Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

I think reality says otherwise. Since G W said mission accomplished, who has been responsible for killing more Iraqis in Iraq, the US and it's coalition troops, fellow Iraqis, Al Qaeda, Iran? I would wager that it's fellow Iraqis have killed more Iraqis than all the other groups combined since Bush's utterance.

Republicans use that statement like any other, to dodge the real issue, and justify their mistakes.

I'm using it as a truth of reality. We are there, our government f'd up, the current path isn't right, but I think the right path will mean staying in Iraq a couple more years.

So you may disagreed with them saying it, but words have different meaning, even when said the same way.

You're using it to promote your version of the truth based on what you think of the info you've read. It is all speculation, though. I think those words mean the same coming from whoever is saying it. You don't know who is killing who any more than I do. But I do know our presence creates tension and it can't go on much longer. We are borrowing millions from China to keep this occupation going. We can't afford it and our future as a nation is getting more bleak each month we stay over there. And what do we have to show for it? There's still infighting and the associated deaths...we're making sure of that by arming them. There's still insurgency killing our troops and the civillians...it never seems to let up.

And how is our presence going to keep this infighting from going on when we are actively arming each side with our troops caught in the middle? When would it stop? When could we leave and they suddenly stop killing each other? How are we going to rid Iraq of the problems that cause these civil disputes?

beachdweller

Commy wrote:

It seems like the private sector-making billions off this war in Iraq-is actually calling the shots. They decide what course of action to take, they have their own troops, it really is out of hand. They've even looted 2 treasuries in the process.

agreed, huge problem here, especially with Blackwater, and who owns/runs it. It's the start of the Crusades all over again possibly.

No President alone will make a difference. It'll take citizens actually educating themselves on the world. It'll take a Congress that is full of Gen X/Y'ers at a minimum, if not younger gen. The greatest generation, and baby boomer politicians will not be apart of any real change.

I think the hope is in the future, though the fight continues now.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You're using it to promote your version of the truth based on what you think of the info you've read. It is all speculation, though. I think those words mean the same coming from whoever is saying it. You don't know who is killing who any more than I do. But I do know our presence creates tension and it can't go on much longer. We are borrowing millions from China to keep this occupation going. We can't afford it and our future as a nation is getting more bleak each month we stay over there. And what do we have to show for it? There's still infighting and the associated deaths...we're making sure of that by arming them. There's still insurgency killing our troops and the civillians...it never seems to let up.

And how is our presence going to keep this infighting from going on when we are actively arming each side with our troops caught in the middle? When would it stop? When could we leave and they suddenly stop killing each other? How are we going to rid Iraq of the problems that cause these civil disputes?

I agree about China, but that problem is far bigger than you've stated, and broader.

Of course we can't sustain the costs. Again, leadership and ideaology issues.

I also agree on the point about arming and even financing the different sides, but that is the wrong approach, that is a leadership problem. Just walking away isn't going to fix it either. Even more so now that we have armed and financed the factions that were attacking us and each other just 6 months ago before the payments started.

Actually seems you have more of the conspiracy theorist stuff going by saying we don't know. We know a lot, there is still some reporting, actually reporting from outside the green zone. Most of it by international (non US) reporters about who is killing who. Also, I'm confident in the 20 friends of mine that are deployed in Iraq, and what they tell me.

If you are talking about how many Iraqis merc's are killing, I'd say we don't know, but again, it's not like it's a surprise that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Anyone that knows history of that part of the world knows that there is ethnic, religious, tribal, family, political, and communtal issues at all levels that lead to people being killed. Sunni factions kill other Sunni factions, let alone Sunni vs Shiite, etc...

Saudi Arabia, if you are not from a tribe that is akin or friend of the royal family, then you are probably living in the desert in tents.

I'm far more informed and experienced that you probably think.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

I agree, Dem's are very spineless. Obama, like Clinton hasn't done anything dangerous while in the Senate, because I think both always expected to run for President.

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.

beachdweller wrote:

Obama's the best we've seen in quite awhile in regards to Hope, intelligence, competence. He has been consistant since before he was in politics, and while he's been in it. Both good and a bad thing.

What has he done to for you to form this opinion?

beachdweller wrote:

I actually don't think he is to moderate, but that's not bad either if he is, he will bring people together, and right now that is something we as a count
ry really needs.

How will he bring people together? I keep hearing this but don't know what it's based on.

beachdweller wrote:

this country is far to passive for any real change right now. Don't mean not to strive for it, but I think it'll be another generation before we see it. Sooner would be better.

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.

beachdweller wrote:

Obama might actually listen and be able to be persuaded far more than Bush, Clinton, and especially McCain. I don't see that possibility in anyone esle.

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.

unsung

beachdweller wrote:

I will say, my problem with the Ron Paul's, Dennis Kucinich's, Ralph Nadar's, and others is how easy they make the changes they say we need to make will be. Our government is a fricken mess. We will have to break a lot to fix anything, and we as citizens will struggle in some regards. Until the realities are talked about, change won't happen. It's easy to say this is wrong, and I would do that, but not to many things that are wrong, are isolated. They will effect many other things.

It wasn't a mess eight years ago. It can be fixed, much needs to be undone, but all is not lost. I'm afraid if someone like obama gets elected we will be much worse off though. We need someone who is going to say NO to spending, Ron Paul would have been that man.

Seriously I don't understand why people who don't like big government would not support a candidate who basically says that people should be left alone, there is too much government in their lives, we have too much wasteful spending, and supports the Constitution. Is it just cooler to support some media darling of the moment? Or is just cool to vote for the guy because people feel guilty about the ways blacks have been treated in the past? So by voting for them they have some self assurance that they really aren't racist because by voting for him they have some cred. Like the guy who says, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

One thing I like though is that nobody here is for that she-devil.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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 somethings to be proud of with the position? Ambition shouldn't give you a free pass to 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.

No, it's the reality of our politics today. No one wants to rock the boat. It's one of the many many things wrong, but there is no alternative right now, and I truly believe that Bush has separated us so much, that the Hope of Obama is something that will have a strong and positive effect.

Would I like more, yes, but I don't see an alternative candidate. I wouldn't trust Ralph Nadar with this country, sorry. I agree with alot of what he has to say, but he is no leader, and would effect no change. It'll be the people that effect change, and right now 95% of the people ain't doing jack.

count me as one of them if need by, I'm far more informed than most people I know, and reality and understanding what it'll take for change is a big part of the equation.

beachdweller

unsung wrote:

It wasn't a mess eight years ago. It can be fixed, much needs to be undone, but all is not lost. I'm afraid if someone like obama gets elected we will be much worse off though. We need someone who is going to say NO to spending, Ron Paul would have been that man.

Seriously I don't understand why people who don't like big government would not support a candidate who basically says that people should be left alone, there is too much government in their lives, we have too much wasteful spending, and supports the Constitution. Is it just cooler to support some media darling of the moment? Or is just cool to vote for the guy because people feel guilty about the ways blacks have been treated in the past? So by voting for them they have some self assurance that they really aren't racist because by voting for him they have some cred. Like the guy who says, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

One thing I like though is that nobody here is for that she-devil.

I disagree, it very much was a mess 8 yrs ago. That's what lead to Bush being President, to Bush being able to abuse and ignore the constitution and rule of law. The corporations ruled back then as now, but the Bush administration took it to another level.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

I agree about China, but that problem is far bigger than you've stated, and broader.

Of course we can't sustain the costs. Again, leadership and ideaology issues.

I also agree on the point about arming and even financing the different sides, but that is the wrong approach, that is a leadership problem. Just walking away isn't going to fix it either. Even more so now that we have armed and financed the factions that were attacking us and each other just 6 months ago before the payments started.

Actually seems you have more of the conspiracy theorist stuff going by saying we don't know. We know a lot, there is still some reporting, actually reporting from outside the green zone. Most of it by international (non US) reporters about who is killing who. Also, I'm confident in the 20 friends of mine that are deployed in Iraq, and what they tell me.

If you are talking about how many Iraqis merc's are killing, I'd say we don't know, but again, it's not like it's a surprise that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Anyone that knows history of that part of the world knows that there is ethnic, religious, tribal, family, political, and communtal issues at all levels that lead to people being killed. Sunni factions kill other Sunni factions, let alone Sunni vs Shiite, etc...

Saudi Arabia, if you are not from a tribe that is akin or friend of the royal family, then you are probably living in the desert in tents.

I'm far more informed and experienced that you probably think.

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.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How will he bring people together? I keep hearing this but don't know what it's based on.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

No, it's the reality of our politics today. No one wants to rock the boat. It's one of the many many things wrong, but there is no alternative right now, and I truly believe that Bush has separated us so much, that the Hope of Obama is something that will have a strong and positive effect.

Would I like more, yes, but I don't see an alternative candidate. I wouldn't trust Ralph Nadar with this country, sorry. I agree with alot of what he has to say, but he is no leader, and would effect no change. It'll be the people that effect change, and right now 95% of the people ain't doing jack.

count me as one of them if need by, I'm far more informed than most people I know, and reality and understanding what it'll take for change is a big part of the equation.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

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.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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?

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

brandon10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

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?

beachdweller wrote:

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.

beachdweller wrote:

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.

beachdweller wrote:

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.

beachdweller wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

brandon10 wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

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.