I've already said he hasn't laid about specifics just yet on his site but he did just announce last month. And looking at his past accomplishments, I have complete confidence that he knows how to get the job done. His direction and stance on the issues that are the most important to me is enough for now because the other guys aren't even addressing them. He has a record long and true of getting the job done and putting the people's interests on top.
Do you think Nader is incapable of being President even after seeing his resume of leadership and victories for the common man? How is Nader less qualified than Obama? What has Obama done for the american people? I think Nader is much MORE qualified, actually and has proven himself time and time again.
And what good is Obama's 'plans' when he has a history of saying one thing and then doing/voting another way?
And what did you think about Nader single payer plan, again?
'And what good is Obama's 'plans' when he has a history of saying one thing and then doing/voting another way?'
or not bothering to even vote like the fisa issue, real id....
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it is a thread to list Ralph Naders plan, agenda, and ideas as President of the United States... this is for all the Nader supporters to showcase his specific ideas on how to address the issues...
some have been posted in the 'on the issues' thread you and cornifer ducked out of, remember? cornifer asked for nader's specific health care plan and how much it would cost when i questioned the vagueness of his plan...i gave his exact, detailed plan and he....never came back...then you posted obama's health care plan and asked what i thought, i took the time to read through it all, again, and break down several parts of it w/ my thoughts and asked for yours....to which you never returned...there really was no need to start this thread, you could've just looked there
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Say Nader wins with 35% of the vote (McCain has 34% and the Democrat has 31%). 35% is not the will of the majority of the nation PLUS the Dems and Republicans in Congress know that 35% didnt vote for their party anyway so I dont believe they would yield to Nader's ideas (or any other third party President). That is why I think change has to start in Congress with a viable third party to get anything done. A mere 5% representation in Congress by a third party (because the numbers are so close between the two parties) would force the other two parties to form a coalition with it to enact some of the small party's ideas if they want their own ideas brought into law. This occurs in many European parliaments and is the best way for a small party to gain power and enact progressive agendas.
say obama gets 51% of the vote and mccain gets 49% of the vote, really only about 50% or less of the population usually votes, so in reality whoever wins the presidency is not by the will of the majority
and a loooooot of ppl don't vote b/c they think the 2 party system is pointless and offers them nothing
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Why? Just because he's not a member of their party? Isn't that a bit silly? I think he would bring to the table issues both parties could work with him on.
Silly?! Of course but we are talking about politicians. There is no way the two parties would work with Nader and therefore willingly help throw away their political power and monopoly. It just wouldnt happen. When do the Democrats and Republicans ever show unity ? -- war, economic woes, and disasters. Otherwise it is all political bickering, all the time.
you mean your dodge? i am asking an easy enough question...
what was 'her dodge'?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
in this thread i was hoping for more of HIS agenda and ideas...
not even anything from when he ran in 2000 or 2004? i mean whats going on here folks... :rolleyes:
funny, you demanding his full, detailed plans after he announced, what, maybe a month, if that? while obama's plans are pretty vague and when that is brought up you guys sure do get awfully quiet
i'd ask what was going on here but i know
to quote thom yorke
your mouth moves only w/ someones hand up your ass
a lot of flowery words is nothing when it lacks substance
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Silly?! Of course but we are talking about politicians. There is no way the two parties would work with Nader and therefore willingly help throw away their political power and monopoly. It just wouldnt happen. When do the Democrats and Republicans ever show unity ? -- war, economic woes, and disasters. Otherwise it is all political bickering, all the time.
they pass those pay raises pretty quick
ha,, but in reality what you said is true, and i refuse to keep on supporting that and just giving in/up and shrugging
why should i keep voting for and supporting a broken system. vote for obama so maybe they won't bicker! hell, i guess it's as good a reason as any
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
say obama gets 51% of the vote and mccain gets 49% of the vote, really only about 50% or less of the population usually votes, so in reality whoever wins the presidency is not by the will of the majority
and a loooooot of ppl don't vote b/c they think the 2 party system is pointless and offers them nothing
I'm just trying to explain why I dont think throwing a 3rd party candidate into the presidency with no congressional backing would work. I'm just using a realistic example of how Washington works. They dont give two shits about the opinions of those who dont vote. That's why young voters (who dont vote in a large percent) get less attention than old voters (who DO vote in a large percentage). If you think Nader (or whatever 3rd party prez) is going to go to Washington and sit at a table with the Democrats and Republicans and sing campfire songs and change the world then that is your right and more power to ya.
I'm just trying to explain why I dont think throwing a 3rd party candidate into the presidency with no congressional backing would work. I'm just using a realistic example of how Washington works. They dont give two shits about the opinions of those who dont vote. That's why young voters (who dont vote in a large percent) get less attention than old voters (who DO vote in a large percentage). If you think Nader (or whatever 3rd party prez) is going to go to Washington and sit at a table with the Democrats and Republicans and sing campfire songs and change the world then that is your right and more power to ya.
they don't now. but i think if they don't it will only be their downfall. if nader got elected it would be b/c the masses were fed up and wanted real change and if they see congress holding it up, holding up the will of the masses like a single payer health plan which the ppl have showed overwhelming support for....what would be their excuse?? they could say nothing.
i think many like kucinich, connyers and i think many others would work w/ him, there's a pretty good sized list of ppl who support the single payer health plan, are against the occupation of iraq....
i think it would help clean the place out a bit and get ppl who are for the ppl but dont have the corporate dollar more of a voice
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Let's face it, anyone who will potentially upset the big money in America doesn't stand a fucking chance of getting elected. Unless the arms industry and the oil men can be assured that their interests are safe then M Nader can kiss his ass goodbye. Big business will only use the American puppet media to promote their man - or woman - for the job, and if anyone thinks that there's anything resembling real 'democracy' in America then they're living in a Fox news fantasyworld.
Let's face it, anyone who will potentially upset the big money in America doesn't stand a fucking chance of getting elected. Unless the arms industry and the oil men can be assured that their interests are safe then M Nader can kiss his ass goodbye. Big business will only use the American puppet media to promote their man - or woman - for the job, and if anyone thinks that there's anything resembling real 'democracy' in America then they're living in a Fox news fantasyworld.
but that doesn't mean I've got to play along.
i mean, at the very least, I'm not playing a rigged game pretending that it's not
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
funny, you demanding his full, detailed plans after he announced, what, maybe a month, if that?
dude, i would take a bread crumb at this point...
i am surprised you guys keep going to the "he just announced" well... he has run for president 4 times... when is he going to announce his ideas and agenda, october? very very very weak excuse... if i was going to run for president i think i would have my ducks in a row and a detailed plan for america to review, especially if i was a 3rd party candidate...
The state of health care in the United States is a disgrace to our democracy. The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country in the world, but the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the overall quality of health care that it provides. We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal health care. More than 42 million Americans have no health insurance.
Access to health care is distributed unequally among rich and poor, and also among the races. Among whites, 11% lack health insurance, already a shocking number. But 21% of African-Americans, 21% of Asians and 33% of Hispanics lack health insurance. This translates directly into higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Young people aged 18-24 have a higher uninsured rate than any other age group, with 29% uninsured.
In addition to leaving broad segments of the population uninsured or under-insured, the U.S. health care system has many other important faults that could be remedied by a system of universal coverage. These include serious gaps in coverage for: prescription drugs and medical supplies; dental, vision and hearing care; long-term care; mental health care; preventive care for children; and treatment for substance abuse.
Health care should be provided by a national health insurance program providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans throughout their lives, and funded directly by the federal government (known as a "single-payer" system). Under the current system, hundreds of billions of dollars a year go into insurance company overhead, unnecessary and fraudulent billing and administrative costs for health-care providers, and huge profits and high salaries at large HMOs and other health-care companies. Studies show that savings from a single-payer system would be more than enough to allow us to provide universal coverage for the same amount that we are now paying for inadequate health care.
We find persuasive a plan based on the "Physicians' Proposal" for a national health program published by Physicians for a National Health Program in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and their proposal for a national long-term care program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991. Under this plan:
Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors at all times.
Health care providers would still be in the private sector, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care providers, to minimize the disruption of the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from influencing physicians, so there would be no incentives to recommend too much or too little care.
A transition fund would be established for those health-care administrators and insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
Although we could provide universal, single-payer health insurance for the same amount that we spend on health care now, we would need funding to replace the portion now paid for by employers and individuals. We would do this through several mechanisms:
A small payroll tax (<4%) on employers. The tax would represent a large savings for employers who now pay health-insurance premiums for their employees, but an additional cost for those who do not.
A small tax on stock and bond transactions (1/4 of 1% of transaction value for both the buyer and the seller). For long-term investors, this tax would be negligible. It would have the additional effect of reducing short-term speculation and thus the volatility of the markets.
An additional income tax on the wealthiest 5% of Americans. Other Americans would pay no additional taxes, and would be free from health-insurance premiums and from out-of-pocket spending for medically necessary services.
Closing corporate tax loopholes to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
Providing universal health care can only be accomplished through a single-payer system: no country has ever achieved universal coverage with private health insurance. The time to act is now.
The state of health care in the United States is a disgrace to our democracy. The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country in the world, but the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the overall quality of health care that it provides. We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal health care. More than 42 million Americans have no health insurance.
Access to health care is distributed unequally among rich and poor, and also among the races. Among whites, 11% lack health insurance, already a shocking number. But 21% of African-Americans, 21% of Asians and 33% of Hispanics lack health insurance. This translates directly into higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Young people aged 18-24 have a higher uninsured rate than any other age group, with 29% uninsured.
In addition to leaving broad segments of the population uninsured or under-insured, the U.S. health care system has many other important faults that could be remedied by a system of universal coverage. These include serious gaps in coverage for: prescription drugs and medical supplies; dental, vision and hearing care; long-term care; mental health care; preventive care for children; and treatment for substance abuse.
Health care should be provided by a national health insurance program providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans throughout their lives, and funded directly by the federal government (known as a "single-payer" system). Under the current system, hundreds of billions of dollars a year go into insurance company overhead, unnecessary and fraudulent billing and administrative costs for health-care providers, and huge profits and high salaries at large HMOs and other health-care companies. Studies show that savings from a single-payer system would be more than enough to allow us to provide universal coverage for the same amount that we are now paying for inadequate health care.
thats the issue, now onto the plan
We find persuasive a plan based on the "Physicians' Proposal" for a national health program published by Physicians for a National Health Program in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and their proposal for a national long-term care program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991. Under this plan:
respectable place to draw your plan from, no problem there
Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors at all times.
no problem there for me....
Health care providers would still be in the private sector, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care providers, to minimize the disruption of the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from influencing physicians, so there would be no incentives to recommend too much or too little care.
so the health care industry remains a "profit motivated" industry... no comment
A transition fund would be established for those health-care administrators and insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
transition fund? he means unemployement fund... how does that get funded? we are talking about a lot of jobs here if the medical insurance industry closed its doors tommorow and health care administrators were out on their ass... that is alot of $50k a year jobs suddenly without a job and a family to feed... i am no fan of the health insurance industry, but i dont think this issue should be over looked
Although we could provide universal, single-payer health insurance for the same amount that we spend on health care now, we would need funding to replace the portion now paid for by employers and individuals. We would do this through several mechanisms:[/quotes] ok, here we go...
A small payroll tax (<4%) on employers. The tax would represent a large savings for employers who now pay health-insurance premiums for their employees, but an additional cost for those who do not.
tax business 4%... even small business's... so he wants to tax small business 4%, and he wouldnt even let his organizations unionize... ok, i will move on from that irony to a real world application... i have a friend that is a small business owner... he can't afford to insure his people... and he sure as hell could not afford another 4% tax, especially in this economy... that is a MAJOR burden on business, small and large
A small tax on stock and bond transactions (1/4 of 1% of transaction value for both the buyer and the seller). For long-term investors, this tax would be negligible. It would have the additional effect of reducing short-term speculation and thus the volatility of the markets.
another tax... a tax i can live with... but i can see the issue of taxing "free market" transactions being raised... and i can see people being concerned of being taxed, even slightly, for investing in their future and the american companies, and getting taxed on the way out as well... especially those that invest for their retirement... but an idea defintely worth discussion in my mind
An additional income tax on the wealthiest 5% of Americans. Other Americans would pay no additional taxes, and would be free from health-insurance premiums and from out-of-pocket spending for medically necessary services.
this is the third bullet point in a row proposing tax increases... i support this idea, just wanted to point out the reality of it
Closing corporate tax loopholes to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
if what obama says is vague then this is vague... close them how?
Providing universal health care can only be accomplished through a single-payer system: no country has ever achieved universal coverage with private health insurance. The time to act is now.
so run for an office you can win ralph and become another progressive voice in the house or senate
her dodge is the fact that Nader supporters cannot tell me what his agenda and actual plan to fulfill it is...
read through this thread... the coversation constantly turns towards obama
when is nader going to stop talking about other people and how much is bad, and actually detail HIS ideas and plans...
and when in threads dealing w/ obama you and others constantly turn the topic towards nader or kucinish...like when i brought up obama didn't take the political courage test the ONLY reply was you saying kucinich didn't take it either...then i showed you he took it in 2006 and his stances are the same you and others, again, fell silent
whenever ANYTHING is brought up it's either a million questions are asked
while all of ours are evaded and ignored.
his agenda is pretty well laid out on his site, a simple google search for nader + issues will bring his site w/ 12 issues as his top concerns
i am surprised you guys keep going to the "he just announced" well... he has run for president 4 times... when is he going to announce his ideas and agenda, october? very very very weak excuse... if i was going to run for president i think i would have my ducks in a row and a detailed plan for america to review, especially if i was a 3rd party candidate...
his older plans ARE online, we posted his detailed health care plan from 2004 a few times, it was very detailed, seems like a pretty big crumb
it's just funny that you are suddenly so worked up on needing detailed plans when your guys is ever so vague
oh, the irony!!
nah, on second thought it think it's hypocrisy
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
transition fund? he means unemployement fund... how does that get funded? we are talking about a lot of jobs here if the medical insurance industry closed its doors tommorow and health care administrators were out on their ass... that is alot of $50k a year jobs suddenly without a job and a family to feed... i am no fan of the health insurance industry, but i dont think this issue should be over looked
no, but at least he has a plan to provide for them
tax business 4%... even small business's... so he wants to tax small business 4%, and he wouldnt even let his organizations unionize... ok, i will move on from that irony to a real world application... i have a friend that is a small business owner... he can't afford to insure his people... and he sure as hell could not afford another 4% tax, especially in this economy... that is a MAJOR burden on business, small and large
sigh, you still hold on to that union lie, eh? figures. again, there is only ONE source for that, a guy who nader fired from his paper for running a story w/o approval, then AFTER nader told him to clean out his desk he filed to unionize...nader said no b/c the clown was fired, pretty simple. nader HAS, however, signed a letter allowing his organizations to unionize and some have, so it seems you have your facts wrong.
how much are those small businesses paying towards their employees helath care plans now? is it <4%?
this is the third bullet point in a row proposing tax increases... i support this idea, just wanted to point out the reality of it
if what obama says is vague then this is vague... close them how?
i hope you didn't hurt yourself stretching like that! that statement is nowhere near the vagueness of obama! (which none of you will ever
address, guess it's simpler to just say other ppl are vague)
see, the problem is both obama and nader say they are for change. when i look at obama i see next to nothing that would make me believe that other than his words...that's all i have to go by that he will do what he says, his words...not his voting record, not past statements, not anything he actually DID...just what he is NOW saying....
when i look at nader i see a loooooong list of accomplishments that prove his would actually work for change and the betterment of the populace. he has pretty much devoted his entire life to fighting for the people, what has obama done?
he has devoted pretty much his whole life and is treated so horribly by so many just b/c he wants there to be an actual progressive voice, actual choice, an actual voice for the PEOPLE in the white house?
it's sad
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, but at least he has a plan to provide for them
sigh, you still hold on to that union lie, eh? figures. again, there is only ONE source for that, a guy who nader fired from his paper for running a story w/o approval, then AFTER nader told him to clean out his desk he filed to unionize...nader said no b/c the clown was fired, pretty simple. nader HAS, however, signed a letter allowing his organizations to unionize and some have, so it seems you have your facts wrong.
how much are those small businesses paying towards their employees helath care plans now? is it <4%?
i hope you didn't hurt yourself stretching like that! that statement is nowhere near the vagueness of obama! (which none of you will ever
address, guess it's simpler to just say other ppl are vague)
see, the problem is both obama and nader say they are for change. when i look at obama i see next to nothing that would make me believe that other than his words...that's all i have to go by that he will do what he says, his words...not his voting record, not past statements, not anything he actually DID...just what he is NOW saying....
when i look at nader i see a loooooong list of accomplishments that prove his would actually work for change and the betterment of the populace. he has pretty much devoted his entire life to fighting for the people, what has obama done?
he has devoted pretty much his whole life and is treated so horribly by so many just b/c he wants there to be an actual progressive voice, actual choice, an actual voice for the PEOPLE in the white house?
it's sad
Have I told you lately how... 'whenever i look at you
you know i always just see new things
to admire about you...
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
so its ok for nader to openly state it will be a profit motivated health care system... i thought that was what we were trying to get away from?
no, but at least he has a plan to provide for them
i dont think this can be glanced over... do you have any idea how many people are employed by the medical insurance industry and healthcare induatry in this country? this is one of the reasons i am not so sure this country can do a complete overhaul to SPHC... our system is so entrenched and large that it may be nearly impossible for a dramatic shift... so obama proposes utilizing the massive system currently in place to help provide coverage for everyone... while putting in place regulations and oversight to ensure a smooth transition
sigh, you still hold on to that union lie, eh? figures. again, there is only ONE source for that, a guy who nader fired from his paper for running a story w/o approval, then AFTER nader told him to clean out his desk he filed to unionize...nader said no b/c the clown was fired, pretty simple. nader HAS, however, signed a letter allowing his organizations to unionize and some have, so it seems you have your facts wrong.
we will jus tskip the whole union thing... perhaps he realized it better to just invest in war stocks and massive corporations while railing against them... i think you used the word hypocrite towards me... i think that word may be better suited for Mr Nader...
how much are those small businesses paying towards their employees helath care plans now? is it <4%?
as far as i know my friend currently pays nothing, small organization and he cant afford to provide the benefits... i think it is obvious that ANY added tax burden on the citizens and small business right now would be catostrophic to them... can you afford another 4% taken out of your check right now? not to mention if you had 2 kids and a wife...
i hope you didn't hurt yourself stretching like that! that statement is nowhere near the vagueness of obama! (which none of you will ever
address, guess it's simpler to just say other ppl are vague)
i have addresed his PERCIEVED vagueness... i actually think he has provided a detailed agenda and ideas to move that agenda forward... the guy has a 70 page document for everyone to read with his exact plan on his website... i have read it more then once, how about you?... he has said quite clearly that there would be NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ and that he will end the iraq war and all the troops will be removed within 16 months... that is 150,000 troops plus equipment... and a massive privatized force as well... you think they can come home in 2 weeks? you se vague, i see details for good ideas... the only vague people in this election are mcbush, hillary, and nader...
see, the problem is both obama and nader say they are for change. when i look at obama i see next to nothing that would make me believe that other than his words...that's all i have to go by that he will do what he says, his words...not his voting record, not past statements, not anything he actually DID...just what he is NOW saying....
ok... so he has been a street level community organizer in poor neighborhoods of south chicago (after graduating from Harvard Law School and being the first black Harvard Law Review President... he could have walked into any firm in the country and demanded any salary he wanted... but he chose to follow his passion, then he was a civil rights attorney, again choosing not to go towards a more lucrative direction in law, he has been a publicly elected state official serving the people of illinois and was highly popular and respected, has been a publicly elected senator serving the citizens of this country and for being a junior senator has been quite effective and popular... not to mention hsi extremely diverse background and travels... so you say he just SAYS stuff, i think you are completely wrong... people choose to glance over these things because they have already made up their mind quite some time ago and have chosen "their side" so to speak... the mans record is out there and his agenda os out there, yet anti-obama folks continue to call them into question as "vague" or "all he does is talks"... quite the opposite...
when i look at nader i see a loooooong list of accomplishments that prove his would actually work for change and the betterment of the populace. he has pretty much devoted his entire life to fighting for the people,
I have no issue with Naders body of work, never have and never claimed too... i have never said i am anti nader, just pro Obama
what has obama done?
see above... he has done quite a bit
he has devoted pretty much his whole life and is treated so horribly by so many just b/c he wants there to be an actual progressive voice, actual choice, an actual voice for the PEOPLE in the white house?
it's sad
who is treating Nader badly? i am just not voting for him? i am sorry if that hurts his feelings
i see this election and Obama differently then you and Abook, thats all... it's cool with me, i support your vote for Nader, i support a persons right to vote for anyone they want, John McCain included (but please dont )
i think you guys made up your mind on Obama a long time ago and are just kind of looking for reasons to perpetuate that and justify that... why no scrutinizing Hillary or McCain? you would rather have Bill, i mean Hillary Clinton on the democratic ticket?
"President Bush believes that the war in Iraq is "worth the sacrifice."
The question then becomes - sacrifice by whom?
What about George Bush’s daughters - Jenna and Barbara?
Prince Harry served in Afghanistan.
Senator Jim Webb and Senator John McCain each have a son who has served in Iraq.
During World War II four of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sons entered the armed forces, as did General Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower.
No double standard for them.
So, why not Jenna and Barbara Bush?
And why not military service for the children of all members of Congress - who have funded this criminal war in Iraq?
There is a certain moral authority to govern - setting an example - sharing in the sacrifice initiated by the White House - that escape George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their enablers in Congress.
They have children who have declined to serve during the Iraq war.
While almost four thousand young American men and women have died in this needless, criminal war.
And tens of thousands have been seriously injured.
Why the double standard?
We have a simple cure for this double standard.
It’s called - draft at the top.
