Obama Vs. McCain

flywallyfly

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You really need to work on some new material. Just a friendly tip.

Thanks for caring sweety.

AtlantaJammer

We all know how vocal EV is about political issues... Why has he not endorsed Obama? Maybe he saw this... http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036
And dont get me wrong. I dont want the US to be represented by either of the canidates. Just watch this front to back, and think about how much of an extremist Obama is...

Abookamongstthemany

flywallyfly wrote:

Thanks for caring sweety.

Oh, don't mention it! It's the least I could do.

El_Kabong

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.

All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JimbtqhdhXM

Number 18

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think the whole 'incompetent' shtick is to make the admin seem less corrupt, dishonest and criminal and more like dumbasses, instead. They want it to seem like they just fucked up but really they have achieved exactly what they set out to without regard to the consequences it would cause. They really don't care.

...where's the contradiction?

and why is that such a stretch, anyway? You act like you've never seen a person play dumb when they are busted doing something they shouldn't be.

I think Bush is incompetent (just my opinion). But I agree with your opinion in regards to his staff, i.e. Cheney and especially Karl Rove - that man is just pure evil. To that point and yours, now that Rove is gone, I think the rest of the administration has to really play the incompetence card to try and cover up everything he pulled.

Its Evolution Baby

El_Kabong wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JimbtqhdhXM

Hes campaigning in that video. No facts against Obama or Clinton or Edwards was used other then they would keep all options open. How does that not include diplomacay as one of the options?

Look Obama could lie and pander to the Left and say that we will never attack Iran but then if something happened and we were forced into action, Obama would be called out for lying in his campaign. Remember Bush 1 and his no new taxes line. He lost to Clinton in 1992 mostly because of that mistake.

He has stated numerous times and will work for diplomacy first and foremost. And if you are saying hes lying thats fine don't vote for him but there is NO evidence that he's a warmonger other then that hes not a total pacifist like Nader or Kucinich. I guess that would make Edwards and Clinton Warmongers too.

slightofjeff

AtlantaJammer wrote:

We all know how vocal EV is about political issues... Why has he not endorsed Obama? Maybe he saw this... http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036
And dont get me wrong. I dont want the US to be represented by either of the canidates. Just watch this front to back, and think about how much of an extremist Obama is...

Um ... not to burst your bubble, but Ed HAS endorsed Obama. At least if you can call flying a big Obama banner at his solo shows as an endorsement.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Hes campaigning in that video. No facts against Obama or Clinton or Edwards was used other then they would keep all options open. How does that not include diplomacay as one of the options?

Look Obama could lie and pander to the Left and say that we will never attack Iran but then if something happened and we were forced into action, Obama would be called out for lying in his campaign. Remember Bush 1 and his no new taxes line. He lost to Clinton in 1992 mostly because of that mistake.

He has stated numerous times and will work for diplomacy first and foremost. And if you are saying hes lying thats fine don't vote for him but there is NO evidence that he's a warmonger other then that hes not a total pacifist like Nader or Kucinich. I guess that would make Edwards and Clinton Warmongers too.

I'd prefer to be able to take what Obama is saying as the truth and not have to guess which side he's lying to at the time. To me, that speaks to the kind of people we keep voting in office. People that will lie and say very different things to very different crowds just to get ahead. And that's dishonesty and it's a huge problem. It speaks to the kind of person he is. And we wonder why our gov't is so corrupt and useless! People with integrity don't change their stories as they go along.

There is evidence that he could have the same warmongering mentality as the
Reps.....his words!! And all you have is his other WORDS to back up this not being the case. You have just chosen what you're willing to believe out of the two stories he tells. I'm choosing to vote for someone that can keep one story straight so I don't have to guess who he's telling the truth to.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'd prefer to be able to take what Obama is saying as the truth and not have to guess which side he's lying to at the time. To me, that speaks to the kind of people we keep voting in office. People that will lie and say very different things to very different crowds just to get ahead. And that's dishonesty and it's a huge problem. It speaks to the kind of person he is. And we wonder why our gov't is so corrupt and useless! People with integrity don't change their stories as they go along.

There is evidence that he could have the same warmongering mentality as the
Reps.....his words!! And all you have is his other WORDS to back up this not being the case. You have just chosen what you're willing to believe out of the two stories he tells. I'm choosing to vote for someone that can keep one story straight so I don't have to guess who he's telling the truth to.

I disagree that he has said different things to different people. The thing is that even Nader thinks Obama is not that different then him. The only thing that Nader has attacked Obama on is his support or Israel. I did a simple Google Search of Nader Obama and that is all I could find from NADER himself.

How do Nader supporters find all of this Obama war mongering speech that can't be found any where. He has said troops will be out in majority within 16 months. Will there be some troops there longer? Yes to help keep security. Its not Obama's fault Bush started the war, but you can't leave Iraq without some sort of security back up. That would be worse then when we invaded the country. I'm sorry its not the answer that all want to hear but we will not be engaging in daily hand to hand combat within 16 months of his presidency. Its right on his website which I know you have looked at before.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I disagree that he has said different things to different people. The thing is that even Nader thinks Obama is not that different then him. The only thing that Nader has attacked Obama on is his support or Israel. I did a simple Google Search of Nader Obama and that is all I could find from NADER himself.

How do Nader supporters find all of this Obama war mongering speech that can't be found any where. He has said troops will be out in majority within 16 months. Will there be some troops there longer? Yes to help keep security. Its not Obama's fault Bush started the war, but you can't leave Iraq without some sort of security back up. That would be worse then when we invaded the country. I'm sorry its not the answer that all want to hear but we will not be engaging in daily hand to hand combat within 16 months of his presidency. Its right on his website which I know you have looked at before.

You just got through saying that what he was saying is just 'campaigning' so what did you mean by that exactly then?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fUTkg-zt6S8
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5508672&postcount=28

Yeah, needless to say, I'm not impressed with his website, his support for using Blackwater, his lack of a commitment to have the troops out by 2013 and so....if that's okay for you then fine by me, vote for the guy. I'm just saying it is not acceptable for me.

Number 18

Just something to make Nader's site better, IMO, would be not just to list "Off the Table," but to make it a link that, when clicked, displays why he is saying it is off the table.

Abookamongstthemany

Number 18 wrote:

Just something to make Nader's site better, IMO, would be not just to list "Off the Table," but to make it a link that, when clicked, displays why he is saying it is off the table.

Yeah, busy busy busy....his campaign is working right now just for ballot access in all 50 states. And that is the current focus.

Nader has done activist work on all these issues and his stances are clear but you will have to do some googling until then because his campaign sent out an email stating they are planning on making the site much more detailed but it is an 'in the works' project and our resources are being divided up else where at the moment.

I posted a great interview on his environmental stance if you are interested.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=287868

Number 18

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yeah, busy busy busy....his campaign is working right now just for ballot access in all 50 states. And that is the current focus.

Nader has done activist work on all these issues and his stances are clear but you will have to do some googling until then because his campaign sent out an email stating they are planning on making the site much more detailed but it is an 'in the works' project and our resources are being divided up else where at the moment.

I posted a great interview on his environmental stance if you are interested.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=287868

Yeah, I get that and can relate. With grad school, planning a wedding, and working way more than full time, I just wish there was a reliable site I could go to that would accurately and adequately show the pros and cons of all candidates. I just don't have the time to do all the googling.

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Abookamongstthemany

Number 18 wrote:

Yeah, I get that and can relate. With grad school, planning a wedding, and working way more than full time, I just wish there was a reliable site I could go to that would accurately and adequately show the pros and cons of all candidates. I just don't have the time to do all the googling.

Thanks for the link, BTW.

No problem

Its Evolution Baby

Obama's response to Nader can be found it this article and its classic.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/24/newly_engaged_in_a_threefront.html?hpid=topnews

Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War

By Alec MacGillis
TOLEDO -- So this is what being a front-runner deep in primary season looks like: taking flak on three sides.

Sen. Barack Obama found himself today facing insinuations from Republicans that he lacks patriotism, charges from Hillary Clinton that he is a hypocrite on campaign ethics, and put-downs from Ralph Nader, who in announcing his third-party candidacy this morning dismissed Obama as well-intentioned but in hock to the corporate agenda.

