Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
babsbunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:43 PM
Original message
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/ron-paul-ralph-nader-agree-on-progressive-libertarian-alliance/

By Nathan Diebenow
Saturday, January 22nd, 2011 -- 2:48 pm

In this corner, a libertarian, tea party hero who ran several campaigns as a candidate for US president on the Republican ticket. And in that corner, a progressive icon of the left who also ran several campaigns for the US presidency but on the Green Party ticket.

One might think the two men, seemingly ideologically opposed to one another, would rather argue than help one another.

However, on Wednesday's broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. But I thought Ralph was supposed to be some champion of progressive causes.
Either way, pass the popcorn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. SELF-DELETED BY MEMBER
Edited on Mon Jan-24-11 11:48 AM by WhaTHellsgoingonhere
This message was self-deleted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. These are not
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 05:15 PM by ProSense
Ron Paul vs Ed Schultz: Let's end the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture

Rand Paul Wants To Abolish Department Of Education So Kids Don’t Have To Learn About ‘Two Mommies’ (video, like father, like son)

Ron Paul not only votes with Republicans, but he also wants to abolish government.

When Ron Paul votes with the Republicans against Democratic legislation, which he always does, will Nader support him?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Nader is a champion of trying to make Nader relevant.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 05:05 PM by bluestate10
I will take some of that popcorn if you don't mind, along with some hot wings and beer if that does not put you out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevenmarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. How relevant will Congressional Democrats be in stopping social security and medicare cuts?

They could only get 33 members of the entire Congress to sign a rather weak letter that simply urged President Obama to favor maintaining social security as a program! It didn't even mention any of the proposed cuts!

Read the letter.

Their unwillingness to stick to their guns when the caved-in and voted for a health insurance industry bill that didn't include any kind of public option lost them a great deal of credibility.

If they meakly stand by and go along with big cuts in Medicare, social security and other government social programs they will demonstrate less relevancy than Ralph Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Ron Paul wants to save Social Security?
Really?

<...>

My hope is that at least some members of the new Congress will cut through the distortions and see Social Security as it really is. The best way to fix the impending Social Security crisis is also the simplest: allow younger individuals to opt out of the program and use their tax savings to invest privately as they see fit. This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be.

link

Will Nader support that?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #13
74. No doubt most congressional Dems collaborate a bit too much with the Right themselves...
but Ron Paul doesn't just want big cuts in Medicare, social security and other government social programs; he wants to completely abolish them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
111. the imaginary cuts you keep talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Not at all. Napkin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
59. A thankless job, to be sure! LOL. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
100. Funny, but the harder he tries, he only makes himself even more irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
107. The article has little to do with Nader but rather his praise for the Sanders/Paul alliance
(i.e., progressive/libertarian) in the 112th Congress to cut military spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
121. He has hot wings and beer?
Ralph Nader is no progressive, as witnessed by the fact he put George W. Bush in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
133. Every person who is alive in America.....
...because of a seatbelt ain't too bad a legacy in my book.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
135. +10000000000000
Perfect!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
129. Still a better gig than being champion for Wall Street Bankers. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. + 9 Trillion in cash.
For fiends and da family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's what Great Britain is doing right now and the poor and young are suffering.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 04:47 PM by onehandle
Fuck 'em both.

(I know it's a progressive-conservative alliance over there, but over here libertarians are basically conservatives)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Youth Uprising Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
73. Yep
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 09:21 AM by Youth Uprising
Libertarians, or Free-Market Fascists, as I like to call them, pretend to be progressive on foreign policy but I never heard a peep from them during the Bush administration, except for Ron Paul, of course. They pretend to be against big government, so why didn't they complain when George Bush oversaw the biggest expansion in government, in decades? Obama actually made a milk toast attempt to reduce the size of government. It's not much, but it's something. At least Joe Biden can't act like supreme overlord of the land, the way Dick Cheney did. Not to mention that some of them are bat-shit crazy and are prone to believing wild eyed conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, the new world order, and how we're all controlled by Jewish reptilians or some shit like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
124. There are a million miles between Cameron and Paul, and I don't think Nader is much like Clegg.
The UK political spectrum doesn't really overlap the US one that much. To pick three points at random, abolishing the NHS over here would be even more political suicide than establishing one would be in the US; we're a representative democracy rather than a Republic so we don't have the whole "state vs federal" issue; and religion imposes upon politics immeasurably less over here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. You mean the same Ron Paul that votes with House republicans 99%
of his votes? At least Nader is showing his true colors, which ARE NOT colors that democrats should embrace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. Ron Paul votes against Repubs
on votes that count like the Patriot Act and War in Iraq. Nader I respect because he opposes the status quo of the elite running the USA for their benefit, instead of for the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #49
144. 1% of the time. And he's solidly anti- abortion with a history of racist remarks
Let's leave his libertard philosophy out of this. He's a vile huckster whose progeny is spreading his bullshit lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Just a few days ago, someone here asked about the chances that Ron Paul
would win the Rethug nomination. I said there was no way that would happen, then Paul cozies up to Nader. With friends like that, the Repukes would never nominate Paul, or any other pure libertarian that the fundies just wouldn't approve of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. He should run as an independent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. That would be good
For us! He could do to the Pukes what Nader did to us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. What was that, nothing? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
97. You know that if Nader did not bleed off votes
Al Gore would have won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Al Gore won by over 88,000 confirmed votes in FL
If Nader was attempting to unseat him in favor of Bush, he failed.

Bushco, on the other hand, somehow got popular and electoral votes overthrown both on the ground and at SCOTUS.

The fact that our now Democratic Administration has legitimized that electoral fraud by sweeping it under the rug is beyond weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #98
119. Speaking of Gore
Not to hijack or change subject but I've always believed if Gore had a set he would have demanded a re-vote in Florida in the interest of preserving integrity in the system. A legitimate winner was more important than having it decided by 9.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. I think he wanted to
But I wasn't "DUer" material at the time, so I can't be sure if he wanted to and was told to step down or pick a coffin, or he simply gave in to Dem Leadership pressure.

I would never have thought that at the time, but I saw him when he was considering running in 2008, and he started to act very bizarrely...very third way. I saw that and thought "campaign positioning," but even as I thought that, I wondered why he thought he needed to compromise his real positions. We all love Gore, and love what he's done outside the system. He put one foot in the arena and started to turn back into one of them.

I hope he realized that selling himself out wasn't the answer, and that was the reason he decided not to. I regret that he didn't follow it through though- he could have been like Howard Dean and set the country aflame with the winds of change had he decided to go all in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #98
130. If even half of the 97,488 votes for Nader had gone to Gore
It wouldn't even have been close enough for the Rethugs to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. Ugh to left-right alliances!
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 05:22 PM by LeftishBrit
They are fine if just on a single issue - but making them formal?

Either you end up with a hard-right populism that can bear the seeds of fascism; or you end up with the conservatives using the progressives as pawns and tools as they put through economic policies that rob the poor to give to the rich. Not that I'd know anything about the latter type of situation :sarcasm:(thanks for nothing, Nick Clegg!)

I am particularly amazed that someone whose early career was dedicated to the cause of consumer protection would be prepared to align himself with right-libertarians, who believe in almost unlimited rights for businesses, and 'let the buyer beware!'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
56. We have a CEO government
and you're worried about a populist alliance bearing the seeds of fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #56
65. I am worried about ANYTHING that can increase the influence of the right wing
I put 'populist' in quotation marks because in fact such movements are usually organized from above by individuals and groups that are anything but 'of the people', and are very likely to be engaging in divide-and-rule tactics.

There is plenty of history to show that right-wingers can take advantage of people's frustration and desperation, especially in bad economic times, to whip up racial hatred, ultra-reactionary social policies, and vicious trampling on poor people. All right-wingers trample on the poor; the difference between 'elitist' and 'populist' right-wingers is that the former support the rich trampling on the poor, while the latter support the middle-class trampling on the poor. In both cases, the poor get trampled on; and in practice, it's mainly the rich who benefit.

Look at your Tea Party - would you like to see them involved in government???

Do you think that the CEOs are bothered by right-libertarianism? - they would LOVE it.

Left-right alliances, whether establishment or anti-establishment, generally end in the right holding the reins of power. I've experienced such coalitions twice in recent times in my country: Blair's alliance with Bush, and the LibDems' alliance with the Tories. In both cases, it led to the Right Ruling OK.

Ron Paul, except for the single issue of the war, is pure evil, or for those who don't like the word 'evil', a dangerous lunatic. He should not be given any encouragement!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
104. Where in the article did it suggest a formal alliance? The article is about the Paul/Sanders
alliance in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. Strange Bedfellows n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. as long as they stay away from regulating corporations and free market issues
I'll bet there are a great many things they can work together on.



Holy Crap, can you imagine a Paul/Nader 3rd party run in 2012? No, me neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. If you follow Canadian politics, a couple of their underdog parties are joining forces.
It's a good idea. Although I think the ideals that Paul and the libertarians propose are bad for America, the Green party and the Libertarians do seem to align on some issues.

They'll still not get more than 2% of the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
79. Which "underdog parties" are joining forces in Canadian politics?...nt
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 09:40 AM by SidDithers
If you're talking about the Bloq and the NDP, they're both parties that agree on probably most issues, with the exception of federalism.

That analogy no way compares to a Nader / Ron Paul alliance.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #79
86. NDP (new democrat party) and Bloc Quebecois.
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 10:45 AM by Shagbark Hickory
Their politics more closely align than do that of libertarians and the greens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. Interesting.
Intriguing, actually. A civil libertarian/social democrat fusion would certainly have appeal.

This is worth watching to see how it develops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm not against this
it probably beats what we have now and would definitely shake things up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. An economically populist, pro environment, socially libertarian coalition would be hard to beat.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 06:32 PM by Warren DeMontague
Unfortunately, there are too many people on all sides who are too attached to the things they want to eliminate or ban, whether those things are the FDA, EPA, and the FED, or consenting adult porn, pot, meat eating, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
54. Yeah, it's called Progressivism aka Liberalism.
Re "An economically populist, pro environment, socially libertarian coalition would be hard to beat."

Most if not all progressives are socially libertarian. I agree that a platform like that would be hard to beat, if the MSM hadn't spent the past 30 years demonizing everything and everyone "liberal" or "progressive."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #54
71. Agreed - but a coalition with right-wingers...
is more likely to end up as economically 'libertarian', socially conservative, anti-restrictions-on-pollution, anti-minorities, - with a few liberal bones thrown in to placate the progressive members, who thus become tools and enablers for the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. No different than Alan Grayson partnering with Ron Paul on the Fed
or wanting to end the damn wars.

We do have a few things in common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Here's why it's different
The Democratic caucus works with Republicans (Ron Paul is a member of their caucus) all the time. For example, Scott Brown and Ron Wyden introduced legislation similar to the one the Vermont delegation is introducing

Bernie Sanders supported an audit of the Fed, and that ended up the Wall Street reform package:

Fed's massive data release offers new insight into financial crisis

Alan Grayson supports the health care law. Ron Paul voted to repeal it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
113. And that is what this article is about. Praising the Sanders/Paul alliance.
It says zero about Nader starting his own alliance with Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
50. The thing to keep in mind
is that politics is not about agreeing on everything, but about forming coalitions that change the most important things. The corporate takeover of the USA, the outsourcing of jobs, the consolidated media, the perpetual costly wars, why do the Islamic terrorists hate us, a need for ending our costly imperialism are very important to most of us and these are things that some that many Americans (Dems, Is, Tea Party, etc) have in common. The status quo is untenable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #50
57. Agreed.
I have no idea what Ignored said in response before you, but thanks for noting those other policy issues.

We need to form allies on topic specific issues, not across partisan lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
21. And the mask comes off. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. It sure does. All these pragmatists, can't get nothing done w/o republican believers
are blowing my mind in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
22. Um, ick. Both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
24. Now I am even more convinced
that Nader was a knowing participant in the 2000 election fraud.

Fuck off Ralph, you bought and paid for enabler of the Bu$h Crime Family. Have a nice time with your new racist sexist BFF. "Progressive" my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
83. And you think Joe L wasn't?
If anyone hurt Gore it was Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. Ha.
Joe wishes he was all that powerful.

Lieberman didn't help, but he was a minor player in the election. Deflecting the onus from Nader seems disingenous to me.

I know lifetime Dems who voted for Nader in 2000, and then never came back to the party. Some sat out 2004, and then went for McCain in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
105. Ralph was praising the alliance between Sanders & Paul in the new Congress.
The article said nothing about Nader and Paul forging a formal alliance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
25. Both are worried about the power of corporations
There's a lot there they could work together on, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Except a Libertarian would have opposed Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
26. I also agree. Where is the alternative to endless war, the patriot act, etc?
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 06:43 PM by krabigirl
I also like Sanders. I am sure i will banned for saying this, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
91. oh right, you'll get banned for liking SANDERS.
Very interesting, reading the posts from the boosters of this particular libertarian mashup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
92. What have Sanders and Paul got in common?
I think that Sanders is great! Not Paul, however!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #92
106. Cutting the military budget. Paul & Sanders are working in coalition to accomplish that.
The article states nothing about a formal alliance between Nader & Paul but rather praises the formal alliance between Sanders and Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
29. Now I see what kind of post
the mass unreccers of truly progressive DU posts, flock to rec.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. Libertarians are antithetical to Social Security, Medicare, etc., being proud of their rugged
individualism and all that "I've got mine" blather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
34. ron paul is capitalist for sure
but he is not a corporatist and wants to end CORPORATE welfare, he is the kind of right wing liberals can actually be BIPARTISAN with. i think most of us liberals are against the patriot act I and II, are against the wars in afghanistan and iraq, are against corporate welfare, he wants MORE regulation of wall street,. on these issues alone the kind of conservatives that ron paul represents want the same as us liberals. of course sanders and paul will disagree about other issues and will not vote the same, but at least they are able to see that their differing political views do indeed sometimes overlap...

can you imagine how much better shape the usa would be in if someone like ron paul had been in power instead of reagan (as to say that if that kind of republican had won in 1980 (i would have rather carter won, but if we were obliged to have 8 years of republicans at least ron paul is more like 1950s republicans...

there are common points between even the tea party and the liberal movement

. nothing having to do with economics of course but

1 dislike of the patriot act
2.desire that wall street be controlled better
3. want to end the wars (not for the same reasons, many in the tea party think the wars eat up too much taxes, many liberals dislike the whole pain and human suffering aspect of war and thus dislike un necessary wars....)
4.they want jobs for working people, they say it all they time, they want to find work, people should work, indeed VOTERS on both the right and left want low or no unemployment, many of those that actually govern us seem to prefer high profits at the expense of jobs....
5. marijuana legalization (it's a freedom thing for some, a source of tax revenue for others,)

remember the tea party is built out of frustration with seeing a common american dream and way of life disintegrating before their eyes, these people cant believe how fucked their own grandkids are, are pissed off, but dont really understand why or who they should be angry at, they are angry at government as an enabler, and are angry with banks and corporations which is very good.

if we start talking about these issues perhaps we could iron out differences about things like abortion (getting people to accept that abortion exists even though they dislike it (i know i am dreaming), perhaps racism could be reduced as people saw that it isnt about color, its about the people versus the corporations and banks




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. "he wants MORE regulation of wall street" Ron Paul?
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 07:34 PM by ProSense
<...>

PAUL: That’s a really important issue. That’s what always happens. That’s more or less what they said in the Thirties. We had inflation in the Twenties, then the collapse of the financial bubble, and then the depression. But they said, “If only we had had a lot more regulation . . . ” So they added regulations and prolonged our depression. I think it was when Long-Term Capital failed, Sarbanes-Oxley came in and said we needed more regulations. We already had the Securities Exchange Commission and everything else, but they wanted more. And many companies went along with it.

I see the opposite. I see the arbitrary regulations of government as a major cause of our problems. Many people ask me, “If you’re not for regulations, how do you control things?” Well, in the marketplace, there are a lot of market regulations — and you don’t have the moral hazard of a government guarantee. If you mess up, you go bankrupt. In free-market banking, for instance, the directors who set up the bank would be personally liable if it went bankrupt. Can you imagine how much more cautious they would be? They wouldn’t be making all these wild loans and responding to the regulators saying you must make certain bad loans to people who don’t qualify.

So regulations are very negative when they come from government. What we need are more private-property regulations, more market regulations. So far, we’re doing exactly the wrong thing. We had the recession come because of too much spending, too much debt, too much taxing, and too much regulation. And so we’re trying to solve the problem by spending like crazy, regulating like crazy, printing money like crazy, and taxing. And then they wonder why things are getting worse.

more

The only reason Ron Paul supported an audit of the Fed is because he hates government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. he wants an audit of the fed
and an end to corporate and bank bailouts. he is also against the idea of market collusion using wall street to manipulate the markets and gouge cousumers, his version of libertarian capitalism, from what i can see, favorizes small businesses and while supporting small governemnt would want coprporatations to be even smaller

also by wanting to end nafta that would end free trade with certain countries and tarrifs on imports would be put in place, this would be more regulation of business......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #38
93. He wants an audit of the fed...
because he wants to get rid of it and replace it by NO regulation of finance and business; not because he wants greater regulation.

I don't think he cares what size the corporations are, so long as they are not subjected to government regulation.

Yes, Paul is against the war and the Patriot Act; but his economic and social views are a disaster!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. he wants to repeal nafta
that would mean more regulation, i know he is pro business, but there is a long list of issues i agree with him on, patriot act, war on drugs, war, corporate and bank bailouts, ending nafta....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. That's not accurate.
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 12:38 PM by girl gone mad
He wants to end the Fed because he believes they are working against the people's interests. Clearly he supports some regulation if he wants to put control of our currency back into the hands of the government.

Maybe he has somewhat of a point about the regulatory agencies, since they were largely captured before the crisis in 2008. They were warned over and over about Madoff. They've done nothing to reign in our bubbles and the widespread control fraud. They go after small fish like Martha Stewart and now the insider trading distraction. They seem to be another facet of the revolving door between big business and big government, with ill-qualified regulators later taking high paying jobs at the institutions they are supposed to be overseeing.

Without the bailouts, Goldman Sachs would have gone out of business. That one failure would have been worth the weight of one million regulators. Instead we propped them up, and now they are back to the same old games and no one is stopping them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
35. Next up, the Wildebeest-Lion Alliance.......
None for me, thanks.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. I've worked with Catholic nuns, often, on housing and poverty issues....
and they knew that on Saturdays, I did clinic defense and that I am an atheist.

Working with people around a specific set of issues does not mean that you are in lock step on all issues.

Refusing to find common ground and forge coalitions is why the people are constantly divided and can't overcome the tyranny of capital.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. Hear, Hear! Thank you, Luminous. KnR n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #37
84. RC women religious in the US, on the whole,
are quite progressive.

I suspect that if you were working with priests instead (as if the vast majority of them would even bother to work among the riff-raff, as there are far more pressing things to tend to, like harassing people trying to go to the doctor), many of them would not be so accepting of your personal path.

You're a clinic escort - do you ever see a bunch of sisters down there? There always seems to be at least one priest in the group in the photos I see in the news and in blogs. I'm sure the occasional sister shows up every now and then, but overall they don't seem to show up at the weekly scrum like the priests.

We CAN find common ground with the vast majority of US women religious - it's the patriarchal hierarchy, from the Vatican Crime Syndicate on down, that is hopelessly out of touch and that is refusing to find common ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Gee. I was thinking aging moose in 6 foot snow, wolves on snowshoes alliance. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
40. the worst of both possible worlds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
41. Ahh, yes, an alliance bound by idiocy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. I lost my convoluted prose dictionary, so I can't translate your post. What is your point? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I'm comparing Nader-bashing to be the DLC version of 1984's 2-Minute Hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. How dare you
make such apt comparisons! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #53
61. Yes, I'm so evil, ain't I?
You can see the horns growing out of my head! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #61
81. I thought I detected some horny thing going on there!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
46. This is the only way to defend against the fascist corporate banker takeover
It is going to take an alliance of common interests to fight what is most important. Most important IMHO is fighting the global corporatists and bankers who are taking our jobs, waging our wars, running our media, stealing our assets, owning our politicians, and generally selling out the USA to the benefit of other nations.

This is the reason behind everything that is going wrong in our country.

Libertarians and progressives have more common interests now than ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. I think we have to unite
It's not just bankers, and they ARE united, organized, and well-funded.

It'll take a village, a pissed off village.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. That's an excellent way to put it.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 10:34 PM by howaboutme
It'll take a village...a PISSED OFF VILLAGE!!! I like that because it clicks and it is so true.

The moneyed elite have natural bond. There are relatively few of them and they all are afflicted with greed and they all have money.

While there are many of us, we often have different priorities and that causes us to squabble.

Edited: One other thing, make no mistake that the media is on their side and they will do their damnedest to pit us against each other, just as they have done in the past so that we do not unite against their corporate masters and so they can continue running ram shod over us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
51. Are they both isolationist racists, then?
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 11:01 PM by Turborama
Fuck Ron Paul and anyone who'd work for/with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. They're both isolationists, at least.
Standing Armies cost a lot of money, as do wars of adventure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Seems like the only reason anyone here would support Paul is because he's anti-war
I'm anti-single issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Anti-war, anti-"drug war", anti-bailouts, anti-NAFTA, ant-deficit...
Pro habeus-corpus, anti-PATRIOT, anti-torture, anti-surveillance...

That doesn't excuse some of his stranger positions (he's anti-NAFTA because it's too restrictive), but it's more than one issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Ron Paul is a Randian Racist Libertarian Capitalist-Anarchist
As I said, fuck Rand Paul and anyone who works for/with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. I don't mind Randians. I married one.
I also work on (arguably) the largest Randian experiment on the internet, wikipedia. It seems to have worked out.

That being said, can you point me to some examples of his (Rand Paul's) racism? I haven't wandered across it yet, and you might have some pointers I could use for self-education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Ron Paul's racist & homophobic quotes
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 05:04 AM by Turborama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. The first link is Cenk. He's as credible as Glenn Beck.
The second seems more interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Cenk is as credible as Glenn Beck?
That is the most ridiculous statement I have read this year, and that's saying something.

You think Skinner would allow himself to be interviewed by someone "as credible as Glenn Beck"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x241831

I have to say that the fact you're married to a Randian somewhat diminishes your credibility in my eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Youth Uprising Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. I agree.
That was a low blow.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have read this year, and that's saying something.

You think Skinner would allow himself to be interviewed by someone "as credible as Glenn Beck"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #67
134. "That is the most ridiculous statement I have read this year"
It's only January. Give it time.

"I have to say that the fact you're married to a Randian somewhat diminishes your credibility in my eyes."

They're also a huge LoTR fan, if that helps. A quote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. I hate Ron Paul because of what he says himself:
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 08:08 AM by LeftishBrit
These are quotes from his own website:


'A Republic, If You Can Keep It’ by Dr. Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representatives delivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.
....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care. Despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage', (though he considers that these, like other government functions, should be carried out by individual states rather than the national government). He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.


Here's a link to an essay in my journal, from which this is taken, which I wrote about three years ago, and which goes into more detail about what is wrong with Paul, why this matters even to a non-American like me, and the dangers of collaboration with right-wingers.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LeftishBrit/29

As regards racism in particular: Paul certainly seems to think that states should have the right to practice racist policies as part of 'states rights', and has expressed opposition the Voting Rights Act for that reason. He is popular with racist groups such as Stormfront. He may or may not be personally racist; this is less important than that, if given power, his policies would *enable* racism.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #69
88. these are the issues that he and progressives do not agree on
look for his quotes about why the iraq war is immoral, why we should not be in afghanistan, why bank and corporate bailouts are bad, why the patriot act should be repealed, why the war on drugs should be ended.... when you make a coalition you dont need to vote the same all the time, you just agree to vote the same when you agree on issues as opposed to systematically opposing each others proposed bills
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. Is he an Uber-mensch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #68
136. He?
Why do you assume a gender?

Me and the husbandwife are gender-fluid. Sometimes she's a he, and sometimes he's a she, and vice versa.

They wear pants more often than I, I wear skirts more often than them, but we're trying to live beyond 20th century gender concepts.

Oh, yeah, a link:
http://www.utilikilts.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. I mind them in government
Private enterprise is fine where it belongs: in private enterprise! Public services and in particular provision for poor, young, elderly, sick or disabled people, cannot be left to the free market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #62
85. +1 to the brazilionth power to that!
and sexist too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #62
103. The article is about Paul's alliance with Sanders in this Congress. It has nothing to do with
a formal alliance with Nader.

So fuck Sanders then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #103
118. "Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’"
It has something to do with an alliance.

As I said, fuck Ron Paul and anyone who works for/with him. Fuck coalitions, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
70. Well, they may help each other, but they're not helping me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Youth Uprising Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
76. What's with all the Nader hate?
Can someone explain to me, why is it that some people on the left have such a disdain for Ralph Nader? I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. Some people enjoy the privilege of the status quo
where the USA economy continues to be sacrificed for the bankers and the wealthy elite, while we wage perpetual war and provide welfare for other nations. Nader has been fighting the status quo of elitists running the USA for themselves, instead of for the USA, for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #76
89. people dont like seatbelt laws
so they blame nader that seat belts were put in cars i guess.... ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #76
90. "some people on the left"?
I'm sure you meant to say "some of our fellow Dems", no?

And there should be a goodly amount of news and editorial information online for you to read and make your own evaluation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #76
94. I don't hate Nader as such. I hate Paul and all the RW, and I hate collaborations with them
I don't *hate* the LibDems in my country; I voted for them in at least 5 general elections; but I hate their collaboration with the Tories.

I can't vote for or support anyone who is systematically collaborating with right-wingers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #94
131. My thoughts exactly! Whenever I think of collaborations with the RW, Vichy France comes to mind n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
77. Fuck Ralph Nader and Ron Paul...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #77
115. And fuck Bernie Sanders, too? Because the article is about Paul and Sanders
not Nader and Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superduperfarleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
78. Ew..... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
80. No, thanks very much.
That combination always upsets my stomach. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
99. Nader is an idiot. Paul wants to eliminate everything positive Nader did in the 60's.
Paul is probably an advocate of having cars built like the Corvair.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #99
112. I suppose Sanders is an idiot, too. Because the article is about the Sanders/Paul alliance
to cut military spending. Nader's remarks were about praising that alliance NOT about starting his own alliance with Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
101. Nader + Paul = dumbfuckery
yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #101
110. Actually, the article is about Sanders + Paul. Nader is merely praising the alliance not proposing
a personal one with Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
102. Did anyone read the article? What Paul & Nader are praising is Paul's alliance with Sanders.
I've read the article several times and their is zero information about Paul & Nader starting their own alliance.

However, on Wednesday's broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
108. they could really go places if they added larouche into the mix....
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 04:04 PM by dionysus
an unstoppable juggernaut...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #108
114. Read the article. It is NOT about a Nader/Paul alliance. It is about the Sanders/Paul
alliance to cut military spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. im having too much of a good time seeing the "True Liberals (tm)" defend a piece of shit like Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. So you don't support Sanders' efforts to work with Paul to cut defense spending?
Sorry, I think I am missing your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
109. What scares the hell out of Republicans
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 04:05 PM by howaboutme
is when many populists in the real Tea Party come to the realization that corporatism is not conservatism.

To quote Howard Dean about the (3) Tea Parties : http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast...

“There is the racist fringe…. There is the Dick Armey corporate tea party, which doesn’t have anything much more to do with the real tea party than the racist fringe. And then there is the real tea party … which is the vast majority – which are pretty socially conservative even though they try to mask that,” Dean said.

Dean described the bulk of the tea party members as “populists. They are not going to support free trade. They don’t mind taxing millionaires. And they really do want to balance the budget.”
===============
Comment: When real Progressives and the Tea Party come to the conclusion that there are grounds for collaboration on the most important issues, such as on free trade, taxes on rich, perpetual war, Patriot Act, and US imperialism. That is when the privileged and wealthy elites who both benefit and control the system and both Parties will truly become worried, and they will use every tactic in their book of dirty tricks to try and prevent it. At the crux of every problem in the USA, from education to Social Security, stems from policies that take good paying jobs from Americans and give wealth to a few. End those immoral policies and we can change the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #109
138. You're right. As Dean says there is potential for common ground.
"Dean called the tea party movement, “the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity.” He argued that, “The demographic changes we have all known were going to happen have happened and all of a sudden it is here for them and they don’t know what to do.... Every morning when they see the president, they are reminded that things are totally different than they were when they were born.”

The former Vermont governor and presidential candidate said he tells college audiences that, “you have all had friends of different races, different religions, and different sexual orientations, and you all date each other, that is not how I grew up. That is not how the tea party grew up. The tea party is almost entirely over 55 and white.”

Now working for a Washington law firm, Dean argued that there are three tea parties. “There is the racist fringe…. There is the Dick Armey corporate tea party, which doesn’t have anything much more to do with the real tea party than the racist fringe. And then there is the real tea party … which is the vast majority – which are pretty socially conservative even though they try to mask that,” Dean said.

Dean described the bulk of the tea party members as “populists. They are not going to support free trade. They don’t mind taxing millionaires. And they really do want to balance the budget.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/0105/Howard-Dean-tea-party-is-last-gasp-of-generation-that-fears-diversity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #138
140. Dean also brought up the racial issue, but aren't all societies afraid of demographic changes?
Edited on Mon Jan-24-11 09:53 AM by howaboutme
The Tea Party is certainly not unique and especially in being angry and afraid of national demographic changes. It is always about power and human nature and defending one's own tribe. When one group gains representation, another group loses. I would suggest if any country - from Israel to Ireland to Mexico were to face major demographic changes you would see major concerns from their people. No people or society is unique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puregonzo1188 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
120. Did anyone bother to read the article?
This is not the suggestion of a formal alliance, this about the potential for progressives and libertarian members of Congress to work together to reduce the POWER OF CORPORATIONS. Seriously, people stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

Paul added that he agreed with Nader on a host of issues, such as cutting the US military's budget, ending undeclared US wars overseas, restoring civil liberties and civil rights by dumping from the Patriot Act, and withdrawing from the NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements.


Not Social security, medicare, etc.

I know Nader is the antichrist to many here, but come on, can we at least maintain the pretense of intellectual honesty? I'm further to the left of most here at DU, and I have no issues with what the article is describing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. what? actually read? when they could just spew hatred without any basis?
surely you jest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puregonzo1188 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. When you read what some of the DUers are railing against versus what's actually contained in the
article its truly pathetic. Come on, people can't we at least read an article both we direct our rage at it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #120
127. The template is considered sacrosanct by some
Democrats / liberals /progressives are a diverse bunch. Herding cats is the common expression. Some have this template of beliefs that is sacrosanct.

We need to forget the former sacrosanct small potatoes stuff and instead focus on containing the real dragons which are financialism (Wall St) and corporatism (US Chamber of Commerce) and how they both control our government for their benefit and our demise.

It is going to take major populism and political forces to overcome the organization of the media, the money and the entrenched interests. The real problem is the lack of organization and a cohesive force to offset big money. When private sector organized labor was neutered is when big business took over. That's why passing of card check and the expansion of organized labor is a must and necessary ally.

The moneyed interests would infiltrate and subvert any populist organization just as they did with the Tea Party shills such as Freedom Works and the Koch brothers money. The media also did their best to use the race canard to weaken any movement that might stray from the status quo. A massive populist movement scares both Parties, because neither Party are populists. What America needs is a massive dose of populism to undo the damage of the last 30 years.

There is going to come a time in the not too distant future when conservatives (not neocons) will come to believe that corporatism is and has been an anathema to their beliefs and that is going to scare the hell out of Republicans (and maybe some Ds) .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #120
128. They are too busy getting their 2-minute hate on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #120
143. OK, I see your point
Edited on Mon Jan-24-11 06:44 PM by LeftishBrit
In my case, it's nothing to do with any kneejerk reaction to Nader - it's a perhaps kneejerk reaction to anything that could look like a defense of Ron Paul. It's that there have been some posts in the past, suggesting that Paul is actually preferable to some Democrats, and even that he might be a suitable presidential or vice-presidential candidate on a bipartisan presidential ticket. Also, possibly the word 'coalition' has a different meaning in Britain and America: here it implies a binding, at least for the short term, alliance between parliamentary parties, which requires compromises and agreements on a number of issues, not just one. Working together for a single issue is fine. Accepting right-libertarianism as a valid philosophy, or 'paleoconservativism' as at least preferable to 'neoconservativism', or the view that right-wingers are OK if they 'love liberty' is a step on a very slippery slope. I approve of any campaign to cut military spending, even if it includes some right-wingers - it's just not what I call a 'coalition', but I realize there may be national differences in the way that the word is used. 'Coalition' hasn't worked too well in the UK recently - and most of our Tories are at least less extreme than Ron Paul!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
122. Go away Nader, just go away
I would be happy if I never had to hear that name again. :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
137. Anything that comes from the FOx News Empire scares me to death...
Are they getting ready to hi-jack any third party attempt? You bet they are...

The Republicans are psycho fascists plain and simple...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
139. This is going to have to happen.
Progressives and actual Conservatives/Libertarians are going to have to find some common ground before the entire country gets bipartisaned to death. Look at where we are under the current paradigm: obscene pools of corporate cash sloshing back and forth from the right to the near-right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
141. Hold on to yourselves: Thom Hartmann said today that...
...Ron Paul and Ralph Nader "might just be the guys to do it!"

:thumbsup:

Wish all the knuckleheads hadn't gone stupid with me, because I told them Thom would approve. Unfortunately, those posts got removed. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
142. Beware the Nick Clegg/David Cameron lesson (UK)
Edited on Mon Jan-24-11 05:57 PM by CreekDog
for that reason, you will not find me in this alliance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC