism are in this position thanks to Bush's out of control justice department. Another 4 years of Bush and many more of us will be imprisoned with long sentences, or frightened off of activism and civil disobedience altogether. People who are screaming for Nader are not in the real world, doing the real work. The strengthening and renewal of the Patriot Act which would happen under Bush spells the end of much radical activism that has already been slowed down.

right... 26.Jun.2004 16:51

paying attention

There are a lot of activists who are going to vote for Kerry. Show me 1. Or do you consider the Sierra Club to be "out in the trenches". Talk about armchairs...

Environmental activists have watched the democrats support and enhance all of Bush's anti-environmental proposals.

Pro-choice activists watched the democrats support Bush's anti-choice legislation (remember the Victims of Unborn Violence Act that 13 democrat senators voted for?).

Animal rights activists have watched the democrats support all of Bush's "homeland security" legislation which has justified their harassment and arrests.

Not to mention the democrats are firmly against those doing non-violent direct action for any cause.

Don't look to Kerry to do anything about the patriot act; it wouldn't be politically expedient.

"spells the end of much radical activism that has already been slowed down."

Radical activism has been on the rise under Bush, and will continue to rise regardless of who is selected as president. But keep playing the fear card; if it works for Bush supporters it's sure to work for Kerry supporters.

armchair " . " doesn't have the GUTS to leave his name 26.Jun.2004 16:53

Activist

"Anyone out in the trenches working seriously for the environment, animals, women's right to choice etc. isn't going to throw away their vote on a luxury pie in the sky candidate."

--that can ONLY be Kerry you are referring to:

Kerry was born into an obscenely rich family that would go on yachting trips with the Kennedys. Since he became a politician his bank accounts have been generously stocked by corporate lobbyists. He has also married some of the richest women in the world, including his current wife, Teresa Heinz. It's hard to imagine how such a person could even have a concept of "self-reliance." John Kerry preaching to poor people about self-reliance seems rather like a blind person trying to teach people about the colors of the rainbow.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283773.shtml

"The environmental and animal activists who are being handed huge prison sentences for their activism are in this position thanks to Bush's out of control justice department. Another 4 years of Bush and many more of us will be imprisoned with long sentences, or frightened off of activism and civil disobedience altogether."

--and Kerry is going to repeal the USA Patriot Act which he voted for? YOU'RE the one suppressing Democracy with intimidation and fear tactics designed to keep people in the One-Corporate-Party straitjacket.

"People who are screaming for Nader are not in the real world, doing the real work. The strengthening and renewal of the Patriot Act which would happen under Bush spells the end of much radical activism that has already been slowed down."

--Chomsky wrote, "Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush."

Chomsky also made clear how he views the election in the context of other efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist."
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291457.shtml

YOU "." are the Disinformationalist multimillion-dollar corporate-funded Democratic Party TrollSHILL who is spamming this website with baseless, unsupportable claims. What did Clinton accomplish for Iraq/poor-working class Americans/environment? show me the money. Bush administration is "out of control" because of 9/11, a pre-meditated event that PNAC has anticipated for a decade - even Karl Rove calls Bush 'Reagan - Phase III'. Kerry is his Skull & Bones blood brother.

nader on video 26.Jun.2004 16:59

pdx imc repost


How weird 26.Jun.2004 17:15

-

Did you leave your name "Activist?"

Why is it even important? It's damned silly and wreckless to leave your name out on the internet. You seem to understand that well enough with your pseudonym.

Mr. " - " Has Trolled On Other Nader Stories Here Today. 26.Jun.2004 23:24

BLAH BLAH BLAH


Hey mister 27.Jun.2004 00:26

-

Just like you I comment where I want. I've been posting here for a long time. This is the first time I've been called a troll.

I guess that means you don't like me. How sad.

You seemed a little smarter than to resort to the troll-calling. Don't know why you'd feel so threatened by me. I'm no threat at all.

"Don't know why you'd feel so threatened by me. I'm no threat at all." 27.Jun.2004 00:43

whatever

1. "threatened" by YOU? that's a laugh - every additional keystroke of yours here further discredits you - with no help at all from me or others.

2. what's the reason you're posting at this web site, and on these topic threads, again?

p.s. RE: 'four more years' - George W. Bush was never elected, but was APPOINTED to the presidency by the US Supreme Court. why do we need fewer than 3 'choices' for the White House, again? (OH YEAH I remember now . . . it's a "democracy" . . .)

will the successive occupant of the White House actually be 'ELECTED' in Nov. 2004?

and what were those differences between Bush and Kerry, again? (Democrats and Republicans, again?)

Skull & Bones - check
Iraq war resolution - check
NAFTA / GATT - check
HAVA - check
USA Patriot - check

. . .

which faction of the business party is in office? Elections are a diversion.
which faction of the business party is in office? Elections are a diversion.

Sorry 27.Jun.2004 01:05

-

I have to answer you again. I'll keep it simple. Nothing in your post above has anything to do with anything I've written here. I don't know who you think you're talking to. You should check yourself. You're definitely going off.

Vote for Kerry 27.Jun.2004 01:29

.

And live with the blood on your hands.

"Sorry"? 27.Jun.2004 01:39

BLAH BLAH BLAH

"Nothing in your post above has anything to do with anything I've written here."

--and precisely what is it that you've written or said here? what on earth is your point - because you certainly haven't got one so far.

on the other threads you stuck up for your buddy (another characteristic of covert ops trolls) "been there" by saying he'd "been posting here for a long time".

directly above, you Mr. " - " say: "I've been posting here for a long time."

so are you and "been there" the same guy?

p.s. Ralph Nader is now on the Oregon ballot for November 2004.

That's great for Ralph 27.Jun.2004 02:16

-

You sound paranoid though. This is all utterly ridiculous... and I keep trying to talk to you as if you were normal. I don't know "been there" I've seen his posts. I am not him. I don't know Catwoman. I've seen her posts. I am not her. I don't know Gringo Stars. I am not him. I've seen his posts. Umm... let's see, there's George Bender... who else? Red Suspenders... I'm not him. If you visit this site regularly, you recognize certain names that are used. That's a simple fact of life and not indicative of any collusion or conspiracy. Some of us are normal folks, and consider others to be the same.

Not everyone you don't know are involved in conspiracies or covert operations. I happen to be just a lowly citizen. You would see how crazy you sound if you knew me. But that's not gonna happen. What is my point? I've made a few comments today most of them small, but you have answered me as if I had said all kinds of other things, which I had not. Mostly what I have been doing with you is defending myself against your irrational anger, and resisting getting into protracted arguements that I'd never intended to comment upon. You really sound crazy.

Congratulations Ralph Nader. I have no problem with Ralph being on the ballot. I have never said anything to indicate so. You'd really prove yourself nuts if you went searching around Indymedia to find a post by "-" that wants to keep Ralph off the ballot. But whatever floats your boat.

I can't be sure if the "been there" that you attacked is the same "been there" that I've seen commenting on Portland Indymedia for some time now. His tone seemed similar however. But the point is, if you have never seen a poster named "been there" you must be new around here. It looks really awful for a new person to come to an open forum and tell other people new and old that they don't belong here and they must be cointelpro. My guess is, after reading this site for some time, that most posters here are Portlanders who care about their community and the world. They have opinions and they voice them. The ones who want to shut them up? I don't know where those people come from.

But back to the issue here. Congratulations Ralph.

it's great for Oregon 27.Jun.2004 03:14

unafraid independent

The people of Oregon have a choice, and nothing is better than more choice. It's great for the republicans who don't want to support Bush but can't bring themselves to vote for a democrat. It's great for the democrats who don't want to support Kerry or Bush. It's great for the many of us who don't align with a political party to give some more thought into who we want to vote for, if anyone. It's great for all those who stand to gain from more people actually voting. It's great for all those who are motivated to take action. I've always thought Gore would never have won without Nader in 2000, though I disagree with that tactic of using fear to motivate people.

Democracy, it's a win-win situation. Let's work for more of it.

"It looks really awful . . ." 27.Jun.2004 11:09

BLAH BLAH BLAH

"It looks really awful for a new person to come to an open forum and tell other people new and old that they don't belong here and they must be cointelpro."

--I NEVER said you "MUST be cointelpro". or that you "don't belong here".

but you certainly are acting like it, especially with your repeated ad hominem shots of "you're crazy" (whatever that means ) towards me. certainly draws more attention towards and tells more about you, than me.

not trying to make anyone "shut up". but if you have a point please make it, instead of reiterating your constant, cryptic statement of "I just made a few small comments" . . . if you really WANT to "belong" here then try contributing something positive to the discussion (which you did by acknowledging Nader on the ballot, above).

and I post at - and read - this Portland IMC newswire FAR more frequently than you - whoever you are. (believe me on that, if you believe nothing else from me.)

For some people, it supposedly increases their credibility or visibility at this particular site by having an unchanging online pseudonym. in my case, I prefer not to be identified by regular name - the actual facts and information (which can be externally referenced) exchanged here are in my opinion far more important than having my 'name' associated with them. and for a variety of other reasons I prefer total online anonymity . . .

but that's just me. people - like you mentioned- such as George Bender and GRINGO have their established posts, opinions and credibility from their real name or consistent pseudonym, WHICH IS JUST FINE.

Blah, blah 27.Jun.2004 16:00

-

Blah, blah, I do the same thing. I don't use a consistent name. I don't think it's necessary. I am not critical of either practice. I thought you were new because you didn't recognize the name "been there" but if you say you've been here a long time I believe you. What I was addressing is that you were accusing people who have been here for a long time as being cointelpro. The reasons you give for anyone possibly being cointelpro are nonsensical. Yes, I have called you crazy. Your posts seem irrational and I wanted to point that out. Sorry if it offended you, but you had already insulted me many times.

You claimed that "been there" had the mark of cointelpro because he used the word "boards." Nonsense. Anyone can see that.

You suggested that I might be the same person as "been there" because I wrote that he'd been writing here for a long time, and in another sentence I wrote that I had been writing for a long time. How can you not see that this is nonsense? A lot of people have been writing here for a long time (apparently you also) and we are not all the same person. For you to jump on that similar description as some kind of indication of the common identity of two people who don't even know each other, but each don't agree with you in some way is... well I won't use a word here. I will just ask you to put yourself in my shoes and imagine that someone had written the same thing to you based on the same "evidence."

My points? You can go read the original posts I made to which you reacted if you want to see my points. But you really have to slow down and read clearly, sticking to what I actually wrote and not expand upon them with your own agenda, prejudices, or whatever else makes you jump to conclusions without substantiation. They don't have anything to do with keeping Ralph off the ballot as you implied, being a Kerry "supporter" per se, as you implied, trollism, racism... whatever else you've been talking about. Subsequently all my posts have been responding to your angry posts, trying to explain to you how they don't address anything I've said, trying to make sense of this exchange, and yes unfortunately throwing in a few barbs. I have not allowed myself to be drawn into any expanded discussion based on your accusations because they have nothing to do with me.

Anyone reading this will say that I am foolish for continuing to respond to your posts, and I'm sure they're right. I am just having a hard time accepting that you can't realize the nonsense. There are issues to be discussed, but instead you have picked on me personally starting with my small comment that Kerry had been addressing issues in the campaign. It could have been said in a nicer way to the original poster, but I stand by my point that it was inaccurate to say that he hadn't addressed any issues in the campaign. Your response to that were personal accusations, and assumptions about me and what my beliefs were, and I just continued to respond to your accusastions.

The very sad thing about your tendency to run on the attack, not only of me, but of "been there" and maybe of other people on other days, when you post links to other comments, calling "cointelpro" or "troll" is that it's evident you were calling for others to join in on ganging up on people who simply said things you didn't like. And you didn't use things they actually wrote to inspire a ganging up, you used unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo. Nobody joined in on your attempt to gang up. Thankfully most people ignored our exchange and were more interested in posting about the convention and their own opinions about the issues. Also sad is that when one other person chimed in, it was "been there" who wasn't so much defending me, but defending people's right to express their opinions here without being attacked and accused, then giving his own opinion. Your solution to that was to surmise that we were the same person. In view of this, it is not an insult to say that you may need counseling.

If you hadn't been so stuck on attacking me, you would have seen in other threads that there were actually people who were talking about the issues you wanted to talk about, some with whom you would have agreed and some with whom you could have had a real argument they would have been up for. Another sad thing is that it is obvious to me that we would agree on some things judging from some of the articles to which you posted links. It was not in my interest to prove myself to you however when the posting of those articles were an obvious accusation that I was a very different kind of person. If you want to argue with someone on the issues that is something that makes sense here, but you should pick someone who is actually interested in that, and who is actually the type of opposition that you wanted me to be. Attacking people, making assumptions etc. is what you've been doing however. That has served no purpose except frustration and annoyance for all involved and on the sidelines.

I have to take credit for some of that, because I kept answering you. This is the last time I will do so. Indymedia should be a place for intelligent discussions of the issues... that's what will keep it strong. This kind of thing is a distraction that you started, but I helped to continue. It is the kind of thing that can destroy Indymedia. Blah, at least I cared. But not anymore. All the best to you just the same.

To the last poster, thanks for trying..... 27.Jun.2004 19:27

been there

... to reason with blah blah and others. You've taken far more time than I have. However, I'm sure you'll be attacked, as I have been. I'm also amazed at how many times my few (probably 5-6 times in my life) posts have been referenced here. Gee, if I had more time I could really turn this into an ego thing.

These folks will continue to attack you. When Chomsky and Zinn clarify their positions and explicitly urge Oregonians and other swing-state voters to vote for Kerry -- and then to hold his feet to the fire -- they'll attack them. When Dennis Kucinich, hopefully after wringing some concessions out of Kerry, endorses Kerry, he'll automatically become a carnivorous, SUV-drivin' cointelpro agent (yeah, ol' Dennis was just a good actor...) Hopefully when, into the campaign, Ralph decides to stop this nonsense, they'll attack..... hmmm... guess they'll have a problem....

Ever hear of David Horowitz? He used to supposedly be a firebrand leftie radical in the sixties, editor of Ramparts, etc. Now he's shown his true colors as a near-fascist rightwinger. I predict the same thing for some of the people on this "board" (and yes, I don't know what the hell to call it). They just like being pissed off, don't really work for anything concrete and meaningful, and would probably be just as comfortable as Nazi skinheads or Bible-thumping clinic-bombers. Just give 'em time.

"been there" and Mr. " - " reveal themselves 27.Jun.2004 20:52

BLAH BLAH BLAH

fuck both of you assholes. you're each trolls - not cointelpro, much more likely Democratic Party fascist idiot-shills paid to spend time here during the Nader nomination - and why should I waste more time on either? No-one named "been there" (unless randomly named) has EVER regularly posted to Portland IMC . . . what the fuck ever. claim and believe what you want.

I'm not "attacking" anyone. but if you Mr. " - " have a point to make, please MAKE IT.

"Thankfully most people ignored our exchange" - again, whatever. you two have spewed far more pointless keystrokes onto this article thread than I have. Mr. "-" is the one spewing invective about armchair activists, and it's real interesting to see "been there" inject the word 'Nazi' in his most recent screed . . . all kinds of disinformation and distraction goin' on.

RE: Kucinich no matter how 'good' he seems/has seemed, he still voted for the Afghanistan war, and he's still a Democrat (with all the professional obligations for him that implies).

of course I know who the fuck David Horowitz is, his history, and what he currently represents. I can write dissertations on the works of Chomsky and Zinn. neither is the point.

the point - if any - and which each of you Disinformationally ignore IS:

Chomsky (only repeated here for illustration - I and many others already long ago knew it without Noam's opinion) emphasizes that for grassroots activists, electoral politics is a DISTRACTION.

Nader has the right to get on the ballot without intimidation or subterfuge (e.g. Democrats latently filling the convention hall or mounting lawsuits against him - aren't there better ways to spend their campaign money? - to prevent ballot access) on the part of other politicos. it's up to an individual voter whether or not they want to believe the "safe state"/"swing state" rhetoric touted by Chomsky and Zinn, but 75% of US electorate resides in "safe" states.