Don't get me wrong--the protests have been great.

But there is a presidential election coming up, and we have five weeks to make sure that Ralph Nader is included in the debate.

I hear that folks are planning the NEXT protest: the debates. Well, nothing like announcing to the establishment that we all accept that Ralph Nader, who would easily win the election if he got the amount of media attention given to Gush and Bore, will not be in the debates. Nothing like preparing for resignation and subjugation, provided we get to stage yet another protest on the streets.

A peaceful demonstration, maybe with some clever ideas, maybe a little rock throwing, lots of tear gas, more arrests, and brief media coverage, so the corporate ruling class can assure the public, "See, they had their say, we still live in a democracy."

Don't plan for failure! If people put their rebellious energy into making sure that Ralph gets IN the debates, well, that will make all the change in the world, literally. Creativity, outrage, passion, organizing skills--we all need to use this now, not for more protests, but to mobilize people to demand that Ralph is included. If Ralph is included in the debates, that alone will have more impact on the politics of this country, and the world, than all our protests of the next five years. He would speak to over a hundred million people, and based on this, could win an upset. Jesse Ventura was elected as a result of being included in the debates. Before the debates, he was polling in the single digits.

No more protests! If activists everywhere would drop everything and think and do nothing else over the next 10 weeks, Ralph could stand a chance of becoming the next president of the United States, and that would change the world.

NO MORE PROTEST! SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE!

EXPECT INCLUSION, NOT FAILURE!!!

I can certainly appreciate the ideas expressed here. On the other hand, I don't want to discourage anyone from protesting as they see fit.

The protests have accomplished two things:

They've brought activists together

and

They've shown the system we're a threat again.

Many people in the movement have made it clear they don't support Ralph Nader, as they do not trust any sort of government, anyone who would lay claim to the position of 'leading man', as it were. They should be welcome to this stance, at least they have a good reason not to vote.

For the rest of us, Nader is 100% pure political mayhem to the status quo. Nader has already done things that the system doesn't know how to erase, but if the unthinkable happened, if Nader became president, he would be the first at so much.

He would be the first president with a female vice president.

He would be the first president to turn down corporate donations in decades.

and

He would be the first president who was one of us.

An activist, a crusader for the public causes. How, when faced with the same two yokels they always throw at us to vote for, (nice and ineffective, versus mean and sentimental) could we be so cowed to not vote for the third party candidate.

Everyone who hasn't done it yet, spin by Votenader.com and sign the petition to get Ralph in the debates. Even if you don't support him, even if you could give a rats ass who the next president is. It's a chance to hear real arguments from the candidates, and even if it doesn't change the politicians it will change the viewers.

And that's all we need to win. Note that I don't mean 'all that Ralph needs to win'. If we can get America thinking and working against the out of control system we'll have broadened the movement until no dam of apathy can hold it back.

It's all we need to win, and this is our next step.

Just what we all need, another white liberal bourgeoise politician. It seems that the self selected guardians of the machine (parasites that they are) wish to use us once again. I read the Skeleton Closet pages at http://www.realchange.org and I am deeply insulted by the above writer .

Although some overly ambitious people may believe Nader is a good idea, I don't. They are salivating at the prospect of getting some piece of an imaginary pie, overlooking the fact that 100% of O is still Zero.

Don't they ever learn; I guess not. Stop wasting our time!

seems to be what many people are looking for. They can't believe they're doing this themselves without a party or "fearless" leader and they think all their problems will be solved with one, which is now becoming Nader.

Him and the Green Party seem to have good intentions...but they don't know any better. He's working on a different game than many of us are. He's trying to battle within the two party system, we're trying to radicalize democracy. He wants to get himself and some of his party in power and make small reforms, we want a drastic revolution. A country with cleaner air and safer cars, is still a country which pollutes, wastes, and makes people miserable 40-60 hours a week. It's still a country dominated by bosses and bureaucracy. It is a country which still produces rich and wealthy, increasing welfare just hides that reality.

The more people that latch onto him and the Green Party as the savior of this country, the more likely our growing revolution will cease.

Many people support him for other reasons, like exposing many of the problems we're protesting about to the public. But beyond that, seeing him as our primary goal, is foolish and defeating. Always ask for more, believe in the impossible, and refuse all crumbs.

My suggestion is to vote for Green Party candidates, ESPECIALLY if Nader is locked out of the debates. Nobody living in 3-dimensional reality expects him to win. But voting Green would be like throwing banana peels in front of the corporate Republicrats running for president.

A strong showing by Green candidates would also lend more credence to the street protests that are being ignored by the mainstream media. When more of the working class and middle class see the farce that parades as American Democracy, more of them will sympathize with, and maybe join the protests.

Both voting & protesting strategies are legitimate and necessary.

here comes the new boss, same as the old boss...

As the Hopi elders put it in a recent communique: "Don't look for leaders outside of yourself". Another leader, no matter how radical his rhetoric, is still one man (or woman for that matter) making blanket decisions which affect the lives of billions. The point is that the system of heirarchy itself is unhealthy and alienating. Why should someone so distant from me, nice guy or not, be allowed to make decisions about how I live MY life? What the hell does Ralph Nader know about the particular issues that effect me or you on an everyday basis around your neighborhood? Absolutely nothing. Real democracy is direct. Real democracy (anarchy!) is the ability to exercise real political power in your community, all day, everyday.

A vote for Nader is a vote for heirarchy.

Don't waste your vote! Vote for the most obvious of the evils - vote for Bush. Unlike Gore or Nader, Bush is simply too overtly evil to hide his fascism behind a smile and slick sound bites. Bush is the clear enemy this country needs! A vote for Bush is a vote for popular revolt and anarchy! Bring it on!

...They'd make it illegal.

I voted Nader in '96, but I'm foregoing that in 2000. The anarchist ideals we are upholding in the streets would be thoroughly negated by playing the ruling class' game. The idea is to completely reject the process and seize power ourselves, by building alternative institutions and expanding our strength in the streets -- where all real change has started.

The institutional critique of a Nader campaign is never discussed. We know that Nader has no realistic chance of dethroning the corporate puppet BushnGore, but let's just say that he gets enough of the popular vote to win the election. There is still no way he could get into office, since the rigged electoral college will support only the Republicrats and Demicans. But let's just say he did get into office...well, do you think any limited "progressive" program of his would stand a chance in Congress, whose reps would be totally opposed to him for defeating their parties? There'd probably be another crusade for impeachment, which would succeed this time.

Why do we need to build "credibility" with the mass media and the older folks who are so thoroughly invested in our "democracy?" As they age into decrepit irrelevancy, we must focus on the young people, whose alienation can be converted to liberation from the present system -- a transformation that must last into their adulthood, unlike the sell-outs of the 60s. We have to be in this for the long haul, because we can't expect anything but small or hollow victories until we flood the streets not just with 5,000 or 50,000, but 500,000 again, and then millions. We're a ways away from that, but diverting protest into a protest vote can only hold back the sea change in thinking that this movement is all about.

...They'd make it illegal.

I voted Nader in '96, but I'm foregoing that in 2000. The anarchist ideals we are upholding in the streets would be thoroughly negated by playing the ruling class' game. The idea is to completely reject the process and seize power ourselves, by building alternative institutions and expanding our strength in the streets -- where all real change has started.

The institutional critique of a Nader campaign is never discussed. We know that Nader has no realistic chance of dethroning the corporate puppet BushnGore, but let's just say that he gets enough of the popular vote to win the election. There is still no way he could get into office, since the rigged electoral college will support only the Republicrats and Demicans. But let's just say he did get into office...well, do you think any limited "progressive" program of his would stand a chance in Congress, whose reps would be totally opposed to him for defeating their parties? There'd probably be another crusade for impeachment, which would succeed this time.

Why do we need to build "credibility" with the mass media and the older folks who are so thoroughly invested in our "democracy?" As they age into decrepit irrelevancy, we must focus on the young people, whose alienation can be converted to liberation from the present system -- a transformation that must last into their adulthood, unlike the sell-outs of the 60s. We have to be in this for the long haul, because we can't expect anything but small or hollow victories until we flood the streets not just with 5,000 or 50,000, but 500,000 again, and then millions. We're a ways away from that, but diverting protest into a protest vote can only hold back the sea change in thinking that this movement is all about.

We have heard this before, too -- that exposing the public to bare and obvious evil will cause them to react with the appropriate revolutionary response. But does it ever happen? How much must people see before REAL ACTION is taken? Are those who wish upon the rest of us the full-bore outrages of an un-restricted corporate/facist state going to be the first to take to the street? Or will they continue to hide behind words on newsgroups? Who among us has the will to fire the next "shot heard round the world", and; more importantly, to fire the second....

It would seem that way from the outside...that people would be able to spot the evil leader and fight against it, but it doesn't realistically work that way. If there wasn't such thing as advertisements, TV, radio, newspapers owned by mega conglomerates, etc. this could possibly work. People would theoretically be smart enough to realize this person is doing bad things. But in our "Democracy" there is heavy propaganda, and no matter how bad the person is for people, through the means of mass information dissemination, you can contro lpeople to fully support and worship the leader and what they say.

This reasoning also fucks over the poor and minorities. While the worst of th echoices is in power, more people will be suffering even more. More people in prison. More people being murdered by the state. More people working more miserable jobs just to get by. This is not something I want people to have to endure, it is horribly bad enough as it is.

The most effective method of change seems to be what we're doing. Protesting, building up local communities and activism, and reaching out to new people. Who is in power is fairly irrelevant as far as causing change to happen.

Though I am working on the Nader campaign in Minnesota, I am not going to try to convince any anarchists to vote for Nader. Having read up on anarchist thought lately, and seen its legitimate philosophical grounding, I have nothing bur respect for it. They are an important, nay--VITAL, part of the anti-corporate movement as they are now. While in LA I had contact with members of the black bloc, and my respect only grew.

I truly believe that anarchists and Greens need not convert one another in order to work together against our common enemy: the corporate powers-that-be. Those powers are so huge and bloated that it is difficult to argue who is more impractical, the Greens or the anarchists. Members of both camps are facing a huge monster. We both have our pins and needles to stab it in the foot. The more the merrier!!

I say, who cares what your reasons are for opposing plutocracy--it simply must be opposed, and attacking it from several directions at once can only be effective. The anarchists will pull in allies, and so will the Greens. As long as we're all reaching out, and making the overall movement bigger, more power to us.

We are the People, and of course we are a multiplicity. We fight conformity and the degradation to liberty that it forces on all of us. I ask the Greens to recognize that anarchism is a well-thought out philosophy, and I ask the anarchists to view the Greens as allies to their right. (Those Greens who wish to understand anarchism better should read the interview with John Zerzan in the Spring 2000 issue of the Alternative Press Review, or look him up online.)

I have a good friend who is a Gore supporter, and to him, I am whacked for supporting Nader--nearly a traitor. I realize that the distance between he and I is about the same as the distance between me and the black bloc. (You'll have to trust me on that, as I am not outlining my personal political views in detail here.) I have been lunging left, and I have no reason to believe I'll stay put here. Perhaps I will be donning black and wearing a mask within a year. I don't know. But I do know there is no reason to spread any sort of alienation among our ranks, no matter how different we are. Greens who are frustrated that not everyone is supporting Nader just need to accept that, and work on pulling Gore/Bush people into the fold. Have respect for our brothers and sisters to our left! Their work is our work and our work is theirs!! We all need each other!!

All this being said, I do not mean to paint the movement as a polarity between Greens and anarchists. I merely used these two groups as examples in this comment because they were the main focus of the comments above. I know that the spectrum of belief stretches out further, and includes all sorts who aren't either Greens or anarchists, and bless all of them too.

We're all in this together. If we succeed in toppling the corporate machine, we can create our own communities then. I am confident that the one thing we all share in common is a belief that we should be free from tyranny to make our own lives. To that purpose, let us take to the streets and take them back.

Ain't no power like the power of the people 'cause the power of the people don't stop!

The call to think critically about the strategic value in protesting at this moment is laudible. While I doubt that protests will end, and while I do personally prefer to see them continuing for their value to the internal dynamics of the movement (something that entirely escapes the public institutions of power like the press -- and believe me, that is nothing new), I do think that learning to think about strategies, as opposed to only in-the-moment tactics is of immense value. And that is why I will vote for Nader this fall.

I entirely agree with anarchist criticisms of power and politics as they now stand. Despite being appalled by the selfishness and pettiness of people in every walk of life, I do have a strong belief that people can learn to work together and govern themselves without having a well-groomed elite watching out for our 'best interests'. That being said, I do think we can use mechanisms of the political establishment to our own ends. In particular, voting for Nader will help get some very important ideas to the forefront of the political mainstream. If Nader can garner 15% of the vote, then the Greens will have an even larger voice in the next election cycle, since they'll get federal matching funds. This will literally mean they'd be taking that money away from the DemReps. Recall, those of you who knuckle under the pressure of the IRS and actually file taxes, that matching funds are given voluntarily by tax payers (something I never do, by the way).

Now, it is true that in many respects the Greens are too conciliatory on too many counts. Dismantling the federal government and corporations is not chief among their objectives. That is, in part, why I am not a Green. But I think that to dismiss them as potential allies, and to discount the value of the space they could open for discussion of key issues (the drug war, the prison industrial system, corporate dominance of public and private life, the environment), is an error -- for me, at least.

Let's face it: *real* democracy is a messy, contentious, conflictual affair. If you've had much experience working in a consensus-based decsion-making environment (a model many anarchists point to as their 'ideal'), then you know how frustrating and -- not coincidentally -- engergizing that can be. For me, the real rush of reaching a hard-won consensus is not being among like-minded individuals (that's group-think), but learing that unlike-minded individuals can work together to find common ground, and can learn to compromise conscientiously.

Blowing off the Greens because they don't see the world the way I do would be the very kind of narrow-minded exclusionism I find so unpalatable about mainstream press and politics. Learning to work with the Greens, and other progressives that are not as hard-core as thou is of critical importance for strategy and, ultimately, principle. You want radical democracy? Then you have to learn to talk with (not just at) people who do not share your particular, if well-articulated and nuanced, perspective.

That being said, I do not believe that Nader has a realistic chance of winning the White House. I strongly suspect that Nader feels the same way, and I doubt that the ambition to do so was the deciding factor to run. And my vote is not intended to elect Nader, but to open a space for discourse that is systematically shut down by mainstream media and the cops. I do agree with the argument that putting our faith in any one person is an ultimately failed strategy, regardless of who that one person is. Aside from the potential abuses endemic to sucha cult of personality, putting too much on the shoulders of one person risks exposing the movement to decapitation. If Nader, or whomever, is 'taken out' either through assassination or through scandal, such a strategy would leave the movement directionless and demoralized. The growing anti-authoritarian strain of movements across the spectrum of progressive to radical causes has been a positive development, both strategically and politically. Identifying too much with Nader does risk reversing that gain.

So, while I will sign the petition to get Nader in the debates and will vote for him in November, I will not join in the chorus of voices calling for an end to protest. My experience in the anti-sweatshop march on 8/17, wherein I saw the workers on whose behalf we were marching lean out of factory windows and wave makeshift flag, raise their fists, and cheer us on, demonstrated for me in very concrete terms that the value of protest lies not only with getting our 'message' into the six o'clock news. It lies in strengthening ties of affiliation and in reaching out to the communities in which protests are held and to the people on behalf of whom we protest. While it does not suffice as an end in itself, nor as the only means to reach that end, it is an important, sometimes festive and uplifting, part of the 'answer'.

By the same token, I certainly applaud those who choose to take time out from the cycle of protests to organize and mobilize efforts to get Nader in the debates. His campaign ads have had me cheering for his willingness to level the right charges at Bore and Gush. Seeing him do the same in an enviroment where they can not simply ignore his arguments would be very good for this country, the world, and the movement.

p.s. These views are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of other RegenerationTV.com collective members.

I totally respect you comment anout anarchy and the people not needing a leader, but I suspect that you are a republican in disguise using this site to brainwash "unassuming activists" into thinking it funny to vote for Bush. In the instance that you are just a crazy anarchist, allright! go you. I agree that we ultimately need a real democracy and not one leader, but I think that Nader could be a stepping stone to achieving the ultimate. I believe that Nader would do more good than Gore and Bush, because at this stage in the game, these are our options and I believe we need to come upon a compromise (at least for now).

The last comment was absolutly correct! We need Nader in the running to build a discourse that simply does not exist in Corporate bought political races. If Nader can participate in the Debates, terms such as the WTO, IMF/ World BAnk, corporate power, class conflict, etc. will be used over and over. The other two talking heads will have to stop agreeing over issues (and pretending the disagree) and address hard core issues of our movement.

This will have the effect of giving our messeges a launch pad to work from. Instead of the PRess asking "what the hell are they talking about?" our voice will be bolstered by the new discource created by the NAder campaign. Whether you agree with having him as a leader or not is not the point. THe point is, how can we use this opportunity to get our messege out and have it seriously considered.

If this point is not "radical" or "revolutionary" enough for some, then I would suggest they study the history of various revolutions that overturned systems and not just leaders. LEnin called for all possible tools to be used, that included both evolutionary and revolutionary tactics. To not do so would be to keep yourself at the periphary of society without seriously changing anything. A study of these revolutions would also show that forcefully overthrowing the dominate system does not work, for that is only one way of creating a dominate dissent that will be the eventual death of the revolution. What is the lesson?: The virtues of your alternative system must be believed by those who will exist within it. Nader is the starting point of that process.

We are just beginning to have an impact on the streets. There's no doubt about it. The power is starting to feel threatened by this movement. If they didn't they would not feel the need to call out thousands of riot cops or spend enormous amounts of money on "security measures" to protect the elite from exposure to these demonstrations.

We need to keep the heat on. This movement needs to remain as highly visible as possible in order to grow and maintain viability. The public and the authorities need to know that we exist. We have a real opportunity (the first in a very long time) to make our mark on society and culture. A chance to put our corporate rulers on notice that we reject their system and show them that there is real opposition in the streets.

In reality, the only option for getting our message out to the masses who aren't already familiar with us is via the mainstream media. The only time that the media gives our causes and concerns ANY exposure is when we take to the streets in large numbers and disrupt business as usual. When we fuck with their system in a tangible way (mass protests, civil disobedience, shut-downs) then we will be heard. We won't accomplish that by going back into the activist "closet".

Even the mainstream, corporate media is starting to take a serious look at us as a factor. Over the past few weeks we have garnered, not an overwhelming amount, but a decent amount of attention from the press. That was, of course, due to large-scale protest actions. After all, we were going up against HUGE competition for the media spotlight- the RNC and DNC. The point is: a year ago, no one had a clue that there was any substantial leftist opposition to the current system or status quo. How did we change that? We took to the streets. We made them see, hear and feel our presence. You can't do that from the shadows.

I am deeply suspicious of these people who, at this crucial juncture in the growth of our movement, are begging us not to protest. "Please stop the protests!" -that's what they are telling us. They suggest that we need a "change in direction". A change in direction?! This movement is brand new, barely off the ground, beginning to get our message out and now (after only nine months) we're supposed to throw in the towel and do something else?! Ummm, I don't think so!

Failing to take to the streets and make our voices heard, ceasing to be vocal and visible will spell the end of our burgeoning movement. It would surely squander this historic opportunity for change in our lifetimes. And that is exactly what the police and politicians want! They would love for us to just shut up and go away quietly before we can do any real "damage" to their sweet little system.

Yeah!!! "No more protests!" demands Clinton, Gore, G.W. Bush and your local law enforcement officials. Fuck that!! If you don't want to take part in street demonstrations then stay home. No one is forcing you into the streets to protest. But, if we want to force change and see any hope for progress, someone has to do something. You can't possibly hope to create revolution if no one is even aware that you exist. Let's NOT take cointelpro advice and disappear.

In solidarity and together in action-We shall prevail!

I'm sorry to say, but you people are really funny. You think that Capitalism will just roll over and die once you defeat it. Greed has always been a part of our history and always will be. No matter how much people make, they will always want more. then there's the situation of Bill Gates. People bass the corporations and no one has said a word about this guy. He makes billions upon billions of dollars. If he wanted to buy the government he could. A little amusing. But you people are like chickens with their heads cut off. Running around causing a huge ruckus, and doing absolutely nothing to help anything. There is no point to your ruckus, it just goes on. Boring people slowly but surely. I guess that it gives you something to do for a while. Productive in that way I asume, but maybe some of you should get out more. Join the peace core and help those less fortunate than you. Relax and enjoy the beauty of the world around you. Don't be silenced, but most of the points that you bring up are totally unimportent. then when you say something interesting, you have no real way of getting there so you run around again. You are a novelty to the public. It amuses me to watch you. But of course, i will now be labeled a cop because i don't agree. Alas, you are so predictable.

But thanks for your time!

Having fled their former party in droves on the ascension of Clinton/Gore and over running the ex-Bookchinites they now attempt to control the movement for their own, selfish, political ends.

Nothing around the coronation of the Cultural Icon (Nader) was democratic--it was top down, secret, and centrist.

We are on to you, phonies. Slither back to under your rocks. You must miss the democratic party more than you know. For why else are trying to recreate a smaller nastier version of it?

The street protests must continue people. Just make sure, after each one ends, to scrape the green turds from off your shoes.

@ forever!

In response to Gregory Splitrail's comment that: "Greed has always been a part of our history and always will be."

This sort of statement requires more back-up than you provide. At least, you need to focus it more. If by "our history" you mean U.S. history, then fine, I agree with you to a point. Not completely, because I think that the level/scope of greed has certainly changed during the last 200 years.

To define capitalism as the end-all be-all expression of human instinct is off-mark in general. It ignores the long and deep history of spirituality during human history, the philosophies of anti-greed espoused by so many thinkers, and embracing of those philosophies by so many individuals. One historical argument would posit, in fact, that it has been only a greedy minority, lording over everyone else, that has created the set of plutocratic structures that has resulted (so far) in capitalism.

Your statement also ignores findings in the field of Anthropology, which have uncovered civilizations in which a communitarian lifestyle was the norm, and greed the abberant behavior.

Don't you think that things have ever been or could be different than they are now? Apparently, you've done little to no reading of history, and have almost no familiarity with any culture other than our own at this particular time. Your viewpoint is a popular one, I know, but that doesn't lend it the proof that it needs.

Unless all you meant is that greed has always been "A PART" of our history, BUT NOT NECCESSARILY THE DOMINANT PART, then you need to offer some facts. Your post, however, seems to suggest that greed has been the overarching theme of all history, and that is a big statement to make. Let's have the details.

And no I don't think you're a cop. I just think you lack an historical perspective.

I couldn't have put that any better. I am going to vote for Nader and i will try to convince as many people to do the same but the last thing this movement needs is the thing that always destroys leftists movements - that is the division between radicals and liberals (or whatever ever terms we are using today). Remember, alot of greens and anarchists basically want the same society in the end.

Personally, i just think we need to give society at large time to come around so that we are helping the masses not waging war upon them. We can do this simply by communicating with them. When your at a protest talk to every person you see that looks different from you. If all you do is yell and wave a black flag you and your beliefs will seem alien and scary to them.

Remember also to talk to people not at them. Nobody likes somebody in their face being preachy - just think how you would feel if some pro-lifer did it to you. You wouldn't listen to a thing they said.

Here's what i did in philly - I simply went up to people who looked like they were just observing (by the way i am not stereotyping people i just feel by talking to people who look different than you - is in a way breaking down barriers that we have in this society) Anyway, i said to them "What do you think of all this?" An open ended question is always the best way to start these kinds of conversations. Almost everytime i didn't need to come to them with my issues, they were asking me questions and i got to communicate why i was there in a very pleasant way for them. Now someone is going to say revolutions are not pleasant. Yeah i know but after these conversations i had i would bet these people are alot more sympathetic to protestors blocking streets or even vandalizing.

I couldn't have put that any better. I am going to vote for Nader and i will try to convince as many people to do the same but the last thing this movement needs is the thing that always destroys leftists movements - that is the division between radicals and liberals (or whatever ever terms we are using today). Remember, alot of greens and anarchists basically want the same society in the end.

Personally, i just think we need to give society at large time to come around so that we are helping the masses not waging war upon them. We can do this simply by communicating with them. When your at a protest talk to every person you see that looks different from you. If all you do is yell and wave a black flag you and your beliefs will seem alien and scary to them.

Remember also to talk to people not at them. Nobody likes somebody in their face being preachy - just think how you would feel if some pro-lifer did it to you. You wouldn't listen to a thing they said.

Here's what i did in philly - I simply went up to people who looked like they were just observing (by the way i am not stereotyping people i just feel by talking to people who look different than you - is in a way breaking down barriers that we have in this society) Anyway, i said to them "What do you think of all this?" An open ended question is always the best way to start these kinds of conversations. Almost everytime i didn't need to come to them with my issues, they were asking me questions and i got to communicate why i was there in a very pleasant way for them. Now someone is going to say revolutions are not pleasant. Yeah i know but after these conversations i had i would bet these people are alot more sympathetic to protestors blocking streets or even vandalizing.

Friends: why I will vote Nader?

He's the only candidate that spoke at the WTO and World Bank protests .... and at the WTO teach in, he tag teamed with Vandana Shiva and kicked Corporate America's ass, right there on the Seattle stage... forcing a flustered Klinton Trade Minister to accept a challenge to a one on one debate...which the Klintonite later backed out on...

He's the only candidate that has saved hundreds of thousands of human lives through mandatory seatbelt and airbag legislation he spearheaded...

he's a millionaire (actually the POOREST of the candidates) who has given away 80% of his wealth to public interest causes... and he lives on ,000 per year (this consumer advocate is ANTI-consumption!) HE WALKS THE WALK!

a forty year track record of integrity... when General Motors investigated him in the early 1960s, they came up dry and were humiliated into issuing an APOLOGY! Imagine that, an apology from the world's largest corporation!

He's anti Frankenfoods...the pesticide industry... and the insurance barons...

and yes, he's a good guy...

he supports unions and worker rights...

He spearheaded the landmark Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act...

He believes that in a true democracy, power is derived from "we the people," and government exists to SERVE the people's will....

He wants to ensure that people are empowered to participate in power sharing...

He is "Public Enemy Number One" to the multinational corporate powers...

He has already sided with the movement, and commented that the alleged "violence" in the streets is nothing compared to the violence being done by multinational corporations ...

He will promote US foreign policy which sides with the peasants rather than the dictators...

He's pro gay rights, without apologies...

Yes, I know Ralph isn't a panacea... but he is a vital and absolutely necessary start.

In our lives we have seen the Berlin Wall come down.... Nelson Mandela go from an apartheid prison to the presidency of South Africa... a Polish electrician leading a protest movement become the President of Poland....

Heck, we've seen Jesse Ventura polling in SINGLE DIGITS before the Minnesota Gubernatorial debates go on to WIN...

So who is to say Ralph can't WIN? Heck, the MAJORITY of people (55%) who have given up on voting haven't been heard from yet. He's already polling near double digits in some states, which is more amazing given the corporate media blackout of his campaign...

Come on friends, let's put aside our differences on this one and vote Nader!

Protesting at the debates is not a sign of giving up. It is a threat that if the debates are not opened up, the debate sites will be shut down, the host cities will incur millions in costs, and surrounding business will lose millions more.

We made a tactical decision to be on our best behaviour in D2K and we stuck to it, but the O3 Boston TV Party will be held under different rules. It will be focused on one single issue and one single tactical goal -- SHUT DOWN the phony 'debates' and prevent ANYONE or ANYTHING from passing through our lines. The maximum amount of disorder will be concentrated in one place at one time, and it will be a night that Boston will never forget.

The corporations and the politicians who work for them can avoid this coming apocalypse if they open the debates. It's their choice and they're going to have to live with the consequences.

I have seen a few on here try to give reasons NOT to vote Green Party (Nader) Things such as he might be impeached, assasinated, he has no chance of winning. blah blah blah. There are cops and republikrates on here (sometimes posing as progressives) that will come up with any cons possible against Nader. The fact that they would even visit this site and try to divide and conquer us shows how much they fear a revolt at the ballot box.

Also, don't let anyone ever tell you that a vote for Nader is really just a vote for bush. The only real difference between gore and bush is one's a pro-choice corporate whore and the other one is a pro-life corporate whore! But Al Gore is not even that strongly pro-choice. As a Tennessee congressmen he voted very frequently with the pro-life camp, and only changed his views out of political expediency when he became a candidate for vice-president in 92. We don't want someone who respects a woman's right to choose based strictly on prolonging their own government career! Time Magazine even quotes al gore as saying he opposes late term abortion except to save a mother's life! So much for the arguement that a gore victory will ensure the supreme court does not overturn Roe v. Wade.

Do not be deterred through propoganda or police force. Vote for someone you WANT and BELIEVE in!!!! Enough of this crap about the lesser of two evils! There's a sleeping giant out there (50% plus of the country which doesn't vote!!) Let's wake it up and flex our muscles! Even if you hate our govt and don't believe in it, at least a vote for Nader means issues like WTO, free trade, frankenfoods, will be DISCUSSED!!!!

A vote for the Green Party is the biggest rejection you can give to the two party corporate police state dictatorship!!! Our critics want us to stay HOME on November 7th. Doing so is being submissive to their authority. Even if there's rain, sleet, snow, tear gas, etc... we shall not be deterred!!! We WILL Protest! We WILL register people! We WILL spread the word! We WILL Vote! And we WILL make an impact!

I don't believe in government by force, thus I cannot

vote. I agree with many of the platforms of the green party, however, looking at what the Greens have done in

Europe (not much) I don't see any reason to waste time

there.

I don't have any problem with the goals of the Greens, I just don't think that any change is going to come about

by that route.

Even if I were going to vote, I would not vote for Nader.

I have serious problems with the fact that he has ignored

the topic of involuntary psychiatric treatment, which

Support Coalition (http://www.mindfreedom.org) has tried

to get him to take a stand on.

One of his advisors on psychiatric issues is Dr. E Fuller

Torrey of the Treatment Advocacy Center, one of the main

groups expanding the circumstances in which involuntary

psychiatric treatment may be used. (from "danger to self

or others" to "reasonable likelihood of decompensation" in

some states).

Now, seeing as how I have been institutionalized and labeled "mentally ill", and have

had friends that have been strapped down in restraints and

drugged against their will, and tortured, you can see why

I'm a little BITTER towards Nader's indifference.

Never trust anyone else to make the change you want to make

for you.

If you want change, MAKE IT!

A Direct Action is worth a thousand elections.

No, I did not mean to state that greed was the defining part of our culture, nor the major part. However, I will attest, the the fall of all communal cultures is based on greed. Think of this for example. This is a little extreme, but explains my point. The communist ideal is that everyone has an equal share of everything. Rationed for the public. I'm not taking into account any bigotry or anything, just the ideal. The problem here started with the need to regulate this rationing. Those in charge saw that people may be greedy and hog their commoditites, so they had to regulate. Then those regulates became greedy themselves and turned overbearing rulers on the common people. I'm sure that if you look at many communal organizations from our past, you will see that greed itself destroys a peaceful organization. Look at the british rule, and the tea tax. Many say that these are the revolutionaries that you emulate, but they all had a common cause. Those capitalist rulers always rise up. no matter where you are. If you destroy the current system as is, then the current system will be replced by the same system, but even stronger, in about 100 years. This is why I always say that you should destroy form the inside or rebuild from the inside. Capitalism will not just roll over and die. It must be changed, and attacking it at the surface as has been done by all of these protesters does nothing. Some real thought needs to be put into these before anything, and right now most of the people are going on their rebellious nature and gut feeling. with that, the movement will get nowhere.

Your may be right, that there may be cops on here. However, do you think they care all that much for whom you vote for? I don't think so. I think they are concerned more about the street protests, which may be the best argument for why they should continue.

Nader isn't all that great. The McCarthy and (Henry) Wallace campaigns were much better-- and both of them got slaughtered. I am afraid Mr. Nader is going to suffer the same fate.

This is almost a historical re-enactment of the '68 "Get Clean For Gene" (Eugene McCarthy) campaign, where reformists and opportunists attempted to redirect movement radicalism into the safe confines of electorism and politics as usual.

Why is Nader even considered anything other than an opportunist? He is not even a Green Party member. He is a union buster and a millionaire. Beyond this, he is just as guilty as Al Gore in his ties with Fidelity Investments (who are major share holders in Occidental Petroleum, who are currently in massive conflict with the U'wa tribe in Colombia).

If you are planning on voting, I would suggest doing a bit more homework before picking your canidate.

You Naderite reformists, with your boring dismissive criticisms of protesters, anarchists, and other troublemakers, make me yawn. Please, they're wild, so let them be. We cannot all be lawyers and sycophants like you.

But, you have a good point. If Nader gets to debate, he'll pull moderates leftward, and activate liberals to do something idealistic (for a change). That is a good thing, and I think it's worthy of some effort.

I'll leave the hard work or organizing to the Naderites. Just publicize your events well, and, please, be nicer to the obnoxious protesters, because they'll be the only entertaining activity Nader's campaign is going to see.

This is the Voice of Nader speaking, "all you downtrodden and oppressed Bourgeois of the World arise, for you have nothing to lose but your chains...".

My 'inner child' tells me this is not going to work. Nader as revolutionary? I do not think so. I hear more opportunist and less opportunity here.

Top down and undemocratric the great liberal "juggernaut" continues; hopefully to oblivion.