 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Ralph Nader Opinion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Jul 12 - 12:35 AM Get help Sawzaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Jul 12 - 11:46 PM Jack, when you ask what are you smoking or what are you drinking, whom are you asking? Are you asking Bobert? He is the one that likes to drink moonshine and smoke weed so ask him. Yes Ebbie it is shocking but I am afraid people will avoid looking seeing the cold hard reality of the collateral damage caused by drug consumption in the US. The other photo is for real. I saw with my own eyes the cruddy conditions people live under just over the border from the US. I even videotaped it but it would be a major job to find it. I finally gathered up enough nerve to walk across into Nuevo Laredo. after a half hour, I couldn't wait to get back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jul 12 - 07:51 PM Sawzall, next time please warn us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Jul 12 - 03:06 PM http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2012/07/09/156167263/the-green-party-makes-its-case-as-a-left-leaning-alternative-to-obama |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Jul 12 - 11:01 PM What in the HECK are you smoking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:38 PM I will take it broken, half broken, high tuition, weeds, global warming, hard dirt and all. All you have to do is go down to El Paso and look across the Rio Grande at Ciudad Juárez. Look at the chickens in the windows with no glass and pigs in the door ways with no doors. Trash, tires and junk cars for decoration. You don't even need binoculars. You will have a death grip on the USA after that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:34 PM I guess no one cares about Nader's opinion. Not me, fer shure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bobert Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:23 PM I'd pay to hear that debate, Rap... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Rapparee Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:14 PM I wish that the "debates" were actually DEBATES and not simply candidates echoing and re-echoing their previous statements and/or the party line. Give them a topic -- something stated like, "Resolved: The US Should Remove All Its Troops From Overseas By The End Of 2014" -- and let them actually make their statements and then rebut each other. Let the listener decide who they, the listener, "won." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bobert Date: 08 Jul 12 - 01:01 PM Yer half right , Ake... But also half wrong... Our systemic problems with our legislature wasn't created by one power base but a thirst for the power to beat up the other party... Why??? Well, for the Republicans of late, it has been to dismantle social programs, reduce taxes for the ten millionth time on the rich and to rig the laws to hold power and favor the polluters and exploiters... The Dems of late have been trying to hold off the Repubs and not much more... The power base has shifted from the voters to the wealthy... The wealthy own the media and are controlling the information thus enabling the a fringe party to have so much power that is in turn used against many of the folks who vote them in... Your system may have it's flaws but ours is clearly broken at the legislative level and half broken at the judicial level so we are running with at least a couple dead cylinders... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: akenaton Date: 08 Jul 12 - 12:02 PM You guys sooo remind me of the UK socialist voters in the latter part of the 20th century(i was one, and they are now extinct). We were always waiting for a Party or a leader which would represent our views.....and be electable! After years of voting for principled politicians and losing, we thought we had struck it rich with Mr Tony Blair.....at least most of us did. A very electable guy with charisma, even if his principles were a little wonky....so what the hell lets go for it!! We soon learned that Mr Blair had no interest in socialism, tho' he carried the label....He, not Mrs Thatcher killed off even the word in the UK. So, take a little advice, realise that there is only one power base and that is the system itself.....we have three main parties all working for it.....and a handful of smaller ones. Dont denigrate "social conservatism", it makes a lot of sense....much more than "liberalism" does....if spend a little time examining the state of our respective societies, you will see that. If you want to change the political system, you must be prepared to work with the majority, accept their social standards which make sense and work to change their political views. It is the only way.....division ALWAYS end in defeat. The system ALWAYS wins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bobert Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:50 AM I agree, Bill... The Dems are at a distinct $$$ disadvantage so they are having to hold their fire... Bottom line: The Debates!!! This is where Obama is going to crush Romney... BTW, even if Obama wins re-election the country still is very sick with systemic problems in Congress that if not repaired will keep US in that downward spiral... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: artbrooks Date: 08 Jul 12 - 09:41 AM Too bad he had to kill off a reasonably decent car just to build a rep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Jul 12 - 02:21 AM Breaks Nader's heart to see those. Reminds him of when he was relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: artbrooks Date: 08 Jul 12 - 12:15 AM Saw a couple of neat looking classic Corvairs the other day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bill D Date: 08 Jul 12 - 12:00 AM My bet? The Democrats are waiting till after the conventions... and the debates (if Romney doesn't chicken out of HAVING debates). 1)The electorate has a short attention span with all that is going on. They will remember what is said in Oc. & Nov. 2)What will be said in debates in Oct & Nov will be heard on ALL channels... not just Fox News.(if Romney doesn't chicken out of HAVING debates) The contrast should be interesting. 3)I really expect that the 'forceful' rhetoric from the left, using the big guns, will be employed in increasing volleys late in the Summer and...after the conventions - to be timed with the debates (if Romney doesn't chicken out of HAVING debates). 4)If Romney does chicken out of HAVING debates, fearing the contrast, that will be one more big shell for the guns. 5)I kinda expect that the current foot-in-mouth disease afflicting many Republicans will turn out to be incurable as panic about who they have nominated sinks in..... and no one with any status seems to be available for the VP slot. we shall see, hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bobert Date: 07 Jul 12 - 11:03 PM Exactly, JtS... This is 100% about microphone time!!! The right is monopolizing it with Koch (et al) $$$ and the left can't get a word in edge-wise... And, please... George Soros is no match for the vast $$$ advantage the right has and is beating America to a pulp with... We aren't having the conversations we should be having... We are on the brink of being a "failed state"... 1/2 of Americans live at 125% of poverty OR LESS... No, we don't seem to see them ate the malls... Or in restaurants... But we do... The people who work in those stores and restaurants can't afford to buy their stuff there... Most of them are making $7.25 an hour... That is reality... Like it or not... Thems are the facts... Yes, American, the richest country in the world is about to become a "failed state" under the burden of poverty... But the righties keep screaming "socialism" as they lap up the cream... I have said it before and will repeat it again, "America is in what historians would refer to as a pre-revolutionary period... Yes, the Titanic is going down but the folks who have the power to change the course of history are not only in denial but continuing to spend as much $$$ as they can to keep their party (pun intended) going... The country is going down, folks... That is reality... There is little "hope"... It has too many systemic problems... Too corrupted by $$$... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Jul 12 - 10:48 PM I think Nader is wrong. Democratic Party voters are an alliance of all the people who aren't nutty, low information, Fox News, Talk Radio, "Christian News" people who turn out in droves every year to "take the country back" from evolution, necessary taxes and paid for public works electing government officials who are trying to tear down our government from withing who for some reason cant be arrested for treason or fraud. The low information voters in the middle don't realize this is happening. Neither apparently does Ralph Nader and a lot of lefties. There are a lot of independents and a lot of them have bought into the big media lie, the lie that it is Sawzaws and GfS mission to spread on this forum that Democrats are as crooked and dishonest as Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Jul 12 - 10:41 PM Sorearse - look at the UK where the billion pound chickens from PFI (private finance initiatives) are coming home to roost. We've already had one big London NHS organisation go into administration due to PFI debts under the conservative NHS reforms. Private finance is more like selling off the family silver. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jul 12 - 10:23 PM Blackballed? Not this Democrat: "cutting government waste and partnering with the private sector is how you actually get out of a serious crisis." Look Who's Embracing Privatization—Big City Democrats WSJ Heavyweights like Chicago's Rahm Emanuel are going around public agencies and unions [Whaaaaat? Unoins?] to improve schools, roads, parks and more. We often hear that America's infrastructure is crumbling, but did you know that tens and possibly hundreds of billions of dollars in private infrastructure funds are waiting to be spent? It's money that Chicago Mayor—and Democratic Party powerhouse—Rahm Emanuel has spotted, rightly calling it "a tool here that takes some of the pressure off taxpayers." In April, the Chicago City Council overwhelmingly approved Mr. Emanuel's $7 billion program to "rebuild Chicago" by constructing two new runways at O'Hare Airport; replacing 900 miles of water pipes and 750 miles of the sewer system; creating special routes for rapid bus transit; modernizing schools, transit stations and city buildings; and building 12 new parks and 20 playgrounds. To pay for these projects, Mr. Emanuel is turning in part to private firms including Citibank and Citi Infrastructure Investors, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc., J.P. Morgan Asset Management Infrastructure Investment Group, and union-held Ullico. These firms say they are ready to provide at least $1.7 billion to help build the "new Chicago." (Though the details are not yet set, the likely arrangement would have the private firms putting up capital and then recouping their investments through user fees over a set period of years or decades.) "This model of private financing for public infrastructure is happening all over the world, but not here in America," said Mr. Emanuel, who served from 2009-10 as President Obama's chief of staff. "I can't get from here to there on the old model—it's broken." There are decades of major public-private partnership success stories in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and elsewhere. The Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report finds that partly or fully privatized airports—such as Heathrow and Stansted in London, and Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport in Rome, which make money from airlines and especially from passengers in stores, parking lots and the like—handled 48% of European air travel passengers in 2011. That's one reason Chicago is considering privatization plans for Midway Airport (which would ultimately require approval from the Federal Aviation Administration). Mr. Emanuel's new infrastructure plan is bolstered by the privatization success he's already experienced in Chicago. Last summer he launched a large-scale competitive bidding process in which two companies compete with each other—and head-to-head with city workers—to provide cheaper curbside recycling for Chicagoans. The competition forced government workers to find better ways to do their jobs, and Chicago reported reducing costs by $2 million in the first six months alone. "The City's crews have worked to close the gap between the private haulers' $2.70 price per cart by reducing their costs by 35 percent from $4.77 to $3.28 per cart," the city government reported in April. Also privatized by Mr. Emanuel: Chicago's water-bill call center, airport and library custodial services, and the city-worker benefits-management system. Hiring private companies that could manage these services at lower costs led the city to lay off over 600 employees, so the mayor came under predictable fire from government unions. "My duty as mayor is to protect our city's taxpayers and be their voice—not to protect the city's payroll," he responded. Mr. Emanuel is doing what sensible leaders do: focusing resources on the core functions of government and using competition to lower costs on the rest. When government agencies are forced to compete with the private sector, it saves taxpayers money and makes government more responsive to its customers. Performance-based contracts that set clear standards ensure that high-quality services are delivered by private firms that are held accountable. Other prominent Democrats are joining Mr. Emanuel in embracing privatization or nonprofit funding for the countless nonessential services that drain city coffers. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who will chair September's Democratic National Convention, last year handed over the Northeast Valley Animal Care Center, which would have cost taxpayers $3 million per year to operate, to a nonprofit animal-rescue group. Mr. Villaraigosa is now in negotiations with the nonprofit Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association to privatize the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, which received over $14 million from the city last year. In Jacksonville, Fla., Mayor Alvin Brown (formerly an adviser to Bill Clinton and Al Gore) created an Office of Public-Private Partnerships in 2011, saying that "If the private sector can do something better than city government, and in a way that saves money for taxpayers, then we should work together." Another high-profile Democrat, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, has been directing a $40 million initiative to restore and build city parks, with much of the funding coming from the nonprofit groups GreenSpaces and Trust for Public Land. Newark attracted $19 million for its public charter schools in 2008 from the Gates Foundation, among others, and in 2010 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg famously pledged $100 million to help improve the city's schools. The Pershing Square Foundation, founded by New York investor Bill Ackman, has given a $25 million gift to Newark schools as part of Mr. Booker's effort to raise matching funds for the Facebook money. "It's your right to have a good education," Mr. Ackman told Bloomberg Businessweek. "If you can't, your government has failed you and the private sector has to get involved to fix the problem." Harsh fiscal realities are making it easier for local politicians to spot the differences between vital government services and luxuries. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Mr. Emanuel famously said after President Obama was elected in 2008. Now that he's at the local level, Mr. Emanuel is demonstrating that cutting government waste and partnering with the private sector is how you actually get out of a serious crisis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bobert Date: 07 Jul 12 - 09:59 PM No microphone, michaelr... When was the last time you heard a Democratic from either the House or Senate on the national news??? They are being blackballed from BIG MEDIA... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: michaelr Date: 07 Jul 12 - 09:38 PM I've been railing against the spineless Democrats for years. They're bloody hopeless (with a few exception who are retiring or being picked off one by one: Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Lynn Woolsey). Who said "we have one party with two right wings"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Bobert Date: 07 Jul 12 - 09:02 PM Well, Eb... The Dems are stuck... They don't get much if any microphone time and when they do Big Media follows with double that for the right... Level the microphone time deficit and the game changes dramatically... (Note: microphone time also includes Citizen Cowards United) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jul 12 - 08:57 PM "We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." |
|
Subject: BS: Ralph Nader Opinion From: Ebbie Date: 07 Jul 12 - 08:39 PM In the process of checking for previous Nader threads, I discovered interesting reading but nothing all that timely (2004 is a while ago), so I'm starting a new one. Feel free to combine it with another one. Nader: Fearful Democrats on Defeatist Path "Republicans criticize Democrats in Congress for being too liberal, but consumer activist and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader criticizes them for being too conservative. "If the Democrats in Congress were all drinking water from the same faucet, there might be a clue to their chronic fear of the craven and cruel corporatist Republicans who dominate them," he writes on his web site. "But they don't, so we have to ask why their fear, defeatism, and cowering behavior continue in the face of the outrageous GOP actions as the November election approaches." Republicans have won over voters with their passion, Nader says. "To paraphrase author and lapsed Republican, Kevin Phillips, the Republicans go for the jugular, while the Democrats go for the capillaries." Breaking from Newsmax.com **************************************** I am not a registered Democrat but I nearly always vote for that party. In the last few election campaigns I have felt strongly about our choices - no way would I have voted Republican. That has not changed. However, I tend to agree with Nader- Democratic opposition to the outrages antics of Republican candidates has been lukewarm to downright tepid. In my opinion, the run-up to Romney's selection will go down in the history books as ranging from ludicrous to criminal. (Unless the next election cycle is even worse; seems that what has been happening in recent years.) Why the Democrats have not been able to capitalize on it is beyond me. Romney the best of that insane line-up? Don't make me giggle. I find myself in this election year feeling that if the Democrats lose to Romney's laughable machine, it serves them right. |
