Discussion:
LET NADER DEBATE
(too old to reply)
J u n o
2004-09-12 22:27:17 UTC
Permalink
An Open Letter to President George Bush

The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents honest
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the problem
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally televised
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be included.

Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for American
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!




Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter





http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp


begin 666 divider_line2.gif
M1TE&.#EA10$!`( ``#,S,____R'Y! ``````+ ````!%`0$```(@1&YXD;P-
<GU34U7BGW9CK#GYB1GIE>([FBK)J"[]R>A8`.P``
`
end
J u n o
2004-09-12 22:28:08 UTC
Permalink
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
unknown
2004-09-12 22:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents honest
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the problem
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally televised
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be included.
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for American
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.

Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader. To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.

If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
J u n o
2004-09-12 23:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents honest
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the problem
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally televised
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be included.
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for American
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader. To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.
If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
People are sick and tired for puppets that commit for israel first than
america.
Just like in the Trinity, these two parties have become one.
AnonMoos
2004-09-13 14:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush Mr. President, we, the
undersigned, call upon you to speak out for American Democracy.
LET NADER DEBATE! Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want
or need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader.
To get Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to
agree. If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in
one of the so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect
Bush by voting for Nader on Nov 2.
People are sick and tired for puppets that commit for israel first
than america.
And as a Canadian, you have the right to tell us all about it, don't
you Anakadhibu!
Post by J u n o
Just like in the Trinity, these two parties have become one.
That's the way to conduct voter outreach -- insult Christian doctrine,
when at least 75% of American voters are somewhat committed Christians!
I bow before your immense political wisdom! But of course you're
completely wrong about the Trinity -- please look at the "Shield of
the Trinity" diagram at http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/#shield-trinity
and notice what's red in the diagram. I even added in a Arabic-language
version for you!
--
&#1587;&#1606;&#1602;&#1575;&#1578;&#1604; &#1604;&#1571;&#1580;&#1604;
&#1581;&#1585;&#1610;&#1578;&#1606;&#1575; &#1608;&#1604;&#1606;
&#1606;&#1593;&#1591;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1580;&#1586;&#1610;&#1577;
&#1608;&#1604;&#1587;&#1606;&#1575; &#1589;&#1575;&#1594;&#1585;&#1610;&#1606;
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
clark wilkins
2004-09-13 19:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J u n o
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents
honest
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the
problem
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally
televised
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum,
independent
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a
different
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be
included.
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for
American
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader. To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.
If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
People are sick and tired for puppets that commit for israel first than
america.
Just like in the Trinity, these two parties have become one.
Bush has yet to be exposed as Dick Cheney's puppet who, in turn, is Libby's
puppet for Israel. However, as Bush lose continues to lose the war in Iraq,
someones going to ask, "Why are we there?"

By next summer millions of signs will be asking that question as the war
protestors hit the streets. He can't keep lying, not rotating troops, not
funding the war, and not winning forever. Those things have a way of
catching up with you.

But it will be too late for the Palestinians. In the next three years Bush
is going to ram an unviable Palestinian state down their throats as the
Likuud makes its land grab on the West Bank. There is nothing lying ahead
for Palestinians but poverty, misery, thirst, and the return of the IDF -
And the American taxpayors will pay for it.

Israel wins and that's all the Zionist nutcases here care about.


::Clark::
clark wilkins
2004-09-13 18:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents honest
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the problem
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally televised
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be included.
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for American
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Bush would love to have Nader take votes away from Kerry.

However, Bush doesn't need tobe exposed as a moron run by Neocon nutcases on
national TV.
Nader would take Bush apart.

He needs Kerry and Nader to debate each other while he's at a safe distance.
Post by unknown
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader.
That is true.
Post by unknown
To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.
And neither one will.
Post by unknown
If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
That is true too.
Americans have no choice in the elections except to vote for Bush 1 or Bush
2.


::Clark::
XpatriotgamesX
2004-09-13 21:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: LET NADER DEBATE
Date: 9/13/2004 11:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents
honest
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the
problem
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally
televised
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum,
independent
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a
different
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be
included.
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for
American
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Bush would love to have Nader take votes away from Kerry.
However, Bush doesn't need tobe exposed as a moron run by Neocon nutcases on
national TV.
Nader trying to "out" someone else as a nutcase. That's funny. But then you
also like Dennis Kucinich.
clark wilkins
2004-09-13 22:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by XpatriotgamesX
Subject: Re: LET NADER DEBATE
Date: 9/13/2004 11:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents
honest
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the
problem
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally
televised
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum,
independent
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a
different
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be
included.
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for
American
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Bush would love to have Nader take votes away from Kerry.
However, Bush doesn't need tobe exposed as a moron run by Neocon nutcases on
national TV.
Nader trying to "out" someone else as a nutcase. That's funny.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader1223.html
Post by XpatriotgamesX
But then you
also like Dennis Kucinich.
Whoever the hell he is.

/;^)
unknown
2004-09-14 01:12:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:59:09 -0700, "clark wilkins"
Post by J u n o
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents
honest
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the
problem
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally
televised
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum,
independent
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a
different
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be
included.
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for
American
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Bush would love to have Nader take votes away from Kerry.
However, Bush doesn't need tobe exposed as a moron run by Neocon nutcases on
national TV.
Nader would take Bush apart.
He needs Kerry and Nader to debate each other while he's at a safe distance.
Post by unknown
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader.
That is true.
Post by unknown
To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.
And neither one will.
Don't be so sure. Nader's mere presence in the debates would likely
ensure some significant erosion of Kerry's support on the left --
enough in many battleground states to put Bush over the top.

Moreover, a 3-way debate reduces Bush's air-time to 33% from 50%, thus
reducing his chances of making an error. Likewise, it reduces Kerry's
chances of "scoring" a big, memorable sound byte.

Of course Bush wants Nader to hop in, even if he can't publically take
the lead on this. But don't doubt that behind the scenes, Bush's
debate negotiators are looking at possible scenarios of ensuring
Nader's presence at least one debate.
Post by J u n o
Post by unknown
If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
That is true too.
Americans have no choice in the elections except to vote for Bush 1 or Bush
2.
Oh, we got some folks here who wont vote for any of these three, but
probably stay home, and then spend the next 4 years whining and
sniveling about the "pResident" that they chose not to help select.
clark wilkins
2004-09-18 00:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Good points.
Post by unknown
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:59:09 -0700, "clark wilkins"
Post by J u n o
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents
honest
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the
problem
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally
televised
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance. Americans
need a more vigorous debate. To have an open and engaged forum,
independent
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included. He offers a
different
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
perspective on the pressing issues of the day. His participation will
invigorate the dialogue. Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be
included.
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for
American
Post by unknown
Post by J u n o
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Bush would love to have Nader take votes away from Kerry.
However, Bush doesn't need tobe exposed as a moron run by Neocon nutcases on
national TV.
Nader would take Bush apart.
He needs Kerry and Nader to debate each other while he's at a safe distance.
Post by unknown
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader.
That is true.
Post by unknown
To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.
And neither one will.
Don't be so sure. Nader's mere presence in the debates would likely
ensure some significant erosion of Kerry's support on the left --
enough in many battleground states to put Bush over the top.
Moreover, a 3-way debate reduces Bush's air-time to 33% from 50%, thus
reducing his chances of making an error. Likewise, it reduces Kerry's
chances of "scoring" a big, memorable sound byte.
Of course Bush wants Nader to hop in, even if he can't publically take
the lead on this. But don't doubt that behind the scenes, Bush's
debate negotiators are looking at possible scenarios of ensuring
Nader's presence at least one debate.
Post by J u n o
Post by unknown
If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
That is true too.
Americans have no choice in the elections except to vote for Bush 1 or Bush
2.
Oh, we got some folks here who wont vote for any of these three, but
probably stay home, and then spend the next 4 years whining and
sniveling about the "pResident" that they chose not to help select.
jessicandle
2004-09-13 20:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
What ignorance. Bush would LOVE to have Nader join the debates.
Yer letter should be addressed to Kerry, who clearly doesn't want or
need his falling base of support diluted any further by Nader. To get
Nader in the debates, both major candidates would have to agree.
For one thing, Bush does not want Nader in the debates. Nader believes
Bush should be impeached. And second, how can sit there saying that
Kerry wouldn't be able to survive a debate with Nader. Don't you have
any faith in your precious candidate?..Of course you don't...and with
good reason. Kerry should step up to the challenges of Nader. He
should take advice from Nader or he will lose his base. It's obvious
he's losing a lot of support already. You can't blame liberals and
progressives for that. You must blame Kerry and his republican-lite
advisors. This is the 2000 campaign all over again. Dems too afraid to
ruffle the feathers. Well "electability" isn't going to revive their
base. Strength and consistancy will. And Kerry doesn't have it.
Post by unknown
If you don't consider yerself conservative, and ya live in one of the
so-called "battleground states", you can help re-elect Bush by voting
for Nader on Nov 2.
How long are you people going to use Nader as a scapegoat for the Dems
losses. If you demand more from your candidates you will get more. But
you settle for less and then get screwed over in the end...well you
deserve it!
AnonMoos
2004-09-13 13:55:30 UTC
Permalink
A debate that includes only two candidates with strikingly similar
views is too narrow in scope and substance. To have an open and
engaged forum, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader must
be included. LET NADER DEBATE!
He can debate whoever he can get to debate him, but there's no reason
he should get millions of dollars of free television time as if he
were a serious candidate, when in fact he's merely a conscious
deliberate "spoiler" who's working as hard as he can to get George
W. Bush elected (as he already did once back in 2000, when he
deliberately focused on close "swing states" such as Florida in the
last few weeks before the election -- even though Nader knew he had no
hope of getting a 5% nationwide vote and so gaining matching funds).
Nader conducts these malevolent and malicious activities solely
because of his shallowly cynical belief in his old "the worse the
better" dogma -- which he borrowed from those same pathetically
sinister 19th-century continental European Socialist ideologues who
refused to participate in elections or government during the
nineteenth century (since participating in real-world compromises and
practical politics might compromise their theoretical ideology of pure
proletarian revolution), but who then turned around on a dime in 1914
and transformed themselves instantly into subserviently obedient cogs
in the Prussian or Austro-Hungarian war machine!
--
SAUDIA OMNIS IN PARTES TRES DIVIDENDA EST! Free Arabia by
splitting the Saudi tyranny into its three natural parts:
Hejaz-alHarameyn, Nejd-Wahhabistan, and Gulf-Petrolia.
Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
clark wilkins
2004-09-13 18:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J u n o
An Open Letter to President George Bush
The extreme partisanship that has overrun American politics prevents honest
debate about the critical issues facing our country. Nowhere is the problem
of partisanship more visible than in the conduct of the nationally televised
presidential debates. A debate that includes only two candidates with
strikingly similar views is too narrow in scope and substance.
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
Post by J u n o
To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included.
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign funds -
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Post by J u n o
His participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose each
other.
Post by J u n o
Independent voters now make up 35% of the
electorate, many of whom believe the exclusion of the independent
presidential candidates from televised debates since 1992 has harmed the
democratic process and intensified partisanship. Millions of
independent-minded Republicans and Democrats share this view. At this
critical time in America's history, there must be a genuine national
dialogue on what direction our country should be taking. For an honest
debate with differing view points expressed, Ralph Nader must be included.
But neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate. The
Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans are run
by Neocon nutcases.

Hence, the debates will focus on SUV gas mileage.
Post by J u n o
Mr. President, we, the undersigned, call upon you to speak out for American
Democracy. LET NADER DEBATE!
::Clark::


Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Post by J u n o
Sign the Open Letter or Print the Open Letter
http://www.letnaderdebate.org/open_letter.asp
Count 1
2004-09-13 20:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president in
the upcoming election:

George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
According to who?
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate won't
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included.
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign funds -
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
His participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose each
other.
Because there is nothing to 'expose' America's vociferous and motivated
media hasn't already taken a shot at.
Post by clark wilkins
But neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate. The
Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans are run
by Neocon nutcases.
And in that passage you succinctly make the transition from 'Anti-Israel' to
'Anti-semitism'. Criticizing Israeli lobbying groups by relying on anti
semitic stereotypes.
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
Bob Cooper
2004-09-13 20:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president in
George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
Uh...excuse me, but you forgot 1MAN4ALL. :>)

And, Potus, the hamster:

http://www.hamsterforpresident.com./

And, Barbie:

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0813Barbie-ON.html
Count 1
2004-09-13 20:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president in
George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
Uh...excuse me, but you forgot 1MAN4ALL. :>)
He doesn't count. To be considered you have to at least use your real name.
Post by Bob Cooper
http://www.hamsterforpresident.com./
Damn fine economic policy he has.
Post by Bob Cooper
http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0813Barbie-ON.html
She gets my vote. Don't know what good it does to have a Canadian's vote
though.
1MAN4ALL
2004-09-14 03:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president in
George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
Uh...excuse me, but you forgot 1MAN4ALL. :>)
Thank you, Bob, for remembering me. I am thinking about hiring Juno
Forger to get me the 50,000 signatures, if it's not too late;-)

But you can always write in my name, can't you?
Bob Cooper
2004-09-14 19:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1MAN4ALL
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president in
George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
Uh...excuse me, but you forgot 1MAN4ALL. :>)
Thank you, Bob, for remembering me. I am thinking about hiring Juno
Forger to get me the 50,000 signatures, if it's not too late;-)
I don't think your own signature counts. So, that would leave
you with....let's see............0, by my count.
Post by 1MAN4ALL
But you can always write in my name, can't you?
Can you make pigs fly?

Sorry, but I plan to vote for a candidate with good character,
intelligence, solid leadership skills and an unwavering
determination to defend this country and its hard-won
freedoms against Islamofascist terrorism, Euro-weenies, UN
crooks and other clear and present dangers. In short, I plan
to vote to reelect the President.

Should he for some reason drop out of the race, there
would still be innumerable candidates I would find
infinitely preferable to you in the above respects,
including Potus the Hamster and Barbie.
J u n o
2004-09-13 20:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president in
George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
HOW MANY WILL MAKE IT TO THE DEBATE?
WE DON"T WANT A DEBATE BETWEEN GWB AND HIMSELF.
BOTH KERRY AND BUSH LOOK ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL IN FOREIGN POLICIES.
WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF PRESIDENTS WHO PUT ISRAEL FIRST AND NOT AMERICA.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
According to who?
FOREIGN POLICY FOR EXAMPLE.
CRAPPY D LIKE THEM BOTH BECAUSE HE IS A ZIONIST AND BOTH CANDIDATES PUT
ISRAEL FIRST.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate won't
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE CRAPPY D YOU ARE!!!!
WHY A VIGOROUS DEBATE COULD NOT HAPPEN? EXPLAIN CRAPPY D.
DO AMERICANS LACK THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND
WHY WOULDN'T NADER TELL IT LOUD THAT BOTH CANDIDATES ARE PUPPETS TO ISRAEL?
WHEN SOMETHING DOESN'T SUIT CRAPPY D , HE REJECTS IT.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included.
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign
funds -
Post by clark wilkins
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
HERE CRAPPY D EXPOSES HIMSELF!!!!!!!
HE IS SAYING THAT NADER'S PUPPET STATEMENT DOES NOT QUALIFY HIM TO BE IN THE
DEBATE.
WHY DOESN'T CRAPPY D TELL US CLEARLY THAT ANYTHING THAT CRITICIZES ISRAEL
CONTRIBUTES TO THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
YOU MAKE ME LAUGH. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
A CLAIM THAT HAS ZERO, NIL, SUPPORT.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
His participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose each
other.
Because there is nothing to 'expose' America's vociferous and motivated
media hasn't already taken a shot at.
THERE IS A LOT TO EXPOSE.
OVER 1000 AMERICANS DIED FOR YOU ZIONIST, 15000 INJURED BECAUSE OF THE LIES
OF THE NEOCONS WHICH HAPPENED TO BE ALL ZIONISTS .
NO WE WON'T DO IRAN!
NO WE WON'T DO SYRIA!
NO WE WON;T DO SAUDI ARABIA.
YES WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR LIES.
GET OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. NOW.
GET OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
But neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate. The
Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans are
run
Post by clark wilkins
by Neocon nutcases.
And in that passage you succinctly make the transition from 'Anti-Israel' to
'Anti-semitism'. Criticizing Israeli lobbying groups by relying on anti
semitic stereotypes.
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
IT MEANS ALL YOUR VICIOUS POLITICS WILL BE AGAINST YOU.



CRAPPY D = CRAPPY DEBATOR
NAME ASSIGNED TO COUNT -1 BY GABRIL.
The Department of Defense
2004-09-14 00:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by J u n o
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect. Here is a list of the people running for president
in
Post by Count 1
George Bush
John Kerry
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
HOW MANY WILL MAKE IT TO THE DEBATE?
WE DON"T WANT A DEBATE BETWEEN GWB AND HIMSELF.
BOTH KERRY AND BUSH LOOK ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL IN FOREIGN POLICIES.
WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF PRESIDENTS WHO PUT ISRAEL FIRST AND NOT AMERICA.
Excuse me ....but who do you mean by "we"? Canadians?
Count 1
2004-09-14 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Department of Defense
Post by J u n o
HOW MANY WILL MAKE IT TO THE DEBATE?
WE DON"T WANT A DEBATE BETWEEN GWB AND HIMSELF.
BOTH KERRY AND BUSH LOOK ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL IN FOREIGN POLICIES.
WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF PRESIDENTS WHO PUT ISRAEL FIRST AND NOT AMERICA.
Excuse me ....but who do you mean by "we"? Canadians?
Him and the voices in his head.
The Department of Defense
2004-09-14 01:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by J u n o
Post by The Department of Defense
Post by J u n o
HOW MANY WILL MAKE IT TO THE DEBATE?
WE DON"T WANT A DEBATE BETWEEN GWB AND HIMSELF.
BOTH KERRY AND BUSH LOOK ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL IN FOREIGN POLICIES.
WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF PRESIDENTS WHO PUT ISRAEL FIRST AND NOT
AMERICA.
Post by The Department of Defense
Excuse me ....but who do you mean by "we"? Canadians?
Him and the voices in his head.
All throughout this post he keeps refering to you as crappy d.... as in

CRAPPY D = CRAPPY DEBATOR
NAME ASSIGNED TO COUNT -1 BY GABRIL.

I think hes got some nerve calling someone else a crappy debator when he
wont even answer simple questions..
clark wilkins
2004-09-13 23:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Absolutely correct.
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
Post by Count 1
Here is a list of the people running for president in
George Bush
John Kerry
And none of the others listed below has a chance - Anyone voting for them is
executing a protest vote only. Any American who wants to have his vote count
for anything has a choice - vote for Bush 1 or vote for Bush 2.

Which is exactly what I said.
Post by Count 1
Diane Templin
Gene Amondson
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Michael Badnarik
Leonard Peltier
Charles Jay
Earl Dodge
Ralph Nader
Bill Van Auken
Roger Calero
John Parker
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
According to who?
What do George Bush 1 or George Bush 2 offer on the economy?
What does George Bush 1 or George Bush 2 offer on Iraq?

To both candidates these are non-issues.
And neither candidate can deliver on his social issues since neither party
has a way to pay for them.

So what do they have to offer America?

1) Lower Social Security
2) No end to the war
3) Increased taxes
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate won't
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Neither Bush nor Kerry want it. A genuine debate would include Social
Security, troop replacement, war goals, funding for the war, the
Palestinian question, and Israel's settlements. Neither candidate wants to
address these issues with more than a one sentence answer.

I would say a debate that doesn't cover these issues is not very vigorous.
Or is a one sentence response to the above, in your world, a "vigorous
debate"?

For example, here is Kerry's solution to the Social Security problem:

"Grow the economy".

That won't work.

Here is Bush's solution:

"Privatize it"

That won't work.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/12/ECONOMY.TMP
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
To have an open and engaged forum, independent
presidential candidate Ralph Nader must be included.
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign
funds -
Post by clark wilkins
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
A good excuse but it still doesn't change the fact that Ralph Nader would be
free to point out the other two candidates are full of shit, by telling the
truth - something Kerry, and certainly Bush, aren't very good at.

Not having him present silences the voice of dissent.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
His participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose each
other.
Because there is nothing to 'expose' America's vociferous and motivated
media hasn't already taken a shot at.
Bush and Kerry will keep the debate away from their weak areas, which is
virtually every issue of importance.

So? What important issue do you think the two will debate?
Gas mileage on SUV's?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
But neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate. The
Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans are
run
Post by clark wilkins
by Neocon nutcases.
And in that passage you succinctly make the transition from 'Anti-Israel' to
'Anti-semitism'. Criticizing Israeli lobbying groups by relying on anti
semitic stereotypes.
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly transitioned from?
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
It means what you're doing now.


::Clark::
Count 1
2004-09-14 01:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?

- Anyone voting for them is
Post by clark wilkins
executing a protest vote only. Any American who wants to have his vote count
for anything has a choice - vote for Bush 1 or vote for Bush 2.
Which is exactly what I said.
Noooo....what you 'exactly said' is preserved above.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
So what do they have to offer America?
1) Lower Social Security
2) No end to the war
3) Increased taxes
I love taking apart your posts - they're so much fun. Above your write they
offer nothing, then you list three things they offer.

I haven't even had to access their platforms yet, check out their promises,
and already I've been able to make you look like a complete tool.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate
won't
Post by Count 1
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Neither Bush nor Kerry want it. A genuine debate would include Social
Security, troop replacement, war goals, funding for the war, the
Palestinian question, and Israel's settlements. Neither candidate wants to
address these issues with more than a one sentence answer.
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about what
gurantees a debate won't happen? BTW - I look forward to reminding you of
these words post debates, where I'm certain Social Security, War goals will
be discussed. I hope israel and the 'Palestinian question' aren't
discussed, as they aren't relevant, but they will probably recieve cursory
words of acknowledgement anyway.
Post by clark wilkins
I would say a debate that doesn't cover these issues is not very vigorous.
Or is a one sentence response to the above, in your world, a "vigorous
debate"?
I'm still looking for the 'gurantee' that it won't happen. And if you
recall correctly, the issue of 'vigorous debate was centered around the
participants, not the issues.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign
funds -
Post by clark wilkins
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
A good excuse but it still doesn't change the fact that Ralph Nader would be
free to point out the other two candidates are full of shit, by telling the
truth - something Kerry, and certainly Bush, aren't very good at.
'The Truth' is Bush's boss is the American public and the constitution. Not
Israel like your anti semitic fantasies lead you to. And either candidates
source of campaign funds probably doesn't allow anyone - including Nader -
to conclude these people are foriegn agents.
Post by clark wilkins
Not having him present silences the voice of dissent.
In free countries nothing silents dissent. However just because someone has
a different opinion doesn't automatically qualify them to be part of any
debate in any forum.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?
Not to worry - I hear several Arab groups are doing pretty well. Oh, wait!
The amount of money is irrelevant if the ideas being communicated *suck*.
(You can drop the Chomsky-esque "Manufacturing Consent" rhetoric now, its
tired and boring.)
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
His participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose
each
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
other.
Because there is nothing to 'expose' America's vociferous and motivated
media hasn't already taken a shot at.
Bush and Kerry will keep the debate away from their weak areas, which is
virtually every issue of importance.
Bush and Kerry will try to keep their opponents 'weak areas' front and
center. This is the nature of 'competition'.
Post by clark wilkins
So? What important issue do you think the two will debate?
Gas mileage on SUV's?
The constitutional right to Cherry sno-cones.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
But neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate. The
Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans are
run
Post by clark wilkins
by Neocon nutcases.
And in that passage you succinctly make the transition from
'Anti-Israel'
Post by clark wilkins
to
Post by Count 1
'Anti-semitism'. Criticizing Israeli lobbying groups by relying on anti
semitic stereotypes.
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly transitioned from?
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a lobby
group for Israel and your allusion to them 'buying democrats' relies on age
old stereotypes of jews using their wealth to manipulate elections. You
might be able to get away with that in some groups - but here you can be
guranteed that I will hold you to a higher standard.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
It means what you're doing now.
It means you shouldn't engage in futile behaviour, like pretending you can
debate me. As you constantly discover, it can only end up bad for you.
clark wilkins
2004-09-14 07:24:46 UTC
Permalink
You make this too easy...
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
Post by Count 1
- Anyone voting for them is
Post by clark wilkins
executing a protest vote only. Any American who wants to have his vote
count
Post by clark wilkins
for anything has a choice - vote for Bush 1 or vote for Bush 2.
Which is exactly what I said.
Noooo....what you 'exactly said' is preserved above.
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
So what do they have to offer America?
1) Lower Social Security
2) No end to the war
3) Increased taxes
I love taking apart your posts - they're so much fun.
Really?
Then you should try it sometime.
Post by Count 1
Above your write they
offer nothing, then you list three things they offer.
In case you didn't notice - Those are negatives.

/;^)
Post by Count 1
I haven't even had to access their platforms yet, check out their promises,
and already I've been able to make you look like a complete tool.
Check the mirror.
I accessed their platforms on Social Security and posted them.
As usual, you snipped them out - Which is the usual thing you do when you've
lost an argument and don't want others to know it.

Oh! And then you call me an "anti-Semite."
As your selective "snipping" pattern has already begun, I'm sure we won't
have to wait long for your "anti-Semite" charge - your next admission of
defeat.

We'll watch for it.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate
won't
Post by Count 1
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Neither Bush nor Kerry want it. A genuine debate would include Social
Security, troop replacement, war goals, funding for the war, the
Palestinian question, and Israel's settlements. Neither candidate wants to
address these issues with more than a one sentence answer.
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about what
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I listed
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which must be
faced and cannot be put off until 2008. Neither candidate can get around
them and therefore a "vigorous debate" should follow on those problems.
However, neither candidate has addressed the issue - And neither will -
because you can't fund the war and Social Security without a tax increase.
Neither candidate will admit that this solution must be implemented. Each
candidate will simply give a "sound byte" answer. Kerry will say that he
plans to "improve the economy" to generate more SS funds. That won't work:

QUOTE:

Kerry, Greenspan Differ on Social Security

Sat Aug 28, 2004

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE - John Kerry (news - web sites) doesn't talk much about Social
Security (news - web sites) on the campaign trail, but he laid out some
thoughts for a voter in Everett, Wash., who doubted that the government
retirement program is really in trouble.

"We've made little fixes, little jots and jags here and there, that have
been able to change it," the Democratic presidential candidate said, noting
that Social Security has survived 20 years of predictions that its demise is
around the corner.

Those words of reassurance struck a much different tone than the warning
issued by Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news -
web sites) earlier Friday when he said that, even under the most rosy
economic assumptions, the government has promised more Social Security
benefits than it can deliver to retiring baby boomers.

"If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful," Greenspan said
in Jackson, Wyo., at a Federal Reserve conference on the challenges posed by
an aging population...

Kerry said Friday that the best way to ensure Social Security's future is
with policies that bolster the economy and raise workers' wages, letting
them contribute more to the program.

"I guarantee you, the first best thing to do to protect Social Security is
to put America back to work in jobs that pay more," he said.

MacGuineas said she disagrees with Kerry's assessment that a few minor
changes here and there will keep the system afloat, and his position that a
stronger economy can solve Social Security's problems.

"Those are pretty darn large tweaks we're talking about," she said, adding
that economic growth alone won't bolster the program because workers'
benefits increase as their wages rise, increasing the future obligations of
the system.

A number of government studies have come to the conclusion that the baby
boom wave will force the government to cut benefits, raise taxes or push
back the retirement age to preserve the benefits.

Kerry ruled many of those options out.

"I will never privatize Social Security. I will not cut Social Security
benefits. And I will not raise the retirement age," he said.

UNQUOTE.

But Kerry's "fix" won't work. Social Security is funded by a percentage of
labor compensation and benefits paid out equal taxes taken in. Improving the
economy may increase payments going in, but it also increases payments going
out.
Bush's idea, "privatizing" Social Security, won't work either. In order
for Social Security to invest in private business, Social Security must have
surplus funds - And George has used that to fund the war. He has no Social
Security funds to invest. He's already spent almost 100% of the money - And
he needs the balance to fund the war.

Thus, neither candidate has a viable solution for the pending Social
Security crisis which Greenspan has already announced is about to occur. And
neither candidate will critisize the other candidate's proposal since it
means having to also defend their own. The obvious solution of using the
money we're spending on a war we've already lost anyway to fund Social
Security will go unmentioned by both candidates because both candidate's
want to fight the war even though there are no victory conditions laid out
by either party. The only way they can fight the war on our present level of
taxation, is to continue to loot Social Security. Kerry has made it a point
to show that Bush has been looting it:

http://www.democrats.org/ssm/bushrecord_ss.html

Yet both candidate's plan to loot it and not fix it. Therefore, don't expect
it to become a debate issue of any meaningful duration.

It's the same way on the other issues. Neither wants the public to know
where they stand. Example: Where does Bush stand on the Israeli settlements?
Where does Kerry?
Post by Count 1
BTW - I look forward to reminding you of
these words post debates, where I'm certain Social Security, War goals will
be discussed.
Four of the five isues I mentioned above (Social Security, Israel, troop
replacements, and taxes) will get the lip service I described. Each one will
give his sound byte answer and no one will point out the flaws. As for war
goals - Yes - they'll argue back and forth. Kerry's goal is to get the UN
to participate in the occupation while Bush is currently out of solutions.
So Kerry will be on the offensive and Bush on the defensive. So an obvious
exchange will take place. However, that exchange will not define when the
"mission has been accomplished" and our boys can come home. When the debate
is over no one listening will know whether our boys can be expected to be
home in four years or twenty-five - or how the occupation will be paid for.
IMO, that's deliberate. The failure to have a third party, such as Nader,
who can point out the fallacies of the other two sides that are just licking
each others bootheels, is only to Bush's and Kerry's benefit.

I predict neither one will commit himself on the conditions for leaving
Iraq, which one would expect to be a "war goal" (i.e. winning). Bush will
say that we'll leave "When we're asked to leave" but he's on safe ground
because no one's going to ask him to leave with the Baathists and al Sadr
still armed, especially when he has set up the system which selects Iraq's
candidates. On September 10, 2004 National Public Radio reported that the
Iraqi exiles are most likely to win the January election. Now what Iraqi
exile, if he wins the election, would ever ask US troops to leave when we
put him in power in the first place?

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3912372

As for Kerry, he now says he'll pull US troops out of Iraq after four years.
By "coincidence", that's his entire term in office. They can still be there,
on the 2008 election and he'll have kept his promise. Also, by coincidence,
he was behind in the polls at the time he made that promise. So Kerry only
talks about bringing troops back when he's desperate for votes - or
otherwise they'd stay.
No - neither one wants to bring our boys home. They can die over there in
the sand for all they care. So there's nothing for the two of them to debate
except how they each plan to lose the war. On that, I'm sure they'll have
differing strategies.
Post by Count 1
I hope israel and the 'Palestinian question' aren't
discussed, as they aren't relevant, but they will probably recieve cursory
words of acknowledgement anyway.
I'm sure they won't be discussed or, if they are, they'll each give the same
answer.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
I would say a debate that doesn't cover these issues is not very vigorous.
Or is a one sentence response to the above, in your world, a "vigorous
debate"?
I'm still looking for the 'gurantee' that it won't happen. And if you
recall correctly, the issue of 'vigorous debate was centered around the
participants, not the issues.
The participants will vigorously debate issues of no concern - such a "gay
marriages". If the isue is relevant. it will go ignored. You, youself, have
already admitted doubt that Israel and Palestinians will be a debate issue
and yet Sharon is already drawing the new borders now. In three years time,
either Bush or Kerry will putting final approval on it - and without ever
telling us what that plan is today.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign
funds -
Post by clark wilkins
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
A good excuse but it still doesn't change the fact that Ralph Nader
would
Post by Count 1
be
Post by clark wilkins
free to point out the other two candidates are full of shit, by telling
the
Post by clark wilkins
truth - something Kerry, and certainly Bush, aren't very good at.
'The Truth' is Bush's boss is the American public and the constitution.
Wrong again. George Bush does not serve the American public. Her serves the
Republican Party (But his Pentagon advisors do not.). And his boss is not
the Constitution. The Constitution says that only Congress has the power to
declare war - Yet Bush declared it and not Congress.
Post by Count 1
Not
Israel like your anti semitic fantasies lead you to.
Ahhh! Yes!
There it is! Your accusation of "anti-Semitism" that you always resort to
(along with snipping) when you're losing a debate.

/;^)
Post by Count 1
And either candidates
source of campaign funds probably doesn't allow anyone - including Nader -
to conclude these people are foriegn agents.
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore, AIPAC
is a foreign agent.

Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts funds
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
If they haven't bought his vote then they wasted their money. If they wasted
their money then they shouldn't give that same candidate money in the next
election. But if they give him money again, it means they didn't waste their
money - And that means they bought his vote the first time around.

We can trace which candidates have received repeat funding and identify
exactly who has been bought - and the price of their purchase.

Shall we?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Not having him present silences the voice of dissent.
In free countries nothing silents dissent. However just because someone has
a different opinion doesn't automatically qualify them to be part of any
debate in any forum.
I never said Nader had a right to be there. I simply said he wouldn't be
invited.
I'm glad to see you agree with me.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?
Not to worry - I hear several Arab groups are doing pretty well. Oh, wait!
The amount of money is irrelevant if the ideas being communicated *suck*.
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations from
foreign countries "sucks"? Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?

Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
Post by Count 1
(You can drop the Chomsky-esque "Manufacturing Consent" rhetoric now, its
tired and boring.)
Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
His participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose
each
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
other.
Because there is nothing to 'expose' America's vociferous and motivated
media hasn't already taken a shot at.
Bush and Kerry will keep the debate away from their weak areas, which is
virtually every issue of importance.
Bush and Kerry will try to keep their opponents 'weak areas' front and
center. This is the nature of 'competition'.
Bush is weak because he lied to America to get us in the war. Has Kerry
taken that issue "front and center"?
Bush is weak because he is bankrupting Social Security. Has Kerry made that
an issue "front and center"?
Bush is weak because he is losing the war - Yet Kerry ran against Howard
Dean on a pro war platform.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
So? What important issue do you think the two will debate?
Gas mileage on SUV's?
The constitutional right to Cherry sno-cones.
Probably a better chance of hearing that then a debate on how to end the
war.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
But neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate.
The
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans
are
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
run
Post by clark wilkins
by Neocon nutcases.
And in that passage you succinctly make the transition from
'Anti-Israel'
Post by clark wilkins
to
Post by Count 1
'Anti-semitism'. Criticizing Israeli lobbying groups by relying on anti
semitic stereotypes.
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly transitioned from?
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a lobby
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
AIPAC is a lobby group for Israel and it is the second largest donor to
Congress.
What do they get for their bribe money?

For spending approximately $ 3 million per election on Congress, AIPAC has
arranged for Israel to receive between $ 83 billion and $ 134 billion in US
aid between 1948-1998.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

What else did they get?
Oh! They got Tom Daschle, of whom AIPAC paid 25% of his first term election
campaign costs.
Other big names on AIPAC's Congressional payroll include Trent Lott, Joseph
Biden, Christopher Bond, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Susan Collins,
Dianne Feinstein, Charles Grassley, Tom Harkin, Dennis Hastert, James
Jeffords, Trent Lott, Nita Lowey, Mitch McConnell, Patty Murray, Charles
Schumer, and Paul Wellstone. In fact, AIPAC has donated to 205 members of
Congress.

For their estmated $3 million spent every four years on Congress, Israel is
currently receiving $ 3 billion dollars in aid annually, or roughly a $
4,000 return for every dollar paid out in campaign donations/bribes.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/5/massing-m.html

Everyone should read the above link.
Post by Count 1
and your allusion to them 'buying democrats' relies on age
old stereotypes of jews using their wealth to manipulate elections.
Here's an article on that very subject from the respectable Wall Street
Journal:

Linked Donations?

Political Contributions From Pro-Israel PACs Suggest Coordination

Groups' Leadership Overlaps With That of AIPAC, A Lobbying Organization

It Denies a Linkup in Giving

By JOHN J. FIALKA staff reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

WASHINGTON -- When Idaho Senate candidate John V. Evans decided he needed to
raise big out-of-state money for his race last year, he went to the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, one of Washington's most powerful
lobbying organizations. Despite the initials in its name, "AIPAC emphasized
constantly that they were not a PAC (political action committee)," which
gives money to candidates, says Mr. Evans, a Democrat and former governor.
"But they noted that there were Jewish organizations all over the country
that had their own PACs and that if we would contact them, they would be
able to help us."

Indeed, AIPAC did much better than an ordinary PAC could do for Mr. Evans.
By federal law, a PAC is limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 per
race, and groups that coordinate their spending are counted as one PAC under
this limit. But AIPAC steered Mr. Evans to a series of supposedly
independent organizations-- many of them run by people with ties to AIPAC-
that gave him $204,950 for his losing race against Republican Sen. Steve
Symms.

According to a computer-aided analysis of 1986 Federal Election Commission
reports, despite AIPAC's claims of non-involvement in political spending, no
fewer than 51 pro-Israel PACs-most of which draw money from Jewish donors
and operate under obscure- sounding names-are operated by AIPAC officials or
people who hold seats on AIPAC's two major policymaking bodies. The study
shows that 80 pro-Israel PACs spent more than $6.9 million during the 1986
campaigns, making them the nation's biggest-giving, narrow issue interest
group.

The analysis shows that three of seven "regional chairpersons" a AIPAC
direct PACs and 26 more PAC chairmen or treasurers sit on AIPAC's 131-member
executive committee, which meets four times a year and sets overall lobbying
strategy. Twenty-two more PAC leaders hold seats on a second, advisory body,
the 200-member national council.

Similar Spending Patterns

While the pro-Israel PACs represent diverse and supposedly bipartisan Jewish
communities in almost every major city and region in the country, their
spending patterns are remarkably similar. For example, of $3.9 million given
directly to candidates, the pro-Israel PACs focused their power on three
Senate races, spending $642,000 on Democrats in South Dakota, Idaho and
California. In these races, only one $5,000 donation went to a Republican.

AIPAC leaders, including its executive director, Thomas A. Dine, refused
repeated requests for interviews on the group's relationship with the
pro-Israel PACs. Reading from a prepared statement, an AIPAC spokeswoman
says the group "denies most forcefully that any such (spending) coordination
occurs," and insists that the interlock with pro-Israel PAC leaders "is a
function of the nature of political activism and in no way connotes
affiliation or connection."

But the overlaps between the organization and the pro-Israel PACs begin at
the top. For instance, the Los Angeles-based Citizens Organized Political
Action Committee was founded by the wife of AIPAC's chairman, Lawrence J.
Weinberg. And Citizens Concerned for the National Interest, located in
Chicago, was started by Robert H. Asher, AIPAC's president. Neither could be
reached for comment.

* * *

The race that experienced the biggest influx of pro-Israel PAC money was the
Senate race in South Dakota, where Democratic Rep. Thomas Daschle's
successful campaign received $229,480. The PACs and people associated with
them spent another $91,000 to help the state's Democratic Party finance an
unprecedentedly lavish get- out-the-vote drive, including computerized voter
lists, statewide phone banks and paid operatives who scoured remote Indian
reservations for Democrats needing a ride to the polls.

The effort on behalf of Mr. Daschle infuriated Stanford M. Adelstein, a
Rapid City developer, a former AIPAC executive committee member-and a
Republican. "I'm angry. I really, in a sense, gave up on AIPAC," says Mr.
Adelstein, who estimates that half of the state's 150 Jewish families are
Republican.

Mr. Adelstein says he went to great lengths to get Jewish contributors to
listen to incumbent GOP Sen. James Abdnor, and he helped arrange the
senator's mid-campaign trip to Israel, where Mr. Abdnor promised to soften
his long-held stand against all foreign aid. But Mr. Abdnor was unsuccessful
in stemming the flow of funds to his opponent.

Mr. Abdnor wasn't the only target of pro-Israel money to visit Israel last
year. Mr. Zschau and Sen. Symms also made trips there and had warm praise
for Israeli leaders and their prospects for future U.S. aid. The pro-Israel
PAC money, however, went almost unanimously against them.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:GnABIkQtvmAJ:home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-08.htm+Democrats+AIPAC+donations&hl=en

I guess the Wall Street Journal believes in that 'buying democrats' relies
on age old stereotypes of jews using their wealth to manipulate elections."

And the Wall Street Journal noticed this too:

Anti-Zionist's Candidacy Was Helped By Jewish Contributors in California

By JOHN J. FIALKA

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

LOS ANGELES-Edward B. Vallens, a 67-year-old retired contractor, is an
avowed anti-Zionist. Just how he wound up with $120,000--much of it from
Jewish contributors-to stage a television blitz in the final hours of the
1986 California Senate race still bothers him.

The $120,000 might seem like a small amount in a race that consumed $24
million and is believed to be the most expensive Senate race in history. But
it is part of a larger story that might have affected the outcome of the
close, bitter race between Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston and his
unsuccessful GOP challenger, then-Rep. Edwin Zschau.

A key figure in the story appears to be Michael Goland, a Los Angeles
developer who is one of the largest donors to the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee and who has been active in opposing candidates he views as
being unfriendly to Israel. He recently agreed to pay a $5,000 fine for his
role in running television commercials attacking former GOP Sen. Charles
Percy of Illinois in Mr. Percy's losing 1984 race; the commercials were
illegal because the source of the financing wasn't disclosed.

Mr. Goland, who couldn't be reached for comment, surfaced in the California
race at a May 1986 reception for Mr. Zschau held by Jewish supporters in Los
Angeles's San Fernando Valley. According to the accounts of both Mr. Zschau
and campaign manager Ron Smith, he confronted the candidate and, in Mr.
Smith's words, "said, 'I'm going to get you just like I got Percy.' "

A few weeks later, Mark Barnes, the operator of a Los Angeles political
consulting firm, was approached to produce and buy time for a television ad
for Mr. Vallens, the Senate candidate of the American Independent Party. Mr.
Barnes says he can't divulge who his clients were. About that time,
Libertarian Party candidate Rreck McKinley says he received a call from Mr.
Barnes, who said he represented some potential contributors. Mr. McKinley
says that when he pressed for more information, Mr. Barnes said he was
working on behalf of Mr. Goland. Mr. Barnes confirms that he called Mr.
McKinley but denies mentioning Mr. Goland's name. Mr. McKinley says he
rejected the offer.

Mr. Vallens says that in mid-October, as his campaign struggled along with a
few thousand dollars, he received a call from Mr. Barnes promising $120,000
from "very conservative Republicans who don't want Zschau in there." Mr.
Vallens was told to go to a Los Angeles television studio, where he made
commercials asserting that he, and not Mr. Zschau, was the only real
conservative in the race.

The commercials ran at least 60 times on Los Angeles and San Diego stations
in the final hours before the election. Mr. Vallens, hitherto a political
unknown, got 109,856 votes. Mr. Smith claims the ads siphoned off Zschau
votes and depressed voter turnout in heavily Republican Orange County. Mr.
Zschau lost the election by 116,000 votes.

The Los Angeles Times found two of the donors worked for companies
controlled by Mr. Goland and another who lived in a house that is owned by
Mr. Goland. One $4,000 check came from Mr. and Mrs. Michael Altman. Mr.
Altman says he is a close friend of Mr. Goland's and that he is treasurer of
Young Americans Political Action Committee, a pro-Israel PAC of which Mr.
Goland is assistant treasurer.

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-08.htm

So tell me? Would this be an example of that "old stereotypes of jews using
their wealth to manipulate elections?"
Post by Count 1
You
might be able to get away with that in some groups - but here you can be
guranteed that I will hold you to a higher standard.
I see. You want to hold me to a higher standard? Let's do that. Here's a
current election campaign in Georgia in which AIPAC has an interest in who
wins "Zig Zag" Zell's vacating Senate seat.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407026.html

But you believe they're not trying to influence who wins, right?

And here we have Democrats fighting other Democrats for Jewish money:

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030117/us16.shtml

And here Kerry scrambles to AIPAC's tune:

http://www.jewishmonmouth.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=122746

He even found he had Jewish ancestors!

