a black man's opinion of Ralph Nader

El_Kabong

since some ppl are so certain black ppl find him offensive and racist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUalYTU9EWE

MrBrian

Pretty good...Worth a listen.

El_Kabong

“Nader has personally saved more lives than an average army, he knows what he's talking about but to millions of americans it won't matter because the ABB sor anyone but bush syndrome is so severe....”

Abuskedti

Nader's work has indeed saved many lives. A consumer advocate is not at all an indicator that he will be able to lead a country from the presidency.

That video was NOT worth a listen, but just another in a long line of attacks on the President elect fill of empty insults.

This "Black man" whom would likely not have fared well on the Dave Chapelle show.. only spewed what he claims to be fighting.

bitched about a lack of discussion of the issues. But only discussed personality with absolutely no issues

If Obama is wrong about something - what is it? and what is his recommended solution????

ugh

on a better note, I finally dropped Kula in the mail yesterday afternoon

OffHeGoes29

Who cares, people need to stop making race an issue. Time to move on.

g under p

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Who cares, people need to stop making race an issue. Time to move on.

In THIS country race will always be an issue in one way or another. Times are changing but I wonder if you would say that is the shoe was on the other foot?

Peace

El_Kabong

Abuskedti wrote:

Nader's work has indeed saved many lives. A consumer advocate is not at all an indicator that he will be able to lead a country from the presidency.

That video was NOT worth a listen, but just another in a long line of attacks on the President elect fill of empty insults.

This "Black man" whom would likely not have fared well on the Dave Chapelle show.. only spewed what he claims to be fighting.

bitched about a lack of discussion of the issues. But only discussed personality with absolutely no issues

If Obama is wrong about something - what is it? and what is his recommended solution????

ugh

on a better note, I finally dropped Kula in the mail yesterday afternoon

what has obama done to be qualified? he took his opponents to court until he was running unopposed for his seat then hung out and played cards w/ lobbyists before running for senate and going on a nonstop media tour for a few years missing 1/2 the votes in the senate? Nader has actually made change and done so w/ the ppl's best interests, not taken money from industries then changing his opinion then lie about it

about the video, i disagree

-it was aired 07/03/08 so it was directed at candidate obama and his remarks towards Nader and vice versa at that time

-what attacks?? he brought up what obama supporters and democrats said about Nader to minimize him and make him look like a fool, which many here are still in lockstep w/. he also urged ppl to look into obama instead of getting swept up in the hype

-i thought it was relavent as there was recently a thread where some implied Nader was a racist

-i would really like to know what the insults and attacks were

-i don't think it was about lack of discussion, it's titled a commentary on Ralph Nader and that's what it is, a defense of Nader as opposed to the attacks by democratic supporters

- a million thanks!!!!

Abuskedti

The essence of that video as I see it: Nader ATTACKing Obama as being afraid to be TOO BLACK. That somehow is legitimized with concurrence from a black dude. I find that to be an empty attack that shows a dwelling in the stereotypes of the past. Many stood up and critized Michael Jordan of the same thing... Michael proved to be much bigger than his critics. I hope the same will prove true for Mr. Obama

What has he done to qualify for the job of President of the United States?

that is certainly a good question. in the last 47 years there have been only 8 presidents of the united states. tough to pinpoint qualifications. You have got to acknowledge that getting elected is without question the most difficult and important qualification.

other than that... he apears to be intelligent, great communicator (please don't look at that as a negative.. he will be communicating over at least the next 4 years with thousands of very influential people) I think communication skills are perhaps the single most important tool a president has.

he also seems motivated. he also seems genuinely interested in making the country a better place.

As a US citizen, you consider yourself qualified to judge him. You also consider yourself as aware of what is ailing this country and consider yourself to have some good ideas about what needs to be done next. You seem to have been easier on yourself than you have on Barrack (I can never remmber how many "Rs")

I have read mountains of criticism tossed at him. None of it has much substance. I am hopeful because he is capable, and motivated. That is more than we have had it a while. If he spent another 15 years in the Senate before running, he would have been worn down by the politics - and basically lead much like Bill Clinton.

I see it as a plus that he got in quick. He has lead a very impressive life to this point. Very successful academic career. I want to get behind him and give him a chance.

Collin

Abuskedti wrote:

What has he done to qualify for the job of President of the United States?

that is certainly a good question. in the last 47 years there have been only 8 presidents of the united states. tough to pinpoint qualifications. You have got to acknowledge that getting elected is without question the most difficult and important qualification.

