What's Your breaking Point?

Abookamongstthemany

What would Obama or McCain have to do before you would no longer vote for them if you found out?

I'm starting to think there is no breaking point and anything will be justified some how.

"After the Obama Betrayal"

By Gregory Kafoury

http://www.counterpunch.org/kafoury07122008.html

From The New York Times to The Huffington Post, from Counterpunch. org to The Nation, the outcry is the same: Obama is not the man he presented himself to be..

As he now panders to seemingly any right-wing group that can fill a room, his staff is arranging fundraisers where the cover charge is $30,000. Bob Herbert of the NYT echos the "disillusion" of "many of Obama's strongest supporters who are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry.

"

Across the progressive spectrum, the consensus is that Obama has abandoned any prospect for a transformational presidency, breathed life into a moribund and discredited right-wing, and incomprehensibly placed his very election at risk..

Most crucially, Obama has made the utterly cynical calculation that there is no price to be paid for abandoning his base, that the mantra of Anybody But Bush seamlessly melds into Anybody But McCain, that progressives will simply surrender..

So sure is Obama that progressives will bear any insult that he has taken to channeling the odious Jeanne Kirkpatrick of the Reagan era, denouncing those "counter-culturalists" who opposed the imperial wars from Vietnam to El Salvador and Nicaragua as the "blame America" crowd..

If Obama's analysis of progressives is correct, we can expect another depressing campaign, what Herbert calls "the terminal emptiness of politics as usual," followed by a presidency that honors right-wing ideology while serving corporate power..

But what if Obama is wrong? What if progressives have a breaking point? We have seen a revolt against Obama's FISA/Telecom betrayal play out on Obama's website, but the candidate has already responded to those dismayed supporters by essentially blowing them off.

Is this a "deal-breaker," he asks, as if to say, "What are you going to do about it?"

There are some who suggest doing something. John Nichols of The Nation suggests a coordinated push to get Ralph Nader into a debate with Obama and McCain. Google and YouTube are sponsoring a debate in New Orleans this fall, and the bar is set at 10% support. Nader is at 6% according to CNN, and those who would vote for him if he were competitive was 14% in a recent Fox poll. It is vastly easier to go from 14% to 30% than to go from nothing to 14%..

Nader would be -- to say the least -- a formidable presence in any debate. Once one gets beyond the caricature of Nader promoted by the political establishment, one sees a candidate who has intimate knowledge of every aspect of our corporate government, because we learn about an institution not by yielding to it, but by opposing it, something Nader alone has done for decades. Further, he is a man who has never flattered us, never pandered to our baser instincts and never lied to us..

The prospect of such a debate would get Obama's attention; the reality of it might shift the center of our politics as nothing else holds the promise of doing..

For those who do not wish to go gently, there is an alternative..

Gregory Kafoury is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com.

flywallyfly

I think for me it would be if my candidate spoke against how bad the Palestinians are treated by Israel and how Israeli use of cluster bombs is immoral -- then i found out all the time he was shouting against this he was investing in the vary defense contractor that helps make cluster bombs and the F-16 fighter jet that drops them on the Palestinians.

Abookamongstthemany

flywallyfly wrote:

I think for me it would be if my candidate spoke against how bad the Palestinians are treated by Israel and how Israeli use of cluster bombs is immoral -- then i found out all the time he was shouting against this he was investing in the vary defense contractor that helps make cluster bombs and the F-16 fighter jet that drops them on the Palestinians.

When he uses the money he makes off these corporations to keep them in check instead of making himself rich, I don't have that much of a problem. And he definitely isn't taking their money and then making it easier on them the way the democrats do business.

Its Evolution Baby

It wouldn't be anything that happens on the campaign trail as I know how the game of politics is played. If you play the game by staying true to your ideals and you lose with honor then what does that accomplish?

I have no problem trying to WIN this thing because I think he'll make a great leader in the long run. He may say some things from now until November that may be a little Right then his previous stances but if you look at his record he is not even close to the Conservative Party platform. So I'm not to concerned with him trying to gain some converts in the center.

No matter what you say the polls want if he runs on an overly liberal agenda it will play right into the Republican hands who will cry Taxes and Terrorists etc etc.

So the breaking point for me would have to be some sort of scandal where Obama's character is completely compromised.

flywallyfly

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

When he uses the money he makes off these corporations to keep them in check instead of making himself rich, I don't have that much of a problem. And he definitely isn't taking their money and then making it easier on them the way the democrats do business.

Nader was worth nearly $4 million in 2000 so he isnt making himself rich? What about his "sister's" $1.5 million mansion?

The hypocrisy of Nader's acts alone is beyond belief but I guess you made your own point about justification -- I guess people will justify anything so maybe there is no breaking point.

Abookamongstthemany

flywallyfly wrote:

Nader was worth nearly $4 million in 2000 so he isnt making himself rich? What about his "sister's" $1.5 million mansion?

The hypocrisy of Nader's acts alone is beyond belief but I guess you made your own point about justification -- I guess people will justify anything so maybe there is no breaking point.

He lives on less than $25,000 a year. :rolleyes:

His money goes to his causes.

cornnifer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What would Obama or McCain have to do before you would no longer vote for them if you found out?

I'm starting to think there is no breaking point and anything will be justified some how.

Honestly, i don't know what it would take, but i can say its a hell of alot more than the weak misinterpretations and wild speculation you daily offer in this forum.

flywallyfly

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

He lives on less than $25,000 a year. :rolleyes:

His money goes to his causes.

He SAYS he lives on $25,000 but wont release his tax returns. The $4 million figure is what is in his account AFTER giving to his causes. :rolleyes:

Deflection to this argument about his funds doesnt take away from the fact that you will justify anything Nader does just as you constantly accuse others of doing the same. :rolleyes:

El_Kabong

cornnifer wrote:

Honestly, i don't know what it would take, but i can say its a hell of alot more than the weak misinterpretations and wild speculation you daily offer in this forum.

such as?

so you don't care when he does things like in the televised new hampshire debate when he lied by shaking his head side to side and saying "that's not true" when it was brought up that the chair of his campaign was a pharmaceutical lobbyist? how is that wild speculation or a weak misinterpretation???

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

He SAYS he lives on $25,000 but wont release his tax returns. The $4 million figure is what is in his account AFTER giving to his causes. :rolleyes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/naderprofile.htm

Frugality rules. During the 2000 campaign he stayed at the homes of Green Party supporters to avoid hotel expenses, and he's known for haggling with airline ticket agents when they won't take his senior citizens' coupons.

Even so, Nader's personal assets approached $4 million in 2000, much of which was tied up in technology stocks. He does not take a salary from any of the public advocacy groups he founded, and lives on just $25,000 a year, funneling most of his earnings to civic organizations.

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/naderprofile.htm

Frugality rules. During the 2000 campaign he stayed at the homes of Green Party supporters to avoid hotel expenses, and he's known for haggling with airline ticket agents when they won't take his senior citizens' coupons.

Even so, Nader's personal assets approached $4 million in 2000, much of which was tied up in technology stocks. He does not take a salary from any of the public advocacy groups he founded, and lives on just $25,000 a year, funneling most of his earnings to civic organizations.

Again, that figure is what Nader SAYS it is but he wont release his tax returns to prove it. He haggles with airline ticket agents? That proves everything...lol. That's like me saying he eats expensive mushrooms so that proves he is filthy rich.

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

Again, that figure is what Nader SAYS it is but he wont release his tax returns to prove it.

and i shouldn't believe it b/c flywallyfly SAYS it. yet the usa today and new york times aren't reporting what you SAY, so....

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

and i shouldn't believe it b/c flywallyfly SAYS it. yet the usa today and new york times aren't reporting what you SAY, so....

Take Nader at his word if you want. He can say he lives off of $1 a day but it still doesnt make it true and it doesnt take away from the justification argument in this thread.

What's funny is you always bitch about the mainstream media and yet you are using their word (not an actual tax return for them to verify either) to try to make your argument. Golden. :rolleyes:

Urban Hiker

It's painful watching and waiting for people to hit their bottom.

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

Take Nader at his word if you want. He can say he lives off of $1 a day but it still doesnt make it true and it doesnt take away from the justification argument in this thread.

What's funny is you always bitch about the mainstream media and yet you are using their word (not an actual tax return for them to verify either) to try to make your argument. Golden. :rolleyes:

no, but i don't see any articles stating he lives off of more than $25,000

flywallyfly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii5D0MbLrHI

flywallyfly

Urban Hiker wrote:

It's painful watching and waiting for people to hit their bottom.

It is and I hope after you finally see Nader for the shill he is you will bounce back and make something of your life. Good luck.

Urban Hiker

flywallyfly wrote:

It is and I hope after you finally see Nader for the shill he is you will bounce back and make something of your life. Good luck.

I've hit bottom, I'm rising up. You and your suave candidate will not have me chasing dragons again.

my2hands

flywallyfly wrote:

I think for me it would be if my candidate spoke against how bad the Palestinians are treated by Israel and how Israeli use of cluster bombs is immoral -- then i found out all the time he was shouting against this he was investing in the vary defense contractor that helps make cluster bombs and the F-16 fighter jet that drops them on the Palestinians.

you got it... but that will get dismissed by the nader folks aroun dhere... see no evil hear no evil.. their candiate is perfect and they are superior and smarter for supporting him, you didnt know that?

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

He lives on less than $25,000 a year.

yeah, thats the capital gains made off of his war stock investment and investment in wall street and fortune 500 corporations. you know the same ones he rails against and calls evil


you guys are suckers. you really think this guy is living like fucking gandhi :rolleyes:


yeah, he sleeps on friends couches. give me a fucking break :rolleyes:

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

When he uses the money he makes off these corporations to keep them in check instead of making himself rich, I don't have that much of a problem. And he definitely isn't taking their money and then making it easier on them the way the democrats do business.

that is by far the worst cop out i have ever seen you take. stop trying to explain away naders obvious hypocricy.

i was shocked and pissed when i saw all that stuff, and so should you. not to mention insider trading 30 years ago...