Lets compare..Obama vs. Nader on Job Creation

inmytree

polaris wrote:

i'm only going by the things i've posted ... i asked where obama was gonna get the money from his program and that biofuels is NOT green - no response except posters pretty much patting each other on the back for making redundant posts ...

oh, I see your point...

I'm pretty sure he'd get the money via the taxpayer...perhaps the windfall profit tax he's be talking about...I suppose one could ask the same question (where's the money going to come from?) of any candidate...which doesn't discount the validity of your query...

as for biofuels not being "green", if I read things correctly, there are a various schools of thought on this issue, and he is looking to invest in the "next generation" of biofuels...

freindlyfired

Silly thread... Im glad nobody took your bait.
Good luck this year supporting the War Party! Alot good they did by controlling congress and an even better approval rating.
Last I checked Bush's approval rating is higher than the Democratic congress.

my2hands

_outlaw wrote:

what kills me is that many Obama supporters sit here and complain about us not talking about Obama's policies when THAT IS ALL THAT WE ARE DOING.

In fact, many of you guys simply ignore our questions and points. (lookin your way my2hands).

bring it on... what area of policy and ideas would you like to talk about? his 75 page booklet on his policies and agenda is clearly found on his website for dl and printing... which i have done and read months ago

i think you fail to see the point, why discuss things on the internet with people that will not change their mind? it seems like a waste of time. why am i going to waste time debating policy poisitions with you when it is pointless?

inmytree

freindlyfired wrote:

Silly thread... Im glad nobody took your bait.
Good luck this year supporting the War Party! Alot good they did by controlling congress and an even better approval rating.
Last I checked Bush's approval rating is higher than the Democratic congress.

what bait...?

those who support Nader often state his policies and ideas are better...I'm trying to openly compare a valid issue...

I see you have the same to offer as other nader supporters....a whole lot of nothing...

cornnifer

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Couldn't this be true of any Presidential Candidate that someone supports. We don't know what will happen in the future but Anti-Obama people love to assume he's lying about everyone of his issues just because they disagree with him on Foreign Policy.

I could turn this around and ask Nader and McCain supporters how do YOU know that they will keep there promises????

.

The answer is simple. Obama is the nominee for one of the two major parties, he's popular and has a chance of winning. Therefore, he's a dirty liar.
Nader on the other hand is a rebel. No chance of winning. Only about 35 people nationwide vocally support him so he's still cool. So obviously, he's the only one to be trusted.
That's the answer to your question. Its nonsense of course, but thats the answer.

fuck

my2hands wrote:

bring it on... what area of policy and ideas would you like to talk about? his 75 page booklet on his policies and agenda is clearly found on his website for dl and printing... which i have done and read months ago

i think you fail to see the point, why discuss things on the internet with people that will not change their mind? it seems like a waste of time. why am i going to waste time debating policy poisitions with you when it is pointless?

feel free to answer any of these questions:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5719870&postcount=49

that is, if inmytree will let us discuss these here, since it is his thread. otherwise, feel free to answer the questions in that thread.

fuck

cornnifer wrote:

The answer is simple. Obama is the nominee for one of the two major parties, he's popular and has a chance of winning. Therefore, he's a dirty liar.
Nader on the other hand is a rebel. No chance of winning. Only about 35 people nationwide vocally support him so he's still cool. So obviously, he's the only one to be trusted.
That's the answer to your question. Its nonsense of course, but thats the answer.

actually, that's a ridiculous answer than people who don't support Nader make up to make themselves feel better.

the real answer is based on their past actions. Nader has a history of standing up for people, and has done a lot of good in the past... you guys can't even argue that...

On the other hand, Obama's past reflects him poorly... specifically on things like supporting the PATRIOT ACT, FISA, etc...

my2hands

_outlaw wrote:

feel free to answer any of these questions:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5719870&postcount=49

that is, if inmytree will let us discuss these here, since it is his thread. otherwise, feel free to answer the questions in that thread.

how about you phrase the questions a little better right here?

start with 1, the biggest one you want to discuss.

cornnifer

_outlaw wrote:

actually, that's a ridiculous answer than people who don't support Nader make up to make themselves feel better.

the real answer is based on their past actions. Nader has a history of standing up for people, and has done a lot of good in the past... you guys can't even argue that...

On the other hand, Obama's past reflects him poorly... specifically on things like supporting the PATRIOT ACT, FISA, etc...

Obama has no history of standing up for people? News to me. Thanks for enlightening me. :rolleyes:

As far as Nader's history, how old is Nader? Something like 107? i would hope in that amount of time he has established some history. He's had plenty of time to do that.

fuck

cornnifer wrote:

Obama has no history of standing up for people? News to me. Thanks for enlightening me. :rolleyes:

yeah, except for the fact that I didn't say that. I said his past reflects him poorly.

As far as Nader's history, how old is Nader? Something like 107? i would hope in that amount of time he has established some history. He's had plenty of time to do that.

Obama is a Senator. If he can't accomplish much, but rather votes for shit like the PATRIOT ACT, then sorry but his past REFLECTS HIM POORLY.

fuck

my2hands wrote:

how about you phrase the questions a little better right here?

start with 1, the biggest one you want to discuss.

the questions are phrased fine, feel free to answer them whenever you want... or not...

inmytree

_outlaw wrote:

feel free to answer any of these questions:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5719870&postcount=49

that is, if inmytree will let us discuss these here, since it is his thread. otherwise, feel free to answer the questions in that thread.

feel free to do as you please, my friend...:)

while we differ in how we want to get there, often we have a common goal...

fuck

inmytree wrote:

feel free to do as you please, my friend...:)

while we differ in how we want to get there, often we have a common goal...

as for your question in relation to Obama's job creation policy-- I don't have so much of a problem when it comes to this stuff with Obama. my main concern with him is foreign policy and "domestic security" as well as him being on the corporate side of things.

This would not be one of my major problems with him, however, that's probably because I don't know too much about employment problems and solutions. Maybe Abook or Kabong could argue this better.

polaris

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Couldn't this be true of any Presidential Candidate that someone supports. We don't know what will happen in the future but Anti-Obama people love to assume he's lying about everyone of his issues just because they disagree with him on Foreign Policy.

I could turn this around and ask Nader and McCain supporters how do YOU know that they will keep there promises????

The answer is there is no way to know unless you're Doc Brown.

The reason why we know he cannot fulfill the mandate he is set forth is because he lacks the support to do so - from the everyday people right up to the most powerful lobbyists - the only change they seek are based on a self-serving agenda ...

this is the primary difference between obama and nader that I think people need to realize ... one is controlled by corporations and the other isn't ... that is why Obama cannot fulfill the required change people hope for ...

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

yeah, except for the fact that I didn't say that. I said his past reflects him poorly.


Obama is a Senator. If he can't accomplish much, but rather votes for shit like the PATRIOT ACT, then sorry but his past REFLECTS HIM POORLY.

Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.

He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.

Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.

The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.

Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.

polaris

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.

He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.

Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.

The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.

Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.

the concept of "right" is a misnomer ... nader would be far more fiscally responsible/conservative then any GOP candidate out there ...

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Of course you fail to mention that in 2005 he joined a filibuster to block Bush's version of the Patriot Act.

He voted for a compromised bill that he was forced to vote for because it was his compromises that they included in the bill.

Think about the art of Negotiations for a minute. If an opposing side makes some necessary concessions, you are are also expected to make some Concessions on your side as well. If you then turn around and then vote against the bill even with your concessions included, the other side will be less likely to negotiate with you in the future.

The number one reason why a Nader White House would be a failure would be his inability to work with the right on any issue.

Most people on this board forget that 50% of this country does vote to the right on a regular basis.

do you agree with the "compromised" version?? oh, and him being "forced" to vote for it is bullshit...

if a Nader white house were to happen, the Congress would HAVE to work with him because he was the choice of the people.

fuck

polaris wrote:

The reason why we know he cannot fulfill the mandate he is set forth is because he lacks the support to do so - from the everyday people right up to the most powerful lobbyists - the only change they seek are based on a self-serving agenda ...

this is the primary difference between obama and nader that I think people need to realize ... one is controlled by corporations and the other isn't ... that is why Obama cannot fulfill the required change people hope for ...

good post.

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

do you agree with the "compromised" version?? oh, and him being "forced" to vote for it is bullshit...

if a Nader white house were to happen, the Congress would HAVE to work with him because he was the choice of the people.

Really Congress will just work with the President...

Ask Bill Clinton how Congress works with the President during his years in office.

And you don't have to agree with his decision to vote for it but its not as cut and dry as Obama supports the Patriot Act. When you say that you include a lot of misinformation.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Really Congress will just work with the President...

Ask Bill Clinton how Congress works with the President during his years in office.

Bill Clinton? are you seriously comparing Ralph Nader to Bill Clinton??

the whole point of the nation electing Ralph Nader would mean that they really are interested in REAL change. congress would definitely have to find ways to work closely with him.

And you don't have to agree with his decision to vote for it but its not as cut and dry as Obama supports the Patriot Act. When you say that you include a lot of misinformation.

you don't have to agree with his decision? that makes no sense. I asked you a question: do you support this "compromised" Patriot Act?
and there is no misinformation. he supported and voted for the Patriot Act. disagree with it all you want, but it's the truth. the only thing you're clearing up is "yes he voted for the Patriot Act, but it was a COMPROMISED version" which really doesn't mean much else...

and feel free to also answer any of these questions: http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5719870&postcount=49

i'm waiting for an Obama supporter to do so...

edit: given the recent thread, I'd like some logical answers to all questions... obviously, this is just me asking, and you guys doing whatever you'd like, lol.