Ralph Nader: Has there ever been a bigger conman in the whitehouse than barack obama?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Max E. Pad, Jun 13, 2013.

  1. A: No

    Even the far left knows obama is as useless as tits on a nun.

    <iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121570" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  2. Ricter


    So you must agree with Nader, then, that we need someone farther left (than Obama) in office. : )
  3. Drunk already?
  4. Ricter


    No, but you are if you're relying on Nader for support.
  5. Problem.. he isn't "worthless". He's INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA! And greedy parasites are enabling our destruction though him.

    :mad: :mad:
  6. jem


    Nader and many of us would agree we need classical liberals (similar to todays liberatrians) over the big govt totalitarian march to big brother drone hood that is happening right now.
  7. Ricter


    Would "today's libertarians" and their desired government be all over Ford for another exploding Pinto issue, or would they say "buyer beware" and let the market fix the problem?
  8. pspr


    Nader may have some off the wall ideas but he knows a conman when he sees one which is something I can't say for your ignorant ass, Rectum.
  9. jem


    It is hard to say for sure but I think so. Most everyone agrees the purpose of govt is to protect the safety of its citizens.

    I know that classical liberals would be extremely concerned about the IRS targeting groups based on their view points.
    That is a soviet style totalitarian approach. The antithesis of what classical liberals stood for.


    Drawing on selected ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that all individuals are able to equally freely pursue their own economic self-interest, without government direction, serving the common good.[19] They were critical of welfare state[20] as interfering in a free market, without taking into account the concentration of wealth in the hands of big corporations. They criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights,[21] while they accepted big corporations' rights being pursued at the expense of inequality of bargaining power noted by Adam Smith:[22]
    A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
    It was not until emergence of social liberalism that child labour was forbidden, minimum standards of worker safety were introduced, a minimum wage and old age pensions were established, and financial institutions regulations with the goal of fighting cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels, were introduced. They were met by classical liberalism as an unjust interference of the state.[23] So called slim state was argued for, instead, serving only the following functions:
    protection against foreign invaders, extended to include protection of overseas markets through armed intervention,
    protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement,
    building and maintaining public institutions, and
    "public works" that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[24]
    They believed that rights are of a negative nature which require other individuals (and governments) to refrain from interfering with free market, whereas social liberalism believes labour has a right to be provided with certain benefits or services via taxes paid by corporations.[25]
    Core beliefs of classical liberals included also their belief against direct democracy where law is made by majority vote by citizens because "there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[26] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."[27]
  10. LEAPup


    That's no question what he's doing. He HATES America, and when he said "fundamental change," the tyrant meant it! :mad:
    #10     Jun 13, 2013