Back to Messageboard | Home | Site Map  
 

Ralph Nader does it again  
Posted by Nader Promotions on February 25 2008, 14:21 » Uploaded 25/02/08 14:27  

The rich politician, Ralph Nader, may be well-intentioned in his work on behalf of the poor and exploited, but his pride and ego were contributing factors to Bush winning in 2000, and he knew this at the time. You could say therefore that he's complicit in war crimes. He never learns - his ego rules again.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19274145

COMMENTS Post comment

 

Comment 01 – Raoul Djukanovic February 25 2008, 21:10

Ahem...

Friends:

"no amount of conformity is enough for the totalitarians. Right-wing flak tells us little or nothing about the accuracy of the ... critique. A better guide is when something's ignored."

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens[...]

That's why the remarkably compassionate warmonger-apologist David Peterson is +right+(!) to focus his critique on the feigned "left-winger" whose:

comments about me likely betray second- or third-hand information derived from one or more of the many hyperlinked websites that belong to the Bosnia Genocide Lobby. (He said, only partly with tongue-in-cheek.)

http://www.medialens.org/forum/[...]

They did it to themselves, you see. And that's what makes him mad.

Comment 02 – Mordecai February 26 2008, 16:09

"Right-wing flak tells us little or nothing about the accuracy of the media critique. A better guide is when something's ignored." (from Medialens link)

Given a choice between several reasons why Davies's book has received publicity, they (Medialens) naturally choose the reason which confirms their rigid, narrow worldview.

Other reasons, such as the fact that it deals in specific examples and personalities which are themselves already getting media coverage (Alton, etc), or that it's promoted in Private Eye magazine and is probably being aggressively marketed by Davies's publishers, are not reasons that we should consider in front of their chosen reason.

It must be comforting for them to imagine the reason their own book was completely ignored was its quite superlative merit, its standing alongside Chomsky's best works. How sad and self-delusional can you get?

Comment 03 – Russ Bridger February 26 2008, 20:06

If by some miracle the piss-poor Medialens book had received any attention (perhaps due to interventions from Cromwell's uncle John) their line would have been:

"We think we've hit a nerve. And given our unfailingly polite, determinedly rational approach, we think we've pushed through the mainstream barrier at which lesser writers of dissent are simply shrugged off and ignored. They can no longer ignore us because we see through their rationalisations. And, although we say so ourselves, this is a remarkable achievement, perhaps the biggest milestone in media criticism since the Propaganda Model was ignored by the mainstream..." (continued p94)

Comment 04 – Peter February 26 2008, 22:49

That's exactly how their minds work. They allow THEMSELVES - but nobody else - to be at odds with their own set of rules. They're the glorious exception to their own rules.

Comment 05 – sonny February 27 2008, 13:07

Yes, if their book is ignored it's because it's so good that the filters had to clamp down and suppress it. If their book isn't ignored it's because their book is so good that it beat the odds and broke through the filters.

"You see that's what we call circular logic. Means there's no holes in it." - Lil' Bush - Season 1, Episode 4

Comment 06 – Nader Promotions February 28 2008, 10:01

Did you see Nader being interviewed on Newsnight the other night? In answer to questions about why he's running (when it's only going to benefit the Republican fascists), he came on like John Wayne: "a man's gotta do the right thing". Not a convincing argument.

He likened his critics to censors. In other words, he sees his campaign as primarily about getting a message out, and if he doesn't run, that message is "censored". What a crock. There are other ways besides running for president to get a message out. Running for office is only the rich man's way. No wonder he doesn't get the black vote.

If Nader hadn't run in 2000, the hundreds of thousands of dead or injured Iraqis might not be dead or injured today. Plus, the arrogant jerk got all pissy and jealous of Michael Moore's success, revealing his true colours as a petty, egotistical child.

 

Post comment

   
Name:
Email:  
Display email
address?
  Don't display    Display
Lifespan of comment   Delete after 3 weeks    Keep permanent if post is permanent  

Comment:

 
Optional link URL:
eg "http://mediahell.org"
 
Optional link text:
eg "Media Hell"
 
 

 

  Messageboard Back to top