I was trying to decide which Sunday show to watch while whipping up breakfast on Sunday morning. (FYI, sausage gravy on bacon is gooood!) Fox News Sunday had no one of note, just party people talking presidential politics. Then I checked Meet the Press and was glad I was not eating yet. On pops Ralph Nader. As soon as I hear Russert mention something about running for president, I go back to Fox.
I caught the beginning of Meet the Press again when it ran later on MSNBC. I left it on for about a minute and a half after Russert asked Nader if he would run. I knew the answer, as I had already heard it somewhere else during the day. In that minute and a half, Nader didn't answer the question. I think he was trying to prove he was more liberal than either Hillary or Barack, or McCain for that matter rather than answer the question.
I think what I'd really like to see is Ralph Nader and Ron Paul in a wrestling match. A barbed wire ring, leather strap, thumbtack death match. That's what level of regard I have for either of them. Plus, it's bound to eliminate both of them from annoying me ever again.
So since I've spent some time on the major and minor candidates of both parties, I'll give one blog to looking at Ralph Nader's America, AKA Marxism.
Ralph Nader - The preceding link says it all. Ralph Nader hates corporations. If you click on the link he lists all the enemies from Corporate Democrats and Republicans to Big Whatever. What I did get from a minute and a half of his blather was his list called "What the Candidates Avoid." In essence, it's a call for:
- punishing corporations and taking their money
- unionizing everyone and determining pay scales
- isolationism
- taxing the rich
- taxing corporations more
- taxing behavior
- 100% government health care
- more and more environmental regulations
- more "green" technologies, stop Big Oil
- destroying the military
- elimination of both political parties
- government funded elections
- eliminating sentencing rules on criminals
- peace in Israel (as opposed to everybody else's attempt)
- more shit to punish evil corporations
To be fair, his motivation has been to "improve" life for the everyday American through consumer advocacy, and he has done some good in that regard. But somewhere in there, he went to complete and utter socialism by piling on the regulations and agencies. He makes Barack Obama look like McCain in comparison, and McCain look like Reagan in comparison. My only consolation is that he might pull some lefties who think Obama isn't liberal enough into voting oblivion. I'd say he's the left wing version of Ron Paul, but I don't want to insult Ron Paul that much. And that's saying something.
5 comments:
"I think what I'd really like to see is Ralph Nader and Ron Paul in a wrestling match."
In jello.
Ok wait, are you saying bacon on a plate, and then smother it with sausage gravy? No biscuits? Its worth looking into.
Hold on a minute, what part of "We the people" or "For the People by the People" is so hard to understand. I don't recall any of our founding fathers trying to set up a nation to be ruled by aristocratic corporations, in fact, it's just the opposite. Nader has always campaigned to make the products you buy safer and to make the people who work in the factories who make those products also safer. I agree that he seems like the grumpy uncle who smells like cigarettes, forgot to shave and still needs his coffee but even putting him in the same category of Ron Paul is a stretch.
People in china work in factories without shoes, here we wear steel toe boots. Does that cost a little more, sure, but is it worth it? Do you really want kids cleaning out blast furnaces? Regulation isn't socialism and sometimes it's needed. Ask anyone who had their money in S&Ls and Junk Bonds in the 80s.
Gravy on meat is always good. and on eggs and hash browns and biscuits.
I didn't put Nader in the same category as Paul. I agree with Ron Paul on a few things.
And I did point out that Nader has done some good.
My big problem is that Ralph Nader seems out to regulate everything with a law or an agency or a tax. I spent some time (and much Visine) reading his positions so that I could honestly assess him.
He is for taxing behavior he finds unacceptable, thus eliminating out freedom of choice.
He is for taxing and regulating corporations more, which leads to the costs being passed on to us.
He views corporations as evil entities that need to be controlled. At some point, the corporation goes somewhere it is wanted because it can.
The point is that he's to the left of any current candidate, which in my most unhumble opinion is a bad thing.
There’s a place here where you can get a "Country Benedict" and it’s basically an eggs benedict except for ham theres sausage and instead of Hollandaise theres sausage gravy. Sometimes the gravy gets mixed with the hash browns and that's ok.
Corporations didn't used to be evil and not all corporations are evil but some are. Enron for instance. I think at the core of it, perhaps even Nike. Did you know Bayer and BASF are descendents of IG Farben which manufactured cyclon B and other munitions and supplies for the Nazis? Talk about evil. Any corporation who knowingly sells a harmful product and tries to hide those facts (like a lot of drug companies) would also fall into that category and should be punished. Unregulated business leads us to stock market crashes, bank runs, housing crises, S&L scandals etc. If you are going to regulate what people do in their bedrooms you have to think that maybe profit driven multi-national corporation require at least as much attention.
I agree and disagree with taxing things I don't agree with. With regards to taxing cigarettes I agree because the cost of uninsured cancer patients affect the entire society, not just the person who decides to smoke. I would also agree with taxing Twinkies and Ding Dongs and things with High Fructose Corn Syrup or partially hydrogenated anything which is causing obesity and diabetes which again, we all have to pay for. Taxing gas is another thing I agree with. A gallon of gas is cheaper than a gallon of bottled water, milk, Coke etc. Americans use way too much of it and that is one of the reasons so many inner-city kids are getting asthma and why our air is brown and why we are at war and why the climate is changing.
Taxing porn or something like that would be the things I don't agree with. IN Chicago we have an alcohol tax which also pisses me off. Sure something like alcohol could fall into the category of the stuff above but 1-2 glasses of red wine or dark beer have many health benefits so it can go either way.
Exactly which behaviors did he want to tax?
Therein lies the problem of taxing behavior: It's up to someones personal morality and political agenda to decide what should and shouldn't be taxed.
It's the same of regulation. Unless there is an overriding reason to regulate something, a regulation often causes more harm than good.
And I apply this standard to both corporations AND personal behavior. But as a consequence, if you have freedom and do something stupid with it, then you have to eat the shit sandwich yourself.
Ad for Nader and his tax behavior, I don't remember specifics, but it will probably be in line with current liberal thought.
I'll be doing more on big business next week. I have a possible 3 blogs in mind, unless the week is just too busy. So stay tuned.
Post a Comment