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

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You have to be the change you wish to see in the world. You can't expect everyone else to do something you're not even willing to do. You have to stand up for what you believe is right and FOR ONCE stop worrying about what everyone is going to do. Lead by example and for god's sake, if you see something as part of the problem don't keep supporting it. It starts with you.

not worried about others, saying that's the problem, right now I want Obama to be President, I do not want this country in the hands of Ralph Nadar as President ever. I would very much like to see Ralph Nadar play a major role in someone's administration.

so if I say a leader, and someone I believed in as a third party candidate, I'd vote in a heartbeat, regardless of what others thought, I would hope everyone would.

I see you are the same way and that's great.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

not worried about others, saying that's the problem, right now I want Obama to be President, I do not want this country in the hands of Ralph Nadar as President ever. I would very much like to see Ralph Nadar play a major role in someone's administration.

so if I say a leader, and someone I believed in as a third party candidate, I'd vote in a heartbeat, regardless of what others thought, I would hope everyone would.

I see you are the same way and that's great.

So the change you want to see is the lesser of two evils? I want much more than that. And I see much more than that in Nader, me personally.


"I'm an independent, I'm supporting Obama cause I always vote, and yes so far it's been the less of two evils, but Obama is an improvement, the race issue alone is a win for THIS country. a hell of a lot more will need to happen before any real change will even be possible. keep fighting, keep working for it, keep discussing, but reality is right now, that Obama will be the next President, now what benefits can come from this? what realities can change from this?"

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So the change you want to see is the lesser of two evils? I want much more than that. And I see much more than that in Nader, me personally.


"I'm an independent, I'm supporting Obama cause I always vote, and yes so far it's been the less of two evils, but Obama is an improvement, the race issue alone is a win for THIS country. a hell of a lot more will need to happen before any real change will even be possible. keep fighting, keep working for it, keep discussing, but reality is right now, that Obama will be the next President, now what benefits can come from this? what realities can change from this?"

the change we need will not come from electing one person. I'd am not voting the lesser of two evils, I have some faith in Obama. I see him as a step forward.

as for voting for the less of two evils, if it was the difference for Gore and Bush, I'll be dammed if Nadar would get my vote, and he didn't. Doesn't change the fact that I like him, and want him to provide influence to the country, but I have no faith in him as a President.

people can vote ideology all they want, skip reality, see cause, the reality of that ideology is George W Bush.

the change we need will not come from a Presidential election

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

the change we need will not come from electing one person. I'd am not voting the lesser of two evils, I have some faith in Obama. I see him as a step forward.

as for voting for the less of two evils, if it was the difference for Gore and Bush, I'll be dammed if Nadar would get my vote, and he didn't. Doesn't change the fact that I like him, and want him to provide influence to the country, but I have no faith in him as a President.

people can vote ideology all they want, skip reality, see cause, the reality of that ideology is George W Bush.

the change we need will not come from a Presidential election

The change we need comes from all of our actions not just this election but including this election.

Reality is what we make it....I can't say that enough. Everytime you bring up how good it would be to do this or that but won't because it's not reality then you are making you're decisions based on others instead of following your own principles. Your reality absolutely consists of your own principles and beliefs. The 'reality' you're speaking of is what you think everyone else's reality consists of....and they are doing the same most often. So everyone is going around not taking a stand or a risk for what they really would like to see because they think everyone else isn't or won't. You have to be the one to be brave enough to make your reality happen and stop worrying about what the reality is out there for everyone else. That is the ONLY way you'll start seeing the things you'd like to see happen in this world.


And Nader would make a damn fine President! I can't think of one reason why he wouldn't.

beachdweller

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The change we need comes from all of our actions not just this election but including this election.

Reality is what we make it....I can't say that enough. Everytime you bring up how good it would be to do this or that but won't because it's not reality then you are making you're decisions based on others instead of following your own principles. Your reality absolutely consists of your own principles and beliefs. The 'reality' you're speaking of is what you think everyone else's reality consists of....and they are doing the same most often. So everyone is going around not taking a stand or a risk for what they really would like to see because they think everyone else isn't or won't. You have to be the one to be brave enough to make your reality happen and stop worrying about what the reality is out there for everyone else. That is the ONLY way you'll start seeing the things you'd like to see happen in this world.


And Nader would make a damn fine President! I can't think of one reason why he wouldn't.

really think someone, though I admire, who no one listens to on a national basis politically could be a great president. mainly, cause he'll never be president.

