If you had a choice between getting hit by a bus or getting your kid out of the way of it...which would you choose?
How about not letting the kid get in the street and not continuing to allow him access to the street?
Your hypotheticals don't work because we have more options than the extremely limiting ones you seem to think we do.
I would also point out that you didn't answer my question.
You attack my post without answering the question.
Please. Just this once give me a plain, simple answer.
I would also point out that you didn't answer my question.
You attack my post without answering the question.
Please. Just this once give me a plain, simple answer.
Why would I have to pick between your two limited choices when that is not the reality of the matter?
I pick to bring them home.
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
I would vote to cut funding for public transportation so our hypothetical children stopped being hit by busses driven by people who are obviously not paying attention.
You're right. Tie up the kid and lock him in a closet. That'll keep him safe.
My hypotheticals are limiting? You're the one who says Obama voting against funding the war can single-handedly bring our troops home. I'm simply pointing out that there's more to it than that. Giving our troops body-armor and food rations is not the only thing keeping them there. Our President is.
Yes, there's more to it. Say you're against the war and then vote to keep it going. Yay, I get to please both sides yet again! Anyone see a pattern here? We wouldn't need to give the troops body armor or food rations for Iraq if they weren't there.
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
Yes, there's more to it. Say you're against the war and then vote to keep it going. Yay, I get to please both sides yet again! Anyone see a pattern here? We wouldn't need to give the troops body armor or food rations for Iraq if they weren't there.
President Bush has decided to keep the troops.
Underfunding our troops won't end that.
Like it or not Obama is running for President of the United States. That's the whole country, not just your house. If he had cut funding for the troops, there's no way he would have a chance of winning.
You can call it pandering, but then you also point out that we're his boss, and that he should do what the people want. Most Americans want our troops to be safe, and see giving them funding as a way to keep them safe.
And if you're going to blame Obama for keeping our troops in Iraq, I'll blame Nader. After all, he had a greater effect in sending our troops than Obama did, if you look at it a certain way.
Like it or not Obama is running for President of the United States. That's the
whole country, not just your house. If he had cut funding for the troops, there's no way he would have a chance of winning.
You realize that is just your opinion and based purely on speculation....speculation which I disagree with seeing as how the Democrats ran on just that and won the majority of seats in Congress with stance of pulling the troops out in 06. Not to mention how unpopular this war has been for quite some now among the general public. This seems like a baseless assertion.
You can call it pandering, but then you also point out that we're his boss, and that he should do what the people want. Most Americans want our troops to be safe, and see giving them funding as a way to keep them safe.
As I've already stated, most Americans want our troops out of Iraq and Democratic majority based Congress is flat out full of shit to say they have no power in the matter.
And if you're going to blame Obama for keeping our troops in Iraq, I'll blame Nader. After all, he had a greater effect in sending our troops than Obama did, if you look at it a certain way.
How so? This argument has been debunked so many times but I'll dig up all the old posts so you can play catch up. The fact remains Nader has never voted to continue funding a war that most Americans are against and he himself claims to be against. So any attempt to blame Nader for the direct actions of others is pretty ridiculous. The people who choose those actions and paths are the ones to blame. We still live in a democracy where we get to have a choice of who we'd like to vote for despite however much that displeases you.
Congress has the power of the purse, the means and money to bring the troops home and end this war.
You realize that is just your opinion and based purely on speculation....speculation which I disagree with seeing as how the Democrats ran on just that and won the majority of seats in Congress with stance of pulling the troops out in 06. Not to mention how unpopular this war has been for quite some now among the general public. This seems like a baseless assertion.
As I've already stated, most Americans want our troops out of Iraq and Democratic majority based Congress is flat out full of shit to say they have no power in the matter.
How so? This argument has been debunked so many times but I'll dig up all the old posts so you can play catch up. The fact remains Nader has never voted to continue funding a war that most Americans are against and he himself claims to be against. So any attempt to blame Nader for the direct actions of others is pretty ridiculous. The people who choose those actions and paths are the ones to blame. We still live in a democracy where we get to have a choice of who we'd like to vote for despite however much that displeases you.
Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?
Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.
An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.
And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.
Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?
Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.
An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.
And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.
are you saying we never criticized bush???
congress can still get funding to the troops for a safe and proper withdrawl and for the supplies they needed. as kucinich said there will always be money for the troops and what they need. but they don't even get what they need w/ all the billions already appropriated!! do they all even have body armor yet?
i guess i can blame pat buchanon and every other 3rd party candidate as they ALL received more votes than the difference between gore and bush in florida (and btw, florida law says there MUST be a recount if an election is decided by less than 1%...which it was, but the supreme court over ruled that)
-20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.
-More than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for George Bush and over half of the registered Democrats there did not vote at all
-According to exit polls, over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, 25% would have voted for Gore, and 15% would have voted for Bush. The rest would have voted for another third party candidate.
-In the highly Democratic county of Palm Beach, an abnormally large number of votes were cast for the conservative candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself estimated that as many as 95% of these 3,500 votes were Gore's because of the faulty "butterfly" ballot.
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%
looks like there's quite a few ppl we have to blame for the war in iraq by your logic....rotten fucking democracy, what a bitch!!!
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
Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?
Would Bush have a choice? the executive branch is not all powerful. And at what point should we impeach? I guess that's just there in case some Hitler type comes along...not because a president is doing a terrible job and going against the demands of his people.
Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.
As already stated, there is funding set aside for a safe and proper withdrawl.
An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.
well that argument is extremely weak knowing the facts and that there was plenty of other candidates on the ballot that got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush. That and the fact the we live in a democracy and I view that as a good thing. But that's okay...people make extremely weak arguments all the time.
And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.
Bush is the past...at a certain point you move on to what is current. currently we have a guy running for president that claims to be against this 'dumb' war but has only shown signs of continuing it. I view that as just a wee bit more important than posting about how sorry Bush is for lying to get us into this war for the millionth time just so everyone can all agree and say 'yeah we all know Bush is a dumb fuck and complete and utter failure'
Let's try to get with the times and discuss things that can actually be changed.
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
Bush is the past...at a certain point you move on to what is current. currently we have a guy running for president that claims to be against this 'dumb' war but has only shown signs of continuing it. I view that as just a wee bit more important than posting about how sorry Bush is for lying to get us into this war for the millionth time just so everyone can all agree and say 'yeah we all know Bush is a dumb fuck and complete and utter failure'
Let's try to get with the times and discuss things that can actually be changed.
obama has also said one of the main reasons he was against the war in iraq is b/c we weren't finished in afghanistan first....
edit: my bad, he said part of the reason, not one of the main reasons
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
obama has also said one of the main reasons he was against the war in iraq is b/c we weren't finished in afghanistan first....
That sneaky bastard! I thought he knew that we went to war on false pretenses and were lied to...why would he still wanna invade Iraq after we finished up in Afghanistan knowing that?
Must be another one of those 'I'm against this but I'm actually kinda for it' sort of things he likes to use so much.
He's a tricky one.
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
Being an Obama fan is like being a Red Sox/Yankee fan. You dont know what the fuck you are talking about, you just jump on the bandwagon. And with 95% of the Obama fans out there, this is true.
You have to be kidding...95%...put that number back where you found it...it might hurt though.
i'll vote for whoever has the best chance at changing things for the better. Nader would be a pretty sure bet if he were the democratic nominee, but he isn't. i believe in compromise and finding common ground, not standing in the corner and pretending i make a difference at the cost of the common good. I don't have to agree with some one 100% to vote for them.
