Slashdot Mirror
The Nader Factor
TolkiEinstein writes "The NY Times is running an article on The Nader Factor that details the threat level old Ralph represents to John Kerry. Nader has made it on the ballots of 30 states, and polls show he could influence the outcome of 9 states where the race is a dead heat. While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush. Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans. As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."
Very few Americans I've meet have even thought that their might be other ways to run a democracy. In my country we use a system of proportional represention. Every vote counts. In the states most people's vote are totally useless because they come from states/electoral colleges where one party has a clear majority. The US works under a system that fails to meet the basic requirements of a democracy - That is everyone votes, and all votes are equal.
American's need to stop thinking that they are the home of democracy and the land of the free. To the outside world they look like a corporate run country with corrupt politician.
Sometimes I hope that Bush wins this upcoming election and then continues to runs the economy into the ground so the rest of the world can start ignoring the US. What really pisses me off is when Americans I've meet around the world (including when I lived in the US) think that the rest of the world is jellous of them.
As someone from New Zealand, I look at the states and I'm pleased I don't live there. I live in a country with democratic representation, freedom of speach, human rights for all... and NZs generally got a better quality of life for all residents no mater whether they are rich or poor.
NZ slashdotter
PS- we let women vote before the US even considered it.
Inasmuch Nader is the only candidate that isn't in Israel's grasp, a [N]ew York Times article sent in by an 'Einstein' denouncing him is just a bit obvious. Heh.
It's not much of a secret that those with money want to preserve it. The big issue is when people such as yourself demonize anyone who is successful, as you would apparently be unsatisified unless we were all poor sods.
You know, after you put me on your enemies list, I've taken interest in reading what you post. It has become my opinion that you are a fucking moron. Your website is horrible, as you quote fucking morons, and you post hate-filled, ignorant diatribe.
Instead of insisting you are more informed than the rest of us, how about you become informed. And stop reading Chomsky, unless you're reading his works directly related to linguistics.
Chomsky once said, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them."
Indeed he can't, and neither can you, Cryofan, with all your vociferousness.
Let us discuss what appears to be your hero, Chomsky, for a moment:
So let us get it straight; He hates Stalinism, fascism, capitalism, free markets, and American libertarianism. He also denounces Marxism, Keynesianism, protectionism, and most everything else. He spends so much time criticizing, but yet he proposes little. I'm not surprised why. Everything he does advocate falls on its face before it gets out of the starting gates. Chomsky favors a vague and undefined form of collective ownership.
as von Mises said, "Syndaclism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dare to write openly and clearly in its favor."
as Jame Ostrowski said [on Chomsky], "..., he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy."
Chomsky supports a system that CAN exist in a free market society, as long as their not coercing anyone. Of course, they could never compete in a free market (because of their inefficiency and because of the lack of workers to afford major risk), which might lead one to understand why Noam Chomsky, like Marx, supported violence.
[A little bit of online resource might reveal where he supported aggression...].
I'm sure your little video documentary, if you were not just spitting bullshit, would be quite successful with alot of the little ignorant tossers here at slashdot, but no respectable individual will give you the time of day.
Oh, and the reason why people mod you down is because you're a moron, not because they are simply right-wing or libertarian. It is not your views, or even Chomsky's views, that causes them to mod you down, it is the fact that you are so caustic with so little substance. For someone who claims to be so much, and to be doing so much in life, you come off as an individual worth very little -- filled with hate and jealousy.
Unfortunately, it seems you have a little bit of a following with all the little 14-15 year old angsty "anti-corporate" types here at slashdot.
I ask you, if I email you for open discussion on the articles on your website, would you be willing to debate me in a less chaotic atmosphere. In other words, would you grant me the opportunity to initiate an email discussion on your website? I wouldn't want to email you a challenge out of the blue for fear of being labelled a "fundie-right-winger" or something... *rolls-eyes*
Speckpot?