Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Ah yes, whenever hit with facts that are counter to your position resort to the "Republican smear tactics" line. Maybe you should read the articles.

You don't find the hypocrisy of a guy who is the champion of anti-corporate policies, yet he's become a millionaire giving speeches that are paid for by corporate or special interests and he invests in corporate stock (as of 2000)....in particular Cisco, Wal-mart, Occidental Petroleum, General Dynamics, Bristoll Meyers Squibb.

You find no hypocrisy in a guy who says, In a June 2000 interview with the Washington Post, the stocks he chose were “the most neutral-type companies … No. 1, they’re not monopolists and No. 2, they don’t produce land mines, napalm, weapons.”....yet he's invested in Cisco, one of the worst monolpolists in the tech industry and General Dynamics (through Fidelity Magellan Fund) who certainly builds lots of weapons.

I would say false accusations that led to a model line of car ending production is certainly not irrelevant to GM, or the workers supporting the Corvair. I would also say that making the serious level of accusations leveled at GM.....and then being PROVED wrong by not only the NHTSA, but an independent panel of engineers, irreparably damage Nader's objective credibility.

LOL at referencing DeLorean, certainly he had no ax to grind (or books to sell) with GM.

I'm sorry, I guess multiple, documented, factual, accounts from numerous sources is "Faux News". My brain must be too rotted to get that.

So you think him being wrong about something in the 1960s while fighting for consumer safety is worth mentioning in Presidential qualities?

I'm not understanding how him owning stock has anything to do with his principles or what he stands for. Owning stock doesn't mean he doesn't want to limit corporate greed or get corporate America out of our government. Corporations aren't evil, and I'm quite positive he doesn't think so either. So the stuff you posted is 110% irrelevant to his qualifications and his stances on the issues.

If you can prove to me he's voted differently (or would vote differently) based on his views, then you might have something. As it is, you are grasping at straws trying to disregard his as a good Presidential candidate.