Not that i'm voting for Obama either. Who knows who i'll vote for.
i think this is more than likely true. i think it's simply how the vast majority of people operate. also why as a voter i prefer being an independent, but as a candidate, i think in our system it is best to be a part of a party.
yet another reason for more viable 3rd parties, b/c i do not believe it has to be just 2, long-standing choices. also, i never considered myself an 'obama supporter'....i've been on the fence a good long while. however, for this discussion i don't think it really even matters......and beyond that i think the question could be turned round and asked of nader supporters. would they still back nader, or would they back some other fringe candidate instead? i think BOTH candidates have a lot of supporters who truly BELIEVE in them, but also both have backers who 'follow the trends'...some like the mainstream trend, some like the alternative trend.
unless we somehow as a nation abandon the party system, which i do not forsee.....ALL these issues point more and more towards a great NEEd for viable 3rd party candidates, and 3rd parties with WEIGHT to them, so that some of those who simply follow the mainstream will look elsewhere with a real interest, and perhaps change some voter's ways in the election booth as well, in time.
Do you think a lot of people run to these fringe candidates that have a lot of talk of big change, knowing full well that the candidate can't win and that candidate will never have to back up their words with actual action...simply to continue to bitch about the 2-party system and the current situation?
Do you think that if a fringe candidate every became viable, that the added attention would then highlight that individuals definciencies just as it does with the other candidates currently?
I think yes and yes. Not for everyone mind you, but it's exactly the same as people running towards Obama. Hell, the guy is a terrific speaker and certainly makes most people feel like we have hope and greatness is again achievable...I disgree with a bunch of his opinions, but I may end up voting for him for several different reasons. Does that make me a lemming?
i agree, and no i wouldn't think such makes you a lemming but one who is thinking of the big picture, today. i think it really depends on what you want to accomplish with your vote. do you want to affect today and produce action....or do you want to voice your ideals 100%. even candidates i have strongly agreed with/supported in the past, i don't think anyone 100% backs my personal ideals. it would be nice to think you can have it all i guess, but i've yet to see a candidate that can do ALL that. so i hope that by whatever candidate i vote for that my ideals are represented to some extent, to work towards the greater goods of what i would like to see in the future, while being able to actually make some positive changes in the here and now. and only once - 2004 - did i ever feel i voted for the 'lesser of 2 evils'...all else, i guess i simply see as being realistic about my desires.
i agree, and no i wouldn't think such makes you a lemming but one who is thinking of the big picture, today. i think it really depends on what you want to accomplish with your vote. do you want to affect today and produce action....or do you want to voice your ideals 100%. even candidates i have strongly agreed with/supported in the past, i don't think anyone 100% backs my personal ideals. it would be nice to think you can have it all i guess, but i've yet to see a candidate that can do ALL that. so i hope that by whatever candidate i vote for that my ideals are represented to some extent, to work towards the greater goods of what i would like to see in the future, while being able to actually make some positive changes in the here and now. and only once - 2004 - did i ever feel i voted for the 'lesser of 2 evils'...all else, i guess i simply see as being realistic about my desires.
beautifully said
i've never been so excited to vote---this year i think i worked out my balance between what i want and what i have a chance to see. yay! some compromise is necessary in relationships, especially in a relationship involving over 300 million people.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
i think this is more than likely true. i think it's simply how the vast majority of people operate. also why as a voter i prefer being an independent, but as a candidate, i think in our system it is best to be a part of a party.
yet another reason for more viable 3rd parties, b/c i do not believe it has to be just 2, long-standing choices. also, i never considered myself an 'obama supporter'....i've been on the fence a good long while. however, for this discussion i don't think it really even matters......and beyond that i think the question could be turned round and asked of nader supporters. would they still back nader, or would they back some other fringe candidate instead? i think BOTH candidates have a lot of supporters who truly BELIEVE in them, but also both have backers who 'follow the trends'...some like the mainstream trend, some like the alternative trend.
