Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

Would it not be a little easier if you just asked the person to please call you by name? Sweetie.

Its easier said than done. Especially when its a superior, you feel like it may affect your job security or work environment. I've been physically sexually harassed at work too. It wasn't until one of my friends/former co-workers admitted she had been too that I felt confident enough to come forward. Just like rape victims, sometimes you wonder if you did something to warrant this happening to you. I felt gross and violated but was afraid of a variety of scenarios.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

So, once Cisco became a monopolistic endeavor, he continued to hold stock in the company despite his disapproval of monopolistic practices. Once Cisco's conflict with his stated corporate investment policies became apparent

What I want to know is which monopolistic practices is Cisco doing that Nader is against? Any specific things? Google in T-minus....5...4...3...2..1


Nice. Classic NC_Skins: Admit no error and move the rhetorical target. I commend you - you are excellent at the "bob and weave". --- The crux of the argument leading to this oh-so-overly-analyzed digression into Nader's investment into Cisco was the simple assertion that Nader's actions were hypocritical.

Admit no error? Error on what? I stated who I thought was a good candidate (based on his record and history), and all you've done is point at some stock and say "oooooo....look at the bad guy!!". You've done absolutely nothing to discredit his work or his intentions if he were in the White House. Essentially, making a mountain out of a mole hill.



Now, confronted with the blatant logical error of (3) above, and, to demonstrate the error, being confronted by the rhetorical corner requiring an admission from you that either (a) Nader's actions exhibited hypocrisy or (b) Nader's hypocrisy is relevant to his qualifications as a candidate - BAM - Nader's hypocrisy is no longer the subject of the discussion, but, instead, you assert through implication that, since all candidates are hypocritical (a truism I do not dispute - BTW), it is hypocritical of me to attack just Nader's hypocritical actions. This, despite the fact that I have taken no position as to any other candidates' alleged hypocrisies. Subtle, stunning and stupid all in one. As I said, brilliant.

How about we talk about Nader's track record. He's done more for the consumers in America than any other Republidiot or Demodummy candidate currently. HOW ABOUT THEM FACTS!!



On the other hand, it was your claim that Nader's owning of stock in Cisco was irrelevant to his qualifications as a candidate. Through your typically imprecise language, and your equally typical moving of the rhetorical target, it is not clear whether you consider Nader's owning of Cisco stock to be hypocritical - your answer seems to say you don't find it hypocritical but, again in your typical fashion, your imprecisely worded response allows you to interpret it in whichever way ever suits you best at a later date.

So here, you can't tell if I think he's hypocritical, but below you are saying I'm denying he's being hypocritical...lol Smoke and mirrors. Keep detracting from the issues and continue to point at the speckle on the window.




Nader's actions were hypocritical. Your denial of such is either stupid or obtuse.

Can you show me ONE quote where I have denied he wasn't being hypocritical? Just one. I think I said him owning stock was irrelevant to his qualifications in being a candidate. If you think that one piece of hypocrisy (as you call it) nullifies all the work he's done to fight for consumer rights, then by all means continue on with your quest Captain Ahab.

Wow, two pages devoted to Ralph Nader. For shame.

Wow, two pages devoted to Ralph Nader. For shame.

Really. RN has not received that much attention the last 20 times he ran for office.

There's a reason this clown hasn't gotten more votes than the entire warpath membership.

There's a reason this clown hasn't gotten more votes than the entire warpath membership.

Well, what corporation is going to sponsor him with money when he's openly against some of the actions carried out by corporations? Zero. That's how many. How many people get press time without corporate sponsorship? Zero. That's how many.


So can somebody tell me exactly what policies or stances he supports that makes him a bad candidate?

Still paying for dealing Chevy a death blow on the juggernaut....Corvair
1961 Corvair - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657833,00.html)

Well, what corporation is going to sponsor him with money when he's openly against some of the actions carried out by corporations? Zero. That's how many. How many people get press time without corporate sponsorship? Zero. That's how many.


So can somebody tell me exactly what policies or stances he supports that makes him a bad candidate?

Actually that's a good question for Ralph Nadar. Where does Nadar stand on matters of national security and protecting our borders? What's his position on immigration, 2nd amendment rights, a woman's right to choose? How about the three trade agreements that the president just signed into law that will create thousands of jobs? Go to his website, you'd think you were redirected to Amazon.com book of the month club.

Look, Nadar has done some good things but his time has past. He's an old crank, hungry for attention and influence.

If he was really serious about changing the system, why not run for Congress or Senate? Elizabeth Warren is serious about Wall Street corruption and protecting consumers from unscrupulous practices by banks and mortgage lender. So you know what she did, ran for Senate. Why must Nadar run for President -- all the time? How about a state seat? I'm suspicious of his motives especially for someone who's not versed on a wide range of issues facing our country.

He's just not credible.

Actually that's a good question for Ralph Nadar. Where does Nadar stand on matters of national security and protecting our borders? What's his position on immigration, 2nd amendment rights, a woman's right to choose? How about the three trade agreements that the president just signed into law that will create thousands of jobs? Go to his website, you'd think you were redirected to Amazon.com book of the month club.

Look, Nadar has done some good things but his time has past. He's an old crank, hungry for attention and influence.

If he was really serious about changing the system, why not run for Congress or Senate? Elizabeth Warren is serious about Wall Street corruption and protecting consumers from unscrupulous practices by banks and mortgage lender. So you know what she did, ran for Senate. Why must Nadar run for President -- all the time? How about a state seat? I'm suspicious of his motives especially for someone who's not versed on a wide range of issues facing our country.

He's just not credible.

I don't often agree with 12thMan...but when I do it's becaus of posts like these.

NC_Skins, I'm not trying to trash Nader or shoot down the idea of him running. I'm simply looking at his track record for running for office. He's never really put together a large scale campaign infrastructure to run for president.

If major corporations thought Ralph Nader was a credible candidate that started to get traction in the polls, he'd get some sponsorship. The big boys know how to tune out the campaign rhetoric and talk business.