Here Bush goes after the Jewish campaign dollar:

http://www.peacenow.org/PNintheN/nationaljournal.html

But hey! No influence pedaling going on here, right?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
It means what you're doing now.
It means you shouldn't engage in futile behaviour, like pretending you can
debate me. As you constantly discover, it can only end up bad for you.
/;^)



::Clark::
Count 1
2004-09-14 13:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
You make this too easy...
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
C'mon clark - don't try to wiggle out of this one.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
- Anyone voting for them is
Post by clark wilkins
executing a protest vote only. Any American who wants to have his vote
count
Post by clark wilkins
for anything has a choice - vote for Bush 1 or vote for Bush 2.
Which is exactly what I said.
Noooo....what you 'exactly said' is preserved above.
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
And you are wrong.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
So what do they have to offer America?
1) Lower Social Security
2) No end to the war
3) Increased taxes
I love taking apart your posts - they're so much fun.
Really?
Then you should try it sometime.
Post by Count 1
Above your write they
offer nothing, then you list three things they offer.
In case you didn't notice - Those are negatives.
That's a matter of perspective.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I haven't even had to access their platforms yet, check out their
promises,
Post by Count 1
and already I've been able to make you look like a complete tool.
Check the mirror.
I accessed their platforms on Social Security and posted them.
Excellent. Show me where those platforms state SS will be lowered.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate
won't
Post by Count 1
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Neither Bush nor Kerry want it. A genuine debate would include Social
Security, troop replacement, war goals, funding for the war, the
Palestinian question, and Israel's settlements. Neither candidate
wants
Post by clark wilkins
to
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
address these issues with more than a one sentence answer.
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about what
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I listed
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which must be
faced and cannot be put off until 2008.
But the issues centers around participants - not the topics. Moron.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I hope israel and the 'Palestinian question' aren't
discussed, as they aren't relevant, but they will probably recieve cursory
words of acknowledgement anyway.
I'm sure they won't be discussed or, if they are, they'll each give the same
answer.
So you admit you're wrong.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I'm still looking for the 'gurantee' that it won't happen. And if you
recall correctly, the issue of 'vigorous debate was centered around the
participants, not the issues.
The participants will vigorously debate issues of no concern
'Of no concern to me' is what you meant to type.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign
funds -
Post by clark wilkins
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates
as
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
A good excuse but it still doesn't change the fact that Ralph Nader
would
Post by Count 1
be
Post by clark wilkins
free to point out the other two candidates are full of shit, by telling
the
Post by clark wilkins
truth - something Kerry, and certainly Bush, aren't very good at.
'The Truth' is Bush's boss is the American public and the constitution.
Wrong again. George Bush does not serve the American public. Her serves the
Republican Party (But his Pentagon advisors do not.). And his boss is not
the Constitution. The Constitution says that only Congress has the power to
declare war - Yet Bush declared it and not Congress.
After Congress authorized him to use the military. Kerry voted for it.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Not
Israel like your anti semitic fantasies lead you to.
Ahhh! Yes!
There it is! Your accusation of "anti-Semitism" that you always resort to
(along with snipping) when you're losing a debate.
Check the scoreboard dude. As of now everysingle argument you've put
forward has been squashed.

And now you're about to run from this thread - like you always do.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
And either candidates
source of campaign funds probably doesn't allow anyone - including Nader -
to conclude these people are foriegn agents.
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore, AIPAC
is a foreign agent.
No - AIPAC is a political lobby group.
Post by clark wilkins
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts funds
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
They understand the geopolitical importance of Israel's existence.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?
Not to worry - I hear several Arab groups are doing pretty well. Oh, wait!
The amount of money is irrelevant if the ideas being communicated *suck*.
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations from
foreign countries "sucks"?
Yes.
Post by clark wilkins
Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?
Probably. Why are you interested in stifling free speech?
Post by clark wilkins
Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
That would be because HR 460 is merely an endorsement of the presidents
decision to endore Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan - nothing more.

I'm not surprised Nader was fooled - even less that you were.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
(You can drop the Chomsky-esque "Manufacturing Consent" rhetoric now, its
tired and boring.)
Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
That's not the point moron. Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would
be a shitty president.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly transitioned
from?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a lobby
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
Noooo.....You asked for the 'anti semitic statement.' And I provided it.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
You
might be able to get away with that in some groups - but here you can be
guranteed that I will hold you to a higher standard.
I see. You want to hold me to a higher standard? Let's do that.
Already done - and your antisemitic stereotypes have been exposed.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
It means what you're doing now.
It means you shouldn't engage in futile behaviour, like pretending you can
debate me. As you constantly discover, it can only end up bad for you.
Point proven
clark wilkins
2004-09-16 07:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
You make this too easy...
/;^)
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
C'mon clark - don't try to wiggle out of this one.
I was giving you an exit. You didn't take it.
Which of those candidates that you listed can an American vote for and see
elected?
Evidently you don't have the required brain power to realize that if you
don't vote for Bush 1 or Bush 2, you might as well stay at home and not vote
at all.

Here's an idea, Count. Why don't you, in the next Canadian elections, cast a
write in vote for Alfred E. Newman and see if he gets elected?

I really thought you knew better than this.
Evidently not.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
- Anyone voting for them is
Post by clark wilkins
executing a protest vote only. Any American who wants to have his vote
count
Post by clark wilkins
for anything has a choice - vote for Bush 1 or vote for Bush 2.
Which is exactly what I said.
Noooo....what you 'exactly said' is preserved above.
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
And you are wrong.
Crapolo profundo. By that logic I can cast a write in vote for you too - or
for a dead person. Please explain why these candidates you listed are not
invited to the debates? Where can I see them? Hear them speak? Our electoral
system has narrowed the candidates down to two. When Americans go to the
polls and vote, they have a choice between Bush 1 and Bush 2 if they want
their vote to count. Your argument is just plain silly - Which explains
perfectly well why you resorted to it.

Go ahead! Tell us all which one of these third party candidates has a chance
of winning - let alone even having his/her name recognized?

I want the name of my THIRD CHOICE that has a chance of winning. Put it
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Neither candidate has anything to offer America.
So what do they have to offer America?
1) Lower Social Security
2) No end to the war
3) Increased taxes
I love taking apart your posts - they're so much fun.
Really?
Then you should try it sometime.
Post by Count 1
Above your write they
offer nothing, then you list three things they offer.
In case you didn't notice - Those are negatives.
That's a matter of perspective.
Let's see - from the perspective of America's ENEMIES - Reducing Social
Security, having no end to the war, and increasing taxes are all positives.

Now tell us which Americans benefit from any of the above?

You're not going to "wriggle out of this one" are you?
Now where have I heard that phrase before?
Oh! That's right! From YOU!
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I haven't even had to access their platforms yet, check out their
promises,
Post by Count 1
and already I've been able to make you look like a complete tool.
Check the mirror.
I accessed their platforms on Social Security and posted them.
Excellent. Show me where those platforms state SS will be lowered.
Being Canadian, I'll forgive your ignorance. Our politicians who are serious
about getting elected never run on platforms where they offer less Social
Security. Both parties promise no reductions in benefits - but neither has
stated how that's possible to do (Because it isn't.). That is the nature of
my complaint - that both parties refuse to admit that there is a problem -
Even though the Federal Reserve Chairman testified before Congress on
national TV that there was.

They don't admit there is a problem because both Bush 1 and Bush 2 need to
be able to continue to loot Social Security in order to pay for their war in
Iraq. If they actually fixed Social Security they wouldn't be able to loot
it - And then they'd have to pass the biggest tax increase in history to pay
for Iraq.

There's still a few dollars left - And they're both after them.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
Americans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous
debate
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
won't
Post by Count 1
happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Neither Bush nor Kerry want it. A genuine debate would include Social
Security, troop replacement, war goals, funding for the war, the
Palestinian question, and Israel's settlements. Neither candidate
wants
Post by clark wilkins
to
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
address these issues with more than a one sentence answer.
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about what
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I listed
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which must
be
Post by clark wilkins
faced and cannot be put off until 2008.
But the issues centers around participants - not the topics. Moron.
Uh...excuse me?
The subject of these thread (see title) is about allowing a third
participant (Nader) in the debates in order to liven up the discussion
topics.
Again, you need to think first and type second. Perhaps that way you can
spare yourself this type of embarrassment and humiliation in the future?
Just a suggestion.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I hope israel and the 'Palestinian question' aren't
discussed, as they aren't relevant, but they will probably recieve
cursory
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
words of acknowledgement anyway.
I'm sure they won't be discussed or, if they are, they'll each give the
same
Post by clark wilkins
answer.
So you admit you're wrong.
LOL! What flight of stairs did you fall down today?
What does the above reply admit to being wrong to?

Apparently, once again, your short attention span is showing itself. I was
saying that if Nader were allowed to participate in the debate a greater
discussion of Israel and the Palestinians (especially since Nader is an Arab
American) would result. As it is now, when two AIPAC candidates address each
other on the subject, it's not a debate - It's a competition between them
for which one can promise Israel more.

Now what - again - did I just admit to being wrong too?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I'm still looking for the 'gurantee' that it won't happen. And if you
recall correctly, the issue of 'vigorous debate was centered around the
participants, not the issues.
The participants will vigorously debate issues of no concern
'Of no concern to me' is what you meant to type.
If I'm the only American concerned about our soldiers in Iraq, our foreign
policy standing in the world, the Palestinian question, and our Social
Security, then -Yes - the participants will vigorously debate issues of no
concern to me - such as "gay marriages".
BTW, how important of an issue is that to you? I never see you bring it up.
Isn't it important? It seems to be of critical importance to the Bush
Administration. As long as we're killing Muslims, let's kill Gays!
I'll change channels and watch "Gilligan's Island" first - Or better yet -
"Gomer Pyle" (The TV character George Bush is based on).
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
He would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of
campaign
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
funds -
Post by clark wilkins
so he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates
as
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have
simply
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
A good excuse but it still doesn't change the fact that Ralph Nader
would
Post by Count 1
be
Post by clark wilkins
free to point out the other two candidates are full of shit, by
telling
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
the
Post by clark wilkins
truth - something Kerry, and certainly Bush, aren't very good at.
'The Truth' is Bush's boss is the American public and the
constitution.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again. George Bush does not serve the American public. Her serves
the
Post by clark wilkins
Republican Party (But his Pentagon advisors do not.). And his boss is not
the Constitution. The Constitution says that only Congress has the power
to
Post by clark wilkins
declare war - Yet Bush declared it and not Congress.
After Congress authorized him to use the military. Kerry voted for it.
Like I said - We can vote for Bush 1 or Bush 2.
Kerry is a Bush supporter.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Not
Israel like your anti semitic fantasies lead you to.
Ahhh! Yes!
There it is! Your accusation of "anti-Semitism" that you always resort to
(along with snipping) when you're losing a debate.
Check the scoreboard dude. As of now everysingle argument you've put
forward has been squashed.
LOL!
You crack me up!
How many flights of stairs did you actually fall down?
Post by Count 1
And now you're about to run from this thread - like you always do.
/;^)
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
And either candidates
source of campaign funds probably doesn't allow anyone - including
Nader -
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
to conclude these people are foriegn agents.
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore, AIPAC
is a foreign agent.
No - AIPAC is a political lobby group.
Sigh. You make this too easy...

AIPAC's web page declares themselves to be "America's Pro-Isreal Lobby"

http://www.aipac.org/newthisweek.html

The definition of a "foreign agent" under the Foreign Agent Registration Act
(as amended in 1966) is as follows:

The term `agent of a foreign principal' includes any person, subject to
certain exemptions, who engages in political activities on behalf of a
foreign government, political party, individual, corporation, partnership,
association or organization.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp104&r_n=hr339p1.104&sel=TOC_14147&

Since AIPAC is a lobby group for Israel and since it meets the definition of
being an "organization", then AIPAC "engages in political activities on
behalf of a foreign government", making all of AIPAC's members (subject to
certain exemptions) FOREIGN AGENTS.

"Most Israeli officials who travel to Washington meet with AIPAC and
exchange information." - JTA - The Global News Service of the Jewish People

http://jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=AIPAC+finds+itself+in+the+limelight&intcategoryid=3&SearchOptimize=Jewish+News
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts funds
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
They understand the geopolitical importance of Israel's existence.
They need money to understand that?
Does that mean without AIPAC bribe/donation money they don't understand
that?
Your call.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by J u n o
He offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?
Not to worry - I hear several Arab groups are doing pretty well. Oh,
wait!
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
The amount of money is irrelevant if the ideas being communicated
*suck*.
Post by clark wilkins
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations from
foreign countries "sucks"?
Yes.
But it's okay for them to take money from FOREIGN AGENTS?
LOL!
You crack me up!
You're such a hypocrite! And you don't even know it!
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?
Probably. Why are you interested in stifling free speech?
Evidently Canada is - because it's illegal for China to make donations to
Canadian political parties.

