Maybe you are not deep enough in the real world to see them? I mean you use conjecture too much. Opinions and make them facts. You dont see them, so they are not doing anything. So its a fact that they dont work with others.
Is the criticism Of Obama not warranted? Are you really able to defend his stances and feelings towards many issues? Do you line up with them?
I believe you have done many things in the real world, so please share.
Lets talk about it, see where we can join forces. Let's right now in this time, really get open.
Let's make a change, a real change. Let's see what our differnces really are, see what we can do about them and move forward.
You are against the Iraq war right? What do you feel about Obama's choice of advisors? You want Iran to be attacked? What do you think about his words towards Iran? His use of the 'wipe Israel off the map' propaganda?
His Blind support of Israel, Rahms views on Israel. Patriot act? Russian aggression line, not being critical of Georgia.
Iran nuke comment when the latest news is the evidence may of been fabricated? What about Rahms thoughts on compulsory service? and he being the man who will help shape the new admin?
You think it was correct for Obama to be against a Bush impeachment saying that he felt that Bush did not do enough to get impeached?
I understand you are not happy with certain phrases and words Nader says, I understand that you feel that he does not compromise enough. But how do you feel about his views and ideas in general? Any of them you really strongly think he is wrong on?
Let's put it behind us and move forward.
This Board is not constructive? Let's make it constructive.
oh i've seen some nader supporters holding signs outside of the local brewpub. i'm not saying they don't exist. my comment was in response to collin about not reaching out and working with them. and as i already said: it's all or nothing.
anyway, i've been around for over 5 years. there has never been an indication that this is a constructive place. it used to be a good place to talk to people but not anymore. i found how to create real change a while ago, thanks.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
oh i've seen some nader supporters holding signs outside of the local brewpub. i'm not saying they don't exist. my comment was in response to collin about not reaching out and working with them. and as i already said: it's all or nothing.
anyway, i've been around for over 5 years. there has never been an indication that this is a constructive place. it used to be a good place to talk to people but not anymore. i found how to create real change a while ago, thanks.
Like I said, share! Tell us, If you really care as much as you say. Why not tell us? Lets work together.
Roland, do you really believe Obama will unilaterally and pre-empitvely attack Iran in the same fashion President Bush did with Iraq?
Yes. He has said it himself over and over again so many times that I've lost count. If Iran does not cease it's nuclear program full stop, they themselves will provoke the attack. I'm not sure how much more evidence one needs of proposed intentions?
Iran has to prove a double negative. They have to prove they don't have something that they don't have in the first place. Barack is playing head first into the whole "what if" scenario which is turning into "oh well they will have them eventually". Obama is 100% all about full stop on that situation or else....and this Iran rhetoric is coming straight from Israel (see Obama's AIPAC speech).
What's really going to be the kicker is how Obama gets Israel to adopt the two state solution, and get Gaza fair treatment, and the West bank resolved. Until that happens, Iran will always be an issue, as this is a huge contention for them, (and most of the Arab world for that matter). In other words, Iran is looking so highly probable right now that it would almost be foolish to think it's not going to happen under Obama, and in the same pre-emptive manner by default. I think were going to start seeing preemptive as policy now.
I hope I'm wrong.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
well it looks like this is your forum then. my effects lie elsewhere .
good luck!
say it isn't so!!! ... we all play a small part - although i don't doubt your role is larger in other areas - i also believe you've played your part over the years especially on issues on equality and humanity on this board ...
I'm already disappointed after the election. Disappointed I have to keep hearing about Nader.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
I want to know why when Bush was talking about bombing Iran everyone was going off the handle crying foul and scam.
Now that Obama is talking the exact same thing with renewed vigor, I'm perceived as just blindly hating him, or being deceptive, racist, or just desperate and far right.
uhh...what's up with that?!?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Gin, you brought it up. I'm still asking for you to please share it! Why wont you tell us?
Pretty please!..... with a cherry and a joint on top!...
sorry, no longer going to disclose personal details on a pearl jam message board. the people close to me know my story. and i'm only one example of what a person can do. there are so many, much more inspiring examples right out there.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Yes. He has said it himself over and over again so many times that I've lost count. If Iran does not cease it's nuclear program full stop, they themselves will provoke the attack. I'm not sure how much more evidence one needs of proposed intentions?
Iran has to prove a double negative. They have to prove they don't have something that they don't have in the first place. Barack is playing head first into the whole "what if" scenario which is turning into "oh well they will have them eventually". Obama is 100% all about full stop on that situation or else....and this Iran rhetoric is coming straight from Israel (see Obama's AIPAC speech).
What's really going to be the kicker is how Obama gets Israel to adopt the two state solution, and get Gaza fair treatment, and the West bank resolved. Until that happens, Iran will always be an issue, as this is a huge contention for them, (and most of the Arab world for that matter). In other words, Iran is looking so highly probable right now that it would almost be foolish to think it's not going to happen under Obama, and in the same pre-emptive manner by default. I think were going to start seeing preemptive as policy now.
I hope I'm wrong.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the reason we went into Iraq under President Bush was false, whether through incompetence or criminality. Where is such criminality with Obama's stated positions? My understanding of Obama is such; he will open diplomatic channels with Iran, among other countries. He will not allow them to develop a nuclear weapon because whether you agree with him or not, he feels it would be a 'game-changer.' The reason no one believed Bush when it came to Iran was because Iraq had proved to the American public that the administration was willing to overlook credible intel to go to war under false pretenses. You know as well as I that nobody looked at Bush's hard-line on Iran in isolation as a completely separate issue from Iraq, so I'm wondering why we're speaking like we all did now. Maybe I'm failing to hear this incindiary language that I heard throughout the Bush White House term, but maybe that's also because I'm a moderate Democrat who never saw Obama as a far-left politician with a Nader-esque foreign policy, as others may have seen him.
If you honestly think Obama will go to war in the same manner as Bush did in Iraq, then I don't know what to say other than I think that you are wrong.
anyway, i've been around for over 5 years. there has never been an indication that this is a constructive place. it used to be a good place to talk to people but not anymore. i found how to create real change a while ago, thanks.
I just want to say that I appreciate the change you create in the real world AND on this message board. Thank you!
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the reason we went into Iraq under President Bush was false, whether through incompetence or criminality. Where is such criminality with Obama's stated positions? My understanding of Obama is such; he will open diplomatic channels with Iran, among other countries. He will not allow them to develop a nuclear weapon because whether you agree with him or not, he feels it would be a 'game-changer.' The reason no one believed Bush when it came to Iran was because Iraq had proved to the American public that the administration was willing to overlook credible intel to go to war under false pretenses. You know as well as I that nobody looked at Bush's hard-line on Iran in isolation as a completely separate issue from Iraq, so I'm wondering why we're speaking like we all did now. Maybe I'm failing to hear this incindiary language that I heard throughout the Bush White House term, but maybe that's also because I'm a moderate Democrat who never saw Obama as a far-left politician with a Nader-esque foreign policy, as others may have seen him.
If you honestly think Obama will go to war in the same manner as Bush did in Iraq, then I don't know what to say other than I think that you are wrong.
Yes, but you have to look at the parameters of the equation.
I'm not hearing "We have to work with Iran will have to open up its nuclear program to greater transparency" were hearing "Iran must stop it's nuclear program altogether"
It's an ultimatum, and a continuation of the exact same rhetoric Bush was spewing. Prove a double negative or else. In fact now it's just "or else" despite everything...forget proving anything...do what we say, or it's military time. Israel gave birth to this idea.
There is no progressive language beyond Bush with regards to Iran, it's all pretty clear where it's heading.
When I start hearing about new initiatives to provide greater transparency to the IAEA, and other cooperative agreements, and solutions, instead of "cease and desist" then maybe...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
sorry, no longer going to disclose personal details on a pearl jam message board. the people close to me know my story. and i'm only one example of what a person can do. there are so many, much more inspiring examples right out there.
Whos asking for personal details? I mean you are the one who had complaints about people, in this case Nader supporters.
You are the one who went on about what you do or whatever the case is that makes change. We just wanted to know what you are doing. Or to share even a tad of info. Maybe it will inspire someone here! a place you seem to dislike but still stay on.
You are on a debate board, a discussion board. Yet you refuse to do that. You really just came in and started to complain. Insulted people and now are running away.
I mean I asked you questions about Obama, you did not reply to them. You just have harsh feeling towards Nader. But in any event. Do what makes you happy.
I'm already disappointed after the election. Disappointed I have to keep hearing about Nader.
Dont worry, this Uncle Tom comment will be the last we hear of Nader until he announces his run in the spring of 2012 after Obama and whoever runs for the Republican party refuse to meet with him.
You know who I'm most disappointed in? Nader. I once supported him; now I look back in disbelief.
I voted for Nader twice. Not this time. I think his energy could be better spent doing exactly what he is doing now-holding those elected accountable. Running for office is ridiculous, a waste of time money energy. He is best at holding those in power accountable-I hope he gets more coverage from the press.
I voted for Nader twice. Not this time. I think his energy could be better spent doing exactly what he is doing now-holding those elected accountable. Running for office is ridiculous, a waste of time money energy. He is best at holding those in power accountable-I hope he gets more coverage from the press.
That kind of mentality will prevent a viable third party from ever getting recognition. I know its frustrating only having 2 parties in every debate. 2 sides who convince the population that they are different. But don't be so quick to discredit someones attempt to change the status quo. Change will take time, and may seem to be going nowhere, but you must see the long term effects.
And where is this accountability. Non-existent. More coverage from the press only happens when he says something that can be spun to discredit himself.
Whos asking for personal details? I mean you are the one who had complaints about people, in this case Nader supporters.
You are the one who went on about what you do or whatever the case is that makes change. We just wanted to know what you are doing. Or to share even a tad of info. Maybe it will inspire someone here! a place you seem to dislike but still stay on.
You are on a debate board, a discussion board. Yet you refuse to do that. You really just came in and started to complain. Insulted people and now are running away.
I mean I asked you questions about Obama, you did not reply to them. You just have harsh feeling towards Nader. But in any event. Do what makes you happy.
sorry i had to "run away" to my work. let's see:
1. my complaint is with nader, to some extent his supporters but obvs they have complaints with me. you'll see this theme repeated in what follows.
2. anyone who knows what they want to accomplish should be able to figure out their own plan of action if they actually think about it realistically and then actually do something about it. my point is that it's out there, not here. this is nothing earth shattering.
3. i don't see this is as much as a discussion board, unless discussion is solely "this is what i think." "no, this is what i think." and then there is no resolution. add in some trolls from time to time.
4. i don't need or want to justify my thoughts on obama to you. i have done so on this board quite a while ago and learned it's a waste of my time. many others are currently doing so. between me and them there's probably not much more i'd take the time to contribute to what i see is no result.
and yes, from time to time i stop by because there are some good people around and sometimes some info, and i guess maybe for the hope that it could be something constructive but never is. hey a person needs a quick break sometimes and hopes to catch some good people. hey, scb!
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
the funny thing is, if it weren't for dweebs relentlessly posting his self-aggrandizing venom on obscure message boards and making youtube videos to share with their fellow dweebs, no one would even be thinking or talking about nader anymore.
if he wants to have a real impact, he should get off his high horse and roll up his sleeves and offer the new administration his expertise. that's if they'll listen to the ramblings of a bitter old fart. probably not, and that's unfortunate, since he has done some important work and he could contribute, but apparently he chooses not to engage in any effective way.
except to fire up the dweebs. he's very, very good at that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
the funny thing is, if it weren't for dweebs relentlessly posting his self-aggrandizing venom on obscure message boards and making youtube videos to share with their fellow dweebs, no one would even be thinking or talking about nader anymore.
if he wants to have a real impact, he should get off his high horse and roll up his sleeves and offer the new administration his expertise. that's if they'll listen to the ramblings of a bitter old fart. probably not, and that's unfortunate, since he has done some important work and he could contribute, but apparently he chooses not to engage in any effective way.
except to fire up the dweebs. he's very, very good at that.
You mean like when he tried to get Obama to talk to him before over a period of a few months, and was told Obama didn't have time?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
whats newsworthy? he's been harping on the democrats for years. and all that speech really said was that oBAMA didnt have enough of a forceful personality to get anything done. he may be right, but Nader's forceful personality and combative nature hasnt had any impact in decades either.
i'll wait to see what happens. but as a general rule, i think pragmatism trumps fundamentalism in the long run.
plus, his name is Ralph. i mean come on, who's gonna listen to a guy named Ralph?
Did you miss the part where he talked about siding w/ AIPAC against the majority of Israeli's and Palestinians (according to Haaretz polls)?
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
Not totally on topic, but I've had at least a half dozen friends who live in/vote in overwhelmingly blue states tell me something to the effect, "Well, Obama is clearly going to win here, so he doesn't really need my vote. I'm going to vote for Nader instead."
Why don't people on the hard left seem able to differentiate between the two? Their ideas aren't particularly similar, their personalities aren't...yet some people seem to see them as two sides of the same coin.
obama and nader are different on MANY issues
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 could say something about Obama and it wouldn't make national news. Why? Because nobody cares about me or what i say. Now, whether i think it's 'fair' or not, it's the same deal with Nader, he's simply become a vanity campaign. The saddest thing is that, instead of being remembered for his great consumer advocacy, some people will remember him as the grumpy old man who made the uncle tom comment the day after Obama was elected president. He knew what he was saying, he was offered a chance to retract, and he declined.
He does nothing for the progressive cause as far as I can see, and instead works against it with these so-called presidential bids. And maybe that's his real failing, in not being able to gain himself any publicity unless he's making himself a last minute candidate for president or saying controversial things.
He could always do an A-Rod. The news is all over that. Kind of silly eh? Or maybe not. I'd bang madonna too j/k..
so you are ok w/ allowing the corporate duopoly remain ineffectual?
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
except for a few people on the pearl jam message board, no one does care! most people in the real world actually care about getting this country back together. jesus christ. you see, people have to do real work now, not hide behind the safety of their computer screens, jerking it to a washed up nader, who has made a complete idiot of himself and his legacy. for the last time, nader has been around long enough, and ran for president many times; if people actually gave a shit about his "valid points without questionable wordplay," they would have listened. and they would have acted. obviously we've seen what can come from grassroots organization---we elected barack obama to the presidency.
by grassroots you mean millions in corporate money, 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
sorry, no longer going to disclose personal details on a pearl jam message board. the people close to me know my story. and i'm only one example of what a person can do.
an example by not telling us how you are an example?
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 voted for Nader twice. Not this time. I think his energy could be better spent doing exactly what he is doing now-holding those elected accountable. Running for office is ridiculous, a waste of time money energy. He is best at holding those in power accountable-I hope he gets more coverage from the press.
w/o 3rd parties issues like the abolishment of slavery and woman's rights would not have been heard. ppl like nader push for the actual change
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
Comments
oh i've seen some nader supporters holding signs outside of the local brewpub. i'm not saying they don't exist. my comment was in response to collin about not reaching out and working with them. and as i already said: it's all or nothing.
anyway, i've been around for over 5 years. there has never been an indication that this is a constructive place. it used to be a good place to talk to people but not anymore. i found how to create real change a while ago, thanks.
cross the river to the eastside
Like I said, share! Tell us, If you really care as much as you say. Why not tell us? Lets work together.
Let's see what we can do.
Yes. He has said it himself over and over again so many times that I've lost count. If Iran does not cease it's nuclear program full stop, they themselves will provoke the attack. I'm not sure how much more evidence one needs of proposed intentions?
Iran has to prove a double negative. They have to prove they don't have something that they don't have in the first place. Barack is playing head first into the whole "what if" scenario which is turning into "oh well they will have them eventually". Obama is 100% all about full stop on that situation or else....and this Iran rhetoric is coming straight from Israel (see Obama's AIPAC speech).
What's really going to be the kicker is how Obama gets Israel to adopt the two state solution, and get Gaza fair treatment, and the West bank resolved. Until that happens, Iran will always be an issue, as this is a huge contention for them, (and most of the Arab world for that matter). In other words, Iran is looking so highly probable right now that it would almost be foolish to think it's not going to happen under Obama, and in the same pre-emptive manner by default. I think were going to start seeing preemptive as policy now.
I hope I'm wrong.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
rahm/Obama/AIPAC
(It's a scary video, but the raggae at the end is kinda sweet)
and the highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=033gCiurxbg
and this I dunno, just made me laugh (How many times they say Iran)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLH50HghAt8
how exactly is that going to change anything and why would it work now when it hasn't the entire time this board has been in existence?
cross the river to the eastside
hey ... we have gotten pro-war people to change their stance ... people who didn't believe in climate change to alter their views ...
it can happen!!
well it looks like this is your forum then. my effects lie elsewhere
good luck!
cross the river to the eastside
say it isn't so!!! ... we all play a small part - although i don't doubt your role is larger in other areas - i also believe you've played your part over the years especially on issues on equality and humanity on this board ...
Gin, you brought it up. I'm still asking for you to please share it! Why wont you tell us?
Pretty please!..... with a cherry and a joint on top!...
Now that Obama is talking the exact same thing with renewed vigor, I'm perceived as just blindly hating him, or being deceptive, racist, or just desperate and far right.
uhh...what's up with that?!?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
sorry, no longer going to disclose personal details on a pearl jam message board. the people close to me know my story. and i'm only one example of what a person can do. there are so many, much more inspiring examples right out there.
cross the river to the eastside
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the reason we went into Iraq under President Bush was false, whether through incompetence or criminality. Where is such criminality with Obama's stated positions? My understanding of Obama is such; he will open diplomatic channels with Iran, among other countries. He will not allow them to develop a nuclear weapon because whether you agree with him or not, he feels it would be a 'game-changer.' The reason no one believed Bush when it came to Iran was because Iraq had proved to the American public that the administration was willing to overlook credible intel to go to war under false pretenses. You know as well as I that nobody looked at Bush's hard-line on Iran in isolation as a completely separate issue from Iraq, so I'm wondering why we're speaking like we all did now. Maybe I'm failing to hear this incindiary language that I heard throughout the Bush White House term, but maybe that's also because I'm a moderate Democrat who never saw Obama as a far-left politician with a Nader-esque foreign policy, as others may have seen him.
If you honestly think Obama will go to war in the same manner as Bush did in Iraq, then I don't know what to say other than I think that you are wrong.
I just want to say that I appreciate the change you create in the real world AND on this message board. Thank you!
Yes, but you have to look at the parameters of the equation.
I'm not hearing "We have to work with Iran will have to open up its nuclear program to greater transparency" were hearing "Iran must stop it's nuclear program altogether"
It's an ultimatum, and a continuation of the exact same rhetoric Bush was spewing. Prove a double negative or else. In fact now it's just "or else" despite everything...forget proving anything...do what we say, or it's military time. Israel gave birth to this idea.
There is no progressive language beyond Bush with regards to Iran, it's all pretty clear where it's heading.
When I start hearing about new initiatives to provide greater transparency to the IAEA, and other cooperative agreements, and solutions, instead of "cease and desist" then maybe...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Whos asking for personal details? I mean you are the one who had complaints about people, in this case Nader supporters.
You are the one who went on about what you do or whatever the case is that makes change. We just wanted to know what you are doing. Or to share even a tad of info. Maybe it will inspire someone here! a place you seem to dislike but still stay on.
You are on a debate board, a discussion board. Yet you refuse to do that. You really just came in and started to complain. Insulted people and now are running away.
I mean I asked you questions about Obama, you did not reply to them. You just have harsh feeling towards Nader. But in any event. Do what makes you happy.
Dont worry, this Uncle Tom comment will be the last we hear of Nader until he announces his run in the spring of 2012 after Obama and whoever runs for the Republican party refuse to meet with him.
You know who I'm most disappointed in? Nader. I once supported him; now I look back in disbelief.
That kind of mentality will prevent a viable third party from ever getting recognition. I know its frustrating only having 2 parties in every debate. 2 sides who convince the population that they are different. But don't be so quick to discredit someones attempt to change the status quo. Change will take time, and may seem to be going nowhere, but you must see the long term effects.
And where is this accountability. Non-existent. More coverage from the press only happens when he says something that can be spun to discredit himself.
sorry i had to "run away" to my work. let's see:
1. my complaint is with nader, to some extent his supporters but obvs they have complaints with me. you'll see this theme repeated in what follows.
2. anyone who knows what they want to accomplish should be able to figure out their own plan of action if they actually think about it realistically and then actually do something about it. my point is that it's out there, not here. this is nothing earth shattering.
3. i don't see this is as much as a discussion board, unless discussion is solely "this is what i think." "no, this is what i think." and then there is no resolution. add in some trolls from time to time.
4. i don't need or want to justify my thoughts on obama to you. i have done so on this board quite a while ago and learned it's a waste of my time. many others are currently doing so. between me and them there's probably not much more i'd take the time to contribute to what i see is no result.
and yes, from time to time i stop by because there are some good people around and sometimes some info, and i guess maybe for the hope that it could be something constructive but never is. hey a person needs a quick break sometimes and hopes to catch some good people. hey, scb!
cross the river to the eastside
the funny thing is, if it weren't for dweebs relentlessly posting his self-aggrandizing venom on obscure message boards and making youtube videos to share with their fellow dweebs, no one would even be thinking or talking about nader anymore.
if he wants to have a real impact, he should get off his high horse and roll up his sleeves and offer the new administration his expertise. that's if they'll listen to the ramblings of a bitter old fart. probably not, and that's unfortunate, since he has done some important work and he could contribute, but apparently he chooses not to engage in any effective way.
except to fire up the dweebs. he's very, very good at that.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Did you miss the part where he talked about siding w/ AIPAC against the majority of Israeli's and Palestinians (according to Haaretz polls)?
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 and nader are different on MANY issues
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
so you are ok w/ allowing the corporate duopoly remain ineffectual?
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
by grassroots you mean millions in corporate money, 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
an example by not telling us how you are an example?
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
w/o 3rd parties issues like the abolishment of slavery and woman's rights would not have been heard. ppl like nader push for the actual change
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