speaking of that pos nader (for those who don't remember him)

[seeinfweggos]

GOP donors funding Nader / Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader who has criticized the practice in the past.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-09/news/17435056_1_nader-voters-nader-s-campaign-presidential-candidate-ralph-nader

[denbot]

1. Nuff said about that asshat.

Still not over it.

[seeinfweggos]

3. he's an egomaniac withg blood on his hands

[WeDidIt]

2. Nobody ever wants to beleive this fuck is a Republican

He knows what the fuck he's doing and he does it any way.

And sheep just flock to him.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seeinfweggos]

5. nader is a racist whore

[mac56]

7. and anti-union

to boot

[Sebastian Doyle]

62. So who will you attack next week?

You racked up your first 500 posts bashing a Democratic congressman. Now you apparently are going to spend this week bashing a consumer advocate who (aside from his perennial campaigns) has done more for this country on his worst day than your boss Rahm could ever dream of doing.

Who's the target next week?

[seeinfweggos]

64. who ya got?

as long as they are from an opposition party (like ralph the racist nader) or vote with michelle bachman on health care like kucinich

[spoony]

73. Whoever Lozo picks

Then his puppy will yap at his side about the same thing/person.

[EFerrari]

And all you have is foul language and smears. Well done!

[seeinfweggos]

15. and facts

[EFerrari]

17. Really? I'd love to see them.

:)

In fact, that was a fact free post. You do know what "fact" means, right?

[seeinfweggos]

23. enjoy

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

[EFerrari]

27. That's just embarrassing. You really need to examine your links more closely

before you post them here.

Who paid for that website anyway?

[seeinfweggos]

33. you need to examine your little heroes more closely

[EFerrari]

38. Which doesn't answer my question. Without mentioning

that you have no idea who my "heros" are or if I have any. :)

[seeinfweggos]

41. about who funded the site that exposed nader back in 2000?

did they get something wrong? what was it?

[EFerrari]

42. Who paid for that site?

[seeinfweggos]

44. probably democrats, did they get something wrong?

[arcadian]

55. Somebody named Mark Saltveit

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/realchange.org

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Saltveit%2C+Mark+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[EFerrari]

58. A comedian?

lol

[we can do it]

49. Fuck Nadar and the Horse He Rode In On

This ain't Nadar Underground

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. It's also not Illiterate Cheerleaders Underground

:)

[depakid]

28. That's because only a profoundly stupid and immature person would believe such a thing

and your posts qualify on both accounts.

[WeDidIt]

32. Only a profoundly stupid and naive person

doesn't see what the fuck Ralph Nader really is.

He gets the sheep lined up easliy, the fucking bastard Republican whore.

[depakid]

37. You've proven to be so simple minded, ill informed and shallow that

there's really no use in conversing with you on the subject.

Go back to your gaming sites, where your level of "thinking" and emotional maturity is better received.

[seeinfweggos]

46. they are lined up right here on this thread

[Sebastian Doyle]

65. You know.....

<------ Anyone using this avatar really shouldn't be calling anybody else a "fucking bastard Republican whore".

[seeinfweggos]

71. his avatar is a democrat unlike nader the racist, union busting whore

[WeDidIt]

72. Rahm Emmanuel is a Democrat in a Democratic administration

Anybody complaining about that simple fact is not a Democrat.

[Sebastian Doyle]

74. If Rahm Emanuel believes in even ONE traditional principle of the Democratic Party

Then I'm the rotting corpse of Elvis Aron Presley.

[WeDidIt]

75. ELVIS IS IN THE HOUSE!

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good to meet you, Elvis.

[mac56]

6. He's irrelevant.

Once respectable, his ego made him piss it all away.

He's like the aging guy you see in a bar in every town: sitting on a stool, bleating away about the great things he once did, and how there ain't a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties, by god.

Sad, really.

[seeinfweggos]

53. +1000

[Luminous Animal]

8. John Kerry $10.7 million from Republican donors. Nader, $146,000

"That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader Presidential campaign! "

Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million dollars donated by Republican donors.

The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use ­ a line that can't pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.

But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader-Camejo -- $111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie ­ despite the facts

.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wire10192004.html

FYI, the Center for Responsive Politics operates opensecrets.org

[GreenMetalFlake]

9. Doh!

:thumbsup:

[mac56]

10. What percentage was each of the total contributions?

I read "How To Lie With Statistics," too.

[seeinfweggos]

14. no shit.

[frazzled]

12. That's certainly misleading ...

There's a big difference between getting money from "double-dippers"--people donating to Bush-Cheney in an election cycle and at the same time dumping money in Nader's campaign chest--and getting money from people who have "supported the Republican Party." Yeah, by 2004, after 4 years of Bush-Cheney, I bet there were plenty of former Republicans who gave to Kerry. Apples and oranges.

Counterpunch is a worthless rag. I don't know why anyone posts anything from it.

[redqueen]

20. Because logic isn't their strong suit.

Obviously.

Some (most?) of these people think that to improve this country, you have to have it ruined first, because nobody will care about the really important stuff until they're all suffering. They honestly believe it, and if millions more citizens in other countries have to die from needless war to reach that goal, then so be it.

[mac56]

21. +1

:thumbsup:

[Luminous Animal]

25. Counterpunch got their numbers from opensecrets.org

Which has been a trusted source on DU for years.

So, tell me, political campaign-wise, what can $146,000 buy compared to $10.7 million?

[frazzled]

34. They're not telling you which were double-dips and which were crossovers

Read it again: it's intentionally vague. If you want to go back to open secrets and check the math, be my guest. I'm not going to spend 12 hours doing the research.

[Luminous Animal]

59. It is $146,000 to $10.7 million. Double dips are repugnant.

It implies tit for tat. It's simply not a credible accusation that Republicans were funding Nader.

[G_j]

13. & at the top of the list of lawmakers invested in companiies w/ defense contracts

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/14-congress-invested-in-defense-contracts

(as of 2006)

<snip>


Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with DoD contracts include Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), with up to $38,209,020; Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), with $49,140,000; Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), with $37,105,000; Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), with $7,612,653; Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), with $6,260,000; Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), with $8,360,000; Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa), with $2,000,002; Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis), with $5,800,000; Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas), with $1,163,231; and Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), with up to $5,000,000.

Forty-seven members of Congress (or 9 percent of all members of the House and Senate) in 2006 were invested in companies that are primarily in the defense sector. The average share price of these corporations today is nearly twice what it was in 2004. Lawmakers’ investments in these contracting firms yielded them between $15.8 million and $62 million in income between 2004 and 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the Center found.

Companies with congressional investors received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006. The minimum value of Congress members’ personal investments in defense contracting firms increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percent—or even dropped 51 percent.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and House Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who earned the most from their investments in defense contractors between 2004 and 2006, with Sensenbrenner making at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaping at least $2.6 million. The Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees both have members who are major investors in Defense companies. Chairs of other defense-related committees are similarly invested. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in defense companies in 2006. Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had at least $30,000 invested in defense companies.

<snip>

[GreenMetalFlake]

16. Double plus un-good, indeed

[seeinfweggos]

18. well republicans giving money to gore weren't trying to defeat gore

the ones giving money to ralph the racist were trying to defeat gore.

you do understand that right?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

11. Do the numbers for John Kerry and Barack Obama and get back to me.

And, I voted for Kerry and Obama and would again in a heartbeat.

But pummeling Nader for money he took is like criticizing rain for falling. It's dishonest. They all take anything they can get UNLESS a donation is outed in the media and then they make a big deal of giving it back.

Please. Criticize Nader on his positions but there's no way to criticize his funding because every national Dem campaign is just as complicit. We're not stupid, are we?

[seeinfweggos]

19. so you think repubs giving money to gore were trying to defeat gore?

as were the ones giving money to the racist nader?

[EFerrari]

31. I think you need to sort out your strawmen and try this post again.

:)

[seeinfweggos]

35. i'll make this easy for you

repub money to nader = working to defeat democrats

repub money to democrats = not working to defeat democrats

[EFerrari]

39. Republican money to Democrats == eroding the Democratic platform.

That should be easy even for you.

[seeinfweggos]

45. so what does money to "greens" do?

[EFerrari]

48. I have no shiney thing for you. You want to find scapegoats, go for it.

That wouldn't have changed 2000 or 2004.

[seeinfweggos]

50. well, i believe that you believe it

[EFerrari]

56. It has nothing to do with belief but with the facts of those elections.

What you believe others believe only shows your willingness to project rather than discuss.

[seeinfweggos]

57. like i said, i believe that you believe it

[EFerrari]

60. And you've just identified the facts of your argument. Thanks.

[seeinfweggos]

61. that's cute, keep fighting the good fight

lol

[EFerrari]

66. Minimizing your opponent is not an argument unless you're seven.

:)

[seeinfweggos]

67. irony

look it up

[EFerrari]

68. I'm getting out of your conversation with yourself.

:)

[seeinfweggos]

69. i'm still waiting for all the errors you found on that site about nader

cricket, cricket

[redqueen]

51. You still don't get it. Their goal is to have republican administrations

do as much damage as possible, so that (in theory) everyone will be suffering... and after everyone is suffering, they'll all magically start to care about important issues and vote accordingly (only for the purest, greenest candidates of course).

What they don't seem to be able to grasp is that the super rich will never be suffering. It's truly pathetic how easily the rich play the extreme left and right off each other.

[seeinfweggos]

54. yep, nader is pretty sickening when you think about it

if everyone gets desperate enough they'll see how smart and right we are.

what an ego!

[sabrina 1]

70. Why do you think Republicans gave money to Kerry?

I also find it odd that people who are angry at Nader, claim it is because Republicans were trying to influence the election.

But there is zero anger on their part at the Republicans who actually stole the election. Gore won. Republicans, with the help of the Rightwingers on the Supreme Court, stole that election. The absence of anger at their subversion of the democratic process is remarkable.

The small group of Nader-blamers considering the historical facts of that tragic event, raise the question, for me at least, why are they attempting to help cover up that treasonous crime?

So, rightwingers and Nader blamers, having had experience arguing with both groups, appear to have the same goal. Both want to over up the treason that was perpetrated by Republicans against the American people. I know why rightwingers want to do that. But why would any Democrat be willing to do it?

After watching this for several years now, whenever I see the 'blame Nader' contingency show up I seriously question what their real motives are, since it has been pretty much established that he had nothing to do with the election being stolen from Gore.

[seeinfweggos]

77. actually all of the anger is directed toward the republicans. they stole the election

nader took enough votes away from gore to put it within stealing range. so he gets his share for being their useful idiot. yes gore ran a lousy campaign, yes the supreme court stopped the recount that gore probably would have won. but george w. bush "won" florida by several hundred votes. nader got 70,000 votes in florida. the role he played in that travesty is unforgivable.

[sabrina 1]

78. No, actually he didn't. It is far more logical to blame the

millions of Democrats who voted for Bush. But the Nader haters are not exactly people who can be reasoned with. They are a small, sad group of people who have latched on to someone to blame for the failure of Democrats to fight and to never let Republicans off the hook for the crime they committed. And for failing to keep their base on board, just as they are doing now.

Right after this treasonous event, the Democrats shut down all discussion of what happened. We were told to 'move on', just as we are being told to do now from war crimes. I will never forget the footage in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 showing Gore himself bring the gavel down, certifying an illegitmate president and helping to condemn the country to eight disastrous years that tore this country down more effectively than any terrorist could dream of. It was heart-breaking to watch.

There is so much to be angry about regarding that election. The base of the party were basically silenced, not by the Right, but by Democrats. And here we have a tiny, hateful cabal of Nader haters, attempting to shift the blame for this mammoth crime against democracy to one man.

Who will they blame in 2010 if they lose the majority? I know they will never blame their own bad policies of slamming the people who put them where they are. It's getting old, using Nader as a scapegoat for the failures of the Democratic Party. Even my rightwingnut friends are too smart to try that.

[laylah]

22. He's an ASS...

I blame him for the last 8 years! PERIOD! "donning flame suit"

[depakid]

26. Good! -If Republicans want to help spread progressive messages

let them!

[seeinfweggos]

29. uh huh that's what they did

[depakid]

40. Apparently- you- like other don't read or listen very well

but would rather worry with guilt by association.

Not surprising- though it is kind of sad.

[seeinfweggos]

43. not guilt by association - just plain ol' guilt

[depakid]

47. Just plain ole dumb from the looks of your "reasoning"

and- as with the poster above- juvenile.

[mmonk]

30. Nader isn't the problem.

[superduperfarleft]

36. Just what DU needed.

Another barely coherent cheerleader who like to cut-and-paste then call it an OP, then respond with nothing but one-liners completely devoid of substance. Welcome to DU. :eyes:

[flvegan]

52. Yup.

There are 4 or 5 that have been quite prolific for the past couple months. All spouting the same shit like they all got the same memo each morning.

[Electric Monk]

76. Hobby: observation and acceptance

from their profile


I thought that was funny