you know, i've stated my reasons for voting for obama plenty, and truth is i still don't regret that vote. it came down to a choice between 2 candidates. you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game, when we tried to get nader his 5%.
i learned what not to do when bush was re-elected, its too big. this is empire. what we do here affects the world. so fuck off if i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
that we trade a militant capitalist for a militant capitalist every 4 or 8 years. the structure is set/ voting does very little. try to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it? just one fundamental shift in the way power operates, without general upheaval and popular protests and strikes. we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote. and I knew that going in.
so for me the choice was very simple. who did i want to unleash on the world? for all we know we'd be in Iran right now if McCain had been elected, or sanctioning some other third world country that is already struggling to feed its people.
and i'm not happy with how obama has been doing things. he's started out pretending he cared about he majority in the US and has now seems to be catering to the corporate elite. foreign polciy is typical. i'm disappointed in that. but i wasn't fooled.
and i dont' regret my vote. i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
and i think we unleashed the right guy. who knows how much worse mccain would have been. we sure as hell wouldn't be having a healthcare debate or talking about closing gitmo. and iran seems to be out of the question for now.
great post commy. this mirrors my thoughts exactly.
with millions demanding it....if everyone who thought 'well, if i vote for someone outside the 2 parties the shit sandwich will win instead of the giant douche!!' voted for who they thought would push for change from the presidency then how many would be demanding it? millions?
you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game,
is that why W won? because of 3rd parties? really? it had nothing to do with Kerry being a shit candidate?
i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
i respect your right to trap yourself into keeping the corporate duopoly going, i just choose to not take a part in that anymore.
y to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it?
you say it will take millions to demand change, so are you just waiting to be the millionth and 1 person and playing the game in the meantime while you wait?
we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote.
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
that's your opinion, that's cool, i would regret helping the same worthless, ineffective, corrupt system run smoothly, i'm not going to vote in a box of fear, i'm going to vote for the person i think would DO something, not simply the slightly less shitty option. i'm not going to participate and be a cog in their crooked wheel, i don't need all these preconditions to vote for who i think would reflect my worldview, agree to disagree
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
you know, i've stated my reasons for voting for obama plenty, and truth is i still don't regret that vote. it came down to a choice between 2 candidates. you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game, when we tried to get nader his 5%.
i learned what not to do when bush was re-elected, its too big. this is empire. what we do here affects the world. so fuck off if i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
that we trade a militant capitalist for a militant capitalist every 4 or 8 years. the structure is set/ voting does very little. try to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it? just one fundamental shift in the way power operates, without general upheaval and popular protests and strikes. we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote. and I knew that going in.
so for me the choice was very simple. who did i want to unleash on the world? for all we know we'd be in Iran right now if McCain had been elected, or sanctioning some other third world country that is already struggling to feed its people.
and i'm not happy with how obama has been doing things. he's started out pretending he cared about he majority in the US and has now seems to be catering to the corporate elite. foreign polciy is typical. i'm disappointed in that. but i wasn't fooled.
and i dont' regret my vote. i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
and i think we unleashed the right guy. who knows how much worse mccain would have been. we sure as hell wouldn't be having a healthcare debate or talking about closing gitmo. and iran seems to be out of the question for now.
very well said, commy
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Pepe I understand your frustration with commies way of thinking....but I think he's right. There are just too many stupid Americans. You asked him" how many will it take?". Millions isn't enough. You don't even need a third party candidate. Dennis Kucinich is a democrat. And I'd be willing to bet that 80% of Americans don't even know who he is. I know it's a sad thought, but with so many Veddermans, Aeriels, and pctfs in America we are stuck voting the lesser of two evils. And at least Obama seems to be able to speak peacefully and respect leaders of other nations. It's a start.
you know, i've stated my reasons for voting for obama plenty, and truth is i still don't regret that vote. it came down to a choice between 2 candidates. you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game, when we tried to get nader his 5%.
i learned what not to do when bush was re-elected, its too big. this is empire. what we do here affects the world. so fuck off if i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
that we trade a militant capitalist for a militant capitalist every 4 or 8 years. the structure is set/ voting does very little. try to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it? just one fundamental shift in the way power operates, without general upheaval and popular protests and strikes. we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote. and I knew that going in.
so for me the choice was very simple. who did i want to unleash on the world? for all we know we'd be in Iran right now if McCain had been elected, or sanctioning some other third world country that is already struggling to feed its people.
and i'm not happy with how obama has been doing things. he's started out pretending he cared about he majority in the US and has now seems to be catering to the corporate elite. foreign polciy is typical. i'm disappointed in that. but i wasn't fooled.
and i dont' regret my vote. i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
and i think we unleashed the right guy. who knows how much worse mccain would have been. we sure as hell wouldn't be having a healthcare debate or talking about closing gitmo. and iran seems to be out of the question for now.
with millions demanding it....if everyone who thought 'well, if i vote for someone outside the 2 parties the shit sandwich will win instead of the giant douche!!' voted for who they thought would push for change from the presidency then how many would be demanding it? millions?
you think we can change the system with a vote. i realize that is impossible,.
you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game,
is that why W won? because of 3rd parties? really? it had nothing to do with Kerry being a shit candidate?
being a shit candidate is almost a precondition for victory. and thanks to all the wasted nader votes we got bush, the worst of them all.
i'm not wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
i respect your right to trap yourself into keeping the corporate duopoly going, i just choose to not take a part in that anymore.
but you are taking part in it. we got bush with your way, i'm done with it..
mass popular protest may be the only way we will see any significant progress.
y to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it?
you say it will take millions to demand change, so are you just waiting to be the millionth and 1 person and playing the game in the meantime while you wait?
that's my point. your trying to use a corrupt system to bring about change, i'm saying we need more than people checking boxes.
we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote.
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
your right its not wasting a vote. its actually much worse. we could get another bush if we keep trying your way, and another 700,000 dead, patriot act, homeland security, tax cuts for the wealthy, less social spending, etc etc.
i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
that's your opinion, that's cool, i would regret helping the same worthless, ineffective, corrupt system run smoothly, i'm not going to vote in a box of fear, i'm going to vote for the person i think would DO something, not simply the slightly less shitty option. i'm not going to participate and be a cog in their crooked wheel, i don't need all these preconditions to vote for who i think would reflect my worldview, agree to disagree
you're vote got us bush in 2004. my vote didn't get us mccain in 2008. agree to disagree.
you know, i've stated my reasons for voting for obama plenty, and truth is i still don't regret that vote. it came down to a choice between 2 candidates. you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game, when we tried to get nader his 5%.
i learned what not to do when bush was re-elected, its too big. this is empire. what we do here affects the world. so fuck off if i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
that we trade a militant capitalist for a militant capitalist every 4 or 8 years. the structure is set/ voting does very little. try to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it? just one fundamental shift in the way power operates, without general upheaval and popular protests and strikes. we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote. and I knew that going in.
so for me the choice was very simple. who did i want to unleash on the world? for all we know we'd be in Iran right now if McCain had been elected, or sanctioning some other third world country that is already struggling to feed its people.
and i'm not happy with how obama has been doing things. he's started out pretending he cared about he majority in the US and has now seems to be catering to the corporate elite. foreign polciy is typical. i'm disappointed in that. but i wasn't fooled.
and i dont' regret my vote. i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
and i think we unleashed the right guy. who knows how much worse mccain would have been. we sure as hell wouldn't be having a healthcare debate or talking about closing gitmo. and iran seems to be out of the question for now.
great post commy. this mirrors my thoughts exactly.
with millions demanding it....if everyone who thought 'well, if i vote for someone outside the 2 parties the shit sandwich will win instead of the giant douche!!' voted for who they thought would push for change from the presidency then how many would be demanding it? millions?
you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game,
is that why W won? because of 3rd parties? really? it had nothing to do with Kerry being a shit candidate?
i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
i respect your right to trap yourself into keeping the corporate duopoly going, i just choose to not take a part in that anymore.
y to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it?
you say it will take millions to demand change, so are you just waiting to be the millionth and 1 person and playing the game in the meantime while you wait?
we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote.
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
that's your opinion, that's cool, i would regret helping the same worthless, ineffective, corrupt system run smoothly, i'm not going to vote in a box of fear, i'm going to vote for the person i think would DO something, not simply the slightly less shitty option. i'm not going to participate and be a cog in their crooked wheel, i don't need all these preconditions to vote for who i think would reflect my worldview, agree to disagree
Pepe Silva
What good is 'Voting your conscience for a real change', if the candidate you are supporting doesn't wage a serious campaign to begin with?? Nader had eight years, at least, to show that he is sincere and serious about what he says. He could have at least tried to start a movement, a party or an organization to promote the causes that he claims to represent. Where is it?
He says all the right things, and he talks about what we should do, but anyone can come out and say 'we should do this', but he never says how he would. The worst thing about Ralph Nader is that he has become irrelevant. He has done nothing to create a viable political alternative to the GOP and Dems, nor to build support for his positions among the electorate. His positions on the issues, no matter how good they sound, are useless because he has done nothing to achieve the power to implement them.
I've given the benefit of the doubt to Nader, and believed his intention of entering the election was primarily an attempt to structurally change the electoral process from a two-party system to a multi-candidate type of system, but the problem with Nader, and what makes it impossible to take his candidacy seriously, is that he himself puts forth the image that he just wants attention for being a spoiler rather than a serious candidate. For all the accolades he get's for his progressive views, what good are they if he doesn't even make them known? Maybe his real failing is not being able to gain himself any publicity unless he's making himself a last minute candidate for president OR coming out the day after the election making controversial comments.
Nader is like the guy on the street corner holding up the sign. It is his right to do so, but it doesn"t make him deserving of Presidency of the United States. Call me a cop out all you want, but i was not prepared to give one single vote away and risk another Bush. I'm not happy with everything Obama has done (or not done), far from it. If he continues to disappoint, then, the conversation in 4 years will be much different won't it.
i'll agree with that, but i think part of it is they are embarrassed and feel foolish to have made all these claims about how Obama was going to end the wars and bring the troops home (and would be the most liberal president in history) and how they attacked anyone who thought different and they don't want to have to admit to being wrong
others are just purely partisan and will never admit to anything but instead find ways to justify it regardless, sadly this happens on both sides of the single corporate duopoly fence.
and others are probably giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and giving him some time before getting angry. i think when it gets to a full year in office more people will start wondering just when this change we can believe in is supposed to start happening.
it was sad during the campaign to see so many 'progressives' suddenly embrace things like the patriot act, NAFTA, nuclear energy....when they had railed against it for Bush's terms. just goes to show how some are more interested in being the king of the hill for a few years than any real progress
though, to be fair, i have seen some people who were pretty big Obama supporters voice their displeasure on the wars and other issues....but yeah, no more daily 'bring them the fuck home NOW' threads but then he's a hardcore Obama supporter so you really can't expect to see those threads anymore criticizing their guy
or there are those, like me, who actually paid attention during the campaign and knew that obama never said he was going to end the wars and so did not expect that he would. i voted for him anyway becos he seemed the better man on the other issues, since their war policies were almost indistinguishable.
