--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@...> wrote: > > It is refreshing, Chris, that this is your first email I've ever seen that doesn't mention Building 7. > > K _____________________________________________________ Kev, Whilst building 7 [of the World Trade Center Complex] is one of several "smoking guns" that prove (in the usage of the term as in a mathematical proof, not a legal proof) controlled demolition of all three WTC buildings, it was not the topic at hand, which was why I did not mention it. However, if you review my past e-mails (ask Nalini) you will find that I have never mentioned building 7. I may argue some 911 related points generally on this list from time to time but I do not waste time with evidentiary discussions. This is not the forum for that. If you are on this list and still not educated on the topic, after all these years, you are probably not educable. Cheers. ______________________________________________________ > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Christopher Bayard Condon <lacitizensgrandjury@...> > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:28:56 PM > Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins Again > > --- In NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com, wanzala@ wrote: > > Go Joe, right again, as usual. > > Personally, I have no intention of voting for Republicans or > Democrats again, ever. I encourage everyone to stop this mindless > leap over the republicrat cliff. What are you, lemmings? > > A Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich could change my mind, and it they would > run as a team of independents they'd get my vote. But, I doubt that > will happen. > > Right now, the difficult choice for me is between Cynthia McKinney > and Ralph Nader. Gee, Ralph, siphoning votes from Cynthia, for shame. > > Whilst it is true that the USA has been largely a two party system, > they have not been the same two parties. Neither the Republicans nor > the Democrats, nor the corporations that finance them, are mentioned > in any way in the Constitution. They are not the means of government > envisioned by the founders. > > Let me pose a question to this mob of erudite readers: Whose betrayal > is greater? The Republicans for representing finance capital, or the > Democrats for representing finance capital? > > Bayard > > ____________ _________ _________ ______ > > > > > Wrong. It is a maxim underscoring the points made by sam smith in > the original article, namely, that if democracy in america is to > progress past the stagnant zero-sum game of republicrats, in other > words if there is to be any meaningful and positive change in this > country, we will need people like cynthia mckinney, ralph nader and > other 'unreasonable' people who have to refuse to be co-opted and > become subsumed in the okey-doke electoral charades like the one we > are witnessing this year. > > > > Instead of venting misplaced anger at ralph nader you, kevin > ____________ _________ _________ _________ > > Would that be kevin the 911 expert? > ____________ _________ _________ _________ > > and others should be tracking down the 100,000 democrats who voted > for bush, and chastizing people who don't bother to vote at all. > > > > You have no right to lay claim to the votes of people who choose to > vote for nader or any other 3rd party candidate. People still have > the right to choose. > > > > Joe w. > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@ ..> > > > > Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:48:05 > > To:NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com > > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Nader: And Now the Slander Begins > Again > > > > > > That is the best summation about Nader running. He is so convinced > that he is the only person capable for the job. It's sort of like > Cheney when Bush sent him to find him a suitable > > VP and he came back with the suprise result of.....himself. I have > to wonder how hard he > > REALLY looked. > > > > Joseph Wanzala <wanzala@ > wrote: > > > > > > The reasonable [person] adapts [her]/himself to the world: the > unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to > [her]/himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable > [person]. > > > > GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Maxims for Revolutionists > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Frank LeFever <fflefever@yahoo. > <mailto:fflefever@ ...> com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanity and INFORMATION. This deserves wide distribution. > > > > --Frank > > > > ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= > > > > > > > > --- In NewPacifica@ <mailto:NewPacifica %40yahoogroups. com> > yahoogroups. com, "Joseph Wanzala" <wanzala@> wrote: > > > > > > NADER: AND NOW THE SLANDER BEGINS AGAIN > > > > > > http://prorev. <http://prorev. com/2008/ 02/nader- and-now- slander- > begins-again. html> com/2008/02/ nader-and- now-slander- begins- again. html > > > > > > SAM SMITH - AP started it in their lead story on Ralph Nader's > > announcement > > > that he is running for president: "He is still loathed by many > > Democrats who > > > call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party > the > > > election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin > contest in > > > Florida." > > > > > > More on that below, but even if what the Democrats said were > true, the > > > behavior of the party in the years that followed 2000 did > absolutely > > nothing > > > to