Ralph Naders of India

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:21 pm

Self proclaimed secularists who attack both the Congress and BJP simultaneously when they well know that govt formation is not possible without one of these parties can be justifiably compared to Ralph Nader who ensured that Gore lost the election to Bush.

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:48 pm

Hellsangel wrote:That is a common myth. Gore would have lost anyway.

The first independent recount was conducted by the Miami Herald and USA Today. The commission found that under most recount scenarios, Bush would have won the election, but Gore would have won using the most generous standards.[62]

Ultimately, a media consortium—comprising the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Tribune Co. (parent of the Los Angeles Times), Associated Press, CNN, Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times[63]—hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[64] to examine 175,010 ballots that were collected from the entire state, not just the disputed counties that were discounted; these ballots contained undervotes (votes with no choice made for president) and overvotes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process. The NORC concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots statewide in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 107–115 votes if only two of the three coders had to agree on the ballot. When counting ballots wherein all three coders agreed, Gore would have won the most restrictive scenario by 127 votes and Bush would have won the most inclusive scenario by 110 votes.[65]

Subsequent analyses cast further doubt on conclusions that Bush likely would have won anyway, had the U.S. Supreme Court not intervened. An analysis of the NORC data by University of Pennsylvania researcher Steven F. Freeman and journalist Joel Bleifuss concluded that a recount of all uncounted votes using any standard (inclusive, strict, statewide or county by county), Gore would have been the victor.[66] Such a statewide review including all uncounted votes was a very real possibility, as Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, whom the Florida Supreme Court had assigned to oversee the statewide recount, had scheduled a hearing for December 13 (mooted by the U.S. Supreme Court's final ruling on the 12th) to consider the question of including overvotes as well as undervotes, and subsequent statements by Judge Lewis and internal court documents support the likelihood of including overvotes in the recount.[67] Florida State University professor of public policy Lance deHaven-Smith observed that, even considering only undervotes, "under any of the five most reasonable interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, Gore does, in fact, more than make up the deficit".[68] Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's analysis of the NORC study and media coverage of it supports these interpretations and criticizes the coverage of the study by media outlets such as the New York Times and the other media consortium members.[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Aftermath

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:54 pm

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:06 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Bitter for who? Whiners for Gore? Pat yourself on the back for quoting Wikipages that have been edited over 500 times.

The fate of Ralph Nader awaits all the Ralph Naders of India.

-------
"I think he's hurt the country," says Roger Hickey, a longtime admirer of Nader who co-edited The Next Agenda: Blueprint for a New Progressive Movement and is director of Campaign for America's Future, a progressive think tank in Washington, D.C.

"He cost us an election at what may be a turning point in American society," adds Alice Germond, executive vice president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

"Nobody is listening to him," says Ken Cook, head of the Environmental Working Group, one of the hardest-hitting environmental organizations in Washington.

"I'm not going to answer his phone calls," says Robert Musil, director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a progressive organization of more than 20,000 health care professionals. Musil uses words like "destructive" and "idiotic" to describe Nader's assertion that there is no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans....

Many liberal Democrats have sharply criticized Nader, making a point of excluding him from hearings and strategy discussions. "We're not going to touch him with a 10-foot pole," Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida, told USA Today. "He has divorced himself from the very ideals that made him a worthwhile political actor. He sold out his constituency."....

For evidence of how rank-and-file liberals have turned against Nader, one need look no further than the empire he created. Public Citizen, the organization he founded in 1971, has a new fundraising problem—its founder. After the election, contributions dropped. "We definitely had a falling-off at the end of the year," says Lane Brooks, the group's development director. When people inquire about Nader's relationship to the organization, Public Citizen sends out a letter that begins with a startling new disclaimer: "Although Ralph Nader was our founder, he has not held an official position in the organization since 1980 and does not serve on the board. Public Citizen—and the other groups that Mr. Nader founded—act independently."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/07/nader-unrepentant

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:15 pm

Hellsangel wrote:You are a little blinded by your hatred for the great glut Admin. Calling him a Ralph Nader will not affect the election outcome in India.

My post was not about your Lord and Master but about certain Indian politicians from regional parties who pretend to be secular but who consider the Congress to be no different from a Narendra Modi led BJP.

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:18 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:You are a little blinded by your hatred for the great glut Admin. Calling him a Ralph Nader will not affect the election outcome in India.
My post was not about your Lord and Master but about certain Indian politicians from regional parties who pretend to be secular but who consider the Congress to be no different from a Narendra Modi led BJP.
QED

Hahaha. You are cute.

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:30 pm

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:33 pm

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:You are a little blinded by your hatred for the great glut Admin. Calling him a Ralph Nader will not affect the election outcome in India.
My post was not about your Lord and Master but about certain Indian politicians from regional parties who pretend to be secular but who consider the Congress to be no different from a Narendra Modi led BJP.
QED
Hahaha. You are cute.

PP has just logged in as Admin and deleted all the posts of HA:

https://such.forumotion.com/t16305-unscrupulous-pp-starts-abusing-his-admin-power-again#123789

One of the things HA said in a post PP has now deleted was this:
Indian voters now have a choice of a 'none of the above' option when they go to vote and that I am not taking into account this scenario. My answer to this is that a minuscule, negligible number of people will exercise this 'none of the above' option.

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:You are a little blinded by your hatred for the great glut Admin. Calling him a Ralph Nader will not affect the election outcome in India.
My post was not about your Lord and Master but about certain Indian politicians from regional parties who pretend to be secular but who consider the Congress to be no different from a Narendra Modi led BJP.
QED
Hahaha. You are cute.

In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.

by bw Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:You are a little blinded by your hatred for the great glut Admin. Calling him a Ralph Nader will not affect the election outcome in India.
My post was not about your Lord and Master but about certain Indian politicians from regional parties who pretend to be secular but who consider the Congress to be no different from a Narendra Modi led BJP.
QED
Hahaha. You are cute.
In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.

oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:33 pm

[quote="bw"]

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:QED
Hahaha. You are cute.
In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.

Ahhhhh.....you so cute....as always.....

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:34 pm

bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:My post was not about your Lord and Master but about certain Indian politicians from regional parties who pretend to be secular but who consider the Congress to be no different from a Narendra Modi led BJP.
QED
Hahaha. You are cute.
In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.

Kind of like you sharing personal details about JM's wife with PP and others on chaikaapi chat, even though you had been good friends with JM for a long time and he had shared details of his personal life with you ?

by bw Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:QED
Hahaha. You are cute.
In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.
Kind of like you sharing personal details about JM's wife with PP and others on chaikaapi chat, even though you had been good friends with JM for a long time and he had shared details of his personal life with you ?

not at all, since i shared no such thing.

here, HA has explicitly revealed personal info about himself. i suggest we ban him.

by bw Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:39 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Hahaha. You are cute.
In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.
Ahhhhh.....you so cute....as always.....

i will not confirm that and reveal personal information about myself. nice try!

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:44 pm

bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Hahaha. You are cute.
In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.
Kind of like you sharing personal details about JM's wife with PP and others on chaikaapi chat, even though you had been good friends with JM for a long time and he had shared details of his personal life with you ?
not at all, since i shared no such thing.

here, HA has explicitly revealed personal info about himself. i suggest we ban him.

But you did share the link to an eight year old thread on sulekha with PP and others in which JM had talked about his wife, no? And you did this despite having exchanged emails with JM for an extended period of time, no?

by bw Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.
Kind of like you sharing personal details about JM's wife with PP and others on chaikaapi chat, even though you had been good friends with JM for a long time and he had shared details of his personal life with you ?
not at all, since i shared no such thing.

here, HA has explicitly revealed personal info about himself. i suggest we ban him.

But you did share the link to an eight year old thread on sulekha with PP and others in which JM had talked about his wife, no? And you did this despite having exchanged emails with JM for an extended period of time, no?

get back to topic instead of doing a moral interrogation on me. am not interested in discussing fairy tales.

i think HA should not have revealed personal information about himself and the admin is right in removing it. that's that and i have nothing more to say on this.

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:49 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
blabberwock wrote:
I *voluntarily* shared that transcript with you when you logged in later and started whining, as evident from the timestamps - why would I if I were doing things "clandestine"? Yes, I mentioned "wife" but I had forgotten the actual contents and that was a slip.
you showed me a transcript of the conversation only *after* i *caught* you slandering my wife.

i had entered the chat room at the end of your gossip session with merlot, and, from a few sentences still visible, knew that you had done the disgusting deed. you revealed part of your chat transcript in order to redeem yourself in some way. only in the most trivial sense could your "sharing" of the transcript be termed voluntary.

your deed was clandestine because you did it secretly, i.e. when i wasn't present. you mentioned "wife" because you were searching for a post by me about my wife. and you found an eight-year-old one at another site, that contained no reference to any wife, which you and your accomplices falsely portrayed as being about my wife. there was no "slip."

it was all quite deliberate, clandestine, and cowardly. congratulations! you performed your subcaste duties with considerable competence. the iyers should admit you back into the fold, even though they once ejected you unceremoniously as FAIL!

https://such.forumotion.com/t4838p100-to-flimflam#38927

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
blabberwock wrote:
I *voluntarily* shared that transcript with you when you logged in later and started whining, as evident from the timestamps - why would I if I were doing things "clandestine"? Yes, I mentioned "wife" but I had forgotten the actual contents and that was a slip.
you showed me a transcript of the conversation only *after* i *caught* you slandering my wife.

i had entered the chat room at the end of your gossip session with merlot, and, from a few sentences still visible, knew that you had done the disgusting deed. you revealed part of your chat transcript in order to redeem yourself in some way. only in the most trivial sense could your "sharing" of the transcript be termed voluntary.

your deed was clandestine because you did it secretly, i.e. when i wasn't present. you mentioned "wife" because you were searching for a post by me about my wife. and you found an eight-year-old one at another site, that contained no reference to any wife, which you and your accomplices falsely portrayed as being about my wife. there was no "slip."

it was all quite deliberate, clandestine, and cowardly. congratulations! you performed your subcaste duties with considerable competence. the iyers should admit you back into the fold, even though they once ejected you unceremoniously as FAIL!
https://such.forumotion.com/t4838p100-to-flimflam#38927

bw, I will just add one thing to the above : the fact that you were good friends with JM to the extent that you had been exchanging emails with him and he had shared details of his personal life with you.

by bw Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:53 pm

getting back to topic:

was idefix justified in removing HA's posts? i say yes since HA has revealed personal information about himself.

by Guest Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:58 pm

bw wrote:getting back to topic:

was idefix justified in removing HA's posts? i say yes since HA has revealed personal information about himself.

Getting back to analyzing bw's behavior: was bw right in betraying JM's trust ? Was it vile on bw's part to slander JM's wife publicly despite having been a friend of JM, exchanging emails with JM, and being privy to the personal information about his family that JM shared with her?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:07 am

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In a post PP has now deleted, HA had responded to my "you are cute" post saying "That's what I am told" or "so I am told". Subsequently I had given the two Nader cartoons.
oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.
Ahhhhh.....you so cute....as always.....
i will not confirm that and reveal personal information about myself. nice try!

Admin is biased.... He did not bother removing my post that claimed bw as cute.

By removing HA's post

1) he disagreed that HA was cute
2) he agreed that HA was cute and protect HA
3) rashmun revealed HA was cute and hence a woman
4) HA denied a date to Admin and admin removed the post about HA

Now by not removing my post about BW cute post

Is he saying BW is indeed cute or BW is not cute and hence my post is irrelevant?

by Guest Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:15 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
bw wrote:
Rashmun wrote:oh! that is certainly revealing of personal, private information. no wonder the posts were removed.
Ahhhhh.....you so cute....as always.....
i will not confirm that and reveal personal information about myself. nice try!
Admin is biased.... He did not bother removing my post that claimed bw as cute.

By removing HA's post

1) he disagreed that HA was cute
2) he agreed that HA was cute and protect HA
3) rashmun revealed HA was cute and hence a woman
4) HA denied a date to Admin and admin removed the post about HA

Now by not removing my post about BW cute post

Is he saying BW is indeed cute or BW is not cute and hence my post is irrelevant?

Your post reads like it has been written by a six year old.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:26 am

Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

By removing HA's post

1) he disagreed that HA was cute
2) he agreed that HA was cute and protect HA
3) rashmun revealed HA was cute and hence a woman
4) HA denied a date to Admin and admin removed the post about HA

Now by not removing my post about BW cute post

Is he saying BW is indeed cute or BW is not cute and hence my post is irrelevant?

Your post reads like it has been written by a six year old.

I had to so that you and your admirer can understand....

by Guest Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:32 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

By removing HA's post

1) he disagreed that HA was cute
2) he agreed that HA was cute and protect HA
3) rashmun revealed HA was cute and hence a woman
4) HA denied a date to Admin and admin removed the post about HA

Now by not removing my post about BW cute post

Is he saying BW is indeed cute or BW is not cute and hence my post is irrelevant?

Your post reads like it has been written by a six year old.
I had to so that you and your admirer can understand....

Wasn't it Partha Guha who said on the old sulekha forum that 'Uppili has the IQ of a twelve year old'? On another note, what is the full form of PISS? You keep saying in your posts that Merlot and I are members of the PISS group.

by Sponsored content

Ralph Naders of India

Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India

Re: Ralph Naders of India