Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Election 08 (Make your prediction)
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 91 of 129 (487876)
11-06-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by onifre
11-06-2008 9:05 AM


The media isn't always the tool used for persuasion. Bush stole the first election, flat out. The second election, IMO, the democrats didn't want to win so they put the boring John Kerry up to run against Bush. The democrats stood to gain alot by Bush continuing his stupidity, and they did gain what they wanted, which was control of the House and Senate. 2 years later they win the presidency giving them the majority on all 3 branches.
Man... What diabolically Machiavelical bunch the democrats are, uh?
May be the republicans chose to lose this election just so they can get everything back 20 years from now. Democrats, watch out!
However, since I believe there is only one party, with 2 sections to maintain the illusion of democracy so the people still feel they have a valued opinion, I believe the whole thing is controled. Mitt Romney was the bettr choice to run against Obama, the only problem with that is he would have beaten Obama, or had a much better chance. So, they put McCain, the lesser of the 2. But, if you followed the polls during the middle of the campaign McCain was actually gain popularity, and was ahead on the polls, how do you fuck his whole campaign up? Sarah Palin. She guaranteed the lost to Republicans. Obama wins, the US is no longer racist, the middle east will start to like us better, things calm down and globalization can begin.
This is all my skeptical opinion of course so feel free to ignore me completely- lol.
Skeptical? I think the word you're looking for is "cynical".
Edited by fallacycop, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 11-06-2008 9:05 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 11-06-2008 11:36 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 92 of 129 (487878)
11-06-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by fallacycop
11-06-2008 11:01 AM


I think the word you're looking for is "cinical".
I think the word you're lookinig for is c(y)nical
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by fallacycop, posted 11-06-2008 11:01 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 93 of 129 (488152)
11-08-2008 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by onifre
11-06-2008 9:05 AM


onifre writes:
quote:
However, since I believe there is only one party
Right, Mr. Nader. Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. Al Gore would have pushed through a tax cut for the rich. Al Gore would have threatened to veto improved CAFE standards. Al Gore would have politicized the Justice Department and put in operatives as Attorneys General, firing those who weren't "loyal." Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Al Gore would have gutted FEMA and stuck around to attend McCain's birthday party rather than mobilize things when we could see from space that Katrina was going to slam into the Mississippi Delta.
Al Gore would have ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing saying that Al Qaeda was determined to strike in the United States...especially since during his term in the Executive, they were actively pursuing him and told the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was probably going to be the most important thing on their plate. Yep, all that would have been ignored and, like the Bush administration, he would have never held a single meeting regarding terrorist attacks in general and Al Qaeda in particular.
Yeah, there's really only one party.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 11-06-2008 9:05 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 12:10 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 94 of 129 (488153)
11-08-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
11-06-2008 8:50 AM


onifre writes:
quote:
John Stewart...(from the Daily Show)
The same Jon Stewart that had McCain on 10 times?
Yeah, Jon's a liberal and yeah, he was for Obama. But to pretend like he was akin to Hannity in his treatment of the two candidates is disingenuous at best.
Does the phrase "false equivalency" mean anything to you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 11-06-2008 8:50 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 11:39 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 129 (488162)
11-08-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rrhain
11-08-2008 8:22 AM


Hi Rrhain,
The question was "show me one media person who was as partial towards Obama as Hannity was partial against him."
My only point was that Jon Stewart was as partial to Obama as Hannity was against Obama. It had nothing to do with his treatment of the two candidates. I know Stewart and McCain are friends, I've watched most of his appearences on the Daily Show. But Stewart was partial to Obama and he never hid that fact.
Does the phrase "false equivalency" mean anything to you?
Yes, but I think you are wrong for applying that title to what I said.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2008 8:22 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 96 of 129 (488164)
11-08-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rrhain
11-08-2008 8:18 AM