Well, in those 47 years we see an obvious trend, though, money wins the elections. Money. That's not a qualification in my book.

other than that... he apears to be intelligent, great communicator (please don't look at that as a negative.. he will be communicating over at least the next 4 years with thousands of very influential people) I think communication skills are perhaps the single most important tool a president has.

Being a good speaker is as negative as it is positive. To ignore that is simply dangerous and I think we all know the same goes for intelligence.

he also seems motivated. he also seems genuinely interested in making the country a better place.

Fair enough, but that's subjective.

I have read mountains of criticism tossed at him. None of it has much substance.

None of it has much substance? Which mountains of criticism have you read then?

I've read much critcism as well and frankly a great great deal of it had much substance.

I want to get behind him and give him a chance.

Just don't forget to be critical, hold him accountable for the lies and propaganda he has already produced. Just a reminder, because I find it hard to believe that in those mountains of criticism none of it had much substance.

El_Kabong

Abuskedti wrote:

The essence of that video as I see it: Nader ATTACKing Obama as being afraid to be TOO BLACK. That somehow is legitimized with concurrence from a black dude. I find that to be an empty attack that shows a dwelling in the stereotypes of the past. Many stood up and critized Michael Jordan of the same thing... Michael proved to be much bigger than his critics. I hope the same will prove true for Mr. Obama

i don't think anything was legitimized other than someone who didn't think nader was a racist despite what some claim

anyway, here's what nader asked

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/nader-critical-of-obama-for-trying-to-talk-white/

Nader was asked if Obama is any different than Democrats he has criticized in the past, considering Obama's pledge to reject campaign contributions from registered lobbyists. (which i should point out turned out to be not so true )

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson?'

it is a good question and why doesn't he talk about a lot of things? why is he so vague? a lot fo what he says doesn't seem like change to me so much

Abuskedti wrote:

What has he done to qualify for the job of President of the United States?

that is certainly a good question. in the last 47 years there have been only 8 presidents of the united states. tough to pinpoint qualifications. You have got to acknowledge that getting elected is without question the most difficult and important qualification.

other than that... he apears to be intelligent, great communicator (please don't look at that as a negative.. he will be communicating over at least the next 4 years with thousands of very influential people) I think communication skills are perhaps the single most important tool a president has.

you know i love ya, man, but this is like passing taco bell for mcdonalds and rationalizing 'they have better fries' when there's plenty of other places right there

but i get what you are saying, especially compared to the past 8 years of stumbling and stammering and butchering and looking like a complete fool....to hear this man who speaks so well and is very intelligent and a good ppl person...but to me that doesn't qualify him to be president of the united states, maybe a used car salesman or something? just kidding (kinda) but to me that's not enough, at least if you're going to say someone who dedicated their lives to change and have actually done it isn't qualified

Abuskedti wrote:

he also seems motivated. he also seems genuinely interested in making the country a better place.

i disagree but really all we can do is wait and hope i am wrong

Abuskedti wrote:

As a US citizen, you consider yourself qualified to judge him. You also consider yourself as aware of what is ailing this country and consider yourself to have some good ideas about what needs to be done next. You seem to have been easier on yourself than you have on Barrack (I can never remmber how many "Rs")

i didn't make the promises he made and break them, i also never ran for president

Abuskedti wrote:

I have read mountains of criticism tossed at him. None of it has much substance.

then i guess it depends on how much you will accept and rationalize can't make it into the 'change' just yet

he said he wouldn't take money or deal w/ lobbyists...he took looooooots of money from lobbyists and even made a pharmaceutical lobbyist the chair of his new hampshire campaign and when hillary brought it up during the debate obama looked right at the camera and shook his head side to side and said 'that's not true, that's not true' but it was!!! to me that has lots of substance

i won't go into all the other things like taking money from nuclear power companies and then rewriting legislation to be more friendly towards them and then LYING about it while campainging these past 2 years by 1) saying it passed (it didn't) and 2) saying it did certain things which the final version voted on didn't actually do

Abuskedti wrote:

I am hopeful because he is capable, and motivated. That is more than we have had it a while. If he spent another 15 years in the Senate before running, he would have been worn down by the politics - and basically lead much like Bill Clinton.

i think he is now, he definitely panders and sways his opinion for investors, he's changed several stances like

not taking money from lobbyists
going from 'they won't have a job in my white house!!!' to 'they won't dominate my white house'
going from supporting universal health care to the support for it is generated by propaganda

shit, voting to renew the patriot act 3 times is enough for me....

Abuskedti wrote:

I see it as a plus that he got in quick. He has lead a very impressive life to this point. Very successful academic career. I want to get behind him and give him a chance.

we will see but based on who he's been picking for positions and teams doesn't look like too much change, but we'll have to wait and see

on a brighter note have you checked the dvds out yet? the smiths and joy division/new order covers were pretty good, i thought

Abuskedti

Collin wrote:

Well, in those 47 years we see an obvious trend, though, money wins the elections. Money. That's not a qualification in my book.



Being a good speaker is as negative as it is positive. To ignore that is simply dangerous and I think we all know the same goes for intelligence.



Fair enough, but that's subjective.



None of it has much substance? Which mountains of criticism have you read then?

I've read much critcism as well and frankly a great great deal of it had much substance.



Just don't forget to be critical, hold him accountable for the lies and propaganda he has already produced. Just a reminder, because I find it hard to believe that in those mountains of criticism none of it had much substance.

I am not sure how to talk to a person that would argue that being a good speaker and being intelligent are negative things.

Abuskedti

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't think anything was legitimized other than someone who didn't think nader was a racist despite what some claim

anyway, here's what nader asked

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/nader-critical-of-obama-for-trying-to-talk-white/



it is a good question and why doesn't he talk about a lot of things? why is he so vague? a lot fo what he says doesn't seem like change to me so much



you know i love ya, man, but this is like passing taco bell for mcdonalds and rationalizing 'they have better fries' when there's plenty of other places right there

but i get what you are saying, especially compared to the past 8 years of stumbling and stammering and butchering and looking like a complete fool....to hear this man who speaks so well and is very intelligent and a good ppl person...but to me that doesn't qualify him to be president of the united states, maybe a used car salesman or something? just kidding (kinda) but to me that's not enough, at least if you're going to say someone who dedicated their lives to change and have actually done it isn't qualified



i disagree but really all we can do is wait and hope i am wrong



i didn't make the promises he made and break them, i also never ran for president



then i guess it depends on how much you will accept and rationalize can't make it into the 'change' just yet

he said he wouldn't take money or deal w/ lobbyists...he took looooooots of money from lobbyists and even made a pharmaceutical lobbyist the chair of his new hampshire campaign and when hillary brought it up during the debate obama looked right at the camera and shook his head side to side and said 'that's not true, that's not true' but it was!!! to me that has lots of substance

i won't go into all the other things like taking money from nuclear power companies and then rewriting legislation to be more friendly towards them and then LYING about it while campainging these past 2 years by 1) saying it passed (it didn't) and 2) saying it did certain things which the final version voted on didn't actually do



i think he is now, he definitely panders and sways his opinion for investors, he's changed several stances like

not taking money from lobbyists
going from 'they won't have a job in my white house!!!' to 'they won't dominate my white house'
going from supporting universal health care to the support for it is generated by propaganda

shit, voting to renew the patriot act 3 times is enough for me....




we will see but based on who he's been picking for positions and teams doesn't look like too much change, but we'll have to wait and see

on a brighter note have you checked the dvds out yet? the smiths and joy division/new order covers were pretty good, i thought

ok some substance.. do you have evidence of this that I can review: taking money from nuclear power companies and then rewriting legislation to be more friendly towards them and then LYING about it (particularly the LYING about it part)

I have seen and read alot about the lobbyists and I just don't buy the spin. He has said he will not let the country be run for or by the lobbyists and special interests.

It is not wrong to accept contributions from lobbyists! Nor is it wrong to subsequently lead in a way that does not please them. I'd accept contributions under the assumption that you want me to lead as i would lead.

and if you hire a former lobbyist as the Secretary of State - then he is now Secretary of State and not a lobbyist. He did not condemn all men that are lobbyists - he condemned them men that pandered to them for money.

Barrack is not even president yet - so he has not yet used his position wrong.

As for voting records.. I just about totally ignore them. If there is a question about his voting record, I would like to hear his explanation for voting for the patriot act before passing judgement based upon the way this current administration has used the act.

Our government is complex- and many votes seem illogical to us because we don't know the whole story - What does obama say about each vote? because the young congressman from Illinois certainly could not change the process all by himself.

I see a good man. give me details about this lying

Collin

Abuskedti wrote:

I am not sure how to talk to a person that would argue that being a good speaker and being intelligent are negative things.

I guess like you'd talk to any other person.

If you don't see my point perhaps you could ask what I meant.

