Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
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.
|
So, once Cisco became a monopolistic endeavor, he continued to hold stock in the company
despite 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:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
|
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:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
I suppose you vote for nobody right? They are all hypocritical and usually don't do what they say.
|
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,
instead, you assert through implication that, since
all candidates are hypocritical (a truism I do not dispute - BTW), it is hypocritical
of me 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.