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
That's a bullshit argument. Someone who reflects the actions? That's easy to claim your third party candidate would do exactly what he said when none of them have ever actually been elected and had to put their money where their mouth is. I'd love to see Ralph Nader step into office and in 6 months have delivered on every campaign promise he made over republican congressional opposition, reluctant moderate dems, and a conservative supreme court. Nader wouldn't be able to accomplish shit and you're delusional if you think electing some random third party candidate would change anything. They'd still have to compromise becos this country is NOT homogeneic and there are a HUGE number of people in this country that wouldn't want those policies and would fight him on it. Say what you will about Obama, he understands that and is trying (too hard I'd say) to get us moving the right direction. But you can't change course 180 degrees in this country overnight and no third party is going to do a damn thing about that.
you know, i've stated my reasons for voting for obama plenty, and truth is i still don't regret that vote. it came down to a choice between 2 candidates. you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game, when we tried to get nader his 5%.
i learned what not to do when bush was re-elected, its too big. this is empire. what we do here affects the world. so fuck off if i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
that we trade a militant capitalist for a militant capitalist every 4 or 8 years. the structure is set/ voting does very little. try to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it? just one fundamental shift in the way power operates, without general upheaval and popular protests and strikes. we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote. and I knew that going in.
so for me the choice was very simple. who did i want to unleash on the world? for all we know we'd be in Iran right now if McCain had been elected, or sanctioning some other third world country that is already struggling to feed its people.
and i'm not happy with how obama has been doing things. he's started out pretending he cared about he majority in the US and has now seems to be catering to the corporate elite. foreign polciy is typical. i'm disappointed in that. but i wasn't fooled.
and i dont' regret my vote. i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
and i think we unleashed the right guy. who knows how much worse mccain would have been. we sure as hell wouldn't be having a healthcare debate or talking about closing gitmo. and iran seems to be out of the question for now.
with millions demanding it....if everyone who thought 'well, if i vote for someone outside the 2 parties the shit sandwich will win instead of the giant douche!!' voted for who they thought would push for change from the presidency then how many would be demanding it? millions?
you think we can change the system with a vote. i realize that is impossible,.
you can play the third party bullshit game all you want but they are never going to get elected without a fundamental changing of the way parties are financed. they are too much of a longshot and too much is a at stake., we gave the world W when we played that game,
is that why W won? because of 3rd parties? really? it had nothing to do with Kerry being a shit candidate?
being a shit candidate is almost a precondition for victory. and thanks to all the wasted nader votes we got bush, the worst of them all.
i'm not wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality.
i respect your right to trap yourself into keeping the corporate duopoly going, i just choose to not take a part in that anymore.
but you are taking part in it. we got bush with your way, i'm done with it..
mass popular protest may be the only way we will see any significant progress.
y to find an example of significant social progress that didn't involve millions of people demanding it?
you say it will take millions to demand change, so are you just waiting to be the millionth and 1 person and playing the game in the meantime while you wait?
that's my point. your trying to use a corrupt system to bring about change, i'm saying we need more than people checking boxes.
we're not changing anything fundamental with a vote.
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
your right its not wasting a vote. its actually much worse. we could get another bush if we keep trying your way, and another 700,000 dead, patriot act, homeland security, tax cuts for the wealthy, less social spending, etc etc.
i would have regretted it if we tried to get another nader in and someone even worse got elected.
that's your opinion, that's cool, i would regret helping the same worthless, ineffective, corrupt system run smoothly, i'm not going to vote in a box of fear, i'm going to vote for the person i think would DO something, not simply the slightly less shitty option. i'm not going to participate and be a cog in their crooked wheel, i don't need all these preconditions to vote for who i think would reflect my worldview, agree to disagree
you're vote got us bush in 2004. my vote didn't get us mccain in 2008. agree to disagree.
more Republicans voted for Nader than Democrats.....also, maybe if the Democrats actually put forth a good candidate instead of Kerry they would've had a chance.
ummm...we STILL have the patriot act, homeland security (who under Obama raided the hotel and homes of 2 people using twitter to say 'riot police are arresting people at this location' and seized their possesions), citizens are still being monitored, his cyber security partnership is more intrusive than Bush was, he supported the abuse of FISA by voting to make what happened legal and 2 wars going on, what has Obama done to change any of those things? so your reasoning is we'd have exactly what we have now, minus a few increases in social spending? Obama HAS increased some social spending but can you name some Bush policies he has overturned instead of continuing, even strengthening?? He's bombing Pakistan, he will escalate the war in Afghanistan, we're still in Iraq, he campaigned on 'any health care reform MUST have a public option' to now pushing for a more industry friendly option of giving them more business and no real control over prices while no longer supporting a public option, he does nothing as Israel violates international law, the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions (in fact Clinton stood right next to their PM and all but defended their expansion of illegal settlements), his energy plan gave far more to the nuclear power industry and dirty, outdated technologies than looking for alternatives, his financial 'reform' is a joke, again giving in to the industry, he said if anyone had meetings with execs or lobbyists it wouldn't be done in secret like Cheney and Bush did but would broadcast them on CSPAN and the internet (then had secret closed door meetings with the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry and like Bush/Cheney, refuses to say who all he met with), his chief of staff is telling Congress 'vote for the war and IMF funding or we won't help you in your re-elections' (though, i suppose if they lost that re-election you would still blame anyone who voted 3rd party instead), he went back on his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA......
my vote did NOT get Bush into office, the Dems being spineless and running an ineffectual campaign with an asswipe of a candidate is what got Bush into office, not to mention all the voting irregularities like a couple thousand votes that got 'accidentally' erased in NC. you can't say this is how the system is then say it's someone outside the system causing it.
this reason seems like having 3 places to eat in your town, Taco Bell, Wendy's and a local place that has much better food but doesn't get their ads played as often because they don't have as much control as the corporations....you've tried food at all 3 places and actually prefer the local place but you see more people are going to Taco Bell and Wendy's, which you really don't like nearly as much, but hey, everyone else is eating there and at least Wendy's has a frosty so you give them your support instead which in time drives the local place out of business leaving you with 2 shitty options.....and then you turn around and blame the people who ate at the local place for Taco Bell being voted best in the city saying if only you ate at Wendy's!! ??
actually, i voted for Kucinich in '04, but regardless, if my vote for Kucinich in '04 is the reason we had Bush, which is pretty dishonest, why aren't you saying my vote for Nader this time around gave you Obama?? why does it only work 1 way but not the other?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Have you ever spoken to any South Americans? Iraqis? Iranians? Palestinians? Libyans? Haitians? Vietnamese?
thank you... i made that point sometime earlier..."new found freedoms" my ass... when you've got foreign soldiers in your country, they're "terrorists" in uniform to the locals.... the sooner everyone realizes that the better....
exactly. nobody ever stops to ask themselves if we might be the ones viewed as terrorists. if they did, they would have completely different views on the wars and gitmo.
Yep, It's a simple consequence of being a superpower: you have to make decisions to protect your interests & those who support you. Politics is a bitch. America protects the interests of these countries (including places like Ireland) by making those harsh decisions that mean the strong get what they want and the weak suffer.
So yeah, to say the worse critics are Polish or Canadian....its just stupid, ignorant and ill-informed. I'm sure Canadians etc do criticise that stuff, hell even I do, but imagine the effect the US has on places like Vietnam when it intentionally destroys a country/infrastructure to prevent legitimate (yet anti-US interest) governments from thriving? Imagine just how much the US has sabotaged the national development of that country, or Honduras, or Haiti, etc. (Afghanistan is different, its always been wartorn).
Case points:
- The Vietnam War
- The Iraq War
- All the valid democratic leaders overthrown in south america over the years
- Palestine
- blaming Libya & forcing trade bans on it for Lockerbie even though all evidence suggested Iran
- funding Saddam & taking him down when it suited
- funding the Georgian president that protected the oil-lines to Europe that led to a forseeable war with Russia
- NATO bombing in Kosovo knowing full well before hand that stragically it would not succeed but it would definitely destroy the country's infrastructure
- US current building larger bases in Pakistan and Kabul........
Look at any superpower through human history and it will do the things the US does. But some of them, like Guantanemo, arguably are not necessary anymore. I think Commy is completely right; Public demonstration is the only real way to make real change in politics.
the US government need to feel the heat, so people need to actually do something, not just debate it. also Obama would probably want an alternative, similar legal loophole to deal with genuine terrorists before Gtmo is closed.
for all the talk about gtmo, has Obama taken any actually steps to close it? from where i am it looks like all he's done is ignore the court recommendations that its not legal/to close it
i'll agree with that, but i think part of it is they are embarrassed and feel foolish to have made all these claims about how Obama was going to end the wars and bring the troops home (and would be the most liberal president in history) and how they attacked anyone who thought different and they don't want to have to admit to being wrong
others are just purely partisan and will never admit to anything but instead find ways to justify it regardless, sadly this happens on both sides of the single corporate duopoly fence.
and others are probably giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and giving him some time before getting angry. i think when it gets to a full year in office more people will start wondering just when this change we can believe in is supposed to start happening.
it was sad during the campaign to see so many 'progressives' suddenly embrace things like the patriot act, NAFTA, nuclear energy....when they had railed against it for Bush's terms. just goes to show how some are more interested in being the king of the hill for a few years than any real progress
though, to be fair, i have seen some people who were pretty big Obama supporters voice their displeasure on the wars and other issues....but yeah, no more daily 'bring them the fuck home NOW' threads but then he's a hardcore Obama supporter so you really can't expect to see those threads anymore criticizing their guy
or there are those, like me, who actually paid attention during the campaign and knew that obama never said he was going to end the wars and so did not expect that he would. i voted for him anyway becos he seemed the better man on the other issues, since their war policies were almost indistinguishable.
i never said it was all inclusive, i was referring to the people who used to constantly post about the war and are now silent. i don't place Commy or you in that demographic, though you seem to want to place yourselves there, because i have seen you 2 complain about the war since January.
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
That's a bullshit argument. Someone who reflects the actions? That's easy to claim your third party candidate would do exactly what he said when none of them have ever actually been elected and had to put their money where their mouth is. I'd love to see Ralph Nader step into office and in 6 months have delivered on every campaign promise he made over republican congressional opposition, reluctant moderate dems, and a conservative supreme court. Nader wouldn't be able to accomplish shit and you're delusional if you think electing some random third party candidate would change anything. They'd still have to compromise becos this country is NOT homogeneic and there are a HUGE number of people in this country that wouldn't want those policies and would fight him on it. Say what you will about Obama, he understands that and is trying (too hard I'd say) to get us moving the right direction. But you can't change course 180 degrees in this country overnight and no third party is going to do a damn thing about that.
well. my vote in '04 went to Kucinich, who has DONE things to prove to me he would push for change. also, Nader has a long history of accomplishments, not just well worded speeches, to make me think he would actually be an agent of change and not just roll over to special interests like Obama does.
and yeah, it probably would be hard for him to get changes through Congress, but what would happen if millions put someone in that office only to see their local representatives holding back the change they want? hold them accountable! riot! something other than giving in and playing along.
you got Obama and guess what? you STILL have those people holding back any real change, so what's the point? saying at least i voted for the guy in power this time? no thanks, my morals are worth more than bragging rights. i'm not going to vote for someone i know is making empty promises and won't do much just because the other guy is a little worse. this is the same absurd line of thinking as when people say "Thanks god Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened!!" why? what would have been so different? you can't agree both are similar and nothing fundamental will change from either of the 2 parties then say it would be sooooo much worse if the other guy won. isn't that saying there IS a fundamental difference??
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i never said it was all inclusive, i was referring to the people who used to constantly post about the war and are now silent. i don't place Commy or you in that demographic, though you seem to want to place yourselves there, because i have seen you 2 complain about the war since January.
well. my vote in '04 went to Kucinich, who has DONE things to prove to me he would push for change. also, Nader has a long history of accomplishments, not just well worded speeches, to make me think he would actually be an agent of change and not just roll over to special interests like Obama does.
and yeah, it probably would be hard for him to get changes through Congress, but what would happen if millions put someone in that office only to see their local representatives holding back the change they want? hold them accountable! riot! something other than giving in and playing along.
you got Obama and guess what? you STILL have those people holding back any real change, so what's the point? saying at least i voted for the guy in power this time? no thanks, my morals are worth more than bragging rights. i'm not going to vote for someone i know is making empty promises and won't do much just because the other guy is a little worse. this is the same absurd line of thinking as when people say "Thanks god Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened!!" why? what would have been so different? you can't agree both are similar and nothing fundamental will change from either of the 2 parties then say it would be sooooo much worse if the other guy won. isn't that saying there IS a fundamental difference??
you must have me confused with somebody else, becos i dont complain about the war all that much. i opposed it, but always pretty much figured there wasnt a damn thing i could do about it so why whine? if asked, i'll say i'm opposed, but i never bring it up on my own.
kucinich, as i recall, was not a candidate in the final election. and ralph has never held a political office in his life. he did some corporate muck-raking now and again, which is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify him as president. he knows he'd not get shit done if he was ever in office... that's why he's never even tried to run for a local office or congress, becos then he'd be exposed for the empty threat he is and you'd be turning those words you have against obama on him in a heartbeat.
what you cant wrap your head around is that most americans dont want nader or kucinich style change. they voted obama in becos they were tired of republicans, and now they're voting in republicans becos they don't want the coutnry drifting too far to the left on his watch. nader supporters are no more a legit mainstream interest than glen beck listeners are.
yes, we got obama in. do you truly think there is no difference between him and mccain? it's not about bragging rights, it's about the best man for the job. no, he didnt end 2 wars and close gitmo within 6 months. i never thought he would, so who cares? but he is providing a badly needed boost of international credibility, adopting more measured approaches to iran and korea, and at least making sure health care and financial reform stay on the table instead of being swept under the rug. all good things.
your gore example is bullshit. im the opposite of that... i wish like hell he'd been in office on 9/11. i can guarantee we would not have invaded iraq if he had been in office. are you going to sit here and tell me that's no difference and that your vote for nader was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost in iraq so that you can feel superior to us becos you stick to your guns and we vote practically? i used to think like you, hell i campaigned for nader back in my idiot college days and when i saw what it cost us... 8 years of bush instead of gore and a completely unnecessary war in iraq, i learned my lesson. the differences between the parties may not be as stark as you want (which is ironically the same thought process glenn beck and his ilk use... NO compromise allowed!), but that does not mean there is no difference.
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
the insurgency might indeed follow you home, and that's due to decades of playin policemen and fuckin with the world, so live n learn... as for Iraq becoming a mess... well, Iraq is just one country in a mess... every god damn 3rd world nation, including mine, is in a mess... but we'll sort our own problems... we DO NOT need self righteous foreigners telling us how it is... in the long run, you won't be losing your soldiers/terrorists, in countries you know nothin about, and the world will begin to lose the hatred towards you... of course that involves the US/UK administrations becoming less greedy and oil thirsty but i doubt that'll happen anytime soon
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
i rather doubt any reagan dems would vote for nader... i cant think of 2 political ideologies much further apart than reagan and nader. what nader did was siphon off the staunch left just enough to tip the scales. that's what stood out to me about the 08 election... it was the first time we elected a president without any controversy in probably 20 years. the victory was convincing... no massive irregularities, no 3rd parties spoiling it and leaving half the country bitter, just a solid, indisputable victory. seems to have evaporated pretty quick.
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
the insurgency might indeed follow you home, and that's due to decades of playin policemen and fuckin with the world, so live n learn... as for Iraq becoming a mess... well, Iraq is just one country in a mess... every god damn 3rd world nation, including mine, is in a mess... but we'll sort our own problems... we DO NOT need self righteous foreigners telling us how it is... in the long run, you won't be losing your soldiers/terrorists, in countries you know nothin about, and the world will begin to lose the hatred towards you... of course that involves the US/UK administrations becoming less greedy and oil thirsty but i doubt that'll happen anytime soon
i think this is a perspective that an unfortunate number of americans simply don't get. it's ironic that the same americans that rant about big government meddling in their lives see no contradiction between that stance and supporting us going to other countries to overthrow their governments and tell them how to govern themselves. we have the best of intentions... i am convinced most of these americans honestly think we are helping things by doing what we do, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
I'm sure, in fact i know, that many do have the best of intentions... at least the civilian citizens; i doubt members of the adminitration do, unless they're a lil thick, cuz surely they know the drill ... but if only the ordinary americans would realize the fear the locals of a country experience when they have foreign soldiers parading through their streets... and mad bombs fallin all around their homes...
half your nation opposed Bush, and half of every 1st world nations pretty much opposes its leader, but that doesn't mean a bunch of foreign fuckers could come and set things right... and one might say well Bush (or another for that matter) never did to his own citizens what maybe Saddam did to his, but surely smart americans would know that being fed lies and bullshit and being ripped off n what not is just as brutal, if not more, than being physically persecuted... and the worst thing is that most of the time we're doing just fine... much like yourselves... living, working, fucking, studying, playing music, diggin Pearl Jam:) or none of the above and whatever else there is to do or to not do (of course that can;t be said for many in each part of every 3rd world country, but then that would just be utopian) and that's pretty much a fact... and then we see on TV, foreign leaders sayin we ain't got freedom and liberty and all that shit.. well we got it, so quit stressin... i've said it before that i've seen just as much 3rd world sufferin in the US and in other 1st world countries, as i have in so called 3rd world countries... and that's why i believe that as human beings we all go through the same struggles, joys, sorrows and therefore are able to relate, no matter where we're from... it's this goddamn world order that has us up in arms against each other
accrosstheoceans, i appreciate your open frank opinion on this matter.
know that i ask this b/c i really do want your opinion, i'm not tryin to start some message board riot.
so does your country or it's citizens see the US or Al Qaeda as being the bigger threat or enemy or how ever you would like to put it?
again i appreciate your honesty...
I’ll say your prayers I’ll take your side
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
accrosstheoceans, i appreciate your open frank opinion on this matter.
know that i ask this b/c i really do want your opinion, i'm not tryin to start some message board riot.
so does your country or it's citizens see the US or Al Qaeda as being the bigger threat or enemy or how ever you would like to put it?
again i appreciate your honesty...
that's a valid question which ain;t that simple however cuz nothin here is ... firstly screw Al Qaeda, because that is some world-militant organization, nowhere and everywhere apparently... Pakistanis could give a rats ass about it... I'll talk about the Taliaban which is much closer to home, but that'll still answer your question... here's a group which until very recently has never wrecked such havoc in the country.. they were confined to the tribal areas and other remote parts of the country... domestically we've had military takeovers (which we more than welcome cuz they're the only staright talikin moherfuckers around) and other political turmoil, in the form of rivalry between political parties, such as that of that feudal bitch Benazir Bhutto, fighting for power against others.... but when the Taliban recently actually took control an area called Swat (very beautiful region i might add) that hit home, cuz we've never been ruled by right wing religious parties... sure Pakistan consists partly of conservative society and partly not... but even the former don't like this shit...However, neither I nor the rest of the nation are blind to the causes of militancy... and that leads back to the US... it's pretty much a fact, that they did use Islamic militants to fuck with the Soviets and then chucked em... only, these are humans you're using, not machines, and therefore it backfired... simple as that...
so as to whom we see as worse enemies, foreign soldiers from a very different part of the world in every respect, (lifestyle, appearance, religion, and much more) will always be more unwelcome, then foreigners just across the border, or rather locals gone wild ... it's simply a case of which is the lesser of the two evils... i said it earlier, every occupied country has become a Gitmo; Gitmo Proper at least benefits from media attention...everywhere else the shit just gets swept under the dirty carpet... still it's not at all the case that we are willing to tolerate, let alone want, the Taliban ruling our country... all classes, the lower, the working, the middle, the upper and the feudal are pretty much together on this and that's why i genuinely believe that they won't be able to rule the country... but i gotta end by sayin, that what we hate MOST is the self righteousness of the US in selling it's way of life, cuz no one's buyin it...
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
the insurgency will not follow us home. we are not fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. this is not 2003. those insurgents will fight for control of their own country. do you REALLY think a couple of thousand insurgents have the means to come over here and attack the US mainland and occupy our land? even if they did, do you really think they can defeat our country and its military? there is no reason to be afraid of that because it ain't gonna happen.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
accrosstheoceans, i appreciate your open frank opinion on this matter.
know that i ask this b/c i really do want your opinion, i'm not tryin to start some message board riot.
so does your country or it's citizens see the US or Al Qaeda as being the bigger threat or enemy or how ever you would like to put it?
again i appreciate your honesty...
that's a valid question which ain;t that simple however cuz nothin here is ... firstly screw Al Qaeda, because that is some world-militant organization, nowhere and everywhere apparently... Pakistanis could give a rats ass about it... I'll talk about the Taliaban which is much closer to home, but that'll still answer your question... here's a group which until very recently has never wrecked such havoc in the country.. they were confined to the tribal areas and other remote parts of the country... domestically we've had military takeovers (which we more than welcome cuz they're the only staright talikin moherfuckers around) and other political turmoil, in the form of rivalry between political parties, such as that of that feudal bitch Benazir Bhutto, fighting for power against others.... but when the Taliban recently actually took control an area called Swat (very beautiful region i might add) that hit home, cuz we've never been ruled by right wing religious parties... sure Pakistan consists partly of conservative society and partly not... but even the former don't like this shit...However, neither I nor the rest of the nation are blind to the causes of militancy... and that leads back to the US... it's pretty much a fact, that they did use Islamic militants to fuck with the Soviets and then chucked em... only, these are humans you're using, not machines, and therefore it backfired... simple as that...
so as to whom we see as worse enemies, foreign soldiers from a very different part of the world in every respect, (lifestyle, appearance, religion, and much more) will always be more unwelcome, then foreigners just across the border, or rather locals gone wild ... it's simply a case of which is the lesser of the two evils... i said it earlier, every occupied country has become a Gitmo; Gitmo Proper at least benefits from media attention...everywhere else the shit just gets swept under the dirty carpet... still it's not at all the case that we are willing to tolerate, let alone want, the Taliban ruling our country... all classes, the lower, the working, the middle, the upper and the feudal are pretty much together on this and that's why i genuinely believe that they won't be able to rule the country... but i gotta end by sayin, that what we hate MOST is the self righteousness of the US in selling it's way of life, cuz no one's buyin it...
See the problem is that right wing fundamentalists in the states are just as bad as the taliban....actually worse because they have more power. But they don't realize it. They are more so terrorists than anyone in Iraq or Afganistan that decides to find a weapon and defend thier homes. Granted the rights of women and people in general in afganistan were non existent. But they DO NOT want Americans bombing their homes and families to help them obtain those rights. They want to fight their own battles. Let them.
And I believe the word sorry would go along way. If American officials were to pull troops out of these foriegn countries and apologize for all the wrong doings, I really believe it would sincerely help their cause. And the majority of Muslim and Arab citizens would be compelled to join America's fight against extremeists like Al Queda. But the problem is too many Right wing extremeist Americans exist for that to happen.
So yea, I see America as a bigger threat than Al Queda.
accrosstheoceans, i appreciate your open frank opinion on this matter.
know that i ask this b/c i really do want your opinion, i'm not tryin to start some message board riot.
so does your country or it's citizens see the US or Al Qaeda as being the bigger threat or enemy or how ever you would like to put it?
again i appreciate your honesty...
that's a valid question which ain;t that simple however cuz nothin here is ... firstly screw Al Qaeda, because that is some world-militant organization, nowhere and everywhere apparently... Pakistanis could give a rats ass about it... I'll talk about the Taliaban which is much closer to home, but that'll still answer your question... here's a group which until very recently has never wrecked such havoc in the country.. they were confined to the tribal areas and other remote parts of the country... domestically we've had military takeovers (which we more than welcome cuz they're the only staright talikin moherfuckers around) and other political turmoil, in the form of rivalry between political parties, such as that of that feudal bitch Benazir Bhutto, fighting for power against others.... but when the Taliban recently actually took control an area called Swat (very beautiful region i might add) that hit home, cuz we've never been ruled by right wing religious parties... sure Pakistan consists partly of conservative society and partly not... but even the former don't like this shit...However, neither I nor the rest of the nation are blind to the causes of militancy... and that leads back to the US... it's pretty much a fact, that they did use Islamic militants to fuck with the Soviets and then chucked em... only, these are humans you're using, not machines, and therefore it backfired... simple as that...
so as to whom we see as worse enemies, foreign soldiers from a very different part of the world in every respect, (lifestyle, appearance, religion, and much more) will always be more unwelcome, then foreigners just across the border, or rather locals gone wild ... it's simply a case of which is the lesser of the two evils... i said it earlier, every occupied country has become a Gitmo; Gitmo Proper at least benefits from media attention...everywhere else the shit just gets swept under the dirty carpet... still it's not at all the case that we are willing to tolerate, let alone want, the Taliban ruling our country... all classes, the lower, the working, the middle, the upper and the feudal are pretty much together on this and that's why i genuinely believe that they won't be able to rule the country... but i gotta end by sayin, that what we hate MOST is the self righteousness of the US in selling it's way of life, cuz no one's buyin it...
See the problem is that right wing fundamentalists in the states are just as bad as the taliban....actually worse because they have more power. But they don't realize it. They are more so terrorists than anyone in Iraq or Afganistan that decides to find a weapon and defend thier homes. Granted the rights of women and people in general in afganistan were non existent. But they DO NOT want Americans bombing their homes and families to help them obtain those rights. They want to fight their own battles. Let them.
And I believe the word sorry would go along way. If American officials were to pull troops out of these foriegn countries and apologize for all the wrong doings, I really believe it would sincerely help their cause. And the majority of Muslim and Arab citizens would be compelled to join America's fight against extremeists like Al Queda. But the problem is too many Right wing extremeist Americans exist for that to happen.
So yea, I see America as a bigger threat than Al Queda.
well said...
and i'm diggin your pic with Ed... a prophet to me...
i never said it was all inclusive, i was referring to the people who used to constantly post about the war and are now silent. i don't place Commy or you in that demographic, though you seem to want to place yourselves there, because i have seen you 2 complain about the war since January.
well. my vote in '04 went to Kucinich, who has DONE things to prove to me he would push for change. also, Nader has a long history of accomplishments, not just well worded speeches, to make me think he would actually be an agent of change and not just roll over to special interests like Obama does.
and yeah, it probably would be hard for him to get changes through Congress, but what would happen if millions put someone in that office only to see their local representatives holding back the change they want? hold them accountable! riot! something other than giving in and playing along.
you got Obama and guess what? you STILL have those people holding back any real change, so what's the point? saying at least i voted for the guy in power this time? no thanks, my morals are worth more than bragging rights. i'm not going to vote for someone i know is making empty promises and won't do much just because the other guy is a little worse. this is the same absurd line of thinking as when people say "Thanks god Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened!!" why? what would have been so different? you can't agree both are similar and nothing fundamental will change from either of the 2 parties then say it would be sooooo much worse if the other guy won. isn't that saying there IS a fundamental difference??
you must have me confused with somebody else, becos i dont complain about the war all that much. i opposed it, but always pretty much figured there wasnt a damn thing i could do about it so why whine? if asked, i'll say i'm opposed, but i never bring it up on my own.
kucinich, as i recall, was not a candidate in the final election. and ralph has never held a political office in his life. he did some corporate muck-raking now and again, which is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify him as president. he knows he'd not get shit done if he was ever in office... that's why he's never even tried to run for a local office or congress, becos then he'd be exposed for the empty threat he is and you'd be turning those words you have against obama on him in a heartbeat.
what you cant wrap your head around is that most americans dont want nader or kucinich style change. they voted obama in becos they were tired of republicans, and now they're voting in republicans becos they don't want the coutnry drifting too far to the left on his watch. nader supporters are no more a legit mainstream interest than glen beck listeners are.
yes, we got obama in. do you truly think there is no difference between him and mccain? it's not about bragging rights, it's about the best man for the job. no, he didnt end 2 wars and close gitmo within 6 months. i never thought he would, so who cares? but he is providing a badly needed boost of international credibility, adopting more measured approaches to iran and korea, and at least making sure health care and financial reform stay on the table instead of being swept under the rug. all good things.
your gore example is bullshit. im the opposite of that... i wish like hell he'd been in office on 9/11. i can guarantee we would not have invaded iraq if he had been in office. are you going to sit here and tell me that's no difference and that your vote for nader was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost in iraq so that you can feel superior to us becos you stick to your guns and we vote practically? i used to think like you, hell i campaigned for nader back in my idiot college days and when i saw what it cost us... 8 years of bush instead of gore and a completely unnecessary war in iraq, i learned my lesson. the differences between the parties may not be as stark as you want (which is ironically the same thought process glenn beck and his ilk use... NO compromise allowed!), but that does not mean there is no difference.
sigh
did you even read the post that sparked this? it was clearly referencing ONLY 1 small segment of Obama supporters, not ALL of them.. it was towards those who had a strong anti war stance during Bush's terms and either changed their stance to more justifiable or who never even mention it anymore. so if you obviously don't fit into that category, just as i'd say commy, gimmesometruth, triumphant angel....didn't fit, either, why are you putting yourself there and saying 'that's not what i voted for Obama!!' cool, no one ever inferred that ya did
kucinich, as i recall, was not a candidate in the final election.
depends on how you look at it, in '04 Kucinich said the democratic party and media can't tell you who you can and can't vote for, which i agree with. so i wrote his name in.
and ralph has never held a political office in his life. he did some corporate muck-raking now and again, which is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify him as president.
and what has Obama done that would qualify him if Nader's list of actually achieving change. really, can you name 1 thing Obama has done to say yeah, Nader isn't qualified but that Obama sure is!!' ??
he knows he'd not get shit done if he was ever in office... that's why he's never even tried to run for a local office or congress, becos then he'd be exposed for the empty threat he is and you'd be turning those words you have against obama on him in a heartbeat.
his empty threat of actually creating change? wha?
if he rolled over and broke promise after promise and showed me more of the same then yeah, i'd probably have words against him, too.
what you cant wrap your head around is that most americans dont want nader or kucinich style change.
oh, i can wrap my head around that just fine. you say this and yet last election when they did a poll of what the voters wanted and compared it with the stances of the democrats the majority were actually in line with Kucinich.
they voted obama in becos they were tired of republicans, and now they're voting in republicans becos they don't want the coutnry drifting too far to the left on his watch.
well, i'm glad you're on top of things and figured out why everyone voted for Obama :roll:
i'm sure voting in repubicans is all about not wanting to drift too far left, whenever that started, and nothing to do with a lot of democrats holding up the change they supposedly voted into office
nader supporters are no more a legit mainstream interest than glen beck listeners are.
unlike you i don't live my life in absolutes and place everyone in a nice, neat little box. you complain about me pigeonholing every Obama supporter, which i never did, and then you do the same.....huh, interesting how that works....
yes, we got obama in.
well, according to Commy's logic i helped Obama get into office, too!
btw, let's look at that logic compared to all my presidential votes, shall we?
96 voted for Perot, Clinton won. you're welcome
00 voted for Gore, Bush 'won' better luck next time?
04 voted for Kucinich, Bush won. supposedly my fault
08 voted for Nader, Obama won. so again, this is all because of my and my vote for Nader, so you all should be thanking me instead of acting like spoiled brats saying because of my vote in 04 Bush was president.
while it's been a while since i looked at the numbers to the 04 election i'm fairly certain Kerry lost by more than a single vote in my state. if i'm wrong please point to the link, otherwise Commy's claim of my voting for Kucinich cost Kerry the election.
do you truly think there is no difference between him and mccain?
of course there is, i'm not the one who made the claim nothing fundamentally changes no matter which party is in office and therefor voting doesn't change anything.
. no, he didnt end 2 wars and close gitmo within 6 months. i never thought he would, so who cares?
wow, man if had some gold stars i'd gladly give you one! the demographic of Obama supporters i was referencing with my earlier post DID think he would. there are some people who got pretty self righteous saying Obama would end the war in Iraq in a year, close Gitmo in 6, be the most liberal president in history.....
but he is providing a badly needed boost of international credibility,
and then he says he won't push Israel to stop expanding their illegal settlements and brings that credibility down a notch
at least making sure health care and financial reform stay on the table instead of being swept under the rug. all good things.
how has he done this? his health care 'reform' will make the insurance and pharmaceutical companies more money, give them more customers....
what financial reform??
your gore example is bullshit. im the opposite of that... i wish like hell he'd been in office on 9/11.
hence my starting the Gore example by saying it was absurd....
i can guarantee we would not have invaded iraq if he had been in office. are you going to sit here and tell me that's no difference and that your vote for nader was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost in iraq
we were already in Iraq for years when i voted for Nader in 08, what are you talking about??
Obama hasn't even started to end either wars, in fact he's more than likely going to escalate one but you think Kerry would've done it?? how did you connect those dots??
8 years of bush instead of gore and a completely unnecessary war in iraq, i learned my lesson.
good for you, you learned to overlook all the voting irregularities thinking they wouldn't have stolen the election if Nader hadn't run in 2000 or any other 3rd party ran, since every 3rd party candidate got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush, yet i don't see anyone crying that Buchanon cost us the election and it's all their fault.
i'll ask again, exactly what Bush policies has Obama gotten rid of?
it's not being superior, acting superior is you guys saying any vote for anyone other than a democrat is a wasted vote. 3rd parties are good enough to win local elections, and thanks to Nader in 08 in several states certain parties no longer have such obstacles to get on the ballot in local elections, so why not national? oh, right, because the big bad republican will win if we vote for anyone other than who the democrats say, got it. wow, those democrats sure are lucky, they don't need to follow through on anything because as long as they are slightly less shitty than the republicans they will deserve everyone's vote, no questions asked. what a great gig they got going on. accountability schmountability. no wonder they don't feel any pressure to uphold our will.....
if you would like to continue this next week feel free
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
ummm...we STILL have the patriot act, homeland security (who under Obama raided the hotel and homes of 2 people using twitter to say 'riot police are arresting people at this location' and seized their possesions), citizens are still being monitored, his cyber security partnership is more intrusive than Bush was, he supported the abuse of FISA by voting to make what happened legal and 2 wars going on, what has Obama done to change any of those things? so your reasoning is we'd have exactly what we have now, minus a few increases in social spending? Obama HAS increased some social spending but can you name some Bush policies he has overturned instead of continuing, even strengthening?? He's bombing Pakistan, he will escalate the war in Afghanistan, we're still in Iraq, he campaigned on 'any health care reform MUST have a public option' to now pushing for a more industry friendly option of giving them more business and no real control over prices while no longer supporting a public option, he does nothing as Israel violates international law, the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions (in fact Clinton stood right next to their PM and all but defended their expansion of illegal settlements), his energy plan gave far more to the nuclear power industry and dirty, outdated technologies than looking for alternatives, his financial 'reform' is a joke, again giving in to the industry, he said if anyone had meetings with execs or lobbyists it wouldn't be done in secret like Cheney and Bush did but would broadcast them on CSPAN and the internet (then had secret closed door meetings with the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry and like Bush/Cheney, refuses to say who all he met with), his chief of staff is telling Congress 'vote for the war and IMF funding or we won't help you in your re-elections' (though, i suppose if they lost that re-election you would still blame anyone who voted 3rd party instead), he went back on his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA......
nice try.
i'm not defending obama, i'm defending my vote.
and i stand by it.
my vote did NOT get Bush into office, the Dems being spineless and running an ineffectual campaign with an asswipe of a candidate is what got Bush into office, not to mention all the voting irregularities like a couple thousand votes that got 'accidentally' erased in NC. you can't say this is how the system is then say it's someone outside the system causing it.\
spin spin.
i don't care how shitty the other candidate is. if its not bush, its not BUSH.
you can piss your vote away every 4 years (or make it worse) - or do your best not to give the world another mad man.
you need to realize their game is corrupt, you can't change it using their rules.
this reason seems like having 3 places to eat in your town, Taco Bell, Wendy's and a local place that has much better food but doesn't get their ads played as often because they don't have as much control as the corporations....you've tried food at all 3 places and actually prefer the local place but you see more people are going to Taco Bell and Wendy's, which you really don't like nearly as much, but hey, everyone else is eating there and at least Wendy's has a frosty so you give them your support instead which in time drives the local place out of business leaving you with 2 shitty options.....and then you turn around and blame the people who ate at the local place for Taco Bell being voted best in the city saying if only you ate at Wendy's!! ??
your analogy is true if the nice restaurant was 100 miles out of town.
actually, i voted for Kucinich in '04, but regardless, if my vote for Kucinich in '04 is the reason we had Bush, which is pretty dishonest, why aren't you saying my vote for Nader this time around gave you Obama?? why does it only work 1 way but not the other?
bush won by how many votes? and obama?
third party voters directly affected the 04 election, the same edit:wasn't true in 08.
you can keep playing their corrupt game, by their rules, and perpetuate madness. just hope the more evil of 2 evils isn't another goddamn bush.
we were already in Iraq for years when i voted for Nader in 08, what are you talking about??
Obama hasn't even started to end either wars, in fact he's more than likely going to escalate one but you think Kerry would've done it?? how did you connect those dots??
i'll ask again, exactly what Bush policies has Obama gotten rid of?
it's not being superior, acting superior is you guys saying any vote for anyone other than a democrat is a wasted vote. 3rd parties are good enough to win local elections, and thanks to Nader in 08 in several states certain parties no longer have such obstacles to get on the ballot in local elections, so why not national? oh, right, because the big bad republican will win if we vote for anyone other than who the democrats say, got it. wow, those democrats sure are lucky, they don't need to follow through on anything because as long as they are slightly less shitty than the republicans they will deserve everyone's vote, no questions asked. what a great gig they got going on. accountability schmountability. no wonder they don't feel any pressure to uphold our will.....
if you would like to continue this next week feel free
i never said kerry would have ended the wars, i said we'd never have been in the wars in the first place if gore had been elected in 2000 instead of bush. you seem to think that is a trivial consideration. What I take issue with is you acting all high and mighty about how your vote won't compromise. I couldn't care less if you vote third party, but quit acting like you're a better man than those of us who take other things into account. Gore vs Bush was a major difference. And McCain-Obama was too (esp if you throw in that McCain was in poor health and had Palin behind him). i voted and campaigned for nader in 2000 in ohio... and i see now that if not for those efforts, gore would have won and we would have avoided an 8-year nightmare. that's worth thinking about. maybe it doesn't sway you in the end, but it doesn't make those of us who do account for that lesser people as you imply. i'm not voting out of fear of republicans, i'm voting based on what i think is best for my country. and i think obama in office over mccain is best for my country.
I'm happy for you that you got to vote for Kucinich, but don't tell me I'm wrong for voting Obama. I gave you a list of things he has done... he pledged to close Gitmo and said when he made the pledge that it would take time... I'm willing to wait a bit and if he doesn't deliver, I'll see how important that is to me in 2012. He reversed the global gag rule, lifted stem cell research restrictions... all good things. he reversed Bush's policies on pre-emption and handles Iran and Korea a helluva lot better than Dubya would have. and he drew a line in the sand on financial reform to ensure that we get a consumer protection agency, which i think is crucial.
has he fallen short elsewhere? sure. he wilted on israel, but what american president has ever stood up to them? i'm curious what you think nader and kucinich would have done, becos i suspect your vision of their presidency is a bit delusional and based as much on wishful thinking as the obama supporters you've been trying to criticize. the naive and idealistic are always disappointed by political reality, and even nader and dennis would be bowing to that before you knew it. yes, we still have wars. yes, the current health care bills leave something to be desired, but i think he's playing it smart thus far and we may end up with something better than anticipated in the end. yes, financial regs aren't firm enough, but he is doing a helluva lot more than dubya or mccain would have to rein in wall street.
i dont expect perfection from my elected officials. obama got handed a country in worse shape than it has been in 100 years and so far he's been doing a fair job. it's a huge impvroment on the past admin and his chief challenger, and i truly think he's more effective than kucinich or nader would have been in his position.
what bothers me is the way you criticize obama supporters as somehow delusional for thinking he'd change everything overnight (which he never claimed, it's their delusion not his lies), yet you sit there and act like if we just got nader or kucinich elected, everything would change overnight. do you not see the absurd contradiction in that?
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
the insurgency will not follow us home. we are not fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. this is not 2003. those insurgents will fight for control of their own country. do you REALLY think a couple of thousand insurgents have the means to come over here and attack the US mainland and occupy our land? even if they did, do you really think they can defeat our country and its military? there is no reason to be afraid of that because it ain't gonna happen.
Did we really believe that a couple insurgents would fly a couple of airliners into our buildings? Let's just bring all the soldiers home and let all the insurgents run wild....fuck it! I think too many people are too naive of what they are capable of.
Did we really believe that a couple insurgents would fly a couple of airliners into our buildings? Let's just bring all the soldiers home and let all the insurgents run wild....fuck it! I think too many people are too naive of what they are capable of.
i think the problem was the arrogance shown by those 'higher ups' who thought that something like that couldnt possibly happen on american soil. considering the towers had previously been a target id say someone was negligent in their duty of care. and its not the people being too naive of what their fellow man is capable of.
i found the incidents of 9/11 to be heinous and quite extraordinary but i wasnt surprised nor did i find it unbelievable.
ever read tom clancys debt of honour?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I will admit as a "right wing whacko" (my words), I hoped the entire time of the 2000 election that a few old "Reagan Democrats" would vote for Nader instead of algore.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
the insurgency will not follow us home. we are not fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. this is not 2003. those insurgents will fight for control of their own country. do you REALLY think a couple of thousand insurgents have the means to come over here and attack the US mainland and occupy our land? even if they did, do you really think they can defeat our country and its military? there is no reason to be afraid of that because it ain't gonna happen.
Did we really believe that a couple insurgents would fly a couple of airliners into our buildings? Let's just bring all the soldiers home and let all the insurgents run wild....fuck it! I think too many people are too naive of what they are capable of.
if china invaded mexico , barring conventional warfare, many central american countries might send troops to help fight the chinese. the US probably would too. nobody wants a foreign army to have a foothold in our hemisphere. and all the fighters helping mexico would probably be called foreign fighters and terrorists by the chinese.
whatever they are called the goal is resistance, not conquest. same as in iraq. a foreign army has a foothold in the middle east, they are trying to protect their people, are resisting foreign invaders.
there isn't a country on the planet that could stage an assault on the US mainland, there' no way in hell some ragtag group of guerrillas would.
you should try not being so scerred sometimes. we have the most powerful military on the planet and your worried they might come to the US again? why do you think they came in the first place? we're guaranteeing another attack by pushcing deeper into their countries. sooner or later some husband with a murdered family is going to get desperate enough to carry out another attack in the US. but that's because we are over there murdering their people in the first place, if we got out the chances would decrease. funny how it works, but the less people we kill over the we decrease the motivation for retaliation. it may be too late now, but tha'ts no reason to continue the illegal wars.
osama bl said he staged the attacks becuase of US military presence in mecca, islam's holiets site, becuase of support for israel, and because the us had invaded arab countries and was arming and supporting miltant dictators. you know how i know this? because he fucking said it. what on that list has changed? add another invaded and occupied country to the list, 2 actually. we're making it worse, not better by fighting them.
osama bl said he staged the attacks becuase of US military presence in mecca, islam's holiets site, becuase of support for israel, and because the us had invaded arab countries and was arming and supporting miltant dictators. you know how i know this? because he fucking said it. what on that list has changed? add another invaded and occupied country to the list, 2 actually. we're making it worse, not better by fighting them.
But there is the other side to this - if the US wasnt involved, then Osama BL & co would just attack whatever other nation was doing the things the US did....some nation will always be a superpower, and having enemies is part of that role.
Also, while 9/11 was horrendous, lets remember that Al Qaeda have attacked many other nations: particularly bad attacks in Spain, UK, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, etc, all for their political roles in different wars. The problem with using Al Qaeda as a standard of political opposition is ridiculous though, theyre just like a worldwide IRA - theyre not political in any real sense, theyre just religious zealouts & fanatics - which makes them even more dangerous. The US is the obvious target for such a terrorist group, not just because of its foreign policy, but because of its position as the current world superpower.
Comments
with millions demanding it....if everyone who thought 'well, if i vote for someone outside the 2 parties the shit sandwich will win instead of the giant douche!!' voted for who they thought would push for change from the presidency then how many would be demanding it? millions?
is that why W won? because of 3rd parties? really? it had nothing to do with Kerry being a shit candidate?
i respect your right to trap yourself into keeping the corporate duopoly going, i just choose to not take a part in that anymore.
you say it will take millions to demand change, so are you just waiting to be the millionth and 1 person and playing the game in the meantime while you wait?
you can't have it both ways, you can't say voting doesn't change anything fundamental then say it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party, someone who actually reflects the actions, not empty words and hollow campaign promises every few years, you want to see made, 'i'm wasting a vote on the working family party or the green party again, we have to face a reality'. it's not gonna change much so why not? are you just waiting for the revolution to start? when is the time? won't you always be worried about that other guy getting into power? i'm going to vote for my conscience, FOR somebody, not AGAINST somebody.
that's your opinion, that's cool, i would regret helping the same worthless, ineffective, corrupt system run smoothly, i'm not going to vote in a box of fear, i'm going to vote for the person i think would DO something, not simply the slightly less shitty option. i'm not going to participate and be a cog in their crooked wheel, i don't need all these preconditions to vote for who i think would reflect my worldview, agree to disagree
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
you think we can change the system with a vote. i realize that is impossible,.
being a shit candidate is almost a precondition for victory. and thanks to all the wasted nader votes we got bush, the worst of them all.
but you are taking part in it. we got bush with your way, i'm done with it..
mass popular protest may be the only way we will see any significant progress.
that's my point. your trying to use a corrupt system to bring about change, i'm saying we need more than people checking boxes. your right its not wasting a vote. its actually much worse. we could get another bush if we keep trying your way, and another 700,000 dead, patriot act, homeland security, tax cuts for the wealthy, less social spending, etc etc.
you're vote got us bush in 2004. my vote didn't get us mccain in 2008. agree to disagree.
+1
We could be debating WalMart versus Target in place of "Republican" versus "Democrat."
What good is 'Voting your conscience for a real change', if the candidate you are supporting doesn't wage a serious campaign to begin with?? Nader had eight years, at least, to show that he is sincere and serious about what he says. He could have at least tried to start a movement, a party or an organization to promote the causes that he claims to represent. Where is it?
He says all the right things, and he talks about what we should do, but anyone can come out and say 'we should do this', but he never says how he would. The worst thing about Ralph Nader is that he has become irrelevant. He has done nothing to create a viable political alternative to the GOP and Dems, nor to build support for his positions among the electorate. His positions on the issues, no matter how good they sound, are useless because he has done nothing to achieve the power to implement them.
I've given the benefit of the doubt to Nader, and believed his intention of entering the election was primarily an attempt to structurally change the electoral process from a two-party system to a multi-candidate type of system, but the problem with Nader, and what makes it impossible to take his candidacy seriously, is that he himself puts forth the image that he just wants attention for being a spoiler rather than a serious candidate. For all the accolades he get's for his progressive views, what good are they if he doesn't even make them known? Maybe his real failing is not being able to gain himself any publicity unless he's making himself a last minute candidate for president OR coming out the day after the election making controversial comments.
Nader is like the guy on the street corner holding up the sign. It is his right to do so, but it doesn"t make him deserving of Presidency of the United States. Call me a cop out all you want, but i was not prepared to give one single vote away and risk another Bush. I'm not happy with everything Obama has done (or not done), far from it. If he continues to disappoint, then, the conversation in 4 years will be much different won't it.
respectful, reasoned debate, all of the time.
or there are those, like me, who actually paid attention during the campaign and knew that obama never said he was going to end the wars and so did not expect that he would. i voted for him anyway becos he seemed the better man on the other issues, since their war policies were almost indistinguishable.
That's a bullshit argument. Someone who reflects the actions? That's easy to claim your third party candidate would do exactly what he said when none of them have ever actually been elected and had to put their money where their mouth is. I'd love to see Ralph Nader step into office and in 6 months have delivered on every campaign promise he made over republican congressional opposition, reluctant moderate dems, and a conservative supreme court. Nader wouldn't be able to accomplish shit and you're delusional if you think electing some random third party candidate would change anything. They'd still have to compromise becos this country is NOT homogeneic and there are a HUGE number of people in this country that wouldn't want those policies and would fight him on it. Say what you will about Obama, he understands that and is trying (too hard I'd say) to get us moving the right direction. But you can't change course 180 degrees in this country overnight and no third party is going to do a damn thing about that.
more Republicans voted for Nader than Democrats.....also, maybe if the Democrats actually put forth a good candidate instead of Kerry they would've had a chance.
ummm...we STILL have the patriot act, homeland security (who under Obama raided the hotel and homes of 2 people using twitter to say 'riot police are arresting people at this location' and seized their possesions), citizens are still being monitored, his cyber security partnership is more intrusive than Bush was, he supported the abuse of FISA by voting to make what happened legal and 2 wars going on, what has Obama done to change any of those things? so your reasoning is we'd have exactly what we have now, minus a few increases in social spending? Obama HAS increased some social spending but can you name some Bush policies he has overturned instead of continuing, even strengthening?? He's bombing Pakistan, he will escalate the war in Afghanistan, we're still in Iraq, he campaigned on 'any health care reform MUST have a public option' to now pushing for a more industry friendly option of giving them more business and no real control over prices while no longer supporting a public option, he does nothing as Israel violates international law, the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions (in fact Clinton stood right next to their PM and all but defended their expansion of illegal settlements), his energy plan gave far more to the nuclear power industry and dirty, outdated technologies than looking for alternatives, his financial 'reform' is a joke, again giving in to the industry, he said if anyone had meetings with execs or lobbyists it wouldn't be done in secret like Cheney and Bush did but would broadcast them on CSPAN and the internet (then had secret closed door meetings with the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry and like Bush/Cheney, refuses to say who all he met with), his chief of staff is telling Congress 'vote for the war and IMF funding or we won't help you in your re-elections' (though, i suppose if they lost that re-election you would still blame anyone who voted 3rd party instead), he went back on his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA......
my vote did NOT get Bush into office, the Dems being spineless and running an ineffectual campaign with an asswipe of a candidate is what got Bush into office, not to mention all the voting irregularities like a couple thousand votes that got 'accidentally' erased in NC. you can't say this is how the system is then say it's someone outside the system causing it.
this reason seems like having 3 places to eat in your town, Taco Bell, Wendy's and a local place that has much better food but doesn't get their ads played as often because they don't have as much control as the corporations....you've tried food at all 3 places and actually prefer the local place but you see more people are going to Taco Bell and Wendy's, which you really don't like nearly as much, but hey, everyone else is eating there and at least Wendy's has a frosty so you give them your support instead which in time drives the local place out of business leaving you with 2 shitty options.....and then you turn around and blame the people who ate at the local place for Taco Bell being voted best in the city saying if only you ate at Wendy's!! ??
actually, i voted for Kucinich in '04, but regardless, if my vote for Kucinich in '04 is the reason we had Bush, which is pretty dishonest, why aren't you saying my vote for Nader this time around gave you Obama?? why does it only work 1 way but not the other?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Yep, It's a simple consequence of being a superpower: you have to make decisions to protect your interests & those who support you. Politics is a bitch. America protects the interests of these countries (including places like Ireland) by making those harsh decisions that mean the strong get what they want and the weak suffer.
So yeah, to say the worse critics are Polish or Canadian....its just stupid, ignorant and ill-informed. I'm sure Canadians etc do criticise that stuff, hell even I do, but imagine the effect the US has on places like Vietnam when it intentionally destroys a country/infrastructure to prevent legitimate (yet anti-US interest) governments from thriving? Imagine just how much the US has sabotaged the national development of that country, or Honduras, or Haiti, etc. (Afghanistan is different, its always been wartorn).
Case points:
- The Vietnam War
- The Iraq War
- All the valid democratic leaders overthrown in south america over the years
- Palestine
- blaming Libya & forcing trade bans on it for Lockerbie even though all evidence suggested Iran
- funding Saddam & taking him down when it suited
- funding the Georgian president that protected the oil-lines to Europe that led to a forseeable war with Russia
- NATO bombing in Kosovo knowing full well before hand that stragically it would not succeed but it would definitely destroy the country's infrastructure
- US current building larger bases in Pakistan and Kabul........
Look at any superpower through human history and it will do the things the US does. But some of them, like Guantanemo, arguably are not necessary anymore. I think Commy is completely right; Public demonstration is the only real way to make real change in politics.
the US government need to feel the heat, so people need to actually do something, not just debate it. also Obama would probably want an alternative, similar legal loophole to deal with genuine terrorists before Gtmo is closed.
for all the talk about gtmo, has Obama taken any actually steps to close it? from where i am it looks like all he's done is ignore the court recommendations that its not legal/to close it
i never said it was all inclusive, i was referring to the people who used to constantly post about the war and are now silent. i don't place Commy or you in that demographic, though you seem to want to place yourselves there, because i have seen you 2 complain about the war since January.
well. my vote in '04 went to Kucinich, who has DONE things to prove to me he would push for change. also, Nader has a long history of accomplishments, not just well worded speeches, to make me think he would actually be an agent of change and not just roll over to special interests like Obama does.
and yeah, it probably would be hard for him to get changes through Congress, but what would happen if millions put someone in that office only to see their local representatives holding back the change they want? hold them accountable! riot! something other than giving in and playing along.
you got Obama and guess what? you STILL have those people holding back any real change, so what's the point? saying at least i voted for the guy in power this time? no thanks, my morals are worth more than bragging rights. i'm not going to vote for someone i know is making empty promises and won't do much just because the other guy is a little worse. this is the same absurd line of thinking as when people say "Thanks god Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened!!" why? what would have been so different? you can't agree both are similar and nothing fundamental will change from either of the 2 parties then say it would be sooooo much worse if the other guy won. isn't that saying there IS a fundamental difference??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
you must have me confused with somebody else, becos i dont complain about the war all that much. i opposed it, but always pretty much figured there wasnt a damn thing i could do about it so why whine? if asked, i'll say i'm opposed, but i never bring it up on my own.
kucinich, as i recall, was not a candidate in the final election. and ralph has never held a political office in his life. he did some corporate muck-raking now and again, which is all well and good, but that doesn't qualify him as president. he knows he'd not get shit done if he was ever in office... that's why he's never even tried to run for a local office or congress, becos then he'd be exposed for the empty threat he is and you'd be turning those words you have against obama on him in a heartbeat.
what you cant wrap your head around is that most americans dont want nader or kucinich style change. they voted obama in becos they were tired of republicans, and now they're voting in republicans becos they don't want the coutnry drifting too far to the left on his watch. nader supporters are no more a legit mainstream interest than glen beck listeners are.
yes, we got obama in. do you truly think there is no difference between him and mccain? it's not about bragging rights, it's about the best man for the job. no, he didnt end 2 wars and close gitmo within 6 months. i never thought he would, so who cares? but he is providing a badly needed boost of international credibility, adopting more measured approaches to iran and korea, and at least making sure health care and financial reform stay on the table instead of being swept under the rug. all good things.
your gore example is bullshit. im the opposite of that... i wish like hell he'd been in office on 9/11. i can guarantee we would not have invaded iraq if he had been in office. are you going to sit here and tell me that's no difference and that your vote for nader was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost in iraq so that you can feel superior to us becos you stick to your guns and we vote practically? i used to think like you, hell i campaigned for nader back in my idiot college days and when i saw what it cost us... 8 years of bush instead of gore and a completely unnecessary war in iraq, i learned my lesson. the differences between the parties may not be as stark as you want (which is ironically the same thought process glenn beck and his ilk use... NO compromise allowed!), but that does not mean there is no difference.
Just like I believe the 1992 election was skewed by Ross Perot's invovlement. 57% of Perot's supporters made over $50k, typically conservative supporters.
I stick to my thought that Gitmo's swift closing has little to do with who is in the Oval Office. It's a messy sticky situation that doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending like most Americans wish for. We have become an instant gratification society, and sorry folks this situation just doesn't end in that fashion.
Just like Obama hasn't had a massive troop withdrawl over night. I will give the Junior Senator credit, he is listening to the top military leaders that if we came home now, the insurgency follows us home and Iraq turns into a worse out of control mess.
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
the insurgency might indeed follow you home, and that's due to decades of playin policemen and fuckin with the world, so live n learn... as for Iraq becoming a mess... well, Iraq is just one country in a mess... every god damn 3rd world nation, including mine, is in a mess... but we'll sort our own problems... we DO NOT need self righteous foreigners telling us how it is... in the long run, you won't be losing your soldiers/terrorists, in countries you know nothin about, and the world will begin to lose the hatred towards you... of course that involves the US/UK administrations becoming less greedy and oil thirsty but i doubt that'll happen anytime soon
i rather doubt any reagan dems would vote for nader... i cant think of 2 political ideologies much further apart than reagan and nader. what nader did was siphon off the staunch left just enough to tip the scales. that's what stood out to me about the 08 election... it was the first time we elected a president without any controversy in probably 20 years. the victory was convincing... no massive irregularities, no 3rd parties spoiling it and leaving half the country bitter, just a solid, indisputable victory. seems to have evaporated pretty quick.
i think this is a perspective that an unfortunate number of americans simply don't get. it's ironic that the same americans that rant about big government meddling in their lives see no contradiction between that stance and supporting us going to other countries to overthrow their governments and tell them how to govern themselves. we have the best of intentions... i am convinced most of these americans honestly think we are helping things by doing what we do, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
I'm sure, in fact i know, that many do have the best of intentions... at least the civilian citizens; i doubt members of the adminitration do, unless they're a lil thick, cuz surely they know the drill ... but if only the ordinary americans would realize the fear the locals of a country experience when they have foreign soldiers parading through their streets... and mad bombs fallin all around their homes...
half your nation opposed Bush, and half of every 1st world nations pretty much opposes its leader, but that doesn't mean a bunch of foreign fuckers could come and set things right... and one might say well Bush (or another for that matter) never did to his own citizens what maybe Saddam did to his, but surely smart americans would know that being fed lies and bullshit and being ripped off n what not is just as brutal, if not more, than being physically persecuted... and the worst thing is that most of the time we're doing just fine... much like yourselves... living, working, fucking, studying, playing music, diggin Pearl Jam:) or none of the above and whatever else there is to do or to not do (of course that can;t be said for many in each part of every 3rd world country, but then that would just be utopian) and that's pretty much a fact... and then we see on TV, foreign leaders sayin we ain't got freedom and liberty and all that shit.. well we got it, so quit stressin... i've said it before that i've seen just as much 3rd world sufferin in the US and in other 1st world countries, as i have in so called 3rd world countries... and that's why i believe that as human beings we all go through the same struggles, joys, sorrows and therefore are able to relate, no matter where we're from... it's this goddamn world order that has us up in arms against each other
know that i ask this b/c i really do want your opinion, i'm not tryin to start some message board riot.
so does your country or it's citizens see the US or Al Qaeda as being the bigger threat or enemy or how ever you would like to put it?
again i appreciate your honesty...
I promise a way to make light...
What's saved could be one last lifetime
that's a valid question which ain;t that simple however cuz nothin here is ... firstly screw Al Qaeda, because that is some world-militant organization, nowhere and everywhere apparently... Pakistanis could give a rats ass about it... I'll talk about the Taliaban which is much closer to home, but that'll still answer your question... here's a group which until very recently has never wrecked such havoc in the country.. they were confined to the tribal areas and other remote parts of the country... domestically we've had military takeovers (which we more than welcome cuz they're the only staright talikin moherfuckers around) and other political turmoil, in the form of rivalry between political parties, such as that of that feudal bitch Benazir Bhutto, fighting for power against others.... but when the Taliban recently actually took control an area called Swat (very beautiful region i might add) that hit home, cuz we've never been ruled by right wing religious parties... sure Pakistan consists partly of conservative society and partly not... but even the former don't like this shit...However, neither I nor the rest of the nation are blind to the causes of militancy... and that leads back to the US... it's pretty much a fact, that they did use Islamic militants to fuck with the Soviets and then chucked em... only, these are humans you're using, not machines, and therefore it backfired... simple as that...
so as to whom we see as worse enemies, foreign soldiers from a very different part of the world in every respect, (lifestyle, appearance, religion, and much more) will always be more unwelcome, then foreigners just across the border, or rather locals gone wild ... it's simply a case of which is the lesser of the two evils... i said it earlier, every occupied country has become a Gitmo; Gitmo Proper at least benefits from media attention...everywhere else the shit just gets swept under the dirty carpet... still it's not at all the case that we are willing to tolerate, let alone want, the Taliban ruling our country... all classes, the lower, the working, the middle, the upper and the feudal are pretty much together on this and that's why i genuinely believe that they won't be able to rule the country... but i gotta end by sayin, that what we hate MOST is the self righteousness of the US in selling it's way of life, cuz no one's buyin it...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
See the problem is that right wing fundamentalists in the states are just as bad as the taliban....actually worse because they have more power. But they don't realize it. They are more so terrorists than anyone in Iraq or Afganistan that decides to find a weapon and defend thier homes. Granted the rights of women and people in general in afganistan were non existent. But they DO NOT want Americans bombing their homes and families to help them obtain those rights. They want to fight their own battles. Let them.
And I believe the word sorry would go along way. If American officials were to pull troops out of these foriegn countries and apologize for all the wrong doings, I really believe it would sincerely help their cause. And the majority of Muslim and Arab citizens would be compelled to join America's fight against extremeists like Al Queda. But the problem is too many Right wing extremeist Americans exist for that to happen.
So yea, I see America as a bigger threat than Al Queda.
well said...
and i'm diggin your pic with Ed... a prophet to me...
sigh
did you even read the post that sparked this? it was clearly referencing ONLY 1 small segment of Obama supporters, not ALL of them.. it was towards those who had a strong anti war stance during Bush's terms and either changed their stance to more justifiable or who never even mention it anymore. so if you obviously don't fit into that category, just as i'd say commy, gimmesometruth, triumphant angel....didn't fit, either, why are you putting yourself there and saying 'that's not what i voted for Obama!!' cool, no one ever inferred that ya did
depends on how you look at it, in '04 Kucinich said the democratic party and media can't tell you who you can and can't vote for, which i agree with. so i wrote his name in.
and what has Obama done that would qualify him if Nader's list of actually achieving change. really, can you name 1 thing Obama has done to say yeah, Nader isn't qualified but that Obama sure is!!' ??
his empty threat of actually creating change? wha?
if he rolled over and broke promise after promise and showed me more of the same then yeah, i'd probably have words against him, too.
oh, i can wrap my head around that just fine. you say this and yet last election when they did a poll of what the voters wanted and compared it with the stances of the democrats the majority were actually in line with Kucinich.
well, i'm glad you're on top of things and figured out why everyone voted for Obama :roll:
i'm sure voting in repubicans is all about not wanting to drift too far left, whenever that started, and nothing to do with a lot of democrats holding up the change they supposedly voted into office
unlike you i don't live my life in absolutes and place everyone in a nice, neat little box. you complain about me pigeonholing every Obama supporter, which i never did, and then you do the same.....huh, interesting how that works....
well, according to Commy's logic i helped Obama get into office, too!
btw, let's look at that logic compared to all my presidential votes, shall we?
96 voted for Perot, Clinton won. you're welcome
00 voted for Gore, Bush 'won' better luck next time?
04 voted for Kucinich, Bush won. supposedly my fault
08 voted for Nader, Obama won. so again, this is all because of my and my vote for Nader, so you all should be thanking me instead of acting like spoiled brats saying because of my vote in 04 Bush was president.
while it's been a while since i looked at the numbers to the 04 election i'm fairly certain Kerry lost by more than a single vote in my state. if i'm wrong please point to the link, otherwise Commy's claim of my voting for Kucinich cost Kerry the election.
of course there is, i'm not the one who made the claim nothing fundamentally changes no matter which party is in office and therefor voting doesn't change anything.
wow, man if had some gold stars i'd gladly give you one! the demographic of Obama supporters i was referencing with my earlier post DID think he would. there are some people who got pretty self righteous saying Obama would end the war in Iraq in a year, close Gitmo in 6, be the most liberal president in history.....
and then he says he won't push Israel to stop expanding their illegal settlements and brings that credibility down a notch
how has he done this? his health care 'reform' will make the insurance and pharmaceutical companies more money, give them more customers....
what financial reform??
hence my starting the Gore example by saying it was absurd....
we were already in Iraq for years when i voted for Nader in 08, what are you talking about??
Obama hasn't even started to end either wars, in fact he's more than likely going to escalate one but you think Kerry would've done it?? how did you connect those dots??
good for you, you learned to overlook all the voting irregularities thinking they wouldn't have stolen the election if Nader hadn't run in 2000 or any other 3rd party ran, since every 3rd party candidate got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush, yet i don't see anyone crying that Buchanon cost us the election and it's all their fault.
i'll ask again, exactly what Bush policies has Obama gotten rid of?
it's not being superior, acting superior is you guys saying any vote for anyone other than a democrat is a wasted vote. 3rd parties are good enough to win local elections, and thanks to Nader in 08 in several states certain parties no longer have such obstacles to get on the ballot in local elections, so why not national? oh, right, because the big bad republican will win if we vote for anyone other than who the democrats say, got it. wow, those democrats sure are lucky, they don't need to follow through on anything because as long as they are slightly less shitty than the republicans they will deserve everyone's vote, no questions asked. what a great gig they got going on. accountability schmountability. no wonder they don't feel any pressure to uphold our will.....
if you would like to continue this next week feel free
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i'm not defending obama, i'm defending my vote.
and i stand by it.
spin spin.
i don't care how shitty the other candidate is. if its not bush, its not BUSH.
you can piss your vote away every 4 years (or make it worse) - or do your best not to give the world another mad man.
you need to realize their game is corrupt, you can't change it using their rules.
your analogy is true if the nice restaurant was 100 miles out of town.
bush won by how many votes? and obama?
third party voters directly affected the 04 election, the same edit:wasn't true in 08.
you can keep playing their corrupt game, by their rules, and perpetuate madness. just hope the more evil of 2 evils isn't another goddamn bush.
i never said kerry would have ended the wars, i said we'd never have been in the wars in the first place if gore had been elected in 2000 instead of bush. you seem to think that is a trivial consideration. What I take issue with is you acting all high and mighty about how your vote won't compromise. I couldn't care less if you vote third party, but quit acting like you're a better man than those of us who take other things into account. Gore vs Bush was a major difference. And McCain-Obama was too (esp if you throw in that McCain was in poor health and had Palin behind him). i voted and campaigned for nader in 2000 in ohio... and i see now that if not for those efforts, gore would have won and we would have avoided an 8-year nightmare. that's worth thinking about. maybe it doesn't sway you in the end, but it doesn't make those of us who do account for that lesser people as you imply. i'm not voting out of fear of republicans, i'm voting based on what i think is best for my country. and i think obama in office over mccain is best for my country.
I'm happy for you that you got to vote for Kucinich, but don't tell me I'm wrong for voting Obama. I gave you a list of things he has done... he pledged to close Gitmo and said when he made the pledge that it would take time... I'm willing to wait a bit and if he doesn't deliver, I'll see how important that is to me in 2012. He reversed the global gag rule, lifted stem cell research restrictions... all good things. he reversed Bush's policies on pre-emption and handles Iran and Korea a helluva lot better than Dubya would have. and he drew a line in the sand on financial reform to ensure that we get a consumer protection agency, which i think is crucial.
has he fallen short elsewhere? sure. he wilted on israel, but what american president has ever stood up to them? i'm curious what you think nader and kucinich would have done, becos i suspect your vision of their presidency is a bit delusional and based as much on wishful thinking as the obama supporters you've been trying to criticize. the naive and idealistic are always disappointed by political reality, and even nader and dennis would be bowing to that before you knew it. yes, we still have wars. yes, the current health care bills leave something to be desired, but i think he's playing it smart thus far and we may end up with something better than anticipated in the end. yes, financial regs aren't firm enough, but he is doing a helluva lot more than dubya or mccain would have to rein in wall street.
i dont expect perfection from my elected officials. obama got handed a country in worse shape than it has been in 100 years and so far he's been doing a fair job. it's a huge impvroment on the past admin and his chief challenger, and i truly think he's more effective than kucinich or nader would have been in his position.
what bothers me is the way you criticize obama supporters as somehow delusional for thinking he'd change everything overnight (which he never claimed, it's their delusion not his lies), yet you sit there and act like if we just got nader or kucinich elected, everything would change overnight. do you not see the absurd contradiction in that?
Did we really believe that a couple insurgents would fly a couple of airliners into our buildings? Let's just bring all the soldiers home and let all the insurgents run wild....fuck it! I think too many people are too naive of what they are capable of.
i think the problem was the arrogance shown by those 'higher ups' who thought that something like that couldnt possibly happen on american soil. considering the towers had previously been a target id say someone was negligent in their duty of care. and its not the people being too naive of what their fellow man is capable of.
i found the incidents of 9/11 to be heinous and quite extraordinary but i wasnt surprised nor did i find it unbelievable.
ever read tom clancys debt of honour?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if china invaded mexico , barring conventional warfare, many central american countries might send troops to help fight the chinese. the US probably would too. nobody wants a foreign army to have a foothold in our hemisphere. and all the fighters helping mexico would probably be called foreign fighters and terrorists by the chinese.
whatever they are called the goal is resistance, not conquest. same as in iraq. a foreign army has a foothold in the middle east, they are trying to protect their people, are resisting foreign invaders.
there isn't a country on the planet that could stage an assault on the US mainland, there' no way in hell some ragtag group of guerrillas would.
you should try not being so scerred sometimes. we have the most powerful military on the planet and your worried they might come to the US again? why do you think they came in the first place? we're guaranteeing another attack by pushcing deeper into their countries. sooner or later some husband with a murdered family is going to get desperate enough to carry out another attack in the US. but that's because we are over there murdering their people in the first place, if we got out the chances would decrease. funny how it works, but the less people we kill over the we decrease the motivation for retaliation. it may be too late now, but tha'ts no reason to continue the illegal wars.
osama bl said he staged the attacks becuase of US military presence in mecca, islam's holiets site, becuase of support for israel, and because the us had invaded arab countries and was arming and supporting miltant dictators. you know how i know this? because he fucking said it. what on that list has changed? add another invaded and occupied country to the list, 2 actually. we're making it worse, not better by fighting them.
But there is the other side to this - if the US wasnt involved, then Osama BL & co would just attack whatever other nation was doing the things the US did....some nation will always be a superpower, and having enemies is part of that role.
Also, while 9/11 was horrendous, lets remember that Al Qaeda have attacked many other nations: particularly bad attacks in Spain, UK, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, etc, all for their political roles in different wars. The problem with using Al Qaeda as a standard of political opposition is ridiculous though, theyre just like a worldwide IRA - theyre not political in any real sense, theyre just religious zealouts & fanatics - which makes them even more dangerous. The US is the obvious target for such a terrorist group, not just because of its foreign policy, but because of its position as the current world superpower.