So all the individual donars, new voters, independents and moderate republicans that have been supporting him mean nothing? He isn't a divisive figure like Hillary.
Clinton is only as close to him because of those in the Dem party that don't want Obama as president for fear of what he wouldn't do for them. yes he may not change to the scale needed, but their is no politician outside of Bush that is tied into the party faithful, the party croanies, the party deadbeats as Hillary Clinton.
When push comes to shove, they will all still vote for Obama anyway.
Voting for Obama and giving him money isn't the same as bringing people to together for anything. Clinton has raised almost as much as him. It's just not saying much.
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 think the country has been more vocal than ever about wanting some 'real' change. People are starting to get really interested in what's going on in the gov't bc they are finally seeing how it's affecting them. And isn't Obama's main theme been about change and hope? 'yes we can!'? And the crowds go wild at the sound of that. Seems like they're really hoping for change to me. But I think these are more empty words from Obama than anything else, sadly.
.
really, more vocal than ever. anti war deminstrations in the U S are a joke. Ask someone to choose between participating something they believe in or watch their favorite tv show, and tv will win in disturbing numbers.
Everything you would need to vote Bush out of office on '04 was there on the table, and now how many people are talking about how they made a mistake with their vote in '04? A corpse should have been able to beat Bush, yet he won.
as for empty words, his words are less empty that any one else running for President. The people need to be inspired for change, because they, we, are the most responsible for that change. The government can only do so much.
Fear of the people will change the government, but the people have to do a hell of a lot more first to get that powerful. Bush always says the free market will lead us. There is actually a lot of truth in that. If we weren't so selfish, and actually thought about our purchases, where the item came from, who made it, etc...or made decisions and purchases, which may be a sacrifice on our part, but would help promote change, then we might see change.
As a whole, we are about our little worlds between home, work, family, and friends houses. We are about ourselves, not each other. We allow cigerettes to be sold, knowing they speed up death, and bring death to others. We by illegal drugs, that people have died for to get them to us, though we'll argue they should be legal, we elect and re-elect incompetents, how can change be in our grasps?
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Well, looking at his platform, I'm going to have to disagree with that one. It seems like his supporters bend to match his platform instead of them persuading him to listen to their voice on the matter. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I saw people here admitting more readily the weaknesses in Obama's plans and heard people addressing him about it. All I keep seeing is 'Obama is great and he is the best we've got. Deal with it.' That just turns me off. People are supposed to influence their govt, not roll over and take whatever bone they're throwing out to you at the moment. Demand more and the anti-war crowd might get behind you in doing so.
I'll say to this...we shall see. I don't expect miracles, but I expect more than I've seen in my adult lifetime.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
So how is our presence going to stop the civil disputes that have been going on in Iraq for decades? When can we leave and they not keep right on killing? How are we going to fix this problem? When are the costs and the loss of our own troops going to be enough to say, 'okay we tried...it's not working' ? It's been 5 years!!! Where's the progress? And how do we know that this isn't just the newest excuse to maintain our occupation over there to line the pockets of defense contractors and war profiteers? We don't seem to concerned with murderous dictatorships we've installed elsewhere around the globe. We keep arming them, too...to keep killing one another. This looks like more of the same to me.
first, I believe not just incompetence lead to decisions when we got to Baghdad, but arrogant ones, and of course they were on the civilian side. We have seen progress. There wasn't a lot of killing for decades in Iraq, outside of what Saddam's people did for the most part.
Because Bush has had a different mission, like staying, having the largest embassy in the world filled with many U S troops, doesn't mean changing the mission, and actually trying to do things that will lead to us being able to leave isn't a good idea. I don't believe they have taken any true steps that need to be done to actually get us out. So the last five yrs isn't a good example.
if we are the greatest country in the world, then we have to put forth the right effort to try and make this work. Far more Iraqis are dead because of our actions, than Americans.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
We make our reality. We are not some powerless group of people who can't do any better. Anything less is a copout avoiding accountability.
Nader has a long history proving his leadership and ability to be effective. He has more accomplishments than the other 3 combined. and has did more for the american people, as well. He brought us the clean air act, the freedom of information act, took GM to task about their unsafe cars and brought us seat belts and air bags and much more...look it up. So say that he can't lead and be very effectual against great odds is ignoring the facts.
I like Nadar, but none of what you have stated means jack in politics. If it did, and he had the leadership ability needed, our discussion would be a mute point, but the reality is he can't even half as well as Perot, and he is far better than Perot.
Reality isn't a copout. We, the American people, are the problem.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Voting for Obama and giving him money isn't the same as bringing people to together for anything. Clinton has raised almost as much as him. It's just not saying much.
really, getting people involved that weren't before, having rallies with more people attending than Clinton and McCain combined, and Clinton is far behind Obama in fund raising, most of hers a large donars, where Obama has received donations by more than 1.2 million different donars so far.
it says more than anyone else, and Republicans don't hate him.
you may say that's not much, but it's saying something, and leading to much more. The ability to inspire others shouldn't be overlooked, in fact it should be paid attention to, cause the other side, is some bad people of inspired others to do bad things. I don't feel that's the situation here.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Why should that warrent not doing too much with their seat? If they were sincere about wanting change shouldn't they have been pushing hard for it then? Did some things to be proud of with the position? Ambition shouldn't give you a free pass to be ineffective. And I'd like to see someone with the actions to back up their rhetoric...then I'd believe their pretty speeches about how much they care about these issues. Just a few actions/accomplishments proving just how much they care. Their word 4 years later don't mean much.
Because if he had voted too much against the grain during this period he would be in the same position as Paul, Kucinich, and Nader. (no chance in presidency) And we would be stuck with Hillary as our next president.
Barack will listen to the will of the people. I can't say I feel the same about ANY of the other candidates.
really, more vocal than ever. anti war deminstrations in the U S are a joke. Ask someone to choose between participating something they believe in or watch their favorite tv show, and tv will win in disturbing numbers.
People are more actively invovled in and follow the election races. More people have been turning out for the primaries, taking part and donating because they feel powerless and think that getting their candidate in office will fix all these problems they've been complaining about. People like to be part of things that show results. And the protests have been going on for 5 years now so they have turned their attention from holding Bush and co accountable and are now focusing all their attnetion on hoping a Democrat will come in and make it all better. Doesn't look like the Dems are going to offer much difference to me. People do care and are paying attention now more than ever, people talk polticis these days more than I have ever witnessed but they feel their hands are tied. They need to realize they are not as powerless as they are made to think. And why shouldn't they think it though....look at the 2006 elections, people voted the Dems in based on getting us out of Iraq and here we still arfe in the same place because Congress claims they are also powerless. If Congress says they can't do shit, what are the people supposed to think?
Everything you would need to vote Bush out of office on '04 was there on the table, and now how many people are talking about how they made a mistake with their vote in '04? A corpse should have been able to beat Bush, yet he won.
He barely won and the reaosn he did is the same failure on the part of the Dems to offer an actually opposition to the already exists bullshit policies in place. The Dems are going to have to learn one day or just pack up shop and leave town. They have been an overwhelming failure.
as for empty words, his words are less empty that any one else running for President. The people need to be inspired for change, because they, we, are the most responsible for that change. The government can only do so much.
I don't agree his words a re less empty than Nader's. Nader means what he says and doesn't have a history of saying one thing and then voting another way, at least. Obama has said he's against the war, patriot act, predatory lending, this crooked Admin yet he has voted to fund the war, reenact the patiot act, against a credit card cap of 30% and voted to confirm Condi Rice. Those are blatant contradictions to me and others. They may not be to you but I'm just saying I don't take too much stock in Obama's words.
Fear of the people will change the government, but the people have to do a hell of a lot more first to get that powerful. Bush always says the free market will lead us. There is actually a lot of truth in that. If we weren't so selfish, and actually thought about our purchases, where the item came from, who made it, etc...or made decisions and purchases, which may be a sacrifice on our part, but would help promote change, then we might see change.
I agree people need to take part, do their part and realize no one is going to do that for them. That's why I am taking the stance I am this year. I'm not going to get what I want to see by supporting what I don't want to see. I have to be bold and stand up for what I view as right. If everyone did this we wouldn't have to worry about the phrase 'voting for the lesser of two evils.
As a whole, we are about our little worlds between home, work, family, and friends houses. We are about ourselves, not each other. We allow cigerettes to be sold, knowing they speed up death, and bring death to others. We by illegal drugs, that people have died for to get them to us, though we'll argue they should be legal, we elect and re-elect incompetents, how can change be in our grasps?
It will be as soon as people get fed up enough to push their fears and anxieties aside and stand up for what they believe in and not keep finding excuses for things they don't.
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
Because if he had voted too much against the grain during this period he would be in the same position as Paul, Kucinich, and Nader. (no chance in presidency) And we would be stuck with Hillary as our next president.
Barack will listen to the will of the people. I can't say I feel the same about ANY of the other candidates.
And why is that? Because big business wouldn't back him? You're okay with that? Elected officials not doing all they could and should be because then they won't be getting the big bucks? That's the fucking problem right there! We accept this and keep making excuses and voting them in. They are not in office to represent what big business wants...they are there to serve the people who voted them in in the first place.
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'll say to this...we shall see. I don't expect miracles, but I expect more than I've seen in my adult lifetime.
We shall see? What does that have to do with pushing your candidate towards taking on the stances we all would feel more comfortable with on the left? That sounds like the same 'I'm powerless, someone do it for me' attitude you said was the problem. I'd like to see Obama supporters vocalizing these problems and talking about the things they see wrong with Obama's platform.
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
first, I believe not just incompetence lead to decisions when we got to Baghdad, but arrogant ones, and of course they were on the civilian side. We have seen progress. There wasn't a lot of killing for decades in Iraq, outside of what Saddam's people did for the most part.
Because Bush has had a different mission, like staying, having the largest embassy in the world filled with many U S troops, doesn't mean changing the mission, and actually trying to do things that will lead to us being able to leave isn't a good idea. I don't believe they have taken any true steps that need to be done to actually get us out. So the last five yrs isn't a good example.
if we are the greatest country in the world, then we have to put forth the right effort to try and make this work. Far more Iraqis are dead because of our actions, than Americans.
This just sounds like the same rhetoric I heard from the Republicans. And guess what, they aren't bad guys, either. They think this is the best way to go just like you do. To me, it's just politicing. Getting your supporters to buy another reason for why we need to keep staying there. The Dems will probably be much like the Reps...they will keep morphing their excuse for the continued occupation to another new reason when the old one falls flat. And just like the Reps, I don't think you guys will get fed up and start speaking out....I think you'll do just like the Bushies on this board did then, you'll go along with whatever new excuse they put out there because they are pros at selling this shit and this board is proof of that. So many anti Iraq war people are now the quickest here to tell everyone why we need to stay there. 'Bring them home now!' has been put in the closet and replaced with 'Obama 08!'. I still think it's bullshit and is only more of the same old excuses fed to you to line the pockets of war profiteers and defense contractors(who just happen to be donating even more to the Dems this year than McCain)
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
really, getting people involved that weren't before, having rallies with more people attending than Clinton and McCain combined, and Clinton is far behind Obama in fund raising, most of hers a large donars, where Obama has received donations by more than 1.2 million different donars so far.
it says more than anyone else, and Republicans don't hate him.
you may say that's not much, but it's saying something, and leading to much more. The ability to inspire others shouldn't be overlooked, in fact it should be paid attention to, cause the other side, is some bad people of inspired others to do bad things. I don't feel that's the situation here.
His ability to bullshit rivals any politician I've seen. But yes, people have rallied behind people who were full of shit before. People rallied behind Bush. People ae now so sick of Bush they are rallying behind the Dems. They people need to wise up.
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 like Nadar, but none of what you have stated means jack in politics. If it did, and he had the leadership ability needed, our discussion would be a mute point, but the reality is he can't even half as well as Perot, and he is far better than Perot.
Reality isn't a copout. We, the American people, are the problem.
If the things I mentioned don't mean shit in politics what does? Money? Oh that's right. Good point!
Politics is supposed to be all about the things Nader has done. Working for the good of the people...what a concept!!
But yes, money rules the day and people inside these big business firms are pouring it out to the ones they know they can trust. Just don't expect me to follow along with it. It doesn't take a genius to see that when these people get all this money and are elected, they usually arent very effective in doing the best job for the people. They usually have priorities else where that actually conflict with what's best for the common man. And that is the politics of today.
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
The peace movement should be marching everyday with this gov't.
One thing that stands out about the invasion of Iraq is that for the first time in US history the population stood up and spoke out against the invasion before the invasion actually happened. No other time in our history has that happened, and that alone shows us how popular this war really is. And even if you look at the polls some 70% are agasintthe occupation of Iraq. If Obama is for the occupation...well, he shouldn't be getting any of our votes.
The peace movement should be marching everyday with this gov't.
One thing that stands out about the invasion of Iraq is that for the first time in US history the population stood up and spoke out against the invasion before the invasion actually happened. No other time in our history has that happened, and that alone shows us how popular this war really is. And even if you look at the polls some 70% are agasintthe occupation of Iraq. If Obama is for the occupation...well, he shouldn't be getting any of our votes.
Yep, it's really not that difficult. The least they could do was push him into an actual anti-war stance. They'll just keep eating up his excuses.
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 think they mean well just as the republicans thought they were supporting protecting us and hindering terrorism. But both are being duped, imo.
In the US propaganda has reached levels we cant' really imagine.
The more important your job is in the decision making process the more intense the propaganda.
So all the congressmen and women and the senators were given all this information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-they had to act on those 'fact's presented to them by the NSA or CIA or whatever agency, but that was all the information they were given. The propaganda at that level is pretty strict. That was the only information they received about Iraq, so naturally they reacted, as they were trained to do. They can't beat them with a stick so they control their information, and thus their interpretation of reality.
And why is that? Because big business wouldn't back him? You're okay with that? Elected officials not doing all they could and should be because then they won't be getting the big bucks? That's the fucking problem right there! We accept this and keep making excuses and voting them in. They are not in office to represent what big business wants...they are there to serve the people who voted them in in the first place.
Actually big bucks are a big part of winning a presidency. That will NEVER change. But at least Obama is getting a large potion of that money from grass roots and millions of individuals. Things are changing. And Obama will be a president for the people. Kucinich realizes it and so should you.
Actually big bucks are a big part of winning a presidency. That will NEVER change. But at least Obama is getting a large potion of that money from grass roots and millions of individuals. Things are changing. And Obama will be a president for the people. Kucinich realizes it and so should you.
Lots of that money comes from individuals inside big business donating on behalf of said business because it is illegal for the corporation to do it themselves without forming a PAC. Enough has been posted on that...you should be aware they will do what they have to to get around this and in many ways this works out better for them. Because now there isn't a clear trail of money that would noramally raise people's suspicions.
So I should follow whatever Kucinich thinks even when I disagree?
I prefer to think for myself, thank you.
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
Actually big bucks are a big part of winning a presidency. That will NEVER change. But at least Obama is getting a large potion of that money from grass roots and millions of individuals. Things are changing. And Obama will be a president for the people. Kucinich realizes it and so should you.
and Kucinich is for impeaching Bush and Cheney. He stood up and voted no to keep funding this war and spoke out against those who did. He's for a single payer healthcare plan. He's for a Dept of Peace. You guys weren't listening to him then so save me this shit about how now he's sooooo right because he said to support Obama in Iowa. :rolleyes:
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've got a question for you, maybe slightly off subject, and i'm not referring to Obama or any candidate. just a what if.
Which would you rather have? an anti-war politician that planned on ending the war but publically said he was for continuing it just to win the election (a liar, basically) or an anti-war politician who had absolutely no chance of winning yet was very publically outspoken on his views, even if that meant the pro-war guy wins?
" "withdrawing", "combat" troops. ending "the war"..."
this parts rich.
sheesh.
i got an image of one of those people that like to draw invisible quotation marks in the sky with their fingers as they speak and annoy you to the point of wanting to slap them.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
People are more actively invovled in and follow the election races. More people have been turning out for the primaries, taking part and donating because they feel powerless and think that getting their candidate in office will fix all these problems they've been complaining about. People like to be part of things that show results. And the protests have been going on for 5 years now so they have turned their attention from holding Bush and co accountable and are now focusing all their attnetion on hoping a Democrat will come in and make it all better. Doesn't look like the Dems are going to offer much difference to me. People do care and are paying attention now more than ever, people talk polticis these days more than I have ever witnessed but they feel their hands are tied. They need to realize they are not as powerless as they are made to think. And why shouldn't they think it though....look at the 2006 elections, people voted the Dems in based on getting us out of Iraq and here we still arfe in the same place because Congress claims they are also powerless. If Congress says they can't do shit, what are the people supposed to think?
Congress is powerless, except to hold the government hostage and allow nothing to happen but for bush to veto everything. Then they will be blamed, not the republicans. it's not responsible to do so. a simple majority in the Senate means almost nothing. they aren't powerless, but they aren't in a place of power either.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
He barely won and the reaosn he did is the same failure on the part of the Dems to offer an actually opposition to the already exists bullshit policies in place. The Dems are going to have to learn one day or just pack up shop and leave town. They have been an overwhelming failure.
you have got to be kidding? the anti-war movement if far more of a failure that the democratic party. Any other political party other than the democratic and republican is an utter failure. You blame Democrats for the weaknesses of the American people. Sorry, but if the Dem's fought the Patriot Act as one and to the last, they would have been replaced in 2004. Same with the war. It's one thing for a few standing up, but the entire party would have been a threat, and Rove and ther republicans would have BBQ their asses in the elections.
Now that leads us to a major problem in politics. For the most part, no politician will stand up and put their seat on the line by taking a moral or eithical stand. They are not willing to fight for what is right if it means hurting their re-election chances. This has lead to the weakness of the Dem party, and the power of the Repub party. The moderate conservatives have had to move right, the middle has been decontructed both economically in this country, and politicially.
you want to blame the Democrats, please, if your idealology, which I agree with some is so good, where is the movement, the leadership, if it's so right, why is 95% of the country on someone else's team?
70% want us out of Iraq, doesn't mean anti-war, leave now, most are realistic enough no understand that it's not an overnight process, that we can't leave hell behind, though in the end we might. What the Bush administration has done in Iraq can't be scene as part of the effort to get us out, they have just tried to cut violence, and U S loss of life, through using merc's, and limiting what our forces do, most spend their time on a base, all so they can pass the problem on, and hopefully have their agenda far enough along, that it can't be reversed easily.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
I don't agree his words a re less empty than Nader's. Nader means what he says and doesn't have a history of saying one thing and then voting another way, at least. Obama has said he's against the war, patriot act, predatory lending, this crooked Admin yet he has voted to fund the war, reenact the patiot act, against a credit card cap of 30% and voted to confirm Condi Rice. Those are blatant contradictions to me and others. They may not be to you but I'm just saying I don't take too much stock in Obama's words.
no Obama has voted to fund the military, that is something we have no choice in, I'm tired of the bs rhetoric around this. We aren't taking good enough care of them as it is, to take the money away isn't an option. They president has options to take money from other areas, so it isn't this end all solution. The stop funding Vietnam in what, April of '76 or so, by voting to defund it in congress, guess what, the troops were already out of Vietnam by then.
Condi Rice, though the wrong person for the job, is by far, one of the better appointments by the Bush administration. Cheney is not a fan. I have no problem with her, cause Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, and others are the bigger problem.
Also, voting for someone when you are in the minority, and your vote doesn't make a difference is a political move, it may gain him a favor, so looking at that vote as some larger problem holds no sway in my opinion.
The Patriot Act was changed slightly, it has some good stuff in it, but it also has bad stuff. More of it needs to be brought before the Supreme Court for a ruling. This has been a mess from the start, but again, it's about not rocking the vote, which I understand isn't a strong point for an individual.
Nadar is a manager, a man that has done great things, but behind the scenes in regards to national exposure, not a leader. Barack has leadership atributes, he has strong oratory skills, and he will make a difference, he will upset the Democrat elite, and the right wing, but most others will be with him. He won't please all, sometime not most, but when he doesn't it will be something they can live with. He will also be a great agent for change by moving the country to the next generation. This will allow for more ideas outside of the two parties to gain strength with the american people. He will be the next President, and I'm looking forward to discussing that future as it's created.
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
Comments
Voting for Obama and giving him money isn't the same as bringing people to together for anything. Clinton has raised almost as much as him. It's just not saying much.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
really, more vocal than ever. anti war deminstrations in the U S are a joke. Ask someone to choose between participating something they believe in or watch their favorite tv show, and tv will win in disturbing numbers.
Everything you would need to vote Bush out of office on '04 was there on the table, and now how many people are talking about how they made a mistake with their vote in '04? A corpse should have been able to beat Bush, yet he won.
as for empty words, his words are less empty that any one else running for President. The people need to be inspired for change, because they, we, are the most responsible for that change. The government can only do so much.
Fear of the people will change the government, but the people have to do a hell of a lot more first to get that powerful. Bush always says the free market will lead us. There is actually a lot of truth in that. If we weren't so selfish, and actually thought about our purchases, where the item came from, who made it, etc...or made decisions and purchases, which may be a sacrifice on our part, but would help promote change, then we might see change.
As a whole, we are about our little worlds between home, work, family, and friends houses. We are about ourselves, not each other. We allow cigerettes to be sold, knowing they speed up death, and bring death to others. We by illegal drugs, that people have died for to get them to us, though we'll argue they should be legal, we elect and re-elect incompetents, how can change be in our grasps?
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I'll say to this...we shall see. I don't expect miracles, but I expect more than I've seen in my adult lifetime.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
first, I believe not just incompetence lead to decisions when we got to Baghdad, but arrogant ones, and of course they were on the civilian side. We have seen progress. There wasn't a lot of killing for decades in Iraq, outside of what Saddam's people did for the most part.
Because Bush has had a different mission, like staying, having the largest embassy in the world filled with many U S troops, doesn't mean changing the mission, and actually trying to do things that will lead to us being able to leave isn't a good idea. I don't believe they have taken any true steps that need to be done to actually get us out. So the last five yrs isn't a good example.
if we are the greatest country in the world, then we have to put forth the right effort to try and make this work. Far more Iraqis are dead because of our actions, than Americans.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
I like Nadar, but none of what you have stated means jack in politics. If it did, and he had the leadership ability needed, our discussion would be a mute point, but the reality is he can't even half as well as Perot, and he is far better than Perot.
Reality isn't a copout. We, the American people, are the problem.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
really, getting people involved that weren't before, having rallies with more people attending than Clinton and McCain combined, and Clinton is far behind Obama in fund raising, most of hers a large donars, where Obama has received donations by more than 1.2 million different donars so far.
it says more than anyone else, and Republicans don't hate him.
you may say that's not much, but it's saying something, and leading to much more. The ability to inspire others shouldn't be overlooked, in fact it should be paid attention to, cause the other side, is some bad people of inspired others to do bad things. I don't feel that's the situation here.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Because if he had voted too much against the grain during this period he would be in the same position as Paul, Kucinich, and Nader. (no chance in presidency) And we would be stuck with Hillary as our next president.
Barack will listen to the will of the people. I can't say I feel the same about ANY of the other candidates.
People are more actively invovled in and follow the election races. More people have been turning out for the primaries, taking part and donating because they feel powerless and think that getting their candidate in office will fix all these problems they've been complaining about. People like to be part of things that show results. And the protests have been going on for 5 years now so they have turned their attention from holding Bush and co accountable and are now focusing all their attnetion on hoping a Democrat will come in and make it all better. Doesn't look like the Dems are going to offer much difference to me. People do care and are paying attention now more than ever, people talk polticis these days more than I have ever witnessed but they feel their hands are tied. They need to realize they are not as powerless as they are made to think. And why shouldn't they think it though....look at the 2006 elections, people voted the Dems in based on getting us out of Iraq and here we still arfe in the same place because Congress claims they are also powerless. If Congress says they can't do shit, what are the people supposed to think?
He barely won and the reaosn he did is the same failure on the part of the Dems to offer an actually opposition to the already exists bullshit policies in place. The Dems are going to have to learn one day or just pack up shop and leave town. They have been an overwhelming failure.
I don't agree his words a re less empty than Nader's. Nader means what he says and doesn't have a history of saying one thing and then voting another way, at least. Obama has said he's against the war, patriot act, predatory lending, this crooked Admin yet he has voted to fund the war, reenact the patiot act, against a credit card cap of 30% and voted to confirm Condi Rice. Those are blatant contradictions to me and others. They may not be to you but I'm just saying I don't take too much stock in Obama's words.
I agree people need to take part, do their part and realize no one is going to do that for them. That's why I am taking the stance I am this year. I'm not going to get what I want to see by supporting what I don't want to see. I have to be bold and stand up for what I view as right. If everyone did this we wouldn't have to worry about the phrase 'voting for the lesser of two evils.
It will be as soon as people get fed up enough to push their fears and anxieties aside and stand up for what they believe in and not keep finding excuses for things they don't.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And why is that? Because big business wouldn't back him? You're okay with that? Elected officials not doing all they could and should be because then they won't be getting the big bucks? That's the fucking problem right there! We accept this and keep making excuses and voting them in. They are not in office to represent what big business wants...they are there to serve the people who voted them in in the first place.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We shall see? What does that have to do with pushing your candidate towards taking on the stances we all would feel more comfortable with on the left? That sounds like the same 'I'm powerless, someone do it for me' attitude you said was the problem. I'd like to see Obama supporters vocalizing these problems and talking about the things they see wrong with Obama's platform.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This just sounds like the same rhetoric I heard from the Republicans. And guess what, they aren't bad guys, either. They think this is the best way to go just like you do. To me, it's just politicing. Getting your supporters to buy another reason for why we need to keep staying there. The Dems will probably be much like the Reps...they will keep morphing their excuse for the continued occupation to another new reason when the old one falls flat. And just like the Reps, I don't think you guys will get fed up and start speaking out....I think you'll do just like the Bushies on this board did then, you'll go along with whatever new excuse they put out there because they are pros at selling this shit and this board is proof of that. So many anti Iraq war people are now the quickest here to tell everyone why we need to stay there. 'Bring them home now!' has been put in the closet and replaced with 'Obama 08!'. I still think it's bullshit and is only more of the same old excuses fed to you to line the pockets of war profiteers and defense contractors(who just happen to be donating even more to the Dems this year than McCain)
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
His ability to bullshit rivals any politician I've seen. But yes, people have rallied behind people who were full of shit before. People rallied behind Bush. People ae now so sick of Bush they are rallying behind the Dems. They people need to wise up.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If the things I mentioned don't mean shit in politics what does? Money? Oh that's right. Good point!
Politics is supposed to be all about the things Nader has done. Working for the good of the people...what a concept!!
But yes, money rules the day and people inside these big business firms are pouring it out to the ones they know they can trust. Just don't expect me to follow along with it. It doesn't take a genius to see that when these people get all this money and are elected, they usually arent very effective in doing the best job for the people. They usually have priorities else where that actually conflict with what's best for the common man. And that is the politics of today.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
One thing that stands out about the invasion of Iraq is that for the first time in US history the population stood up and spoke out against the invasion before the invasion actually happened. No other time in our history has that happened, and that alone shows us how popular this war really is. And even if you look at the polls some 70% are agasintthe occupation of Iraq. If Obama is for the occupation...well, he shouldn't be getting any of our votes.
Yep, it's really not that difficult. The least they could do was push him into an actual anti-war stance. They'll just keep eating up his excuses.
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've always been able to sift through bullshit. It is surprising to see some who are believing him, though.
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 think they mean well just as the republicans thought they were supporting protecting us and hindering terrorism. But both are being duped, 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
The more important your job is in the decision making process the more intense the propaganda.
So all the congressmen and women and the senators were given all this information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-they had to act on those 'fact's presented to them by the NSA or CIA or whatever agency, but that was all the information they were given. The propaganda at that level is pretty strict. That was the only information they received about Iraq, so naturally they reacted, as they were trained to do. They can't beat them with a stick so they control their information, and thus their interpretation of reality.
