It is true in your guy's case you are voting for the person. But at the same time I would have to think there would be an advantage to sticking with the same party for every election, in that it shows consistency and gives you better recognition. Plus I would think some people might think that if someone can't decide which party they want to be aligned with then maybe they might not be so good at making other important decisions.
Plus I would think that after one election with a certain party (say Nader with the Greens or whatever) you would have built up solid group of people campaign worker (both people who are there because they believe in the person and because they believe in the party). To me it would seem useful to go back to those people and build on what they had done in the past rather than ditching them and starting again with a whole new group.
when he left the green party he said it was b/c he felt their nomination process was too far down the road from when he thought he should be campaigning
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Where did you see this keynote speech, again? Most people saw it on TV
I think this is the post that deserves an:
Oh Snap!
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
personally, I think folks like Nader should run for Congress first, then, perhaps move up to president...
but that's just me...:)
you mean like kucinich?
and both he and nader have to go to court to even be allowed into the debates and ballots
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida; Al Gore lost to Bush by 537 votes. The Green Party is much more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. If those 97K voters had to choose between Bush and Gore, I'd be willing to bet a rather large percentage would have opted for Gore.
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63%
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28%
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04%
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03%
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02%
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01%
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01%
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%
Why did Nader wait so long to commence his run for the presidency this time around? It would seem, considering how difficult it is for third party candidates to gain traction both with the media and voters that he would have started earlier. My take, and this is just my opinion, is that he's running to bring some issues to the forefront. If he really wanted those issues to gain focus amongst the people, he should've been pushing them much earlier.
In 2004 when Nader was testing the waters for an independent run, I sent a lengthy e-mail to his website inquiring about stances on specific issues and how I could volunteer my time. I didn't receive anything in response ~ no thanks for your inquiry, please donate or general response. I was disappointed to say the very least. Sure, it's easier for a larger scale candidate to coordinate communication with potential supporters or volunteers, but when you're starting at the grassroots level it would seem beneficial to build one voter at a time. I do believe that in 2000 the state gave Nader his highest percentage of votes was Alaska which happens to be where I call home.
they also started campaigning a lot earlier this time...
did you only try to contact them that one time?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
That is what I don't get about Nader. If the guy wants to be treated like a legitimate option why doesn't he start earlier to get his message out? He could have started the day after the last inauguration and started campaigning. If he feels the media doesn’t cover him enough he could have gone door-to-door explaining to people what his beliefs are and trying to get support.
he started campaigning pretty shortly after kucinich dropped out and said had a real progressive voice, like kucinich and i forgot who else he mentioned, been in the running he would've stayed out...but they are no longer in the race so he is running to give the ppl more voices and more choices
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I never said anything about only having "2 major parties run uncontested"...I wanted Bloomberg to jump into the race as a third party...at least he has some gov't experience...
I'm specifically saying Nader should start in congress and move his way up...as it stands, I know little about how he would truly vote...don't laugh or get upset, but it's true...I say he has to work is way up, rather that jump to the top...
we're talking about the President of the United States...and I know this...I'm not going to vote for a ticket that has some guy(the cute fella Matt) one step away from the Presidency when he couldn't win the race for Mayor...
..
but you are voting for obama, correct? has he ever ran in an election against anyone? didn't he keep going to court until everyone else was taken off or dropped out?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
perhaps he should have used his small chunk of money at the beginning to get out there when everyone else was. i would think if if goal was to have candidates pay attention to his issues, he would have been campaigning earlier around/before the debates. and you've posted about his support. that percent of the population you claim support nader could have funded a longer run. if it's about the issues for him, i don't understand why he waited so long. it's much easier to ignore him now. and people who are so insistent on voting for him are lost to the dems anyway. they'll spend their money where they're more likely to get votes.
that's odd, b/c i seem to recall everyone complaining about how early they started to campaign...
weren't pretty much ALL the debated moved ahead from their usual months?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
All I've done here is to challenge preconceived notions and points I disagree with....also my right to do so.
I think Nader has plenty of gov't experience and we'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is more knowledgable on how this country is ran and the way our laws are supposed to work for us.
nader just needs to find a congressional race he can run unopposed in then pretty much start campaigning for president right away and miss a lil over 40% of the votes he was supposedly elected to make, then he'd be golden!
oh, then he should have a pharmaceutical lobbyist as a campaign chair and lie about it on national tv
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you think obama's campaign is funded entirely by $5 donations online or even the avg person?? he's received $100's of thousands from lobbyists!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
And I'm doing the same (challenge preconceived notions and points I disagree with)....
for example, my point about Mr. Gonzales...he wants to be VP, yet he can't win a mayor's race...your thoughts...?
i think he did very good for being a thrid party candidate to get as much support as he did and as close a race as it was and he did accomplish some good while president of the board of supervisors for san fran like the minimum wage w/ inflation index, taking on cell phone companies 9did ya see the clip i posted of that?)....
what are your thoughts on obama going from 'lobbyists won't have a job' in his white house' to 'they won't dominate' his white house?
or that he lied during the New Hampshire debate by saying his campaign chair wasn't a lobbyist (for the pharmaceutical industry) when in fact he was?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
actually what is really playing a HUGE part in this is the many many volunteers on the campaign who have been phonebanking and canvassing. that's where it's at. people connect with people sharing their own opinions with each other. not with the tv. people on the ground made this happen.
no one's ever called or canvassed me about obama...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Then being an incumbent is not saying to much, eh?
Standing up for the things you view as important and desperately needs addressing? Much more important to me.
I know why and how people often times get elected in this country and usually it has jack to do with being the right person for the job...so this point seems irrelevant to me.
sometimes ppl get elected b/c they keep taking them to court until the courts throw them out or they drop out so you can run unopposed
oh snap
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
are you implying no one has ever heard of Nader before 2008...?
look around this board, the consensus of obama supporters is nader takes a nap between presidential elections and only wakes up for those
i gave a friend at work my myspace address and the next day he had a lot of questions about nader like why hasn't he run for president before? why hasn't he heard about him?
i guess media exposure plays a part afterall
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I guess I could say your Nader-aid is effecting you, as well...
I guess Nader has no blame here and voters who don't educate themselves are poor victims of the Media...
Nader had plenty of face time in 2000....and nothing...some coverage in 2004...and nothing....here we are in 2008...and...
yes, SOME coverage as opposed to 24/7, in your face, constant coverage the 2 corporate parties get while they are out on their corporate sponsored media tours, which some have been on almost the day after they took office...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I, like many, was first exposed to Obama when he delievered the keynote at the 2004 DNC. After I saw his speech, I told my dad that guy needed to run for president. I learned he had scribed a book and went out and bought it and motored through it voraciously. Spent a lot of time on his website long before the whisper of a presidential run surfaced and agreed with most of his legislation and speeches. I also think many of his proposals receive too scant attention based on his race and oratory abilities and go underappreciated or unnoticed.
The media boom had nothing to do with my support for him and many people out there would echo my sentiments. Obama moved me much the same way Nader moves you and in some fashions using the media as the main antecedent for his poplularity diminishes the opinions and aspirations of people like me who did the research and threw their hats in the ring.
but the media is where you first heard of him, right?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but the media is where you first heard of him, right?
Yes, my initial exposure to Senator Obama was on the television. What does this have to with anything? Did you not read the entirety of my post??? I like how you pick out one sentence to make some justification for your premise, that I've been spoonfed Obama by a loving media. Please feel free to tell me where Obama reached saturation level in the media before announcing his candidacy. And by the way, after I did my reasearch and became a supporter in 2004, word of mouth provided some people's first insight into the man because I shared my thoughts.
A very Hannity-esque move on your part, Kabong. You should be proud. You've posted countless youtube links. Last time I checked, youtube was a pretty popular media machine in many regards. Sure, it's not as widespread as the tele, but nonetheless your mode of sequestering information isn't any different than mine other than the fact more outlets are available to learn about Obama than the candidate you support.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
Yes, my initial exposure to Senator Obama was on the television. What does this have to with anything? Did you not read the entirety of my post??? I like how you pick out one sentence to make some justification for your premise, that I've been spoonfed Obama by a loving media. Please feel free to tell me where Obama reached saturation level in the media before announcing his candidacy. And by the way, after I did my reasearch and became a supporter in 2004, word of mouth provided some people's first insight into the man because I shared my thoughts.
A very Hannity-esque move on your part, Kabong. You should be proud. You've posted countless youtube links. Last time I checked, youtube was a pretty popular media machine in many regards. Sure, it's not as widespread as the tele, but nonetheless your mode of sequestering information isn't any different than mine other than the fact more outlets are available to learn about Obama than the candidate you support.
Youtube is at least a form of media that everyone has access to, unlike channels ran by large corporations with agendas.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Youtube is at least a form of media that everyone has access to, unlike channels ran by large corporations with agendas.
If somebody can afford a computer and internet access, they could probably afford a used television and/or basic cable subscription.
So by your standards, somebody who accesses information via television is doing nothing more than sucking up corporate agenda when listening to a candidate or watching a debate?
A dandy of a statement, really. You should be commended for accessing your information sans television. We all know that internet information is not at all prone to bias.
Do you think Obama's a muslim? Do you think it's fair that people make such insinuations? Funny, outside of FoxNews all of the television coverage concerning this specific notion has provided truth whereas the internet has generated all of the bullshit information. I guess corporate America doesn't ant us to believe he's the muslim Manchurian candidate.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
If somebody can afford a computer and internet access, they could probably afford a used television and/or basic cable subscription.
So by your standards, somebody who accesses information via television is doing nothing more than sucking up corporate agenda when listening to a candidate or watching a debate?
A dandy of a statement, really. You should be commended for accessing your information sans television. We all know that internet information is not at all prone to bias.
Do you think Obama's a muslim? Do you think it's fair that people make such insinuations? Funny, outside of FoxNews all of the television coverage concerning this specific notion has provided truth whereas the internet has generated all of the bullshit information. I guess corporate America doesn't ant us to believe he's the muslim Manchurian candidate.
I don't think we should limit ourselves to one view which is all tv offers.
I think it's fair to be able to express whatever your opinion is and let the people weed out what to take stock in or not
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Where did you see this keynote speech, again? Most people saw it on TV
... it kind of belittles opinion and or support that deviates from your notions and to a lesser extent the manners in which we seek our information. These two diddies from you and Kabong make some sort of insinuation that because the first place I was exposed to Obama was on a television that my support and knowledge are somehow lesser.
Had I watched Obama's keynote speech on youtube instead of msnbc would my opinions be more valid or valued?
You say tv offers only one view. Television generally offers the best opportunity to watch a candidate in interviews or debates. Many people like getting their information right from the horse's mouth. The same speech that can be seen on tele can be see online, so I don't understand your relentless hacking away at television.
It's all media anyhow, unless you only gather information in person with the candidate and/or his/her supporters. I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.
Not everybody watches various political shows to ape pundit opinion. I'm sure not every Fox News viewer thinks Hillary's a lesbian or Barack's a muslim.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
I concur wholeheartedly. But when there are statements/questions such as...
... it kind of belittles opinion and or support that deviates from your notions and to a lesser extent the manners in which we seek our information. These two diddies from you and Kabong make some sort of insinuation that because the first place I was exposed to Obama was on a television that my support and knowledge are somehow lesser.
Had I watched Obama's keynote speech on youtube instead of msnbc would my opinions be more valid or valued?
You say tv offers only one view. Television generally offers the best opportunity to watch a candidate in interviews or debates. Many people like getting their information right from the horse's mouth. The same speech that can be seen on tele can be see online, so I don't understand your relentless hacking away at television.
It's all media anyhow, unless you only gather information in person with the candidate and/or his/her supporters. I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.
No, that wasn't the point. The point was you saw him on tv in the first place and that lead to your interest in him. Whereas Nader is hardly ever on tv much less allowed to give a speech during a primetime huge event like the DNC.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, that wasn't the point. The point was you saw him on tv in the first place and that lead to your interest in him. Whereas Nader is hardly ever on tv much less allowed to give a speech during a primetime huge event like the DNC.
Big fucking deal. What are you trying to prove by reiterating the fact that the first time I saw Obama was on television? You never answered my question ~ if I had seen the speech on youtube rather than television, what does it change? And just in case you didn't read it earlier, please revisit these sentiments:
I, like many, was first exposed to Obama when he delievered the keynote at the 2004 DNC. After I saw his speech, I told my dad that guy needed to run for president. I learned he had scribed a book and went out and bought it and motored through it voraciously. Spent a lot of time on his website long before the whisper of a presidential run surfaced and agreed with most of his legislation and speeches. I also think many of his proposals receive too scant attention based on his race and oratory abilities and go underappreciated or unnoticed.
The media boom had nothing to do with my support for him and many people out there would echo my sentiments. Obama moved me much the same way Nader moves you and in some fashions using the media as the main antecedent for his poplularity diminishes the opinions and aspirations of people like me who did the research and threw their hats in the ring.
Does Nader's lack of television exposure make him a more credible candidate or his supporters somehow better versed because you don't get your information from television? There's just as much bullshit online as there is on TV. Is it my fault that Nader can't gain traction??? You'd think, as somebody alluded to earlier, that with his 40 years of public service, presidential runs, books etc. that he wouldn't have such a difficult time finding some coverage.
I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.
I used the term laughable earlier in this thread, and find it befitting again considering your lackluster and weak insinuations.
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
Comments
when he left the green party he said it was b/c he felt their nomination process was too far down the road from when he thought he should be campaigning
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I think this is the post that deserves an:
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
you mean like kucinich?
and both he and nader have to go to court to even be allowed into the debates and ballots
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&minper=0
George W. Bush Richard Cheney Republican 2,912,790 48.85%
Albert Gore Jr. Joseph Lieberman Democratic 2,912,253 48.84%
Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green 97,488 1.63%
Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform 17,484 0.29%
Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian 16,415 0.28%
John Hagelin A. Nat. Goldhaber Natural Law 2,281 0.04%
Monica Moorehead Gloria La Riva World Workers 1,804 0.03%
Howard Phillips J. Curtis Frazier Constitution 1,371 0.02%
David McReynolds Mary Cal Hollis Socialist 622 0.01%
James Harris Margaret Trowe Soc. Workers 562 0.01%
Write-ins - - 40 0.00%
they also started campaigning a lot earlier this time...
did you only try to contact them that one time?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he started campaigning pretty shortly after kucinich dropped out and said had a real progressive voice, like kucinich and i forgot who else he mentioned, been in the running he would've stayed out...but they are no longer in the race so he is running to give the ppl more voices and more choices
this clip is from february
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aPvk25gZpjY
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but you are voting for obama, correct? has he ever ran in an election against anyone? didn't he keep going to court until everyone else was taken off or dropped out?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that's odd, b/c i seem to recall everyone complaining about how early they started to campaign...
weren't pretty much ALL the debated moved ahead from their usual months?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
nader just needs to find a congressional race he can run unopposed in then pretty much start campaigning for president right away and miss a lil over 40% of the votes he was supposedly elected to make, then he'd be golden!
oh, then he should have a pharmaceutical lobbyist as a campaign chair and lie about it on national tv
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you think obama's campaign is funded entirely by $5 donations online or even the avg person?? he's received $100's of thousands from lobbyists!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i think he did very good for being a thrid party candidate to get as much support as he did and as close a race as it was and he did accomplish some good while president of the board of supervisors for san fran like the minimum wage w/ inflation index, taking on cell phone companies 9did ya see the clip i posted of that?)....
what are your thoughts on obama going from 'lobbyists won't have a job' in his white house' to 'they won't dominate' his white house?
or that he lied during the New Hampshire debate by saying his campaign chair wasn't a lobbyist (for the pharmaceutical industry) when in fact he was?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no one's ever called or canvassed me about obama...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
sometimes ppl get elected b/c they keep taking them to court until the courts throw them out or they drop out so you can run unopposed
oh snap
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
look around this board, the consensus of obama supporters is nader takes a nap between presidential elections and only wakes up for those
i gave a friend at work my myspace address and the next day he had a lot of questions about nader like why hasn't he run for president before? why hasn't he heard about him?
i guess media exposure plays a part afterall
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yes, SOME coverage as opposed to 24/7, in your face, constant coverage the 2 corporate parties get while they are out on their corporate sponsored media tours, which some have been on almost the day after they took office...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but the media is where you first heard of him, right?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Uh, he delivered the speech at the DNC which was televised. And this has to do with...???
Yup.
Yes, my initial exposure to Senator Obama was on the television. What does this have to with anything? Did you not read the entirety of my post??? I like how you pick out one sentence to make some justification for your premise, that I've been spoonfed Obama by a loving media. Please feel free to tell me where Obama reached saturation level in the media before announcing his candidacy. And by the way, after I did my reasearch and became a supporter in 2004, word of mouth provided some people's first insight into the man because I shared my thoughts.
A very Hannity-esque move on your part, Kabong. You should be proud. You've posted countless youtube links. Last time I checked, youtube was a pretty popular media machine in many regards. Sure, it's not as widespread as the tele, but nonetheless your mode of sequestering information isn't any different than mine other than the fact more outlets are available to learn about Obama than the candidate you support.
that's not what i said. anyone can see that.
cross the river to the eastside
i told them not to bother.
cross the river to the eastside
Did you read the thread?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Youtube is at least a form of media that everyone has access to, unlike channels ran by large corporations with agendas.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If somebody can afford a computer and internet access, they could probably afford a used television and/or basic cable subscription.
So by your standards, somebody who accesses information via television is doing nothing more than sucking up corporate agenda when listening to a candidate or watching a debate?
A dandy of a statement, really. You should be commended for accessing your information sans television. We all know that internet information is not at all prone to bias.
Do you think Obama's a muslim? Do you think it's fair that people make such insinuations? Funny, outside of FoxNews all of the television coverage concerning this specific notion has provided truth whereas the internet has generated all of the bullshit information. I guess corporate America doesn't ant us to believe he's the muslim Manchurian candidate.
I don't think we should limit ourselves to one view which is all tv offers.
I think it's fair to be able to express whatever your opinion is and let the people weed out what to take stock in or not
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I concur wholeheartedly. But when there are statements/questions such as...
... it kind of belittles opinion and or support that deviates from your notions and to a lesser extent the manners in which we seek our information. These two diddies from you and Kabong make some sort of insinuation that because the first place I was exposed to Obama was on a television that my support and knowledge are somehow lesser.
Had I watched Obama's keynote speech on youtube instead of msnbc would my opinions be more valid or valued?
You say tv offers only one view. Television generally offers the best opportunity to watch a candidate in interviews or debates. Many people like getting their information right from the horse's mouth. The same speech that can be seen on tele can be see online, so I don't understand your relentless hacking away at television.
It's all media anyhow, unless you only gather information in person with the candidate and/or his/her supporters. I read more online as well as newspapers and magazines to gather my info and forumalate my opinions. But the fact that I do turn on the television to watch CNN or MSNBC doesn't make my stances any less credible or informed.
Not everybody watches various political shows to ape pundit opinion. I'm sure not every Fox News viewer thinks Hillary's a lesbian or Barack's a muslim.
No, that wasn't the point. The point was you saw him on tv in the first place and that lead to your interest in him. Whereas Nader is hardly ever on tv much less allowed to give a speech during a primetime huge event like the DNC.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Big fucking deal. What are you trying to prove by reiterating the fact that the first time I saw Obama was on television? You never answered my question ~ if I had seen the speech on youtube rather than television, what does it change? And just in case you didn't read it earlier, please revisit these sentiments:
Does Nader's lack of television exposure make him a more credible candidate or his supporters somehow better versed because you don't get your information from television? There's just as much bullshit online as there is on TV. Is it my fault that Nader can't gain traction??? You'd think, as somebody alluded to earlier, that with his 40 years of public service, presidential runs, books etc. that he wouldn't have such a difficult time finding some coverage.
And just in case you missed this thought:
I used the term laughable earlier in this thread, and find it befitting again considering your lackluster and weak insinuations.
You need to relax. No one trashed your opinion.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde