But in a free society, it must be PROVEN that what he is doing is contrary to law and ethics. If you demanded information from me that I felt you had no right to, I would not answer, and I would not expect Bush to answer Nader at all... the best I would give Nader is a cold stare, and that only long enough to move on...

Nader is a naddering nabob of negativity, and will try/do anything to get SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to pay attention to him... and I certainly will not waste time on his publicity stunts... you seem an intelligent man, why are YOU wasting time with him?

I WILL say that Nader has some valid arguments, and that it is a shame that he does not have a stronger political base.

I do, however, agree with Theron wholeheartedly. Bush's association with Skull and Bones (alleged), does not presume any kind of guilt or sinister behaviour. Whether or not I like Bush's position on the issues, his associations with whatever organizations do not prima facie suggest anything.

a prez does not have the same rights to privacy as the other citizens in some manners. this is one of them. they are not asking for info on the group itself persay as much as its influence on him as a individual.

Originally posted by NuTroll
a prez does not have the same rights to privacy as the other citizens in some manners. this is one of them. they are not asking for info on the group itself persay as much as its influence on him as a individual.

Truly, but if the PRESIDENT spent all his time answering questions without merit, he would not have time left to do his JOB, which does NOT consist of answering silly questions posed for publicity purposes.

If Nader thinks there is impropriety, he needs to follow legal process to bring a case. Period. Anything else is posturing.

Look, what we have in Nader is a man who was ONCE, a LONG TIME AGO, relevant. Today, he is an anachronism, without relevance, a poor, broken man, a characiture of himself, who is struggling to be relevant... and he just is not.

Sad, but true.

The president doesn't do his job anyway!!!

Theron, I notice Naders character is being shot at, I find it hard to believe EVERYONE with something unfavourable to say about a secret group is a 'broken, poor, crazy, jelous, hateful' person.

He might be right, he might be wrong. Why are you 'trying' to break his character as you did mine regarding 'CHIP'???? I notice the character is something you seem to enjoy attacking. Why?

[edit on 7-10-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
The president doesn't do his job anyway!!!

This administration the 'Presient' consists of about 10 people!

Obviously you have never worked in an executive capacity... or heard of a general staff...

But, hey, that's okay. According to the ONLY poll that matters, Electoral votes, President Bush will be reelected in 21 days... and I am OKAY with that...

Theron, sorry for changing my post. I done it before I read yours.But I will say I have heard of the general staff. I mean the president doesn't have an idea of what to do. He does not have the power he is a glove puppet, hence the he 'doesn't do his job' comment and the 10 people comment.

I will be suprised if Bush is re-elected over the royal blood of Kerry. Either way we are all in for a rough ride

[edit on 7-10-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra

Theron, I notice Naders character is being shot at, I find it hard to believe EVERYONE with something unfavourable to say about a secret group is a 'broken, poor, crazy, jelous, hateful' person.

Uh, i didn't say hateful or jealous, or, I think, crazy. I said he was a poor broken IRRELEVANT little man. He is those things. It is not character assassination when it is TRUE. nader can barely get enough signatures to get on a statewide ballot for president, and, in fact, WON'T appear on most state ballots. So, the question is, why is he running? To make a point? What point? No one serious is paying any attention to him.

ONCE, YEARS AND YEARS ago, he had something to say about CAR safety. Today, it looks to me like what he is doing is trying to recapture some kind of the status he USED to have. He is a communist, by politics, and not green, though the differences between the two are small, and barely commands 1% of the COUNTRY's interest...

All he is doing is stealing... ok, coopting democrat votes into his "ticket", and guaranteeing Bush's victory, which, to my eye, is already assured... but, hey, I am not a socialist, so I don't want Kerry elected anyway.

He might be right, he might be wrong. Why are you 'trying' to break his character as you did mine regarding 'CHIP'????

Now who'e playing at character assassination? I pointed out that you went WAY off the reservation and off topic regarding the whole Child ID Program, that was hardly character assassination. As for Nader's character, I am doing nothing other than pointing out what MANY others write and say, and which i agree upon... Nader is on the downside of his career/life/ambition, and trying to recapture the glory days of his youth, no matter how bad it hurts a candidate with whom he primarily agrees with... that is selfish, callow, and beneath the man that Nader WAS...

I notice the character is something you seem to enjoy attacking. Why?

Character matters. But to be fair to your question, I have noted that his actions are less than useful, and pointed out WHY I think he is acting as he acts. His positions are not even worth discussing... hence my notation that his PUBLICITY STUNT attack on Skull and Bones had no value, nor did his insinuations as to Bush's character or motivation.

Also, to close this issue of character, why is it that you feel ok about Nader's attack on President Bush's character, and your attack on MINE? I addressed the substance of his issues (none) and noted that if he has an issue, there are LEGITIMATE avenues for pursuit. Public Speeches and unsubstantiated charges are stunts only...

Let me first say that I agree with a majority of Nader's platforms, and had even considered supporting him in 2000 when he ran as a Green; I opted to vote for Gore instead because the race too close to cast a protest vote.

That being said, it's also pretty apparent that Ralph is losing it. He based his campaign on attacking the failures of the Bush administration, but is happy to let the state Republican Parties fight his battle to get him on the various state ballots. He also originally stated, not long after announcing his candidacy, that his first and foremost goal was to send Bush back home to Crawford, and that he would withdraw from the race if he thought his candidacy would prevent it. This is now a broken promise, although it now seems unlikely that the Nader vote, which has fallen in poll percentage, will damage Sen. Kerry (at least to the point of causing him to lose the election, as happened to Gore). It is probable that the Libertarian, Constitution, and Taxpayers Parties will pull enough combined conservative votes from Bush to offset the liberals who vote for Nader.

I would also agree with Theron that Nader's comments concerning Skull and Bones are a publicity stunt. Nader was also in a frat in his college days, but I don't see him sharing their rituals and passwords with us.

Fiat Lvx.



[edit on 7-10-2004 by Masonic Light]

I don't really care about Nader as a person, but I am intrigued that a politician is questioning the Skull and Bones relationship. None of his questions ask about rituals or passwords. These questions ask for the allegiance of presidential candidates. Bush and Kerry have made it known that they will not even answer a question about it.

I don't see how it's a bad thing to ask a politician whether he values his allegiance to America more than to the Skull and Bones society. It is easy for them to say no, but that's more of answer than we've had on this issue.

Not to mention, nepotism has no place in government.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

I don't see how it's a bad thing to ask a politician whether he values his allegiance to America more than to the Skull and Bones society. It is easy for them to say no, but that's more of answer than we've had on this issue.

I dunno, I guess I just don't see it as an issue. One's loyalty to his fraternity has nothing to do with his loyalty to his country, IMO. Besides, Nader's remarks appear to be outdated...it's been over 35 since either Bush or Kerry have been active members of Skull and Bones.

Also, the nature of Skull and Bones has changed over the years. They began admitting women about a decade ago, and about half of their current active membership are now female students.

Fiat Lvx.

Theron, thanks for answering.

The CHIP thing was amiss understanding and you and LTD caught the wrong end of the stick. LTD realised it though.

Mr. Bushes character is on telly for the most part (his eyes tell it al really) but I have never seen Nader, thats why I asked. I am guessing he is on TV a lot in the states? I was under the impression you have never seen Nader but it seems you have. I assumed, which is always a mistake I know. I apologise for that and my statement for the most part.


I think the question should be answered though. Who is more important, American people or skull and bones.

Several problems with that...

A. This is not a free society any more. We are living under the threat of Martial Law. We are living under the threat of being stripped of our constitution. If we dare speak out to the wrong people, we will disappear, and possibly be tried as enemies of the state just for disagreeing with our government.

B. My observations show me that Nader is SMARTER than BOTH Bush AND Kerry, and it is confirmed in other sources that Bush AND Kerry are both skull and bones. Nader is justified in pursuing anything he can that has to do with this. Also, Nader would be most loyal to our constitution than the rest of the candidates.

C. Nader is a true American. He is one of the few last remaining watchdogs out there. You might think he is only good for horror stories, but a lot of good has come from him doing what he is doing.

D. If Nader stood a chance to beat the 2 parties, I would gladly vote for him. I am unsatisfied with Bush, disgraced to even consider Kerry an American. Nader is clearly the best choice. He is one of the few I believe to be incorruptable.

E. I doubt what Nader does can be wrote off as publicity stunts. If you ask me, the debates between Bush and Kerry were close enough to publicity stunts. Bush landing on the air craft carrier during the war was clearly a publicity stunt. Nader is just trying to bring out some truth, and I believe he is on the right track.

Originally posted by theron dunn
But in a free society, it must be PROVEN that what he is doing is contrary to law and ethics. If you demanded information from me that I felt you had no right to, I would not answer, and I would not expect Bush to answer Nader at all... the best I would give Nader is a cold stare, and that only long enough to move on...

Nader is a naddering nabob of negativity, and will try/do anything to get SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE to pay attention to him... and I certainly will not waste time on his publicity stunts... you seem an intelligent man, why are YOU wasting time with him?

I would tend to agree - Ralph Nader is Mr Clean, he would make an excellent President, having said that there is no way that a third party can really run for the Presidency without preferential voting - a vote for Nadar is effectively half a vote for Bush.

Skull and bones, for all we know, could be another nerds club.

Of course, it could be more.

We have no proof of what they do, we only look at the people who were once part of the organization/fraternity, and and what are they like?

So far, i dont see too many people i would classify as philanthropists or trustworthy come out of that club, so one must wonder what kind of ideals and principals they foster................................

If someone knows of ANYONE whom was skull and bones who actually did something useful for a change, do share.