Who cares what Ed thinks. So many in our society look to "celebrities" and similar as role models or points of opinion, etc. I don't know about anyone else but I don't need morals, ideas, beliefs or opinions forced upon me by anyone...and it certainly doesn't make your agreement or disagreement with the opinion any more valid or less valid because of it. It seems like people seek out these things as a way to form a sort of weird "relationship" or type of connection to a celebrity, beyond the normal fan or appreciation of what they do.
That's not it though, atleast for me. It's not about having someone "force" their beliefs upon you. the fact of the matter is that Ed has a huge audience that at the very least listens to what he says. they may not act upon it but in these very considerably shitty, shitty times, I think whoever has an audience willing to listen to him needs to speak the fuck up.
being a democrocy, ed has the right to speak.
he also has the right to grow up, have a family and change his outlook.
if your stuck in the angry ed 90's maybe you need to grow a bit yourself
OIC. It's the "grown-ups" who are supporting the killing of innocent humans and the looting of our tax dollars. Well, we all should start acting a bit more child-like then IMO.
It's not about Ed staying angry. It's not even about anger. It's not about trying to treat someone on this forum like a little bitch either, just because you don't understand what someone else is posting. Like someone said, Ed has a voice that is heard far better than probably anyone else's on this message board. I think he bailed on the guy he believed in. Well, I KNOW he did. That we can't even argue.
I do think there is validity to whoever said small changes can affect a shit ton of lives. But I believe too many of the problems we face as Americans stem from the marriage of politics and corrupt business dealings. And Obama = Bush. Or at least very close to equals Bush in that category. So regardless of political party, regardless of many other issues, no sane being could argue against Nader cleaning up this aspect of corruption.
This thread started because I wondered what may have happened for Ed to drop Ralph Nader like a bad habit and then go publicly and strongly support someone like Obama, who I believe is much the opposite of Nader.
It's a valid question and asking it doesn't mean I need to grow up. That's just a lame attack.
IMO, if you believe in something, you support it. I can't imagine voting for someone or something that I don't truly believe in. The two party system is a joke and everyone knows that. It's a popularity contest to see who can get how much money from greedy corporate folks who will in turn benefit greatly if their guy wins. So you tell me, how grown up is that?
Lesser of two evils. You really think things would be better with McCain and gasp Palin in office?
I just don't believe that's any way to vote or to live. Lesser of two evils. It's fucking insane. It's like convincing yourself that you MUST choose between living with cockroaches or living with bedbugs when there is a nice, new, clean, uninfested apartment just around the corner waiting for you to move into. And it probably costs less too and has a bigger living room.
Why are you willing to accept living with cockroaches or bedbugs?
Lesser of two evils. You really think things would be better with McCain and gasp Palin in office?
I just don't believe that's any way to vote or to live. Lesser of two evils. It's fucking insane. It's like convincing yourself that you MUST choose between living with cockroaches or living with bedbugs when there is a nice, new, clean, uninfested apartment just around the corner waiting for you to move into. And it probably costs less too and has a bigger living room.
Why are you willing to accept living with cockroaches or bedbugs?
Well, first, although Eddie has been tepid in criticizing Obama, he did make it clear that when the band played WWS back in Sept 2009, it was directed toward him as the current President, for his engagement in Afghanistan. But you're right, he has given up on a lot of the politics of his earlier days.
So have I.
The thing is, the Nader train is derailed and Nader himself is the biggest reason it isn't getting back on track. He is a great speaker (usually) and a tireless worker, but he needs to be a great politician too... he needs to relate to the common man to be elected President, Congressman or Mayor for that matter, and he can't. So the movement he helped build became stagnant, because a better politician hasn't yet picked up the torch. Part of it, for me anyway, it apathy-induced apathy. I continue to care about all of the injustice, but I can't get too many other people to care. And it's enough work taking care of myself and people in my family. So then you start believing in Karma just to have a reason to say "You fuckers will get what you deserve in the end, if nothing on this earth can stop you". Also, you don't necessarily need politicians to do the right thing - maybe government isn't so much the answer.
Well, first, although Eddie has been tepid in criticizing Obama, he did make it clear that when the band played WWS back in Sept 2009, it was directed toward him as the current President, for his engagement in Afghanistan. But you're right, he has given up on a lot of the politics of his earlier days.
So have I.
The thing is, the Nader train is derailed and Nader himself is the biggest reason it isn't getting back on track. He is a great speaker (usually) and a tireless worker, but he needs to be a great politician too... he needs to relate to the common man to be elected President, Congressman or Mayor for that matter, and he can't. So the movement he helped build became stagnant, because a better politician hasn't yet picked up the torch. Part of it, for me anyway, it apathy-induced apathy. I continue to care about all of the injustice, but I can't get too many other people to care. And it's enough work taking care of myself and people in my family. So then you start believing in Karma just to have a reason to say "You fuckers will get what you deserve in the end, if nothing on this earth can stop you". Also, you don't necessarily need politicians to do the right thing - maybe government isn't so much the answer.
I appreciate your post.
Apathy is a huge part of it. But Apathy doesn't make him publicly support someone else, does it? If Nader has run his course, then fine. But it confuses me when he throws his support behind someone like Obama. You don't have to publicly support anyone if you don't believe in any of them or think they'll make good presidents. If there are no good options on the ballot I would rather write-in or not vote at all than to vote for someone who believes in the opposite of what I think is good and right for the country. To support someone like Nader and then turn around and support someone who is quite the opposite in Obama....who knows, maybe Ed's working for him now....or the CIA...ya can't trust anyone these days... :(
Lesser of two evils. You really think things would be better with McCain and gasp Palin in office?
I just don't believe that's any way to vote or to live. Lesser of two evils. It's fucking insane. It's like convincing yourself that you MUST choose between living with cockroaches or living with bedbugs when there is a nice, new, clean, uninfested apartment just around the corner waiting for you to move into. And it probably costs less too and has a bigger living room.
Why are you willing to accept living with cockroaches or bedbugs?
i applaud naders ideals, he's a brilliant and selfless activist. he would leave these other clowns for dead given the opportunity.
i'm not so sure that he has run his course. i think if nader had a workable plan to change everything that he 'talks' about, more would vote for him in a heartbeat.
i wish he had the courage to wage a serious campaign as a presidential candidate. i mean a really serious one. you can't come out at the last minute and talk about all these things that you would like to change if you have not got a workable plan to start with. it's just a tease otherwise.
i applaud naders ideals, he's a brilliant and selfless activist. he would leave these other clowns for dead given the opportunity.
i'm not so sure that he has run his course. i think if nader had a workable plan to change everything that he 'talks' about, more would vote for him in a heartbeat.
i wish he had the courage to wage a serious campaign as a presidential candidate. i mean a really serious one. you can't come out at the last minute and talk about all these things that you would like to change if you have not got a workable plan to start with. it's just a tease otherwise.
i think all this blame toward nader is a bit unjustified, and overlooks the fact that post-9/11 American politics has gone completely backwards. there won't be another 3rd party move like 2000 for a long time because of just how stupidly "patriotic" America has become. a guy like Nader wanting to responsibly end wars and American intervention in the rest of the world won't be taken seriously in this security-obsessed pseudo-fearful atmosphere.
how many people voted for Obama just because he was the black guy and they believed he was another Dr King? ludicrous. one of these men spent his whole life fighting against militarism and economic exploitation and yet the other surrounds himself with bankers and militarists.
how many people voted for Obama just because he was the black guy and they believed he was another Dr King? ludicrous. one of these men spent his whole life fighting against militarism and economic exploitation and yet the other surrounds himself with bankers and militarists.
that's the mentality you're dealing with.
you can't fix stupid.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
If I had to guess, maybe Ed feels partially responsible for the election of Bush in 2000 because of his outward support for Nader. Votes for Nader spoiled it for Gore. Ed did not back Nader in '04, and made a statement likening the whole political climate to a house being on fire-- that a vote for Kerry meant putting the fire out, and a vote for Nader would be the re-building from the foundation up. I'm sure I butchered it-- but his point was, that no one is going to start re-building from the foundation if the house itself was still on fire. Although Kerry was far from the best choice, he was a change from Bush and had a legitimate shot at beating Bush.
