Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;854854]Who is being slighted by the media? This guy for one.

[URL="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier"]Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/15/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central[/URL]


Who would make a good candidate? This guy.

[URL="http://www.votenader.org/issues/"]Political Issues that Matter - Ralph Nader's Views on the Issues[/URL]


I'll get back to you on the NC Gov/Senate.[/quote]

You mean we should all give impractical people a forum? Maybe most of us have heard enough from these two clowns for the better part of two decades?

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;854876]You mean we should all give impractical people a forum? Maybe most of us have heard enough from these two clowns for the better part of two decades?[/quote]

Thank you.

If their message resonated with more than a portion of the public, their would be no obstacle to their election. Just b/c the vast majority see both of them as presenting agendas divorced from reality and lacking in practical solutions to complex issues they identify, doesn't mean they haven't been heard.

And, I'm not sure, but I think saden1 and I just agreed on something in the political forum. Way to bring people together NC_Skins!

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;854854]Who would make a good candidate? This guy.

[URL="http://www.votenader.org/issues/"]Political Issues that Matter - Ralph Nader's Views on the Issues[/URL]
[/quote]Ralph Nader, who's never received over 3% of the vote in a National election, and normally less than 1%. The anti-corporate champion who's a multi-millionaire.....based off contributions to his non-profits and stock portfolio, including over $ 1M in Cisco stock. As a network engineer I'm sure you're aware of Cisco's heavy-handed corporate practices to dominate the market.

[URL="http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1200nader.htm"]Archive | December 4, 2000 | Ralph Nader, Philanthropist: Is the anti-corporate crusader funding his own nonprofit network?[/URL]

[URL="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?txtName=nader"]Ralph Nader (3) | Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets[/URL]

[URL="http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000618&slug=4027351"]Business | Nader discloses finances; net worth $3.8 million | Seattle Times Newspaper[/URL]

And one of Nader's first claims about the Corsair having a defective rear suspension and rolling over were proved false. The Corsair went out of production...but Nader made money on his book.

[URL="http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html"]Corvair Handling and Stability[/URL]

But the rest of us are blind.

saden...good call, right on point.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;854904]Ralph Nader, who's never received over 3% of the vote in a National election, and normally less than 1%. The anti-corporate champion who's a multi-millionaire.....based off contributions to his non-profits and stock portfolio, including over $ 1M in Cisco stock. As a network engineer I'm sure you're aware of Cisco's heavy-handed corporate practices to dominate the market.

[URL="http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1200nader.htm"]Archive | December 4, 2000 | Ralph Nader, Philanthropist: Is the anti-corporate crusader funding his own nonprofit network?[/URL]

[URL="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?txtName=nader"]Ralph Nader (3) | Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets[/URL]

[URL="http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000618&slug=4027351"]Business | Nader discloses finances; net worth $3.8 million | Seattle Times Newspaper[/URL]

And one of Nader's first claims about the Corsair having a defective rear suspension and rolling over were proved false. The Corsair went out of production...but Nader made money on his book.

[URL="http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html"]Corvair Handling and Stability[/URL]

But the rest of us are blind.

saden...good call, right on point.[/quote]

I am always weary of people who utter the phrase "if you read my book [...]" when talking about their policy positions. I don't think I have ever seen an interview by Nadar where he doesn't mention his book. He is living the american dream selling his ideas.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Is Rick Perry drunk? I really can't tell if he is or he's just trying to be funny and let lose.

[yt]YSJv-2qfDNc[/yt]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;854837]Yeah. For all his failings (and I believe them to be numerous), and despite my philosophical difference with his method of gov., I just don't see anyone being discussed by the Republicans as someone who will garner enough support to beat him.

I see a second trap for non-incumbents created by the "Apathy of the Center" - On one hand the majority of people are moderate (slightly left and right of center and philosophically tied to traditional liberal democracy - little "l", little "d") but are tired of the same old, same old. As a result, they don't want candidates representing the more extreme elements of the Reps or Dems (think Tea Party/OWS; Libertarian/Socialist) but view other centerist candidates as just "Obama in Red". As a result, any candidate from the right differentiating themselves from Obama is faced with the risk of differentiating too much and being seen as representative of the fringe OR not differentiating enough and being seen as just more of the same but in Red.

