Obama is a liar and a fraud

[thx1138]

And McCain is not aliar and a fraud. :>)

[natina]

INDEPENDANT CANDIDATES DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE DON'T WASTE A VOTE?

[yodajazz]

why has this become a vote of the less evil?

If you are gonna to say ‘the lesser of two evils’, then I will say the Republican Party represents supreme evil. They were directly responsible for getting the US into the Iraq war under false pretenses. I don’t know, how much you know, but they were advocating going back into Iraq in order establish an American empire, publically since 1998. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, were in a group that advocated this, then they all were part of the Bush administration policy makers. They have made America less safe, by creating enemies in the Muslim world and spent our money on this foolish venture. John McCain was one the first Senators to point the blame of 9/11 on in Iraq, and urge us to attack, when it was a lie. Obama spoke out against the war in the same time period. By the way, the taking of human lives for anything other than self defense is murder.

In addition Republican financial philosophy has benefited the rich since Ronald Reagan. His philosophy that giving the rich additional tax breaks would benefit everyone was just the beginning. In addition Reagan started the attack on the American labor movement, which has ended with employers having all the power today. Yes the Democrats have accepted corporate gifts, etc, but the Labor movement has always been a part of the Democratic Party. Whatever they would do for corporations, they would also have policies to strengthen American workers. The Repubs have put out phony philosophies, saying that people are rich because they work harder and that people are not rich or successful because they lack intellect or are lazy.

Lastly, the Republican philosophy of letting the financial industry do what ever they want has helped the concentration of wealth to the richest, and it is the cause of why the financial crisis is so widespread. For example, the practice of ‘credit default swaps’ was illegal from 1907 until 2000.

I have made numerous links in my other posts and don’t have the time to repost them here. Worthy2 your position is that the Republican party should not be held responsible for the ruin of America. But voting Democrats in is only the first step. Progressive people can demand that the government be more responsible to the people that put them in power. But certainly the Republicans have not been responsive the last eight years. They have not even encouraged debate, which is a foundation of our nation. They were able to label any dissent with their policies as, “America hating”, “soft on terrorism”, “socialism”, and “liberal whatever”.

Going back the concept of ‘evil’, one characteristic of evil is the use of negative forces like ‘fear’. If you look at the policies of the last eight years you will see that fear is the basic tool that has been used to get its way. For example, they say that if the government does not have the right to listen in on our phone calls, then terrorists are going organize and attack. And in this case they violated the own legal safe guards they helped to put into place, such as getting legal permission first. And they still were not held accountable for violating the law. But the American public has the opportunity to put another party in power on election day, and it is not possible for Ralph Nader to be the one. Let's be realistic.

INDEPENDANT CANDIDATES DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE DON'T WASTE A VOTE?

[Cuchulain]

why has this become a vote of the less evil?

That's just the way it is. Partly because candidates have to be acceptable to the 'great unwashed' (which explains Palin the milp - the p is not a typo) but mostly because no third party will have a chance until we get full public funding for elections. I'd love to see Ralph in the WH or as sec of Labor or the Interior or as IG or even AG. It ain't gonna happen as long as obscene amounts can be spent to make him look bad. Obama is very much the lesser evil and a vital choice for swing state voters.

[Cuchulain]

yodajazz hit a home run while I was typing my last reply.

[trish]

I'll quote myself from another thread because even though it repeats the spirit of Yodajazz's thoughtful post above worthy2 still doesn't get it:

I know Nader thinks there is no difference between the two major parties.
But you only need to look at the surplus gained during the Clinton administration and the debt accrued during the following Bush administration to see the difference in effective outcomes of their economic policies.
You only have to look at Bush’s response to 9/11 (after he got over the initial seven minute shock) and image how Gore would’ve responded to the same crises. Sure, I think it likely that Gore too would have gone after Al Quada in Afghanistan; but Bush squandered the good will of the international community and unilaterally upset the secular government of Iraq while at the same time destroying its infrastructure and setting off a sectarian civil war that kill hundreds of thousands of people including more than 4200 American soldiers. Do you really believe Gore would have done that? Gore would have taken the opportunity to encourage Americans to conserve oil and develop alternative sources. By now we could have been the world leader in the production of fuel efficient cars. But no, Bush still wants us all to exercise our inalienable right to drive hummers.
Where Nader is wrong, is there is a world of difference between the two parties. Ralph has trouble seeing it because neither party is as radical as he is.

[trish]

Do you not read, or do you just refuse to have a conversation? Answer the question: do you believe Gore would have gotten us into the war in Iraq? Do you really think the banking meltdown would've happened if regulations would kept in place? Do you really believe Gore could possibly have done less than Bush on creating a viable energy policy? There is a difference between the democratic and republican philosophies that makes a big difference in the lives of people, the economy and the welfare of our country.

If Nader or the Greens want to run the country, they first have to learn how to pursuade and take over one of the two major parties. That's how the fundamentalist christians got in power, that's how the neo-cons got in. They took over the republican party. If Nader can't even take over the democratic party, how in hell is he going to lead a country?

[yodajazz]

Do you not read, or do you just refuse to have a conversation? Answer the question: do you believe Gore would have gotten us into the war in Iraq? Do you really think the banking meltdown would've happened if regulations would kept in place? Do you really believe Gore could possibly have done less than Bush on creating a viable energy policy? There is a difference between the democratic and republican philosophies that makes a big difference in the lives of people, the economy and the welfare of our country.

If Nader or the Greens want to run the country, they first have to learn how to pursuade and take over one of the two major parties. That's how the fundamentalist christians got in power, that's how the neo-cons got in. They took over the republican party. If Nader can't even take over the democratic party, how in hell is he going to lead a country?

I dont feel the need to have a converstation with someone who supports corrupt crooks. Democrats and republicans have both failed so stop trying to give credit for nothing. Nader should have been in office the last 8 years and Ron Paul should have taken over this term.

I think that people here are responding to you even after you have insulted many of us, because we want similar things to what you want. Many of us would like to see universal health care. A lot of us would like for there to be less corporate influence on our government, and more well paid jobs. However, rather than work together with people here, and think of ways to address specific issues with people that agree with you, you just insult people. But politics is about consensus, about uniting large groups of people, and that often involves compromise. And one underlying principle of compromise is respect for others views. You don’t have enough respect for others, and you’re the one who loses because of it.

I see compromise as not only being and issue with you, but maybe also with Ralph Nader. Someone wrote on the link you provided, that Nader had some similar positions with Dennis Kucinich. They asked why Nader didn’t give Kucinich some public support. If Nader would have given him some pubic support, this would have given Nader some influence on the Democratic party. But instead he goes his own way and ends up taking votes away from the Democrats and thus gives more power to the Republicans, who are further away from Nader’s positions. As Trish has pointed out, fundamentalist Christians have major clout because they have allied themselves with the Republican party. The selection of Sarah Palin had a lot to do with satisfying that element of the party, with her stance on their favorite issue, abortion and other religious views.

You say that Ralph Nader should have been president for eight years. I understand what you are saying, but that is an ideal world. In an ideal world opera singers, and jazz musicians would be at the top of the pop charts. They all spend years studying a practicing. But that is not the way the real world works. A realistic opera singer would try to be on a duet with Celine Dion’s CD, or a jazz musician would try to get a solo on a Jay Z/Beyonce/Lil Wayne song. That’s the real world as it is now. The sooner you understand and accept the way life is, the more chance you will be able to make the world closer to your vision of justice. Otherwise, you’ll just be on the outside hollering how stupid everyone else is.

[chefmike]

Obama is a liar and a fraud.

Worthy2 is a troll and a naive fool.

Nader isn't remotely qualified to lead the US. He never will be.

[chefmike]

Obama is a liar and a fraud.

Worthy2 is a troll and a naive fool.

Nader isn't remotely qualified to lead the US. He never will be.

chefmike is a biased biggot in the corporate world who uses corny words like rubbish. Do you want some grey poupon you geek?

I guess obama is qualified since all he has to do is take orders from his corporate paymasters.

Are you even old enough to vote? Maybe you should quit skipping school and leave politics to the grown ups, shortbus.