I'm sure his ideal candidate would still be Ralph-- the same for many on this board here. The problem is, it does take nothing short of a complete revolution of mind on the part of the entire country to get someone like Ralph Nader into power. That's the question, do you work within the system (which is what Ron Paul does), or do you work around the system (Nader).
Really, everyone in this country should agree that the donkeys and elephants have fucked us equally, and vote for neither. Instead of pushing for an election where we can't win (R vs. D), this country should push for a Libertarian vs. Green Party election. That would be (idealogically speaking): small government versus honest, efficient government for the people. Both of which share a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the best road to peace, while cutting out-of-control spending.
Obama may not be a great president (although one should give him a full term before deciding that in my opinion) but he sure as hell isn't evil like the previous regime. Bush was a moron and Cheney was pure evil. I much rather have a regime of normal thinking humans (regardless of religious affiliation) than an evil person who hides behind christianity.
And do you know what Ed's current thoughts are? Maybe Ed has become disillusioned with this President as well. Just because someone was supported in the election doesn't mean you can't disagree with policies once they are in office. Frankly I think that is one of the problems we have in this country - republicans blindly defending republicans and democrats blindly defending democrats even for obvious f-ups.
So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...
Nader knew during the Bush/Gore campaign that his platform as an environmentalist, anti-corporation, and anti-trade unions would not get him elected as President. Had Nader, as encouraged, ran for a Congressional/Senate seat, Deep Horizon may never had happen, Citizen Union may never had occurred, and, the failure of the U.S. auto industry due to NAFTA and WTO agreements could have been foreseen.
Nader’s self-centered ego got in his way and with the McCain/Obama campaign he showed his true colors and they were no different from the mainstream parties that he had tried to disassociate himself. He abandoned his platform and fell right in line with the racial remarks. He then refused to reveal his tax returns (him being the champion of the working people) like the other candidates. That left Nader with nothing to fall back on because Bush/Cheney wiped out all environmental policies, protection of corporations grew stronger and the only unions that were abolished were the ones that helped workers with benefits. Nader couldn’t even fall back on the Iraq war, because he, too, opposed the Iraq invasion. Nader sold himself short because he thought he could defeat a black man and in doing so he showed many of his follows his true colors and they were no different from the 8 previous years, why would or should Ed continue to support Nader.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...
...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...
...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?
If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.
So why the support for Obama? Not only does it boggle the mind because the two are so incredibly different, but I have to question the motive of jumping off the Nader train and onto the Obama train(wreck)...
...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?
how about this game... pretend that Gore wasn't such a shitty candidate...
I'm sick of people blaming Ralph Nader for taking votes from Gore in 2000.
...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?
If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.
...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?
If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.
...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.
I get your point. But I take my vote seriously. I don't have to choose between two clowns if I don't want to. I would have written in a vote if you had listed that as an option. But If that's not an option and Bush and Gore are my only options I would just not vote.
To me, a vote says:
"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."
It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."
If those were my only options I would not have voted at all.
...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.
I get your point. But I take my vote seriously. I don't have to choose between two clowns if I don't want to. I would have written in a vote if you had listed that as an option. But If that's not an option and Bush and Gore are my only options I would just not vote.
To me, a vote says:
"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."
It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."
...
I totally respect your view.
Unfortunately... that is American Politics... a choice of brain cancer or AIDS.
Like I said, it is going to take a monumental shift in the American Voter that is going to create a lasting Third Party. There is too much complacency in the voting public. There are people out there who believe replacing the Democrats with Republicans is going to save them... just as there were people who believed replacing Republicans with Democrats would save them. The truth of the matter... you are basically trying to use crap to clean up shit.
That being said... my view is... 'Who is going to inflict the LEAST amount of damage to my country... at this time?" It's a sad state... but, we (American Voters) are to blame for putting up with it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.
I get your point. But I take my vote seriously. I don't have to choose between two clowns if I don't want to. I would have written in a vote if you had listed that as an option. But If that's not an option and Bush and Gore are my only options I would just not vote.
To me, a vote says:
"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."
It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."
...
I totally respect your view.
Unfortunately... that is American Politics... a choice of brain cancer or AIDS.
Like I said, it is going to take a monumental shift in the American Voter that is going to create a lasting Third Party. There is too much complacency in the voting public. There are people out there who believe replacing the Democrats with Republicans is going to save them... just as there were people who believed replacing Republicans with Democrats would save them. The truth of the matter... you are basically trying to use crap to clean up shit.
That being said... my view is... 'Who is going to inflict the LEAST amount of damage to my country... at this time?" It's a sad state... but, we (American Voters) are to blame for putting up with it.
how can we complain if we willingly participate in it?
Comments
It's not about Ed staying angry. It's not even about anger. It's not about trying to treat someone on this forum like a little bitch either, just because you don't understand what someone else is posting. Like someone said, Ed has a voice that is heard far better than probably anyone else's on this message board. I think he bailed on the guy he believed in. Well, I KNOW he did. That we can't even argue.
I do think there is validity to whoever said small changes can affect a shit ton of lives. But I believe too many of the problems we face as Americans stem from the marriage of politics and corrupt business dealings. And Obama = Bush. Or at least very close to equals Bush in that category. So regardless of political party, regardless of many other issues, no sane being could argue against Nader cleaning up this aspect of corruption.
This thread started because I wondered what may have happened for Ed to drop Ralph Nader like a bad habit and then go publicly and strongly support someone like Obama, who I believe is much the opposite of Nader.
It's a valid question and asking it doesn't mean I need to grow up. That's just a lame attack.
IMO, if you believe in something, you support it. I can't imagine voting for someone or something that I don't truly believe in. The two party system is a joke and everyone knows that. It's a popularity contest to see who can get how much money from greedy corporate folks who will in turn benefit greatly if their guy wins. So you tell me, how grown up is that?
Why are you willing to accept living with cockroaches or bedbugs?
So have I.
The thing is, the Nader train is derailed and Nader himself is the biggest reason it isn't getting back on track. He is a great speaker (usually) and a tireless worker, but he needs to be a great politician too... he needs to relate to the common man to be elected President, Congressman or Mayor for that matter, and he can't. So the movement he helped build became stagnant, because a better politician hasn't yet picked up the torch. Part of it, for me anyway, it apathy-induced apathy. I continue to care about all of the injustice, but I can't get too many other people to care. And it's enough work taking care of myself and people in my family. So then you start believing in Karma just to have a reason to say "You fuckers will get what you deserve in the end, if nothing on this earth can stop you". Also, you don't necessarily need politicians to do the right thing - maybe government isn't so much the answer.
Apathy is a huge part of it. But Apathy doesn't make him publicly support someone else, does it? If Nader has run his course, then fine. But it confuses me when he throws his support behind someone like Obama. You don't have to publicly support anyone if you don't believe in any of them or think they'll make good presidents. If there are no good options on the ballot I would rather write-in or not vote at all than to vote for someone who believes in the opposite of what I think is good and right for the country. To support someone like Nader and then turn around and support someone who is quite the opposite in Obama....who knows, maybe Ed's working for him now....or the CIA...ya can't trust anyone these days... :(
I agree but its a sad reality.
i'm not so sure that he has run his course. i think if nader had a workable plan to change everything that he 'talks' about, more would vote for him in a heartbeat.
i wish he had the courage to wage a serious campaign as a presidential candidate. i mean a really serious one. you can't come out at the last minute and talk about all these things that you would like to change if you have not got a workable plan to start with. it's just a tease otherwise.
how many people voted for Obama just because he was the black guy and they believed he was another Dr King? ludicrous. one of these men spent his whole life fighting against militarism and economic exploitation and yet the other surrounds himself with bankers and militarists.
that's the mentality you're dealing with.
you can't fix stupid.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm sure his ideal candidate would still be Ralph-- the same for many on this board here. The problem is, it does take nothing short of a complete revolution of mind on the part of the entire country to get someone like Ralph Nader into power. That's the question, do you work within the system (which is what Ron Paul does), or do you work around the system (Nader).
Really, everyone in this country should agree that the donkeys and elephants have fucked us equally, and vote for neither. Instead of pushing for an election where we can't win (R vs. D), this country should push for a Libertarian vs. Green Party election. That would be (idealogically speaking): small government versus honest, efficient government for the people. Both of which share a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the best road to peace, while cutting out-of-control spending.
Who loses there?
Special interests.
And do you know what Ed's current thoughts are? Maybe Ed has become disillusioned with this President as well. Just because someone was supported in the election doesn't mean you can't disagree with policies once they are in office. Frankly I think that is one of the problems we have in this country - republicans blindly defending republicans and democrats blindly defending democrats even for obvious f-ups.
Nader knew during the Bush/Gore campaign that his platform as an environmentalist, anti-corporation, and anti-trade unions would not get him elected as President. Had Nader, as encouraged, ran for a Congressional/Senate seat, Deep Horizon may never had happen, Citizen Union may never had occurred, and, the failure of the U.S. auto industry due to NAFTA and WTO agreements could have been foreseen.
Nader’s self-centered ego got in his way and with the McCain/Obama campaign he showed his true colors and they were no different from the mainstream parties that he had tried to disassociate himself. He abandoned his platform and fell right in line with the racial remarks. He then refused to reveal his tax returns (him being the champion of the working people) like the other candidates. That left Nader with nothing to fall back on because Bush/Cheney wiped out all environmental policies, protection of corporations grew stronger and the only unions that were abolished were the ones that helped workers with benefits. Nader couldn’t even fall back on the Iraq war, because he, too, opposed the Iraq invasion. Nader sold himself short because he thought he could defeat a black man and in doing so he showed many of his follows his true colors and they were no different from the 8 previous years, why would or should Ed continue to support Nader.
Let's play pretend...
Pretend that Ralph Nader was not a candidate and didn't run back in 2000.
Q: Would the people who did vote for Nader in 2000:
a. Have voted to Bush?
b. Have voted for Gore?
c. Not voted at all?
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm sick of people blaming Ralph Nader for taking votes from Gore in 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEQ5G_w3 ... re=channel
That means, you let other people decide for you.
...
My point is... a third party is a much needed remedy, but, the year 2000 was not the time for it because of the odds of it getting quashed was too great, regardless of the candidate.
It is going to require a monumental shift of voter participation in order to create and sustain a viable, long term third party. This is almost impossible today because of the polarization of the two parties. The Tea Party may claim to be 'Independent'... but, in reality, they are Republicans and will vote Republican.
Hail, Hail!!!
To me, a vote says:
"I support you. I believe in you. You're my guy."
It doesn't say: "I hate you less than the other asshole. I don't agree with much if anything that you stand for, but I'll vote for you anyway because I know I don't like the other asshole."
I totally respect your view.
Unfortunately... that is American Politics... a choice of brain cancer or AIDS.
Like I said, it is going to take a monumental shift in the American Voter that is going to create a lasting Third Party. There is too much complacency in the voting public. There are people out there who believe replacing the Democrats with Republicans is going to save them... just as there were people who believed replacing Republicans with Democrats would save them. The truth of the matter... you are basically trying to use crap to clean up shit.
That being said... my view is... 'Who is going to inflict the LEAST amount of damage to my country... at this time?" It's a sad state... but, we (American Voters) are to blame for putting up with it.
Hail, Hail!!!