Obama's approval rating may be low, but I don't see anyone from the Rep. Party stepping out as someone who won't be viewed by the center as "same sh**, just in Red instead of Blue". Ultimately, I see it as an election of "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't".

For better or (more likely) for worse, I see four more years of Mr. Obama.[/quote]

Truth is we like the devil we know when it comes to our elected officials. An even harder truth is we don't like too much change all at once. So by default, and at the end of the day, we feel more comfortable with the same old, same old. Most voters view candidates as radical or status quo, and we tend to like the latter.

Although Obama's poll numbers are starting to trend upwards over the past 30 days, I think it's immaterial right now considering the GOP has yet to choose their candidate. But what's troubling, if I'm a Republican voter, is that I've yet to hear a compelling reason why I should elect any of these guys to become president. Repealing Obamacare and kill the EPA just doesn't fly with most voters with all the other problems we're facing.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;854990]Truth is we like the devil we know when it comes to our elected officials. An even harder truth is we don't like too much change all at once. So by default, and at the end of the day, we feel more comfortable with the same old, same old. Most voters view candidates as radical or status quo, and we tend to like the latter.

Although Obama's poll numbers are starting to trend upwards over the past 30 days, I think it's immaterial right now considering the GOP has yet to choose their candidate.[B] But what's troubling, if I'm a Republican voter, is that I've yet to hear a compelling reason why I should elect any of these guys to become president. Repealing Obamacare and kill the EPA just doesn't fly with most voters with all the other problems we're facing.[/B][/quote]

As a Republican voter, I would agree with this assessment.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;854990]Truth is we like the devil we know when it comes to our elected officials. An even harder truth is we don't like too much change all at once. So by default, and at the end of the day, we feel more comfortable with the same old, same old. Most voters view candidates as radical or status quo, and we tend to like the latter.

Although Obama's poll numbers are starting to trend upwards over the past 30 days, I think it's immaterial right now considering the GOP has yet to choose their candidate. But what's troubling, if I'm a Republican voter, is that I've yet to hear a compelling reason why I should elect any of these guys to become president. Repealing Obamacare and kill the EPA just doesn't fly with most voters with all the other problems we're facing.[/quote]

While I agree with some of what you said its also less appealing to watch a pres spend 700 billion to creat jobs that never worked then tell us he needs another 500 billion to do what the 700 billion failed to do.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;854854]Who is being slighted by the media? This guy for one.

[URL="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier"]Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/15/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central[/URL]


Who would make a good candidate? This guy.

[URL="http://www.votenader.org/issues/"]Political Issues that Matter - Ralph Nader's Views on the Issues[/URL]


I'll get back to you on the NC Gov/Senate.[/quote]

Sorry the problem with Nader is the more people see him the more he drops in the poles.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;854904]Ralph Nader, who's never received over 3% of the vote in a National election, and normally less than 1%. The anti-corporate champion who's a multi-millionaire.....based off contributions to his non-profits and stock portfolio, including over $ 1M in Cisco stock. As a network engineer I'm sure you're aware of Cisco's heavy-handed corporate practices to dominate the market.

[URL="http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1200nader.htm"]Archive | December 4, 2000 | Ralph Nader, Philanthropist: Is the anti-corporate crusader funding his own nonprofit network?[/URL]

[URL="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?txtName=nader"]Ralph Nader (3) | Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets[/URL]

[URL="http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000618&slug=4027351"]Business | Nader discloses finances; net worth $3.8 million | Seattle Times Newspaper[/URL]

And one of Nader's first claims about the Corsair having a defective rear suspension and rolling over were proved false. The Corsair went out of production...but Nader made money on his book.

[URL="http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html"]Corvair Handling and Stability[/URL]

But the rest of us are blind.

saden...good call, right on point.[/quote]

Typical Republican smear tactics. What you have shown me is nothing. Absolutely nothing. So what the guy is net worth at 3.8 million. Did you bother to read those articles? He gets his money from speeches and other works he does. He gives a ton of money away, and doesn't spend much either.


[quote]Nader, 66 and single, said he has made $200,000 to $300,000 a year just on speeches for 30 years. Income from writings, television appearances and interest is on top of that. But he said he lives on $25,000.

He last owned a car (a '49 Studebaker) in the late '50s. He went years without a television set but now has a tiny black-and-white; reception is an adventure. He rents an apartment near DuPont Circle and often stays at the family home in Winsted, Conn. He still taps out his books on what he calls a "perilous" Underwood. He keeps meaning to buy a new ribbon.

Nader has plowed millions into his projects, including the establishment of Public Interest Research Groups in 22 states. He has established several research centers devoted to health and safety, taken on the standardized-test industry and championed Native American rights, child protection and solar-energy education.

More recently, he has put about $200,000 into organizing civic-action projects at Princeton University, from which he graduated in 1955, and Harvard Law School, from which he graduated in 1958.[/quote]


...but lets not look at the issues he supports and lets go for the Republican mantra of...."OOOO LOOK AT THIS IRRELEVANT THING OVER HERE!!"...and find something he failed at and bring it to the forefront. Who gives a shit if he was wrong about some car. In fact, scanning the wikipedia (uggh..I know) of the event, "[I][B]However, former GM executive John DeLorean asserted in [U]On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors[/U] (1979) that Nader's criticisms were valid."[/B][/I]

Jesus christ on a cracker. Stop watching Faux news please. It's rotting your brain. You debate exactly like they do. Ignore the issues and go after something irrelevant.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;854916]I am always weary of people who utter the phrase "if you read my book [...]" when talking about their policy positions. I don't think I have ever seen an interview by Nadar where he doesn't mention his book. He is living the american dream selling his ideas.[/quote]

You haven't seen many interviews then.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6k2SOaEWsw&feature=player_embedded]Ralph Nader "The Tea Party Now Is Basically The Corporatist Wing Of The Republican Party" - YouTube[/ame]

People see what they want to see.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;854996]Sorry the problem with Nader is the more people see him the more he drops in the poles.[/quote]

He's not a pleasant looking guy, but who cares about looks if its not getting you anywhere. So now we care about one's looks than the issues they support.

/facepalm

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855012]He's not a pleasant looking guy, but who cares about looks if its not getting you anywhere. So now we care about one's looks than the issues they support.

/facepalm[/quote]

Soory, so you didn't realize that when people see someone they have to also hear what he is saying? I was pointing out the more people hear him speake the more they are turned off by his far left leaning. Like some are too far right he is too far left.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855010]Typical Republican smear tactics. What you have shown me is nothing. Absolutely nothing. So what the guy is net worth at 3.8 million. Did you bother to read those articles? He gets his money from speeches and other works he does. He gives a ton of money away, and doesn't spend much either. [/quote]Ah yes, whenever hit with facts that are counter to your position resort to the "Republican smear tactics" line. Maybe you should read the articles.

You don't find the hypocrisy of a guy who is the champion of anti-corporate policies, yet he's become a millionaire giving speeches that are paid for by corporate or special interests and he invests in corporate stock (as of 2000)....in particular Cisco, Wal-mart, Occidental Petroleum, General Dynamics, Bristoll Meyers Squibb.

You find no hypocrisy in a guy who says, In a June 2000 interview with the Washington Post, the stocks he chose were “the most neutral-type companies … No. 1, they’re not monopolists and No. 2, they don’t produce land mines, napalm, weapons.”....yet he's invested in Cisco, one of the worst monolpolists in the tech industry and General Dynamics (through Fidelity Magellan Fund) who certainly builds lots of weapons.

[quote]...but lets not look at the issues he supports and lets go for the Republican mantra of...."OOOO LOOK AT THIS IRRELEVANT THING OVER HERE!!"...and find something he failed at and bring it to the forefront. Who gives a shit if he was wrong about some car. In fact, scanning the wikipedia (uggh..I know) of the event, "[I][B]However, former GM executive John DeLorean asserted in [U]On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors[/U] (1979) that Nader's criticisms were valid."[/B][/I] [/quote]I would say false accusations that led to a model line of car ending production is certainly not irrelevant to GM, or the workers supporting the Corvair. I would also say that making the serious level of accusations leveled at GM.....and then being PROVED wrong by not only the NHTSA, but an independent panel of engineers, irreparably damage Nader's objective credibility.

LOL at referencing DeLorean, certainly he had no ax to grind (or books to sell) with GM. :doh:

[quote]Jesus christ on a cracker. Stop watching Faux news please. It's rotting your brain. You debate exactly like they do. Ignore the issues and go after something irrelevant.[/quote]I'm sorry, I guess multiple, documented, factual, accounts from numerous sources is "Faux News". My brain must be too rotted to get that.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855011]You haven't seen many interviews then.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6k2SOaEWsw&feature=player_embedded"]Ralph Nader "The Tea Party Now Is Basically The Corporatist Wing Of The Republican Party" - YouTube[/URL]
[B]
People see what they want to see[/B].[/quote]

You absolutely right, I couldn't get past his incoherent speech.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;855027]Ah yes, whenever hit with facts that are counter to your position resort to the "Republican smear tactics" line. Maybe you should read the articles.

You don't find the hypocrisy of a guy who is the champion of anti-corporate policies, yet he's become a millionaire giving speeches that are paid for by corporate or special interests and he invests in corporate stock (as of 2000)....in particular Cisco, Wal-mart, Occidental Petroleum, General Dynamics, Bristoll Meyers Squibb.

You find no hypocrisy in a guy who says, In a June 2000 interview with the Washington Post, the stocks he chose were “the most neutral-type companies … No. 1, they’re not monopolists and No. 2, they don’t produce land mines, napalm, weapons.”....yet he's invested in Cisco, one of the worst monolpolists in the tech industry and General Dynamics (through Fidelity Magellan Fund) who certainly builds lots of weapons.

I would say false accusations that led to a model line of car ending production is certainly not irrelevant to GM, or the workers supporting the Corvair. I would also say that making the serious level of accusations leveled at GM.....and then being PROVED wrong by not only the NHTSA, but an independent panel of engineers, irreparably damage Nader's objective credibility.

LOL at referencing DeLorean, certainly he had no ax to grind (or books to sell) with GM. :doh:

I'm sorry, I guess multiple, documented, factual, accounts from numerous sources is "Faux News". My brain must be too rotted to get that.[/quote]

So you think him being wrong about something in the 1960s while fighting for consumer safety is worth mentioning in Presidential qualities?

I'm not understanding how him owning stock has anything to do with his principles or what he stands for. Owning stock doesn't mean he doesn't want to limit corporate greed or get corporate America out of our government. Corporations aren't evil, and I'm quite positive he doesn't think so either. So the stuff you posted is 110% irrelevant to his qualifications and his stances on the issues.

If you can prove to me he's voted differently (or would vote differently) based on his views, then you might have something. As it is, you are grasping at straws trying to disregard his as a good Presidential candidate.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/politics/cain-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2]Cain camp calls report of third harassment claim 'baseless' - CNN.com[/url]

This seems like something the Perry camp would do, fits his personally as a gutless, coward.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;855177][URL="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/politics/cain-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2"]Cain camp calls report of third harassment claim 'baseless' - CNN.com[/URL]

This seems like something the Perry camp would do, [B]fits his personally as a gutless, coward[/B].[/quote]

Are you referring to Perry or Cain as a gutless coward. If Cain, can you elaborate on why you feel he is a gutless coward?

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=mlmpetert;855367]Are you referring to Perry or Cain as a gutless coward. If Cain, can you elaborate on why you feel he is a gutless coward?[/quote]

Perry.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

We may finally know what inappropriate comments the Iowa radio DJ was alluding to when he added fuel to the fire by saying Cain made inappropriate comments to his female employees. Per the Des Moines Register:

[QUOTE]“Cain said, ‘Darling, do you mind doctoring my tea for me?’” Deace said.[/QUOTE]

Of course the radio DJ now refuses to say what Cain said and leaves it up to our imagination to think Cain said something as bad as “suck my…” or as innocent as “darling”.

[url=http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/02/iowa-radio-host-calls-herman-cains-behavior-awkward-if-not-inappropriate/]Iowa radio host calls Herman Cain’s behavior ‘awkward if not inappropriate’ | Iowa Caucuses[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Perhaps this should be Cain's new campaign song?

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEo8poVlQrM]You Never Even Called Me By My Name! - YouTube[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=mlmpetert;855374]We may finally know what inappropriate comments the Iowa radio DJ was alluding to when he added fuel to the fire by saying Cain made inappropriate comments to his female employees. Per the Des Moines Register:



Of course the radio DJ now refuses to say what Cain said and leaves it up to our imagination to think Cain said something as bad as “suck my…” [B]or as innocent as “darling”[/B].

[url=http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/02/iowa-radio-host-calls-herman-cains-behavior-awkward-if-not-inappropriate/]Iowa radio host calls Herman Cain’s behavior ‘awkward if not inappropriate’ | Iowa Caucuses[/url][/quote]

As a female, I HATE it when people call me darling or sweetie. If you aren't my significant other, you can take the pet names and shove it. I'm not your darling or your sweetie. If this was something constant by someone who I worked for, you can bet your ass I'd report him.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;855418]As a female, I HATE it when people call me darling or sweetie. If you aren't my significant other, you can take the pet names and shove it. I'm not your darling or your sweetie. If this was something constant by someone who I worked for, you can bet your ass I'd report him.[/quote]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rd1ivwNMCo&feature=related]Cat is mad at me - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855171][B]I'm not understanding how him owning stock has anything to do with his principles or what he stands for. [/B]Owning stock doesn't mean he doesn't want to limit corporate greed or get corporate America out of our government. Corporations aren't evil, and I'm quite positive he doesn't think so either. So the stuff you posted is 110% irrelevant to his qualifications and his stances on the issues.[/quote]

Owning stock has nothing to do with his principles? Nader making a conscience choice to be a part owner of a monopolistic company (as of 2001, 25% of his stocks were in Cisco) when he publicly opposed monopolistic practices is indicative of nothing?

Got it - you believe a candidate's hypocrisy is irrelevant to their qualifications to hold office. I will note that down for future reference.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;855418]As a female, I HATE it when people call me darling or sweetie. If you aren't my significant other, you can take the pet names and shove it. I'm not your darling or your sweetie. If this was something constant by someone who I worked for, you can bet your ass I'd report him.[/quote]

Would it not be a little easier if you just asked the person to please call you by name? Sweetie.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;855418]As a female, I HATE it when people call me darling or sweetie. If you aren't my significant other, you can take the pet names and shove it. I'm not your darling or your sweetie. If this was something constant by someone who I worked for, you can bet your ass I'd report him.[/quote]


[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]My mom is the exact same way and ive personally seen her flip out on a waitress that called her “honey”. I understand completely, but I think its ridiculous that the radio DJ refused to offer details on what Cain’s comment really was. Theres a difference between being sexually harassed and having a 65 year old man from Georgia with a southern dialect call you darling, sweetie or honey, without knowledge that you disapprove. The DJ is clearly attempting to smear Cain’s name by calling attention to Cain’s action while withholding details so that the public and media are free to speculate on what Cain actually said.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=mlmpetert;855367]Are you referring to Perry or Cain as a gutless coward. If Cain, can you elaborate on why you feel he is a gutless coward?[/quote]

Probably has no reason.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;855428]Owning stock has nothing to do with his principles? Nader making a conscience choice to be a part owner of a monopolistic company (as of 2001, 25% of his stocks were in Cisco) when he publicly opposed monopolistic practices is indicative of nothing?

