I'm disappointed...

noodles_jefferson

_outlaw wrote:

If Obama had to crack an old woman's neck in order to keep in 'the game' his supporters would probably find a way to excuse that as well.

It's amazing to witness how brainwashed people can be.

Brainwashed?

let me lay this out for you real simple


1. McCain first agreed to public financing in the primaries

2. McCain, during the primaries, goes to a bank and gets a loan backed up by the 84 mil. guarenteed by the public finacing

3. Obama says he will CONSIDER taking public financing as long as he has assurances from the opponent (not yet known when he said this during the primaries) that they will do the same.

4. McCain begins to raise more money and decides to opt out of public financing, while it was still on record with the bank that gave him a loan that he was guarenteed the 84 mil from public financing.

5. Once they were both declared the nominees, McCain apparently opts back in , but Obama sends his lawyers to meet with McCains lawyers to iron out an agreement and McCains lawyers do not cooperate and both parties leave without a deal.

6. Obama decides that they are gaming the system and that he'd be better off raising his money on his own and he knows that it's not just the 84 mil that McCain gets, it's also the $250 mil tht the RNC has already said they will spend on 527's. and Obama can probably match that raising the money on his own.


what don't you understand about that? you make a comment like people are brainwashed but you brought nothing to the conversation.

El_Kabong

decides2dream wrote:

personally, i don't see it the same at all. once in office...no gmae to play, except what YOU want to accomplish. yes, certainly one has to work with others, compromise at times, etc......but to me, that's the whole point of playing the game while a candidate...to WIN, to get in office...so you CAN be a part of creating the change you want to see in this country. however, i respect we all see that differently.

one is a candidate...the other an already elected official. i don't see 'free passes' for anyone.

yeah, i'm sure the millions of corporate contributions won't come into play

El_Kabong

noodles_jefferson wrote:

look, i don't have any personal problem with Nader but i don't live in a pie in the sky world, I live in the real world. he's got no chance of winning. Obama may not be the most progressive guy in the world, but he's a zillion times more principled, inhtelligent, and capable than john "Bomb Bomb iran" Mccain. And while i think a viable third party is a great idea, i really don't see where nader has been working so hard in non election years to help create and nurture a viable third party, I just see him pop up in election years.

ok, so he's better than mccain, so what?? that's not very hard.

and nader is always working, he just dones' pop up every 304 years, that has been debunked here several times

noodles_jefferson

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, i'm sure the millions of corporate contributions won't come into play

corporate contributions to whom exactly? Barack Obama hasn't taken any in the primaries and won't in the general. the largest donation he can take is $2300 and that doesn't get you very far if you're looking for favors.

If Nader could pick up more than 2% of the vots maybe i'd vote for him but since the only real choices we have are Mccain and Obama, i'll choose Obama. and not because he's the lesser evil, but because i think he has the courage and conviction to try to actually DO something for the middle class.

Abookamongstthemany

noodles_jefferson wrote:

If Nader could pick up more than 2% of the vots maybe i'd vote for him but since the only real choices we have are Mccain and Obama

It's got to start somewhere...and that somewhere is us.


http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=287709

El_Kabong

noodles_jefferson wrote:

corporate contributions to whom exactly? Barack Obama hasn't taken any in the primaries and won't in the general. the largest donation he can take is $2300 and that doesn't get you very far if you're looking for favors.

did you look at the link i posted a few days ago to you in this thread?

noodles_jefferson

El_Kabong wrote:

did you look at the link i posted a few days ago to you in this thread?

yes, thank you. I just did and I have to admit this is just another thing that is making me take a different look at Obama. I suppose i was guilty of not diggign deep enough for information.

I listen to progressive radio stations a lot and i never hear any mention of those numbers, which also makes me sad. You would think you'd get more accurate information from them than you get from network news stations or right wing talk stations, but I suppose they are no different, glossing right over stuff that doesn't reflect well on their candidate.

I'm also not happy with his position on the revised fisa bill or his continual denial that he's a Muslim without having the stones to say make a public statement that there is absolutely nothnig wrong with beign a muslim, which has angered the muslim community.

noodles_jefferson

El_Kabong wrote:

did you look at the link i posted a few days ago to you in this thread?

I'm going to a gathering for Obama supporters on the 28th and I do plan on bringing all of these things up.

Im still here

Obama sux , McCain sux

(The World has come Undone like to change it everyday)

maybe a vote for no one is a Vote for freedom

I know its not Obama

noodles_jefferson

Im still here wrote:

Obama sux , McCain sux

(The World has come Undone like to change it everyday)

maybe a vote for no one is a Vote for freedom

I know its not Obama

maybe i'm naive, but i still don't think Obama is as married to corporations as McCain. He's better for labor unions and he's for a fairer tax code. and regarding personal rights and scientific reesearch, he's for stem cell research and he won't try to overturn Rowe V Wade. there are still plenty of reasons why i'll vote for him over Mccain but he's not the great change agent he has billed himself as if he's still taking big donations from corporate interests. (We still need clarity on whether those donations are coming directly from the corporations or from individuals working for those corporations because they ask where you work when you donate and i know i've seen instances where they ahve counted personal donations made by emplyees of a company as company donations)

I really do wish Nader could pick up more than 4% of the vote, but I have to give my vote to the guy with a chance to win. Mccain getting in will only make things a lot worse. sorry but that's the way i see it.

noodles_jefferson

El_Kabong wrote:

did you look at the link i posted a few days ago to you in this thread?

one question. regarding the list of corporate donors, are you differentiating between donations made by the actual corporation itself and donations made by individuals who work for these corporations? because some of the numbers I've seen on that suggest that they are counting danations made by people who work for a company as donations from that company. Just trying to clarify...my brain

Thecure

noodles_jefferson wrote:

maybe i'm naive, but i still don't think Obama is as married to corporations as McCain. He's better for labor unions and he's for a fairer tax code. and regarding personal rights and scientific reesearch, he's for stem cell research and he won't try to overturn Rowe V Wade. there are still plenty of reasons why i'll vote for him over Mccain but he's not the great change agent he has billed himself as if he's still taking big donations from corporate interests. (We still need clarity on whether those donations are coming directly from the corporations or from individuals working for those corporations because they ask where you work when you donate and i know i've seen instances where they ahve counted personal donations made by emplyees of a company as company donations)

I really do wish Nader could pick up more than 4% of the vote, but I have to give my vote to the guy with a chance to win. Mccain getting in will only make things a lot worse. sorry but that's the way i see it.

McCain and Obama are both tied to corporation, you can't get to teh point where they are now without that. Labor unions are not that great and might be a reason why jobs are being shipped out of the country. Mccain wants tax breaks and simple tax codes. McCain has gotten into big fights with hsi base about stem cell. you right on teh rowe vs wade, but there is an argument that says that the Federal government should be apart of that and that it should be left for the states to decided. now lets see the similarties: both we keep troops in Iraq (but one person it actually saying that, while teh other one IMO is knowing that but not saying that).

wow that really the only similarties: what a choice you guys have. the questions now is who can actually do what they are saying?

RainDog

noodles_jefferson wrote:

one question. regarding the list of corporate donors, are you differentiating between donations made by the actual corporation itself and donations made by individuals who work for these corporations? because some of the numbers I've seen on that suggest that they are counting danations made by people who work for a company as donations from that company. Just trying to clarify...my brain

Your analysis is correct, these numbers are drawn from donations made by individuals who work for the listed companies - though there is an argument to be made that these individuals are coordinating their donations (and I'm absolutely sure you'll hear that argument).

RainDog

Thecure wrote:

wow that really the only similarties: what a choice you guys have. the questions now is who can actually do what they are saying?

Based on their "stated" goals, I'd rather nothing happen in the next four years under an Obama administration than anything happen under a McCain one.

noodles_jefferson

Thecure wrote:

McCain and Obama are both tied to corporation, you can't get to teh point where they are now without that. Labor unions are not that great and might be a reason why jobs are being shipped out of the country. Mccain wants tax breaks and simple tax codes. McCain has gotten into big fights with hsi base about stem cell. you right on teh rowe vs wade, but there is an argument that says that the Federal government should be apart of that and that it should be left for the states to decided. now lets see the similarties: both we keep troops in Iraq (but one person it actually saying that, while teh other one IMO is knowing that but not saying that).

wow that really the only similarties: what a choice you guys have. the questions now is who can actually do what they are saying?

I don't think you can balme labor unions for shipping jobs overseas. the company nkows they have a mcuh cheaper labor force over there. are American workers supposed to work for $2 an hour? labor unions are bad when they are corrupted but labor unions gave us minimum wage, child labor laws, a two day weekend, a 40 hour work week, lots of things we take for granted.

Thecure

noodles_jefferson wrote:

I don't think you can balme labor unions for shipping jobs overseas. the company nkows they have a mcuh cheaper labor force over there. are American workers supposed to work for $2 an hour? labor unions are bad when they are corrupted but labor unions gave us minimum wage, child labor laws, a two day weekend, a 40 hour work week, lots of things we take for granted.

i agree with you about the good things that unions have done. but i also say that Unions (atleast in my country Canada) have gotten to the point where they are too powerful and instead of looking for what is best for the bussiness and teh workers all they care abotu are teh workers. here in Canada, we have autoplants closing and people losing lobs left right and centre and one main concern that the unions always bring up is wages.

Thecure

RainDog wrote:

Based on their "stated" goals, I'd rather nothing happen in the next four years under an Obama administration than anything happen under a McCain one.

so you want 4 more years of bush right? becuase using that logic, if Obama does nothing than we still haev Bush policies going on.

also, what stated goals do you mean? it seems to m ethat people now only want change but could care less what that change is. rather shortsighted would you not say.

RainDog

Thecure wrote:

so you want 4 more years of bush right? becuase using that logic, if Obama does nothing than we still haev Bush policies going on.

also, what stated goals do you mean? it seems to m ethat people now only want change but could care less what that change is. rather shortsighted would you not say.

You're kinda speaking for me there. No, I don't want 4 more years of Bush, which is one of the reasons I don't want McCain (yes, yes, they're not the same - but in regards to foreign policy, they are).

I mean that I would rather Obama fail at trying to implement his stated goals (withdraw from Iraq - diplomatic talks with places like Iran - reassessment of oil company taxes - etc.) than McCain succeed in implementing his stated goals (continued combat presence in Iraq - no diplomacy with places like Iran - increased oil company profits through deregulation of our drilling laws - etc.).

My sight is pretty keen, actually. In 33 years, I've never needed glasses.

noodles_jefferson

Thecure wrote:

so you want 4 more years of bush right? becuase using that logic, if Obama does nothing than we still haev Bush policies going on.

also, what stated goals do you mean? it seems to m ethat people now only want change but could care less what that change is. rather shortsighted would you not say.

I don't like a guy who says "i hate gooks" and "Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb iran" is if it'sa big joke. we've had enough of that kind of crap with bush. you may not like Obama but he's no war monger or a functionally illiterate frat boy. Obama would be a welcome change from that.

noodles_jefferson

let's not forget that one of McCains cheif advisors is Phil Graham, the same idiot that was the architect of the current housing crisis, alowing lendign institutions to make loans based on stated income and then sell those loans to investment banks. and i belive he was also instrumental in the deregulation of the energy markets that gave us Enron. Is this what we want more of?