portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

government selection 2004

please post reports of Nader convention to this site!

i'm working tonight so won't be able to go to the nader convention. i would if i could, and get him on the ballot, for two main reasons: 1) he's the only major candidate with an anti-corporate power platform, 2) to piss off the whiny democrats, who would rather slam nader than run a campaign that actually addresses real problems and appeals to people other than the money-rich.
anyway -- i'm hoping people will post accounts here, so i can see what happened. i'm sure many other indy readers will be curious, too!!
oh yes, pissing off people-- 26.Jun.2004 14:16

m

that's a really good use of your time here on earth. You're so evolved. Good for you (but screw the increased numbers of animals who will die when their forest land is taken away under more years of Bush). That's a really mature reason to vote. Idiot.

Yeah! 26.Jun.2004 14:22

Kerry is our Savior!

Yeah! What we need is increased numbers of animals who will die when their forest land is taken away under years of Kerry!

Viva La Wyden-Feinstein Forest Compromise!

naderville 26.Jun.2004 14:24

dudederoni

NADER NOMINATING CONVENTION

This SATURDAY (June 26th, 2004)
from 5-7 PM
at BENSON HIGH Auditorium
546 NE 12th AVE
Portland, OR
(1 block from Llyod Center Max Stop)
the future is now
the future is now

people other than the money-rich 26.Jun.2004 15:57

-

" piss off the whiny democrats, who would rather slam nader than run a campaign that actually addresses real problems and appeals to people other than the money-rich."

It seems you haven't been paying attention. Kerry does address real problems. He is appealing to those other than the money-rich. He has talked about repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich and adding tax cuts for the middle class. He's talked about discouraging overseas job outsourcing. He's talked about healthcare. He's talked about alternative energy sources.

You haven't been paying attention, and have issued a blanket statement that he hasn't addressed real problems when he has. You are diceminating false information. I don't think you are lying, I think you are ignorant. But your ignorance helps to spread false information.

So sad for you.

"talked about" 26.Jun.2004 16:36

BLAH BLAH BLAH

who cares what Kerry/Bush/_________________ have "talked about"?

Kerry voted in favor of the Afghanistan invasion.

Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Kerry voted in favor of the USA Patriot Act.

etc.

the information is out there, if only you weren't so busy spreading false information and regurgitating multimillion-dollar political campaign slogans.

----------------------------------------------------------

Kerry and Black America

Just Another Stupid White Man

John Kerry says he wants to be America's second "black president," but sadly, his record on issues of racial justice makes him look more yellow than black.

Apparently Kerry saw no irony in giving this [1992] speech on an elite college [Yale] campus before an audience which undoubtedly consisted of rich white kids for the most part. Yale's faculty is 2.8% black and 1.9% Hispanic. Fortunately, it seems Yale has not been corrupted by the wave of "reverse discrimination" that is sweeping the nation. Nor did Kerry seem to recognize any irony in the fact while he lectures poor black people about "self-reliance," Kerry has essentially never had to do anything for himself. 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.


check out some video of nader announcing his campaign 26.Jun.2004 16:56

pdx imc repost


blah, blah, blah 26.Jun.2004 17:10

-

Nothing I said was false and you know it.

"Talked about" is campaigning. The original poster claimed he wasn't addressing any important issues in his CAMPAIGN. I pointed out that this was not true.

Whether or not he will follow through with any of these is not for me to say. I simply pointed out the truth, that he has been campaigning about issues.

I didn't dispute any of the votes you listed. I wasn't addressing those at all. Your response to my post is a bit ridiculous.

If people want to criticize any candidate, it's more useful to criticize what they are really doing and really saying (your pointing out his previous votes for instance) but to criticize a candidate for something that's absolutely not true makes a person not look credible at all, and makes their argument worthless and silly. Why should anyone with a brain listen? Unless they are willing to point out the mistakes...

Everything You Say Is False And You Know It. 26.Jun.2004 21:33

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Kerry has already clearly demonstrated - by his Senatorial voting record - what his issue stances are.

it's what makes his campaign website claims even more outrageous and unbelievable.

He's "talked" about and around a lot of things. U.S. structural economic problems and inequities range far beyond "middle class tax cuts" (which Kerry will do nothing about anyway) - minimum/living wage, unemployment, corporate downsizing, etc.

"talked about" healthcare? You mean, as in National Health Insurance? NOPE. although Western Europe and Canada have it . . .

"talked about" alternative energy sources? The Bush-Rove spinners are far ahead of Corporate Democrats on that score . . .

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291490.shtml#128510

Here's Bush's energy plan:

The President has called on Congress to pass comprehensive energy legislation that will provide reliable, affordable and environmentally-sound energy for America's future. An energy bill will bolster our economic security and our national security, and the President looks forward to signing fiscally responsible legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and modernize our antiquated electricity delivery system.

The President is committed to a national energy plan that, combined with regulatory and administrative actions, will provide a comprehensive and forward-looking strategy to utilize 21st century technology to allow us to promote conservation and diversify our energy supply.

 http://www.georgewbush.com/Energy/Brief.aspx

BLAH BLAH BLAH . . . identical to Kerry? Kerry's better than Bush on Energy? What's the difference? please, do tell.

as for you, Mr. "-" :

take your Disinformationalist Discussion Derailing elsewhere.

You haven't pointed out what I've said that's not true 26.Jun.2004 22:10

-

You just ranted against Kerry, which is fine, but you haven't pointed out what I've said that's not true. I didn't go into detail about what I think Kerry will do because I just don't know. I don't pretend to know what I do not. I don't frankly take any presidential candidate seriously on what they say during a campaign, that includes from both parties and from Nader.

I do know that Kerry has addressed issues in his campaign, while the original poster said he had not. That's all I addressed.

Your headline "Everything you say is false and you know it" is really hilarious as you go on not to address anything I said.

How is it that such a little comment could have inspired such hostility from you? Why are you ranting at me about things I've not written about? What is your problem?

"Mr. '-'"

That's funny.

What is this recess in the schoolyard? Mr. Blah, blah, blah?

I think we did it 26.Jun.2004 22:11

Lynn Porter

I was told there were more than 1,000 people there. They were still counting the signatures when I left. I'll be watching the 11:00 news to see if any word. Thanks to all who showed up and to the organizers, who did a great job. I'm proud of all of us for standing up for what we believe in.


Hey wait a minute... 26.Jun.2004 22:17

Mr. Blah, blah blah

Are you a Republican? A Bush supporter? That explains everything then. Glad that's cleared up.

And I'm not up for a debate on Bush policies vs. Kerry possible policies. It's not my issue. If it were I would have written about it in the first place. Go pick a fight with a real Kerry supporter. You might draw blood with one of them, but not with me.

For the Forest ANimals 26.Jun.2004 22:21

Green Jeans

You all should know that every environmental organization is for Kerry because Bush is the worst thing that has happened for the environment in history, therefore must be removed. Kerry also has the best environmental voting record in Congress.

What about humans? 26.Jun.2004 22:29

George Bender

I don't know what Kerry's environmental record is like. I do know that he voted for NAFTA, the Welfare "Reform" Act (an attack on poor people), the Patriot Act and the war with Iraq. I have to conclude that whatever Kerry's feelings about animals are, he hates humans.


"ranting" ? 26.Jun.2004 23:08

BLAH BLAH BLAH

here is what YOU said, Mr. " - " :

"Kerry does address real problems."

NO, he does NOT.

it is demonstrated by his Senate voting record on NAFTA, USA Patriot, HAVA, Iraq war resolution, and many other issues. what he has DONE invalidates his claims

he - and the DLC - are the same kind of liars and prevaricators as Bush/Cheney/Rove (example: their "alternative energy" plan cited above from their website), who 24/7 put out claims in direct contradiction to their real actions in the world.

Yep, ranting. 27.Jun.2004 00:20

-

Your posts are very angry. That anger shouldn't be directed at me. I didn't ruin your world.

Yes, I said that Kerry does address real problems, meaning he is TALKING ABOUT THEM IN THE CAMPAIGN. I repeat, the first poster said that he was not doing so. That is the only issue I was addressing.

If you don't agree with the way he addresses these issues that's fine, but that is not an argument I was making. And it is not an argument I want to get into. It is not my issue. All politicians are liars.

I wouldn't waste my time to debate candidates on chosen issues. Too bad, it is a waste of time. We can only make our best guess with what we have.

rant 27.Jun.2004 00:38

been there

The vast majority in these discussions continues to want to paint anyone not support Ralph running for president as someone who loves Kerry, is a corporate fool, probably drives and SUV, and is obviously inferior.

Others have tried, in much more elequent form than I have, to actually engage in dialogue with people on this board, and have failed.

I've lost patience and I'm going to join the tone of this board, and rant.

All I can say is that if Bush -- and the fucking evid psychopaths in his cabal like Ashcroft, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Negraponte, the list can go on an on, and you will NOT have people like this with Kerry -- if Bush gets another four years, having proven that he can be as outrageously blatant in his terror as he'd like and STILL the populace/courts/press "elect" him -- will be in for a real treat, kiddies. And you'll go out to the street, as I will, and I'll know that in my small way, I tried (not just through voting, jerks) to stop him, while you pompous fools fed your own stupid little egos, insisting on living in the fantasy that if you simply ignore the real world, it will go away.

Either vote for the Rich, funny talking, Yale Bonesman or Nader! 27.Jun.2004 00:42

go Ralph

You have only one choice to make in this election.

You can either vote for the New-England born, Multi-millionaire, strange talking, Skull & Bones Yale grad, ex-military officer, with cute daughters, empty-suit

or you can vote for Nader..

"been there" 's CUT-AND-PASTE "rant". 27.Jun.2004 00:54

DONE THAT.

check out the CUT-AND-PASTE of Mr. "been there" HERE:


Mr. "been there" uses COINTELPRO lingo: PDX IMC = "board". 27.Jun.2004 01:02

BLAH BLAH BLAH

" . . . much more elequent [sic] form than I have, to actually engage in dialogue with people on this board,"

seen it many a time before:

new and 'coincidental' commenters who doggedly reappear on controversial article comment threads -

such as Mr. "been there" -

indirectly refer to Portland Indymedia - and all IMCs - as "boards" (shorthand for "message board").

of course that is not what Indymedia is. but the covert ops people habitually call it that.

terminology aside, here is what Noam Chomsky says about two-party politics and its relation to activism:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291457.shtml

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."


Been there's been her for a long time blah 27.Jun.2004 01:10

-

You must be new here if you don't know that. I've read his or her posts many times. He's steady and even. You seem to be going off the deep end however. And your craziness is distracting.

HUH??? 27.Jun.2004 01:19

wha???

"Been there's been her for a long time blah 27.Jun.2004 01:10 You must be new here if you don't know that. I've read his or her posts many times. He's steady and even. You seem to be going off the deep end however. And your craziness is distracting."

--first of all,

WHO THE FUCK is "been there" ?!?

no one on Indymedia - or most other public internet forums - can positively identify people posting or commenting here just via their posting pseudonym. Sure there are some regular posters here at Portland Indy who can be identified by their regular handle but I've never seen anyone by the name of "been here" (as you claim).

the only way to make identities is by inferring a bit from their writing style, or the 'coincidental' nature or appearance of certain - often repeated - commenters on particular topic threads (usually for the purpose of Disinformation).

RE: "distracting" - thanks for bringing us WAY OFF the original above-posted topic of the Ralph Nader presidential convention. By the way, Nader is now on the Oregon ballot in November.

Chomsky also said he would vote for 27.Jun.2004 13:47

l

Kerry in a swing state--see recent article on here--so you might want to stop quoting Chomsky as your supporter in Oregon.

And that's rich--cointelpro is now represented by someone who thinks a vote for nader is a fantasy vote? I think the cointelpro voice would probably be encouraging you to vote for nader, hence helping bush and the national "security" force. It's more likely that you nader fools are cointelpro--and you're sure trying to fraction the progressive movement.

OK ASSHOLE. 27.Jun.2004 14:31

BLAH BLAH BLAH

"Chomsky also said he would vote for 27.Jun.2004 13:47 l link Kerry in a swing state--see recent article on here--so you might want to stop quoting Chomsky as your supporter in Oregon."

--the Chomsky excerpt was specifically referenced above ONLY BECAUSE OF what Noam Chomsky says about two-party politics and its relation to activism.

for the ENTIRE ARTICLE and the full Noam Chomsky - Howard Zinn - Nader context, see below.

"And that's rich--cointelpro is now represented by someone who thinks a vote for nader is a fantasy vote? I think the cointelpro voice would probably be encouraging you to vote for nader, hence helping bush and the national "security" force. It's more likely that you nader fools are cointelpro--and you're sure trying to fraction the progressive movement. "

--and precisely when did multimillionaire Skull & Bones blood brother of Bush suddenly come to represent the "progressive movement"? as Chomsky said in the ABOVE-REFERENCED EXCERPT:

"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."

and even according to Chomsky himself, a vote for Nader does nothing but good in states which are not going to swing to Bush.

The COINTELPRO-like actions come from Democrats, who:

1. are spending huge amounts of money (which if they *really cared* about beating Bush they'd spend on promoting Kerry or the so-called 'Democratic Party agenda') in legal action to keep Nader off of state ballots

2. show up at the Nader nominating convention in order to take up seats and space, and not sign the ballot petition

3. constantly spam internet sites like this one with totally unsubstantiated, baseless smearing and fearmongering about how Nader "cost" the election to multibillion-dollar candidate Gore who rolled over and played dead while Bush was APPOINTED to the pResidency by the US supreme court,

ALL WHILE IGNORING THE 8 MILLION REGISTERED DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH in 2000 (along with vote machine fraud in Volusia County, Florida African-American voter oppression, Katharine Harris, etc. etc.)
 http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency


for the Democratic Fanatics, a quote from Winona LaDuke on Nader (and Green-) bashing:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275330.shtml

"Here's a bit of advice for those who don't support Nader [or other Greens]. If you don't like the Green candidates, don't vote for them. And if you want to win an election, go out and get some folks to vote for you -- like that 50 percent of the American voters who represent the largest party in America, the nonvoters. On the way, you might build a party and a platform with some integrity, not just insults."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zinn and Chomsky live in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts.

there are only 9 so-called "swing states" including Florida and Oregon. 75% of voters live in so-called "safe states".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291457.shtml

June 25, 2004

Contrary to What You've Heard...
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader

By GREG BATES

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have stated many times that they favor ousting Bush this election, even if John Kerry is "Bush-lite." And that stand has been repeatedly used by progressives opposed to Ralph Nader's campaign.

However, Chomsky and Zinn, both residents of John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, say they plan to vote for Ralph Nader.

This may come as a surprise to those who have trotted out Chomsky in an effort to blunt Nader. One example is Jeff Cohen, the founder of the media watch group FAIR (and by way of disclosure, is an author along with both Chomsky and Zinn at Common Courage Press at which this reporter is Publisher). As Cohen stated on Commondreams.org May 7, "Progressives need to be a bridge forward, not an obstruction. Noam Chomsky has described the choice we face: 'Help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it.'"

To cite another example, Doug Henwood, the publisher of the Left Business Observer wrote in April, "...as Noam Chomsky puts it, to the distress of his many fans, given the magnitude of U.S. power, 'small differences can translate into large outcomes.'"

But in response to an email query from this reporter, 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."

In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, "I will vote for Nader because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in 'safe states' should not vote for Kerry." He also notes, "I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance."

The question of Kerry's receptivity to social movements deserves serious consideration, discussed further in the book from which this article is adapted. But returning to the issue of voting for Kerry in safe states, the impact of the Electoral College is virtually absent in discussions about Nader's run.

As BusinessWeek June 14 2004 points out, 75% of voters live in safe states. Voters casting a ballot for Kerry in those states, regardless of the message they intend to send, will be perceived by the Democratic National Committee as endorsing the Kerry platform of war and moving the Democrats to the right. Meanwhile, voters in safe states have the opportunity to send a message that Kerry's platform is unacceptable, without risking throwing the election to Bush.

~ ~ ~

Greg Bates is the publisher of Common Courage Press and the author of Ralph's Revolt: the Case for Joining Nader's Rebellion  http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=316 from which this essay has been excerpted. Bates can be reached at:  gbates@commoncouragepress.com


I love it.... 27.Jun.2004 15:09

been there

... geez, I thought I'd immediately be branded as a Kerry-loving, mainstream-Demo-employed pig, but now it's cointelpro?

Do you folks have any grasp of how ridiculous you sound? Even though you espouse lots of things I can get behind, I'd hate to live in a world where you had any real power: anyone disagreeing with you would probably be shot as a traitor.

I've probably posted half a dozen times on this board/website/world-of-wonders/whatever you want to call it. I can't believe this has drawn so much attention.

Let's not talk, let's bark. Is that it?

"been there" 28.Jun.2004 21:30

blah blah blah

"I love it.... 27.Jun.2004 15:09 been there ... geez, I thought I'd immediately be branded as a Kerry-loving, mainstream-Demo-employed pig, but now it's cointelpro?"

--actually, you're a Democratic Party shill  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291469.shtml#128793 paid to visit this site for the duration of Nader's nominating convention, spreading disinformation, discord and general annoyance. (nothing to do with COINTELPRO as though you knew what that really was - but if you want a mainstream clue, watch the later 1/3 of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" film carefully for the segment on a Fresno, CA Peace Activist group.)

"Do you folks have any grasp of how ridiculous you sound? Even though you espouse lots of things I can get behind, I'd hate to live in a world where you had any real power: anyone disagreeing with you would probably be shot as a traitor."

--on your other Disinformationalist thread you irrelevantly but deliberately inject the words 'Nazi'  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291469.shtml#128784 , 'Bible-thumpers/clinic bombers' and the story of David Horowitz, as if those had anything whatsoever to do with the originally posted article, or the ensuing discussion thread up to that point. what was the real reason you showed up at this web site, again?

"I've probably posted half a dozen times on this board/website/world-of-wonders/whatever you want to call it. I can't believe this has drawn so much attention."

--it's not drawing attention, but it is burying any semblance of 'credibility' you may have thought you had, let alone any you may have sought on behalf of your multimillionare corporate Democratic Party. and according to your buddy Mr. " - " you're so WELL KNOWN here at Portland Indymedia that you simply MUST have posted here a helluva lot more than "half a dozen times" . . .

As has already been cited, mentioned and discussed here from Noam Chomsky's quote (referring to what grassroots activists already know too well) - 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

TRANSLATION: Elections (especially the Presidential one) are a DISTRACTION.

"Let's not talk, let's bark. Is that it?"

--oh, yeah "bark" - what you meant by blanket-accusing Indymedia users and readers of being "comfortable as Nazi skinheads or Bible-thumping clinic-bombers. Just give 'em time."

??
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/291469.shtml#128784

(or was that just "talk" ? . . . )

you know nothing of activism, politics, truth, or justice. with every new comment you reveal deeper layers of ignorance and insecurity.