unless we somehow as a nation abandon the party system, which i do not forsee.....ALL these issues point more and more towards a great NEEd for viable 3rd party candidates, and 3rd parties with WEIGHT to them, so that some of those who simply follow the mainstream will look elsewhere with a real interest, and perhaps change some voter's ways in the election booth as well, in time.
i agree, and no i wouldn't think such makes you a lemming but one who is thinking of the big picture, today. i think it really depends on what you want to accomplish with your vote. do you want to affect today and produce action....or do you want to voice your ideals 100%. even candidates i have strongly agreed with/supported in the past, i don't think anyone 100% backs my personal ideals. it would be nice to think you can have it all i guess, but i've yet to see a candidate that can do ALL that. so i hope that by whatever candidate i vote for that my ideals are represented to some extent, to work towards the greater goods of what i would like to see in the future, while being able to actually make some positive changes in the here and now. and only once - 2004 - did i ever feel i voted for the 'lesser of 2 evils'...all else, i guess i simply see as being realistic about my desires.
I'm looking at the big picture, actually and can see past this election. I see that for decades now the Democratic party has become more corrupt and has offered little to no opposition to the Republican agenda....it's like they are one in the same...see the war, patriot act, unwaivering support for Israel, healthcare, foreign policy overall and most recent hawkish talks towards Iran, pandering, lobbyists and special interests (like big pharma, big oil and nuclear power) and the list goes on and on. I need more than this same old shit to say that I'm supporting the progress and change that this country dearly needs. That means I can not in good conscience keep supporting 2 major parties who have nothing to show for their time spent in office but the further deterioration of all the things they've promised time and time again that they would fix once in office. They have failed and have been given more than enough chances to prove themselves. What have they accomplished?
I'm sorry but not being a republican isn't enough to earn my vote anymore. I want someone worth voting for.
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
I'm looking at the big picture, actually and can see past this election. I see that for decades now the Democratic party has become more corrupt and has offered little to no opposition to the Republican agenda....it's like they are one in the same...see the war, patriot act, unwaivering support for Israel, healthcare, foreign policy overall and most recent hawkish talks towards Iran, pandering, lobbyists and special interests (like big pharma, big oil and nuclear power) and the list goes on and on. I need more than this same old shit to say that I'm supporting the progress and change that this country dearly needs. That means I can not in good conscience keep supporting 2 major parties who have nothing to show for their time spent in office but the further deterioration of all the things they've promised time and time again that they would fix once in office. They have failed and have been given more than enough chances to prove themselves. What have they accomplished?
I'm sorry but not being a republican isn't enough to earn my vote anymore. I want someone worth voting for.
Well said.
(...aid ...aid ...aid)
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
i've never been so excited to vote---this year i think i worked out my balance between what i want and what i have a chance to see. yay! some compromise is necessary in relationships, especially in a relationship involving over 300 million people.
that's really always where my head is at. while it would be nice to imagine my ideals correlate with the vast poplace and thus we all would want the same things, endorse the same people and ideas, i find more often than not, they don't. so i do try and find a candidate who closely mirrors things that are important to me, but also one who i think the vast majority of americans can accept as well. trying to get soooo many people to agree on one candidate, one course of action, etc.....such an impossible task. so i look for leaders who are close to the issues most important to me and who also seem to have the leadership traits i deem so important. compromise is one of the utmost of importance in my mind, looking at things as a whole, realizing you can't always get *exactly* what you want all at once, so always work towards steps that get you ever closer to those ideals. 300 million people, absolutely takes time for change. this is my approach, what works for me and a part of my decision process. i do not expect others to think or follow the same process. again, it's a great thing we all get our voice, our one vote.
I'm looking at the big picture, actually and can see past this election. I see that for decades now the Democratic party has become more corrupt and has offered little to no opposition to the Republican agenda....it's like they are one in the same...see the war, patriot act, unwaivering support for Israel, healthcare, foreign policy overall and most recent hawkish talks towards Iran, pandering, lobbyists and special interests (like big pharma, big oil and nuclear power) and the list goes on and on. I need more than this same old shit to say that I'm supporting the progress and change that this country dearly needs. That means I can not in good conscience keep supporting 2 major parties who have nothing to show for their time spent in office but the further deterioration of all the things they've promised time and time again that they would fix once in office. They have failed and have been given more than enough chances to prove themselves. What have they accomplished?
I'm sorry but not being a republican isn't enough to earn my vote anymore. I want someone worth voting for.
i am unsure why this post is directed at a quote from me? i was addressing cincy's post and his comment about being a lemming, and my opinion as to why i would not view him in such a light for his choices. that's all. nothing i said was in direction to you, your ideals, or your vote. truly, good for you to sticking to your personal ideals and what you want. everyone should. i would never try to dissuade you or anyone from following their own personal conscience and desires.
for the record, i have never voted for someone simply for 'not being a republican'.......that was never enough to earn my vote.
that's really always where my head is at. while it would be nice to imagine my ideals correlate with the vast poplace and thus we all would want the same things, endorse the same people and ideas, i find more often than not, they don't. so i do try and find a candidate who closely mirrors things that are important to me, but also one who i think the vast majority of americans can accept as well. trying to get soooo many people to agree on one candidate, one course of action, etc.....such an impossible task. so i look for leaders who are close to the issues most important to me and who also seem to have the leadership traits i deem so important. compromise is one of the utmost of importance in my mind, looking at things as a whole, realizing you can't always get *exactly* what you want all at once, so always work towards steps that get you ever closer to those ideals. 300 million people, absolutely takes time for change. this is my approach, what works for me and a part of my decision process. i do not expect others to think or follow the same process. again, it's a great thing we all get our voice, our one vote.
i am unsure why this post is directed at a quote from me? i was addressing cincy's post and his comment about being a lemming, and my opinion as to why i would not view him in such a light for his choices. that's all. nothing i said was in direction to you, your ideals, or your vote. truly, good for you to sticking to your personal ideals and what you want. everyone should. i would never try to dissuade you or anyone from following their own personal conscience and desires.
for the record, i have never voted for someone simply for 'not being a republican'.......that was never enough to earn my vote.
It was directed at your position on baby steps and compromise. I don't feel the Dems are making baby steps and if they are it seems like backwards ones. And what's worse is the Democratic party hasn't been compromising with the very people who keep voting them in....so I'm not sure too many of them know jack about compromising. They ignored the people's demands of ending the war in 06 after they ran on ending it. They have ignored the people's desires on single payer UHC, calls for decreasing the defense budget and putting more money back into our dying social programs, have continued to place the interests of lobbyists over the people's needs, supported predatory lenders and are financed by them, even....and so on and so on. Where they need to be compromising, they don't....where they need to stop compromising so much, they have only became more buyable. So I was only trying to highlight my pov of the Dems not being what I would view as baby steps to anywhere.
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
It was directed at your position on baby steps and compromise. I don't feel the Dems are making baby steps and if they are it seems like backwards ones. And what's worse is the Democratic party hasn't been compromising with the very people who keep voting them in....so I'm not sure too many of them know jack about compromising. They ignored the people's demands of ending the war in 06 after they ran on ending it. They have ignored the people's desires on single payer UHC, calls for decreasing the defense budget and putting more money back into our dying social programs, have continued to place the interests of lobbyists over the people's needs, supported predatory lenders and are financed by them, even....and so on and so on. Where they need to be compromising, they don't....where they need to stop compromising so much, they have only became more buyable. So I was only trying to highlight my pov of the Dems not being what I would view as baby steps to anywhere.
aha, i see. ok then. obviously i have a different pov, but i appreciate your points. however, i am not all about the democrats and not really my focus. of course i hold them accountable for their actions, but i do so for everyone. i also do not find them wholly responsible at all for where we are right now. and my ideas of compromise and baby steps....applies to all, regardless of political affiliation.
aha, i see. ok then. obviously i have a different pov, but i appreciate your points. however, i am not all about the democrats and not really my focus. of course i hold them accountable for their actions, but i do so for everyone. i also do not find them wholly responsible at all for where we are right now. and my ideas of compromise and baby steps....applies to all, regardless of political affiliation.
as do mine.
I would bring up the republicans which definitely deserve half of my disdain but I really don't feel the need or desire to state the obvious. I discuss the Dems more here because so many still seem to fall for their tired BS still....so that means we can have discussions and compare our opinions against each other....which can lead to understanding, awareness of things we didn't know or hadn't thought of before or simply agree to disagree but not without having our pov tested against a differing view first which can only be a good thing, imo .
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
Would the Obama supporters, still of supported him? I mean if they all "believe" and "hope" so much right?
Fucking bs, they would run to whoever was in the spotlight. fucking cattle.
j/k, kinda.
Serioulsy,would you still be Obama fans? If Nader was the democratic nominee and Obama was an independent, would you vote for Obama? bcoz he is so good right? You must with all that faith.
Think the idea this election, as it is with many, is to say fuck you to the republican party. And it helps to have a charismatic candidate in the process.
Comments
I would also point out that you didn't answer my question.
You attack my post without answering the question.
Please. Just this once give me a plain, simple answer.
Why would I have to pick between your two limited choices when that is not the reality of the matter?
I pick to bring them home.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, there's more to it. Say you're against the war and then vote to keep it going. Yay, I get to please both sides yet again! Anyone see a pattern here? We wouldn't need to give the troops body armor or food rations for Iraq if they weren't there.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
President Bush has decided to keep the troops.
Underfunding our troops won't end that.
Like it or not Obama is running for President of the United States. That's the whole country, not just your house. If he had cut funding for the troops, there's no way he would have a chance of winning.
You can call it pandering, but then you also point out that we're his boss, and that he should do what the people want. Most Americans want our troops to be safe, and see giving them funding as a way to keep them safe.
And if you're going to blame Obama for keeping our troops in Iraq, I'll blame Nader. After all, he had a greater effect in sending our troops than Obama did, if you look at it a certain way.
Congress has the power of the purse, the means and money to bring the troops home and end this war.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=278223
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N10eIKLLc3k
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=285135
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=280866
You realize that is just your opinion and based purely on speculation....speculation which I disagree with seeing as how the Democrats ran on just that and won the majority of seats in Congress with stance of pulling the troops out in 06. Not to mention how unpopular this war has been for quite some now among the general public. This seems like a baseless assertion.
As I've already stated, most Americans want our troops out of Iraq and Democratic majority based Congress is flat out full of shit to say they have no power in the matter.
How so? This argument has been debunked so many times but I'll dig up all the old posts so you can play catch up. The fact remains Nader has never voted to continue funding a war that most Americans are against and he himself claims to be against. So any attempt to blame Nader for the direct actions of others is pretty ridiculous. The people who choose those actions and paths are the ones to blame. We still live in a democracy where we get to have a choice of who we'd like to vote for despite however much that displeases you.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=276261
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, they control the money. Would Bush bring the troops home if they decided to vote against funding, or would Bush and the republicans use it as evidence that the Dems don't support the troops?
Yes, Americans, myself included, want the troops to come home. But they also want the troops safe while they're there, and it could be said that cutting funding for food, body-armor, etc as I've said before, will make them less so. Yes, I know they are not as safe as they'd be back home. But would Bush let his ambitions for history be stopped by a congress that threatened to cut funding? I don't think anyone wants to find out.
An argument could be made (and has been made by everyone's hero Al Gore, and not in fact by me) that Nader took votes from Gore, costing him the election. By doing this Bush was put in power, and he sent us to war with Iraq, and now here we are. An argument COULD be made.
And I find it funny that you criticize Obama for a war that Bush started.
are you saying we never criticized bush???
congress can still get funding to the troops for a safe and proper withdrawl and for the supplies they needed. as kucinich said there will always be money for the troops and what they need. but they don't even get what they need w/ all the billions already appropriated!! do they all even have body armor yet?
i guess i can blame pat buchanon and every other 3rd party candidate as they ALL received more votes than the difference between gore and bush in florida (and btw, florida law says there MUST be a recount if an election is decided by less than 1%...which it was, but the supreme court over ruled that)
some more info on the 2000 election
http://www.prorev.com/green2000.htm
-20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.
-More than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for George Bush and over half of the registered Democrats there did not vote at all
-According to exit polls, over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, 25% would have voted for Gore, and 15% would have voted for Bush. The rest would have voted for another third party candidate.
-In the highly Democratic county of Palm Beach, an abnormally large number of votes were cast for the conservative candidate Pat Buchanan. Buchanan himself estimated that as many as 95% of these 3,500 votes were Gore's because of the faulty "butterfly" ballot.
also of interest:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&minper=0
Florida 2000 election results
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%
looks like there's quite a few ppl we have to blame for the war in iraq by your logic....rotten fucking democracy, what a bitch!!!
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
Would Bush have a choice? the executive branch is not all powerful. And at what point should we impeach? I guess that's just there in case some Hitler type comes along...not because a president is doing a terrible job and going against the demands of his people.
As already stated, there is funding set aside for a safe and proper withdrawl.
well that argument is extremely weak knowing the facts and that there was plenty of other candidates on the ballot that got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush. That and the fact the we live in a democracy and I view that as a good thing. But that's okay...people make extremely weak arguments all the time.
Bush is the past...at a certain point you move on to what is current. currently we have a guy running for president that claims to be against this 'dumb' war but has only shown signs of continuing it. I view that as just a wee bit more important than posting about how sorry Bush is for lying to get us into this war for the millionth time just so everyone can all agree and say 'yeah we all know Bush is a dumb fuck and complete and utter failure'
Let's try to get with the times and discuss things that can actually be changed.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
obama has also said one of the main reasons he was against the war in iraq is b/c we weren't finished in afghanistan first....
edit: my bad, he said part of the reason, not one of the main reasons
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=282127
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 sneaky bastard! I thought he knew that we went to war on false pretenses and were lied to...why would he still wanna invade Iraq after we finished up in Afghanistan knowing that?
Must be another one of those 'I'm against this but I'm actually kinda for it' sort of things he likes to use so much.
He's a tricky one.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You have to be kidding...95%...put that number back where you found it...it might hurt though.
i think this is more than likely true. i think it's simply how the vast majority of people operate. also why as a voter i prefer being an independent, but as a candidate, i think in our system it is best to be a part of a party.
yet another reason for more viable 3rd parties, b/c i do not believe it has to be just 2, long-standing choices. also, i never considered myself an 'obama supporter'....i've been on the fence a good long while. however, for this discussion i don't think it really even matters......and beyond that i think the question could be turned round and asked of nader supporters. would they still back nader, or would they back some other fringe candidate instead? i think BOTH candidates have a lot of supporters who truly BELIEVE in them, but also both have backers who 'follow the trends'...some like the mainstream trend, some like the alternative trend.
unless we somehow as a nation abandon the party system, which i do not forsee.....ALL these issues point more and more towards a great NEEd for viable 3rd party candidates, and 3rd parties with WEIGHT to them, so that some of those who simply follow the mainstream will look elsewhere with a real interest, and perhaps change some voter's ways in the election booth as well, in time.
