"Naderus Obsessus"

[welshTerrier2]

A man walks into a psychiatrists office and says "Doc, ya gotta help me. I think I'm going crazy. I see thousands of Ralph Naders everywhere I go."

The Doc tells the man to lie down on his couch and listen very carefully.

"I'm going to describe for you some of the symptoms of a newly discovered mental condition called Naderus Obsessus. I'd like you to carefully consider whether any of the symptoms I describe might apply to you.

Did you find Ralph Nader hiding under your bed? In your closet? Under some blankets in the back seat of your car?

Do the clouds floating by seem to form "Ralph Nader shapes"? How about the "clouds in your coffee"? Is old Ralphie in there?

Have you seen Ralph Nader stealing lawn ornaments from both you and your neighbors?

Have you seen him hanging around schoolyards offering candy to small children?

Does Ralph's voice interrupt your regular TV programming to bring you "this special message"?"

The man lying on the couch knew that he had finally found someone who understood his problems and, for the first time, had hope there might be a cure.

The Doc just smiled at him and told him that he was going to write him a prescription for some "special pills". After just a few days, the visions of Ralph grew dimmer and dimmer until the patient was finally free of his obsession. He still looks under the blankets in his back seat though.

[Totally Committed]

1. "He still looks under the blankets in his back seat though."

:rofl:

That was awesome!

TC

[wyldwolf]

2. this is better applied to DLCitis

[Totally Committed]

3. Respectfully, I don't think so.

The case I've had for a while now involves insomnia and vomiting. And I rarely check under the blankets in my back seat, but always check under the nearest rock.

TC

[wyldwolf]

4. still, an obsessive concentration.

[Totally Committed]

5. I will say it is a definite focus of mine... and, you have yours as well.

I think we can both agree to that. :)

TC

[wyldwolf]

8. exactly. My focus is curing DLCitis.

[LoZoccolo]

7. WINNER!

:thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

6. I will admit your story here is funny, but I don't think that you or I...

...would criticize someone for complaining about Bush* a lot, because we see the negative effects of the Bush* presidency around us every day.

Well, take that to it's logical conclusion, that the Naderites did not think that getting Bush* elected was a big deal, and you can see that it's probably not excessive to complain about Nader and other third-party candidates and their supporters often.

[welshTerrier2]

9. obsession leads to a loss of perspective

to criticize Nader or make an occasional post about third parties or their supporters is one thing; to blow it out of all proportion as if third parties are the main enemy we face and to do so daily is badly misguided.

i abhorred what happened in 2000 regardless of whether I see Nader as its root cause or not. that was almost 7 years ago. should we forget? no, of course not. it was a tragic breach of justice and democracy. i would suggest that such a breach is still possible today. and I would suggest it is possible NOT because of Nader and third parties but rather because of an entrenched aristocracy. this aristocracy, I would point out, funds both Democrats and republicans. therein lies the rub.

the enemy we face is NOT little Ralphie. he's little more than a transitory flea. I sincerely doubt he could get the nomination of the Green Party ever again. They aren't too happy with him either. BTW, I strongly support many of Nader's ideas. It's important to separate ideas from their messengers; some people are not able to do that and end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. the enemy we face is the un-democratic, disproportionate power that accrues to big money in a capitalist society. perhaps that can never be overcome. one remedy, if one were focused on the real tyranny and loss of liberty confronting each and every citizen, would be publically financed campaigns. perhaps spending a little more time on that and a little less time on Ralphie Whats-His-Name might just bring about a better world.

[wyldwolf]

10. as we have seen from sufferers of DLCitis.

[LoZoccolo]

11. You know who I see that from, though? People who are obsessed with the DLC.

I don't see this as an obsession so much as dedication; I did say before that my role for this election was to go after Nader. It's like work; it's my job. I think people should have a general focus but I also think that people should do at least one thing well, with a focused effort.

At this point, though, I don't trust any of Nader's ideas to have had the rigor applied to them to make them feasible. If someone else made a case for them and laid out why they thought they would work, that would be one thing, but taking Nader's word on it, when he's demonstrated time and time again his ineffectiveness at making the world a better place, doesn't seem like a good idea to me anymore.

[Totally Committed]

12. "I don't see this as an obsession so much as dedication"

I don't see this as an obsession so much as dedication; I did say before that my role for this election was to go after Nader. It's like work; it's my job. I think people should have a general focus but I also think that people should do at least one thing well, with a focused effort.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you on this, because you obviously believe it, and well, that's your belief. It seems sincere, and value-driven.

But, I will ask you why it is okay for you to have a sincere and value-driven "dedication" to your "FUCK NADER"-ism, while I am not allowed MY sincere and value-driven "dedication" to wiping out the DLC, as a political entity. Isn't that what your "FUCK NADER" campaign is about? -- Wiping him out as a political entity? -- Marginalizing his influence, and preventing him from gaining power or momentum? That's all I'm trying to do with the DLC, too.

I am not saying that, for instance, having a "FUCK NADER" avatar gives the impression that we here are Democratic (big "D") Underground may not be all that democratic (little "d"), and might appear to be "obsessive" to those who don't agree with your views. That would be disrespectful of you as a person, and of your deeply-held issues with Nader. I wouldn't seek to do that to you, so why do you and others feel it is okay to do that to me because I sincerely believe that the DLC is as bid a problem to my value system as Nader is to yours? It's just a question, and I hope you'll think about it.

TC

[LoZoccolo]

13. Because I disagree with your dedication against the DLC, lol!

Besides, most of the stuff people say about the DLC is based on a naive interpretation of things. I have even heard the argument said that the DLC was responsible for feeding the tape of the Dean scream to the media. wyldwolf has done a lot of diligent work debunking those things, especially the notion that the DLC is responsible for the Republican Revolution of 1994.

[Totally Committed]

14. So it's not okay for me to have my "issue", even though it is sincere and deeply held,

but it is okay for you to have yours, as sincere and deeply held because you disagree with it?

(btw, I do not believe that the DLC is responsible for the Republican Revolution of 1994. I believe their collusion with that Revolution once it took place lengthened the Republican "hold" on this government, and triangulated our Party so far to the Right that we no longer offer any other option to voters than being "the lesser evil". Just so you know.)

TC

[LoZoccolo]

15. That's what happens when people disagree.

Yes, often times people will say that your opinion is not OK, because they disagree with it.

[Totally Committed]

16. Okie-dokie!

Thanks and have a wonderful Fourth of July!

TC

[TSIAS]

17. K + R

No fan of Nader myself, but I do get a kick out of the visceral Nader haters.