like it did all those other times?

don't get me wrong, the system needs fixin', but he's not the one that's going to do it - no one person can.

Are there people out there who actually want him to be president? I mean, was he persuaded to run again because so many people asked him to, or is he just trying to get some spotlight attention once again for more personal reasons?

if that was his intention, he should have founded a third party. but this is a "me me me me me me" play. most lame.


apparently he talked to obama, but obama wouldn't do his bidding, so nader threw a hissy fit.

figures.

also, am i the only person who finds it amusing that Nader is always referred to as a "consumer advocate"?

well he was the founder of US PIRG and did his seatbelt thing, etc, but yeah, consumer advocate, that's his place. they could also call him "presidentially deluded consumer advocate".

I didnt say he was going to fix it. I said his participation revealed the fraud of the electoral process in Amerikan so-called democracy, just as it did in the previous two elections. I apologize if people out there still believe in this system, but I am not so convinced.

man, i'm surprised you didn't say shitstem. you're growing complacent!

ha ha.

but seriously no, he didn't "reveal" any "fraud". he just made an ass of himself.

the current parties didn't exist throughout american history. new parties can appear, the problem is all "third party" jackasses of recent times base their organizations more on cults of personality than on ideology.

and then groups like the libertarian party, i dont know what the fuck they do.

and that's just how they like it!:D

they work hard to make a bad name for libertarians everywhere, and they seem to be pretty good at it.

they should try to capture some mayoral chairs & congresional districts.

what the fuck is a party without a base? everyone wants to focus on the presidency as if we lived in some kind of monarchy. stupid fuckers.

i was just sayin.... libertarians = pro-privacy = you don't know what the fuck they do. and they like it.





true story.

yeah, but I kinda see his brand of consumer advocacy as a double-edged sword. I'm not saying all his ideas are bad, but he fully believes in the parental role of government - that people need to be told what to do in order to be kept safe.

His advocacy certainly has gotten a lot of safety features into consumer products more quickly than the "free market" route, but it has also had the consequences of removing certain choices (who knows - there could have been some alternatives to air bags, but it doesn't matter because air bags won out politically) and allowing companies to justify price increases that arguably place more of a burden on the very people for whom Nader claims to be an advocate.

unsafe in any office.

i've never understood why the LP insists on running presidential candidates but fails to run for more local seats. In certain states, they would do well (Georgia, New Hampshire, Montana, probably more)... besides the more pragmatic version of libertarianism is making government more effective at the local level.

i've been posting on this board for too long now... actually I really was going to post shitstem, but I thought it would sound more intellectual to use political terms rather then the truth there, which clearly worked because you did successfully interpret my insinuations

in intellectual matters i tend to favor accurate observations and insightful analysis over language formalities, but that's just me.


yes-- i'd tell them get on the city council, get a state governor elected, take over a state legislature, show you what you can do at the local level before we can take you seriously to run the country.

the way they run they're doomed to receive a perpetual 1% of the vote.

i agree ith nadar more than any of the rest of them, but come on he failed twice badly, no reason to for him to run at all.

in 2000, i used to make fun of nadar, but i didn't understand what he was about. i voted for gore. i probably wouldn't have voted for nadar anyway even if i knew his stances. he seemed like a waste of a vote then, like he is now.

like, look at this stupid shit:

http://www.lpconvention.org/

what the fuck for??

It's more important that people with libertarian ideas get elected than members of the Libertarian Party though. For the most part, the party represents some of the worst things about libertarians. They don't speak to the issues that many people are concerned about such as the environment or health care, but rather continue to push the old ideological battles like gun ownership, etc. There are new issues for the times we live in, and there are indeed libertarian perspectives that can address these issues. So yes, they need to focus locally but they also need to focus on issues that they have generally avoided in order to gain more support for their ideas.

well see that supports my point refuting suchfriend (sorta): one can't blame the 2-party system for the way alternative political organizations are so shittily run. that's a matter of self-determination, lack of strategic skills, and a love of failure.

I'm sure you know I consider myself a libertarian, but I've never supported the idea of the national party. It's such a waste.

For now, it's better to work on the local scene and try to get the major national parties to incorporate our ideas. Ron Paul does a decent job at that, but he's a more conservative breed of libertarian than I am and is by no means perfect.

I consider myself pretty pragmatic too. I initially liked Bill Richardson, it's a shame he couldn't present himself any better. I think an Obama-Richardson ticket would be the best we could ask for this time around.