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


Nader calls bullshit on the Democrats

"We've recently returned from a two week anti-war tour of Arizona, California and upstate New York. To all of you who came out to listen, learn, react and activate - it was great meeting with you and discussing with you the state of our political economy."
May 4, 2005

Dear Friend,

Have the Democrats learned anything from 2004?

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, now wishes President Bush "success" for his war in Iraq.

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on April 20, 2005. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before," Dean said. "But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

Two months earlier, Bush's CIA Director, Porter J. Goss, told the Senate that the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruitment tool for more terrorists from Iraq and other countries.

The military/industrialist Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for her party's 2008 Presidential nomination, continues to support the war in Iraq.

And now she is supporting International Paper's plan to test burn used automobile tires at its Ticonderoga, New York facility - making the Republican Governor of Vermont - across the waters of Lake Champlain - look like an environmentalist for opposing the burn.

The test burn is the company's first step in a plan to burn 72 tons of tires a day at the facility.

Vermont PIRG points out that the company's boiler is not properly equipped to catch the highly toxic pollutants that are coming out of the plant right now, yet alone the witches brew of heavy metals and cancer causing chemicals released from burning tires.

Two years ago this week, President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Lincoln, proclaimed the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

Since then, more than 1,400 Americans and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq.

And the Democrats can't muster a single member of Congress to formally call for the impeachment of Bush for his ongoing illegal war.

Democrats as an opposition party?

The Democrats want you to believe that they are the only game in town.

They don't need to lie to do this.

They can bullshit their way.

"On Bullshit" is the title of New York Times' best selling book (number four and climbing) by retired Princeton University philosophy professor Harry G. Frankfurt. "Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its mis-representational intent," Professor Frankfurt writes. "The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to."

Perfect description of the Democrats.

No lies needed.

And what exactly is their enterprise?

To make us believe that they are a true opposition party.

Yet the Democrats in Congress can't find the internal fortitude to stop Bush's legislative agenda on bankruptcy, tort deform, repeal of the estate tax, and the energy bill, much less to vigorously propose a worthy agenda of their own.

The reality is that there is no opposition party in the United States.

The Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same mega corporate machine.

And the only opposition is going to come from the people, steeped in the history of resistance to corporate power, and equipped with the tools to change from within.

We've recently returned from a two week anti-war tour of Arizona, California and upstate New York.

To all of you who came out to listen, learn, react and activate - it was great meeting with you and discussing with you the state of our political economy.

To those of you who chipped in to help us drive down our 2004 civil liberties debt - incurred fighting off the corporate Democrats driving to push us off the ballot in many states - we say, thank you.

We have raised over $500,000 since the election and now are looking at $95,000 that we must pay off over the course of the next few months.

To both help move our campaign into the black, and to gain more of an understanding of the current political dilemma facing our nation, we make you this offer: For a donation of $100 to our campaign, we will mail to you a copy of Professor Frankfurt's best-selling book, "On Bullshit", (Princeton University Press, 2005).

In addition, I will send you a copy of "Civics for Democracy", a 338-page history of major citizen movements and a detailed guide to social change.

This book has become a perfect teaching manual for all people - it will help identify the bullshitters that dominate our political arena - and forge alliances with your fellow citizen activists to organize for lasting social justice.

That's Professor Frankfurt's best-selling "On Bullshit", and the classic "Civics for Democracy" - all for a contribution of $100 to our campaign.

If out of our tens of thousands of supporters, only 950 of you act now, we will be freed from this imposed civil liberties debt so that we can move aggressively to challenge the political duopoly that plagues this great land of ours.

Purchase them both for yourself, or give them to a friend or someone you love.

And please let your friends and family know about this invitation by forwarding this letter to your e-mail address book.

Thank you for your generous support and bright horizons.


Ralph Nader

homepage: homepage: http://www.votenader.org/

I agree about Dean, but c'mon Ralph 08.May.2005 09:28


When Ralph does this he does a total disservice to the liberal side of the Democratic Party. To represent the Democrats as being lockstep with Republicans on the Iraq war isn't fair to people like Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, etc. There are far more people in the Democratic Party calling for withdrawal from Iraq than in the Republican Party. I've always believed that Dean was just moderate Republican at heart, but of all the issues Nader could be attacking, he seems to always take potshots at Democrats in general. When the Greens and Libertarians are fighting vote fraud in Ohio, Nader is protesting on behalf of all the disenfranchised in Vermont. Why doesn't Nader file a RICO suit against Bush?

The Democratic Party Machine 08.May.2005 10:26


The main machine is not supportive of their own progressives, in fact is hostile to them when it needs to defeat progressive challengers for the general goals of the elites.
Dennis, Cynthia and others like Major Owens and other voices in the Black Caucus should make it a mass defection. There is no courage. There is little hope.

There are no honestly "progressive" Democrats 08.May.2005 11:27

Robert T.

Anarchy-nonymous posted a statement saying Ralph Nader's comments do a disservice to "the liberal side of the Democratic Party". No such thing exists. There are,possibly, a few liberals in the Democratic Party. Cynthia McKinney being one, but let's remember, the Democrats refused to support her reelection, replacing her with a war supporter, Patriot Act supporter, NAFTA supporter, McKinney fought back at the next election and won her seat without their help. They don't support her, and she doesn't represent them. This anonymous writer is likely a Democrat, just one more effort by the corporate party to discredit Nader and the views of the truely liberal citizens that want peace, prosperity and harmony, instead of the Corporate Democrats and Republicans that want war, poverty and a divided citizenry. No, anonymous, you'r just plain wrong. Nader's view are correct, and you're part of the reason America is in the mess it's in.

regarding democrats and progressiveism 08.May.2005 11:45


you don't really think any establishment political organ would do anything serious to reject or discredit anything done by the establishment, now do you? mass murder is minor stuff compared to the need to ensure that the establishment remains the establishment.

look: did the democratic party repudiate vietnam? hell, it was a democrat president that GOT THE US INTO the vietnam war in the first place!

the only reason the establishment got interested in getting out of vietnam was the evolution of REVOLUTIONARY movements at home prompted by the misadventures in southeast asia, as a way of stealing the thunder out of those movements and thus to preserve its own sorry ass.

it's the only reason any establishment party ever gets interested in doing anything halfway decent, after all.

create a viable, powerful, revolutionary antiwar movement, and either the dems or the repubs (or both) will suddenly find reasons why it's very important to get out of iraq. until then, they won't.

and pleas based on human decency will be lost of deaf ears: the entire concept of a ruling class is predicated upon a rejection of certain core notions of human decency, after all.


Anarchy-nonymous 08.May.2005 13:45

George Bender

Your position seems to be that we shouldn't attack the Democratic party because there are some progressives in the party. The logic of that escapes me. I can't see how the presence of a few progressive Democrats, with little or no influence over their party, somehow shields the party from criticism.

We need an opposition party to the Democrats. Since we don't have one, Nader is trying to fill that role. We are fortunate to have him.

Window Dressing 08.May.2005 14:48

Den Mark, Vancouver

The democrat party tolerates McKinney, Kucinich, Lee, Conyers, & others ONLY as window dressing, so Dean & McAuliffe (sp?) can point to them as some kind of "proof" that democrats have conscience or whatever. If "progressive" democrats had their heads on straight, they would stop being that window dressing, leave the party, & let democrats look as repulsive as they are, very much just another republican party. How much longer will REAL progressives pretend that democrats offer hope. THEY DO NOT! And when will third parties form an ad hoc coalition to fight corporate republicrats. And fight. And fight, ..... till republicrats are beaten into the ground.

democrans and republicrats 08.May.2005 16:55


the democrats are a capitalist party! we need a party solely devoted to the working class, a genuine marxist party. you can't serve two masters.

A mixed economy 08.May.2005 17:27

George Bender

As a practical matter, it seems to me that what works is a well-regulated mixed capitalist/socialist economy. Which is what I understand Ralph Nader to be promoting. The problem is that we've lost the regulation, have cut back on the socialist side of our economy (schools, healthcare, safety net, etc.), and the capitalist side is running away with us. As it has in the past in U.S. history. We need a large correction, pulling the economy back to the left and restoring regulation. We need to reduce the power of corporations.

We also need to preserve all the jobs we can and think outside the box about how to handle supporting people when the jobs have been automated out of existence.

misrepresentation of politics 08.May.2005 19:56

karl roenfanz ( rosey ) k_rosey48@hotmail.com

both rep.s and dem.s have lied to the public.and some do it frfom ignorance, who got us into vietnam? i didn't know that ike and nixon were dem.s. who was it that in 1957 put "advisors" (75) in vietnam at the request of the s. viet. government? ike was running domestic and was letting nixon run foreign. what tricky dickey?

Dean disappoints 08.May.2005 22:00


When Dean became chair of the Democrat Party, I was hopeful. I hoped he'd be anti war, but he disappointed me, just like Dennis Kucincich did when he turned his candidacy over in support of Kerry. Both Dean and Kerry support what Bush is doing in Iraq, so I was fooled or at least lost hope twice.

While having left the Democrats years ago, I looked to them in these instances to change directions. It didn't happen, obviously.

I commend Nader. He calls the Democrats as they are. He is honest and does not lie. He does not play with the corporations. We progressives need to continually pound the Dems toward reality.

Democrap, don't even listen 09.May.2005 04:08

Stephan suprkompudr@yahoo.ca

Democrats maintained the sanctions that killed 500 000 Iraqi children, Democrats initiated an illegal war on Yugoslavia that devastated it's economy and divided it's internal ethnic groups even more than they were before. Democrats favoured giving China, a slave labour behemoth, most-favoured nation status, removing almost all protections for American labour. Democracts still raise ALL their funds by prostituting themselves to corporations. I agree with others whom have posted here that outstanding individuals, Al Sharpe, Kucinich, Obama and a couple others should leave the party as it has shown itself to be most resilient to real change. This last election showed us that the Democratic party hardly even had a platform because they were so much in agreement with Republican values. ABANDON THE DEMOCRATS they are an illusion of choice where no choice exists...

. 09.May.2005 04:49


the last true Democrats within that corrupt party need to abandon it for the sake of starting a REAL opposition party. To those who say not to criticize the Democratic party because of the last remaining 4 or 5 genuine ones need to reassess the situation of the Democratic party and come to understand that it has been corrupted to its very core, and it will not return to its former base. It's like asking a rotting corpse to return to its vital youth. It won't. Howard Dean...John Kerry, Al Gore...Hillary Clinton, they are ALL career politicians who care about power and not giving up that power. I am absolutely not surprised that Dean now endorses the way. In fact, I'd say that he was as much of a puppet as Kerry himself: to POSE as an opposition candidate while secretly helping to ensure the return of King Bush to his throne.
Did anyone see the debate between Ralph Nader and Dean? It took place about a year ago, or a bit less, and when it came to all the hard questions Nader raised about corporations being in bed with politics, Dean nearly dodged every question with lackluster rhetoric. From that point on, it's always been easy for me to tell the difference between a real progressive (Nader) and one merely posing as one (Dean)...and much less convincingly (Kerry).

In the times I've voted...I'm proud to say I've never voted for a Republicrat, and I never will.

forgive my typo 09.May.2005 04:55


"Dean now endorses the way." should read: "the war"

It Never Ends, Does It ? 09.May.2005 10:30

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Today, some schmoe over at Common Dreams was trying to commend Tom Hayden's "Open Letter To Howard Dean" while simultaneously insisting that we will all need to unite behind the next ABB clown spewed out for our approval in 2008. Ummmm... how is it that clearly intelligent folk can't ever seem to see that the call for peace and the promise to unite behind any candidate regardless of his views (as long as he wears the proper team uniform) are mutually exclusive.

Once again, Progressive champions promise unswerving loyalty to a bunch of plutocratic Social-Darwinist shitheads while claiming to want peace. Perhaps they really don't want peace as much as they claim, after all. Perhaps they simply want to evade responsibility for the cost of war. Their highest priority continues to be keeping up their status as ever-pliant, ever-forgiving team players for the Deans and Clintons of the world. The current Green leadership doesn't seem much better. They seem primarily concerned with doing what Kucinich did at the national level-- keeping those who despise and distrust the duopoly contained where they can pose no serious threat at all to business as usual.

What a farce. If this is all the "choice" we can ever hope to have in this pathetic culture, I'd sooner just not vote at all.

Nader has his flaws, of course, but as usual, he's the only one saying what needs to be said.

liberal democrats? maybe in the UK. 09.May.2005 12:23

alex n

"When Ralph does this he does a total disservice to the liberal side of the Democratic Party."

Oh yeah, the "liberal side." Remembering that it only takes ONE Congressperson to start an impeachment (for, I don't know, negligent homicide), perhaps we can infer that there is NO liberal side to the Democratic Party.

If ONE FU@KING CONGRESSPERSON from the "liberal side" of the party started up an impeachment, Ralph wouldn't be able to disserve these progressive visionaries by writing mean things like "And the Democrats can't muster a single member of Congress to formally call for the impeachment of Bush for his ongoing illegal war." No, these "liberals" are disserving themselves more than Ralph can ever hope to.

Typical Democratic refusal to lead or accept responsibility. Typical Democratic crybabying. Tell it to CNN.

Taking on the party's chairman seems to be a legitiment way to take on a party, after all if Dean didn't speak for most Democrats, they'd have chosen someone else, right?

to clear up one point 09.May.2005 13:14


>> When the Greens and Libertarians are fighting vote fraud in Ohio, Nader is protesting on behalf of all the disenfranchised in Vermont.

That's because the dems kept Nader off the ballot in Ohio. If they hadn't Nader would have been yet another voice fighting for fair election there. But I guess that's karma for you. It's not like the dems weren't told repeatedly that their attacks on Nader would hurt them.

THAT is my point 09.May.2005 18:28


Is Nader for the cause or is he for himself? The Greens and Libs weren't going to get into office if they could have reversed the outcome of Ohio either, but they were there fighting for the democratic process we're supposed to have.

Also aren't we better off for having people like Boxer, Byrd, Kucinich, McKinney, etc. in positions of power doing something for our cause? I don't care what party someone is in or what they believe in, so long as they are honest and believe in America. Look at Rep. Paul of Texas, a Republican. Every once in a while John McCain shows his more honest side, too. When the country is in danger of being taken over by theocratic fanatics and their greedy puppetmasters, we all need to join together for the cause. I don't understand Nader carrying on this personal vendetta against Democrats as a whole. Why does he inevitably show more vitriole for Dems than Republicans? Yeah, it's all the establishment, but anybody who thinks that Clinton/Gore was just as bad Bush/Cheney is smoking crack.

And why do the Nader desciples get so damn angry at anybody who suggests Nader could do better? Save your anger for Bill O'Reilly and Lars Larson. The only thing I disagree about is whether or not we need to fight here and defend the lines or fall back and let the system collapse into total upheaval and guerilla war. History tells us that mass bloodshed and injustice precedes change when violent revolution is involved. Who's blood will that be? Is it necessary, YET? That's the question. If you look back on the fall of Tsarist Russia in 1917, or the French Revolution, you can find ample evidence to suggest that we can still win on the political battlefields around us. So I have to ask all the Nader-fuck-the-Dems folk, who's the real bunch of pussies?

doing the democrats proud 09.May.2005 18:51


>> Is Nader for the cause or is he for himself?

The answer seems obvious to most. Nader has done nothing to benefit himself and everything to further many progressive causes.

>> The Greens and Libs weren't going to get into office if they could have reversed the outcome of Ohio either, but they were there fighting for the democratic process we're supposed to have.

You've missed the point entirely. Nader could not petition the election *by law* because he wasn't a candidate. If he had been a candidate he would have fought. I honestly can't imagine how to make that any simpler so that you can understand it. If you wanted Nader to fight the democrats battles the democrats shouldn't have prevented Nader from being on the ballot. If you wanted progressives to have any respect for the democrats the democrats shouldn't have prevented Nader from being on the ballot, nor gone along with the Bush administration.

>> I don't understand Nader carrying on this personal vendetta against Democrats as a whole.

No you don't understand, and that is the crux of the issue. You don't seem to understand that Nader is speaking the truth about the democrats and the republicans. Don't forget that Nader was the only candidate to protest the RNC, while Kerry was off on vacation.

>> Why does he inevitably show more vitriole for Dems than Republicans?

He doesn't; you're just more sensitive to one than the other, and that's ok, I'm sure most of us had some sympathy for the dems at one point. And someday you to will grow out of it and realize that Nader is actually far harsher on the repubs than the dems. Remember, Nader was the only candidate calling for Bush to be impeached.

>> Yeah, it's all the establishment, but anybody who thinks that Clinton/Gore was just as bad Bush/Cheney is smoking crack.

Time will tell. Clinton/Gore still has a higher death total, though Bush/Cheney are certainly doing their best to top it. But if Bush and Cheney end up worse, it will only be one more step from Clinton/Gore who laid out all the same policies, just didn't take them that extra step.

>> And why do the Nader desciples get so damn angry at anybody who suggests Nader could do better?

What makes you think people are angry or that they're Nader "desciples"? Don't project your feelings onto me and don't make assumptions. I'm not the slightest bit angry nor do I think particularly highly of Nader, though I recognize that he has had a great deal of good things to say over his career. I actually enjoy watching the democrats become obsolete and I don't think I'm alone. Parties change over time and we're watching that change now. The democrats refuse to do anything but accept corporate cash, support Bush, and refuse to take responsibility for their own shortcomings (blaming everyone else for what are so clearly their own mistakes) with the occasionally ineffective statement to keep people *hoping* that maybe someday they'll actually do something positive.

>> So I have to ask all the Nader-fuck-the-Dems folk, who's the real bunch of pussies?

Nothing like a little sexist language to finish an obtuse rant. You do the democrats proud. With enough people like you the democrats are sure to have even less people voting for them next year. People like you are one of the main reason I didn't vote for any democrats in 2004.

[Snort] 09.May.2005 19:08

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

If you think that Nader hasn't been hard on the Republicans, you obviously aren't reading the columns he posts on his homepage. These also appear elsewhere, often on Common Dreams or Counterpunch. But don't strain yourself or anything, Arch. No, please don't.

"Also aren't we better off for having people like Boxer, Byrd, Kucinich, McKinney, etc. in positions of power doing something for our cause?"

What power ? They are on the fringe of their own party. They lend it more cred than it deserves. Others have made this point above. You don't have to agree, but that's what we believe.

"And why do the Nader desciples get so damn angry at anybody who suggests Nader could do better? Save your anger for Bill O'Reilly and Lars Larson."

[snort] The main difference between O'Reilly and someone like Hillary Clinton is that Billy might actually believe in his heart of hearts[sic] the violently Social Darwinist crap he spews out from day-to-day. Hilary believes in nothing, as far as I can tell, but her own right to power. You only have to look at her weasely backpeddling on the issue of abortion. Bad enough to guilt-trip and terrify millions of women into staying with a party that does barely anything for them as a class. To then turn around and sell out those same women (as she and Reid have done) in order to serenade and sweet-talk the Left Behind crowd is unconscienable.

If Nader could do better, how exactly are your afforementioned Great Hopes For Progressivism showing him the way ? Are they putting the brakes on their own party's pandering to the Right and to corporations ? Do they have anything at all to offer their masters that will cause them to be taken seriously ? Or are they only, as others have suggested, lending a bankrupt institution cred that it long ago stopped deserving ?

Whatever Nader's flaws, he sticks his neck out, which is more than your own champions do most of the time. When they do (ie- Boxer and McKinney) they get disparaged by their own people. McKinney was denied her earned seniority when she returned to office. Boxer's Right To Vote Act is going nowhere, last I heard. I've heard more than one "enlightened" liberal male mock Boxer's appearance and chide her for being too "pushy." Maybe you should tell those buffoons to save it for Larson. Blecch.

Does Nader Really Stick His Neck Out? 09.May.2005 21:26


I just don't see that Nader sticks his neck out. I certainly don't agree that Bill O'Reilly "believes in" what he's doing while Hillary Clinton is just a corporate whore. I think the great propagandists are just jumping on the bandwagon. Hillary may not be an ideal progressive, but I don't think she was targeted so shamelessly just as a disguise for the one-party scheme. Compare Whitewater to Watergate or Delay Gate or Chalabi Gate or Abu Graib or Enron-Cheney energy policy... There's a total imbalance between the scandal which makes it into mainstream news on Dems vs Republicans. If you want to maximize disinformation, that doesn't help your cause much.

Plus, how many of you take-a-bullet-for-Ralph types actually go to Green meetups or Democratic meetups? At least at the local level, I see a lot of people showing up against the war amongst Greens, Libertarians, Indpendents, and Democrats. I agree that the Big Money system of government has a stranglehold on Dems, but I don't see the hard evidence that it has possessed the very soul of the party through and through the way it has the Republicans. Plus I don't see any Republican dissidents getting assassinated like Wellstone, RFK, JFK, MLK, MlX, etc. There's definitely a difference between what's happening for Elephants and the fate of Donkeys.

And I know that the progressives in the Dem party is up against long odds, but why abandon them? At least somebody is speaking for us. Why doesn't Ralph run for a congressional office in San Francisco or Eugene? He could join the cause as an independent.

As for the writer who said Ralph couldn't protest in Ohio, that may well be the case. I don't know, so if I'm wrong I stand corrected on that one.

"I just don't see that Nader sticks his neck out." 09.May.2005 22:43

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

You don't see it because you don't look. All the better to preserve your own POV. Well, enjoy, I guess. I'm not gonna' spoon-feed you something you have pre-rejected in any case. Anyone who cares can find Nader's writings on his homepage, the afforementioned sites, or on Democracy Rising's excellent blog.

How the Right-Wing media bias --aided and abetted by the Reagan-lite policies of people like Hilary's husband-- justifies her pandering on the abortion issue (and a host of others) is beyond me. But have it your way, Archy. You always do. Anyone who the Right Wing hates --or professes to hate in the Roman Circus that passes for political discourse these days-- must be de facto okay. So of course Hilary, Reid and their ilk have to sell women down the river on the abortion issue because-- uhhhh, the Right Wing hates them and they're under a lot of pressure. [rolleyes] Got it.

I used to go to marches, but I have to say that in light of the last election, they seem rather absurd to me. Not much point. I'd rather spend my Sunday afternoons reading at The Center For Voting And Democracy, or similar sites. I'm trying to learn more about the nuances of IRV, which I sincerely hope the Green leadership hasn't forgotten in their zeal to kiss up to pro-war Presidential candidates.

BTW, in all the pro-peace marches I went to in the last three or four years, I can't recall even once meeting anyone representing Greens in any official capacity, much less marching under a Green Party banner. Mostly what I got from the Greens was solicitations for money. Excuse me if after awhile I got quite skeptical about their long-term intentions.

Anarchy-nonymous 10.May.2005 01:23

George Bender

You say you don't understand why Naderites and other leftists attack the Democrats more than the Republicans. How about WE HATE YOUR FUCKING GUTS.

Democrats are a fraud. The pretend to speak for the left while giving us nothing. They do not believe in democracy. In the last presidential election they siced an army of lawyers on us to keep Nader off state ballots. In most cases the Nader campaign won in the end, but the legal process drained the campaign's treasury and reduced its effectiveness, which was the object of the Democrats strategy.

In Oregon Democrats used every dirty trick they could come up with to keep Nader off the ballot. Finally Democratic Sec. of State Bradbury just waived his magic wand and ruled Nader off the ballot. Democrats tore down our posters and dumped their stupid anger on us every chance they got.

And after all that, you expect us to work with you? I don't think so. You earned our hatred.

Ralph has been saying it all along 10.May.2005 01:40

Ben Waiting

Ralph is consistent ~ honest ~ anti war ~ anti corporate pro health care and has been fighting for all the things that people want in their lives and for their families. This past election the Democrats fought him in every state which was not only wrong dirty, but left me feeling a distaste for the policies and priorities of the party. Of course I wasn't voting Dem because simple enough they supported the war and they feed off the corporate trough all the same.
Ralph has Integrity and cares about People, and I can't name one thing he supports that I don't agree with......yep every bit of what Ralph is pushing for sounds good to me ....isn't that odd?

HEY! 10.May.2005 12:02

Pope Colby

Where are your damn manners, people?

Democrat is a label. You can put that label on a good person or a bad one. I am a Democrat out of convenience, because I get a primary ballot that way. More participation for me. But I am a Marxist-leaning Green at heart.

"One good deed is not enough to redeem a man....but it does seem enough to condemn him!" - POTC

You'd do well to remember that this is no accident or coincidence that Dems and Greens are at loggerheads when we have so much in common that ought to unite us.

The majority secures its power by dividing its opponents! That's US, you morons! We're working against each other instead of against THEM!

"Manners For Morons" 10.May.2005 12:28

alsis38 alsis35@yahoo.com

Okay, Colby. Tell me how a vow in 2005 to support any candidate who emerges from the Democratic Primary in 2008 as front-runner-- even if he/she is as adamantly pro-war as Kerry-- will further our supposed common goals. No, honestly. I am as stumped now as I ever was on the question as to how broadcasting one's zombie-like brand loyalty from 5 billion miles away prior to anyone even throwing his/her hat in the ring is going to do anything but make the people who head the Democratic Party heed your supposed wishes and goals.

It makes about as much sense as telling your boss you are desperate to hang onto your job, then asking for a raise and being puzzled as to why you didn't get it. Broadcasting desperation and fear loud and clear in front of your betters will not make them love nor respect you. Why is that so damn hard for you to see ?

Here, Here Colby! 14.May.2005 10:08


Too right you are. I stand corrected on the Nader-Ohio thing, because a Nader supporter corrected me and I found his argument credible and conceded. What do I get "...WE HATE YOUR FUCKING GUTS." Dude, I may not be sold on Nader, but I stand for what you stand for:

An end to the war.

An end to corporate and private wealth influence on politics.

An end to propaganda and media control.

Policies that support the common good.

Progressive taxation that is rigorously enforced, so that those who are fortunate enough to benefit from our system in such a way that they become hyper-rich, bear some burden in making the system better so more Americans can succed rather than be wage slaves.


Out on the Porch 31.May.2005 01:56

Ben Waiting

first thing first
The Dems would love to drop the stink they created and push on to blah blah ..
But bad puppies they were they shit in the house and now it stinks and they have to go outside
Bad puppies! How dare they!
Ya they have wasted countless hours money and energy to stop Ralph ..countless!
And now some dare to Rah Rah go Colby forget the smell and step over it attitude
I don't think the smell will ever leave... .I Think you ruined the carpet you bad Dem Voter Sellouts
It STUNK all right... . now reap what you sow Dem V's
Taste the shit and listen to Ralph remind you all of the problems you created as your own Party starts to split apart, sell out, and cant even represent what it moral foregoing constitutions beliefs are suppose to really be.
Hmmmmmmm Bad dog! Stay Outside