QUOTE:

The following are not eligible to make a contribution to a registered party,
to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association or to a
candidate:

a) a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined
in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act;

b) a corporation or an association that does not carry business in Canada;

c) a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in
Canada;

d) foreign political party; and

e) a foreign government or an agent of one.

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/takeaction/activism101/joinparty.html

Unquote.

Now unless I'm seriously mistaken, China is a "foreign government" apart
from Canada, isn't it? (See item (e) above)

Like I said, you might want to think first and type second. Who knows? You
might actually win a debate sometime if you did.

Just a suggestion.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
That would be because HR 460 is merely an endorsement of the presidents
decision to endore Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan - nothing more.
I'm not surprised Nader was fooled - even less that you were.
Wrong again as usual. I quoted Nader's position from his letter to the ADL.
There's no "me" anywhere in the above. But if you had taken the time to
think first and type second, you would have noticed that.

Naturally, you didn't.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
(You can drop the Chomsky-esque "Manufacturing Consent" rhetoric now,
its
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
tired and boring.)
Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
That's not the point moron.
I see you got caught with your pants down again - And to hide it you got out
your scissors and snipped out what you actually wrote - As you always do
when you lose. Let's put back in what you said that I responded to.

Quoting me (about Nader) and then YOUR REPLIES:

Clark: I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?

Count 1: Not to worry - I hear several Arab groups are doing pretty well...

Clark: Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's
campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.

You can put it RIGHT HERE:

Count 1: That's not the point moron.

Unquote.

You implied above that there were "several Arab groups are doing pretty
well" that could fund Nader but when I ask you to name one - SUDDENLY THAT'S
NOT THE POINT?

You crack me up!
Post by Count 1
Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would
be a shitty president.
Wrong again as usual.

http://www.arabamericansfornader.org/

Not your day, huh?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly transitioned
from?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a
lobby
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
Noooo.....You asked for the 'anti semitic statement.' And I provided it.
"AIPAC is a lobby group for Israel" is an anti-Semitic statement? That's
funny! It says that right on their web page. I guess AIPAC is
"anti-Semitic"?

Or maybe you thought "The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC"
is an anti-Semitic statement? If so, then by donating money to Democrats to
secure their votes, AIPAC is engaging in "anti-Semitism".

Either way, you've made AIPAC into an anti-Semitic organization.
Once again - think first and type second. You might have been able to avoid
that one.

Well... maybe not.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
You
might be able to get away with that in some groups - but here you can be
guranteed that I will hold you to a higher standard.
I see. You want to hold me to a higher standard? Let's do that.
Already done - and your antisemitic stereotypes have been exposed.
Uh... no. So far you've exposed AIPAC as being anti-Semitic and not me.
See above.
Your words. You explain it.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Ever hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
It means what you're doing now.
It means you shouldn't engage in futile behaviour, like pretending you
can
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
debate me. As you constantly discover, it can only end up bad for you.
Point proven
/;^)


::Clark::
Count 1
2004-09-16 13:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
C'mon clark - don't try to wiggle out of this one.
Post by clark wilkins
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
And you are wrong.
Crapolo profundo.
Its right there mate. You said there are two options. I listed several
more. You were absolutely incorrect.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
1) Lower Social Security
Excellent. Show me where those platforms state SS will be lowered.
Being Canadian, I'll forgive your ignorance. Our politicians who are serious
about getting elected never run on platforms where they offer less Social
Security.
But you said that's what they offered. Now you are backtracking.

This is the standard pattern from you. Speak nonsense and when shown to be
wrong backtrack or change the context.

In case you haven't figured it out yet I hold you to a higher standard. Get
used to it. When you speak lies I will be here to point them out, and I
will always reduce your rhetoric to the points.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about
what
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I
listed
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which must
be
Post by clark wilkins
faced and cannot be put off until 2008.
But the issues centers around participants - not the topics. Moron.
Uh...excuse me?
The subject of these thread
The subject of this tangent within this thread is the nature of guranteeing
a vigorous debate and the bizarrely stupid statement you made regarding it.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
'Of no concern to me' is what you meant to type.
If I'm the only American concerned about our soldiers in Iraq, our foreign
policy standing in the world, the Palestinian question, and our Social
Security, then -Yes - the participants will vigorously debate issues of no
concern to me - such as "gay marriages".
And if the debates do in fact cover those topics you will admit your error?
Post by clark wilkins
Like I said - We can vote for Bush 1 or Bush 2.
A statement already destroyed by the facts.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore,
AIPAC
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
is a foreign agent.
No - AIPAC is a political lobby group.
Sigh. You make this too easy...
AIPAC's web page declares themselves to be "America's Pro-Isreal Lobby"
Thank you, yes - ergo they are not 'foriegn agents'.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts funds
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
They understand the geopolitical importance of Israel's existence.
They need money to understand that?
Irrelevant.
Post by clark wilkins
Does that mean without AIPAC bribe/donation money they don't understand
that?
Non sequitur.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations
from
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
foreign countries "sucks"?
Yes.
But it's okay for them to take money from FOREIGN AGENTS?
LOL!
You crack me up!
You're such a hypocrite! And you don't even know it!
It is OK to take money from any organization, be it a country, an
international lobby group - anywhere. To say they can't is a limitation of
free speech.

You can highlight the possibility of their motives based on the origins of
their donations, but you should not describe the organizations as something
they are not.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?
Probably. Why are you interested in stifling free speech?
Evidently Canada is
True.

- because it's illegal for China to make donations to
Post by clark wilkins
Canadian political parties.
The following are not eligible to make a contribution to a registered party,
to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association or to a
a) a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined
in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act;
b) a corporation or an association that does not carry business in Canada;
c) a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in
Canada;
d) foreign political party; and
e) a foreign government or an agent of one.
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/takeaction/activism101/joinparty.html
Unquote.
Now unless I'm seriously mistaken, China is a "foreign government" apart
from Canada, isn't it? (See item (e) above)
Like I said, you might want to think first and type second. Who knows? You
might actually win a debate sometime if you did.
I said 'probably' and I was wrong. No big whoop. It doesn't surprise me
that Canada stifles free speech. It also doesnt' surprise me that you want
to stifle free speech.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by
407
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
That would be because HR 460 is merely an endorsement of the presidents
decision to endore Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan - nothing more.
I'm not surprised Nader was fooled - even less that you were.
Wrong again as usual.
Nope. Read the resolution in question. Not every resolution on the issue
needs to address every facet of it.
Post by clark wilkins
Clark: Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's
campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
Count 1: That's not the point moron.
Unquote.
And it isn't the point moron.

The point is there are alternatives to AIPAC money.
Post by clark wilkins
You implied above that there were "several Arab groups are doing pretty
well" that could fund Nader but when I ask you to name one - SUDDENLY THAT'S
NOT THE POINT?
The fact that they don't doesn't take away from the fact that they can.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would
be a shitty president.
Wrong again as usual.
http://www.arabamericansfornader.org/
Not your day, huh?
So far its been excellent, thanks.

What percentage of 'Arab Americans' do they represent, and - more
importantly - what percentage of global arabs do they represent? You'll
notice I said Arab groups', and not specifically 'Arab Americans'. It looks
like you've found a tiny, infintesimal number of people and are suggesting
they represent something they don't.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly
transitioned
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a
lobby
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
Noooo.....You asked for the 'anti semitic statement.' And I provided it.
The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC"
Post by clark wilkins
is an anti-Semitic statement?
Yes.

If so, then by donating money to Democrats to
Post by clark wilkins
secure their votes, AIPAC is engaging in "anti-Semitism".
Nonsequitur.

Clark - give it up. You made an erroneous statement about the number of
people American's can vote for. You are hopelessly trying to suggest you
didn't make an idiotic statement by raising non issues. American's have a
wide choice of people to vote for. Period.

AIPAC is a lobbying group. Period. You can raise all the smoke screens you
like and use non sequiturs until the cows come home but none of that will
help you. Admit you made an error and move on. Its not that difficult.
Jeff
2004-09-16 17:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
C'mon clark - don't try to wiggle out of this one.
Post by clark wilkins
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
And you are wrong.
Crapolo profundo.
Its right there mate. You said there are two options. I listed several
more. You were absolutely incorrect.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
1) Lower Social Security
Excellent. Show me where those platforms state SS will be lowered.
Being Canadian, I'll forgive your ignorance. Our politicians who are
serious
Post by clark wilkins
about getting elected never run on platforms where they offer less Social
Security.
But you said that's what they offered. Now you are backtracking.
This is the standard pattern from you. Speak nonsense and when shown to be
wrong backtrack or change the context.
In case you haven't figured it out yet I hold you to a higher standard.
Get
Post by Count 1
used to it. When you speak lies I will be here to point them out, and I
will always reduce your rhetoric to the points.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about
what
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I
listed
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which
must
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
be
Post by clark wilkins
faced and cannot be put off until 2008.
But the issues centers around participants - not the topics. Moron.
Uh...excuse me?
The subject of these thread
The subject of this tangent within this thread is the nature of guranteeing
a vigorous debate and the bizarrely stupid statement you made regarding it.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
'Of no concern to me' is what you meant to type.
If I'm the only American concerned about our soldiers in Iraq, our foreign
policy standing in the world, the Palestinian question, and our Social
Security, then -Yes - the participants will vigorously debate issues of no
concern to me - such as "gay marriages".
And if the debates do in fact cover those topics you will admit your error?
Post by clark wilkins
Like I said - We can vote for Bush 1 or Bush 2.
A statement already destroyed by the facts.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore,
AIPAC
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
is a foreign agent.
No - AIPAC is a political lobby group.
Sigh. You make this too easy...
AIPAC's web page declares themselves to be "America's Pro-Isreal Lobby"
Thank you, yes - ergo they are not 'foriegn agents'.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts
funds
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
They understand the geopolitical importance of Israel's existence.
They need money to understand that?
Irrelevant.
Post by clark wilkins
Does that mean without AIPAC bribe/donation money they don't understand
that?
Non sequitur.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations
from
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
foreign countries "sucks"?
Yes.
But it's okay for them to take money from FOREIGN AGENTS?
LOL!
You crack me up!
You're such a hypocrite! And you don't even know it!
It is OK to take money from any organization, be it a country, an
international lobby group - anywhere. To say they can't is a limitation of
free speech.
You can highlight the possibility of their motives based on the origins of
their donations, but you should not describe the organizations as something
they are not.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?
Probably. Why are you interested in stifling free speech?
Evidently Canada is
True.
- because it's illegal for China to make donations to
Post by clark wilkins
Canadian political parties.
The following are not eligible to make a contribution to a registered
party,
Post by clark wilkins
to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association or to a
a) a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as
defined
Post by clark wilkins
in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act;
b) a corporation or an association that does not carry business in Canada;
c) a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in
Canada;
d) foreign political party; and
e) a foreign government or an agent of one.
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/takeaction/activism101/joinparty.html
Unquote.
Now unless I'm seriously mistaken, China is a "foreign government" apart
from Canada, isn't it? (See item (e) above)
Like I said, you might want to think first and type second. Who knows? You
might actually win a debate sometime if you did.
I said 'probably' and I was wrong. No big whoop. It doesn't surprise me
that Canada stifles free speech. It also doesnt' surprise me that you want
to stifle free speech.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by
407
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
That would be because HR 460 is merely an endorsement of the presidents
decision to endore Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan - nothing more.
I'm not surprised Nader was fooled - even less that you were.
Wrong again as usual.
Nope. Read the resolution in question. Not every resolution on the issue
needs to address every facet of it.
Post by clark wilkins
Clark: Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's
campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
Count 1: That's not the point moron.
Unquote.
And it isn't the point moron.
The point is there are alternatives to AIPAC money.
Post by clark wilkins
You implied above that there were "several Arab groups are doing pretty
well" that could fund Nader but when I ask you to name one - SUDDENLY
THAT'S
Post by clark wilkins
NOT THE POINT?
The fact that they don't doesn't take away from the fact that they can.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would
be a shitty president.
Wrong again as usual.
http://www.arabamericansfornader.org/
Not your day, huh?
So far its been excellent, thanks.
What percentage of 'Arab Americans' do they represent, and - more
importantly - what percentage of global arabs do they represent? You'll
notice I said Arab groups', and not specifically 'Arab Americans'. It looks
like you've found a tiny, infintesimal number of people and are suggesting
they represent something they don't.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly
transitioned
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a
lobby
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
Noooo.....You asked for the 'anti semitic statement.' And I provided
it.
The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC"
Post by clark wilkins
is an anti-Semitic statement?
Yes.
If so, then by donating money to Democrats to
Post by clark wilkins
secure their votes, AIPAC is engaging in "anti-Semitism".
Nonsequitur.
Clark - give it up. You made an erroneous statement about the number of
people American's can vote for. You are hopelessly trying to suggest you
didn't make an idiotic statement by raising non issues. American's have a
wide choice of people to vote for. Period.
AIPAC is a lobbying group. Period. You can raise all the smoke screens you
like and use non sequiturs until the cows come home but none of that will
help you. Admit you made an error and move on. Its not that difficult.
Nader is an awesome debater. In fact, he is a master debater.
clark wilkins
2004-09-18 03:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
We can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
C'mon clark - don't try to wiggle out of this one.
Post by clark wilkins
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
And you are wrong.
Crapolo profundo.
Its right there mate. You said there are two options. I listed several
more. You were absolutely incorrect.
Wrong again as usual. Voters in the following states will be limited to
voting for either Bush 1 or Bush 2:

Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennesee

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20candidates%20in%20the%20U.S.%20presidential%20election,%202004
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
1) Lower Social Security
Excellent. Show me where those platforms state SS will be lowered.
Being Canadian, I'll forgive your ignorance. Our politicians who are
serious
Post by clark wilkins
about getting elected never run on platforms where they offer less Social
Security.
But you said that's what they offered. Now you are backtracking.
Their economic policies as stated in their platforms would require a
reduction in Social Security.
If you disagree, you're calling Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan a
liar when he addressed Congress on this very issue.
Post by Count 1
This is the standard pattern from you. Speak nonsense and when shown to be
wrong backtrack or change the context.
No. The standard policy is that you, when publicly beaten on a debate,
resort to splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to claim some shred of
victory - no matter how distant and small. You tried it above by nitpicking
my statement that Americans have two choices for President; Bush 1 or Bush
2. As anyone with a brain bigger than a Neocon nutcase knows, those are the
only two candidates wth a chance of winning. You ignored that. Now you try
and avoid the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are bankrupting
Social Security by asking where it is in their party platform that they will
do so, thereby ignoring the Federal Reserve Chairman's testimony before
Congress that this is exactly where Social Security is heading and that
neither party has made any effort to change that.
You have lost again - and your desperation is showing.
Post by Count 1
In case you haven't figured it out yet I hold you to a higher standard.
Than yourself.
Post by Count 1
Get
used to it.
I enjoy it.
Post by Count 1
When you speak lies I will be here to point them out, and I
will always reduce your rhetoric to the points.
If you ever catch me in a lie I'll be sure and take notice.
In the meantime, you're still losing.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about
what
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I
listed
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which
must
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
be
Post by clark wilkins
faced and cannot be put off until 2008.
But the issues centers around participants - not the topics. Moron.
Uh...excuse me?
The subject of these thread
The subject of this tangent within this thread is the nature of guranteeing
a vigorous debate and the bizarrely stupid statement you made regarding it.
Oops! You did your usual. When faced with certain defeat you got out your
scissors and snipped out how you got hammered and hoped no one would notice.
But I do. And all I have to do is put it back in again and everyone reading
this can see you go down in flames again. Let's put back in what you so
desperately felt had to be removed.

Quote:

Count 1: But the issues centers around participants - not the topics.
Moron.

Clark: Uh...excuse me?
The subject of these thread (see title) is about allowing a third
participant (Nader) in the debates in order to liven up the discussion
topics.
Again, you need to think first and type second. Perhaps that way you can
spare yourself this type of embarrassment and humiliation in the future?
Just a suggestion.

Unquote.

So, again, the subject of this thread can be found in its title (Let Nader
Debate). You were wrong when you the debate doesn't center around topics and
so you cut it out and ran.

Here's another of your snips (Anyone can see you snipped out over 10KB of
humiliating defeats by checking that my post was 18 KB long and yours is
only 9KB long including your reply. In fact, in the exchange above this, you
snipped out over 20 KB of defeats.).

Here's an example.

Quote:

Count 1: Above your write they offer nothing, then you list three things
they offer.

Clark: In case you didn't notice - Those are negatives.

Count 1: That's a matter of perspective.

Clark: Let's see - from the perspective of America's ENEMIES - Reducing
Social
Security, having no end to the war, and increasing taxes are all positives.

Now tell us which Americans benefit from any of the above?

You're not going to "wriggle out of this one" are you?
Now where have I heard that phrase before?
Oh! That's right! From YOU!

Unquote.

I guess you did try and "wriggle out of this one", didn't you?
Unfortunately for you, your defeats are there for everyone to see. Snipping
them out won't help you - nor will pretending that you "won" and caught me
"lying". The actual record is there for everyone to see. And they'll see I
don't have to resort to snipping to defeat you. I simply reply, "Wrong
again, as usual," and provide the actual facts as they are currently known.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
'Of no concern to me' is what you meant to type.
If I'm the only American concerned about our soldiers in Iraq, our foreign
policy standing in the world, the Palestinian question, and our Social
Security, then -Yes - the participants will vigorously debate issues of no
concern to me - such as "gay marriages".
And if the debates do in fact cover those topics you will admit your error?
Why wouldn't I? You seem to forget that I'm quite willing to post an error
on my part. I posted a story by Reuter's that I considered to be reliable.
You suggested to me that Reuter's was not a reliable source. So I checked
and found when Reuter's had described 300 Palestinians as being "arrested"
they were, in fact, only being held while the Israelis conducted a sweep. I
posted the correction and condemned Reuters for "shitty reporting".
It's perfectly okay for me to admit error because if I'm wrong it's of no
consequence. Yet if a Zionist is wrong that is of consequence, since Zionist
policy is being followed by Israel. Therefore, if the Zionists on this board
are defeated by me - on even just a single issue (and we're way past that
point) then that is evidence that Israel is wrong in its policies - or the
Zionists on this board lack the required intelligence to defend them.

Now where do you fall in that?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Like I said - We can vote for Bush 1 or Bush 2.
A statement already destroyed by the facts.
Sigh.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20candidates%20in%20the%20U.S.%20presidential%20election,%202004

Evidently, the facts just got in the way of your statement.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore,
AIPAC
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
is a foreign agent.
No - AIPAC is a political lobby group.
Sigh. You make this too easy...
AIPAC's web page declares themselves to be "America's Pro-Isreal Lobby"
Thank you, yes - ergo they are not 'foriegn agents'.
Whoa! What's missing here? Oh! That's right! What YOU SNIPPED OUT. Let's
once again put back in your embarrassing defeat proving you wrong.

Quote:

Count 1: No - AIPAC is a political lobby group.

Clark: Sigh. You make this too easy...

AIPAC's web page declares themselves to be "America's Pro-Isreal Lobby"

http://www.aipac.org/newthisweek.html

The definition of a "foreign agent" under the Foreign Agent Registration Act
(as amended in 1966) is as follows:

"The term `agent of a foreign principal' includes any person, subject to
certain exemptions, who engages in political activities on behalf of a
foreign government, political party, individual, corporation, partnership,
association or organization."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp104&r_n=hr339p1.104&sel=TOC_14147&

Since AIPAC is a lobby group for Israel and since it meets the definition of
being an "organization", then AIPAC "engages in political activities on
behalf of a foreign government", making all of AIPAC's members (subject to
certain exemptions) FOREIGN AGENTS.

"Most Israeli officials who travel to Washington meet with AIPAC and
exchange information." - JTA - The Global News Service of the Jewish People

http://jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=AIPAC+finds+itself+in+the+limelight&intcategoryid=3&SearchOptimize=Jewish+News

Unquote.

By America's legal codes (subject to certain exceptions), AIPAC is an
organization entirely formed from FOREIGN AGENTS.

Hence, the reason for your "snip".
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts
funds
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
They understand the geopolitical importance of Israel's existence.
They need money to understand that?
Irrelevant.
LOL!
If the money is "irrelevent" then why is it involved?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Does that mean without AIPAC bribe/donation money they don't understand
that?
Non sequitur.
You're sinking. I'm amazed you didn't snip this out too.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations
from
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
foreign countries "sucks"?
Yes.
But it's okay for them to take money from FOREIGN AGENTS?
LOL!
You crack me up!
You're such a hypocrite! And you don't even know it!
It is OK to take money from any organization, be it a country, an
international lobby group - anywhere. To say they can't is a limitation of
free speech.
Wrong again as usual. American politicians are prevented from taking
donations from "anywhere" - especially countries and international lobby
groups. It doesn't limit free speech. They can present their case. They just
can't present their cash along with it:

It's right in Section 319 of the Federal Campaign Act of 1971:

(a) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for--

`(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--

`(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or
implied promise to make a donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election; or

`(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

`(2) for a person to solicit, accept, or receive such contribution or
donation from a foreign national.'.

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/issuearea/s27.html
Post by Count 1
You can highlight the possibility of their motives based on the origins of
their donations, but you should not describe the organizations as something
they are not.
I used the legal definitions used by the USG to describe the organizations
as SOMETHING THEY ARE.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?
Probably. Why are you interested in stifling free speech?
Evidently Canada is
True.
- because it's illegal for China to make donations to
Post by clark wilkins
Canadian political parties.
The following are not eligible to make a contribution to a registered
party,
Post by clark wilkins
to one of its trust funds, to an electoral district association or to a
a) a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as
defined
Post by clark wilkins
in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act;
b) a corporation or an association that does not carry business in Canada;
c) a trade union that does not hold bargaining rights for employees in
Canada;
d) foreign political party; and
e) a foreign government or an agent of one.
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/takeaction/activism101/joinparty.html
Unquote.
Now unless I'm seriously mistaken, China is a "foreign government" apart
from Canada, isn't it? (See item (e) above)
Like I said, you might want to think first and type second. Who knows? You
might actually win a debate sometime if you did.
I said 'probably' and I was wrong. No big whoop. It doesn't surprise me
that Canada stifles free speech. It also doesnt' surprise me that you want
to stifle free speech.
Gee! And here I thought I was here PROMOTING free speech by supporting
Nader's right to speak in the debates - You know? The subject of this
thread?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by
407
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
That would be because HR 460 is merely an endorsement of the presidents
decision to endore Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan - nothing more.
I'm not surprised Nader was fooled - even less that you were.
Wrong again as usual.
Nope. Read the resolution in question. Not every resolution on the issue
needs to address every facet of it.
Nice try. You got out your scissors again and snipped out your defeat - all
10 KB + of them.
Here's what was actually posted.

Quote:

Count 1: I'm not surprised Nader was fooled - even less that you were.

Clark: Wrong again as usual. I quoted Nader's position from his letter to
the ADL.
There's no "me" anywhere in the above. But if you had taken the time to
think first and type second, you would have noticed that.

Naturally, you didn't.

Unquote.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Clark: Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's
campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
Count 1: That's not the point moron.
Unquote.
And it isn't the point moron.
The point is there are alternatives to AIPAC money.
AIPAC is the second largest campaign donor in the US - second only to
unions. Any candidate not taking AIPAC money will lose his second largest
doner - And have his opponent receive it instead.
That is the "alternative to AIPAC money" - It goes to your opponent. Either
take and sell your vote, or the other guy will.
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
You implied above that there were "several Arab groups are doing pretty
well" that could fund Nader but when I ask you to name one - SUDDENLY
THAT'S
Post by clark wilkins
NOT THE POINT?
The fact that they don't doesn't take away from the fact that they can.
Sure. They can take less (Arabs), rather than take more (Jews).
Which choice did Kerry and Bush take?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would
be a shitty president.
Wrong again as usual.
http://www.arabamericansfornader.org/
Not your day, huh?
So far its been excellent, thanks.
I'd hate to see you on a bad day then.
Post by Count 1
What percentage of 'Arab Americans' do they represent, and - more
importantly - what percentage of global arabs do they represent? You'll
notice I said Arab groups',
Uh - no.
Here's what you said right from above (You made the mistake of not snipping
it out this time):

Count 1: Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would be a shitty
president.

Unquote.

Nothing about "Arab groups" in that sentence.
Post by Count 1
and not specifically 'Arab Americans'. It looks
like you've found a tiny, infintesimal number of people and are suggesting
they represent something they don't.
I found Arabs supporting Nader when you said that "...Arabs are smart enough
to know Nader would be a shitty president."
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly
transitioned
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a
lobby
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
Noooo.....You asked for the 'anti semitic statement.' And I provided
it.
The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC"
Post by clark wilkins
is an anti-Semitic statement?
Yes.
How?
Post by Count 1
If so, then by donating money to Democrats to
Post by clark wilkins
secure their votes, AIPAC is engaging in "anti-Semitism".
Nonsequitur.
We'll see after you explain your anti-Semitic accusation above.
Post by Count 1
Clark - give it up.
/;^)
Post by Count 1
You made an erroneous statement about the number of
people American's can vote for.
/;^)
Post by Count 1
You are hopelessly trying to suggest you
didn't make an idiotic statement by raising non issues. American's have a
wide choice of people to vote for. Period.
BTW, I didn't mention the states that have only THREE candidates to vote
for, such as Texas, Arizona, and Virginia. Many states are being sued for
not putting a wider choice of people for the Presidential elections on the
ballot (Nader is suing several states).
Post by Count 1
AIPAC is a lobbying group. Period.
For Israel. Period.
Post by Count 1
You can raise all the smoke screens you
like and use non sequiturs until the cows come home but none of that will
help you. Admit you made an error and move on. Its not that difficult.
Now how would I admit an error - just in case sometime that should ever
happen (unlikely though that is). Should I snip it out like you do? Or
should I call myself an "anti-Semite"?


Just curious.


::Clark::
Count 1
2004-09-18 12:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Its right there mate. You said there are two options. I listed several
more. You were absolutely incorrect.
Wrong again as usual. Voters in the following states will be limited to
Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennesee
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20candidates%20in%20the%
20U.S.%20presidential%20election,%202004

So why didn't you reference the inhabitants of those states rather than
imply all americans have only two choices?

See? That's all I was getting at. I just want you to be more specific in
the language you use. What you said gives an erroneous impression.

BTW - I was waiting for this rebuttal when I originally wrote my post
listing the candidates. I left it as a wide open door for you.

The fact that it took you so long indicates your ignorance is much more
profound than I might have imagined.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
1) Lower Social Security
Excellent. Show me where those platforms state SS will be lowered.
Being Canadian, I'll forgive your ignorance. Our politicians who are
serious
Post by clark wilkins
about getting elected never run on platforms where they offer less
Social
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Security.
But you said that's what they offered. Now you are backtracking.
Their economic policies as stated in their platforms would require a
reduction in Social Security.
If you disagree, you're calling Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan a
liar when he addressed Congress on this very issue.
Post by Count 1
This is the standard pattern from you. Speak nonsense and when shown to be
wrong backtrack or change the context.
No. The standard policy is that you, when publicly beaten on a debate,
resort to splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to claim some shred of
victory - no matter how distant and small.
Then be more precise in you language. It will heighten the respect you
generate.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
In case you haven't figured it out yet I hold you to a higher standard.
Than yourself.
Post by Count 1
Get
used to it.
I enjoy it.
Then be prepared for bliss.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
When you speak lies I will be here to point them out, and I
will always reduce your rhetoric to the points.
If you ever catch me in a lie I'll be sure and take notice.
Precedence indicates you'll just change the original statement to something
else.
Post by clark wilkins
Count 1: But the issues centers around participants - not the topics.
Moron.
Clark: Uh...excuse me?
The subject of these thread (see title) is about allowing a third
participant (Nader) in the debates in order to liven up the discussion
topics.
Again, you need to think first and type second. Perhaps that way you can
spare yourself this type of embarrassment and humiliation in the future?
Just a suggestion.
Unquote.
Repeating your mistake won't help. I 've already addressed this.
Post by clark wilkins
So, again, the subject of this thread can be found in its title (Let Nader
Debate). You were wrong when you the debate doesn't center around topics and
so you cut it out and ran.
No - the subject of this tangent inside this thread is about 'guranteeing
the nature' of the debates.
Post by clark wilkins
Here's another of your snips (Anyone can see you snipped out over 10KB of
humiliating defeats by checking that my post was 18 KB long and yours is
only 9KB long including your reply. In fact, in the exchange above this, you
snipped out over 20 KB of defeats.).
Eventually the realization that the size of a post is not indicative of its
quality is going to hit you.

I snip your posts of material you provide because it is irrelevant to the
argument you are being challenged on.
Post by clark wilkins
Here's an example.
Count 1: Above your write they offer nothing, then you list three things
they offer.
Clark: In case you didn't notice - Those are negatives.
Count 1: That's a matter of perspective.
Clark: Let's see - from the perspective of America's ENEMIES - Reducing
Social
Security, having no end to the war, and increasing taxes are all positives.
Now tell us which Americans benefit from any of the above?
You're not going to "wriggle out of this one" are you?
Now where have I heard that phrase before?
Oh! That's right! From YOU!
Unquote.
I guess you did try and "wriggle out of this one", didn't you?
No - I snipped it becuase its irrelvant, vapid, and based on ignorance.

The fact that you can restore it is also irrelevant and vapid. There are
answers to your qustions of what american's benefit from those issues. But
I'm not interested in educating you on these matters and saw it as just a
diversion on your part, so it gets snipped.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
'Of no concern to me' is what you meant to type.
If I'm the only American concerned about our soldiers in Iraq, our
foreign
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
policy standing in the world, the Palestinian question, and our Social
Security, then -Yes - the participants will vigorously debate issues
of
Post by clark wilkins
no
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
concern to me - such as "gay marriages".
And if the debates do in fact cover those topics you will admit your
error?
Why wouldn't I?
I may hold you to that.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Like I said - We can vote for Bush 1 or Bush 2.
A statement already destroyed by the facts.
Sigh.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20candidates%20in%20the%
20U.S.%20presidential%20election,%202004
Post by clark wilkins
Evidently, the facts just got in the way of your statement.
Interesting - that page doesn't say 'we' can only vote for bush 1 or bush 2.
LOL.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp104&r_n=hr339p1.104&sel=TOC_
14147&
Post by clark wilkins
Since AIPAC is a lobby group for Israel and since it meets the definition of
being an "organization", then AIPAC "engages in political activities on
behalf of a foreign government", making all of AIPAC's members (subject to
certain exemptions) FOREIGN AGENTS.
Fair enough. I though you were implying something more sinister.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts
funds
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
They understand the geopolitical importance of Israel's existence.
They need money to understand that?
Irrelevant.
LOL!
If the money is "irrelevent" then why is it involved?
Nonsequitur. They don't need money to understand, however they may recieve
money if they do.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations
from
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
foreign countries "sucks"?
Yes.
But it's okay for them to take money from FOREIGN AGENTS?
LOL!
You crack me up!
You're such a hypocrite! And you don't even know it!
It is OK to take money from any organization, be it a country, an
international lobby group - anywhere. To say they can't is a limitation
of
Post by Count 1
free speech.
Wrong again as usual. American politicians are prevented from taking
donations from "anywhere"
Read my statement again. I didn't say it was legal - I said it was ok to
take the money as its just 'free speech'.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
You can highlight the possibility of their motives based on the origins of
their donations, but you should not describe the organizations as
something
Post by Count 1
they are not.
I used the legal definitions used by the USG to describe the organizations
as SOMETHING THEY ARE.
Then why did you call them bribes?
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
I said 'probably' and I was wrong. No big whoop. It doesn't surprise me
that Canada stifles free speech. It also doesnt' surprise me that you want
to stifle free speech.
Gee! And here I thought I was here PROMOTING free speech by supporting
Nader's right to speak in the debates - You know? The subject of this
thread?
Yet another example of how you are wrong.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Clark: Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's
campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
Count 1: That's not the point moron.
Unquote.
And it isn't the point moron.
The point is there are alternatives to AIPAC money.
AIPAC is the second largest campaign donor in the US - second only to
unions. Any candidate not taking AIPAC money will lose his second largest
doner - And have his opponent receive it instead.
That is the "alternative to AIPAC money" - It goes to your opponent. Either
take and sell your vote, or the other guy will.

Another nonsequitur.

Wow - you sure are making a lot of them lately.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
You implied above that there were "several Arab groups are doing pretty
well" that could fund Nader but when I ask you to name one - SUDDENLY
THAT'S
Post by clark wilkins
NOT THE POINT?
The fact that they don't doesn't take away from the fact that they can.
Sure.
Thank you.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would
be a shitty president.
Wrong again as usual.
http://www.arabamericansfornader.org/
Not your day, huh?
So far its been excellent, thanks.
I'd hate to see you on a bad day then.
I'm too smart to have a bad day.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
What percentage of 'Arab Americans' do they represent, and - more
importantly - what percentage of global arabs do they represent? You'll
notice I said Arab groups',
Uh - no.
Here's what you said right from above (You made the mistake of not snipping
Count 1: Even Arabs are smart enough to know Nader would be a shitty
president.
Yes - but before that I referenced the arabs in question - they are 'arab
groups'. Just like AIPAC is an Israeli lobbying group.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly
transitioned
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
from?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned
to?
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC
is
Post by clark wilkins
a
Post by Count 1
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
lobby
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
Noooo.....You asked for the 'anti semitic statement.' And I provided
it.
The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC"
Post by clark wilkins
is an anti-Semitic statement?
Yes.
How?
Already explained on a number of occassions.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
You made an erroneous statement about the number of
people American's can vote for. You are hopelessly trying to suggest you
didn't make an idiotic statement by raising non issues. American's have a
wide choice of people to vote for. Period.
BTW, I didn't mention the states that have only THREE candidates
That's right. You said American's have two choices. And you are wrong.
Post by clark wilkins
Post by Count 1
You can raise all the smoke screens you
like and use non sequiturs until the cows come home but none of that will
help you. Admit you made an error and move on. Its not that difficult.
Now how would I admit an error
Because you did.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...