The game is politics. One of the oldest plays in that game is to get attention first, then explain yourself. A bit inartful, but that's pretty much what Nader did here.
I think the fact that so many view Obama as anti-establishment when he clearly isn't should most definitely get more attention. I just think that he could have done so in a way that was more pc.
Like fire. Obama has used it to warm his prospects; Nader's near burned his house down. Same element, different results depending on who's weilding it.
So did Nader do this to get attention or misspeak and it cost him? I think the attention is a very good thing now...Nader can better clarify what he meant for those who have problems with it as he is doing and at the very least it will get people to stop and think about it if only for a moment.
And, just to clarify, while Obama has been able to use the race issue to his advantage (arguable, though, how much of an advantage he can actually get from it - a wash is probably the best scenerio), but he's never really been the one to bring it up. Nearly all of his remarks have been in response to the issue being raised by others (I say "nearly" because I don't like to speak in absolutes).
I suppose that televised speech on race didn't help him out at all....
what? it's pretty easy to not be a racist...don't think racist thoughts! there, now everyone can live in my world!
It was just a smart alec response to the idea that "first black president" doesn't mean anything.
On a lighter note, did you pick up Rain Dogs yet? I'm seeing Tom Waits in Mobile next week. Pumped! Still, it'd be nice if Pearl Jam would play around here again.
So did Nader do this to get attention or misspeak and it cost him? I think the attention is a very good thing now...Nader can better clarify what he meant for those who have problems with it as he is doing and at the very least it will get people to stop and think about it if only for a moment.
Nader did it to get attention and delivered his remarks poorly, just as someone may light a fire to keep warm and end up burning themselves.
Here's our definition, from the Nader/Gonzalez dictionary:
Talking white means telling the white corporate power structure what they want to hear, rather than calling them out and telling them what they need to hear.
LMAO !! When I posted this you said I was grasping. I guess you didnt really think it was from his website. Now it all makes sense to you with this lame definition.
Nader is running for president to bring up important issues. If he doesn't run, Obama could coast in on his political pandering, catering to the white corporate structure. Seems Nader is reminding him of all the poor and oppressed he is leaving behind, trying to give them a voice. And if Nader isn't trying- no one is. I'm glad someone is.
Nader lives off of $25,000 a year, so if he's making money from citibank it's obviously not a lot
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
he should speak as if he is white, 1/2 of the time..........he is 1/2 white. and all of this talk about him being the first "black" president....he will be the first 1/2 black president.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
he should speak as if he is white, 1/2 of the time..........he is 1/2 white. and all of this talk about him being the first "black" president....he will be the first 1/2 black president.
Nader did it to get attention and delivered his remarks poorly, just as someone may light a fire to keep warm and end up burning themselves.
Well duh...of course he wants attention. He's running for president. But it's a different thing if he said something off color on purpose just to get attention. And I don't think Nader would do that. Since you're saying he expressed himself poorly, I'm taking that as he had a point about issues he thought should get attention however he 'worded it poorly'. Then his intention is a good and honest one...so why should this be a big deal?
That speech is actually one of the moments I was talking about. It did help him, but it was in response to the race issue being brought up by others.
But he still has the opportunity to not let race be an issue he wants to focus on or he can focus on it....and he did and it got him higher in the polls. I'm pretty sure he knew it would.
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 know. It's just too much here sometimes. A fine mix of politics, bickering and in some cases pure hilarity.
Dont forget blind following. It cracks me up how supporting a fraudulent and hypocritical candidate is considered progressive to Nader followers. Sad but true. *Sigh*
Gibberish! Hornswaggle!~ Oh how this perturbs me so!!! Ralph Nadar?!! The man Eddie & myself would once follow through the gates of hell talking dirty about my spiritual leader Barack Obama?! Bolderdash!!! Brickbracklewort & bullshit! Nadar is a pest that must be dealt with accordingly by my accordian. Play music for him Johnny - play him off the stage, he's done for! Your time is up Nadar!
"Your time is up, my time is now! You can't see me - my time is now!" - Barack Obama
Beloved President
"Why stand when you can sit?" - Winston Churchill
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
But if Nader is in the clear for the amount of personal wealth he has accumulated, his choice of stock-holdings is a good deal more questionable. In defending his choice of stocks to own Nader told the Post, "No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons."
But that's a problem. Because, by many definitions, the company in which Nader owns most of his stock, Cisco Systems Inc., is a monopoly.
The computer industry has three companies which have monopoly or near-monopoly control over their various industry sectors: Microsoft, which controls the PC operating system and much of the applications market; Intel, which controls the PC microprocessor market; and Cisco, which controls a dominant share of the "router" market, basically the plumbing that makes up the Internet and various other computing networks. Cisco controls a bit more than half of the overall data-networking market but has, for example, 89 percent of the market for high-end routers.
Cisco has also been investigated by several government agencies for possible anti-competitive or monopolistic practices. In fairness, none of these investigations have led to charges against the company. But Cisco does pursue many policies aimed at locking in its dominance of the router market and freezing out other competitors. Its market power is so great that three of its strongest competitors have simply dropped out of the running in the last year and Cisco has dealt with many of its smaller competitors by simply buying them and folding them into the Cisco empire. (In one particularly striking move, Cisco entered into an agreement with IBM in which the latter agreed to drop out of the computer-networking business in exchange for payments from Cisco.)
In fact, one of the reasons Cisco has been able to evade serious antitrust scrutiny is that the company goes to such lengths to train employees to avoid Microsoft's mistakes. As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, Cisco's training for its new employees warns employees to avoid inflammatory language in written communications and reminds them that "e-mail, notebooks and hard disks can be looked at by lawyers."
None of this means Cisco is a bad company, but it is an odd choice for Nader. And there's more. As with many other high-tech giants, Cisco's Washington lobbying has been concentrated on objectives like making it harder for disgruntled shareholders to sue their companies -- something Nader and his various groups have vociferously opposed. It has also focused on passing legislation to issue more H1-B visas to foreign workers, while Nader has taken a strong stand against the visas.
So what does the Nader campaign have to say about all this? When I raised the charges of Cisco's monopolistic practices with Nader spokesman Teresa Amato, she asked whether any of the government inquiries into Cisco's behavior had resulted in sanctions or prosecutions. They hadn't, but then that's setting the bar rather low, isn't it? And what about Cisco's lobbying for legislation that Nader has strenuously opposed? "We don't know anything about that," she told me. "Send us whatever information you have. I am sure if we found out anything about that, Ralph would take appropriate action."
Dont forget blind following. It cracks me up how supporting a fraudulent and hypocritical candidate is considered progressive to Nader followers. Sad but true. *Sigh*
I don't think he is anything remotely close to the way you described him. I think he is a great man who has done so much for this country. His owning and selling stocks doesn't change any of that.
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
Nader is always speaking about problems in the Arab world and ways to change and get better. also I don't think you can compare a few lebanese areas in the US with the issue Nader was talking about concerning the ghettos and such with african americans.
Comments
kidding aside... are you serious?
no one is paying attention to nader. honestly the only place i ever see his name is on here? am i missing something?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=279257
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sure, I didn't like the way he worded it, either. But I'm not here trying to make it out as worse than it was.
I think the fact that so many view Obama as anti-establishment when he clearly isn't should most definitely get more attention. I just think that he could have done so in a way that was more pc.
So did Nader do this to get attention or misspeak and it cost him? I think the attention is a very good thing now...Nader can better clarify what he meant for those who have problems with it as he is doing and at the very least it will get people to stop and think about it if only for a moment.
I suppose that televised speech on race didn't help him out at all....
Agreed. But that's not the point....the point was that people were saying no one cared what Nader has to say this year and that was wrong.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Apparently you're missing posts inside this very thread where I pasted an AP poll showing Nader at 6%
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Is that 6% of likely voters?
It just said voters.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD914PTMGA
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yep, registered voters...thanks, I looked for it (skimmed I guess) and couldn't find your other post with the link.
On a lighter note, did you pick up Rain Dogs yet? I'm seeing Tom Waits in Mobile next week. Pumped! Still, it'd be nice if Pearl Jam would play around here again.
Of course it's higher with all of the white supremacists flocking to his campaign as we type.
Nader/Imus '08
LMAO !! When I posted this you said I was grasping. I guess you didnt really think it was from his website. Now it all makes sense to you with this lame definition.
And wait until they find out he's an Arab.
Nader lives off of $25,000 a year, so if he's making money from citibank it's obviously not a lot
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 know. It's just too much here sometimes. A fine mix of politics, bickering and in some cases pure hilarity.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well duh...of course he wants attention. He's running for president. But it's a different thing if he said something off color on purpose just to get attention. And I don't think Nader would do that. Since you're saying he expressed himself poorly, I'm taking that as he had a point about issues he thought should get attention however he 'worded it poorly'. Then his intention is a good and honest one...so why should this be a big deal?
But he still has the opportunity to not let race be an issue he wants to focus on or he can focus on it....and he did and it got him higher in the polls. I'm pretty sure he knew it would.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
barack obama the first 1/2 black 1/2 white president.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5584065&postcount=45
Dont forget blind following. It cracks me up how supporting a fraudulent and hypocritical candidate is considered progressive to Nader followers. Sad but true. *Sigh*
"Your time is up, my time is now! You can't see me - my time is now!" - Barack Obama
Beloved President
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me
Nader was worth 3.8 MILLION dollars in 2000 after his donations to charity.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/061800-01.htm
It's hilarious that in the interview for this article he says, "..the stocks he chose were "the most neutral-type companies."
"Number one, they're not monopolists and number two, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons," he said."
LOL !! Turns out he was lying.....this article was four days later after his records were scrutinized --->
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5520871&postcount=1
What a smug fraud.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/06/20/nader/
But if Nader is in the clear for the amount of personal wealth he has accumulated, his choice of stock-holdings is a good deal more questionable. In defending his choice of stocks to own Nader told the Post, "No. 1, they're not monopolists and No. 2, they don't produce land mines, napalm, weapons."
But that's a problem. Because, by many definitions, the company in which Nader owns most of his stock, Cisco Systems Inc., is a monopoly.
The computer industry has three companies which have monopoly or near-monopoly control over their various industry sectors: Microsoft, which controls the PC operating system and much of the applications market; Intel, which controls the PC microprocessor market; and Cisco, which controls a dominant share of the "router" market, basically the plumbing that makes up the Internet and various other computing networks. Cisco controls a bit more than half of the overall data-networking market but has, for example, 89 percent of the market for high-end routers.
Cisco has also been investigated by several government agencies for possible anti-competitive or monopolistic practices. In fairness, none of these investigations have led to charges against the company. But Cisco does pursue many policies aimed at locking in its dominance of the router market and freezing out other competitors. Its market power is so great that three of its strongest competitors have simply dropped out of the running in the last year and Cisco has dealt with many of its smaller competitors by simply buying them and folding them into the Cisco empire. (In one particularly striking move, Cisco entered into an agreement with IBM in which the latter agreed to drop out of the computer-networking business in exchange for payments from Cisco.)
In fact, one of the reasons Cisco has been able to evade serious antitrust scrutiny is that the company goes to such lengths to train employees to avoid Microsoft's mistakes. As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, Cisco's training for its new employees warns employees to avoid inflammatory language in written communications and reminds them that "e-mail, notebooks and hard disks can be looked at by lawyers."
None of this means Cisco is a bad company, but it is an odd choice for Nader. And there's more. As with many other high-tech giants, Cisco's Washington lobbying has been concentrated on objectives like making it harder for disgruntled shareholders to sue their companies -- something Nader and his various groups have vociferously opposed. It has also focused on passing legislation to issue more H1-B visas to foreign workers, while Nader has taken a strong stand against the visas.
So what does the Nader campaign have to say about all this? When I raised the charges of Cisco's monopolistic practices with Nader spokesman Teresa Amato, she asked whether any of the government inquiries into Cisco's behavior had resulted in sanctions or prosecutions. They hadn't, but then that's setting the bar rather low, isn't it? And what about Cisco's lobbying for legislation that Nader has strenuously opposed? "We don't know anything about that," she told me. "Send us whatever information you have. I am sure if we found out anything about that, Ralph would take appropriate action."
http://abcnews.go.com/images/ThisWeek/ABC_listing_080411.pdf
I don't think he is anything remotely close to the way you described him. I think he is a great man who has done so much for this country. His owning and selling stocks doesn't change any of that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nader is always speaking about problems in the Arab world and ways to change and get better. also I don't think you can compare a few lebanese areas in the US with the issue Nader was talking about concerning the ghettos and such with african americans.
So you make a very weak point.
Ralph Nader is the Hitler of our time.
"Why sit when you can dance?" - Me