El_Kabong

Abuskedti wrote:

ok some substance.. do you have evidence of this that I can review: taking money from nuclear power companies and then rewriting legislation to be more friendly towards them and then LYING about it (particularly the LYING about it part)

I have seen and read alot about the lobbyists and I just don't buy the spin. He has said he will not let the country be run for or by the lobbyists and special interests.

It is not wrong to accept contributions from lobbyists! Nor is it wrong to subsequently lead in a way that does not please them. I'd accept contributions under the assumption that you want me to lead as i would lead.

and if you hire a former lobbyist as the Secretary of State - then he is now Secretary of State and not a lobbyist. He did not condemn all men that are lobbyists - he condemned them men that pandered to them for money.

Barrack is not even president yet - so he has not yet used his position wrong.

As for voting records.. I just about totally ignore them. If there is a question about his voting record, I would like to hear his explanation for voting for the patriot act before passing judgement based upon the way this current administration has used the act.

Our government is complex- and many votes seem illogical to us because we don't know the whole story - What does obama say about each vote? because the young congressman from Illinois certainly could not change the process all by himself.

I see a good man. give me details about this lying

i can give you links maybe friday, i can't copy or paste on this thing

i get your point about lobbyists and former libbyists, i might agree w/ you except obama said they would have no influence and swore to not take their money

also w/ the 'if a lobbyist becomes sec of state...' scenario seems invalid b/c obama said lobbyists wouldn't have jobs or dominate his white house, if they had a job meaning they are no longer lobbyists why would obama say that? if he had that idea in his head then he was being dishonest knowing how it would be taken

Abuskedti

Collin wrote:

I guess like you'd talk to any other person.

If you don't see my point perhaps you could ask what I meant.

In asking should I attempt to be slightly more inarticulate and dumb?

Collin

Abuskedti wrote:

In asking should I attempt to be slightly more inarticulate and dumb?

OK, let's cut this crap.

Read Haig Bosmajian's book The Language of Oppression. Language can easily be used to dehumanize human beings. History shows us that Hitler was also a charismatic and good public speaker. Also read up on propaganda and try to see how a good, persuasive speaker could play a role in that.

Intelligence can also be dangerous. If you don't see how the ability to solve problems, to reason, to plan, to gather knowledge and use that knowledge, the ability to think abstractly and understand ideas can be used for evil - then I really don't know what to say to you besides that I must have overestimated your intelligence.

So, being a good speaker or communicator or being intelligent isn't solely a positive thing. Those skills can just as easily be used for negative things, thus hardly solid qualifications, imo. And that was my point.

I mentioned propaganda earlier. Propaganda is a means to persuade and to lead someone into adopting an idea regardless of the truth.

"Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Obama uses a quote that has been mistranslated and misinterpreted. It's the general concessus of linguists and translators that Ahmadinejad never said that, and what he said wasn't a threat but rather a hope that the oppressive regime of Israel would crumble.

Abuskedti

Collin wrote:

OK, let's cut this crap.

Read Haig Bosmajian's book The Language of Oppression. Language can easily be used to dehumanize human beings. History shows us that Hitler was also a charismatic and good public speaker. Also read up on propaganda and try to see how a good, persuasive speaker could play a role in that.

Intelligence can also be dangerous. If you don't see how the ability to solve problems, to reason, to plan, to gather knowledge and use that knowledge, the ability to think abstractly and understand ideas can be used for evil - then I really don't know what to say to you besides that I must have overestimated your intelligence.

So, being a good speaker or communicator or being intelligent isn't solely a positive thing. Those skills can just as easily be used for negative things, thus hardly solid qualifications, imo. And that was my point.

I mentioned propaganda earlier. Propaganda is a means to persuade and to lead someone into adopting an idea regardless of the truth.

"Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Obama uses a quote that has been mistranslated and misinterpreted. It's the general concessus of linguists and translators that Ahmadinejad never said that, and what he said wasn't a threat but rather a hope that the oppressive regime of Israel would crumble.

Its one thing to say the smarter the man the more worthy an opponent.

If you are to assume Obama to be your opponent, then yes, any skill he posses is bad.

Intelligence and communication skills are assets. Your issue should not be with them- your issue rests with concern about which side you are on.

Collin

Abuskedti wrote:

Its one thing to say the smarter the man the more worthy an opponent.

If you are to assume Obama to be your opponent, then yes, any skill he posses is bad.

Intelligence and communication skills are assets. Your issue should not be with them- your issue rests with concern about which side you are on.

No, my point is intelligence and communications skills are as positive as they are negative. An absolutely absurd statement that left you without words.

You cited those as qualifications. I'm simply pointing out that they can be negative. But ah, yes. you asked us not to see those as negative.

I'm on a lot of different sides. I'm against war and when I hear someone using war propaganda plainly without any shame and his supporters defending it, I get a little concerned.

What do you think about Obama using that quote?
What do you think about Obama presenting only one side of the Russia/Georgia conflict in order to gain support to curb Russian aggression?

edit: let me rephrase my point, because my post may indeed have been less well thought out as I had in mind. It was a little unclear, I admit.

My point is these traits, intelligence and communication skills, are indeed positive and admirable in a great leader. Or the other way around, intelligence is vital to a great leader. The burden many intellectuals suffer is that they have difficulty explaining their ideas and theories. So it's easy to see why those assets are so important.

But to me it's easy to see how the exact same skills can be used for less noble purposes. Call me a cynic or a pessimest and there's definitely some truth in that, however, I do believe there's truth in what I'm saying as well. I completely disagree with you when you ask people not to see those traits as negative. I think people should be reminded that people can turn on each other in a heart beat, that people can be "wolves in sheep's clothing" if you want to get biblical. Most importantly that people can be dishonest. It's something history and personal experience has taught us.

decides2dream

i don't watch youtube vids at work, however....interesting, i did not realize that ANYone on this board at all insinuated that blacks find nader to be offensive and/or racist. i know i never did, nor do i think he would be in any case. however, one man's opinion...black, white or otherwise...is just that; one.....man's......opinion.


if i actually manage to get online at home, i'll give it a listen. always interested to hear many perspectives.





btw - collin, i have to disagree with your assessment of intelligence and communication skills being a 'negative.' i do not personally believe either are ever negative. CAN such skills be used towards negative actions? absolutely. but the skills themselves, in and of themselves....are all 'positive' in my mind,

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

i don't watch youtube vids at work, however....interesting, i did not realize that ANYone on this board at all insinuated that blacks find nader to be offensive and/or racist. i know i never did, nor do i think he would be in any case. however, one man's opinion...black, white or otherwise...is just that; one.....man's......opinion.


if i actually manage to get online at home, i'll give it a listen. always interested to hear many perspectives.





btw - collin, i have to disagree with your assessment of intelligence and communication skills being a 'negative.' i do not personally believe either are ever negative. CAN such skills be used towards negative actions? absolutely. but the skills themselves, in and of themselves....are all 'positive' in my mind,

i don't think he's saying they ARE negative, just that b/c someone is intelligent and a good speaker it doesn't necessarily make it a positive, it depends on what s/he does w/ it

for instance he gave an example of obama using pro-war propagandaof an untrue nature

Abuskedti

Collin wrote:

What do you think about Obama using that quote?
What do you think about Obama presenting only one side of the Russia/Georgia conflict in order to gain support to curb Russian aggression?

I suppose we can discuss a presidential candidate's comments regarding this situation. You have given your opinion above, yet have not even provided any of the facts or the Obama quote.

Though I do not think this is a defining issue, nor do I think the comments of a candidate in the middle of a presidential election is defining. We had a president at the time. Mr Obama had no role, no authority, and in fact, he was not privy to much of the intelligence.

Abuskedti

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't think he's saying they ARE negative, just that b/c someone is intelligent and a good speaker it doesn't necessarily make it a positive, it depends on what s/he does w/ it

for instance he gave an example of obama using pro-war propagandaof an untrue nature

Come on Mr Kabong. Mr. Obama's car can also be a negative if he uses it to hit children at a crosswalk. If you are eager to find fault with the new President, at least afford him the opportunity to make some mistakes - because he certainly will.

I don't mean any disrespect, but your guitar could be used for evil as well.

El_Kabong

Abuskedti wrote:

Come on Mr Kabong. Mr. Obama's car can also be a negative if he uses it to hit children at a crosswalk. If you are eager to find fault with the new President, at least afford him the opportunity to make some mistakes - because he certainly will.

I don't mean any disrespect, but your guitar could be used for evil as well.

i don't think anyone here was eager to find fault. i think collin was only pointing out just b/c someone is intelligent and a good speaker it doesn't mean they will do positive things w/ it.

i don't know what the exact quote was offhand, there's clips of his talk in a thread i think roland posted a few days ago. and i know he mentioned ppl 'wanting to wipe isreal off the map' which is a lie as that was never said, at least not by that nut in iran

i had links to an article about obama and the nuclear bill of his and a youtube clip of him at a town hall meeting thing where a girl asked about his stance on nuclear power and obama lied, anyway, i had it all on a blog on myspace but i'm having troulbe getting to it right now

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't think he's saying they ARE negative, just that b/c someone is intelligent and a good speaker it doesn't necessarily make it a positive, it depends on what s/he does w/ it

for instance he gave an example of obama using pro-war propagandaof an untrue nature

well it's my understanding that he IS saying that. that being intelligent or a great communicator is just as good as it is bad. my opinion is being intelligent and a good speaker is always a positive, but it certainly can be used negatively, but it in no way infringes on the idea that the traits themselves are good to have. if i am mistaken in my inference, i will readily admit to my misinterpretation.



and i still haven't managed to view the clip. i did actually come online briefly at home here last night...but i forgot. however, even without viewing, i can certainly see that many people of all walks of life with all different skintones can likeappreciaterespect/admire ralph nader. i se no reason why they couldn't.

El_Kabong

here's some links

NBC exposes Obama's campaign funding ties to nuclear power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

here's obama asked about his stance on nuclear power, pay attention to what he said he did and in regards to his bill, how he says he passed it and what it did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

here's a story about how what he said in the video above is not true
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

Obama Weakened Nuclear Safety Bill After Consulting With Firm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/03/obama-weakened-nuclear-sa_n_84651.html

the blog had a better article about nuclear power and the hundreds of thousands he's taken from the industry

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

here's some links

NBC exposes Obama's campaign funding ties to nuclear power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

here's obama asked about his stance on nuclear power, pay attention to what he said he did and in regards to his bill, how he says he passed it and what it did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

here's a story about how what he said in the video above is not true
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

Obama Weakened Nuclear Safety Bill After Consulting With Firm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/03/obama-weakened-nuclear-sa_n_84651.html

the blog had a better article about nuclear power and the hundreds of thousands he's taken from the industry

i think i missed something somewhere?
what does this have to do with one black man's opinion of ralph nader?
just curious.

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

i think i missed something somewhere?
what does this have to do with one black man's opinion of ralph nader?
just curious.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=6011401&postcount=12

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=6011401&postcount=12

aha...thanks, gotcha. i knew i must've missed a step in there somewhere.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

My interpretation on this is that Nader like so many others, is thoroughly frustrated, and plain tired of being politically correct anymore on this whole current political structure issue from top to bottom.

I think he was referring to how he is going to be treated, rather than how he is going to behave and act personally...more of how he is going to be forced to behave, rather, by those above and around him.

Was he speaking directly to Obama is the question. I don't think he was. It think it was a third person reference, and his terminology was directed towards the public at large, and the powers that be.

Abuskedti

El_Kabong wrote:

here's some links

NBC exposes Obama's campaign funding ties to nuclear power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

here's obama asked about his stance on nuclear power, pay attention to what he said he did and in regards to his bill, how he says he passed it and what it did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

here's a story about how what he said in the video above is not true
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

Obama Weakened Nuclear Safety Bill After Consulting With Firm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/03/obama-weakened-nuclear-sa_n_84651.html

the blog had a better article about nuclear power and the hundreds of thousands he's taken from the industry

Thank you my brother, can't look at them now, but will get a chance this weekend. Have a great weekend

Abuskedti

El_Kabong wrote:

here's some links

NBC exposes Obama's campaign funding ties to nuclear power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

here's obama asked about his stance on nuclear power, pay attention to what he said he did and in regards to his bill, how he says he passed it and what it did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

here's a story about how what he said in the video above is not true
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

Obama Weakened Nuclear Safety Bill After Consulting With Firm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/03/obama-weakened-nuclear-sa_n_84651.html

the blog had a better article about nuclear power and the hundreds of thousands he's taken from the industry

I have to admit, I was worried. I am enjoying the prospect of a president I can respect. Is this the worst thing you can find on this man? Because, in my view, this is at worst a very small slip, and really not even that. He said, the only legislation that "I passed". He not only passed it, he wrote it. It was sent back to him numerous times and he "weakened" in in comprimise or it would not have passed. in the end it didn't pass at all.. and noone discusses those that voted against it or why, or what the comprimise was... only unsupported speculation that he chose to do it for campaign contributions.. which I believe is not the case. More likely, it was opposed by more senators than he believed he was able to convince.

sure this is not a shining moment for him... but I don't think "Lied" is a fair charactorizaton. His bill failed. thousands of bills fail. A Freshman Congressman fights and loses and learns.

His point was about his possition, he was not bragging about accomplishment.