Yeah, there's really only one party.
There is, this country is run by one party, or rather I should say one class. There may be two fractions of it, that differ slightly, but that doesn't change the fact that the Upper Class runs this country and it is their interests that are in mind, not ours. The two party system is st up to give us the citizens the illusion of democracy. You were told who to vote for, and you only had two choices, both from the upper class of society, or as Thomas Jefferson called them "the responsible class" of society.
Al Gore would have done things differently, I agree, but Gore didn't win...but technically he did win, he just had it taken away from him. Why, because he wasn't supposed to win, he wasn't the right man to fulfil the agenda they had planed. The person that they wanted was taking control no matter how it needed to happen.
Now, other than the towers being hit, which im still not trusting of the fact that they didn't know some kind of attack was going to happen, the administration has acted as they please from the beginning. Doing all those things you mention in your post, but so what, he was allowed to do so, even re-elected, no one could say shit. For all the hatred people have for Bush and all of the known fuck ups he had during his term, no one could do a thing. They do as they please, granted, some worse than others, but the do what they please none the less. Why, 'cause they all work together for the purpose of their interests. It is a one class system that works for the benefit of that one class. Perhaps Obama will be different, I know right now he is the new hope for America, I wish him well, but he is an illusional leader, he is a poster child to represent America, maybe he uses that knowledge to gain his own advances, maybe he's silenced and told what to do, only time will tell. The rich take care of the rich, Clinton and Bush senior are good buddies, and Bush Jr. as well. They are not in touch with society, neither is Obama. He said alot, he preached to the masses and the masses followed, he made alot of promises but now it's time to see if they let him deliver on those promises.
As for this comment,
Right, Mr. Nader.
At least Nader wasn't bought out by special interest groups, as Obama has been. He was free to speak his mind. Obama was not, he was even forced by the public to turn his back on long time friends like the Rev. Wright simple because America, and it's citizens, didn't like Rev. Wright. Obama was a black lawyer in Chicago during some hardcore times, how do you think he really feels about white people coming from those days? And I for one don't blame him for having any of those feelings, but if he did he should have man'd up and said "Yes, Rev. Wright is my friend, we used to share alot of those same feelings, it was tough times then for black people and our anger was warrented"...but he didn't, he turned his back on his friend like he was advised to do. Who else will he turn his back on? Lets hope not us, who he doesn't even know, right? I would hate for you guys to lose your illusionary Messiah. As for me, I don't care either way. I'm not under any false hopes for this, or any, presidency. I don't need to be part of any campaign run like a popularity contest. I don't need to feel included every four years and allowed to take a vote so that I feel like I made a difference. If you do, then enjoy.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : spelling
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2008 8:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 12:59 PM onifre has replied
 Message 103 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2008 8:55 PM onifre has replied
 Message 106 by fallacycop, posted 11-08-2008 10:25 PM onifre has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 97 of 129 (488174)
11-08-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
11-08-2008 12:10 PM


You're too much. Electoral law dictates a two-party system in the states. For the most part we operate on a first-past-the-post and winner-take-all systems. Thus, in order for a party to win seats it must be able to capture a large enough porportion of the vote. A US party has to be a broad coalition, necessitating moderation and ensuring two parties that are relatively similar.
The GOP is considering a further move to the right, thinking that Palin actually helped their ticket. They have proclaimed the death of moderate republicans in their party.
If you want multiple parties, I recommend taking a look at Parliamentarian Democracy which follows a proportional representation. Won 10% of the vote? Great, you get 10% of the seats. In the states, 10% gets you nothing (unless everyone got less than you did and state law such as the type forcing a re-election in Georgia is non-existant). Britain is interesting in that it uses proportional representation and yet has a two-party system (Labour and Conservatives). Although I think the Liberal party there is stronger than any third-party in the states.
By the way, if it was all about upper-class control, why the hell would they let someone who is not from the upper class, who has actively campaigned for the rights of the maligned, win? McCain was the true son of the elite in America, Obama nothing but. I guess it's just a conspiracy to consolidate their control?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 12:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2008 1:33 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 7:42 PM kuresu has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 129 (488178)
11-08-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by kuresu
11-08-2008 12:59 PM


Britain is interesting in that it uses proportional representation and yet has a two-party system (Labour and Conservatives). Although I think the Liberal party there is stronger than any third-party in the states.
We don't have proportional representation here, though the Liberal Democrats have been trying to implement it. Each constituency votes for their MP. The person that gets the most votes becomes MP for that constituency. The more MPs, the more power in parliament. The leader of the most powerful party is the First Lord of the Treasurer and Prime Minister.
So the constituencies have proportional representation, but the constituents don't necessarily have it. If I recall correctly, the Liberal Democrats received about a fifth of the popular vote, but they only occupy a tenth of the seats. In contrast, the two main parties received two thirds of the popular vote between them, but make up four fifths of parliament.
It means that we can have quite a variety of political parties here, since they stand at least a little chance of winning 1 or 2 seats if they are strategic in where to run. But, ultimately, the system significantly favours two parties.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 12:59 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 1:55 PM Modulous has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 99 of 129 (488180)
11-08-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
11-08-2008 1:33 PM


Thanks for the clarification. I've only breifly studied the British electoral system (and electoral systems in general are outside my perview except for in how elections shape potential relations between states) and just knew that it was different from the US and Europe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 11-08-2008 1:33 PM Modulous has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 129 (488223)
11-08-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by kuresu
11-08-2008 12:59 PM


You're too much.
Interesting opinion, I'm not denying my opinions aren't unconventional but 'too much', really? Ok.
Electoral law dictates a two-party system in the states.
Yes, and Article 51 of the U.N. Sercurity Council says that "either the treat or use of force is illegitimate unless it is in self-defence against an armed attack". We know how well thats followed by the US, so lets not pretend that rules are obeyed.
By the way, if it was all about upper-class control, why the hell would they let someone who is not from the upper class, who has actively campaigned for the rights of the maligned, win?
So you don't consider Obama from the upper class? Ignoring what he campaigned for, since I hope by now we know better that to expect what is campaigned for to reflect what is actually carried out, what about Obama makes him middle class? Please don't say color.
McCain was the true son of the elite in America, Obama nothing but.
They are both from the elite side of America, childhood need not be included. Obama is an Ivy League graduated lawyer, he is also a millionare, I don't know what you consider the upper class or special class but I think those to facts about him qualify him as such.
Again, i'm not saying the wrong person won, but i'm not saying the right person won either, i'm saying the person that was supposed to win, won.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 12:59 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 8:09 PM onifre has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 101 of 129 (488225)
11-08-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by onifre
11-08-2008 7:42 PM


We know how well thats followed by the US, so lets not pretend that rules are obeyed.
You misunderstand. The two-party system is a consequence of our electoral laws, not following the rules. I guess you could say the two-party system is an emergent property.
So you don't consider Obama from the upper class? Ignoring what he campaigned for, since I hope by now we know better that to expect what is campaigned for to reflect what is actually carried out, what about Obama makes him middle class? Please don't say color.
I'm not saying he is middle class. But compare his net worth with that of the McCain family. McCain's wife is sitting on a huge fortune (somewhere around 100 million). Obama's money comes from book royalties. Further, Obama is the classical rags-to-riches. He actually came from a situation worse than myself. He is know president-elect (and in 73 days president). McCain, on the other hand, was born into a powerful and influential family. Obama is self-made. McCain is not. To ignore this is to be blind to reality. Your childhood helps make you who you are. There's a reason it's called your formative years, when your disposition on practically everything is set.
At anyrate, I think Obama has a better understanding of what its like to be poor and to struggle economically than McCain (who aside from 5 bad years in Vietnam has never had to struggle).
Again, i'm not saying the wrong person won, but i'm not saying the right person won either, i'm saying the person that was supposed to win, won.
You could be right. After all, Obama captured the majority of voters who make over 250,000 dollars despite his pledge to raise their taxes. Why would they vote for someone who's going to raise their taxes?
I understand you're a physics student. Please use the reasoning present within you to not fall for these ridiculous conspiracy/crackpot theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 7:42 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 8:54 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2008 9:13 PM kuresu has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 102 of 129 (488229)
11-08-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by kuresu
11-08-2008 8:09 PM


I guess you could say the two-party system is an emergent property.
lol, nice.
I see what you're saying.
I'm not saying he is middle class. But compare his net worth with that of the McCain family. McCain's wife is sitting on a huge fortune (somewhere around 100 million). Obama's money comes from book royalties. Further, Obama is the classical rags-to-riches. He actually came from a situation worse than myself. He is know president-elect (and in 73 days president). McCain, on the other hand, was born into a powerful and influential family. Obama is self-made. McCain is not. To ignore this is to be blind to reality. Your childhood helps make you who you are. There's a reason it's called your formative years, when your disposition on practically everything is set.
I'll concede that he does know what it's like to struggle. But, im not sure, and of course only time will tell, what, if any impact that kind of up bringing will make. He is still going to have to play the game. He is still going to be forced to submit to special interest.
McCain (who aside from 5 bad years in Vietnam has never had to struggle).
I'd call 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp a bit more than a few bad years, but point taken none the less.
Why would they vote for someone who's going to raise their taxes?
I agree that the media propagnada was amazing for this president elect.
I understand you're a physics student. Please use the reasoning present within you to not fall for these ridiculous conspiracy/crackpot theories.
Was, finacial reasons did not permit this to continue. Was also taking philosophy, but that too was derailed. I had kids too young. However, now, I do stand up which is a whole lot better, and take online courses. Hopefully this reasoning that you speak of will come back to me...but maybe, just maybe, im the voice of reason and the blinded ones are you guys.
But...
What part would you consider a conspiracy/crackpot theory?
The US has always been controlled by the upper class, this president is no different. It may give we the people the illusion because of his up bringing, which I conceded on, but that makes it even more effective. I stated that from the beginning, he is the right man for the job because of his name, color, and background. If I had foreign business relations, and the current opinion of the US is what it is, I would want Obama to represent the US.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 8:09 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 103 of 129 (488230)
11-08-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
11-08-2008 12:10 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
There is, this country is run by one party, or rather I should say one class.
Those two are not the same thing. I will handily agree with you that the wealthy have much more power than the poor, but that is not the same thing as party.
quote:
You were told who to vote for
Really? My ballot had a write-in slot. I could vote for whomever I wished.
quote:
and you only had two choices
Really? My ballot had half a dozen choices as well as the write-in. I had many more than two options.
quote:
both from the upper class of society
Really? Nader is from the upper class of society? Oh, but wait...you said "both" and he's not one of those "both."
quote:
Al Gore would have done things differently, I agree
So if the Democrat would have done things differently than the Republican, how does that make the Democrats and the Republicans the same party? Wouldn't members of the same party do things the same way (at least on the aggregate)?
quote:
At least Nader wasn't bought out by special interest groups
Um, the Republican party isn't a special interest group? Citizens for a Sound Economy is a Republican front group chaired by Dick Armey and C. Boyden Gray. Their goal is to make the tax cuts permanent, privatize Social Security (and look how well that would have turned out), set up a flat tax, and enshrine school vouchers.
Then there's the Family Council. Anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-Christianity.
Both of them are supporters of Nader.
quote:
as Obama has been.
Oh? What "special interest groups" has Obama been bought out by? Be specific.
quote:
I would hate for you guys to lose your illusionary Messiah.
I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself. I never knew I had this fixation on Obama as some sort of saviour. I mean, I'm sure I didn't mention who I had voted for and here you are telling me how I feel about the candidates!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 12:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by onifre, posted 11-08-2008 9:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 129 (488234)
11-08-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by kuresu
11-08-2008 8:09 PM


You misunderstand. The two-party system is a consequence of our electoral laws, not following the rules. I guess you could say the two-party system is an emergent property.
Correct. Contrast this with primary voting, with numbers of good candidates, but often not picking the best of the bunch because you only have one vote. There have been mathematical studies. Two candidates that would get 60% of the vote if the other did not run, both lose to the 40% candidate when they split the votes.
This makes three or more candidates non-viable. This is also why third party candidates that get some support are just spoilers:
Ross Perot took votes away from Bush 1st (thank you)
Ralph Nader took votes away from Gore (and gave us Bush 2nd)
quote:
In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).
quote:
Nader's votes in New Hampshire and Florida vastly exceeded the difference in votes between Gore and Bush, as did the votes of all alternative candidates.[32] Exit polls showed the state staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[33] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choose Gore over Bush by a large margin[34] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, ...
A third party must survive to transition from minor play to vote divider, to vote winner.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by kuresu, posted 11-08-2008 8:09 PM kuresu has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 105 of 129 (488236)
11-08-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Rrhain
11-08-2008 8:55 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Those two are not the same thing. I will handily agree with you that the wealthy have much more power than the poor, but that is not the same thing as party.
Agreed, it is not the same as party, as I meant to say that the US is controlled by one class, not one party.
Really? My ballot had a write-in slot. I could vote for whomever I wished
Really? My ballot had half a dozen choices as well as the write-in. I had many more than two options.
I think you know what I meant. I know what ballots look like, but none of the other candidates are relevant, and the media makes sure. You can't herd cattle properly if they have too many choices of where to go. You gotta keep it simple.
By media standards there were two candidates, can we agree on that?
Really? Nader is from the upper class of society? Oh, but wait...you said "both" and he's not one of those "both."
I never said I supported Nader, you compared me to him by calling me Mr. Nader, and yes he is from the upper class. But, yes you are right he is not one of the "both", the only two who are relevant.
So if the Democrat would have done things differently than the Republican, how does that make the Democrats and the Republicans the same party?
I meant one class, not one party, as written above.
Um, the Republican party isn't a special interest group? Citizens for a Sound Economy is a Republican front group chaired by Dick Armey and C. Boyden Gray. Their goal is to make the tax cuts permanent, privatize Social Security (and look how well that would have turned out), set up a flat tax, and enshrine school vouchers.
Then there's the Family Council. Anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-Christianity.
Both of them are supporters of Nader.
I stand corrected on Nader, but I never said the Repubilcans are not bought out by special interests either.
Oh? What "special interest groups" has Obama been bought out by? Be specific.
Im pressed for time but I'll give you a quick one off the top of my head, Service Employees International Union.
Heres a small thing on them,
quote:
For more than a year, the head of the powerful Service Employees International Union has been running a political campaign against private equity firms to allow him to organize workers at the companies they own. This month in California, the SEIU suffered a major setback when a bill that would have restricted state pension fund allocations to sovereign wealth-backed private equity firms was shelved by lawmakers. The measure was Mr. Stern’s brainchild, and its ostensible purpose was to target sovereign wealth funds in countries with spotty human rights records.
The real impetus for the bill, however, was to help the SEIU organize employees of ManorCare, a nursing home chain owned by the Carlyle Group private equity firm. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, another private equity outfit and owner of the Hospital Corporation of America, has also been a major target of Mr. Stern’s campaign.
The SEIU wanted to ratchet up the pressure on Carlyle and others by cutting off two gigantic sources of private equity capital: the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (Calstrs), which manage $240 billion and $167 billion of assets, respectively .
Calstrs and Calpers estimated that their funds would lose a combined $7.5 billion in the first five years alone under Mr. Stern’s bill .
. Calpers and Calstrs have had the sense and wherewithal to push back against the SEIU’s bullying. As they see it, Andy Stern’s war on private equity would kill the goose that lays golden eggs for their retirees. His bill would have prevented them from maximizing their returns, which happens to be their fiduciary duty. It’s also what’s best for working families.
Also,
quote:
Obama Is A Leading Recipient Of Independent Political Expenditures.
"Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of
outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than
any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political
expenditures, records show. The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given
him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has
railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other
special-interest money backed his opponents." (Jim McElhatton, "Obama
Favorite Of Outside Groups," The Washington Times, 3/24/08)
Labor Unions And Other Independent Groups Have Already Spent Over $7.1
Million In Support Of Obama's Campaign. "The political arm of the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have
spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's
bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show." (Jim
McElhatton, "Obama Favorite Of Outside Groups," The Washington Times,
3/24/08)
-- The SEIU Alone Has Spent At Least $4.9 Million In Independent
Expenditures Supporting Obama. "Since last week, the SEIU reported
spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama
through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which
holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million
in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past
month." (Jim McElhatton, "Obama Favorite Of Outside
Groups," The Washington Times, 3/24/08)
I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet.
Sorry for this, I was upset at the Nader comment because I did not show support for any candidate either.
I'm sure I didn't mention who I had voted for and here you are telling me how I feel about the candidates!
You didn't but the Messiah comment was meant as a general comment about the fanatical Obama supporters, not specifically for you. But, you did vote for Obama, right? lol
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2008 8:55 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 11-10-2008 12:36 AM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024