Who is Ralph Nader?

.
It is indeed indisputable that Nader voters swung the election to Bush. There were 97,488 voters in Florida who were silly enough to think that their "vote of principle" would be meaningful.

Third party candidates just don't have a snowball's chance (in hell) of winning a presidential election. All they do is to take votes that would have otherwise gone to someone else. In Nader's case, almost all of them would have, most likely, gone to Gore. And had that happened, Gore would have easily won Florida - and the White House.

But I blame the naive' voters, not Nader himself. But as a disclaimer, I'm not immune to letting my emotion over-rule my reason, either, as I voted for Ross Perot in '92 as a matter of "principle", and it only served to elect my least desirable candidate.

Something else you said about Nader becoming the very thing he used to attack. Well, I suppose that's true in a lot of ways. But I believe it goes to show how those who "attack" things in such a radical manner, don't really fully understand, or consider, the very things they attack. The same is true for almost any radical. They have a one-dimension view of the world.

Nader caused the downfall of the Corvair and he caused the downfall of Al Gore. And that's a damn shame. The Corvair was kind of a neat little car. (Especially that Spider Super Sport convertible.)

If I had a choice between Nader and Kerry - Nader would get my vote. He is at least an honest man, with integrity - where Kerry is dishonest with no integrity.

Now the Democrates don't want him to run because they are scared he will take votes away from Kerry .... now isn't that interesting - they want to stop Nader from running for President - hum go figure that party out - The last time they blocked him in 10 states (I think) - now they will do the same thing to get their socialist Kerry and his wife in office (another Bill and Hillary) - Lets see she is worth about 500 or 600 million - Ms Heniz of the Heniz 57 company - major stock holder - hum Private Airplanes - 12 homes around the world - boats - hum but the average citizen can't drive an SUV under his plan - only him and his friends... the rich. At least with the Republicates I have a chance of being one of the rich -

But if my choices were Nader or Kerry - it would be Nader -

During the 2000 campaign, a core goal was the breakup of large corporations and placing banks and other companies under direct government control.

He's nothing more than an old school socialist running under the guise of an environmentalist and hero of the common man.

I welcome his presence in this race. Kerry is a menace and unworthy of leading this country.

Until the libertarians get some traction, the republicans will have to do.... for now.

The more I learn about the American electoral system, the more I am glad that I live in Australia. Of course we don?t have a separate vote for the Prime Minister, as he/she is the leader of the party which wins office. However the choice of the voter would include the personality/previous performance of the leader, as well as past record and perceived goals of the party he/she represents. It is a sad fact that MANY women (I know because they have told me so) base their vote entirely on which of the two contenders they like, based on appearance and charisma etc, and to hell with his policies.[I will now stop this stupid he/she thing, which was thrust on us by the bloody feminists.]

We have a two-party-preferred voting system. While voting is ?compulsory,? it is only nominally so, as the only requirement is to register at a polling place on election day. If you don?t want to participate, you just drop your unmarked voting slip into the box.

So in your local electoral division you will be given a voting slip listing all the candidates in that particular division, and you are required to place the number ?1? in the box beside your preferred candidate to make your vote formal. You may then place numbers in the other boxes (2, 3, 4, 5 etc) to indicate your second or third preferences etc.

Under the two-party-preferred system, after primary votes are added up, the secondary and so forth preferences for other candidates are distributed between the two candidates who have won the most primary votes, and have equal value as primary votes.

As an example, in any given electoral division say, the Liberal candidate receives 47 per cent of the primary vote, and the Labor candidate 43 percent. If more than 4 per cent of secondary votes are directed at Labor, and none at Liberal, then the Labor candidate will win that seat. The preferences will be those collected by the candidates for the minor parties, or independents.

As an actual example, while Labor won a majority of primary votes Australia-wide in the 2001 election, because of preferences delivered to the Liberal/National Coalition, little Johnny won a majority of seats, and hence was re-elected.

The point of all this is of course, no matter who an elector nominates as his primary choice, the vote will not be wasted as it will go tothe second candidate of his choice.

While I of course realise that these two postings don't address the discussion topic as such, I thought you might like to learn a little about how politics works down under.

So here?s a bit about the games being played in the Government leadership. Howard announced two years ago that he would ?consider his options for the future on his 64th birthday [July 26, 2003].?

However as the war in Iraq was in full swing by his birthday, he couldn?t transfer leadership at that time. Additionally he got quite carried away with his self-image of a player in the major league: ?Bush and Blair are my buddies.? Howard?s treasurer, Peter Costello, who is the only Liberal front-bencher who has been considered to replace Howard, got pissed off and he showed it.

Now, with an election due to be held some time this year, I perceive that Costello is getting his revenge on Howard by declaring that, after delivering his Budget (today, Tuesday) he will not say whether he expects to deliver next year?s budget if the Government wins the election. In other words, he is suggesting that he will make a leadership challenge some time after the election if the Howard Government is re-elected.

Thus, as Mark Latham has pointed out: ?If you vote Liberal you won?t be voting for Prime Minister John Howard, but for Prime Minister Peter Costello.? Well of course this uncertainty will obviously act adversely on the current Government at election time.

Sounds like the USA - back in 1776 - Kick a little English butt out of the country and make it a Representative Republic - Go for the Gold -

There is no reasons in today's world for the old system that England runs its colonelies ... time to move to the 21st century ...

Go for - Kickem out and self rule ..

Of course it makes you sick, I guess it's still prefferable to tyrany, no ? I mean, is there a better working political system outthere somewhere these days ? Again a WORKING one, not just a theoretical one.
Anyways, politics is politics, you know, "noble lies" they are called. As long as majority decides, based on whatever they can grasp through current media channels and certain major events (see Spain) that's what they'll vote that's what we'll get. or the other way around :-)

If there were no grouping of MPs into parties, it would be impossible to govern, as each individual MP would have a different viewpoint, which would be largely based on appealing to the people in his/her own electorate.

You no doubt know that there is no reference to political parties in the Australian Constitution. The formation of parties has evolved naturally to enable a working government.

If anyone is mystified by the layout of my posting (shorter lines) then you had better ask Steve Jobs.

I was using my iMac while waiting for my PC to finish defragging. Well of course Apple have their unique way of doing things.

Anyhow, the iMac is a nice little machine,
and I will be using it from time to time.

That's what I was trying to say, Julian. Thanks for clearing that up:-)

Alan

Absolutely way off but if that's what makes you happy, I'll go with it.

I was actually referring to the battle of Queenston Heights in 1812, where Americans wanted to take the big Canadian cannon and invade Upper Canada in order to claim Canada as American. It was THIS war that helped to stop Canada becoming pert of America. The British colonized Canada (with the French).

As for Canada getting a black eye, "1000 Americans were taken prisoner while the victors lost only 28 killed and 77 wounded..."

Like I said, you got your ass kicked (again YOUR terminology.

As for the French, they were here first, the ENgland came and corralled them leaving them to Quebec. Now Quebec can speak whatever language the choose, it has NO effect on me whatsoever.
As for Englich not being spoken at all, you are VERY wrong. Actually English is the dominant language spoken in Quebec, French (Canadian French that is) is a second languege however, most quickly learn to speak French Canadan anyway.

The only time you notice French domination is in signage. French MUST be the primary language in billboards, labels and signs, English is included at a maximum of half the size of the French labels.

We live in a multicultural country and let people have their cultures. Although sometimes our cultures comflict, we still accept one another and don't expect conformity to a single fabricated culture. American culture was made up, all the cultures from around the world were amalgamated and then conformed into a single accepted way of life.

Life in BC is VERY different from life in Alberta for example, life in Alberta is VERY different from it's neighbour etc. all across Canada.

We have a very diverse culture and it is a great place to experience the wold's people, not just fresh-from-the-mold "Canadians".

Just do a little research before you start making such statements, you know a lot about american war, but vey little about Canadian heritage. The only cause for this I can assume is due to the school systems focusing on american History as opposed to World history. Perhaps a major problem for the rest of the world.

Jim, I thought the Civil War (War Between the States) was the bloodiest war we fought.

The Revolutionary War may be the most righteous war we have been in.
And, it was the war that the US had the most at stake in.

Still, I recall being taught that the Civil War, with brother against brother, was our bloodiest war.

Chas

REALLY now Jim! Now I know you're just being flippant and light hearted here but to mach such a comment on here of all placesis just ....well....you know.

Try and tell someone who fought in WWII how easy it was. To further insinuate that you guys went in and fixed it 4 years for all the others as if they had failed for 6 years is also way out of line.

Hopefully you are just having some fun and poking around but you gotta really watch those kinda comments here, people will get the wrong impression of your mental stability.

OK - "Americans now conveniently take the second amendment out of context to justify carrying hand guns. But as you often say, Oz, with any luck they will end up killing each other off and so save some other country the bother."

Because we have the right to bear arms and carry hand guns. Lets see - England and a few other countries around the world, where its illegal to own or carry fire arms - how is there homicide rates with fire arms. Don't they let the local police protect their citizens like a bird in a cage. Hum - now if I recall, there are still many murders in England with fire arms - handgun, rifles and automatics - and it's illegal to own one. Hum? Interesting isn't it.

The problem is - lack of education about fire arms and weapons - but this is another subject for a different - thread.

Now Being Canadian, I could come off a little smug that our murder rate (per Capita) is about 1/10 that of the US. And some try to make an argument that its because we have gun control - fairly loose on long guns and very restrictive on hand guns. But to be fair, if you count long guns, we actually have more guns per capita than the US. And we spend less on policing.

The answer lies in culture. Canada and the US share many things, but we don't have as much violence over all, and thats why the murder rate is less, not because of the second amendment or lack thereof.

I assume your last paragraph is a joke, but its a sick one.

James

.
And neither reason is the high number of handguns.

1. Gangs - thugs killing other thugs
2. Drugs - Drug dealer/buyer related homicides AND homicides committed in robberies to support one's drug habit.

I would be willing to wager that if those two factors were removed from the murder rate in the USA, then our numbers would not be too different than other industrialized nations. Yes, I realize that Canada, Britain, and other nations have these things, but nowhere near the numbers that exist in the USA.

In Los Angeles alone, there are over 800 gangs with more than 30,000 members. There are at least 1,000 homicides every year in just Los Angeles, and well over 1,000 drive-by shootings. According to figures presented to the White House, there are over 500,000 gang members in more than 16,000 gangs in the USA. Eight hundred American cities are home to these gangs, compared to 100 in 1970. Fifty-seven percent of towns with over 25,000 residents have reported gang-related incidents.

About 42 people are murdered each day in the United States, down from 52 a day in 1996. In 1996, 19,224 people were murdered (compared with 21,600 in 1995). The U.S. homicide rate is 17 times greater than Japan's, and 10 times the rate in Germany, France and Greece. Louisiana has the highest homicide rate in the country, with 12.5 murders per every 100,000 people, down from 20.3 in 1993.

Highest murder rate is in Washington D.C. - gangs - 66.5 people are murdered in Washington, D.C., for every 100,000 people. Males between the ages 15 and 24 are most likely to commit murder.

Second highest is Miami - drugs

Sure, guns make it easier for the thugs to kill other thugs, but in the absence of a gun, I can't help but believe they'd find another weapon of choice. After all, the real problem is what's in their heads, not in their hands.

How to correct the problem:

1. Stop supporting the baby making industry in the inner-city. Babies are born into a world with no family, no love, no nurturing, no hope, no future, etc. And the government keeps paying people (children themselves) to have more babies. Go figure.

2. Legalize "social type" drugs. The war on drugs is a lost cause. And how much crime in the USA is drug related? I would guess half.

.
I'm curious to know how an Australian professes to know so much about the Constitution of the USA. Moreover, as far as someone taking it "out of context", the same argument has been used by both the gun proponents and gun control advocates.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There's the full context.

Does this assume that in the absence of the necessity for "a well regulated militia", that the rest of the amendment is null and void? I think not. This especially holds true when one considers that our constitution is unique in that it assumes that ALL powers initially lie with the people, and only those powers granted to the government by the people can be assumed. Gun ownership is not restricted, therefore the government does not have the right to enforce such a restriction. The US Constitution, in a nut-shell, says that the people give the government the power to do this, that, and the other thing. If it's not specifically granted, then the power, by default, lies in the people - the individual.

Moreover, Thomas Jefferson himself, suggested that this "militia" was not only necessary to defend the USA, but to defend against a possible tyrannical (future) government of the USA. In the event of such a tyrannical government, Jefferson wrote, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

There ya' go. Taken in its FULL context, it's all pretty clear to me.

(By the way, I don't own a gun, never have, and probably never will. But I support freedom of choice in regards to gun ownership.)

Gang's - Drugs - That's a large part of it - others are lack of love, lack of family unity, lack of parenting, stupidity, moral guidance and respect.

Many parents just sit the kid infront of the TV/movies/video games or hand them money and tell them to get lost - They are feed a steady diet of violance from the games and have no soical or copping skills, so when they encounter a problem pull out a weapon and fire. THese kids have been ignored by thier parents - doesn't matter social or economic status. I've seen the rich ones - "here's a hundred I am busy" - These kids have no problem solving skills - they only know action/reaction - don't think just react. Like on TV/Movies and video games -

We need as others have said - stop the baby factory (not being raciest), a child raised without love, moral compus and human touch is going o be a socialpath - run on pure reaction - and thats what you have today. And its the parents fault - not government - no the economy - not the social culture - The Parent. My parents lived through the depression - no money - no job - they made it -

Kids join Gangs to feel they are part of a family - these gangs know that - they become the family over the real family. And it doesn't matter what gang Intercity - KKK - Nazi - AN/WP - whatever they all operate the same way.

To fix this - we have to start with the children. Teach - protect - feed - love - nuture - the child. This Hillery BS about it takes a village to raise a child - doesn't work here in the USA. You had em you raise em -

The problem - they have the right to have as many as they want - we don't have to pay for them! - then they are worse off than before. It's a cycle that has no answer - what came first the chicken or the egg?

Another thread -

You ask:

"Lets see - England and a few other countries around the world, where its illegal to own or carry fire arms - how is there homicide rates with fire arms."

Japan, where handguns are practically unavailable, had only 29 gun deaths (both murders and suicides) in 1999, while the United States had 26,800 gun deaths in 2000. England, another country with a strict handgun ban, has higher rates of assault and burglary than the United States but a murder rate only one-sixth of ours.

From memory, a few years ago this topic came up somewhere else and the stats were scary as hell.
Forgetting whether 1989 or 1996

Deaths by handgun:

Us + +30,000
Denmark: 11
England: 14
Amsterdam: 0

These figures as I say mey be out by a few but I know all the noted stats were under 20 compared to over 30,000 deaths by handgun in the US.

So to answer your question, the homicide rates are not even comparable.

I understand that you are saying that the GUNS aren't killing people, PEOPLE kill people, which is entirely true.

Guns are just the method for obtaining drugs, winning turf wars etc.
I agree fully.

In the same defense, one could say that cars don't kill people, drivers do and again this is true.

So therefore if we take away guns, we may as well ban cars too, right?

Well a car is a useful contribution to modern society. It allows us to cover much larger business and social areas than if we walked everywhere.

What benefit is a gun in modern day society?

Target shooting fine, but that's sport, do we need to accept thousand of deaths because of sport? I would hope not.

Protection? From what? Your neighbour? Why would you need to protect yourself with a gun unless the other guy has a gun too? So no guns, no need for firearm protection. We have nasty neighbours in Canada too, we aren't all peaches and cream and have our fair share of gangs and violence, but guns are known as the cowards way out. As I grew up, if you had a gun, you would be taunted and bullied for being a pussy, this is still the Canadian frame of mind, "real men don't fight with guns".

Collecting, well again, it's nice to have a hobby but if it becomes a situation where these collectibles are in everyone's hands and are being abused, sorry, no more collecting 9 millimeter handguns. A 19th century musket maybe but not a modern firearm.

So as a once VERY useful part of mans evolution, hunting, protection and sport, there is no valid reason to own a firearm in 2004.

We have grocery stores, law enforcement and bingo.

I have yet to hear a single VALID reason for NEEDING to own a gun, other than the fact that you can as outlined under the second ammendment.

How long do we need to rationalize modern problems with the use of outdated and antiquated documentation?

Does this mean I can throw buckets of crap off my roof at the mailman because they did in in medievil times? (tomorrow morning's gonna be fun!)

Max, I think Julian's "Out of Context" comment was elated to the situation where some people take "the right to bear arms" to mean "the right to USE arms whenever they get a little annoyed with someone"

Alan

My feeling is that there are many Australians - I can't say that it is a majority or not as I simply don't know - who feel that the political system works pretty well at the moment, and should be basically left alone, BUT, they want the Queen of England out of the deal.

A gentle progression to a Republic is what many of us want. Pretty much what we have now, but with a head of state who is an Australian.

Would I be close to the mark, Julian?

And you are right about that sham referendum a couple of years ago, the questions were loaded!!

Alan.

.
Because it's a person's right to own one.

A person doesn't have to give you, or anyone else, a valid reason. A person may or may not need one, per se, but may want one. That's reason enough. Besides, any reason is subjective.

By the way, these are all old arguments. And as it's not a "hot-button" issue with me, I'll take a pass on taking it any further. The only reason I posted anything in the first place was to address, what I thought to be, a misinterpretation of something I'm quite familiar with.

You see, what I believe you and many others don't understand about the USA is that, in the beginning, the "government" had no power whatsoever. And the government didn't grant anything to the people, but rather the other way around. The people, in the form of the Constitution, passed on a dozen or so powers to the government. Any power or right NOT given to the government, and specifically spelled out in the Constitution, by default, lies within the individual. The first ten amendments are unique, in that they all enumerate specific powers that will remain with the governed, may not, under any circumstances be infringed upon, and were included only to emphasize their importance.

While I believe that there should be some additional "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership in the US, the amount of people who have guns is NOT the root of our homicide rate.

Whether it be gangs, drugs, or road rage, the real problem in the US is a lack of respect for life and others

Interestingly, you can trace the beginnings of growing homicide rates to the legalization of abortion on demand.

A few studies have even shown that many of the people who commit gun violence are actually trying to commit suicide but do not have the guts to shoot themselves. They prefer that the police shoot them.

Criminals who live in death penalty states will often escalate their crimes after they reach a threshold so that they can be in line for the death penalty rather than life in prison.
Death does not scare many young criminals. Life in prison does.

The only way to effectively lower the homicide rate in the US is to give these people hope!

First, we need to take the profits out of the drug trade.
Max is right, limited legalization (and taxation) of "recreational" drugs would have a significant impact on the crime rate.
Without the drug pushers flashing rolls of cash out on the street, the susceptible youth would not be lured into a life of crime.

Next, we need to strengthen the family unit.
Men must be required to take responsibility for every child they father.
Welfare mothers should be placed in group homes until they earn their high school diploma. But, only if their family environment would be a greater detriment to their success.

Chas

Sooner or later a Labor Government will put a referendum to the people of Australia asking if they want the country to become a republic. At the time of such referendum, the people will make a choice, and if it is for a republic, we will change from a Monarchal Democracy to a Democratic Republic overnight.

The purpose of Latham's three-stage plan is to ensure that, when the issue is put to the vote, we get it right first time.

There are so many issues to consider:

1. How will the president be chosen/elected?
2. Will he(she) take over the role of the Prime Minister, or have a separate role complementary to that of the Prime Minister?
3. Will the president be aligned to a particular political party, or will he be independent?

One suggestion which occurs to me at this time is that all the members of Federal Parliament have a non-partisan vote to choose, say, four potential candidates. These candidates would have to be people who have already served in the parliament for a number of years. The people could then make their choice concurrently with a general Federal election.

I would NOT like to see Australia go down the same drain as America has, wherein after 9 months or whatever of primaries, the guy with the most money and the most mud to throw at his opponent wins.

Accidental Deaths in the U.S. for 1998

Source is the National Safety Council

41,200 deaths related to motor vehicle accidents,
16,600 in falls at home and on the job,
4,100 from water in drowning,
9,400 from poisoning, in the same year,
3,700 due to fire or burns,
3,200 due to choking, and
900 from guns
Note that the top category of vehicle accidents is 45 times greater than the bottom
category of guns. Should we outlaw cars, and ladders?

http://lindleyonline.com/gunstats/stats.htm

Every 10 seconds a gun is made in America.
That's 3,153,600 guns per year, of all types for those of you without a caclulator.
That probably includes arms made for the military.

A recent Justice Department study shows Americans own 65 million handguns.
Since various groups have reported over 200 million guns in the country, I think this number
is actually a little low.

Handguns account for two-thirds of firearm crime and more than 80% of all firearm
homicide. Each year, nearly a million violent crimes are committed with handguns.
And a good thing handguns are being used instead of rifles or shotguns! Consider that the U.S. Army
medical instruction says that shotgun wounds cannot be classified the same as rifle or pistol wounds
because "at close range they are as destructive as a cannon".

On an average day, more than a million Americans are carrying guns outside their workplace.
Two million more keep guns in their cars and trucks.
If we use the figure of One Million violent handgun crimes a year (all types, including non-fatal, non-shooting),
versus 3 million carrying incidents per DAY(!) then we have 1,095,000,000 or almost 1.1 BILLION carrying
incidents per year! Out of that, one million "violent crimes" are committed per year -- or just 0.091%.
Seems pretty low to me.

In 1968, Congress banned the importation of cheap, poorly made handguns known as
"Saturday Night Specials" or junk guns. No such regulations were applied to guns made
at home. Since then, production and sales of American-made handguns have increased
dramatically.
And I'd rather have the average street thug using that poorly made gun which may malfunction or
be inaccurate than a higher quality gun, or a sawed-off rifle or shotgun!

Close to 40,000 Americans die each year from gunfire. Nearly half of these deaths are
homicides committed with cheap, easily obtainable, American-made handguns. In a recent year,
handguns were used in nearly one million violent crimes.
But this includes 30,862 suicides (1996) which may have been completed by other means without a gun
available. Of the 10,000 remaining deaths, we can eliminate approximately 1400 as accidental (1994 figure)
which gets the total down to 8600 - presumably the number who die by "hostile" gunfire. But what we
cannot do is weed out the gang-related or drug-related killings or the justifiable homicides where battered
spouses kill an abuser and similar situations. Using the 8600 figure, that's 0.0035% of the population. If we
consider the 8600 in light of their 3 million gun-carrying civilians per day, then we are facing a yearly "misuse"
percentage of less than 0.00008%. That would be a 99.99% safety rate!

http://hematite.com/dragon/antigunstat.html

Is not so much breaking the ties with the UK but I would have to first see the modified laws in place to cover the change as I honestly just do not trust any Federal Politician to do the right thing.

I've spent years dealing with all kinds of Politicians and when in opposition they promise you the world and if they are elected into power deliver nothing. The Party that is currently in power claims that they have a "Mandate" to do exactly what they like so they do nothing that is any good for the people.

I have appeared before several Senate Committees and other Government Inquiries and always these have come up with some very interesting recommendations but these are never acted upon and even if they are the Legislation that is eventually brought before the Parliament bears no resemblance to what was originally proposed. Maybe I'm just Cynical now days but I can no longer trust any Politician to do the right thing and I for one would have to see in place something along the lines of the American "Bill of Rights" that can not be watered down before I could ever consider voting for a new system.

While I'm not a great believer in the current system it at least works and has safeguards built in which is something that I can not be sure would happen with a Republic. Particularly as we are currently being told we will ask you what you want then tell you what we will deliver then ask you to vote for this Republic and after wards introduce the necessary Legislation, well sorry but that just doesn't work for me as I would have to see the Legislation already in place before I could ever support a change from the existing arraignments.

Col

Why do we not leave everything as it is, but get rid of the Queen, and use a person we already have as a Head of State - the good old Governor-General.

The rules could stay as they are, everything would be as it was, but instead of Queen Liz, we have the GG. At least we can sack him if he is up to no good!!

Personally, I have never understood why this option is not acceptable to the majority of republic supporters. It keeps the status quo, no need for dramatic legislative change, and John & Mark can go about their business while the GG does the Head of State stuff.

If we are worried about the disconection from the legal protections of the old English laws and traditions, we could write into the constitution that, nowithstanding the removal of Liz as head of state, all other things pertaining to the previous set up remain unchanged.

Presto - one republic, no Queen, life goes on as it is. Are we trying to make things too hard??

Cheers

Alan