I sure hope they dont stump for him. Hopefully they learned their lesson after supporting Kerry in 04. I am in total agreement with pearl Jam's politics, but it always seemed like such a step down to support a wimp like kerry, a mealy mouthed loser, a troubled eyore character.
They should support the antiwar candidate. They should support whoever says to bring the troops home.
As Sean penn said: If you dont have a plan to bring our troops home, you dont deserve to be voted for.
The dems dial for the same bucks as the republicans.
As Tom Morello said: How hard is it for the Dems to have human rights and peace be the platfor they run on?
Again, I dont get this cult of personality around obama. People are more into the image than his policies.
The question remains, the public in November voted antiwar. Will they vote for a dem candidate who isnt antiwar and isnt for pulling the troops home?
obama shouldnt be the dem candidate in 08. Out nation deserves better. Out of a nation of 300 million plus people, are the best people for the job really Biden, Gore, Clinton, Obama?
I mean is that the best we can do? Is that the opposition party?
do they like him????? do they care????? is Obama the answer.....or.....what do u think?????
I got Obama in my room....
and now the question's:
do i kill them?
become their friend?
do i eat them?
raw or well done?
do i trick them?
i don't think they're that dumb
do i join them?
looks like that's the one
I sure hope they dont stump for him. Hopefully they learned their lesson after supporting Kerry in 04. I am in total agreement with pearl Jam's politics, but it always seemed like such a step down to support a wimp like kerry, a mealy mouthed loser, a troubled eyore character.
It wasn't about supporting Kerry, it was about supporting the party that was going to stop the war. People get so fucking bogged down in the actual candidate.. there's way more to it than that. It's fucking Washington presidential politics.. you'll NEVER find a canditate with a chance in hell of even winning a primary who isn't a complete souless tool. Obama is as close as it's gonna get.
It wasn't about supporting Kerry, it was about supporting the party that was going to stop the war. People get so fucking bogged down in the actual candidate.. there's way more to it than that. It's fucking Washington presidential politics.. you'll NEVER find a canditate with a chance in hell of even winning a primary who isn't a complete souless tool. Obama is as close as it's gonna get.
Exactly. I hate when people say "I didn't vote because I didn't like either of the candidates, but I still hate bush so much more."
THEN FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY. If we all experienced Bush and know just how horrible he was, why the hell would people not support the other guy who's not him?
Also, for 2008, while I don't have any favorites, I'll have to look into the candidates more and learn more about them.
.. you'll NEVER find a canditate with a chance in hell of even winning a primary who isn't a complete souless tool. Obama is as close as it's gonna get.
how do you square John Kerry being marketed to antiwar types and potential nader votes, or the antiwar crowd, they all were told kerry was antiwar
Why did he promise to do what bush just did? Yeah thats right go google it. back in one of the 04 debates kerry, when asked what he would do about iraq said, "I would send in more troops, I would send about 20,000 more troops in".
I dont vote for dems or republicans because they are both the same. Kerry was funded by the same people Bush was.
Plus, its such a mockery. To get the nomination of your party, research shows that you have to have 150 million. I am not making that number up. There was a study that proved that.
If you have 150 million, or are capable of raising that money, are you really representing the average joe?
The fact is, Kerry was middle of the road. So was gore in 2000. They werent radical lefties. They were centrists.
Centrism lost kerry the election in 04. Why not at least nominate a Kucinich? I mean we dont know that he wouldnt be elected. We know Kerry isnt electable. Centrism doesnt work.
As I said before, the fact is the public is antiwar. Both the Dems and Republicans need the antiwar vote to win. So calling for more troops isnt electable.
Why is it so hard for Dems to come out and be a true opposition party? I mean kerry was pro WTO, pro globalization, wasnt a gay rights advocate (yes he was for unions, but come on people!), was pro buisness.
The fact remains, dems are exactly like republicans. They just are for nicer buisnesses than republicans. But they are all the same.
the fact remains, why was Kerry called antiwar if he wanted to escalate the war?
And why did people act like voting for Nader instead of Bush was wrong. I voted for Nader precisely for the reason I just outlined. Kerry wanted more troops sent into Iraq. That seemed insane. Not even Bush verbally said this at the time.
Gore and Kerry are boring people. They are complete losers. They are liars.
You think they dont get funded by GE or Microsoft or Disney or whoever? And you dont think they would make decisions just like the republicans do based on campaign finance?
When both parties are funded by the same corporations, you dont really have an opposition party do you? In fact you dont really have democracy
^^ che - ALL politicians are liars and scum. You have to play the game to get the best hand you can get. If that means voting for scum #2 over the incumbant scum so be it.
To get back on topic, who cares whether PJ would vote for Obama or not.
It comes down to who YOU would vote for. If all we have is a few weak choices, but we think that Obama might be the one to make a difference, then if you don't vote for him because, oh gosh, does Ed think he's cool?
Then I feel sorry for you for being so uneducated.
Don't let America sink further. Please, just don't.
I say ONLY vote for the candidate who will end the war and bring the troops home. If Obama is for that vote for him, if not dont.
To get my vote a candidate must say they will end the war and bring our troops home.
Its not enough just to be "not bush". As I pointed out several times, had kerry been elected, he would have most likely escalated the war in his first few months
we deserve a candidate who is understanding of the citizens wishes. Right now the general public is solidly and overwhelmingly antiwar. The november midterms showed this. So trying to elect another centrist democrat who will continue this war is senseless and political suicide.
The people of this country deserve someone who will end this war. And I dont think Obama is it.
Just because he is the biggest thing since sliced bread dont make him my savior.
Its nice to think of a black president, but come on people!
To nominate a prowar democrat or a democrat who aims to send more troops in, frankly is a slap in the face to the near million iraqis killed and the 3000 plus american soldiers.
They deserve better, we deserve better. ONLY VOTE ANTIWAR
we deserve a candidate who is understanding of the citizens wishes. Right now the general public is solidly and overwhelmingly antiwar. The november midterms showed this. So trying to elect another centrist democrat who will continue this war is senseless and political suicide.
The people of this country deserve someone who will end this war. And I dont think Obama is it.
it seems like you're contradicting yourself here. and it's a shame. i'd hate to see someone so passionate get caught up in empty speech that's going nowhere and seemingly uninformed.
you say we deserve a candidate who is understanding of the citizens wishes. and all you seem to think is that's 'antiwar'. what you don't know is how the citizens you feel so strongly about want to end the war exactly. or do you? do you know how we all want to end this exactly? and i'd love to hear exactly why you don't think obama 'is it' because he was never for the war in the first place. and he does actually have a plan to end our involvement.
this may not be the case, but i get the feeling from your posts that you're just against what people may actually support, or any kind of establishment or mainstream anything. meaning--it seems like you don't know much about obama or else you'd know what he has thought about the war, you know actually never supporting it and wanting to end it, and you're dismissing him automatically for some reason. maybe just because he's becoming mainstream and that's what you're really fighting against?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Yeah we deserve that kind of candidate but it's never gonna fucking happen. Get over yourself and play the game. If all the pretentious liberal jerks like you just got out and voted for their best option Bush would be out of the white house right now... Fuck he may not have gotten there in the first place.
That's awesome, blame liberals for George Bush being elected...not the system, not the cheating fucks in Florida and Ohio, not the media who has a hand in how people are viewed, and certainly not the voting system itself which is only 1 day long, and something you don't get compensation for doing (even if you are supposed to), which thereby serves as a deterrent for poor, hourly workers who would probably have voted the exact opposite of George Bush. That's the whole thing about this system is that for 241 years rich white men have run our government, and they are exceedingly good at keeping it that way.
That's only b/c he's barely been involved in government. Once you get in the only way you stay in is to sell out to the real governors of our time corporate owners. They pay off everyone so that they don't have to pay for anything else.
That's awesome, blame liberals for George Bush being elected...not the system, not the cheating fucks in Florida and Ohio, not the media who has a hand in how people are viewed, and certainly not the voting system itself which is only 1 day long, and something you don't get compensation for doing (even if you are supposed to), which thereby serves as a deterrent for poor, hourly workers who would probably have voted the exact opposite of George Bush. That's the whole thing about this system is that for 241 years rich white men have run our government, and they are exceedingly good at keeping it that way.
Did you read what I said?
I was talking about people (who are pretty numerous) who took che's position in the past couple of elections. I'm about as far left as they come, but I'm not going to be an idiot and just not vote. Saying "i'm not voting for Gore or Kerry because they're tools - I just won't vote" is completely moronic. You can do something to try and better a situation or sit there and watch it go down in flames (re-election of bush for example..)
no i understood what you wrote, i just think it'ssilly to suggest that those who didn't vote b/c they didn't like their choices were to blame for bush - i guess i didn't see it that way. i thought my other suggestions for why bush won better explained it.
no i understood what you wrote, i just think it'ssilly to suggest that those who didn't vote b/c they didn't like their choices were to blame for bush - i guess i didn't see it that way. i thought my other suggestions for why bush won better explained it.
Oh there are plenty of reasons, but stuck up leftists are one of them. Both elections were won and lost by a painfully close margin.
I sure hope they dont stump for him. Hopefully they learned their lesson after supporting Kerry in 04. I am in total agreement with pearl Jam's politics, but it always seemed like such a step down to support a wimp like kerry, a mealy mouthed loser, a troubled eyore character.
They should support the antiwar candidate. They should support whoever says to bring the troops home.
As Sean penn said: If you dont have a plan to bring our troops home, you dont deserve to be voted for.
The dems dial for the same bucks as the republicans.
As Tom Morello said: How hard is it for the Dems to have human rights and peace be the platfor they run on?
Again, I dont get this cult of personality around obama. People are more into the image than his policies.
The question remains, the public in November voted antiwar. Will they vote for a dem candidate who isnt antiwar and isnt for pulling the troops home?
they didn't vote anti-war.. they voted against those that brought unnecessary war - and liked it.
bacchanal
Posts: 149
Comments
They should support the antiwar candidate. They should support whoever says to bring the troops home.
As Sean penn said: If you dont have a plan to bring our troops home, you dont deserve to be voted for.
The dems dial for the same bucks as the republicans.
As Tom Morello said: How hard is it for the Dems to have human rights and peace be the platfor they run on?
Again, I dont get this cult of personality around obama. People are more into the image than his policies.
The question remains, the public in November voted antiwar. Will they vote for a dem candidate who isnt antiwar and isnt for pulling the troops home?
I mean is that the best we can do? Is that the opposition party?
I got Obama in my room....
and now the question's:
do i kill them?
become their friend?
do i eat them?
raw or well done?
do i trick them?
i don't think they're that dumb
do i join them?
looks like that's the one
Jon Tester
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Exactly. I hate when people say "I didn't vote because I didn't like either of the candidates, but I still hate bush so much more."
THEN FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY. If we all experienced Bush and know just how horrible he was, why the hell would people not support the other guy who's not him?
Also, for 2008, while I don't have any favorites, I'll have to look into the candidates more and learn more about them.
Condolezza Rice for 2008!
Not really.
Isn't it time???
Obama 2008
Why did he promise to do what bush just did? Yeah thats right go google it. back in one of the 04 debates kerry, when asked what he would do about iraq said, "I would send in more troops, I would send about 20,000 more troops in".
I dont vote for dems or republicans because they are both the same. Kerry was funded by the same people Bush was.
Plus, its such a mockery. To get the nomination of your party, research shows that you have to have 150 million. I am not making that number up. There was a study that proved that.
If you have 150 million, or are capable of raising that money, are you really representing the average joe?
The fact is, Kerry was middle of the road. So was gore in 2000. They werent radical lefties. They were centrists.
Centrism lost kerry the election in 04. Why not at least nominate a Kucinich? I mean we dont know that he wouldnt be elected. We know Kerry isnt electable. Centrism doesnt work.
As I said before, the fact is the public is antiwar. Both the Dems and Republicans need the antiwar vote to win. So calling for more troops isnt electable.
Why is it so hard for Dems to come out and be a true opposition party? I mean kerry was pro WTO, pro globalization, wasnt a gay rights advocate (yes he was for unions, but come on people!), was pro buisness.
The fact remains, dems are exactly like republicans. They just are for nicer buisnesses than republicans. But they are all the same.
We need a McGovern, a Bobby Kennedy.
And why did people act like voting for Nader instead of Bush was wrong. I voted for Nader precisely for the reason I just outlined. Kerry wanted more troops sent into Iraq. That seemed insane. Not even Bush verbally said this at the time.
Gore and Kerry are boring people. They are complete losers. They are liars.
You think they dont get funded by GE or Microsoft or Disney or whoever? And you dont think they would make decisions just like the republicans do based on campaign finance?
When both parties are funded by the same corporations, you dont really have an opposition party do you? In fact you dont really have democracy
If the band truely is a fan of Chomsky and Zinn, they sure as hell aint Democrats.
The majority didnt vote for anyone.
Are some of them just lazy sheep and apathetic. Absolutely, but not all of them.
Something like 100 million people or more didnt vote at all.
Anyone else think it may have large part to do with the fact that neither Kerry nor Bush really represented the public at large?
Obama 2008.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
It comes down to who YOU would vote for. If all we have is a few weak choices, but we think that Obama might be the one to make a difference, then if you don't vote for him because, oh gosh, does Ed think he's cool?
Then I feel sorry for you for being so uneducated.
Don't let America sink further. Please, just don't.
Obama 2008.
Bu
I say ONLY vote for the candidate who will end the war and bring the troops home. If Obama is for that vote for him, if not dont.
To get my vote a candidate must say they will end the war and bring our troops home.
Its not enough just to be "not bush". As I pointed out several times, had kerry been elected, he would have most likely escalated the war in his first few months
The people of this country deserve someone who will end this war. And I dont think Obama is it.
Just because he is the biggest thing since sliced bread dont make him my savior.
Its nice to think of a black president, but come on people!
To nominate a prowar democrat or a democrat who aims to send more troops in, frankly is a slap in the face to the near million iraqis killed and the 3000 plus american soldiers.
They deserve better, we deserve better. ONLY VOTE ANTIWAR
it seems like you're contradicting yourself here. and it's a shame. i'd hate to see someone so passionate get caught up in empty speech that's going nowhere and seemingly uninformed.
you say we deserve a candidate who is understanding of the citizens wishes. and all you seem to think is that's 'antiwar'. what you don't know is how the citizens you feel so strongly about want to end the war exactly. or do you? do you know how we all want to end this exactly? and i'd love to hear exactly why you don't think obama 'is it' because he was never for the war in the first place. and he does actually have a plan to end our involvement.
this may not be the case, but i get the feeling from your posts that you're just against what people may actually support, or any kind of establishment or mainstream anything. meaning--it seems like you don't know much about obama or else you'd know what he has thought about the war, you know actually never supporting it and wanting to end it, and you're dismissing him automatically for some reason. maybe just because he's becoming mainstream and that's what you're really fighting against?
cross the river to the eastside
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
at least that much should be agreed upon
I was talking about people (who are pretty numerous) who took che's position in the past couple of elections. I'm about as far left as they come, but I'm not going to be an idiot and just not vote. Saying "i'm not voting for Gore or Kerry because they're tools - I just won't vote" is completely moronic. You can do something to try and better a situation or sit there and watch it go down in flames (re-election of bush for example..)
Definetly.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
word to yo mutha
ed vedder is a high school dropout...so his endorsement is like the plague
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
they didn't vote anti-war.. they voted against those that brought unnecessary war - and liked it.