I would love to see him showing up a democratic & republican rallies to speak to people. speaking to those that are already on your side doesn't do much for expanding your message.

I can't even comprehend voting for someone that can't carry a message to the masses, and communicate in a way that will sway people to their cause.

Obama can do this. Obama has inspired me, I am hopefull, now it's up to those that he has inspired to work for change, which he has said. The government can't do it alone.

You may not get it, but many of us do, and that's a step forward.

Commy

beachdweller wrote:

I can't even comprehend voting for someone that can't carry a message to the masses, and communicate in a way that will sway people to their cause.

Have you heard Nader speak?

Commy

beachdweller wrote:

yes nothing, if their is no action, you have nothing.

The power lies with inaction, with a general strike. There is no country to run if we choose not to work.

Abookamongstthemany

beachdweller wrote:

really think someone, though I admire, who no one listens to on a national basis politically could be a great president. mainly, cause he'll never be president.

I would love to see him showing up a democratic & republican rallies to speak to people. speaking to those that are already on your side doesn't do much for expanding your message.

I can't even comprehend voting for someone that can't carry a message to the masses, and communicate in a way that will sway people to their cause.

Obama can do this. Obama has inspired me, I am hopefull, now it's up to those that he has inspired to work for change, which he has said. The government can't do it alone.

You may not get it, but many of us do, and that's a step forward.

The problem isn't Nader. He is articulate, knows the way civics is supposed to work, goes into pain staking detail when addressing the issues and is able to move a crowd. But money talks, sadly. That's doesn't mean I'm not going to do all I can to change that because it most certainly is not working for us. The media only sells us the guys who will further their corporate agenda and that ain't Nader by a long shot. This reliance on mainstream media for our knowledge of the candidates is not working out too well. Look around. And they leave out the good guys who would be great leaders and who would be real public servants. Instead they give us corrupted guys who don't put the people's best interests first and if they do cover Nader, it always includes calling him a spoiler and unelectable or some other negative spin....not even once mentioning all the things he has done for this country...all the lives he has saved by fighting to make things safer.

Then there's the uphill battle of going from state to state petitioning and raising money, not for his campaign, but just to get his name on the ballot as a possible choice. The DNC fights like hell to silence Nader, marginalize him and make it impossible for him to be a factor. Check his site to see all the states he has been petitioning for ballot access. votenader.org

Moving on to the presidental debates watched by millions. Nader isn't even given the chance to pitch his ideas to the masses. He is threatened with being arrested just for being in the same building where the debates are being held!!
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5331045&postcount=47


Polls show that Americans actually favor Nader's ideas such as UHC, an end to the war, a decrease in the bloated defense budget,...they poll as being greatly concerned with corruption in the gov't and also corporate crime and welfare. None of the mainstream candidates address these.... only Nader. So if Nader's ideas are supported by the masses but he doesn't get the chance to get his message out there to the people because he doesn't have all the millions pouring in from huge business sectors....we might as well just admit our democracy has been bought and sold to the highest bidder. You might be okay with that but it bothers the shit outta me. And I won't be a part of continuing it.

dg1979us

Commy wrote:

We have a majority of the country that doesn't vote, mostly becasue they don't think their vote counts. A corporate candidate inevitably wins. If that majority would get off their ass we could shake things up.

so nothing? not quite.

I dont agree with most of that at all. We have a majority of the country who doesnt vote because they are apathetic and dont know squat about the candidates anyway. Hell, Id prefer for a good portion of the people who do vote to keep their asses at home. There is a good portion of voters whose knowledge of the candidates and political issues stem from nothing but headlines and talking points, and that is on both sides of the aisle.

Commy

dg1979us wrote:

I dont agree with most of that at all. We have a majority of the country who doesnt vote because they are apathetic and dont know squat about the candidates anyway. Hell, Id prefer for a good portion of the people who do vote to keep their asses at home. There is a good portion of voters whose knowledge of the candidates and political issues stem from nothing but headlines and talking points, and that is on both sides of the aisle.

You want less than the 45% or so who vote, to vote? What kind of democracy is that?

dg1979us

Commy wrote:

You want less than the 45% or so who vote, to vote? What kind of democracy is that?

You want uninformed people who dont know shit about who they are voting for to vote? The people get the democracy they deserve.

I want people who arent apathetic and know what they are voting for to vote. If that is only 45% of the country, then yes, I only want 45% of the country to vote. To paraphrase a quote from Gore Vidal, 'Roughly half the country reads a newspaper, and roughly half the country votes. One hopes its the same half'.

my2hands

i love chocolate chip cookies...

Abookamongstthemany

dg1979us wrote:

You want uninformed people who dont know shit about who they are voting for to vote? The people get the democracy they deserve.

I want people who arent apathetic and know what they are voting for to vote. If that is only 45% of the country, then yes, I only want 45% of the country to vote. To paraphrase a quote from Gore Vidal, 'Roughly half the country reads a newspaper, and roughly half the country votes. One hopes its the same half'.

I agree with this. I'd really rather the bandwagon, know nothing types just stay at home rather than vote for someone they really know nothing about.

dg1979us

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I agree with this. I'd really rather the bandwagon, know nothing types just stay at home rather than vote for someone they really know nothing about.

It would be beneficial to the less mainstream candidates if the know nothing types sat at home. Most people who vote 3rd party, or for a less mainstream candidate of a major party, know about that candidate. Where as many of the people who know little about the candidates, are more likely to vote for one of the mainstream candidates who get more press.

Abookamongstthemany

dg1979us wrote:

It would be beneficial to the less mainstream candidates if the know nothing types sat at home. Most people who vote 3rd party, or for a less mainstream candidate of a major party, know about that candidate. Where as many of the people who know little about the candidates, are more likely to vote for one of the mainstream candidates who get more press.

At the very least you should know the platform of everyone running. I mean how can you pick if you don't know what you're picking out of? I think that a very good reason to open up the debates so the other guys can be heard for once.

dg1979us

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

At the very least you should know the platform of everyone running. I mean how can you pick if you don't know what you're picking out of? I think that a very good reason to open up the debates so the other guys can be heard for once.

I agree. Or at least throw in the libertarian and green party candidates, and any independent who has a nice amount of support. If you throw in everybody, then I think the debates would be meaningless simply because no one would have enough time to talk and get their points across. But I would love to see at least one candidate from what I consider real conservatism, and one candidate from I consider real liberalism in the debates. It would certainly show the people what the repubs and dems really are. Which for the most part, are simply corporate candidates saying the things they say, simply because they think it will get them elected.

Abookamongstthemany

dg1979us wrote:

I agree. Or at least throw in the libertarian and green party candidates, and any independent who has a nice amount of support. If you throw in everybody, then I think the debates would be meaningless simply because no one would have enough time to talk and get their points across. But I would love to see at least one candidate from what I consider real conservatism, and one candidate from I consider real liberalism in the debates. It would certainly show the people what the repubs and dems really are. Which for the most part, are simply corporate candidates saying the things they say, simply because they think it will get them elected.

Yep, on board 100% there.

The Dems and Reps would get creamed going up against people from those parties and they absolutely know that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would LOVE to see Nader and Obama go head to head in a debate! Or Paul and McCain. Kucinich, Paul and Gravel already got some good punches in the party debates with the extremely limited amount of time they were given. Then they decided to force them out of the debates on down the road. Cowards. Heaven forbid they might be faced with some tough questions or risk their contradictions and inconsistencies being pointed out on national tv for all to see.

dg1979us

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yep, on board 100% there.

The Dems and Reps would get creamed going up against people from those parties and they absolutely know that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would LOVE to see Nader and Obama go head to head in a debate! Or Paul and McCain. Kucinich, Paul and Gravel already got some good punches in the party debates with the extremely limited amount of time they were given. Then they decided to force them out of the debates on down the road. Cowards. Heaven forbid they might be faced with some tough questions or risk their contradictions and inconsistencies being pointed out on national tv for all to see.

I would love to see Paul, Nader, and John Edwards in the fall debates. I think if Edwards would step out of the democrat party shadow people would really appreciate him. I actually thought he was a real solid candidate, but was just overshadowed by the media asphyxiation with Obama and Hillary. And I think dems would also really appreciate Nader if they paid attention to his message. And I think conservatives would like Paul. Edwards was just overshadowed by the Obama and Hillary hype. Nader is still looked at negatively (unfairly I might add) by a lot of dems because of 2000, and Paul just got hammered by Hannity and Rush and many of the republican media icons that people who would probably like many of his stances, simply wrote him off.

Im still here

my2hands wrote:

i love chocolate chip cookies...

.....and milk

El_Kabong

Im still here wrote:

.....and milk

i hope it's organic, puss-free milk