Libertarians call Nader a lying bastard : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread


Libertarian Party Press Release January 15, 2002

Ralph Nader is guilty of 'false advertising' about Green Party status, say Libertarians

WASHINGTON, DC -- Libertarians are charging former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader with "false advertising" as a result of his claim on NBC's Meet the Press that the Greens are the nation's third-largest political party -- a distinction that actually belongs to the Libertarians.

"How can Nader claim he's going to 'clean up the political system' when he can't even come clean on national TV?" asked Libertarian Party Political Director Ron Crickenberger. "Next thing you know, he's going to claim he invented the Internet."

Nader, the rumpled, self-professed consumer advocate who ran for president in 1996 and 2000 as the Green Party candidate, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday to discuss the Enron scandal and other issues. In response to a question about the Florida ballot controversy from moderator Tim Russert, Nader claimed, "The Green Party now is the third-largest party in America."

"Unfortunately for Nader, saying so doesn't make it so," Crickenberger said. "According to any objective standard, the Libertarian Party is today's largest, most successful third party. Year in and year out, we run more candidates for office, and achieve more election victories, than all other third parties combined."

In fact, here's how the Libertarians and Greens really stack up:

* Elected officials: 302 Libertarians, 131 Greens.

* Election victories in 2001: 96 Libertarians, 58 Greens.

* Candidates for office in 2001: 347 Libertarians, 281 Greens.

* Registered voters: 224,713 Libertarians, 194,873 Greens.

* Money raised in 2001: $2.1 million Libertarians, less than $0.1 million Greens.

"Libertarians wouldn't claim that our candidate, Harry Browne, came in third in the 2000 presidential race -- because that distinction belongs to Mr. Nader," Crickenberger said. "In the same way, Nader has no business claiming that his party is larger or more successful overall than the Libertarian Party, because that's not true either.

"The real yardstick for third-party success is how many candidates you run for office, and how many of those candidates win elections. The fact is that the Libertarian Party consistently runs more candidates than all other third parties combined, and we have more people in office than all other third parties combined.

"And those differences can be staggering. For example, in 2000 alone, the Libertarian Party ran 1,420 candidates, nearly twice as many as the Green Party has run in its entire history.

"It's simply irresponsible for Nader to continue to mislead the public and the news media by making claims to the contrary. How can any third-party candidate claim he's different from Democrats and Republicans when he dissembles in the same way that they do?"

Noting that Nader's new book is titled: Crashing the Party: How to tell the truth and still run for president, Crickenberger said, "Libertarians understand the book has received excellent reviews, and we urge Mr. Nader to read it."

-- (roland@hatemail.cpom), January 17, 2002


Funny, I didn't see the words "lying bastard" anywhere in there.

-- (flair@for.dramatic), January 18, 2002.

Librarians call Nader a bastard's lying father.

-- (Marion@Lying-in.Hospital), January 19, 2002.

"Unfortunately for Nader, saying so doesn't make it so,"

and unfortunately for Libertarians, the same is true.

Maybe they are the liars, trying to discredit Nader by using the same kind of mud-slinging tactics that the Repugs use against the Dems. It sure sounds like it.

-- (looks like a duck @ walks. like a duck), January 19, 2002.

Of course the people who have every reason in the world to call Nader dirty names are the Democrats. My mother and brother are both "yellow dog Democrats" (meaning they will vote for whom the Dems are running even if it's a yellow dog). My mother, being of a more genteel generation, might consider "lying son of a bitch" sufficient to describe Nader. Not so my brother, I can tell you that.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.

That's quite a leap you got there, Peter Rabbit. Your conclusion that all Democrats feel the same way as your ignorant mother is based on as much factual information as your conclusion that "Afghanistan has no oil". ROTFL!

-- (quit@being.stupid), January 19, 2002.

The fight for third place is always intense. Hell, it's the last spot on the podium.

-- Carlos (, January 19, 2002.

To "don't be stupid":

Nader deliberately, with malice aforethought, threw the election to Bush. Any Democrat with a lick of sense (and my mother is quite smart and well informed) knows that to be true, even if you don't.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.

To "quit being stupid" (sorry to get your name wrong on the previous post) you've got me thinking, who is this unique species of shithead. I wonder whoooooo it could be.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.


Nader deliberately, with malice aforethought, threw the election to Bush.

That is certainly what the Green Party said they were trying to do on their Web site before the election. For me; I doubt that they have the influence to throw an election for dog catcher. ;o)))

Best Wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 19, 2002.

Nader cost Gore Florida, and I think one of the New England states (Vermont?) and made the race much closer (in some states Gore won) than if he had not campaigned (very very hard) in those states.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.


At one time the Green party had something to say that we could listen to. They are now the political arm of a group of terrorist organizations. Ten years ago, they had a number of elected people in the county. Because of their shift, we decided to oppose them. Just copied the animal rights crap and calls for violent action from their web site before they changed them [which they did going up to the election]. Talked to people and told them what the new Green Party stood for [particularlly effective was the the article that they had on pets; in summary, it is not natural or moral for people to keep animals as pets. Laws should be passed forcing liberation of the slave animals. Otherwise, in their interests, the animals should be collected and removed from life (that last one is a quote, ;o)))). It was fun going into homes and telling little kids that the Greens wanted to off their pets. Wonder why the candidates quit?] Before the election, there were no more candidates; they withdrew. This is a very liberal county; makes Eugene seem a conservative place. Nader barely got votes here. Just get out the information [no need for propaganda] and you will win; when you are dealing with such a violent, radical group.

Best Wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 19, 2002.


You said it yourself. If your mother chooses to slander decent candidates and give no serious consideration to anyone except a Democratic candidate even if the Democrat is inferior, then she is choosing to be ignorant. Dubya used corrupt tactics to steal the presidency, to blame it on Nader indicates that she is not only ignorant but incredibly weak-minded and irresponsible.

-- (your mother @ needs. help), January 19, 2002.

OK, Unc, there's an asshole here you really should get rid of.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.

Oh really? I see the fascist Repug is showing his true colors!

LOL! It is just like you to try to censor anyone who doesn't agree with completely unfounded slanderous accusations by your ignorant mother that a very respectable presidential candidate is a "lying son of a bitch". You are a pitiful scumbag, Errorton.

-- (fuck@off.fascist), January 19, 2002.

Simmer down, Louis.

For starters, learn to read. I never said my mother said those words, true as they undoubtedly are. I said she might accept those words, which was how the thread started, as an adequate description.

Certainly the truth about Nader's lying is obvious. One need consider only his often repeated claim that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. A truly sickening and cynical attempt to fool the weak-minded.

Moving right along among the fallacies that litter your wee mind, I am not a Republican. As far as my fascism goes, it is the response of any normal person to your intolerable self.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.

I'll tell you what is intolerable... some spineless coward who doesn't have the guts or the proof to back up his slander, so he hides behind his own mother.

-- lol (peter@mama's.boy), January 19, 2002.

It is not often that one gets a chance to see the prelogical mind in full flower.

Spineless coward? I use my own name. And more to the point, I don't hide behind an anonymiser.

No proof? What the hell does anyone need, after what I have just said.

Hiding behind my mother? I have merely defended her, against your idiocies.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.

"It is not often that one gets a chance to see the prelogical mind in full flower."

Around here it is much too often, like every time you post. Your idiotic conclusions are not based on anything which resembles truth, but instead only on your self-gratifying delusions and the naive sentimental speculation of your ignorant family.

"Spineless coward? I use my own name. And more to the point, I don't hide behind an anonymiser."

Your name is no more real to any of us than any other handles used unless you can provide proof that you actually use that name in the real world. I don't use an anonymizer either numbskull, that must be just another one of your completely uniformed deductions.

"No proof? What the hell does anyone need, after what I have just said."

LOL! Of course, whatever YOU say is the absolute truth, how silly of me to question you!

"Hiding behind my mother? I have merely defended her, against your idiocies."

You wanted to call Nader a liar yourself, but instead you chose to cowardly use your mother to make such an unfounded claim, now you are trying to say that you didn't even say your mother said it. Sheesh, what a wimp!

-- (you started the slander @ wimpy. boy), January 19, 2002.

Gee, Louis, don't you think you maybe ought to reread your stuff before you post it?

For example, you say "Now you are trying to say that you didn't even say your mother said it."

Well, I didn't say my mother said it. That's because she didn't.

Here are my exact words: "My mother....might consider lying son of a bitch sufficient to describe Nader." Is that sentence too long for you to take in?

The rest of your post is just noise, not worth responding to, except you do make an interesting point about not using an anonymiser. Possibly not an anonymiser as such, but I bet it's darn hard to trace you, isn't it, little boy.

-- Peter Errington (, January 19, 2002.


What a wussy! You can't even admit you meant what you said without trying to weasel out of it!

Well, excuuuuse me! I guess I misunderstood your complicated sentence structure. When you said your mother might consider Nader a lying son of a bitch, that really means that she doesn't think he is a liar at all? Oh, okay! LOL! You should consider politics yourself, you'd be perfect!

As for your half-assed theory on some kind of anonymizer, try again dipshit. Go ahead and ask Unk, he can tell you that I always post from the same IP location. If you keep this up we're going to have to just call you the ASS, because you make so many stupid ASSumptions!

-- ROTFL! (you@are.braindead), January 19, 2002.

Can you really not understand some of these nuances of the English language, or are you just playing dumb.

"unfounded slanderous accusations by your ignorant mother" means you think she gave utterance.

"Now you are trying to say that you didn't even say your mother said it" means you think I said that she gave utterance, to the phrase "lying son of a bitch."

Now Louis, in English at least, and I suspect most other languages, there is a difference between uttering something, on the one hand, and thinking it (in this case knowing it) on the other hand. I refer you once again to the key words "my mother..might consider."

"Go ahead and ask Unk.." OK, I will. Unk, isn't this person hiding behind an untraceable arrangement?

-- Peter Errington (, January 20, 2002.

Louis, I've sort of gone easy on your hero, Mr. Nader, because there really is more to criticize about the man than the obvious fact that he is a lying son of a bitch. Now you should perhaps consult your dictionary about what I am going to say next. You throw the fairly big words around, but at times seem unclear as to what they really mean (did you ever bone up on the difference between "utter", and "think, agree with"). Anyway, the word I am going to give you, and please look it up in the dictionary to get some grasp of its inner meaning, is "egomaniac", the perfect word to describe Nader.

-- Peter Errington (, January 20, 2002.

LOL! You're a joke Errorton, a complete waste of my time. You must be living in a completely solitary world of self-delusion. You keep making assumptions, and every single one of them is wrong!

You ASSUME that your mother thinks Nader is a liar, but then you try to back out of it. Then you ASSUME that I am using an anomynizer, and I'm not. Then you ASSUME that I am someone named Louis, and I'm not. Then you ASSUME that Nader is a lying son of a bitch and an egomaniac, but you have no proof.

I can't think of a single thing you have ever said on this forum that actually has any basis in reality. You'll never realize what a fool you are because you simply manufacture delusions in your mind, then you believe that everything you think of is true! If you ever become capable of getting real and being honest with yourself, then we can talk about the real world. Until then, you are deluding no one but yourself.

-- (dream.on@error.boy), January 20, 2002.

My, my. So my references to "someone named Louis" really mystify you.

-- Peter Errington (, January 20, 2002.

OK, this guy isn't using anonimizer.



How can someone who is QUITE smart (and my mother is quite smart and well informed) vote for whom the Dems are running even if it's a yellow dog)??

-- Uncle Deedah (, January 20, 2002.


Thanks for checking, re the anonymizer. My larger point (and I'd bet my house against a donut on this) is that this person is using an arrangement which hides his identity.

About politics: As I'm sure you know, living in the South, "yellow dog Democrat" is a humorous exaggeration which came out of the South, describing an extremely committed Democrat. Which my mother certainly is. I disagree with her political choices, but hell, there are Republicans who are smart and well-informed with whom I disagree politically. (As you might gather from this, I'm an Independent.)

Naderites are different, in my judgement. To follow that egomaniac lying son of a bitch ("There is no real choice between Gore and Bush") boggles my mind.

-- Peter Errington (, January 20, 2002.

Gee people get silly when they discuss politics.

-- (cin@cin.cin), January 20, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