Pass a law that says this - whenever Congress and the White House take our country to war, all able-bodied military-age children of every member of Congress, the President and the Vice-President will be conscripted automatically into the armed forces.
so its ok for nader to openly state it will be a profit motivated health care system... i thought that was what we were trying to get away from?
i dont think this can be glanced over... do you have any idea how many people are employed by the medical insurance industry and healthcare induatry in this country? this is one of the reasons i am not so sure this country can do a complete overhaul to SPHC... our system is so entrenched and large that it may be nearly impossible for a dramatic shift... so obama proposes utilizing the massive system currently in place to help provide coverage for everyone... while putting in place regulations and oversight to ensure a smooth transition
we will jus tskip the whole union thing... perhaps he realized it better to just invest in war stocks and massive corporations while railing against them... i think you used the word hypocrite towards me... i think that word may be better suited for Mr Nader...
as far as i know my friend currently pays nothing, small organization and he cant afford to provide the benefits... i think it is obvious that ANY added tax burden on the citizens and small business right now would be catostrophic to them... can you afford another 4% taken out of your check right now? not to mention if you had 2 kids and a wife...
i have addresed his PERCIEVED vagueness... i actually think he has provided a detailed agenda and ideas to move that agenda forward... the guy has a 70 page document for everyone to read with his exact plan on his website... i have read it more then once, how about you?... he has said quite clearly that there would be NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ and that he will end the iraq war and all the troops will be removed within 16 months... that is 150,000 troops plus equipment... and a massive privatized force as well... you think they can come home in 2 weeks? you se vague, i see details for good ideas... the only vague people in this election are mcbush, hillary, and nader...
ok... so he has been a street level community organizer in poor neighborhoods of south chicago (after graduating from Harvard Law School and being the first black Harvard Law Review President... he could have walked into any firm in the country and demanded any salary he wanted... but he chose to follow his passion, then he was a civil rights attorney, again choosing not to go towards a more lucrative direction in law, he has been a publicly elected state official serving the people of illinois and was highly popular and respected, has been a publicly elected senator serving the citizens of this country and for being a junior senator has been quite effective and popular... not to mention hsi extremely diverse background and travels... so you say he just SAYS stuff, i think you are completely wrong... people choose to glance over these things because they have already made up their mind quite some time ago and have chosen "their side" so to speak... the mans record is out there and his agenda os out there, yet anti-obama folks continue to call them into question as "vague" or "all he does is talks"... quite the opposite...
I have no issue with Naders body of work, never have and never claimed too... i have never said i am anti nader, just pro Obama see above... he has done quite a bit
who is treating Nader badly? i am just not voting for him? i am sorry if that hurts his feelings
i see this election and Obama differently then you and Abook, thats all... it's cool with me, i support your vote for Nader, i support a persons right to vote for anyone they want, John McCain included (but please dont )
i think you guys made up your mind on Obama a long time ago and are just kind of looking for reasons to perpetuate that and justify that... why no scrutinizing Hillary or McCain? you would rather have Bill, i mean Hillary Clinton on the democratic ticket?
No, that is way too vague for me. Your whole description of Obama's history lacks any meat. What has he accomplished whilst being this widely popular public figure? I have a problem just believing him on his word seeing as how his voting record shows nothing but inconsistencies and pandering.
While on the other hand, I can accept that Nader hasn't laid out wordy and yes, vague multiple pages on the issues just yet because his past is filled with the kind of accomplishments and direction that I agree with. There's no need for all these promises for me because he has always been out there working for the average american. If I had to choose between Obama's 70 page detailed plans that I view as vague and not good enough...while also taking into account how he has a record of saying one thing and doing another VS Nader's agenda minus the detailed plans, his very appealing trait of bringing the issues to light that Obamster won't dare even touch, plus the decades of accomplishments proving who he will always for for.....it's just not a hard decision at all. Nader's stances on the issues that matter most to me is going to matter more than Obama's stances which some I disagree with and others I feel are weak and not nearly enough. I'm going to vote for the best guy. Obama's website does not make him the best choice automatically, it's going to take much more than that.
And give me a fucking break about this shit you're trying to pull saying I just have my mind made up about Obama and that's why I rail against him. As if I haven't brought up multiple issues that I don't like about the guy that have plenty of substance. I pmed you a whole friggin list of them to which you never got back to me about. So save the bullshit...you know I'm not about to let you try to pigeonhole me like that.
And who here actually thinks Hillary or McCain are fine by me???? Everyone here almost knows what a joke those two are. No need to preach to the choir.
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
That I just decided to be against Obama and have my mind made up...like my decision not to support him isn't based on all the things I've been bringing up here on a regular basis. It's not about pulling for my guy, through thick and thin, like we do football teams. It's about picking the guy who I believe in and pointing out why I don't support the others. And I have plenty of good reasons not to support Obama, none of which include that I made my mind up a long time ago and am just being stubborn. And I plenty of good reasons why I am supporting Nader. If Kucinich was running still I'd be supporting him but he's not and Nader is almost as good...his direction is the same as Kucinich on all the important issues for me. Nader would be my obvious choice based on the views you've known me to hold since we've met here.
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
That I just decided to be against Obama and have my mind made up...like my decision not to support him isn't based on all the things I've been bringing up here on a regular basis. It's not about pulling for my guy, through thick and thin, like we do football teams. It's about picking the guy who I believe in and pointing out why I don't support the others. And I have plenty of good reasons not to support Obama, none of which include that I made my mind up a long time ago and am just being stubborn. And I plenty of good reasons why I am supporting Nader. If Kucinich was running still I'd be supporting him but he's not and Nader is almost as good...his direction is the same as Kucinich on all the important issues for me. Nader would be my obvious choice based on the views you've known me to hold since we've met here.
and i feel as though Obama represents the views you've known me to hold since we met here...
and i feel as though Obama represents the views you've known me to hold since we met here...
I don't but that's just me. Vote however you wish, I fully support your right to do so... but don't expect me not to point out my problems with Obama based on facts and substance on a political message board. It has nothing to do with wanting to simply 'be against' Obama. That would be like me saying you just decided early on that you were against Bush as if you didn't have plenty of reasons as to why. That being said, I have more problems with Bush than Obama overwhelmingly and I'm not saying they are the same by any means. But I have given good reasons why I'm not supporting Obama just as you have with Bush, Hillary and McCain and I would prefer if you acknowledged that fact instead of saying different.
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 don't but that's just me. Vote however you wish, I fully support your right to do so... but don't expect me not to point out my problems with Obama based on facts and substance on a political message board.
i never tried to do that... and i have never said nader should not run...
It has nothing to do with wanting to simply 'be against' Obama. That would be like me saying you just decided early on that you were against Bush as if you didn't have plenty of reasons as to why. That being said, I have more problems with Bush than Obama overwhelmingly and I'm not saying they are the same by any means. But I have given good reasons why I'm not supporting Obama just as you have with Bush, Hillary and McCain and I would prefer if you acknowledged that fact instead of saying different.
i have openly advocated for you guys to scrutinize obama, just as i do, we disagree on a few things... i think you know i dont give a free pass to anyone and that i kind of pay attention and do my research?
i have simply stated that i am voting for Obama, and already have... that i support any 3rd party candidates ability to run... and that i support anyones vote for anyone they want for whatever reasons they want? i am just not voting for Nader, for several reasons
Comments
'And what good is Obama's 'plans' when he has a history of saying one thing and then doing/voting another way?'
or not bothering to even vote like the fisa issue, real id....
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
some have been posted in the 'on the issues' thread you and cornifer ducked out of, remember? cornifer asked for nader's specific health care plan and how much it would cost when i questioned the vagueness of his plan...i gave his exact, detailed plan and he....never came back...then you posted obama's health care plan and asked what i thought, i took the time to read through it all, again, and break down several parts of it w/ my thoughts and asked for yours....to which you never returned...there really was no need to start this thread, you could've just looked there
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
say obama gets 51% of the vote and mccain gets 49% of the vote, really only about 50% or less of the population usually votes, so in reality whoever wins the presidency is not by the will of the majority
and a loooooot of ppl don't vote b/c they think the 2 party system is pointless and offers them nothing
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Silly?! Of course but we are talking about politicians. There is no way the two parties would work with Nader and therefore willingly help throw away their political power and monopoly. It just wouldnt happen. When do the Democrats and Republicans ever show unity ? -- war, economic woes, and disasters. Otherwise it is all political bickering, all the time.
then what did you mean by
what was 'her dodge'?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
funny, you demanding his full, detailed plans after he announced, what, maybe a month, if that? while obama's plans are pretty vague and when that is brought up you guys sure do get awfully quiet
i'd ask what was going on here but i know
to quote thom yorke
your mouth moves only w/ someones hand up your ass
a lot of flowery words is nothing when it lacks substance
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
they pass those pay raises pretty quick
ha,, but in reality what you said is true, and i refuse to keep on supporting that and just giving in/up and shrugging
why should i keep voting for and supporting a broken system. vote for obama so maybe they won't bicker! hell, i guess it's as good a reason as any
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm just trying to explain why I dont think throwing a 3rd party candidate into the presidency with no congressional backing would work. I'm just using a realistic example of how Washington works. They dont give two shits about the opinions of those who dont vote. That's why young voters (who dont vote in a large percent) get less attention than old voters (who DO vote in a large percentage). If you think Nader (or whatever 3rd party prez) is going to go to Washington and sit at a table with the Democrats and Republicans and sing campfire songs and change the world then that is your right and more power to ya.
I'm not voting for Obama, Hillary, McCain, or Nader.
they don't now. but i think if they don't it will only be their downfall. if nader got elected it would be b/c the masses were fed up and wanted real change and if they see congress holding it up, holding up the will of the masses like a single payer health plan which the ppl have showed overwhelming support for....what would be their excuse?? they could say nothing.
i think many like kucinich, connyers and i think many others would work w/ him, there's a pretty good sized list of ppl who support the single payer health plan, are against the occupation of iraq....
i think it would help clean the place out a bit and get ppl who are for the ppl but dont have the corporate dollar more of a voice
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but that doesn't mean I've got to play along.
i mean, at the very least, I'm not playing a rigged game pretending that it's not
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
her dodge is the fact that Nader supporters cannot tell me what his agenda and actual plan to fulfill it is...
read through this thread... the coversation constantly turns towards obama
when is nader going to stop talking about other people and how much is bad, and actually detail HIS ideas and plans...
dude, i would take a bread crumb at this point...
i am surprised you guys keep going to the "he just announced" well... he has run for president 4 times... when is he going to announce his ideas and agenda, october? very very very weak excuse... if i was going to run for president i think i would have my ducks in a row and a detailed plan for america to review, especially if i was a 3rd party candidate...
Universal Health Care
The state of health care in the United States is a disgrace to our democracy. The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country in the world, but the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the overall quality of health care that it provides. We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal health care. More than 42 million Americans have no health insurance.
Access to health care is distributed unequally among rich and poor, and also among the races. Among whites, 11% lack health insurance, already a shocking number. But 21% of African-Americans, 21% of Asians and 33% of Hispanics lack health insurance. This translates directly into higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Young people aged 18-24 have a higher uninsured rate than any other age group, with 29% uninsured.
In addition to leaving broad segments of the population uninsured or under-insured, the U.S. health care system has many other important faults that could be remedied by a system of universal coverage. These include serious gaps in coverage for: prescription drugs and medical supplies; dental, vision and hearing care; long-term care; mental health care; preventive care for children; and treatment for substance abuse.
Health care should be provided by a national health insurance program providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans throughout their lives, and funded directly by the federal government (known as a "single-payer" system). Under the current system, hundreds of billions of dollars a year go into insurance company overhead, unnecessary and fraudulent billing and administrative costs for health-care providers, and huge profits and high salaries at large HMOs and other health-care companies. Studies show that savings from a single-payer system would be more than enough to allow us to provide universal coverage for the same amount that we are now paying for inadequate health care.
We find persuasive a plan based on the "Physicians' Proposal" for a national health program published by Physicians for a National Health Program in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and their proposal for a national long-term care program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991. Under this plan:
Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors at all times.
Health care providers would still be in the private sector, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care providers, to minimize the disruption of the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from influencing physicians, so there would be no incentives to recommend too much or too little care.
A transition fund would be established for those health-care administrators and insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
Although we could provide universal, single-payer health insurance for the same amount that we spend on health care now, we would need funding to replace the portion now paid for by employers and individuals. We would do this through several mechanisms:
A small payroll tax (<4%) on employers. The tax would represent a large savings for employers who now pay health-insurance premiums for their employees, but an additional cost for those who do not.
A small tax on stock and bond transactions (1/4 of 1% of transaction value for both the buyer and the seller). For long-term investors, this tax would be negligible. It would have the additional effect of reducing short-term speculation and thus the volatility of the markets.
An additional income tax on the wealthiest 5% of Americans. Other Americans would pay no additional taxes, and would be free from health-insurance premiums and from out-of-pocket spending for medically necessary services.
Closing corporate tax loopholes to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
Providing universal health care can only be accomplished through a single-payer system: no country has ever achieved universal coverage with private health insurance. The time to act is now.
respectable place to draw your plan from, no problem there
no problem there for me....
so the health care industry remains a "profit motivated" industry... no comment
transition fund? he means unemployement fund... how does that get funded? we are talking about a lot of jobs here if the medical insurance industry closed its doors tommorow and health care administrators were out on their ass... that is alot of $50k a year jobs suddenly without a job and a family to feed... i am no fan of the health insurance industry, but i dont think this issue should be over looked
so run for an office you can win ralph and become another progressive voice in the house or senate
This sounds go to me. It's direct and to the point with the long winded fluff that is mostly just vague and quite empty words anyway.
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/03/19/night-and-day/
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 when in threads dealing w/ obama you and others constantly turn the topic towards nader or kucinish...like when i brought up obama didn't take the political courage test the ONLY reply was you saying kucinich didn't take it either...then i showed you he took it in 2006 and his stances are the same you and others, again, fell silent
whenever ANYTHING is brought up it's either a million questions are asked
while all of ours are evaded and ignored.
his agenda is pretty well laid out on his site, a simple google search for nader + issues will bring his site w/ 12 issues as his top concerns
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
his older plans ARE online, we posted his detailed health care plan from 2004 a few times, it was very detailed, seems like a pretty big crumb
it's just funny that you are suddenly so worked up on needing detailed plans when your guys is ever so vague
oh, the irony!!
nah, on second thought it think it's hypocrisy
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but not as much under obama's plan
no, but at least he has a plan to provide for them
sigh, you still hold on to that union lie, eh? figures. again, there is only ONE source for that, a guy who nader fired from his paper for running a story w/o approval, then AFTER nader told him to clean out his desk he filed to unionize...nader said no b/c the clown was fired, pretty simple. nader HAS, however, signed a letter allowing his organizations to unionize and some have, so it seems you have your facts wrong.
how much are those small businesses paying towards their employees helath care plans now? is it <4%?
i hope you didn't hurt yourself stretching like that! that statement is nowhere near the vagueness of obama! (which none of you will ever
address, guess it's simpler to just say other ppl are vague)
see, the problem is both obama and nader say they are for change. when i look at obama i see next to nothing that would make me believe that other than his words...that's all i have to go by that he will do what he says, his words...not his voting record, not past statements, not anything he actually DID...just what he is NOW saying....
when i look at nader i see a loooooong list of accomplishments that prove his would actually work for change and the betterment of the populace. he has pretty much devoted his entire life to fighting for the people, what has obama done?
he has devoted pretty much his whole life and is treated so horribly by so many just b/c he wants there to be an actual progressive voice, actual choice, an actual voice for the PEOPLE in the white house?
it's sad
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Have I told you lately how... 'whenever i look at you
you know i always just see new things
to admire about you...
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 dont think this can be glanced over... do you have any idea how many people are employed by the medical insurance industry and healthcare induatry in this country? this is one of the reasons i am not so sure this country can do a complete overhaul to SPHC... our system is so entrenched and large that it may be nearly impossible for a dramatic shift... so obama proposes utilizing the massive system currently in place to help provide coverage for everyone... while putting in place regulations and oversight to ensure a smooth transition
we will jus tskip the whole union thing... perhaps he realized it better to just invest in war stocks and massive corporations while railing against them... i think you used the word hypocrite towards me... i think that word may be better suited for Mr Nader...
as far as i know my friend currently pays nothing, small organization and he cant afford to provide the benefits... i think it is obvious that ANY added tax burden on the citizens and small business right now would be catostrophic to them... can you afford another 4% taken out of your check right now? not to mention if you had 2 kids and a wife...
i have addresed his PERCIEVED vagueness... i actually think he has provided a detailed agenda and ideas to move that agenda forward... the guy has a 70 page document for everyone to read with his exact plan on his website... i have read it more then once, how about you?... he has said quite clearly that there would be NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ and that he will end the iraq war and all the troops will be removed within 16 months... that is 150,000 troops plus equipment... and a massive privatized force as well... you think they can come home in 2 weeks? you se vague, i see details for good ideas... the only vague people in this election are mcbush, hillary, and nader...
ok... so he has been a street level community organizer in poor neighborhoods of south chicago (after graduating from Harvard Law School and being the first black Harvard Law Review President... he could have walked into any firm in the country and demanded any salary he wanted... but he chose to follow his passion, then he was a civil rights attorney, again choosing not to go towards a more lucrative direction in law, he has been a publicly elected state official serving the people of illinois and was highly popular and respected, has been a publicly elected senator serving the citizens of this country and for being a junior senator has been quite effective and popular... not to mention hsi extremely diverse background and travels... so you say he just SAYS stuff, i think you are completely wrong... people choose to glance over these things because they have already made up their mind quite some time ago and have chosen "their side" so to speak... the mans record is out there and his agenda os out there, yet anti-obama folks continue to call them into question as "vague" or "all he does is talks"... quite the opposite...
I have no issue with Naders body of work, never have and never claimed too... i have never said i am anti nader, just pro Obama
who is treating Nader badly? i am just not voting for him? i am sorry if that hurts his feelings
i see this election and Obama differently then you and Abook, thats all... it's cool with me, i support your vote for Nader, i support a persons right to vote for anyone they want, John McCain included (but please dont
i think you guys made up your mind on Obama a long time ago and are just kind of looking for reasons to perpetuate that and justify that... why no scrutinizing Hillary or McCain? you would rather have Bill, i mean Hillary Clinton on the democratic ticket?
The question then becomes - sacrifice by whom?
What about George Bush’s daughters - Jenna and Barbara?
Prince Harry served in Afghanistan.
Senator Jim Webb and Senator John McCain each have a son who has served in Iraq.
During World War II four of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sons entered the armed forces, as did General Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower.
No double standard for them.
So, why not Jenna and Barbara Bush?
And why not military service for the children of all members of Congress - who have funded this criminal war in Iraq?
There is a certain moral authority to govern - setting an example - sharing in the sacrifice initiated by the White House - that escape George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their enablers in Congress.
They have children who have declined to serve during the Iraq war.
While almost four thousand young American men and women have died in this needless, criminal war.
And tens of thousands have been seriously injured.
Why the double standard?
We have a simple cure for this double standard.
It’s called - draft at the top.
Pass a law that says this - whenever Congress and the White House take our country to war, all able-bodied military-age children of every member of Congress, the President and the Vice-President will be conscripted automatically into the armed forces.
Nader/Gonzalez supports draft at the top.
Clinton/Obama/McCain are opposed."
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
No, that is way too vague for me. Your whole description of Obama's history lacks any meat. What has he accomplished whilst being this widely popular public figure? I have a problem just believing him on his word seeing as how his voting record shows nothing but inconsistencies and pandering.
While on the other hand, I can accept that Nader hasn't laid out wordy and yes, vague multiple pages on the issues just yet because his past is filled with the kind of accomplishments and direction that I agree with. There's no need for all these promises for me because he has always been out there working for the average american. If I had to choose between Obama's 70 page detailed plans that I view as vague and not good enough...while also taking into account how he has a record of saying one thing and doing another VS Nader's agenda minus the detailed plans, his very appealing trait of bringing the issues to light that Obamster won't dare even touch, plus the decades of accomplishments proving who he will always for for.....it's just not a hard decision at all. Nader's stances on the issues that matter most to me is going to matter more than Obama's stances which some I disagree with and others I feel are weak and not nearly enough. I'm going to vote for the best guy. Obama's website does not make him the best choice automatically, it's going to take much more than that.
And give me a fucking break about this shit you're trying to pull saying I just have my mind made up about Obama and that's why I rail against him. As if I haven't brought up multiple issues that I don't like about the guy that have plenty of substance. I pmed you a whole friggin list of them to which you never got back to me about. So save the bullshit...you know I'm not about to let you try to pigeonhole me like that.
And who here actually thinks Hillary or McCain are fine by me???? Everyone here almost knows what a joke those two are. No need to preach to the choir.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Which is fine by me but don't try to paint a picture that isn't true.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
what picture is that?
That I just decided to be against Obama and have my mind made up...like my decision not to support him isn't based on all the things I've been bringing up here on a regular basis. It's not about pulling for my guy, through thick and thin, like we do football teams. It's about picking the guy who I believe in and pointing out why I don't support the others. And I have plenty of good reasons not to support Obama, none of which include that I made my mind up a long time ago and am just being stubborn. And I plenty of good reasons why I am supporting Nader. If Kucinich was running still I'd be supporting him but he's not and Nader is almost as good...his direction is the same as Kucinich on all the important issues for me. Nader would be my obvious choice based on the views you've known me to hold since we've met here.
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 i feel as though Obama represents the views you've known me to hold since we met here...
I don't but that's just me. Vote however you wish, I fully support your right to do so... but don't expect me not to point out my problems with Obama based on facts and substance on a political message board. It has nothing to do with wanting to simply 'be against' Obama. That would be like me saying you just decided early on that you were against Bush as if you didn't have plenty of reasons as to why. That being said, I have more problems with Bush than Obama overwhelmingly and I'm not saying they are the same by any means. But I have given good reasons why I'm not supporting Obama just as you have with Bush, Hillary and McCain and I would prefer if you acknowledged that fact instead of saying different.
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 have simply stated that i am voting for Obama, and already have... that i support any 3rd party candidates ability to run... and that i support anyones vote for anyone they want for whatever reasons they want? i am just not voting for Nader, for several reasons