correct the situation. For example: > > > > > > - The Democrats could have supported and worked for instant runoff > > voting > > > which dramatically changes the effect of third parties on > elections and > > > politics. > > > > > > - They could have avoided gratuitously angering Green voters > through > > such > > > cheap tricks as redistricting Maine's one Green state legislator. > > > > > > - They could have adopted some Green policies, much as European > major > > > parties do when pressed by from the left or right. > > > > > > - They could have stopped being so consistently indistinguishable > > from the > > > Republicans. > > > > > > - Obama could have said he would add one or more Greens to his > > cabinet just > > > as promised he might with one or more right wingers. > > > > > > None of this happened. > > > > > > I supported Nader's run in 2000 but, for pragmatic reasons, > > suggested he not > > > run in 2004. In my memo on the topic, I argued that just because > you had > > > something righteous to say didn't mean that standing in the > middle of an > > > interstate at rush hour was the best place to argue it. The drop > in > > returns > > > for Nader and the Green candidate, David Cobb, supported my > thesis. > > > > > > At the same time, I believe that anyone who feels there is > something > > wrong > > > with their neighborhood, city, state or country not only has the > > right to > > > run for public office but honors that office by doing so. To > criticize > > > someone for exercising this right is repulsively anti-democratic > > and, when > > > the target is Nader or the Greens, reflects the political trust > fund > > baby > > > mentality of the Democratic Party, living off the hard efforts of > > its past > > > and doing little or nothing for the present and future. > > > > > > The party of denial needs to look at its own defects and not seek > > salvation > > > in blaming others for exercising their constitutional rights. > Deceive > > > yourself once or twice and you can chalk it up to political error. > > Deceive > > > yourself thrice and you really need therapy. > > > > > > > > > WHY NADER DID NOT LOSE THE 2000 ELECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS > > > > > > SAM SMITH, 2001 - A study by the Progressive Review of national > and > > Florida > > > polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's > > influence on the > > > final results was minimal to non-existent. > > > > > > The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader > > caused > > > Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if > > Nader was > > > actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change > > inversely > > > to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and > vice > > versa. > > > > > > In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the > > changes > > > were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were > statistically > > > insignificant. When, for example, in September of 2000, Gore's > > average poll > > > result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 > point. > > > Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 > > points but > > > Nader's only went up 0.8 points. > > > > > > In the close Florida race, there were similar results: > statistically > > > insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one > or two > > > points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger. > For > > > example, in nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2 > or 3 > > > points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks > before the > > > election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points. > > > > > > Nationally, the Review's moving average showed Gore steadily > hacking > > away at > > > Bush's 15 point lead until he was ahead by as much six points in > > September. > > > But this lead rapidly disappeared until Bush was back in a narrow > > lead by > > > early October. While Gore eventually won the popular vote, the > > election was > > > so close that most polls projections were still within the > standard > > margin > > > of error. > > > > > > During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception > of a > > > month-long period following the Democratic convention. During > this high > > > point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the > > polls. > > > While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a > running > > average > > > of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose > ground > > even as > > > Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite > the > > help of > > > defectors from Nader, Gore did worse. > > > > > > Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all > > Democratic > > > voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all > women > > voters, > > > 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 > > per year > > > and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all > voting > > union > > > members cast their ballots for Bush. > > > > > > (Interestingly, the same critics who blame Nader for Gore's loss > fail to > > > give him credit for narrow Democratic victories in the Senate, > such > > as the > > > one in Washington state, where the Green vote theoretically > helped the > > > Democrat) > > > > > > Since the mythology of the 2000 election shows no signs of > fading, a few > > > other points are worth noting: > > > > > > - According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were > > > disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters, > > formerly Perot > > > voters, and of no organized religion. In other words, many of his > > voters did > > > not naturally belong to the Democratic party. In fact, half as > many > > > Republicans as Democrats voted for Nader. Six percent of > > independents and 7% > > > of Perot voters supported Nader while only 2% of Democrats did. > > > > > > - The public had a cynical view of both major candidates with 41% > > believing > > > that both would say anything to win votes. Barely half considered > either > > > major candidate honest and trustworthy. And an astounding 51% had > > > reservations about their own vote. > > > > > > - Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee. This is like > flunking a > > > political breathalyzer test. > > > > > > - Perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the > > outcome > > > was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought > > Clinton would > > > go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. > > 44% said > > > that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought > the > > > country to be on the wrong moral track. > > > > > > - In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside > from > > > himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the > > Clinton > > > moral miasma he would probably be president today. > > > > > > - Clinton hurt in other ways, most notably in the damage his > > administration > > > did to other Democratic officeholders, again something Democrats > > don't want > > > to face. During the Clinton administration, Democrats lost over > > 1,200 state > > > legislative seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9 > > legislatures and > > > for the first time since 1954 the GOP controlled more state > legislatures > > > than the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won 45 seats in the > House, > > 7 in the > > > Senate, 11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders switched > > to the > > > Republican Party. Only three Republicans went the other way. In > > short, the > > > Clinton administration was a disaster for the Democrats. > > > > > > But even if Nader only took one percentage point away from Gore - > > the most > > > that can possibly be claimed - some will say that the Greens > should have > > > known better than to take that risk. In a way, it comes down to a > debate > > > between Democratic situationists - I am what the polls tell me I > > ought to be > > > - and Green existentialists - I am what I am regardless of the > > polls. The > > > danger with the Green existentialist approach is that you may end > up > > with a > > > Bush (or a Clinton, for that matter) in the White House. The > danger > > with the > > > Democratic situationist approach is that you definitely will. In > one > > case, > > > you give up on democracy in favor of a 800-pound-gorillacr acy; in > > the other > > > case you still retain some hope that things can get better. > > > > > > Ironically, if Nader had done much better - say 10 or 15 points - > we > > would > > > all be in better shape since politics tends to follow third party > > uprisings > > > when they are powerful enough. In the most recent case, for > example, > > both > > > the GOP and Democratic parties still remain in the shadow of the > Perot > > > paradigm. But because Nader didn't do all that well, the > Democrats can > > > muddle along pretending that it wasn't their fault after all but > > some guy > > > they wouldn't even let into the debate. > > > > > > Democrats tend to think of Greens as wayward members of their > party, > > which > > > is why they try to browbeat them rather than convincing them. In > > fact, the > > > Greens have less and less in common with the Democratic Party - > > especially > > > since the latter refuses to stand up against the Bush war, greedy > > > globalization, and the disintegration of constitutional > government. . . > > > > > > Too many Democrats presume they can either ignore the Greens or > > hector them > > > back into their pointless, spiritless, and morally dead confines. > It > > won't > > > work for the simple reason that, unlike the Democratic Party, > Greens > > > actually believe in something. And when you believe in something, > > you are > > > willing to take a few risks along the way. > > > > > > KEVIN ZEESE points out that had Nader not run, Bush would have won > > by more > > > in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at > 47 > > > percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Naderless > > Florida race. > > > Further: > > > > > > - Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas > and > > > traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, > Gore > > would > > > have won. > > > > > > - Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of > the 3 > > million > > > Nader voters were Democrats. > > > > > > - Zeese also notes, "The Democrats lost the 2002 congressional > > elections, > > > the California and New York governorships, and many state > legislatures > > > throughout the country. Surely Nader is not to blame for those > defeats." > > ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ ---- > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. > Try it now. > <http://us.rd. yahoo.com/ evt=51733/ *http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06 > i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9 tAcJ > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ ______________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >