IntenseDebate - stefan

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 0 replies · +1 points

- Corporate donations... He constantly claims individual donors. Well, of course, only those are allowed. What is interesting is the bundlers and PACs. I learned a bit on my own how donations and bundlers work and I checked this report (all the numbers are from the Federal Election Commision):

w w w. opensecrets. org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Hillary, who is also accused of corporate donations, has somewhat larger numbers, but still very comparable to Obama's. Which brings us to Exelon Corp, nuclear power and their donations to Obama (the website above is used for MSNBC report on Obama's connection to Exelon): w w w .youtube. com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

Not very corporate independent...

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 1 reply · +1 points

continued... (i think websites cannot be submitted?)

The funny thing is that US does not need the Iraqi oil at all:

w w w .eia.doe. gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

So why do we need to control it? Well, boviously, so that the others don't get it, as in the oil-for-food UN program several years ago where corruption allowed everyone to get a share of Iraqi oil... this really isn't a secret, they talk about it on TV all the time, as the "national interests," so it shouldn't be surprising. I mean, 90% of Japan's oil imports are controlled by us. If anyone is still doubtful, just take a look at what Russia does with the gas supplies to Ukraine, Belarus, Europe and the EU reaction to it.

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 0 replies · +1 points

The funny thing is that US does not need the Iraqi oil at all: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data...

So why do we need to control it? Well, boviously, so that the others don't get it, as in the oil-for-food UN program several years ago where corruption allowed everyone to get a share of Iraqi oil... this really isn't a secret, they talk about it on TV all the time, as the "national interests," so it shouldn't be surprising. I mean, 90% of Japan's oil imports are controlled by us. If anyone is still doubtful, just take a look at what Russia does with the gas supplies to Ukraine, Belarus, Europe and the EU reaction to it.

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 1 reply · +1 points

- War in Iraq. He claims the following and I can almost quote from his debate: "We will withdraw troops... combat troops from Iraq in 2009". Ok, so I had no clue what he meant by "combat" troops. Well, it turns out, that means only about 50-60,000 troops. The rest (larger group) will remain there indefinitely. Those guys will be a target one way or the other. It will change nothing. Does anyone really believe they're all staying for the protection of embassy and diplomats as claimed on Obama's website? They are staying for protecting someTHING else, we know what it is. Honestly, this is not about bringing troops back home, this is about throwing oily mud into our faces.

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 2 replies · +1 points

Feasability is not an issue for single payer. The Schip plan for children was estimated at 35 billion for 5 years, which is much less than the billions do we spend/waste/lose overseas in the war (per year) or for treating the injured. In my opinion this is not about idealism. GB, Canada, Australia are not idealistic for having that system. Why is he against it, if he claims to be independent from the corporate interest? Why does he support only these half-measures that are destined to fail since the core of the system - for-profit healthcare - is intact. Just imagine if someone was campaining for some half-measures for women's right to vote, or some half-measures for race-equality.

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 3 replies · +1 points

- not for a single payer healthcare system. This is not a socialized medicine as some would love to make us believe. Gov pays for the bills, it does not own hospitals and job positions. The single payer is the most feasible and efficient system, if it were not for the insurance lobbyists. Clear majority of doctors support this idea (I will have to spend some time finding the source, Nader mentioned 59% in the 'Meet the press' interview), and I think I read that even higher percentage of nurses support it. Currently the best system for doctor satisfaction is Kaiser permanente. It is almost the same as single payer system, except the government is not involved. However, Kaiser system is very closed, and if you are sick you won't get that insurance. Very 'humane', indeed.

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 4 replies · +1 points

Ok, I had this on my mind, and needed a place to share it. I support Nader, and I'm sure this would be interesting for the campaign people to read, although they probably know all this already. Also, maybe some democrats read it to and ask themselves the same:

What is it that Barack actually stands for?

Here is what I know of him:

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Spitzer v. Bush -- Ral... · 0 replies · +1 points

go NADER!

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - New Mexico -- Ralph Na... · 1 reply · 0 points

- Corporate donations... He constantly claims individual donors. Well, of course, only those are allowed. What is interesting is the bundlers and PACs. I learned a bit on my own how donations and bundlers work and I checked this report (all the numbers are from the Federal Election Commision):

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=...

Hillary, who is also accused of corporate donations, has somewhat larger numbers, but still very comparable to Obama's. Which brings us to Exelon Corp, nuclear power and their donations to Obama (the website above is used for MSNBC report on Obama's connection to Exelon): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

Not very corporate independent...

There is much more but these are main issues. I think this is something that our president needs to be able to provide a clear answer for. In any case, this is not at all "change".

16 years ago @ http://www.votenader.org/ - Nader on Daily Show wi... · 5 replies · +2 points

Agreed. Not to mention the 250000 dems that voted for Bush. Look, it is obvious that this tight 2000 race came in perfectly for the two parties to put the whole blame on the third guy. By doing this, the hurt Nader badly, as a lot of people tend to rely on shallow thinking about issues in general, not only about this blame game. This way they turned people against almost any 3rd candidate due to the fear of another Bush. Makes you think how bad was Kerry if he lost to Bush without being able to blame anyone for it (not that Gore is any better).

My suggestion for Nader camp is to push the facts, push the ideas, and leave the empty rhetoric to "changed" and "experienced" candidates. My sense is that people are getting tired of their debates. Promising change but not explaining can get boring, and all this artificially generated enthusiasm can be lost fairly quickly. When people hear the details of how lobbyist lobby (if you cannot have sit-down dinner with them, solution is to stand, have a cocktail party, wow!), or how and why medicare/pharm bills are passed during the night session, far from public eye, then they will stop booing and will start cheering Nader. He needs to be in the debates... can he legally fight for them?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with stefan

People I'm following

stefan