BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 12:36 AM

To Don Firth:

I applaud your last post -- the position you take is the sanest I have seen posted anywhere. Good for you.

May I have your permission to copy and quote you on another forum to which I belong? It is a political forum, and it needs your words like a breath of fresh air.

If you would prefer that I not use your post, I won't, nor will I adapt it to my own purpose and claim it as mine. If you do grant permission, I will not use your name unless you say so. I will not state from where it came.

Even if I don't repost it elsewhere, I cannot congratulate you strongly enough for your stance -- would that there were many more like you. You give me hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:32 AM

Spending on social programs has increased so much that we would have 3/4 of the current deficit even without liberating Iraq. The rest of the Firth rant sounds like he is reading from an old copy of Democrat talking points. Stale air is what it is. Go Nader!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:31 PM

GUEST,pdc, thank you, and feel free.

GUEST,pdq, not stale at all. If you took the trouble to read all of my "rant," you'd see what I'm really advocating. There are many old f**ts in the Democratic Party who would not like what I said at all!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:38 PM

And GUEST,pdc, yes, you may use my name, or not, as you wish. I'm not proprietary about what I wrote. I am eager to get the ideas out there to as many people as possible, so have at it! Thanks again!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:03 AM

pdq, what Don Firth was advocating is sanity, which you may not recognize or understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:58 PM

Don Firth: Thanks for point about f**ts in Demos. Hate to think you're one-sided.

Guest pdc: Is this for a class in our public schools? AFT member? Salary paid from taxes on working people?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:37 PM

GUEST,pdq, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Perhaps it's because you don't want to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,B
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 03:15 PM

Don Firth: "Spending on social programs has increased so much that we would have 3/4 of the current deficit even without liberating Iraq." (ex me)         

"In not many months, the Bush administration squandered the biggest budget surplus this country has ever had..." (ex you)

You did not explain well here. The budget deficit is from social programs advanced, for the most part, by non-conservative types. If I do not understand, it is not because I don't want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 03:40 PM

GO HOWARD DEAN. Dean is the only one I would vote for and the only one wtih a chance of beating Bush.

Alice, an Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 03:49 PM

Social programs did not increase all that much during the Clinton administration. In fact, a number of social programs were reduced or cut (remember Clinton's "welfare reform?"). There was a substantial budget surplus that, unless messed with, would have stayed in the black indefinitely and, in fact, would have continued to increase, leaving room for a whole menu of possible programs. Then Bush took office it was Bush's massive tax cuts along with equally massive increases in "defense" spending that is primarily responsible for the abrupt nosedive.

Part of the Bush administration's plan is to increase and maintain a high level of military spending while, at the same time, deepening budget deficits sufficiently that the country will not be able to afford social programs for the forseeable future. Bush never saw a social program that he didn't want to cut. For example, don't be snowed by Bush's Medicare prescription drug program. Sounds good, but read the details and see how it (doesn't) work.

"Compassionate conservative" indeed!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,B
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 04:30 PM

Don Firth: Thanks, I feel better now. Still want poeple to look at a graph of the national debt and note that it has never gone down, not even in Bill's adm. Someone (don't take that personally) has a definition of "surplus" that comes from Madison avenue, not from Main Street and not from an economics book.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 09:00 PM

Don,

You say it so well. May any of us reproduce it to share with others?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:28 PM

Hey Firth: You're still counting hanging chads. Know the cords to "Time to Move On"?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:45 PM

Ahhh, what am I missin' here on the deficits. They are less about spending than ill-timed tax cuts. This ain't rocket science, folks. Ahhh, like if I have monthly bills of X$'s and I'm making X$'s then things are fine buit if I decide I don't want to work as much and satrt making less than X$'s, then I have a problem. Like I say, it ain't rocket science...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,B
Date: 12 Jul 03 - 11:21 PM

Clinton gets 100 grand a nite for Bush-bashing, you folks do if for free! Can someone be a whore who does it for free?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 02:58 PM

Guest B: Can someone be a whore who does it for free?

