Nader worth nearly $4 million, financial-disclosure forms reveal

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Ralph Nader, the citizen-activist presidential candidate who decries corporate influence in America, has a net worth of $3.8 million, according to financial-disclosure forms he filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission.

The consumer advocate has $1.74 million in a NASDAQ 100 Trust SRI index fund and $1.44 million in the Fidelity Spartan Money Market Fund, amounts he specified in an exclusive interview with Knight Ridder.

Nader also holds Cisco stock valued on the FEC form between $250,000 and $500,000, less than the $1.2 million it was worth in 2000. The candidate said he didn't sell the Internet stock despite its poor performance since the tech stock bubble burst in 2000.

"I follow Warren Buffett's advice to hold on to stocks long term," he said, referring to the legendary billionaire investor.

more: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/8689517.htm?ERIGHTS=-2994226297700636554philly

[checks-n-balances]

1. Yep, he's tasted the spoils of the rich and doesn't mind taking donations

from rethugs. This explains PART of his craven behavior. It would take the psychiatric and psycho-social "intelligensia" (one of his fave new vocab words of late) to explain the rest...

[moez]

2. Now, don't bash him for being loaded

When you have multi-gazillionaire Kerry as your chosen son....

[Cheswick2.0]

3. Kerry's not a hypocrit about his wealth

Nader ran against Gore in 2000 decrying Al's mother's oil stock as a reason not to vote for Gore. Nader is nothing if not a hypocrit.

[Zorra]

20. Do you have proof that he is taking donations from republicans?

Because we could use this proof to point out to Nader supporters that he is a phony, and a probable republican plant. Everything Nader says he stands for is directly opposite of republican ideology. The only reason a republican would donate to Nader is to help Bu$h get elected.

[checks-n-balances]

21. Yes, there are GOP donors also donating to Nader and he's accepted them

I just now saw your post & don't have time to find some of the other stuff out there from March, but here's one:

GOP DONORS DOUBLE DIPPING WITH NADER
Contributors deny that financial support is designed to hurt Kerry

by Wayne Slater

AUSTIN – Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends – and from George W. Bush's friends.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm

[Zorra]

24. Thank you. If Nader had any integrity he would not accept these

donations. These people could not conceivably support his "alleged" platform. It is quite obvious why the majority of these contributors are donating to Nader.

Anyone that votes for Nader is a chump.

[mzmolly]

4. Perhaps he's diggin the new Bush tax cut (for the wealthy) and wants more

of the same? ;)

[MadHound]

5. So what?

Have we become so purist that we begrudge the greatest consumer advocate in our lifetimes a measly 4 million dollars? How petty people. Let's see, at the most the man is making $400,000 annually off of his investments, and that is a generous figure. More like $200,000 the way the market is doing. And gee, he runs his whole organization with that money.

And how much is Kerry worth? And how much is he paying out of pocket for this campaign? And does Kerry actually get out and DO something with his money besides being a full time politician(which is paid for not out of his own pocket, but from the millions in donations he receives)?

Puhleeze people, grow up. Nader is moderately wealthy, and uses his money to do good for the people of this country. Kerry is much wealthier and spends his money not for the good of the people, but on more houses, more SUVs and more vacations to CO. So tell me, who is the bigger hypocrite here, Kerry or Nader?

[jpgray]

6. It's hilarious to me when people rationalize Nader's hypocrisy

Progressives deserve better than Nader. They deserve better than a man who invests in Raytheon, Halliburton, General Dynamics, and myriad other corporate monsters who kill Iraqis every day of the week in an imperialist war, thereby allowing Nader to profit while he fleeces the idealist antiwar folks too stupid to look at his portfolio.

Fleecing the idealistic left is easy because they expect no results, all one has to tell them to explain hypocrisy or an utter lack of tangible progress is the old "one party corporate system" line, and they reach back into their wallets. Not being obligated to provide any tangible results, it is incredibly easy to say the right things, and so Nader builds a fortune from the money of idealistic white college students, while at the same time profiting from the worst aspects of corporate America. And he has people like the above poster to defend him to the death while he does it. :D

[LandOLincoln]

7. Best. Post. Ever.

At least it's the best re slimy Ralph. :yourock:

[MadHound]

8. And then we have those fine folks like Kerry

Who not only voted for and enabled this illegal and immoral war, but are already promising that they will commit more fresh bodies to the fray in order to "stay the course in Iraq".

Who is being the worse hypocrite friend, somebody who indirectly profits from an illegal, immoral war, or somebody who actively prosecutes an illegal, immoral war?

[jpgray]

9. The point is, progressives shouldn't support a gentler hypocrite

It's easy to retreat to calling Kerry a worse hypocrite, but it would be better to refuse to support a hypocrite altogether. Nader has done some good things and he says some good things, but he has a hell of a racket going on all the same, and I wish more people would recognize that.

[MadHound]

10. Look, I agree his investments aren't something that I would be proud of

But you have got to give the man his props, he has been on the front line fighting for the little guy for forty years now. Quite frankly Kerry's best moment was thirty years ago, and his current hawkish stance pretty much repudiates that dovish stance.

[jpgray]

11. From a progressive standpoint, Nader is better than Kerry

His portfolio isn't much better, but on the issues he is more in line with my thinking. I really think we can do better, and I personally believed Kucinich to be more my kind of candidate than Nader.

[MadHound]

12. DK was my first choice

However that isn't going to happen. I'm getting tired of the old "lesser of two evils" scenario, so I've decided to throw my money, effort and vote behind the Greens(and this is after thirty plus years of being a Dem, up to and including Gore). If the Greens decide not to field a candidate and endorse the Dems, well that is where my rock and a hard place are. A choice between Nader, Kerry, or not voting. I'm still working that one out.

Sorry, but I really can't get enthusiastic about a Dem who is rattling the war saber. I remember LBJ all too well, and really don't want a repeat. Sad to say, if Kerry wins, that is what we will wind up with it seems.

[jpgray]

15. Well, I'm voting for Kerry

Obviously he does not speak for me on many issues, but I will vote for him for reasons I tried to make clear in a longwinded thread that sank like a stone yesterday. In my view there are two schools of thought on a presidential election--one is that by refusing to vote for the establishment candidates, you will eventually build an effective opposition, and the other is that by voting for the most sympathetic person who has a chance of winning, you build a better environment for progressives to run in.

I subscribe to the second theory, because I think a political strategy that keeps authoritarian right wingers in power for an extended period is very dangerous. There comes a point where the disasters and suffering they inflict ceases to fuel progressive opposition and begins to destroy its effectiveness. We've already seen SS agents detaining Green party leaders in airports, consolidation of the media, appointment of right wing judges, imperialist war, and hate-based propaganda, all stemming from the Executive Branch, with Congress mostly a limp enabler. Now, some would say that we need to hold those enablers in Congress to account first (that would include Kerry to some degree), but I think we're better off removing the right wing authoritarians from the Executive Branch and then proceeding from there.

[MadHound]

16. There is some trouble with your stance friend

And that is that both parties have become such corporate whores, and drifted so far to the right that both are authoritarian right wingers, it is simply a matter of degree now, not direction.

I've worked within the system for years and decades now, I've been the good Dem. And all that time, well it seems for naught. The party drifted ever rightward, to the point that DK, a man slightly to the right of FDR is seen as a radical scourge, almost as a Communist within his own party. I have also seen the party whore itself out for the corporate dollar, to the point where it is willing to sell out the very people it claims to represent for that corporate lucre.

This isn't the party of our ancestors, nor the party of my youth. My philosophy is that if you keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results each time, well you're insane. I prefer sanity friend, and after continually working from within the party, doing the same thing over and over again, I long for a little sanity. Nothing is going to change about the Democratic party. It is still going to sell it's soul for the corporate money, it is still going to drift ever rightward leaving it's base behind. So be it, and I will go elsewhere. I want to build a progressive future, a brighter vision, not just more of the same ol' same ol' insanity. And if now isn't the time, then when is? There is always going to be some big bad 'Pug bogeyman to whip the sheep into line. I'm not afraid of that anymore though, because I know the truth, that BOTH parties are the bogeymen, they simply play the good cop bad cop routine while the rest of us are screwed. Well I'm not going to play games anymore, I'm going to work for a real future, one that I can see in my lifetime, and the time to start is NOW, not the vague future.

[jpgray]

17. Bush is no bogeyman

You're making the Ernst Thalmann argument:

December 1931: 'By raising the specter of Hitler's fascism, Social Democracy is attempting to sidetrack the masses from the vigorous action against the dictatorship of finance capital.... There are some people who fail to see the Social Democratic forest for the National Socialist trees'. He confused the murderous Social-Democratic reactionary practices with fascism, and did not realize at the time that Hitler would move to crush all independent political movements in Germany once he solidified his power. Indeed he believed the Nazi success in the election of 1930 would be Hitler's "best day", and that he would have "worse days" from that time forward. Thalmann later died in Buchenwald, if I recall.

The Nader dilletantes make the argument that not liking the system is a good plan for changing it, and the system laughs at them while the Republicans consolidate power. No one is more selfish or ignorant than a person who believes that by voting for those who can never hold office he can change the way the political system works. It has all the logic of a fever dream, but the Nader folks will stupidly open their wallets and bask at the ballot box in this most pitiable feeling of superiority. They have been played for the ultimate rubes, and yet they feel more like the intellectual elite. It is accidental or intentional genius that a group of informed progressive voters has been maneuvered into having zero impact on where the country goes.

[MadHound]

28. Friend, it isn't a matter of "not liking the system"

It is that the system is broke, completely, irrevocably shattered. Sure, the government still is elected, nominally, but our choice has come down to "the lesser of two evils" Both parties are riddled with corpororate corruption, and the notion of fixing them, while quaint and sweet, is also naive.

We are living in the Second Gilded Age friend, where one's political affiliation matters less than which corporations you have sold your soul too. We have seen this before in our history, the First Gilded Age, from 1870 to the Great Depression. The lesson of history is plain before us for those who would care to read it. I do not want to see another crash like that one, yet that is exactly where we are headed.

So it is time to form a new party, one that isn't beholden to corporate interests. Your comparison of Bush to Hitler has been made before, to the point of absurdity. Nixon as Hitler, Reagan as Hitler, Bush I as Hitler, that bogeyman no longer holds any fear for many for it has been overused it order to keep the sheeple from revolting as the Democratic party followed the 'Pugs down the corporate path.

Sorry friend, but the time for change is now. Voting for Kerry might slow down the speed with which we are approaching the cliff edge, but it won't change the direction that we are headed in. We need to change that direction, and building up a party that isn't beholden to corporate cash is the best way to achieve that goal.

[jpgray]

44. It is, because without electing someone, you will never change the system

Nader's series of failed candidacies does not make even the most miniscule dent--this is why he is continually propped up and funded by the most nefarious politicos and media conglomerates in our country. In the twelve years he's campaigned, we've actually slid further and further into authoritarianism. Nader himself has said many times he prefers a Republican be elected over a Democrat, citing Reagan's administration 'riling up' the environmentalists. Well, he's a fool--he's Thalmann all over again. Allowing right wingers to consolidate power is idiotic, because it's a political strategy that wants to use suffering for political gain, a disgusting ends-justifies-the-means rhetoric that doesn't even work. Take a look at the "communists" in Spain that fought side-by-side with the fascists to oust the republicans--they did not get any piece of the pie in the aftermath, and neither will Nader or progressive Americans.

Progressive Americans are a tiny majority, whose only political effectiveness to the system is to deny Democratic presidential candidates enough votes for them to have any chance of winning an election. Hence Nader exists, and is lauded by all pundits who wish to continue down the line of media consolidation and authoritarian power. Nader and other third parties will be removed once there is no need for them, once the Democrats are truly just another wing of the Republican Party.

Fools and dilletantes will scream that this has already happened, clutching a Common Dreams, a Counterpunch or other periodical in their hands. They are too ignorant to realize that with people like Kucinich in the party, we still have the capacity to make a difference. The surest way to neutralize every progressive voter in America is to make sure they vote for a candidate who will never, ever win.

That's what people do every four years when they vote for Nader. Nothing will change as a result of these votes, as the last twelve years have proven, but it ensures the votes of these progressives will never make any impact on the presidency, and that is a very valuable thing to the Republicans. They want to keep control of the FCC so that whenever they choose they can black out coverage of progressive issues. They want to keep control of the DoJ and DoD so they can detain progressive leaders whenever they please. People are too ignorant and too naive to realize that independent political movements are only allowed to exist. Once the right consolidates enough power, they will cease to be useful and down the hatch they will go.

[sandnsea]

14. What would Nader do?

"Develop an appropriate peace-keeping force under United Nations auspices from neutral nations with such experience and from Islamic countries."

Even though Islamic countries have said they think they will make the situation worse and neutral nations have yet to agree to participate. There is NO other UN peacekeeping force, so what would Nader suggest if he believes Iraq should become a democracy as the following indicates?

"Free and fair elections should be held as soon as possible under international supervision so democratic self-rule can be put in place in Iraq and allowing Iraq to provide for its own security.

The U.S. and others should provide interim humanitarian aid to Iraq.

US oil and other corporations should not profit from the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Control over Iraqi oil and other assets should be exercised by Iraqis."

Which is the exact same position of Kerry. Not "stay the course", but change course or have the entire ME in chaos.

A vote is a vote. It is NOT an endorsement of every crazy-assed thing that the President, Administration or D.C. bureaucrat does after the vote.

Do you have any idea how many things are voted on that don't get implemented in anywhere near what the intention of the vote was to begin with? That's why we have activist groups suing the govt all the time. To make them implement laws the law they were intended.

[MadHound]

29. Might small pinhead to be dancing on friend

Kerry is stating that he won't pull us out of Iraq, in fact he has stated that he will send in even more troops. This flys in the face of your thesis that Kerry will change the course. Sounds to me like he simply wants to make it bigger, better and more deadly.

Eighty percent of the Iraqi people regard the US as an occupying force and want us gone. We should go. We should continue to pay for every cent of rebuilding and reparations, but we should go. We should turn the matter over to the UN, but we should go. Even if it means that Iraq erupts into civil war, we should go. For if we don't leave, if we set up our little puppet democracy over there, and then leave, there will still be civil war. Everything, every institution the US sets up over there is and will be considered suspect and once we are gone they will all be destroyed and civil war will ensue. All we will have accomplished is killing that many more innocents, suffered that many more casulties, committed that many more atrocities, destroyed that much more of the country, stole that much more of their oil, all to leave behind an illegitamite government that will be shredded once we leave.

Leave now, so as to spare Iraq, the US, and the world that much more horror.
I will not give my vote to a saber rattling, Bush enabling war monger. This isn't a "crazy assed thing" type of issue friend. This is a matter of life and death for thousands if not millions. I and many peace activists well remember the horror another Dem wrought in Vietnam. We keep the example of LBJ before us, and will vote our conscience.

[sandnsea]

33. Nader, what would Nader do?

Read what the man said. He wants to create a democratic Iraq, he wants there to be elections. Face reality. It'll take security in order for that to happen. Somebody has to provide it as the Iraqis aren't ready to do that for themselves. If Nader's goal is a democratic Iraq, that's Bush's goal too. Did you think of that? Kerry's goal is stability so that U.S. troops can be removed, or at least reduced, and then continued efforts towards elections.

Nader spouts off a little fantasyland scenario where U.S. troops can be removed and the goal of democracy can still be reached. It's easy enough for a Nader to do this, because he will never be held accountable to actually implement a plan because he'll never be President. He can say any damn thing he wants to and faces absolutely no scrutiny as to the feasability of his plans.

Believing that Nader will pull the troops out and end the war may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside; but it just doesn't measure up when you consider the rest of his statements. If he believes elections and an Iraqi security force are essential, he must have a realistic way to get there. And he needs to be honest about the fact that elections and a secure Iraq will require U.S. troops. It will, in fact, require a longer U.S. presence than the goal of stability.

Elections are about consequences. One might vote for Bush simply because they think homosexuality or abortion is a sin and they must follow their moral conscience. Without thinking of the consequences of those votes on real people's lives living in the real world. Voting to appease some moral conscience on war is simply a variation of this self-righteous condemnation, without considering the realistic consequences to millions of lives.

[AgadorSparticus]

35. it's easy for nader to make promises when realistically, he knows he

doesn't have to fulfill them. anyone can say anything that the masses want to hear. how lovely. but it's a different ballgame when you have to FULFILL your promises.

[MadHound]

36. Ah, so I should just leave my conscience at the door of the voting booth

That's a real bright move friend, hell, that is what got us into this situation to begin with, people being all fucking "pragmatic" and "logical" and "voting for the lesser of two evils". Don't you get it? Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil!!!

And what is Kerry's brilliant plan for Iraq? Oh Yeah, that's right, "staying the course", and sending over at least 40,000 more troops, all to stabilize and bring democracy to a country THAT DOESN'T WANT US THERE. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want us the hell out of their country NOW, they consider us a hostile occupying force. Any government we set up is going to be considered illegitimate and suspect because it was set up by the US. So we can either stay and prop it up, or leave and let Iraq go it's own way. It doesn't matter how long the US remains in Iraq, any government touched by the US will be torn down by the Iraqi people when we leave. So the only logical thing to do IS leave. We have the lesson of Vietnam clear before us, perhaps it time that you and Kerry and other Demcrats study it.

But no, as Kerry said, he will "stay the course", and commit even more troops to the Iraqi quagmire. We will kill more innocents by the thousands, all so Kerry can continue to look "tough on the war on terra", because God knows, the man has got to get re-elected. And thus we will see that Pax Americana is indeed a bipartisan affair.

Sounds to me like I'm not the only one who isn't "considering the realistic consequences to millions of lives." Can you live with the lives of dead Iraqis on your conscience, for that is what you will be condemning them to if you vote for Kerry, the man who will "stay the course" I certainly can't live with that, that is why I won't be leaving my conscience at the door of the voting booth.

[sandnsea]

37. Nader,

Nader, Nader, Nader

Why can't you talk about NADER???? He's the one that wants to have a democratic Iraq, elections, and an Iraqi security force. And he's the one that doesn't have a realistic plan to get there.

So what are you voting for? Do you even know?

That's the point. The consequences of your vote and what it really means. A phony "anti-war" feel good "vote of conscience"? Or the truth about the Iraq situation and whether Nader has been completely honest about the viability of his plans.

[MadHound]

38. Nader, NAder, NADer, NADEr, NADER!

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass about Nader, other than the fact that the Dems are getting all twisted in the knickers about him. I have heard more anti-democratic comments in regards to Nader coming out of Democrats mouths than I have heard from any facist. "Nader shouldn't run" "Nader should shut up" "How dare he run" "If I meet a Naderite, I'm going to smack some sense into them" on so on and so forth in all of it's freeperish gory. Me, I just defend Nader's right to run, as any natural born citizen of a certain age can run. If you don't believe in that, then perhaps it would be time for you to find a more totalitarian country, where there is only one party and person allowed to run for the top spot.

But since you asked so :eyes:politely:eyes: I'll tell you who I'm voting for, and that will be the Green ticket. They take no corporate cash, their platform and views fit mine pretty well, and they want us the hell out Iraq. If the Greens opt to not field a candidate and endorse the Dems, then I'll be in a pickle, for then I'll have to decide on whether to vote for Nader, Kerry, or opt out. Ask me around October and I'll have a better answer for you.

And by the by friend, my "phony "anti-war" feel good "vote of conscience"" is going to be nothing of the sort. I am dead set on overturning the two party/same corporate master system of government that we currently exist under now. If you wish to think of me as your enemy because of this, fine. But we are living in the Second Gilded Age now friend, a bigger badder version of the First Gilded Age. Do you know what happened at the end of the First Gilded Age? The Great Depression, and we are dead set on a course to make that look like a hiccup. That is what I'm fighting against, and in my opinion BOTH parties contribute to the madness. Perhaps you should go do some research on this subject and then get back to me. I highly reccomend "Wealth and Democracy" by Kevin Phillips as a good place to start. Then come back and tell me how wonderful everything Dem is:eyes:

[sandnsea]

40. Oh, the politics of destruction

Again, don't take responsibility for the consequences of your vote, the agony the entire world would suffer under 4 more years of Bush. Don't even look at the obvious economic, environmental, social and diplomatic differences between Clinton and Bush. (and Kerry is to the left of Clinton) Just pretend it's all the same and make another anti-everything "vote of conscience".

By the way, this is from the Green Party web site. What in the hell does it mean, in terms of terrorism in general and Iraq specifically?

"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."

[MadHound]

42. The politics of destruction, yes, that about sums up our modern government

Both Dems and 'Pugs have engaged in the politics of destruction. Just ask the half million Iraqis killed during Clinton's term. Or those in Bosnia, Kosovo, or even here is the US. Kinder, gentler, lesser evil my ass! Or have you forgotten about welfare "reform", or NAFTA, or the blind eye Clinton turned to Rwanda? Real people dead, real people suffering. You say that you think that I'm not taking responsibility for the consequences of my vote. Hell bub, you don't don't even know me. I have been working, sweating, bleeding and voting for Dems since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye! And now, having watched the Dems piss away their morality all in pursuit of the that pretty corporate lucre, I am taking responsibility for my past votes, and future ones as well. That is why I'm going Green. You perhaps can live with "the lesser evil" on your conscience friend, but I have seen the all too real consequences of that kind of mentality, the lives it has cost, the dreams it has shattered. My question for you is when the hell will you wake up? When a half million Iraqis die on Kerry's watch? A million? Oh hell, just go for 1.5 million friend, that was, after all, LBJ's magic number.

As far as your question about the Green Party statement, it sounds to me like the Greens want a defensive armed force, give up the wars of imperialism, and work diplomatically with others to help the rest of the world. Funny, I remember it was a sentiment once espoused by the Democrats, but then again, that was long ago, and is now long forgotten. Now the Dems simply worry about the next election, and about not appearing "soft on terra", and "staying the course". So much for the morals of the Democratic party, but then again, they were tossed long ago. Got in the way of taking all that corporate lucre.

[sandnsea]

43. "sounds to me"

"it sounds to me like the Greens want a defensive armed force, give up the wars of imperialism, and work diplomatically with others to help the rest of the world."

And that, my friend, is it in a nutshell. The Greens, like Nader, don't have to truly explain their position because they don't have to take the responsibility of being a legitimate political party. Just sling out feel-good slogans, ain't it grand!!!

You don't know what a Green candidate would truly do when faced with protecting the country from terrorists because the Greens have never seriously considered the question. Criticize on Rwanda. Criticize on Kosovo. Just criticize, criticize, criticize. It's easy when you're not responsible for the solutions.

As to wars of imperialism, good god, who has fought his entire life to expose them and stop them? Who worked for years to diplomatically change the face of Vietnam, and isn't done yet? Who got a global AIDS bill actually passed and is continuing to fight for funding? Sure isn't Ralph Nader or anybody from the Green Party.

On welfare reform, moms had been wanting the exact reforms that bill provided for decades. Health benefits extended after they got off of welfare. Done. Child care after they got off welfare. Done. Work programs that didn't reduce their benefits. Done. There's alot of good in that bill, if you THINK about it instead of react. And the 5 year cap? 80% of welfare recipients don't stay on welfare that long anyway. Certainly I want it to be funded, but it doesn't mean the policies implemented aren't good for moms.

Consequences. Getting positive things accomplished. That's what I'm voting for and that's what I've been voting for my entire life.

[MadHound]

45. My my, aren't you just the little apologist

And like many other Dem apologist, you start sounding like a rabid frothing at the mouth Rwinger whenever a third party dares to challenge the status quo.

"You don't know what a Green candidate would truly do when faced with protecting the country from terrorists because the Greens have never seriously considered the question." Make the name change from Greens to Democrats, and you would have a rant worthy of Goldwater forty years ago:eyes:

But hey, I understand, you're having to defend the hypocrisy of a party that is morally bankrupt. I know, I've been there. But you know what friend? There comes a time in your life when you realize that you just. . .can't. . .apologize. . . anymore. And that when it hits you, you've wasted your life apologizing and working for a party that no longer give a damn about you. And that is when you will start to work for a real change.

But meanwhile, I must admit you've become quite the comedian in your apologist contortion trick. I especially liked that one about welfare moms loving Clinton's welfare "reform"! That's a hoot friend, and I would really love to see the documentation you've got on that, for I simply don't believe that the majority of recipients would go for such reform. In fact I recall that at the time, and since, the opinion amongst welfare recipients is more along the line that Clinton's welfare reform sucked, as witnessed below:

"Skeptics, however, point out that only three of every 10 former welfare recipients have found steady work, with nearly 75 percent of them earning no more than $12,000-a-year." <http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:72098723&refid=ink_overture_fin_news&skeyword=car+loan+rate&teaser=...work.+Sometimes+that+may+mean+something+as+simple+as+a+car+loan++a+set+of+tools+or+some+childcare+help+he+said.+The...transition+from+welfare+at+a+time+when+Colorados+unemployment+rate+had+hit+a+historic+low+point.+The+working+poor+are...>

And if Kerry is against wars of imperialism, why did he vote for this one? Why is he saying he won't pull out, in fact that he will throw 40,000 more soldiers into the fray? Why didn't HE vote his conscience? He obviously knew the consequences of his vote, hell, millions world wide knew what the consequences were, and were actively out in force against this monstrosity. And yet Kerry, knowing full well he was going to run for President, went along to get along, and damn the consequences. Hell, he didn't even fulfill the requirements of his damn job, which is supposed to be representing the wishes of his constituents. And yet, with messages to Congress running 280-1 against the IWR, Kerry chose to vote for it. And off we go, into another war of empire:eyes: So who is the last man Kerry will ask to die for an imperial war? That's right, Kerry has promised to "stay the course", so perhaps he won't have to make that decision, he can just keep feeding fodder to the machine. There's your consequences friend, by the hundreds and thousands. Are you ready to live with them? Are you ready to have the deaths your vote entails on your conscience? Answer me that before you start talking about consequences friend. For from my vantage point, it looks like all you are casting your vote for is more of the same ol' same ol' death and destruction, with obscene profits for the few. That is the consequence of your vote, can you live with it?

I certainly can't, which is why I'm voting my conscience. For I already bear the weight of other deadly Democratic votes on my conscience, I don't need anymore.

[sandnsea]

46. Back to the old war vote, eh?

That thing you said you weren't voting on when I asked you to explain why the Green Party or Nader or Kucinich had a realistic solution that was different than Kerry's. You can keep pushing YOUR right wing "stay the course" bullshit all you want, it doesn't change the facts. It's imposssible to call for a pull out and a secure democratic Iraq in the same breath. Let's be clear, it's a LIE.

And as to the Greens and your Barry Goldwater comment, you still haven't addressed the question. What would the Greens actually DO if forced to protect the country from terrorists? I kind of have an inkling they'd do EXACTLY what the Democrats would do.

Now, as somebody who has actually lived in low-income housing, even though I was fortunate enough to have a job back in the "booming" 80's; I can tell you for a certain fact that the problem moms were facing was a lack of health care and child care when trying to get back into the job market. And a lack of good education and jobs programs. That's what moms wanted and that's what they got. You could help by pushing for more funding with a Democratic President & Congress, but unfortunately you think your protest vote is going to help them more.

I couldn't possibly bear the weight of a vote that causes immeasurable harm to people. I actually wouldn't want Kucinich or Nader to be President, although they'd be slightly better than Bush. I don't want people who manipulate the truth for their own political ends and that's what both Nader and Kucinich have done. On issue after issue, their rhetoric doesn't match their actions; or, their rhetoric doesn't measure up when placed in FULL context.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your feel-good "vote of conscience". It's about as useful as whining about the decay of the nation while tanning at the beach.

[Radical Activist]

22. Huh, just like Dean

When will liberals ever learn?

[ButterflyBlood]

13. Cheney ain't the only one getting wealthy off Halliburton and union-bustin

n/t

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. as opposed to Kerry's humble beginnings, right?

this tactic was tried on Ralph in 2000 and din't sway anyone then, either

[jpgray]

19. "Nader, hypocrite-lite!" is such a great rallying cry

:eyes:

The guy profits off the imperialism by investing in Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics and fleeces dumb progressives in one fell swoop.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. no that tactic wasn't tried on Nader in 2000

He was the same lying hypocrit in 2000 that he is now. He ran against Gore then and he will run against Kerry this year...I am assuming he will tell as many lies about Kerry as he did about Gore....all the while profiting from the very corporations he claims to hate.
Face it, he does this for a living.

[shivaji]

23. Nader could easily have been worth 25 million except that he

has given all of his adult life to working for the people's
causes.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. oh please! LOL

He has spent his whole adult life making a small fortune off of other people's hard work. Being a lefty is just a convenient schtick, just like being a righty is a convenient and profitable schtick for Rush Limbaugh.

[Strive to be Dust]

25. Weren't his investments also brought up in 2000?

My memory isn't that great but wasn't Nader's wealth brought up in the 2000 campaign as well? It didn't seem to have much effect on his supporters then --why would it now?
I think that if he's serious about making a difference he will negotiate in good faith during his upcoming meeting with Kerry. He would make an interesting head of the Federal Trade Commission in a Kerry administration, for instance.
:evilgrin:

[dryan]

30. Folks, don't get into a lather about this.

He made some good investments that paid off. In 2000 I remember that this issue came up then too and he said that he was lucky with some of his investments. I think he got in on the ground floor of Cisco. There's other reasons to be irritated with Ralph Nader but because he made some smart investments on the stock market isn't one of them.

[union_maid]

31. It matters because of what he did

He was facilitating the worst possible administration for people in need when he was insulated from that need. That's why it matters and that's why he's evil. I know all about Welfare Reform. I was apoplectic about it, wrote angry letters about it and all that. What Bush has done is to further starve programs that were making up for it when necessary. There have been deep cuts in housing grants just in the last few months and this is when housing is a bigger problem than ever. Nader knew what he was doing and he gathered supporters who would be least likely to be affected by all of that and just helped pave the way to make life even more miserable for the least fortunate in society. And he'd like to do it again. If he were the second coming as his disciples seem to believe he'd live like the poorest in society. If you're demanding sacrifice and are in a position to impose sacrifice on others, then live it yourself. As it is, he's more like a mildly successful televangelist. I had the same gripes about Michael Moore, but he's done a lot to redeem himself.

[dryan]

32. I'm not sure I see the logic of your point.

I wish Nader were not running again but I'm confused...did Nader make profits from companies that went bankrupt ala Tyco or Enron, countries that were doing illegal things or were involved with South African prior to the demise of aparteit (sorry for spelling), or "fussy" accounting practices, we should be mad at him. Was he involved with arms deals, was he involved with some illegal.

[union_maid]

34. None of that speaks to my particular point

My point is that he was not vulnerable to the damage that a RW administration was sure to do, and did. Money insulates you from the problems that occur when cuts are made in Section 8 housing, for instance. Nader as much as anyone in the world, knew that even though things were not satisfactory in that area under Clinton, they'd be worlds worse under Bush. He didn't care. His constituency was not a poverty population and although I think that a lot of them would have cared most of them were too young to really understand the differences. He, of course, was not called upon to suffer as a result, but many people are suffering now and he knew it would happen. That's why I'll never forgive him and that's why I think he's full of shit.

[sangh0]

39. Nader has a safe job and a stock-loaded financial security blanket

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here where 1/3 of my dept has received layoff notices due to Repuke budget cuts. It's easy for him to say "there's no difference", but these people have families, and mortgages and NO job.

[ibegurpard]

41. That's it?

I would've thought he'd be worth more than that. Christ, my father's worth that much!

[GoldenOldie]

47. What a Non-Story

Why wouldn't anyone expect Nader to have 4-mil and probably more than that. He has been a bachelor all his life, no expense of children, does not drive a car, he does not live in a mansion, probably clips coupons to save on his food purchases, etc., and if anyone has noticed he ain't no spring chicken.

He is well known for his frugalty so why is anyone surprised???

If you are angry with Nader at least select a valid reason for your anger.