> This is all old hat. Most of it has been refuted, and all of it is
> irrelevant. I suggest that purveyors of this sort of argumentative
strategy
> look up the term "ad hominem" in their dictionary, if they have
dictionaries.
While Nader's anti-labor activites are old hat, how have they been refuted? I'm pretty sure these reports are credible; there was an issue of LBO (which is definately a credible source of info) a few years ago reporting on this and numerous other sources have said the same thing. And I think it's definately relevant given that Nader claims to support labor yet his actions directly contradict that.
Joe R. Golowka JoeG at ieee.org Anarchist FAQ - http://www.anarchistfaq.org
"According to the libertarian litany, if an industry or an institution is making a profit, it is satisfying "wants" whose origins and content are deliberately disregarded. But what we want, what we are capable of wanting is relative to the forms of social organization. People "want" fast food because they have to hurry back to work, because processed supermarket food doesn't taste much better anyway, because the nuclear family (for the dwindling minority who have even that to go home to) is too small and too stressed to sustain much festivity in cooking and eating -- and so forth. It is only people who can't get what they want who resign themselves to want more of what they can get. Since we cannot be friends and lovers, we wail for more candy." - Bob Black