HittinTheUpper90: what did you write your essay on>?
howisya77: what essay?
HittinTheUpper90: college
howisya77:now this is a cool essay. political
critic/filmmaker addresses gov. bush
howisya77: one about PIRG and one about dadaism
HittinTheUpper90: nader supporter, ugh.
howisya77: heh alright
HittinTheUpper90: why dont you nader supporters just
vote for bush? same difference
howisya77: heh
howisya77: good logic there
howisya77: nader and bush support the same platform
afterall
HittinTheUpper90: they're both running against gore
howisya77: that would be the nature of a candidacy
HittinTheUpper90: and since nader wont win, and if
bush wins it'll be worse then if gore wins, then why not
vote for gore?
howisya77: two people don't run together to be one
president
howisya77: because i don't agree with gore's politics as
much as i agree with nader's
HittinTheUpper90: yeah but who is closer to nader's?
gore or bush?
howisya77: gore
howisya77: but you have to vote with your conscience
howisya77: otherwise, why vote at all
HittinTheUpper90: yeah my conscience tells me that if I
voted for Nader then it would be one less vote helping
gore beat bush
HittinTheUpper90: nader isnt in the same sort of race
that gore and bush are in
HittinTheUpper90: he isnt trying to become president
howisya77: individual votes don't really count
howisya77: nader would love to become president
howisya77: unfortunately the country's still stuck in a two
party system
HittinTheUpper90: if enough individuals start believing
that then the votes start to count.
howisya77: next election, because of nader, third parties
will be more important
HittinTheUpper90: ross perot made more of an impact
then nader is, and it still hasnt changed anything
howisya77: perot was allowed to debate because he
spent $20 million campaigning
HittinTheUpper90: no b/c he had 20% of the vote
howisya77: that doesn't make any sense
HittinTheUpper90: he had 20% of the votes
howisya77: how would they predict he'd get 19% of the
vote when they were allowing him to debate? he got 19%
of the vote BECAUSE he was allowed to debate.
HittinTheUpper90: thats the cut off for the PDC or
whatever its called
howisya77: i'm talking about 1992. in 1996 he got like
7%.
howisya77: 7% cos he wasn't allowed to debate
howisya77: and he only did so well each time cos he had
tons of cash
howisya77: his own and corporate funding
HittinTheUpper90: yes but he used that money to gain
votes
HittinTheUpper90: thats how you gain votes, you
spend money to spread your doctrine
HittinTheUpper90: nader has no money to spread his
doctrine
HittinTheUpper90: and he's not willing to have any
howisya77: so what is your point, that because he
doesn't own computer companies or a baseball team that
he's a bad candidate?
HittinTheUpper90: no that he doesnt stand a chance for
winning, and all he is doing is being detrimental to the one
candidate that is closest to his beliefs, and therefor
boosting the other candidate w/ atrocious policies
howisya77: right now the green party is pushing for
campaign finance reform
howisya77: sen. john mccain also supported this
HittinTheUpper90: uhm so do gore and bush
howisya77: gore and bush both claim it's an important
issue and, because of nader, after this election campaigns
will not be controlled so much by big corporate
donations
HittinTheUpper90: yeah right
HittinTheUpper90: thats a falicy
howisya77: gore and bush won't do it cos they're
pussies. but at least they claim they will.
howisya77: i bet mccain would do it. if he had won the
primaries and i could vote - and if nader wasn't running -
i'd gladly vote him over gore.
HittinTheUpper90: yeah except for his republican
affiliation
howisya77: or him over bush if bush ran "independently"
(i don't think he has an ounce of independece in his body,
hah)
HittinTheUpper90: and the fact that the only issue is
NOT campaign finance
howisya77: what is the "only issue" ? and i'm not
anti-republican. i side more with the democrats, but i
think mccain would be a better president than gore.
HittinTheUpper90: there is not just 1 issue
howisya77: i know that :)
HittinTheUpper90: but republicans in general want to
reform welfare so that it is absolutely no aid at all
howisya77: welfare is being abused like crazy
howisya77: i think it should be reformed in some manner
HittinTheUpper90: yes but the democrat's reforms
make a lot more sense
HittinTheUpper90: and how about the supreme court
justices?
HittinTheUpper90: I dont want 4 justices appointed by
bush approved by a republican congress
howisya77: mccain would not appoint bad justices. bush
would.
howisya77: d00d, i'm not a bush supporter. i said
mccain. i said i side more with the democrats than the
gop.
HittinTheUpper90: mccain would too, he's still a
republican, he still has republican backing and support
howisya77: not all republicans believe the same things
howisya77: his views were awesome, i recommend you
look them up
howisya77: bush's are terrible. i disagree with most of
them and i think he'd be a very bad president. did you
read that essay? but i also think gore would not be nearly
as good as a president as nader, even if gore is better
known and has corporate sponsorship.
HittinTheUpper90: all republicans have to secumb to
the party's wishes
HittinTheUpper90: in order to get funding
HittinTheUpper90: and the republican line is what i
disagree with
howisya77: mccain didn't. he was kind of the black
sheep of the gop. that's why he lost to a political
lightweight like bush.
HittinTheUpper90: yes but had he won
HittinTheUpper90: he would have been forced to sign
partisan bills and such
howisya77: ?
HittinTheUpper90: just like if Nader were in office, in
order to get anything done, he'd have to become much
more moderate
howisya77: signing bills is the nature of presidency
HittinTheUpper90: yes I mean if he won presidency
howisya77: nader would work with the GOP and the
democrats but he would push his issues
howisya77: i don't think he spent the last 32 years
fighting for the environment, consumer rights and public
health because he thought it was a 'groovy thing to do'
HittinTheUpper90: no
HittinTheUpper90: but when het got the seat he'd have
to become moderate b/c none of his bills would pass b/c
they are too leftist
howisya77: why would the public elect him if they didn't
agree with his bills
howisya77: if they agreed, they'd vote for congressman
and senators that also agreed
howisya77: they'd tell their representitives how to vote
HittinTheUpper90: yes except that wouldnt happen
until at LEAST the first 2 years
howisya77: that's the nature of being a representitive
HittinTheUpper90: and dont fool yourself that
representatives listen w/o any thought to what their voters
say
HittinTheUpper90: there are many partyline votes
howisya77: no my point is that rep's DO listen, that's
what their job is
HittinTheUpper90: thats what their job is
HittinTheUpper90: but they frequently vote w/ their
party
howisya77: but they also listen to corporations, and as
president nader would eliminate some/most of their
influence
HittinTheUpper90: b/c their party is their majority of
voters
howisya77: as i said, if people elected nader as president
than obviously they'd vote for similar minded
congressmen
HittinTheUpper90: there would always be a loophole
where corporations could work in some money
howisya77: right
HittinTheUpper90: but my point is not the legitamacy of
nader's views
HittinTheUpper90: but
HittinTheUpper90: the fact that he WONT win
HittinTheUpper90: and the person who MIGHT win is
being hurt b/c of his syphoning votes
howisya77: he won't win because of the ignorant political
climate people like yourself promote
howisya77: i don't mean that as disrespect, but your
logic is not very reasonable
HittinTheUpper90: no he wont win b/c his views dont
appeal to a large enough number
howisya77: or maybe just not very tolerant of different
ideas and systems
howisya77: most people don't know what his views are
howisya77: but those that do find a lot to agree with
howisya77: my mother, who is voting for bush, enjoyed
and somewhat agreed with the essay i told you about
HittinTheUpper90: the ones that take the time to listen
to his views agree
HittinTheUpper90: however those that arent interested
in finding out
HittinTheUpper90: once they do find out
HittinTheUpper90: prolly wont like them
HittinTheUpper90: thats the type of people that they
are...
howisya77: i encourage you to read nader's open letters
to gore (http://www.votenader.org) so you can get a
better feel for the differences between the two
candidates. nader is not taking votes away from anyone.
HittinTheUpper90: many many people who may vote
for nader would probably vote for gore if nader wasnt
running
howisya77: true
howisya77: but he is
howisya77: and he's the best candidate for them
howisya77: and i think the point of voting is to vote for
the best candidate
howisya77: if everyone did that, then maybe he'd stand a
chance
HittinTheUpper90: yes but he's not going to win, and
the person who IS going to win is the antitheis of their
"best candidate"
HittinTheUpper90: so they should compromise
howisya77: as i said, if this were a fair system then nader
may win
HittinTheUpper90: yes
HittinTheUpper90: but its not
HittinTheUpper90: so you have to work w/ it
howisya77: fair meaning not run by big business, and fair
meaning freedom to debate and be on voting ballots
HittinTheUpper90: b/c it wont work to try to change it
howisya77: sure it will
HittinTheUpper90: how will it change if nader gets a
bunch of votes and bush wins?
HittinTheUpper90: bush would be more detrimental to
a fair voting process then gore would be
howisya77: i don't think bush would win if nader were
given as much attention as he
howisya77: nader would politically kill bush
HittinTheUpper90: and gore would too, if it werent for
nader
HittinTheUpper90: shit
howisya77: bush can barely speak english. nader is a,
excuse me, master debater.
HittinTheUpper90: my dog would politically kill bush
howisya77: nader would trash gore. again, read his open
letters to him. they're great.
howisya77: gore's a shapeshifter and a lazy one at that
HittinTheUpper90: oh please
howisya77: he probably forgets who he is supposed to
be each day
HittinTheUpper90: all this wonderful rhetoric
HittinTheUpper90: nader is a horrible candidate, I
happen not to care that both candidates get money from
big buisness and lobby groups
HittinTheUpper90: but I dont like bush b/c of his
affiliation w/ the christian right
howisya77: yea i know you don't
HittinTheUpper90: and the NRA
HittinTheUpper90: Gore is funded much more
mundane groups
HittinTheUpper90: planned parenthood supporters
howisya77: yea groups influencing politicians to make
legislature detrimental to our health, safety, and the
environment
howisya77: but hey that's ok right
HittinTheUpper90: like what groups?
howisya77: as long as no one is shooting targets
howisya77: oil, banks, automobile, logging industries,
etc.
HittinTheUpper90: automobile industry cna hardly be
considered more dentrimental to the envirement then it is
helpful to the workings of the country
howisya77: it's not an evil industry
HittinTheUpper90: and which of these groups support
gore
HittinTheUpper90: name some/
howisya77: but you have companies like ford who want
to keep dangerous cars on the streets
howisya77: car companies don't want to make safer and
more efficient vehicles because it would cost them money
howisya77: gore thinks that's ok because the money they
save can go to his candidacy
howisya77: nader says it's not ok because it can and
does harm people
howisya77: i think that's a good distinction there
HittinTheUpper90: ford does not endorse gore
howisya77: i'm not naming names because i don't know
them. i don't work for gore and i don't look up his
records. i could, but i already know that he's sponsored
by said industries; their names do not change much.
HittinTheUpper90: yes but he's NOT sponsered by
smith and wesson, NRA, and Jerry Fallwell
howisya77: so what?
howisya77: i agree, NRA and the CC are bad influence
too
howisya77: does that mean that corporate influence is
ok?
howisya77: because it's not anti-homosexual or
pro-gun?
HittinTheUpper90: oh and nader is completely
incorrect about the inherent lack of safety of cars
howisya77: how would you know? you didn't research
them for a few decades
howisya77: he may not drive but i personally can attest
to the thorough research he and his advocacy groups
have done
HittinTheUpper90: how can you blame thousands of
deaths and injuries on engineering when its the sheer
volume of drivers and bad drivers
howisya77: i'm not excusing that
howisya77: but surely the world is better off with airbags
and seatbelts
HittinTheUpper90: how so?
howisya77: not to mention safer tires, fuel, and internal
structur
howisya77: how so? hello, car crashes?
HittinTheUpper90: you can not say that Nader
influenced the industry to make all these wonderful
inventions
howisya77: sure i can
howisya77: because he started groups like US PIRG
who lobby congress to impose better standards for
automobiles
HittinTheUpper90: no the populace who didnt want to
die found out there were devices that could be used, and
so they spoke otu and wanted them
howisya77: not really
howisya77: it wasn't like all of a sudden they realized car
crashes weren't cool
howisya77: it was the work of lobbyists like US PIRG
who got better standards for cars, so the industry HAD
to implement said devices
howisya77: the industry values money over safety. just
look at the firestone tires story this year.
howisya77: basically, there wouldn't be uniformly safer
cars on the market today if it weren't mandated.
HittinTheUpper90: yes but its the consumer's wishes
HittinTheUpper90: pirg may have helped
HittinTheUpper90: but I suspect ti would have still
ocurred b/c of consumer pressure
howisya77: yea PIRG did the work. they capaign as
advocates for the consumer's interest. that is their nature.
howisya77: and nader founded pirg
howisya77: among many other similar citizen groups
HittinTheUpper90: but itts not that original of thought
howisya77: obviously
howisya77: the nature of lobbying is to lobby for
someone's interest
HittinTheUpper90: well then what makes Nader so
special?
howisya77: most lobby for the interest of businesses
HittinTheUpper90: he didnt even directly start PIRG I
dont think...
howisya77: PIRG lobbies for the interest of the public.
hence it's name, the Public Interest Research Group.
howisya77: yea he did. he ran it for a few years in the
70s.
HittinTheUpper90: werethose the first years of its
existance?
howisya77: yea
howisya77: hence he is credited with 'starting' the group
howisya77: i don't think you know more about pirg than
i do
HittinTheUpper90: hold up nader believes in school
vouchers?
howisya77: does he? i don't remember. check 'issues' in
www.votenader.org
HittinTheUpper90: no he doesnt
howisya77: i don't agree with them
howisya77: i don't think he does because he's for
improved public school systems
HittinTheUpper90: well "its been real" to use the phrase
coined by corporate influenced media but I gotta g
HittinTheUpper90: o
HittinTheUpper90: bye
HittinTheUpper90: college essay
howisya77: bye

howisya77: bye