I guess you have your social levels, and others have theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: sloop
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 03:42 PM

Bush,Nadir,Captain America,what difference does the face of the puppet make?The controlling parties at the top of the pyramid will continue to rape the world in the name of a fast buck,without a moments thought for the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:08 PM

Yes, Janie, you may indeed. Feel free to use it as you wish--and thank you!

And, GUEST,pdq, that's the current cry of the Bush administration about a lot of things: hanging chads, WMDs, promises to rebuild Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?). A whole batch of promised make and lies told that they hope the voters will forget about. But I'm a tenacious curmudgeon, and I'm not going to quit just because some folks find it embarrassing to be reminded.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:28 PM

Let's hear it for tenacious curmudgeonry! I'll join you, as long as you don't call me a curmudgeonette.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM

sloop:

Whereas there is a part of me that says "Screw it. It's out of our hands" there is another part that says "Fight the bastards." Fortunately the "Fight the bastards" prevails about 90% of the time.

When we throw up our arms in defeat we will learn exactly what Boss hog has in mind for us, and it ain't purdy. Hey, there are a lot of folks still razed over the abolition of slavery. So they passed 14-B of the Taft-Hartley Act which reintroduce slavery. Don't think so. Drive through the Confederate states and check it out. Slavery is alive and well.... Only problem is that there are way too many folks living just above the poverty line that need someone to step on their knuckles. And Bush and Co. are doing the best they can to make those greedy folks happy.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 13 Jul 03 - 11:50 PM

For those who went to public schools and were taught by members of the AFT, the term "tenacious curmudgeon" means the same as "stubborn ass". Mr Firth would probably agree.

Little Hawk: Your statements elsewhere are clear and well-composed. Shure you won't try to explain "society building" where "nation-building" seems to fit? My feeling is that we could not impose this society on anyone else if we wanted to, and we should be flogged if we tried!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM

Okay, here's what bugs me...I do agree that there are some blinded by right wing propoganda stating that Nader is evil, etc. But not many. Because, you know what? People interested in right wing propaganda wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

But what burns me up is the left-wing propoganda that claims we have "republicrats" or "repubrocats" or that "reality shows we have one party with a slightly more liberal but basically useless wing called the "Democrats." "Reality shows?" Nice you've cited your evidence there, buddy!

I, too am a lefty, and anyone who thinks there is no difference between the Democrat and Republicans is fooling him/herself. This is where Nader lost my respect: claiming that there would be no difference between Gore and Bush, and that he therefore represented the only viable alternative. You know what? We have gone to war with Iraq and killed hundreds of innocent people along with the guilty ones. We have enacted legislation harmful to the environment and to our rights to free speech and information. We have curtailed civil liberties to an alarming extent. And none of this would have happened under Gore.

So Nader was lying, and he knew he was lying when he said it, and most Americans knew he was lying too. Does it make it better that he wasn't trying to win but to get 5% of the vote? No, it makes it worse. He sacrificed human lives and human rights in a low-stakes gamble.

Do I think he's evil or a demon? No. But I think he screwed up big-time, lied as badly as any other candidate, compromised his much-touted integrity, and, as Ron points out, hasn't the skills to run a country anyway. Why would anyone vote for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 11:39 AM

Well said, Mr. Nerd. Let's see, Nader gets 5%, Sharpton 12%. Wow! Most of us blue-collar working people will have the man WE want for the next five years easy! Think I'll pop a beer, maybe wash my SUV, check out the ballgame, maybe get my special sauce ready for the bar-b-que tonite.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 12:57 PM

Bobert, I may have disagreed with some of what you said up there, but you're exactly right in your math. It ain't rocket science, indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 01:36 PM

GUEST,pdq, I don't agree with much of anything that you say.

And I take it from your remarks that you are anti-union? Don't care diddly-squat about teachers? Well, at least you're consistant.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 01:42 PM

By the way, Nerd, I do agree with what you (14 Jul 03 - 10:26 AM).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: sloop
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 04:55 PM

History will be written by the victor,regardless of which mask captain america decides to wear,and it's got bugger all to do with us commoners .

