Stalinesque Nader supporters violate the Green Party non-violence value.

[LoZoccolo]

From the Ten Key Values of the Green Party:

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

http://www.gp.org/tenkey.html

I've seen some (not all) Nader supporters here advocating letting George W. Bush win the election because that way, things will get so bad that people will run to a "progressive" candidate four years later, or bring a complete collapse of this country so that we can start over. This is similiar to the strategy of some German communists who refused to prevent Hitler from coming to power because they figured things would get so bad that people would eventually run to them.

I find this to be a cop-out on this value of non-violence. It is basically just using the Republicans to attack people and make their lives miserable. Discuss.

[lovedems]

1. I say the last 3+ years have been punishment enough.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Yeah no shit this is Wedgie Fever politics.

For those old enough to remember the SNL skit, I'm referring to the part at the end where the Jon Lovitz character kept getting intentional wedgies going...

OKLAHOMA!

[mstrsplinter326]

3. flamebait

but you know i love it anyway.

Few sane people who have actually calculated the cost of Bush II, Part II would offer that opinion. It obviously didn work for part I. The DNC, the party or its candidates did not get more liberal than in 2000

[LoZoccolo]

4. OKLAHOMA!

"Hey, he's should know that, he's from New Haven!"

[LoZoccolo]

5. P.S. Just because it is so true does not mean that it's flamebait.

I have seen actual people state this as their position here. Stalin. Stalin. These people use tactics of Stalin.

[mstrsplinter326]

6. so does george bush, fight him first, nader second....

I know you think you are fighting nader to fight bush, but go ahead, tell me that nader=bush.... :)

[LoZoccolo]

7. It is easier to argue strategy than values.

Nader supporters already have left-wing values, they're just way off on strategy.

[mstrsplinter326]

10. You would have it that my strategy for furthering gp values

would be to elect someone who flies in the face of the values I hope to promote.

In a lesser of two evils situation, there is always a solution that has been overlooked.

I wouldn't ask you to vote for Nader, Bush, Buchannon, etc. Yet you would ask me to vote for Kerry... That makes as much sense as you voting for Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Key word, "elect".

Not "vote for", "elect".

Yes, more of your values are promoted by Kerry than Bush*.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Plus real people get fucked over.

Children, gays and lesbians, women, you hurt people when you fail to cooperate with people who care about all these people who are trying to get things less bad for all these people. Sure you can name off 10 or 12 things that you feel Kerry is deficient in, but everyone who's still different between the two get fucked over.

Listen, I could really care less who you vote for in Indiana. Just don't export this carelessness and frivolity to other states, this cavalier attitude toward the people for whom there is a difference. There's people with their heat getting turned off and stuff that didn't happen four years ago. Please care about those people; I do.

[mstrsplinter326]

17. I am not exporting anything other than ideals

I've never told someone else who to vote for, I just believe that Kerry will be more of the same.

Remember the Cadillac commercial: "If everything were just 'good enough,' would anything ever really be 'good enough?'"
The answer is, of course, NO.

Yeah sure, Kerry's 'good enough,' if you don't really ever want things to be better.

But I'd rather build the Green Party up to step into the power vacuum that the democrats opened when they began stepping 'right' after Carter failed his reelection attempt.

If the democrats realize the movement and co-opt it, great! That's the plan!
If not, that's fine too, they can shoot themselves in the leg all they want. But I am not going down with this ship, just in the name of towing the party line. Kick and scream all you want about losing 2004, but it's all bull - if Kerry loses this election due to lost votes to the left: Learn a lesson! We will not be ignored anymore.

It's his to win or lose. Kerry: Want my vote? Seriously pledge to the 10 keys and ready a plan of action to convince me you're serious.

[LoZoccolo]

19. This seems to be effectively the strategy I was describing.

I've never told someone else who to vote for, I just believe that Kerry will be more of the same.

Hardly, and we'll call you on that. You think we're beating up on your candidate but we've brought up some very legitimate stuff.

Yeah sure, Kerry's 'good enough,' if you don't really ever want things to be better.

Bullshit. Things will be worse under Bush* than Kerry, just as we saw they were worse under Bush* than they would have been under Gore (Iraq war being one thing). Nader is not going to win.

But I'd rather build the Green Party up to step into the power vacuum that the democrats opened when they began stepping 'right' after Carter failed his reelection attempt.

The World Health Organization claims that about 160,000 people a year die from global warming. Bush* isn't even sure if he believes in this, and his policies reflect that. If it takes just four years for this vacuum to be filled (doesn't look much like it as the Democratic vote is still many times the Nader vote), 640,000 people will have died by then. As I say, this is a Stalinesque strategy, and it looks like you're starting to admit to be following it.

But I am not going down with this ship, just in the name of towing the party line.

It's not "just in the name of towing the party line" and anyone who claims that is lying. It's in the name of all the people who are losing federal funding for stuff that they rely on, kids whose education is being messed up with the unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind, people who might die in another draft - a lot of stuff that you are flat-out ignoring and don't care enough to do something about.

Kick and scream all you want about losing 2004, but it's all bull - if Kerry loses this election due to lost votes to the left: Learn a lesson! We will not be ignored anymore.

Using the Republicans to inflict harm on people is the Stalin strategy I talk about.

Plus, as I say again and again - get yourself heard by the voters. No candidate is going to support fringe ideas that most people don't understand that can easily be lied about by the right-wing. Go and actually participate in democracy rather than screwing over everyone who depends on the very real differences between Kerry and Bush*.

[mstrsplinter326]

24. Nader is not going to win. (No way...)

"Things will be worse under Bush"
- So Kerry will be 'good enough,' just like I said

"Plus, as I say again and again - get yourself heard by the voters."
- More like 'your get heard by the mainstream media, who are controlled by the same people who control the two major parties' So of course few people will vote for the Green party or Nader.

"Using the Republicans to inflict harm on people is the Stalin strategy I talk about."
- Stop thinking in negatives. I never said I want Bush to win, I want Bush to lose, just not at any cost. Would you like to see Buchanan replace Bush? That's an extreme example, but I think it shows how I feel about some of Kerry's policies.

Nader is not going to win
- Duh.

It's in the name of all the people who are losing federal funding for stuff that they rely on, kids whose education is being messed up with the unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind, people who might die in another draft.
- So they lose a little less if Kerry gets elected, great, now where are we? Back to election 2000.

If I were to wait for the day when people like you tell me when I can build a third party, I'd wait for ETERNITY. Changing the modern paradigm is more important ANYTHING ELSE. It's not coming through Kerry.

If defeating bush is goal #1, don't you see something wrong? People should vote FOR candidates, but that's not what either 2004 will be about or what 2000 was about.

Why isn't the green party and instant hit? Because we don't deal in negatives and fear mongering. We don't aim to defeat candidates, we aim to aid candidates that stand for something. We don't extol consequence-filled rhetoric, but rather positive, action filled messages.

Love the debate, going to work for a few hours, will check in later.

[sangh0]

27. Stop thinking in negatives??? Take your own advice!!

Here's the negatives I found in just one of your posts

So Kerry will be 'good enough,' just like I said

More like 'your get heard by the mainstream media, who are controlled by the same people who control the two major parties' So of course few people will vote for the Green party or Nader.

Stop thinking in negatives. I never said I want Bush to win, I want Bush to lose, just not at any cost. Would you like to see Buchanan replace Bush? That's an extreme example, but I think it shows how I feel about some of Kerry's policies.

So they lose a little less if Kerry gets elected, great, now where are we? Back to election 2000

It's not coming through Kerry

that's not what either 2004 will be about or what 2000 was about.

Actually, there were more negative comments in your post, but I think I made the point clear.

It's typical Nadirite hypocrisy. Criticize Nadir, and you're negative, but you think it's positive when YOU attack.

[mstrsplinter326]

32. I'm not using naders name...

Just for starters.

And using negatives isn't inherently bad, I was making a specific reference to a specific line of converstaion.

[sangh0]

33. So what?

You didn't complain about using Nadir's name. You complained about negativity, but once I pointed out that you were doing the same, it became "using Nadir's name" and "using negatives isn't inherently bad"

You didn't complain about using Nadir's name. You complained about negativity, but once I pointed out that you were doing the same, it became "using Nadir's name" and "using negatives isn't inherently bad"

So, it's OK when you do it, but when others do it, it's wrong.

[mstrsplinter326]

38. you read the header

and not the message, I responded to this already.

[sangh0]

41. I addressed everything in your post

so please don't imply things that just aren't true

[mstrsplinter326]

49. Posted over there...

I replied to the wrong line item: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=556171&mesg_id=556351&page=

[mstrsplinter326]

47. Looking back...

You:
"You didn't complain about using Nadir's name. You complained about negativity, but once I pointed out that you were doing the same, it became "using Nadir's name" and "using negatives isn't inherently bad""

After I said:
"And using negatives isn't inherently bad, I was making a specific reference to a specific line of converstaion."

[zoeyfong]

57. Right on, Brother, but you're planting in rocky ground here.

[zoeyfong]

56. Real people are already being f-ed over, thanks to dems, and i'm

sick and f-ing tired of it. You know, your ranting about the evils of bush would be a whole lot more moving if you were promoting a real alternative. All the bush-bashing is really just a diversionary tactic; Kerry (and a lot of dems) have shown that there is no principle that they will not abandon if doing so presents them with the slightest political advantage, so i'm not really getting my hopes up about any miraculous national turn-around under a kerry administration.

[QC]

62. Do the Republicans bear any responsibility for the fucking over?

Or is it all the fault of the Democrats?

[zoeyfong]

63. Jeezus H. Christ. OF COURSE repugs bear responsibility. I could

write a book on the evils of bush, repugs, and conservatism in general. What i can not stomach, is this representation of dems as the pure-as-the-driven-snow alternative. Dems are into the present disasterous state of affairs up to their elbows, so i really can not get all worked up about replacing bush with "anybody."

[LoZoccolo]

8. Plus you don't have to fight Bush* supporters here often.

As long as the conversation is taking place on Democratic Underground, the controversy will surround Nader because it's not controversial here that Bush* is not the favored candidate.

[mstrsplinter326]

9. true

BUt the bashing gets repetative and old pretty quickly - how would you feel if the roles were reversed? Nader favored and kerry the marginalized politician you believed in? Understand where I'm coming from?

[ulysses]

11. It's fun to play with big names, isn't it?

Stalin. Stalin. These people use tactics of Stalin.

Pavlov would be proud.

What's the historical basis for the statement? I know that Lenin used a similar strategy, but as far as I'm aware, Stalin tended toward more...direct ways of doing things.

Besides, the thing that never gets acknowledged in discussions of this "strategy", if it is such, is the belief of quite a few folks (myself included to a goodly extent) that the current direction of the Democratic party as a whole is taking us toward the same end as that of the Republicans, only more slowly.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Stalin encouraged German communists not to go with the rest of the left...

...against Hitler.

Anyways, there is no plan to get what you want (and quite a few people get fucked over) in letting George W. Bush get elected. Except for the Stalin strategy.

[Capn Sunshine]

14. Frankly , all I could think of was Molotov

Should Bush steal another election.
Tactically speaking

[LoZoccolo]

16. I say again and again, go for the issues.

Gay and lesbian activists have managed to get same-sex unions to be a major issue in this election, despite the fact that only about 6% or less of the population would register for them. They've brought this issue to actual voters and have gotten their support, many times the support of their actual constituency. That's the way to get things done. You have to mainstream your issues, and by that I mean get more people to support them. This is not only effective, but essential - if people don't understand your issues, the right-wing can make up a bunch of lies and rumors about them and you'll never get anything done and no candidate will conspiciously run on them.

Now there are a lot of Democratic voters that do have an interest in this next election - try getting taken seriously by them if you go ahead and do something that basically says you don't care about their issues.

I don't ask anyone to abandon their cause; I only ask them to do something that will actually work, and to respect the rest of the people in the big tent.

[mstrsplinter326]

21. Don't have to mainstream anything

Many of the key issues in this country are a matter of life or death. I refuse to mainstream my views, for example, on carinigins or global warming. If the rest of the country accepts eventual death by consumption of gasoline and 'diet' food & drink, I still don't think I will change my mind or my message.

And that's just the tip of the iceburg...

[LoZoccolo]

22. Perfect example right here.

Many of the key issues in this country are a matter of life or death. I refuse to mainstream my views, for example, on carinigins or global warming. If the rest of the country accepts eventual death by consumption of gasoline and 'diet' food & drink, I still don't think I will change my mind or my message.

You don't care one bit if anyone else understands what you stand for, and are willing to let everyone die because of that.

Madness. Sick.

[LoZoccolo]

23. I can't believe how sick this is.

What value do you have making sure no one else understands this stand you take? What is even the point of taking it with a protest vote? I totally don't fucking understand you.

Other people: see what happens when you get people to elaborate on this mentality enough? Is this really the kind of stuff you want making frenzied runs around your mind?

[mstrsplinter326]

25. So by voting for what I believe in and

Sustaining myself in the face of modern insanity, I am the insane one.

One example of many:
I don't want my kids to drink diet sodas from aluminum cans before they understand it will give them increased risk of cancer and Alzheimer's disease. (of course they're free to choose, but I'd just like them to know and have it be reinforced)

That makes me insane? What's it take to be sane?

What's the point of a protest vote?

PROTEST!!

People do understand, they're just regularly denied the information, mostly by the RNC and the DNC who jointly control the presidental debates and many other things directly and indirectly.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Yes, that is sick and irresponsible. Why care if you don't care?

I said:

You have to mainstream your issues, and by that I mean get more people to support them.

You said:

I refuse to mainstream my views, for example, on carinigins or global warming. If the rest of the country accepts eventual death by consumption of gasoline and 'diet' food & drink, I still don't think I will change my mind or my message.

You have some sort of belief, but you not only don't do things that would support those beliefs, you flat-out refuse to do them. You refuse to make other people understand them. It is more important that you express them the way you choose than to actually help people with them. That is weird. And narcissistic.

I don't understand why someone would hold beliefs that are supposed to help people, and turn around and say that they are so important that you are willing to let those same people get harmed and killed to get them accomplished. That's a seriously deep contradiction, and twisted, but I'm glad we laid bare the core of the third-party philosophy here so people know exactly what they're getting into when they choose to support it.

What's the point of a protest vote?

PROTEST!!

To do so in a manner that makes things worse for other people according to your own values is not just ineffective, it's narcisisstic.

This is puzzling in a different way, though:

People do understand, they're just regularly denied the information, mostly by the RNC and the DNC who jointly control the presidental debates and many other things directly and indirectly.

People understand things that they are denied information about? I don't get that.

[sangh0]

29. The "principled" position of Nadirites is "I care. Now go drop dead"

.

[zoeyfong]

59. I'm afraid that you have been misinformed about the 'life-saving'

properties of a kerry adminstration. Choosing a candidate who will take the country over a cliff at a slightly slower speed than Republicans is not preferable to choosing a candidate who will reverse the country's direction and prevent the catstrophe. And yeah, nader's not going to win, but i am still going to go on record as saying that the political course of this nation needs to be radically changed. If no one ever speaks up against the two major parties, then there is certain disaster ahead, and it is only a matter of time.

[mstrsplinter326]

30. Going off the deep end, you can let off the gas, but i'm hitting the brake

- People understand things that they are denied information about? I don't get that.

Information denied modern coverage is igonred, not misuderstood.
People are DENIED the information of the things they understand and would probably accept and/or be interested in.

narcisism defined by your post:
Being interested enough in your own health and well being to the point of shunning those who refuse to listen to your message. You can only help the willing, but no one will be willing if they never get whole truths or historical backround.

"Palestinian bombers kill 30 israelis" - Sounds horrific and unwarranted until you know the truth about the situation. Palestinians work in sweat shop conditions, when and if they are allowed to work at all. They are in regular fear of death or homelessness. They are denied regular amenities like WATER.
- Now it still sounds horrific, but you find yourself wondering what you would do in such a situation. (Again extreme example, proves point)

I never said I wouldn't help people, but as long as they don't have the right information (whose outlets are controlled by the people you support) they will never be willing. Do you see how the circle of getting the right information and becoming active works? but it works backward too. The wrong information promotes apathy. The circle has to be stopped somewhere so it can go the other way.
If you felt like you were speeding off the cliff, do you think just letting of the gas would prevent going over? Hell no, and that's why we're applying the brake as hard as we can.

[sangh0]

34. So then why do you deny people the info?

You yourslef said that you didn't want the mainstream to understand your positions, so why do you blame others?

Oh yeah, iI forgot. It's because it's always someone else's fault.

[mstrsplinter326]

37. No

you're not clued into the whole conversation...

what I said was that my hands were tied if, after I explain something to someone repeatedly, they ignore what I have to say. A problem brought about and exacerbated by the members and supporters of the DNC, issues I have brought up previously so I will not rehash.

[LoZoccolo]

39. "Don't have to mainstream anything"

That's what you said.

Anyways, your view is tantamount to punishing them with harm or death if they don't agree with you, and that's the Stalin strategy and that breaks this non-violence policy of the Green Party.

If someone wants to keep the draft from happening, or improve the environment, or get their kid educated, or keep from having their utilities shut off, or keep all those people from dying from global warming, but they don't want to ban aluminum cans, they deserve to die or get hurt. Oh fuck, what's happening to the human race?

[sangh0]

42. "and by that I mean get more people to support them."

"You have to mainstream your issues, and by that I mean get more people to support them." is what was said, and your response was that you "Don't have to mainstream anything"

Don't you WANT more people to support the policies you support? But if people don't support the policies that you support, it's SOMEONE ELSE'S fault

[mstrsplinter326]

45. ""Don't have to mainstream anything""

CONTEXT! You were party to that conversation, you've twisted that way too far.

"If someone wants to keep the draft from happening, or improve the environment, or get their kid educated, or keep from having their utilities shut off, or keep all those people from dying from global warming, but they don't want to ban aluminum cans, they deserve to die or get hurt"

Also not what I said. I am pleading with you to understand that the public deserves the information. Instead the government is paying it's scientists to say what it wants the public to believe. I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW! THAT WILL PREVENT DYING! DOESN'T SOUND LIKE STALIN TO ME! so stop reiterating what I have repeatedly shown to be false.

[sangh0]

52. The context is that LZ explained what he meant by "mainstreaming"

and it meant "getting support from more people", and idea you rejected.


Also not what I said. I am pleading with you to understand that the public deserves the information. Instead the government is paying it's scientists to say what it wants the public to believe. I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW! THAT WILL PREVENT DYING! DOESN'T SOUND LIKE STALIN TO ME! so stop reiterating what I have repeatedly shown to be false

If you want everyone to know, then don't reject the suggestion that you should try to get more support from more people

[sangh0]

28. Not insane - Immoral

You have an opportunity to help people, and you are turning your back on that.

It's immoral.

People do understand, they're just regularly denied the information, mostly by the RNC and the DNC who jointly control the presidental debates and many other things directly and indirectly.

And they are also denied that info by people like YOU, who refuse to discuss in a manner the general public will understand. And when called on that, your only defense was centered on YOU and YOUR beliefs.

[mstrsplinter326]

31. What are we doing right now??

I'd discuss this with anyone. But the modern public is being told by NBC News that I am a crack head.

You can only help the willing.

People will never be willing as long as the few control more than their fair share, hence the DNC reference, the media reference, etc.

[sangh0]

35. You said you won't even try to get your views into the mainstream

and that you viewed it as betraying your beliefs.

But when others, like NBC News also refuse to put your views out into the mainstream, it's THEIR fault that people don't know your views.

People will never be willing as long as the few control more than their fair share, hence the DNC reference, the media reference, etc.

Speak for yourself, mr 3%-34. For as long as I've been alive, the few have controlled more than their fair share, and for as long as I've been alive, there's been people willing to fight them. Unlike you, some of us don't care what NBC calls us.

[mstrsplinter326]

40. No, that's not even close to correct

You act as if all leftists did nothing to promote their own issues, and sat around figuring out who to blame. That's blatently false. If NBC won't put it on their 'news' hell yeah they have a share of the blame, just because they have blame doesn't mean I am sitting here sulking about it... You talk like a freeper when you defend the corporations like that.
I don't care what NBC calls me either.

This is so circular:
The Kerry crowd says my issues would be mainstream if they were supportable, I explain that's not true now, nor has it ever been the case that progressive issues are popular until right before they are adopted.

So I say I don't care that they are not currently mainstream, and you accuse me of withholding information and call it narcisism. Narcisism implies I get some credit or attetion for having the foremetioned information, but that doesn't make any sense - even you would openly admit that the GP values are never discussed seriously or at length in any popular, mainstream form. So how could I ever get credit for have that information...

[LoZoccolo]

43. Well yeah, some leftists promote their own issues - effectively!

I even gave an example with gay and lesbian activists. I know there's different statistics, but they're like six percent of the population or something, and yet same-sex unions are a major issue in this election due to them getting support beyond themselves - many times beyond themselves.

Another example is the environmental movement of the early nineties. Sure it didn't do enough but it did raise awareness.

But people who are gonna use this Stalin strategy - I'm like sheesh why would I even trust these people to come up with good policy if they're out doing all these irrational things? Basically all the people that would benefit from the Democratic Party and vote for them - and don't lie, they're all over the place - have impetus to think the sliver of people that fucked them over are irrational. There's all sorts of people that need government assistance, and the stated goal of Grover Norquist and his ilk is to roll all that back a hundred years to the McKinley era. Try getting your aluminum cans banned in that environment.

[sangh0]

46. And in response to the success of gay and lesbian activists

his/her response was "I don't have to mainstream anything"

Only a Nadirite could argue with the success of a progressive and activist group of people.

[mstrsplinter326]

48. Exactly

I wan't people to know by hearing me loud and clear. That's why I actively promote my message.

I want Kerry to hear me loud and clear. And Stalinism cannot apply to the issue of who to vote for: Socialist-Dictatoral Russia did not vote for Stalin's government or directives.

[sangh0]

44. It's 100% correct

Here's what LoZocollo said:

"You have to mainstream your issues, and by that I mean get more people to support them."

Your response was that you "Don't have to mainstream anything" which means, using LZ's definition of mainstreaming, that you don't have to "get more people to supprt them"

The Kerry crowd says my issues would be mainstream if they were supportable

Neither me nor LoZocollo have ever said that.

So I say I don't care that they are not currently mainstream, and you accuse me of withholding information and call it narcisism.

LZ said you should "get more people to support" you, and you said "Don't have to". You did not merely say "I don't care that they are not currently mainstream", you also said that you won't do anything to gain support for your ideas.

Narcisism implies I get some credit or attetion for having the foremetioned information

That's not narcisism. That's conceit.

[mstrsplinter326]

50. Definitions and repetitions

Narcisism: an exceptional interest in or admiration for oneself

How would I get MY interests furthered by shutting up how could I bask in MY own glory if I were silent about the things I believe in...

The rest of your post is covered under one word:

CONTEXT.

I've addressed what I've said, tried to clarify what I've meant many, many times, but you just go back to one line out of CONTEXT. I'm done clarifing what I mean by "don't have to."

But thank you for proving my point about the whole issue: I don't have to make you understand (No one does, not even Kerry), I've told you over and over and you ignore it, even though you are certainly capable of understanding.

[sangh0]

51. Fallacy

Narcisism: an exceptional interest in or admiration for oneself

How would I get MY interests furthered by shutting up how could I bask in MY own glory if I were silent about the things I believe in...

Shutting up? You're the one who refuses to speak up. You're the on ewho said you don't have to get support from more people.

[mstrsplinter326]

53. Alright that's it

I am done. You're not reading what I am saying. Your last 4 or five posts reiterate that fact.

You:
You said "don't have to" therefore....
Me:
What I said and meant was the following....
You:
You said "don't have to" therefore....
Me:
What I said and meant was the following....
You:
You said "don't have to" therefore....
Me:
What I said and meant was the following....
You:
You said "don't have to" therefore....
Me:
What I said and meant was the following....
You:
You said "don't have to" therefore....
Me:
What I said and meant was the following....

No more.

[no name no slogan]

58. A question (devil's advocate speaking)

What do you call the "bipartisan" debates commission that shut out Nader in 2000, even though he had enough popular support to be there? What would you call those tactics?

"Stalinesque"? "Hitleresque"? Surely you must be in favor of free speech, and letting all sides be heard in a free and open society?

Be careful of who you accuse, and of what you accuse them. Our very own party has been guilty of similar tactics you accuse these Naderites of practicing.

"You're either with us or against us" is not the right way, no matter who advocates it.

[George_Bonanza]

18. What a selfish notion

This is a common tactic used to justify actions which are nothing more than tantrums because a party or candidate does not line up lock-step with one's wishes. You'd think the Green Party would realize that it's extremely difficult to cure pollution once it gets under way, and that the rainforest cannot be quickly revived, or the ozone cannot be replicated.

A notion like a willing allowance of a nation's destruction for one's own personal gain reveals the most base instinct of avarice, self-interest, and callousness. I thought Greens prided themselves on being principled players of the political realm. If they are content to allow the things they hold dear, including ordinary citizens who will surely suffer, just so they can have their way, they're even worse than the Republicans or the Democrats they loath so much.

[ibegurpard]

20. what a lame stretch.

eom

[Forkboy]

36. Grasping at straws reiger

[LoZoccolo]

54. You have to admit it's better than the tiny winky theory.

I won't go into the implications of responding to a Sicilian-American with a picture of Danny DeVito.

[Forkboy]

61. Not by much

[zoeyfong]

55. So Kerry is the "non-violent" choice? LOL. It's interesting to note

that kerry and bush poll almost identically on war-related issues. I think that's kerry's strategy; be bush's twin on iraq, so no one can make the 'soft on terrorism' charge, but bush will still get the blame for the fiasco. However, what is the remotely plausible case for kerry being the 'less-violent' candidate? Fact is, if one is really a proponent of non-violence, then neither bush nor kerry are acceptable candidates.

[Euphen]

60. If Nader is Stalin, and Bush is Hitler . . .

then that would make Kerry Hindenberg. The Social Democrats supported Hindenberg in the election of 1932 as a way of blocking Hitler, and what good did that do Germany? Of course its a ridiculous analogy anyway. Bush is far from being Hitler, and Nader is even farther from being Stalin.