Naders' letter to Obama (new)

[C-Hopkins]

Uh, yeah.

Give the man a chance to bring change before you say he won't

he just got elected a couple of days ago, and he doesn't go into office for about 2 mos.

Allready people are calling him a fake before he's even set foot in the white house.

Does that mean the deck is stacked against him?

[Michael]

Walter,

Those are two different issues, the birth certificate and Nader's letter and Oliver Stone's film JFK was pretty darn accurate, so whatever, LOL.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Michael.

Did you actually not see that Obama did present his BC?
He did.

Here's what the state of Hawaii had to say about it as well:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1A ... gD945OLU00

it is NOT an issue in other words and he has presented his thing.
Why is this even being put on the table again. what next? he's a muslim again?

[Michael]

But yeah, it's all been said and I don't want to go on about the birth certificate here any more. Let's just focus on Nader's letter.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

well i already responded to your ask on a overview and opinion of Naders letter. Its in the other thread.
Frankly I think tat both threads should be merged because they are both on the same topic, IE Nader's comments and views and whether or not we agree with them of validate them, which in context to both, I do not.

I commented ultimately that Nader comes across as a dictatorial intellectual who writes j'accusé type statements and is hypocritical in his own stance where he is calling on others.

also, Obama isn't even in office yet and people are saying all sorts of shit about what the think he might do.
ergo, Nader is being less than upright about it and his commentary borders on old man racist attitudes that are quite distasteful and incorrect and highlight Nader as one more guy who is out of touch.

He might of had it together in the 60s and 70s as a consumer advocate, but since then, he's become irrelevant as far as his political views are concerned. This is apparent in the thinking of most people as Nader can't get himself elected to anything.

[Michael]

Right you are, I actually thought this thread had the letter. Going to read your other post now.

[Michael]

Time for bed. I'll read it again tomorrow 'cause maybe we are reading different letters, lol.

[xxxxx]

Frankly I think tat both threads should be merged because they are both on the same topic, IE Nader's comments and views and whether or not we agree with them of validate them, which in context to both, I do not.

Topics merged per request.

[meeks]

Nader has no place to call him an Uncle Tom because it only refers to black people. I'll bet you've never thought of calling a white person an Uncle Tom, except if his name is really Thomas.

that's a much clearer iteration of what I was trying to say

[Steve James]

Frankly, I don't think it's even worthwhile to try to address all of Nader's comments. I started, then realized that it wouldn't matter. But, fwiw, I will agree that Obama out-fundraised, outspent and out-campaigned McCain. The winners of elections generally do, no matter which party. Obama did get more money from large interests, but he got vastly more money and interest (than McCain) from small donors. I do agree that spending should be controlled, but I don't think that happens unilaterally.

As far as the AIPAC meeting, I think he has to be seen as strongly supporting Israel. In fact, if, on behalf of the US, he can speak more openly to the other people in the region (including the enemies), then maybe something can be accomplished. Put it like this, which candidate out there said that he/she'd stop supporting Israel and send arms to the PLO? If that's something like what Nader thinks Obama should have said, then he should say so.

I have to admit that, rereading the letter, it does seem kind of strange. I would have expected a congratulation before a condemnation at this particular point. But, oh well, different strokes.

[C-Hopkins]

ooooo...


xxxxx is scarier now than on the old board...

[TaoJoannes]

Lets be fair ... there is not much difference when it comes to politicians ... we are always talking the lesser of two evils when it comes to power hungry humans who want to get into any position of dominance and importance .... it comes with the territory! Lets not kid ourselves!

That said, Obama seems to be the brightest hope seen for along time from my point of view across the pond ... after the complete balls up that was the Bush administration ... where can you go but up!!!

on a separate note and quite off topic .... but hey .... I was completely AMAZED at the demonstrations regarding the supposed religion of Obama when the elections were taking place! i cant remember the last time Candidates Religion came up seriously in a UK election .... I dont think anyone really thinks it makes too much of a difference over here! Plus i am sure in the US constitution doesn't it say that religion should NOT be a factor in eligibility of a presidential candidate? I remember thinking how sad it was that it was such a big issue over there ... To be fair if he said he was Buddhist or anything other than a Christian i doubt he would have been even close to winning!! Which is pretty sad ...

anyways .... rant over!

... back to the thread!

Chris (vented) Davis!

Until Kennedy, we didn't even trust the Catholics to get their mits on the money and power.

As I recall, religon has been a pretty big factor in UK politics in the past.

[TaoJoannes]

My understanding of Uncle Tom is basically calling someone a traitor to their tribe, so I think it could easily be used on a white person although I've never called someone that and probably never will because it might be misunderstood. I'd just call them a traitor straight out like I have Bush, Pelosi, and others. Anyway, Obama is not black and I don't even think he's an American citizen since he refuses to provide his birth certificate, so maybe even the word traitor doesn't apply to him. I'd just call him a Wall Street schill for taking all that money and then breaking his promises on FISA and then voting yes on the Banker Payoff bill.

His birth certificate has been available on his web site for months, and has been released by his campaign to several media outlets.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... birth.html

Oh, right, it's a photoshop! Or whatever suite the lizardmen prefer for their graphics development, probably The GIMP, the cheap bastards.

[Walter Joyce]

mix:

What you say about the homogeneity of politicians is often true, but not always and the more I think, not even a majority of the time.

Most are motivated by the desire to do the right thing for their country as they see it, and the conflict begins when their vision doesn't match yours.

Some are motivated by greed and corruption, the pure desire for power.

But writing them all off, especially in a democracy, is the easy way out.

And maybe if more people start participating, not just by voting, but by trying to send the message that we will examine the actions and motives of our politicians and find the differences and choose based on those differences, we might help to raise the level and quality of our politicians.

[Steve James]

It's a paradox. People say "gov't is bad, politicians are corrupt ... so elect my guy."