So far, at least, Obama is showing that he can stand his ground and return fire on all fronts.

At a gypsum manufacturing plant in Lorain, Ohio, today, he was asked about indications that Republicans are preparing a line of attack impugning his patriotism, pulling together several things: a photograph that showed him singing the national anthem without putting his hand over his heart; his decision not to wear an American flag pin on his lapel; his (tenuous) connection with a former Weatherman; and his wife's recent comment about not being proud of America until this campaign.

"The way I will respond to it is with the truth. I owe everything I am to this country. The reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love for this country," he said. "The notion that I am disqualified because at one event I was singing the national anthem but failed to put my hand over my heart -- if that were the case, that must disqualify half the people who've ever gone to a football game."


His wife, he said, had clarified her comments to make clear that what she meant was that this was the first time she was "proud of politics in America, and that's true of a lot of people." As for the pin, he said, "if we want to start getting into those definitions of patriotism," then he would come back with questions for a "a party that presided over a war where the troops that didn't get the body armor they needed" and is "undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary."

"That's a debate I'm more than willing to have," he said. "We'll see what the Americans think is the true definition of patriotism."

Next, he was asked about Nader's comments on "Meet the Press," in which Nader called Obama a "person of substance" but added that "his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself."

Obama's answer was even tougher than one he gave Saturday about Nader. "Ralph Nader's view is, unless it's Ralph Nader, then you're not tough enough on any of these issues," he said. "He thought there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. I think eight years later, people realize Ralph doesn't know what he's talking about."

He added, "Ralph Nader deserved enormous credit for the work he did as consumer advocate." But, he concluded, "His function as perennial presidential candidate is not helping put food on the table."

Finally, Obama was asked again about Clinton's accusation that it was unfair to attack her for being part of the Clinton White House that approved NAFTA, when she has more recently made clear her ambivalence about the trade deal. Clinton has lambasted him all weekend for tactics she said were reminiscent of Karl Rove and dared him to "meet me in Ohio" to take up the dispute.

Obama shot back that he was on solid ground in his NAFTA attack, which has the potential to stir a lot of voters in a state where the trade deal is deeply unpopular.

"She's essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years. Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of," he said. "So the notion that she can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient, that doesn't make sense. If she's suggesting she had nothing to do with economic policy in the Clinton White House, then it would not be fair [to attack her on NAFTA], but as you know, that's not the claim that she's making."

Its Evolution Baby

Number 18 wrote:

Just something to make Nader's site better, IMO, would be not just to list "Off the Table," but to make it a link that, when clicked, displays why he is saying it is off the table.

I was just going to say that. Its so true and if you read his ideas often times he doesn't mention where Obama and McCain stand on the issues compared to him.

It's very misleading imo.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Obama's response to Nader can be found it this article and its classic.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/24/newly_engaged_in_a_threefront.html?hpid=topnews

Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War

By Alec MacGillis
TOLEDO -- So this is what being a front-runner deep in primary season looks like: taking flak on three sides.

Sen. Barack Obama found himself today facing insinuations from Republicans that he lacks patriotism, charges from Hillary Clinton that he is a hypocrite on campaign ethics, and put-downs from Ralph Nader, who in announcing his third-party candidacy this morning dismissed Obama as well-intentioned but in hock to the corporate agenda.

So far, at least, Obama is showing that he can stand his ground and return fire on all fronts.

At a gypsum manufacturing plant in Lorain, Ohio, today, he was asked about indications that Republicans are preparing a line of attack impugning his patriotism, pulling together several things: a photograph that showed him singing the national anthem without putting his hand over his heart; his decision not to wear an American flag pin on his lapel; his (tenuous) connection with a former Weatherman; and his wife's recent comment about not being proud of America until this campaign.

"The way I will respond to it is with the truth. I owe everything I am to this country. The reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love for this country," he said. "The notion that I am disqualified because at one event I was singing the national anthem but failed to put my hand over my heart -- if that were the case, that must disqualify half the people who've ever gone to a football game."


His wife, he said, had clarified her comments to make clear that what she meant was that this was the first time she was "proud of politics in America, and that's true of a lot of people." As for the pin, he said, "if we want to start getting into those definitions of patriotism," then he would come back with questions for a "a party that presided over a war where the troops that didn't get the body armor they needed" and is "undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary."

"That's a debate I'm more than willing to have," he said. "We'll see what the Americans think is the true definition of patriotism."

Next, he was asked about Nader's comments on "Meet the Press," in which Nader called Obama a "person of substance" but added that "his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself."

Obama's answer was even tougher than one he gave Saturday about Nader. "Ralph Nader's view is, unless it's Ralph Nader, then you're not tough enough on any of these issues," he said. "He thought there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. I think eight years later, people realize Ralph doesn't know what he's talking about."

He added, "Ralph Nader deserved enormous credit for the work he did as consumer advocate." But, he concluded, "His function as perennial presidential candidate is not helping put food on the table."

Finally, Obama was asked again about Clinton's accusation that it was unfair to attack her for being part of the Clinton White House that approved NAFTA, when she has more recently made clear her ambivalence about the trade deal. Clinton has lambasted him all weekend for tactics she said were reminiscent of Karl Rove and dared him to "meet me in Ohio" to take up the dispute.

Obama shot back that he was on solid ground in his NAFTA attack, which has the potential to stir a lot of voters in a state where the trade deal is deeply unpopular.

"She's essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years. Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of," he said. "So the notion that she can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient, that doesn't make sense. If she's suggesting she had nothing to do with economic policy in the Clinton White House, then it would not be fair [to attack her on NAFTA], but as you know, that's not the claim that she's making."

That article is pure fluff based on Obama's opinions and not based on anything real like voting record and actions of his since being in the Senate.

I can post a million opinions that will back Nader up and I have but we were talking about stances on the issues here.

http://counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That article is pure fluff based on Obama's opinions and not based on anything real like voting record and actions of his since being in the Senate.

I can post a million opinions that will back Nader up and I have but we were talking about stances on the issues here.

http://counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html

How is an opinion piece less fluffy than a news story about Obama being attacked on all fronts?

I bring up the issues but you ignore Obama's stance on the Iraq War saying he wants troops until 2013 when he proposed legislation in Congress last year to have them out by 3/31/08. The bill was defeated. He also has said that combat troops would be out within 16 months. The remaining troops will be there for security purposes. That is why he doesn't say that all troops will be out by 2013. Because it won't be true. If Nader says all troops out within 6 months, what will happen if Iraq slips into even more violence and disorder? It would make what Bush did to there country even worse.

The majority of the combat troops will come home under Obama. He has said it since day one and hasn't said anything to make me think different. I am also a realist and know we still have stations in Korea and Vietnam and will have to add Iraq to that list.

Rhinocerous Surprise

reborncareerist wrote:

Eye-Rolly McGee:
I am not one of those people that says Palestine should not be a country. I believe in a two-state solution.

I know, we agreed about it on the other thread. I was just making a funnee.

Urban Hiker

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Obama's response to Nader can be found it this article and its classic.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/24/newly_engaged_in_a_threefront.html?hpid=topnews

Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War

By Alec MacGillis

....

Next, he was asked about Nader's comments on "Meet the Press," in which Nader called Obama a "person of substance" but added that "his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself."

Obama's answer was even tougher than one he gave Saturday about Nader. "Ralph Nader's view is, unless it's Ralph Nader, then you're not tough enough on any of these issues," he said. "He thought there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. I think eight years later, people realize Ralph doesn't know what he's talking about."

He added, "Ralph Nader deserved enormous credit for the work he did as consumer advocate." But, he concluded, "His function as perennial presidential candidate is not helping put food on the table."
...

I question the intelligence of any person who says Ralph Nader doesn't know what he's talking about.
People forget that Gore ran much more conservatively than Clinton had and the person he has become is not one concerned with being elected to office.
*******************************************************

I'd like to know, if people are so confident that Obama is the best democratic presidential candidate to come along in decades, why are they still so afraid of Nader impacting the election?