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 05:00 PM

With all the electronic touch screen voting booths run by a Texas Republican firm, no one need worry about the outcome of the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 14 Jul 03 - 06:26 PM

Thanks Don, we agree more often than you probably would like. Note that my big, bad SUV is union made, so is the beer, and the bar-b-que. The ballplayers are even union, making more money than you or I can imagine. Peace.                      PS:(go Sharpton!)

Subject: RE: BS: Nader Considering Running in 2004
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 03 - 02:15 PM

Excerpted from something I just posted on the "Quagmire" thread. It occured to me after posting it, that it really belongs in this thread:--

Last night, having fried my eyes by sitting in front of my computer monitor all day, I naturally turned on the television set. Nothing but summer re-runs. The most likely candidate for watching was a re-run of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I had already seen that episode at least eight times, and it wasn't one of my favorites anyway. So I channel-surfed. When I hit CSPAN-2, John Kerry was speaking, so I watched.

It turned out that it was a presentation for a large audience made up of gay/lesbian groups and individuals who were there to hear what the Democratic presidential candidates had to say about the civil rights of gays and lesbians re: civil domestic partnerships, same sex marriage, place in the military, etc., along with a number of other issues. I came in late, so, at the time, I didn't know who all it included, but I did hear John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Mosley-Braun, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, and Dick Gephardt. Each candidate had a two minute opening statement. Then Sam Donaldson plied them with questions about a number of issues. Then each one made a two minute closing statement. Here is the New York Times story about the forum (PLINK!!).

Being a flaming, out-of-the-closet heterosexual, the subject under discussion was not an issue for me personally, but it is for a number of friends and acquaintances, and it is a civil rights issue, so I was interested in what they all had to say. Also, it was an opportunity to hear at least seven of the nine all in a row and make some comparisons. I have no particular ax to grind here (other than getting the Bush administration the hell out of there!), and what I am really looking for now is a candidate that I can support whole-heartedly and who will even get me enthusiastic enough to get up off my butt and go to work for.

Impressions:— The candidates I found the most interesting were Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Next in line was John Kerry. These three had real "fire in the belly." Their remarks were solid, clear, and unequivocal. No waffling here. And all three were very dynamic speakers, particularly Kucinich and Sharpton. I have heard that some people, including Democrats, regard these two as something of a joke, with no chance of ever winning, but to my mind, they were the ones who offered the most clear-cut, least ambiguous ideas and intentions, and who also offered an unmistakable alternative to the current administration. Kerry was very good also. Pretty much up there with the other two. So far, that would be my short list: Kucinich, Sharpton, and Kerry.

Carol Mosley Braun was impressive, as was Dick Gephardt. Regarding Howard Dean, having heard him before and learning something about his background, he was the one I preferred as the Democratic candidate (and I may still, depending), but after last night, I'm back to pondering again. He was very good, but he was not as clear-cut and dynamic as those on my "short list." If Joe Lieberman turns out to be the Democratic candidate after the convention, I will work for him and vote for him in preference to letting the current administration stay in, but only with reservations. He said some good things, but I was not as impressed by him as I was with the others.

Two WOWs!!

When Sam Donaldson asked Kucinich if he would appoint an openly gay or lesbian person to the Supreme Court, he responded, "Certainly! Provided they support Roe v. Wade!" (Audience explodes in cheers and applause).

Al Sharpton, while talking about political activism and participation in civil rights marches and peace marches, said, "Anyone who has reached the age of fifty and has not been thrown in jail for supporting an important cause has no reason to brag!" (Another powerful audience response).

I, personally, am not endorsing anyone at this point. I'm still watching, reading, and thinking, and I will continue to do so for many months to come. But after seeing these Democratic candidates in this forum, believe me, any reports that the Democratic Party is dead or no longer relevant is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republican Party.

Hang in there, people! It ain't over 'til it's over!

Don Firth