Actually big bucks are a big part of winning a presidency. That will NEVER change. But at least Obama is getting a large potion of that money from grass roots and millions of individuals. Things are changing. And Obama will be a president for the people. Kucinich realizes it and so should you.
Lots of that money comes from individuals inside big business donating on behalf of said business because it is illegal for the corporation to do it themselves without forming a PAC. Enough has been posted on that...you should be aware they will do what they have to to get around this and in many ways this works out better for them. Because now there isn't a clear trail of money that would noramally raise people's suspicions.
So I should follow whatever Kucinich thinks even when I disagree?
I prefer to think for myself, thank 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
and Kucinich is for impeaching Bush and Cheney. He stood up and voted no to keep funding this war and spoke out against those who did. He's for a single payer healthcare plan. He's for a Dept of Peace. You guys weren't listening to him then so save me this shit about how now he's sooooo right because he said to support Obama in Iowa. :rolleyes:
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
naděje umírá poslední
Mike Gravel
this parts rich.
sheesh.
i got an image of one of those people that like to draw invisible quotation marks in the sky with their fingers as they speak and annoy you to the point of wanting to slap them.
Congress is powerless, except to hold the government hostage and allow nothing to happen but for bush to veto everything. Then they will be blamed, not the republicans. it's not responsible to do so. a simple majority in the Senate means almost nothing. they aren't powerless, but they aren't in a place of power either.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
you have got to be kidding? the anti-war movement if far more of a failure that the democratic party. Any other political party other than the democratic and republican is an utter failure. You blame Democrats for the weaknesses of the American people. Sorry, but if the Dem's fought the Patriot Act as one and to the last, they would have been replaced in 2004. Same with the war. It's one thing for a few standing up, but the entire party would have been a threat, and Rove and ther republicans would have BBQ their asses in the elections.
Now that leads us to a major problem in politics. For the most part, no politician will stand up and put their seat on the line by taking a moral or eithical stand. They are not willing to fight for what is right if it means hurting their re-election chances. This has lead to the weakness of the Dem party, and the power of the Repub party. The moderate conservatives have had to move right, the middle has been decontructed both economically in this country, and politicially.
you want to blame the Democrats, please, if your idealology, which I agree with some is so good, where is the movement, the leadership, if it's so right, why is 95% of the country on someone else's team?
70% want us out of Iraq, doesn't mean anti-war, leave now, most are realistic enough no understand that it's not an overnight process, that we can't leave hell behind, though in the end we might. What the Bush administration has done in Iraq can't be scene as part of the effort to get us out, they have just tried to cut violence, and U S loss of life, through using merc's, and limiting what our forces do, most spend their time on a base, all so they can pass the problem on, and hopefully have their agenda far enough along, that it can't be reversed easily.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
no Obama has voted to fund the military, that is something we have no choice in, I'm tired of the bs rhetoric around this. We aren't taking good enough care of them as it is, to take the money away isn't an option. They president has options to take money from other areas, so it isn't this end all solution. The stop funding Vietnam in what, April of '76 or so, by voting to defund it in congress, guess what, the troops were already out of Vietnam by then.
Condi Rice, though the wrong person for the job, is by far, one of the better appointments by the Bush administration. Cheney is not a fan. I have no problem with her, cause Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, and others are the bigger problem.
Also, voting for someone when you are in the minority, and your vote doesn't make a difference is a political move, it may gain him a favor, so looking at that vote as some larger problem holds no sway in my opinion.
The Patriot Act was changed slightly, it has some good stuff in it, but it also has bad stuff. More of it needs to be brought before the Supreme Court for a ruling. This has been a mess from the start, but again, it's about not rocking the vote, which I understand isn't a strong point for an individual.
Nadar is a manager, a man that has done great things, but behind the scenes in regards to national exposure, not a leader. Barack has leadership atributes, he has strong oratory skills, and he will make a difference, he will upset the Democrat elite, and the right wing, but most others will be with him. He won't please all, sometime not most, but when he doesn't it will be something they can live with. He will also be a great agent for change by moving the country to the next generation. This will allow for more ideas outside of the two parties to gain strength with the american people. He will be the next President, and I'm looking forward to discussing that future as it's created.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf