NoGodBlog.com

A favorite maxim of mine:

When the intended outcome of your actions will predictably differ from the actual outcome, your intentions aren't relevant. Going through with the action anyway is tantamount to purposely chosing to promote the undesired result.

Nader put "W" in the White House to begin with. And you helped him do it. Just a thought.

Is his support for impeaching Bush/Cheney really relevant? They'll be gone by the time Nader would be in power anyway?

Honestly, he doesn't seem to have much better positions than Clinton or Obama. Why is he against nuclear power? No mention of SOCAS? What about energy independence, education, the economy?

He does not seem to have a very wide array of issues.

I wonder if Nadar is on the GOP payroll. He always seems to popup every four years wanting to be President when the whole four years leading up that I haven't seen or heard him do anything.

Did he do anything to stop Roberts & Alito being confirmed? Did he do anything about the gutting of qualified lawyers being tossed out and replaced by unqualified loyal Bushites so that our Judicial system is now broken? What about calling for impeachment? What about...well just about any fucking thing that's been happening in the past years since the Bush Crime Family has been in office?!?!? Oh, I see, it's not about Nadar really doing anything but shouting that he wants to be President every four years. And his "supporters" don't seem phased by this. Well, good for them then, I guess like having Bush in charge and like living under Republican rule.

So between Ellen wanting all atheist to not vote and with the supporters of Nardar voting for him. Well, Karl Rove himself couldn't come up with a better plan to ensure Republian control!

Diane...it's a good thing you don't believe everything you hear...

Tell me exactly how Clinton helped atheists? Did AA complain when he stood in the pulpit of a church in Baltimore in 1993 and claimed God wanted his budget?

Which is better...

A republican who tells you they believe in God and won't vote to infringe personal rights of the people...and then votes that way?

Or a democratic who says they're simpathetic to non-believers and that they'll vote to support the sep of chruch and state...but then end up voting against your position anyway?

It's fascinating to me how many groups think the Dems support them and yet when it comes time to prove it, they either iimplement a policy or vote against that group...


Blacks, Gays, Atheists

So again I ask...how have the Dems supported atheists?

BTW....Bush fired 6 lawyers. Clinton fired over 50. Were you as upset then?

democratic=democrat
simpathetic=sympathetic
chrunh=church

Yikes...give me the cold medicine

I'm in total disagreement. A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for the GOP, or a vote against the Dems. It's a vote for Nader, and it's completely legitimate. The world is not black and white, and the political system should not be considered a duopoly.

If the candidates don't support me, I don't support them. If McBush wasn't so bigoted against us ("Christian Nation"), I'd vote for him. If Obama and Clinton can't even acknowledge us, then f-them.

With respect, Dave, ideology is nice but the reality of this matter is that third (and fourth, fifth, etc) parties are almost invaribly ones that are even more liberal than the Democrats. That means in any given election, most of the votes that go to those parties are votes that would have otherwise "voted against" the conservative alternatives.

Again, take the 2000 election. That contest was ridiculously close as you'll recall. And Nader got something on the order of 3% of the vote. Sure, the Democrats are to blame for their own losses. Sure, anybody with a position to push should be allowed to push it. Absolutely. No one is denying that.

BUT -- it cannot be denied that if Nader had not run, or if no one had voted for him, then Bush would not have won. The math doesn't lie here. Not by a long shot.

It's like any strategy board game. You employ the stategy that puts you in the best position, and, failing that, the one that puts you in the best position possible. You don't stand on principle in a board game. Principle doesn't help you win.

(Not that I'm against principle, mind you. It's just that I've decided to prioritize NOT having another 4 to 8 years of Republican domination over standing on a principle that I'd be standing on either way.)

Besides, Nader is a turd. Always has been, always will be. His attack against the Corvair was purely self-serving.

Cynic and Diane are spot on. Nader is a dufus - and now an old dufus - that just shows up every four years to massage his ego and then fall back into his fecklessness. I would not doubt that he is getting GOP help. The GOP is just that desperate.

David

If the candidates don't support me, I don't support them.

How is Nader supporting you?

If McBush wasn't so bigoted against us ("Christian Nation"), I'd vote for him.

So less jobs and more war appeals to you?

If Obama and Clinton can't even acknowledge us, then f-them.

Sorry but I'm not a one-issue-voter. I am not going to vote based on how a candidate answers the ill-posed gawd question. This election there will be plenty of well-posed questions and very important ones to base one's vote upon. As long as the candidate supports the Wall then it's fine with me if they blather about the fantastical virtues of the FSM to get the FSM-believer vote.

I'm with you on this Cynic. Nader was, and will again be a spoiler to the benefit of the republicans. Especially if people like Dave throw away their votes on him in an act of frustrated FUism toward the two party system which doesn't acknowledge us. We're a long way from being acknowledged, and have to swallow that and look to the more important issues anyway. I don't want another republican hawk in the White House in these times.

democratic=democrat
simpathetic=sympathetic
chrunh=church

Phreedy=anachronism

Comment from: What

As long as the candidate supports the Wall then it's fine with me

Open your eyes "What"...No one is going to build a fence....period.

Yes, they all voted for the fence in October of 2006. Why? Because the public was furious and it was an election year...but a year later and...

Hutchinson Guts Border Fence (but Cornyn’s “in-on-it”, too): In a quiet act of defiance, the Senate removed legal requirements mandating the federal government fund 854 miles of a double layer border fence spanning America's southwestern border. When the spending bill, which combines appropriations for a number of federal agencies, reached the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) attached S.Amdt. 2466 to the measure in order to silently gut the Secure Fence Act's spending requirement. The Hutchison amendment reads, "Nothing in this paragraph shall require the secretary of homeland security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States…" thus resulting in a ‘de facto’ repeal.

[My Comment: Cornyn can’t afford to play the heavy in this round since he’s up for re-election (but Hutchinson can, since she’s just newly re-elected). Don’t forget though that less than a year ago Cornyn stated publicly (just after he voted for 700 miles of fencing to be built along the border as a “good faith start on establishing control over our nation’s southern boundary”) that “it’s one thing to authorize a border fence; but, it’s quite another thing to actually appropriate money and do it.”

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19161424&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=618959&rfi=6

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/11/border_fence_proponents_slam_hutchison/8261/

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5448261.html

Note: While telling the American people they would build a border fence… our ‘elected representatives’ entered into their own secret agreements… and now, the previously-given funding, via the Secure Fence Act, will now be reallocated to Senators’ and Representatives’ pet projects.

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/illegalimm.html

All the while so this crap can happen...

N. American Army created without OK by Congress

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57228


We are being played...plain and simple...

On one note I agree with Dave...we need a third party...but Nader?

Don't be surprised if Bloomberg doesn't also get into the race...

Phreeky is hearing the voices again. Nobody mentioned his beloved fence.

If Nader were serious about politics, he'd have run for some lesser office and worked his way up. But he's not. He's a narcissistic prima donna. Unfortunately there are just enough idiots out there to vote for him to throw a presidential election, which these days are decided on very thin margins. That's probably why most of his funding comes from Republicans.

Phreeky is hearing the voices again. Nobody mentioned his beloved fence.

And/Or his reading comprehension sucks. Easy to see how the babble gets interpreted in so many weird ways.

Dave

Nader was very likely the reason we got BushCo and all of the grave problems that th iscorrupt administration brought us. So this not simply about third party candidates in general but more specifically about one such candidate that brought so much turmoil to our country. By running, Nader has proven himself to be incapable of making good political decisions.

And/Or his reading comprehension sucks. Easy to see how the babble gets interpreted in so many weird ways.

I want to make it clear that I am not poking fun at schizophrenics. Schizophrenia is a terrible disease and folks with the disease should be treated with far more compassion than our society presently affords them. In large part we have the fantastical thinking of theists to blame for the way folks with psychiatric disease are treated. Demonic possession is still an integral part of many religions and religious thinking. Many unfortunate folks with schizophrenia, bipolar disease and clinical depression have suffered at the hands of the exorcist and believers of demonic possession.

Phreeky should get help. If ... not ... here ... then ... somewhere.

what we need in this country is a rolling vote so that people can support people like nader without "throwing their vote away"

basically the idea is that you name your favorite two or three or whatever canidates, then they count everyone's first choice, throw out the person who got the least votes and count the second choice of each of the people who voted for him/her. you keep eliminating the least popular canidate in this way untill you come down to one canidate, the winner.


for instance, if 45% of people vote A, 35% B, and 20% C, you throw out C. but if everyone who voted C put down B as their second choice, B now has 55% and A is eliminated.

the two party system is one of the reasons this country is so polarised.

phreedm -

I think you're right - Bloomberg will get into the race, but only if Obama is the Dems nominee. If it is Hillary, there will be no space whatever between her and McBush. His candidacy is predicated on there being a "center" ground between a "far left" candidate and a "far right" candidate.

As for Nader. I voted for him in 1996 AND 2000, because I did not want to reward the poor stands both the Dems and Repugs were taking. Nobody was talking about MY issues. I don't feel that I helped Bush in 2000, because Gore took my state anyhow. I held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004, because I thought (and still think) that the GOP is a disaster for this country and the world in general. This time, I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, and as I leave my polling place, I leave the Democratic party for an honest party to the left of them. The GOP means the destruction of America in the short term. The Dems mean the destruction of America in the long term. At least a Democratic vote this time gives us more time to come up with a solution.

It's fascinating to me how many groups think the Dems support them and yet when it comes time to prove it, they either iimplement a policy or vote against that group...
Blacks, gays, atheists

I don't think that the democrats fully support me as a gay athesit which is part of why I changed my voter registration to independent about a decade ago and now think of myself as a Libertarian. Dems have done some great things for gays and those concerned about separation of church and state but they don't go far enough. Having said that, at least the democrats don't openly hate me and use me as a rallying point to whip the party into a frenzy over giving me the marriage equality.

Yeah "What"...I misunderstood your post...

I should know better then to assume you care more about America's security then you do the myth...

Alex...

Hate you? I'd argue that it's the Dems who whip the Gay's into a frenzy claiming republicans hate them and want's to make you second class citizens...

There are plenty of Democrats who do not support gay marriage...

Exactly what have Dems done for Gays?
Maybe just enough to keep you hopeful...

What have they done for the Black community? NOTHING...

They've had over 90% of the black vote for over 30 years and STILL the inner city schools suck...

As I've stated...at least the republicans have been honest with you. Dems are the one's who promise and never fulfill those promises...

I always think its funny when phreedy says we beleive in a myth.

Hate you? I'd argue that it's the Dems who whip the Gay's into a frenzy claiming republicans hate them and want's to make you second class citizens...

yeah, thats why we see gay folks beating up republicans.

that must be why republican kids are ostracised in schools and occasionally get lynched.

I'm always forgetting how the gays go around telling republicans that they're going to hell and that god hates them.

that crazy gay alabama state supreme court justice that said being a republican is proof that you're an unfit parent.

crazy gays always getting whipped up into a frenzy.

Phreedm you are an asshole of the first degree and that post was more than just stupid, it was offensive.

Hate you? I'd argue that it's the Dems who whip the Gay's into a frenzy claiming republicans hate them and want's to make you second class citizens...

I AM a second class citizen so long as I am denied marriage equality or gays are denied to serve openly in the military.
Like I said, I am neither a democrat nor a republican becasue I don't believe in either party and I think having to choose one or the other is very limiting.

Exactly what have Dems done for Gays?
Maybe just enough to keep you hopeful...

Dems got us marriage equality in Massachusetes and civil unions or domestic partnerships in several other states. I have a lot of hope for the future of gay equality because support for my rights is a generational thing with those under age thirty being almost unanimously in favour of full and equal rights. Now it is just a waiting game as the jerry falwells and george w bushs of the world die off or lose influence.

Have not read all the above, but my feelings are that this is not a single issue vote. Fuck their beliefs. I don't give a rats ass what they believe in, or even if they acknowledge us or not. Ralph Nader is not what the two parties want. Ralph has some good points and bad. I want to shake America and wake it the fuck up! Go Ralphy!

phreedm is a very useful commenter. He constantly confirms our worst feelings about Christians.

Comment from: alexatheist

Dems got us marriage equality in Massachusetes

No they didn't...it was the Mass Supreme Court that wrote law...

and civil unions or domestic partnerships in several other states.

As I stated...throw you a few bones to keep you hoping....

No they didn't...it was the Mass Supreme Court that wrote law...

The court ruling had the full support of the MA democratic party and a challenge to the ruling was upheld by the democratic controlled MA senate.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/01/30/mass_democrats_back_gay_marriage/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/30/a_timeline_of_events_involving_gay_marriage_in_massachusetts/

As I stated...throw you a few bones to keep you hoping....

I'll take hope over hopelessness any day, mate.

Like I said, the tide has changed to favour my side and now it is only a matter of waiting. The state of gay rights in this country in ten or twenty years will be very different than today. One day you will realise that you are on the wrong side of history, phreedum, just like those xians who used their mythology to justify slavery.

I don't require that a candidate publically recognize my non-god belief. What I do hope and wish for is that a candidate will also not feel the necessity to bring his or her god-belief into the political arena.

Nadar is a fool.

What -- I didn't say Nader had done anything for Atheists, but he MIGHT, at least, support the separation of church and state vocally. If he DOES, I'll support him (personally)

Does this make me a single issue voter? Not in my opinion. The Separation of church and state is MANY issues, including abortion, gay marriage, science education, and private school vouchers. C/S is a FAMILY of issues, which are weaker when separated. BUT if you must call me a single-issue-voter then so be it. This country needs more VOCAL single issue voters (even if it's not true).

And, NO NO NO! I do NOT buy that Nader caused Gore to lose. Gore rode a wonderful wave of prosperity, into the election, and he lost to an idiot who can't form a sentence. GORE lost the election that he should have won EASILY. HOW? Well, for one thing, he alienated some seculars into voting for 3rd parties (or not at all) by aligning himself with a pseudo wing-nut like Lieberman ("Is the camera on? Quick, pass my yarmulke!").

Nader may indeed be a pompous fool. He may also be right. He may also be a useful patriot. JURY is STILL OUT! Let's get him talking and see what he says.

Dave

Let's get him talking and see what he says.

Why Nader? We should all be talking and loudly. In my opinion it is much more effective to work within the democratic party to bring change, however incremental, than to go the third party route which is just about hopeless.

The Separation of church and state is MANY issues, including abortion, gay marriage, science education, and private school vouchers.

I would agree that the religious right conflates these issues but we need not do so.

phreedm,

No they didn't...it was the Mass Supreme Court that wrote law...

Been listening to Rush, again, I see. Sorry, but no matter how much you believe in activist judges, courts do not WRITE law; they uphold it, or overturn it, according to the state/federal constitution.

How is it that whenever a court hands down a decision that the conservatives hate, they are activist judges, while simultaneously working to overturn Roe v Wade? Wouldn't overturning a stare decisis like that equal an activist bench? And yet, were it to happen, you and millions of other conservatives would be singing all the way to church on Sunday.

Question: Why is it that conservatives want a marriage amendment added to the constitution barring gays from getting hitched? Answer: Because the constitution currently allows for them to marry. You see, the Constitution protects the rights of EVERYONE, not just the people you agree with.

I hate the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Smells like... ignorance.

I might vote Nader just because I live in Illinois. Obama is going to win the general election here by a wide margin, there's no doubt about that. Illinois never votes Republican. I was a Hillary supporter but since it looks like she's on the ropes, if Obama wins the nomination I might vote for a third party. Basically, I see no difference on Iraq between Obama or Hillary, but somehow he's convinced everyone that he is more liberal. Well, he wasn't there is not enough of an argument to sway me. Also, he's been my senator for a while and I don't remember him even mentioning the war until it became popular to oppose it. Health care is a big issue for me, and I can't see how Obama's plan is any different than any Republican plan to make costs cheaper. It's not a universal health care plan which I support. So, perhaps a Nader vote is wasted but third parties are good for the country in general.

Amazing that otherwise intelligent people would consider voting for a man who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. That's actually less rational than Huckabee's god-idea.

I guess if you vote for a guy who has no chance of winning, though, you get to keep your conscience sparkling-clean. And what is Nader about if not smug narcissism?

I distinctly remember Nader talking about the impending takeover of America by gigantic corporations way back in the 70's. Hmn, looks like that's where we're at now, no? Nader's a smart cookie; however, I'm not sure if a vote for Nader would be a useful vote. We absolutely have to get GOP out of office, at all costs.

If only Nader could stick a thorn in politicios' side without hijacking the Democratic vote.

If only...

The Democrats don't support atheists.

I was hoping he was going to run.
Nader is the only one who ever made sense, except for perhaps the Libertarians. I think we should all vote for him. He's got mine.

Posterelli

Why not just vote for yourself as a write-in candidate? You probably support your own platform so it would be an ideal match. Whats more there would be no real difference between the likelihood of your winning the presidency versus Nader.

I never thought I'd ever be calling you a "dumbass", but if you intend to throw your vote away on Nader AGAIN in tipping the scales in favor of the Bush Camp, then Mr. Silverman, that is exactly what you will be -- and I will be removing the link from my website to yours from mine.

Mr. Silverman, a couple of questions:
What degree of good do you see your vote for Nader doing, specifically?
and
Assuming for a moment that all other candidates dropped dead on Election Eve, what beneficial actions do you reasonably see Nader accomplishing if he ever made it to office?
Your second post states that you don't see C/S separation as a one-issue vote,
The Separation of church and state is MANY issues, including abortion, gay marriage, science education, and private school vouchers.
however, the candidates all have stated their stance on abortion, gay marriage, science education and private school vouchers. So it seems to boil down to one issue, one SPECIFIC issue, doesn't it?
Not that I'm going to disagree and say that atheist rights aren't an important issue, but to let it be the sole deciding factor in casting your vote is foolish. In twenty-odd years of feminist activism I've run into this same attitude quite often: women who will vote the pro-choice party line no matter what else that candidate may support or oppose. It's a dangerous attitude. No one is going to wave a magic wand and make millions of people secular in a four-year timespan any more than they will banish the anti-abortion fundies with the same wand.
Cynic is absolutely right about this: choose the strategy that puts you in the best possible position, and work from there. Throwing your vote away when you're perfectly aware that that's what you are doing, for a candidate who is in the main disliked by the American public and has NO shot whatsoever at the presidency- and doing it on one specific issue- isn't a conscience vote; it's a cop-out. It's a CYA move in case the winner does something you don't like down the road. If that attitude's given you comfort over the last eight years, then more power to you. I want something a little better for myself.
Obama '08. Peace,
Ladyhawk

Dear American Atheists DOT Org,

I personally thank you for helping me in so many ways over the years to overcome & thwart the forces of theism when I needed such assistance, but it is clear to me now that you have little more that is good & right to share with me.

This student has surpassed the teacher.

You were a good teacher when you were a demoncratic organization, but (point blank) you now suffer from your own kind of 'blindness'-- and for the sake of our nation as a whole, you need to open your own eyes a bit more inwardly to begin to see the error of your own shortcomings.

I'll do my own thinking, thank you.

For individual atheists to become organized to combat theism does not mean that atheists should set aside their independent abilities to reason and blindly follow a group of self-aggrandizing atheists who've set themselves up as lifetime leaders of and spokespersons for the global atheist community.

Democracy or tyranny? That is the question.

When was the last time you -- "American Atheists DOT Org" -- afforded your members an election to determine your next president?

Do set a good democratic American example for Mr. Putin.

Tenaciously Sincere,

PeskyAtheist

Dear American Atheists DOT Org,

I personally thank you for helping me in so many ways over the years to overcome & thwart the forces of theism when I needed such assistance, but it is clear to me now that you have little more that is good & right to share with me.

This student has surpassed the teacher.

You were a good teacher when you were a demoncratic organization, but (point blank) you now suffer from your own kind of 'blindness'-- and for the sake of our nation as a whole, you need to open your own eyes a bit more inwardly to begin to see the error of your own shortcomings.

I'll do my own thinking, thank you.

For individual atheists to become organized to combat theism does not mean that atheists should set aside their independent abilities to reason and blindly follow a group of self-aggrandizing atheists who've set themselves up as lifetime leaders of and spokespersons for the global atheist community.

Democracy or tyranny? That is the question.

When was the last time you -- "American Atheists DOT Org" -- afforded your members an election to determine your next president?

Do set a good democratic American example for Mr. Putin.

Tenaciously Sincere,

PeskyAtheist

American Atheists pushing vote for Nader?

http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/02/24/nader_factor_redux#comments

Where will AA's tax exemption go?

"Barack Obama Only Presidential Candidate to Endorse Separation of Church and State"

FROM SECULAR VOTERS: http://tinyurl.com/29ky9e

(NOW, NOGODBLOG [AMERICAN ATHEISTS], DO US ALL A FAVOR BY TELLING THE ELECTION SPOILER RALPH NADER TO SLIP QUIETLY BACK INTO HIS CAVE!)