i agree, and no i wouldn't think such makes you a lemming but one who is thinking of the big picture, today. i think it really depends on what you want to accomplish with your vote. do you want to affect today and produce action....or do you want to voice your ideals 100%. even candidates i have strongly agreed with/supported in the past, i don't think anyone 100% backs my personal ideals. it would be nice to think you can have it all i guess, but i've yet to see a candidate that can do ALL that. so i hope that by whatever candidate i vote for that my ideals are represented to some extent, to work towards the greater goods of what i would like to see in the future, while being able to actually make some positive changes in the here and now. and only once - 2004 - did i ever feel i voted for the 'lesser of 2 evils'...all else, i guess i simply see as being realistic about my desires.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
beautifully said
i've never been so excited to vote---this year i think i worked out my balance between what i want and what i have a chance to see. yay! some compromise is necessary in relationships, especially in a relationship involving over 300 million people.
cross the river to the eastside
I'm looking at the big picture, actually and can see past this election. I see that for decades now the Democratic party has become more corrupt and has offered little to no opposition to the Republican agenda....it's like they are one in the same...see the war, patriot act, unwaivering support for Israel, healthcare, foreign policy overall and most recent hawkish talks towards Iran, pandering, lobbyists and special interests (like big pharma, big oil and nuclear power) and the list goes on and on. I need more than this same old shit to say that I'm supporting the progress and change that this country dearly needs. That means I can not in good conscience keep supporting 2 major parties who have nothing to show for their time spent in office but the further deterioration of all the things they've promised time and time again that they would fix once in office. They have failed and have been given more than enough chances to prove themselves. What have they accomplished?
I'm sorry but not being a republican isn't enough to earn my vote anymore. I want someone worth voting for.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well said.
(...aid ...aid ...aid)
that's really always where my head is at. while it would be nice to imagine my ideals correlate with the vast poplace and thus we all would want the same things, endorse the same people and ideas, i find more often than not, they don't. so i do try and find a candidate who closely mirrors things that are important to me, but also one who i think the vast majority of americans can accept as well. trying to get soooo many people to agree on one candidate, one course of action, etc.....such an impossible task. so i look for leaders who are close to the issues most important to me and who also seem to have the leadership traits i deem so important. compromise is one of the utmost of importance in my mind, looking at things as a whole, realizing you can't always get *exactly* what you want all at once, so always work towards steps that get you ever closer to those ideals. 300 million people, absolutely takes time for change. this is my approach, what works for me and a part of my decision process. i do not expect others to think or follow the same process. again, it's a great thing we all get our voice, our one vote.
i am unsure why this post is directed at a quote from me?
for the record, i have never voted for someone simply for 'not being a republican'.......that was never enough to earn my vote.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It was directed at your position on baby steps and compromise. I don't feel the Dems are making baby steps and if they are it seems like backwards ones. And what's worse is the Democratic party hasn't been compromising with the very people who keep voting them in....so I'm not sure too many of them know jack about compromising. They ignored the people's demands of ending the war in 06 after they ran on ending it. They have ignored the people's desires on single payer UHC, calls for decreasing the defense budget and putting more money back into our dying social programs, have continued to place the interests of lobbyists over the people's needs, supported predatory lenders and are financed by them, even....and so on and so on. Where they need to be compromising, they don't....where they need to stop compromising so much, they have only became more buyable. So I was only trying to highlight my pov of the Dems not being what I would view as baby steps to anywhere.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
exactly actly
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
aha, i see. ok then. obviously i have a different pov, but i appreciate your points. however, i am not all about the democrats and not really my focus. of course i hold them accountable for their actions, but i do so for everyone. i also do not find them wholly responsible at all for where we are right now. and my ideas of compromise and baby steps....applies to all, regardless of political affiliation.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
as do mine.
I would bring up the republicans which definitely deserve half of my disdain but I really don't feel the need or desire to state the obvious. I discuss the Dems more here because so many still seem to fall for their tired BS still....so that means we can have discussions and compare our opinions against each other....which can lead to understanding, awareness of things we didn't know or hadn't thought of before or simply agree to disagree but not without having our pov tested against a differing view first which can only be a good thing, imo .
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde