Ralph Nader

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Anarchy Again : One Thread

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."

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 02, 2002

Answers

Why so worried about Nader?

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 03, 2002.

I noticed you refused to respond the last time I posted this. So the question should be, why are you avoiding the facts?

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 04, 2002.

That was harsh. Sorry. Just tell me if it is right. Or if you have information to prove otherwise. I question everything I am told. And I am not a Libertarian Slave. I just wish for a Greens perspective on this Libertarian Attack.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 04, 2002.

maybe the Greens have overtaken the Libertarians? The Greens are growing in geometric proporation lately. Big numbers birthing all over up here. there signs sit right next to the dem and repubs on the sides of the roads. the libertarians are just on the ballet. sorry Tator. That's what I see up here anyway. There are bumper stickers up here to that say I Vote To Protect The Environment. I don't see Libertarian ones. I think I notice the ground starting to heave with Green activity.

-- (apple_happy@happy_pirate.com), April 05, 2002.

I agree with Happyapplepirate, I think, Tator. I don't have any data on which of these two paties is "bigger". I only know which is better, and I won't go there, because "comparisons are odious".

I've already explained my position on Libertarianism. It looks good on paper, but won't work in real life. You yourself have agreed with this, insofar as saying that "certain aspects" of the Libertarian party don't work. I'm sure that some parts of it will work, but not enough to suit me.

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 05, 2002.



we shouldn't have killed in indians and we shouldn't destroy the environment. political renaissance we need.

-- (pool_shark_pirate@dumpy.com), April 05, 2002.

Hear, hear, Jules!

Uh, are you feeling dumpy today?

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 07, 2002.


Yes we should save the Enviroment but most of the solutions I see will raise prices so high the poor wont be able to afford stuff. Most enviromental stuff hurt rich buisnessmen at first, but that is just passed along to the consumer. Leaving the rich untouched and the poor fucked. And dont say that the Government should help them, no us, because they are the ones that started this mess to begin with.

As for the Indians, Long Live Tucumsa!!!

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 07, 2002.


And the Greens have done very well. I admit that. They are mainly getting along in the Coastal States. Just like the Democrates. The Libertarians are doing good in the Mountains. East side of the Rockies. Not so good in Coastal States or the South. (Farmers down here like their subsidies). The best place to be a Libertarian right now is Costa Rica. They are making great strides and have only been around for like a decade. They might even have a Libertarian President in the next 10 years.

As for the Greens, why werent they allowed to debate with Bush and Gore? Browne and Buchannon werent allowed either. That is a terrible shame. All should be allowed to debate. Left, Right, Third Parties, and even Independents.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 07, 2002.


I have returned.

Tator, you say:

***"Yes we should save the Enviroment but most of the solutions I see will raise prices so high the poor wont be able to afford stuff. Most enviromental stuff hurt rich buisnessmen at first, but that is just passed along to the consumer. Leaving the rich untouched and the poor fucked. And dont say that the Government should help them, no us, because they are the ones that started this mess to begin with.

As for the Indians, Long Live Tucumsa!!"***

Hasn't that ALWAYS been the case though? For EVERYTHING, not just the environment? If something bad happened because something in the environment went down the crapper because we DIDN'T do anything, the rich would still just pass the cost on to us all the same, just as they always have.

Enough of that, I say! Why don't we make the rich help shoulder the burdens and suffer the consequences of our collective choices just like everyone else on this planet? Privilege and responsibility are not mutually exclusive, nor should they EVER be.

-- Nexar (Itsstil@asecret.com), April 08, 2002.


Tator sez, "most of the solutions I see will raise prices so high the poor wont be able to afford stuff.".

Well, maybe. But if, as you say, MOST solutions raise the prices excessively, how about we START with the ones you are comfortable with? Care to tell us which are which?

Nexar, right on: "Why don't we make the rich help shoulder the burdens and suffer the consequences of our collective choices just like everyone else on this planet?"

Tator, even the poor in this country cannot afford to have the environment destroyed, ya know!

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 08, 2002.


Besides, aren't you the one who says that the poor will be taken care of under Libertarians by those of us who are generous enough to do so? So how will the poor end up "fucked"?

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 08, 2002.

Why dont we make the rich.....!!! Hell, why dont we make the Blacks do all the labor for free? That would also benifit alot of people! Or we could shove Jews into ovens! Yeah! That wouldnt hurt me none. Im not a Jew. (if you cant see the sarcasm, i feel sorry for you)

You are trying to divide people. Seperate them into classes, groups. You arent an individual. You are mearly a member of your predetermened group. You are White, Black, Male, Female, Rich, Poor, etc., etc.

OK. Heres how buisness works. Lets say I grow apples. You grow apples. We compete. But you have better trees, soil, whatever. And are therefore able to produce more for less money than me. And that means that you can sell for less. Meaning you will get all the buisness. Should you be punished for providing what the people want at a resonable cost? Should you be taxed any more than me? If you want to be fare in taxes, how about we tax noone?

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 09, 2002.


Dont split people into groups. That leads to stereotyping and racism/sexism/whateverism.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 10, 2002.

Thought for the Day

For the Working Man

About Robin Hood. He didnít steal from the rich to give to the poor. He took from the tax collector to give back to those who earned it. George Bush is much more like Robin Hood than Teddy Kennedy.

For Bosses and Supervisors

Ask one of your employees next week how much they had to pay in taxes this year. If they say "I didn't have to pay anything, I'm getting some back." ---- FIRE THEM.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 10, 2002.



Sorry you can't see the difference between two apple growers and between the rich and the poor, Tator.

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 11, 2002.

So Robin Hood was after the tax collector. The tax collector took to money from the poor. Hmmm, to whom was the tax collector taking the money to? Hmmmm...IIRC, it was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John. Yup, that's right, a couple of rich guys...

Abolishing taxes will do nothing to solve the problem of greed, though it may give a few greedy people some headaches temporarily. Then they'll just find another way to take your money.

-- Nexar (a@a.com), April 11, 2002.


Tator, you just simply don't get it.

Many of the rich got that way not through honest means, but by robbing and cheating other people. They should be punished for the criminals they are. Problem is, they have hijacked our government and are using it to protect their interests. Many of them did NOT earn their positions in society. They should be made to pay their dues.

And don't be fooled by that bullshit that the rich carry the heaviest tax burden. The largest percentage of the money that the government COLLECTED AS REVENUE came from the highest tax brackets. ***This is not the same as saying that the wealthy pay the highest percentage of their OWN income as taxes***

The rich are not carrying their fair share of the burden. In fact, in terms of percentage of personal income, the rich pay only a fraction of what regular folks like YOU have to pay. Many of these guys have extensive knowledge of the loopholes in the Tax Code (they should know, I'm almost positive they've bribed their congressmen to put them in there...) and many proudly boast of their ability to cheat the Taxman.

As for this whole bit about the rich paying most of the taxes, consider this scenario...

1. There are ten people. Five of them make $10,000 per year each, the other five make $10,000,000 per year each.

2. These ten people every must pay a ten percent flat tax.

First, the five guys making $10,000 per year
$10,000 x 10% = $1000
$1000 x 5 = $5000
Taxes paid: $5000

Now for the $10,000,000 per year guys
$10,000,000 x 10% = $1,000,000
$1,000,000 x 5 = $5,000,000
Taxes paid: $5,000,000

Taxes paid by $10,000 per year bracket: $5000
Taxes paid by $10,000,000 per year bracket: $5,000,000
Total revenue: $5,005,000

Percentage of revenue from $10,000 per year bracket: .1%
Percentage of revenue from $10,000 per year bracket: 99.9%

Of course, this is grossly simplified (and gross understatment at that) compared to the actual tax situation, but I hope it illustrates my point.

In a nutshell, the rich want you to believe that they are paying 99.9% of their own income in taxes when in reality, they are only paying 10%, figuratively speaking.


-- Nexar (a@a.com), April 11, 2002.

That one part of the example should say:

Percentage of revenue from the $10,000,000 per year bracket: 99.9%

-- Nexar (a@a.com), April 12, 2002.

"Should you be punished for providing what the people want at a resonable cost?"

No, but that's not the point. Speaking in a figurative sense again: Most of the "Rich Apple Growers" anymore didn't get their fortunes by providing what people wanted at reasonable. More likely, they made their fortunes by poisoning the water, infesting the trees with fungus and parasites and countless other dirty tricks in order to drive the other guy out of business, so they can be the ONLY ones that can provide people with what they want.

Well, maybe the Rich is too broad of a group to target, but what about the Corrupt Rich?

Blacks do not deserve to be enslaved. Jews don't deserve to be gassed, but Crooks MOST CERTAINLY DESERVE to be punished!!

-- Nexar (a@a.com), April 12, 2002.

Here here.

-- (bigapple@starshine.net), April 12, 2002.

Don't have you have anything more to say than "here,here'? The antics of Bush, Sharon, and their cronies are making me so angry that I'm on the brink of doing something rash and all you have to say is "here, here"? It's going to take more than that to defuse this timebomb.

-- Nexar (a@a.com), April 12, 2002.

The purpous of government is to protect a persons Life, Liberty, and Property. So it should be that I have ultament freedom until I infrendge on anothers life, liberty, or property. If I want to sit at home and smoke weed, how does that infrindge on your rights. If I want to be gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslum, whatever, how can they regulate me?

And for those of you that wish to federalize everything think of this, the oldest federalized buisness, the postal service, continually runs in the red and raises prices constantly. They have no need to be productive. Be cause their jobs dont depend on it. THey get paid through taxes, not profits.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 12, 2002.


Tator, you are a stubborn son of a gun.

Who said anything about "federalizing everything? And your Libertarian party thinks we should avoid all government, except what? LIfe, liberty and property? OK, let's have private businesses do all the road maintenance from now on. Yeah, right. What, you want to put a road through my property? Don't think so. Oh, well, no road THERE. or THERE, or THERE, or THERE!!!

What, you're home is under attack? Just call the local Libertarian party; they'll send a man right out.

Oh, you say you don't like the polution from that chemical factory which moved into your beautiful neighborhood? Oh, well, so it goes; no zoning under Libertarian policies, and no regulations on those chemical plants. Say you don't want that biological warfare lab next door? So sorry...

Nexar, I also say, "hear hear"! I liked what you said, so that's my response. I don't know how to solve all these problems. I've been pretty successful at solving some of our local problems, but I feel very cut off from President Select Strangelove, and all his cronies.

I am going to two peace rallies in the next two weeks. It doesn't seem like enough, but I guess it's a start; it took fifteen bloody years of protesting to get NOXIN and his chums out of Viet Nam. I guess I'd better get started.

Nexar, I'd welcome some leadership here; what kind of action would you suggest? I'm not into violent solutions, by the way.

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 12, 2002.


Oh, Nexar, I did think of two other ideas; we, here in Orygun, have two initiative petitions going around. One is for campaign finance reform. I suspect even if its passed, it will be gotten around by the politicians, but I'll be gathering signatures anyway.

Second is an initiiative called the "Instant Runoff Voting" Initiative. This one has real promise, imho. Basically, if there are three candidates running for one office, you vote for your favorite, your second favorite, and your least favorite.

In the case of, for instance, Strangelove, Bore and Nader, I'd have voted Nader first choice, Bore second, and Strangelove last. Since Nader got the least votes, all the people who voted for him would have their votes go to their second choice.

I'm afraid I'm making this sound more complicated than it is. The end result of this law, if we pass it, would be to allow people to actually vote for their favorite candidate without having to worry about "a vote for Nader is a vote for Strangelove".

Of course, these two initiatives are only for Oregon, which is one of the states with an Initiative process. Residents of many states don't have the "right" to Initiatives (put to a vote by the voters themselves.) Neither, unfortunately, do the Federales, alas.

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 12, 2002.


I'm going to go sit by JOJ.

-- (dark_apple@black_hawk.com), April 14, 2002.

I like Campaine Finance Reform. I just dont like the part about Non- Canidate Ads being banned or something like that. That would keep the NRA from practicing its freedom of speach. As well as TRUTH and R.A.T. You know, the anti tobacco ads. No more of them either. Or womens rights ads like the Pro Choise Ads. Nope. None from the Left or Right. (Oh, and I hate the NRA).

And before I forget, about your, "What if someone is attacking your home?" comment, that is for both yourself and the police to handle. The police are after all an arm of the Local and State governments. And they are there (or should be) to protect your life, liberty, or property.

And zoning laws? I dont know too much about them. I live in the country and it is a non issue for me. But I would think that it would be handled by Locally Elected Aldermen. And NOT the Feds.

Amazing isnt it? I am Pro~Choise and support a persons right to love who they wish but I get the most shit from those who also are. Yep, I'm Pro~Choise, Pro~Choise about Everything! From Abortion to Abstinance and everything inbetween.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 14, 2002.


Tator, I didn't know that your LP platform only referred to the feds. I thought LP was against government spending, regardless of whether it be fed, state or local.

I live in the country too, Tator, and believe me, zoning laws DO affect you. I've been active in zoning law battles for almost thirty years now! We rural folks are the front line in zoning laws.

I'm in favor of very strict laws, forget this pro-choice shit. Well, maybe pro choice on some of the things you mentioned, but certainly not pro choice on abstinence. We need strong national laws forbidding abstinence.

Hi, Dark apple. Glad you're sitting over here. A little closer, if you please. :-)

-- joj (joj@home.org), April 14, 2002.


I mean, people should do ehat they want, as long as it dont affect me, I dont care. And thats the honest truth. My neighbor is a Pill Head. As long as he stays over there and doesnt touch my stuff, I dont care. I know a few Gay Guys. As long as they aint Sexually Herassing me, we can be friends, I dont care what they do.

You can get togather with a bunch of friends or other conserned people and put a portion of your money into a pot to help whomever or whatever yall choose. As long as you aint forcing me out of mine, I dont care, hell, I might even throw in a few bucks (If I agree with the cause, like toys and food for kids).

You can protest the war all you want. Any more of the run around by Ol' Big G and I will be right there beside you. But as long as I dont mess with anyperson or their property, why should they care.

-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 15, 2002.




-- Dick Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.com), April 15, 2002.

I don't really have any of the hard numbers you have, but I gotta tell you, the Greens have one big thing going for them: a big name. If you go up and ask ten random people on the street who the Green Candidate for president is, at least 8 will be able to say "Nader". But if you ask who the Libertarian candidate is, you'll be lucky if you get 2 to answer correctly. Now I'm not saying that the Green Party is bigger, they may just have more publicity. I don't know. I am a Green.

-- Anti-bush (bizkitnut666@hotmail.com), July 12, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