Got it - you believe a candidate's hypocrisy is irrelevant to their qualifications to hold office. I will note that down for future reference.[/quote]

Youre forgetting that conflicts of interest only apply to people like me and you.....

[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/]Insider Trading Rules That Don't Apply To Congress - Forbes[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;855428]Owning stock has nothing to do with his principles? Nader making a conscience choice to be a part owner of a monopolistic company (as of 2001, 25% of his stocks were in Cisco) when he publicly opposed monopolistic practices is indicative of nothing? [/quote]

Nader actually has been a Cisco stockholder since 1995. Also, I would say back in 2000 or 2001, Cisco wasn't the giant that it is today. Nortel and other companies were heavily involved in the technology industry as well. Unfortunately for Nortel, their main technology (legacy phone systems) has all but died out and VoIP is rapidly replacing it.

[url=http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/technology/thebuzz/index.htm]Ralph Nader wants Cisco to up dividend. He's right. The Buzz - Jun. 24, 2011[/url]

Looks like he called Cisco out on paying out shareholders.


[quote=JoeRedskin;855428]Got it - you believe a candidate's hypocrisy is irrelevant to their qualifications to hold office. I will note that down for future reference.[/quote]

I suppose you vote for nobody right? They are all hypocritical and usually don't do what they say.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855444]Nader actually has been a Cisco stockholder since 1995. Also, I would say back in 2000 or 2001, Cisco wasn't the giant that it is today. Nortel and other companies were heavily involved in the technology industry as well. Unfortunately for Nortel, their main technology (legacy phone systems) has all but died out and VoIP is rapidly replacing it.[/quote]

So, once Cisco became a monopolistic endeavor, he continued to hold stock in the company [I]despite[/I] his disapproval of monopolistic practices. Once Cisco's conflict with his stated corporate investment policies became apparent - his failure to divest himself of ownership in the company is somehow not a problem?

[quote=NC_Skins;855444][url=http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/technology/thebuzz/index.htm]Ralph Nader wants Cisco to up dividend. He's right. The Buzz - Jun. 24, 2011[/url]

Looks like he called Cisco out on paying out shareholders.[/quote]

I saw that but did not reference it as a courtesy to you. All it highlights is Nader's further hypocrisy - despite Nader's stated disapproval of monopolistic corporate practices, Nader believes he and others are entitled to the profits gained from such practices. "It's wrong, but dammit - give me my cut".

[quote=NC_Skins;855444]I suppose you vote for nobody right? They are all hypocritical and usually don't do what they say.[/quote]

Nice. Classic NC_Skins: Admit no error and move the rhetorical target. I commend you - you are excellent at the "bob and weave". --- The crux of the argument leading to this oh-so-overly-analyzed digression into Nader's investment into Cisco was the simple assertion that Nader's actions were hypocritical. In response, and w/out admitting or denying the hypocrisy of the action, you - NC_Skins - asserted that the facts stated were irrelevant to Nader's qualifications as a candidate. I then confront you w/ logical tautology that (1) Nader's actions were hypocritical; and (2) you assert that Nader's hypocrisy is irrelevant; thus I make the hyperbolic assertion that (3) you consider hypocrisy to be irrelevant. At this point, my position of other candidates' hypocrises was simply not part of the discussion.

Now, confronted with the blatant logical error of (3) above, and, to demonstrate the error, being confronted by the rhetorical corner requiring an admission from you that either (a) Nader's actions exhibited hypocrisy or (b) Nader's hypocrisy is relevant to his qualifications as a candidate - BAM - Nader's hypocrisy is no longer the subject of the discussion, but, [I]instead[/I], you assert through implication that, since [I]all[/I] candidates are hypocritical (a truism I do not dispute - BTW), it is hypocritical [I]of me[/I] to attack just Nader's hypocritical actions. This, despite the fact that I have taken no position as to any other candidates' alleged hypocrisies. Subtle, stunning and stupid all in one. As I said, brilliant.

To be clear, I vote. Unlike you, I also recognize hypocrisy when it's highlighted - even if it is by candidates I endorse [As I once said to someone: both the Dems and the Reps lie, I just generally prefer the Republican lies to the Democratic ones]. To me, a candidate's hypocrisy is relevant dependent upon what the particular hypocrisy is. In the case of Nader, Nader's owning stock and investing in a company whose policies he stated he would specifically avoid is telling but not determinative. Since he is so far detached from reality, it is really only one more reason for me to ignore him.

On the other hand, it was your claim that Nader's owning of stock in Cisco was irrelevant to his qualifications as a candidate. Through your typically imprecise language, and your equally typical moving of the rhetorical target, it is not clear whether you consider Nader's owning of Cisco stock to be hypocritical - your answer seems to say you don't find it hypocritical but, again in your typical fashion, your imprecisely worded response allows you to interpret it in whichever way ever suits you best at a later date.

Nader's actions were hypocritical. Your denial of such is either stupid or obtuse. The relevance of his hypocrisy is dependent upon a variety of factors in turn dependent upon each individual's priorities. Your attempt to waive off as his hypocrisy as a smear tactic or a non-consideration is intellectual arrogance. Finally, your attempt to subtley change the topic while admitting no error was simply a matter of intellectual dishonesty. All of it is, unfortunately, consistent with your posts in the political forums.

To the rest of the posters, I apologize for the digression.

[QUOTE=firstdown;855430]Would it not be a little easier if you just asked the person to please call you by name? Sweetie.[/QUOTE]

Its easier said than done. Especially when its a superior, you feel like it may affect your job security or work environment. I've been physically sexually harassed at work too. It wasn't until one of my friends/former co-workers admitted she had been too that I felt confident enough to come forward. Just like rape victims, sometimes you wonder if you did something to warrant this happening to you. I felt gross and violated but was afraid of a variety of scenarios.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;855479]So, once Cisco became a monopolistic endeavor, he continued to hold stock in the company [I]despite[/I] his disapproval of monopolistic practices. Once Cisco's conflict with his stated corporate investment policies became apparent [/quote]

What I want to know is which monopolistic practices is Cisco doing that Nader is against? Any specific things? Google in T-minus....5...4...3...2..1


[quote=JoeRedskin;855479]Nice. Classic NC_Skins: Admit no error and move the rhetorical target. I commend you - you are excellent at the "bob and weave". --- The crux of the argument leading to this oh-so-overly-analyzed digression into Nader's investment into Cisco was the simple assertion that Nader's actions were hypocritical. [/quote]

Admit no error? Error on what? I stated who I thought was a good candidate (based on his record and history), and all you've done is point at some stock and say "oooooo....look at the bad guy!!". You've done absolutely nothing to discredit his work or his intentions if he were in the White House. Essentially, making a mountain out of a mole hill.



[quote=JoeRedskin;855479]Now, confronted with the blatant logical error of (3) above, and, to demonstrate the error, being confronted by the rhetorical corner requiring an admission from you that either (a) Nader's actions exhibited hypocrisy or (b) Nader's hypocrisy is relevant to his qualifications as a candidate - BAM - Nader's hypocrisy is no longer the subject of the discussion, but, [I]instead[/I], you assert through implication that, since [I]all[/I] candidates are hypocritical (a truism I do not dispute - BTW), it is hypocritical [I]of me[/I] to attack just Nader's hypocritical actions. This, despite the fact that I have taken no position as to any other candidates' alleged hypocrisies. Subtle, stunning and stupid all in one. As I said, brilliant.[/quote]

How about we talk about Nader's track record. He's done more for the consumers in America than any other Republidiot or Demodummy candidate currently. HOW ABOUT THEM FACTS!!



[quote=JoeRedskin;855479]On the other hand, it was your claim that Nader's owning of stock in Cisco was irrelevant to his qualifications as a candidate. Through your typically imprecise language, and your equally typical moving of the rhetorical target,[U] it is not clear whether you consider Nader's owning of Cisco stock to be hypocritical [/U]- your answer seems to say you don't find it hypocritical but, again in your typical fashion, your imprecisely worded response allows you to interpret it in whichever way ever suits you best at a later date. [/quote]

So here, you can't tell if I think he's hypocritical, but below you are saying I'm denying he's being hypocritical...lol Smoke and mirrors. Keep detracting from the issues and continue to point at the speckle on the window.




[quote=JoeRedskin;855479]Nader's actions were hypocritical. Your denial of such is either stupid or obtuse. [/quote]

Can you show me ONE quote where I have denied he wasn't being hypocritical? Just one. I think I said him owning stock was irrelevant to his qualifications in being a candidate. If you think that one piece of hypocrisy (as you call it) nullifies all the work he's done to fight for consumer rights, then by all means continue on with your quest Captain Ahab.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Wow, two pages devoted to Ralph Nader. For shame.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;855491]Wow, two pages devoted to Ralph Nader. For shame.[/quote]

Really. RN has not received that much attention the last 20 times he ran for office.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

There's a reason this clown hasn't gotten more votes than the entire warpath membership.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;855501]There's a reason this clown hasn't gotten more votes than the entire warpath membership.[/quote]

Well, what corporation is going to sponsor him with money when he's openly against some of the actions carried out by corporations? Zero. That's how many. How many people get press time without corporate sponsorship? Zero. That's how many.


So can somebody tell me exactly what policies or stances he supports that makes him a bad candidate?

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Still paying for dealing Chevy a death blow on the juggernaut....Corvair
[url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657833,00.html]1961 Corvair - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time - TIME[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=NC_Skins;855502]Well, what corporation is going to sponsor him with money when he's openly against some of the actions carried out by corporations? Zero. That's how many. How many people get press time without corporate sponsorship? Zero. That's how many.


[B]So can somebody tell me exactly what policies or stances he supports that makes him a bad candidate?[/B][/quote]

Actually that's a good question for Ralph Nadar. Where does Nadar stand on matters of national security and protecting our borders? What's his position on immigration, 2nd amendment rights, a woman's right to choose? How about the three trade agreements that the president just signed into law that will create thousands of jobs? Go to his website, you'd think you were redirected to Amazon.com book of the month club.

Look, Nadar has done some good things but his time has past. He's an old crank, hungry for attention and influence.

If he was really serious about changing the system, why not run for Congress or Senate? Elizabeth Warren is serious about Wall Street corruption and protecting consumers from unscrupulous practices by banks and mortgage lender. So you know what she did, ran for Senate. Why must Nadar run for President -- all the time? How about a state seat? I'm suspicious of his motives especially for someone who's not versed on a wide range of issues facing our country.

He's just not credible.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;855507]Actually that's a good question for Ralph Nadar. Where does Nadar stand on matters of national security and protecting our borders? What's his position on immigration, 2nd amendment rights, a woman's right to choose? How about the three trade agreements that the president just signed into law that will create thousands of jobs? Go to his website, you'd think you were redirected to Amazon.com book of the month club.

Look, Nadar has done some good things but his time has past. He's an old crank, hungry for attention and influence.

If he was really serious about changing the system, why not run for Congress or Senate? Elizabeth Warren is serious about Wall Street corruption and protecting consumers from unscrupulous practices by banks and mortgage lender. So you know what she did, ran for Senate. Why must Nadar run for President -- all the time? How about a state seat? I'm suspicious of his motives especially for someone who's not versed on a wide range of issues facing our country.

He's just not credible.[/quote]

I don't often agree with 12thMan...but when I do it's becaus of posts like these.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

NC_Skins, I'm not trying to trash Nader or shoot down the idea of him running. I'm simply looking at his track record for running for office. He's never really put together a large scale campaign infrastructure to run for president.

If major corporations thought Ralph Nader was a credible candidate that started to get traction in the polls, he'd get some sponsorship. The big boys know how to tune out the campaign rhetoric and talk business.