Rick Reuben wrote:I really really like everything I write. I can't emphasize that enough.
Decision: Nader for President
111kerble wrote:Ernest Goes to Jail In Your Ass
Decision: Nader for President
112Well what else is a Nader vote good for? Seriously? You know that he's not gonna win by popular vote, so what are those votes for him good for?
So since Nader's got no chance of winning, he shouldn't run? That's kind of like...that's like Barack Obama continuing to vote for funding the war in Iraq, even though he's "against the war," because, I guess...even if he voted against the bill it would still pass, so he'll just vote for it? Is that an apt analogy?
As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.
"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."
Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate....
Decision: Nader for President
114BadComrade wrote:Like I said, I agreed with a ton of the stuff he said on Meet The Press. That doesn't change the fact that he's never going to be president. No sense in voting for him.
That defeats the whole point of participatory democracy, by acting as you are you are actually damaging your own society.
You should never compromise a vote, this is a moral issue.
But this is just my option, and you should act as you see fit.
Decision: Nader for President
115BadComrade wrote:Well maybe he took in to account that since we're already over there, and there's no real end in sight, the funding he voted for might go for, oh, I don't know... more armor for the troops, and shit like that? Sure, most will go to bombs and bullets and all sorts of fancy shit we don't know about, but since Bush slung everyone over there, and he's not gonna pull them out even if he doesn't get more money, might as well do what ya can to make things less fucked up. The last thing we need are troops stuck in a war with no supplies.
How about not trying apologize for his actions? You and I both know this war is wrong, but as long Obama can denounce it, but still give his support, then we can disregard it? The last thing we need are troops stuck in a war, period.
BadComrade wrote:But hey, keep on livin' that dream, and walking around telling everyone that you voted for Nader, when you could have voted against McCain or Obama instead, to get one of the two "lesser evils" in to office.
See how those two things kinda relate? You can't "make the best of what you've got to work with" if you vote for Nader, you can only try and do it by voting for the democrat or the republican.
There's no dream to live here, Comrade. So we just have to settle for a lesser evil, when it's well within our ability to choose a different route? If this is the best outcome from our ability to vote, then it's pointless. This amounts to using your vote as a throw away bargaining chip, and not in a way that is beneficial to us.
We obviously have a big difference on how we see things, you probably don't have a problem with the way Obama would run the country, but you seriously can't expect people with that very problem to bite their tongue and vote for him.
Decision: Nader for President
116I can't put my finger on it, exactly, but this whole debate reminds me of stupid Flanderses's beatnik parents:
Ned's Dad: We don't believe in rules, like, we gave them up when we started livin' like freaky beatniks!
Dr. Foster: You don't believe in rules, yet you want to control Ned's anger.
Ned's Mom: Yeah. You gotta help us, Doc. We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.
Decision: Nader for President
117BadComrade wrote:I'm not apologizing for anything. What does your 20 year old brain tell you? That we should "pull out" of Iraq overnight? That would be just as fucked up as invading the country was in the first place. Bush got us in there, and now it's become an unwanted responsibility, but a responsibility none the less. You're a fucking fool if you don't realize that.
And the alternative is what? Keep funding this mess, and expect the military to grow a conscience and put down their weapons? Pulling out is the most beneficial thing we can do, and hand over the reigns of control to the Iraqis. You're a fucking fool if you have no problem juggling "the war is bad" with "keep pumping money into it".
BadComrade wrote:If you had the "ability to choose a different route", then Nader would be neck and neck with the democrats and republicans right now. He's not. You can't choose a route that leads nowhere, and expect it to help change anything. Stop pretending that you're doing something important by voting for Nader. Nader is not an option, because he's not a contender.
Contender or not, you fail to recognize that Obama is not a fucking knight in shining armor. But in your words, "he's progressive", right? What exactly do you believe will change with your buddy, Obama in office? An end to corporate greed, homeless off the streets, drug offenders out of jail? I'm sure he'll end the war as soon as he can, once he brings his pants back to the laundromat. There's no telling how long we'll be in that country.
BadComrade wrote:Skronk wrote:If this is the best outcome from our ability to vote, then it's pointless. This amounts to using your vote as a throw away bargaining chip, and not in a way that is beneficial to us.
Yeah, yeah yeah... everything is "pointless". Go watch SLC Punk again or something.
This is it? A lame jab at me being 20? Give me a break.
BadComrade wrote:Skronk wrote:...you seriously can't expect people with that very problem to bite their tongue and vote for him.
I don't expect anything from you... that's my problem with you.
Of course, keep imagining a two party system will blossom into fair elections, and all you have to do is compromise every four years.
Decision: Nader for President
118Bad is right, using ABC News are your guide to... well anything isn't really the right way to fight a corner.
Kind of like using US Government stats to argue against US government Stats.
Kind of like using US Government stats to argue against US government Stats.
Decision: Nader for President
119BadComrade wrote:The most recent "alternative" was to send a surge of troops in to Iraq. I hate to admit it, but it kinda worked (IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE CONTROLLED MEDIA TELLS YOU!!>!>!>!>>). If we would have left, instead of sending in the surge of troops, that place would be more fucked than ever. That's the reality of it. Your Utopian dream is not.
I'm sure we'll be the peacekeepers the media tells us we are. You bought it hook, line, and sinker. Does it feel good?
BadComrade wrote:Keep imagining that a 3-4-5-6-7-8-9 party system will ever happen in our lifetime. You're so cute, with your idealistic outlook on things. My cat thinks she can open the refrigerator by meowing at it. You're cute like that.
Keep settling for a little less than worst. Is this typical for you?
Decision: Nader for President
120BadComrade wrote:
I'm a realist. I know the only way to open the refrigerator is to pull the handle. You go ahead and keep sitting there next to my cat, hoping that it'll open because you want it to. I'll keep sitting there laughing my ass off at you.
You're the only "Realist" I know that still thinks this war is "going better now". Nancy Grace is on later, you might like that brand of journalism more. It speaks to the "realist" inside.