Why I shouldn't vote for Obama.
February 12th, 2008 by Obama4theUSage
Ok guys, here's a chance for you to turn a Obama lover into a Gravel supporter.
The requirements are as listed.
Give me ten reasons why I shouldn't vote for Obama, substantiated with links please.
My reasons for Obama.
He is far better for bipartisan cooperation. Hillary will not be. Gravel will not be. That is important.
He is good at speaking.
He has the voice of a president.
He knows how to run an empire.
I hope this starts some good discussion.
- Login to post comments
Comments
Politics in the United
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by crs6785Politics in the United States really depresses me. You think those are good reasons for supporting Obama? So his good speaking is more important then, say, his stance on an actual issue? This is what worries me. The media builds these leading candidates up and advertises them not based on their actual stance on the issues, but on things like his speaking ability, his voice (Voice of a president, I mean honestly...wtf?), if he inspires people, or gives them hope, etc.
I see people constantly becoming Obama supporters as a bandwagon effect. It reminds me of a psychology experiment where a researcher takes a group of people and puts them in a room. They then ask each of them the same question and they can each hear each others answers. The group is rigged though so everyone except one person is told to say the same answer (the wrong answer). The person not told the answer nearly always caved and simply went with the groups answer, even if it seemed obviously wrong.
This same group mentality carries over into a lot of different aspects of our lives; it's simply in our nature. Not to mention we have a sense of belonging or identification that is satisfied by joining groups. Some people are able to see the illogical nature that this behavior tends to produce in some circumstances while others seem to overlook it without a second thought.
I think all of this plays a larger role into how people pick their choice for president then does any real good reason, like their actual stance on the issues as a starter.
However, I support Gravel largely for the following reasons:
1. He supports changing our drug policy. He understands that the war on drugs is a wrong-headed approach to what is really a health problem. He points this out quite well in his book Citizen Power. Other candidates don't even to seem to what to challenge our drug policy, as there are a lot of votes tied up in it. It's easy to put the blame fully on drug users and through them in prison and play a tough-on-crime approach to gather votes, but this is an intellectual cop-out as far as I'm concerned. If you educate yourself on the issue you realize that our war on drugs is like an attempt to regulate supply and demand, it drives drug prices way up, creating a lucrative market for their sale, and leads to a lot of violence, incarceration, and scapegoating of certain people.
2. He wants people to be able to make laws at the federal level via the National Initiative for Democracy. This gives people the power to be an extra check in our system of checks and balances that is desperately needed. It's a very refined idea/process if you take the time to read the text of it. I would recommend reading "Direct Democracy in Switzerland" for a better idea on what this all entails. Giving the people the power to make laws makes them more involved and interested in politics. I think it would greatly help to remove the celebrity style appeal that politics has given itself in America. It's more about entertainment then it is about actual fixing things via legislation to make this country, and the only way it's going to get done now is to change how people are involved in politics by forcing them to confront the issues themselves and not rely on congress who are easily lobbied and controlled.
3. He supports the Fair Tax. The Far Tax simplifies taxation by simply giving us a flat retail sales tax on goods and services. Everyone knows what everyone else is paying. It would help our economy and help give people more of their money back since the income tax would be gone, alone with the IRS. The common argument I see from the liberal end is that it will damage the poor by making them pay more for smaller things they need to live. However, the Fair Tax also provides a means to curb this through a rebate given for a certain amount a month for essential items needed. Also, prices are likely not to jump too high because of the estimated cost of embedded taxes already attached to most goods. For more info on the Fair Tax, see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax
4. He fully and openly supports the LGBT community and their fight for equal rights. This is an important civil rights issue that most politicians ignore. Gravel supports same sex marriage and understands that marriage is about tow human beings in love and even has the guts to say that religion is hijacked this issue when marriage predates the major religious institutions. I respect Gravel a lot on this position, because most people will just mold their views to make the slightly more religious voters happy, Gravel refuses to play politics like that and even openly called religion opressive.
5. His stance on foreign policy steers clear of imperial ambitions that guide the other top candidates. He released the pentagon papers and was a strong voice of dissent during the vietnam conflict. He was against the war in Iraq before it started and actively calls people out on their votes for the funding, or lack of any good attempts by congress to end the conflict. He openly talks about the issue we have with the private defense industry that makes money off the death of others and sustains these wars.
I also like that he supports universal healthcare, net neutrality, takes global warming and climate change seriously, and supports a womans right to choose, etc. I simply don't have enough time to list them all in detail.
Those five issues I pointed out are the major reasons I support Gravel and will continue to do so. I also see them as reasons not to support Obama because he simply takes the status quo approach to each issue. He may change a few minor things, but they aren't the kind of changes we need. I see no other candidate that more accurately represents my views.
http://www.democracynow.org/2
Submitted on March 5th, 2008 by rosslhttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rh...
Here's why you shouldn't vote for Obama
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by chicklethttp://counterpunch.com/gonzalez02292008.html
WOW!
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by cuzimrayAfter throwing up, I read the rest of the article and was astonished at my ignorance as well as arrogance of the Obama campaign. I felt I was familliar with Obama's slight-of -hand, but this opened my eyes wider than ever. Anyone that has listened to his interviews and then cross-referenced these facts would be and should be appalled. Keep digging chicklet!
Ask everyone you know if they can name all 3 Democratic candidates!
"He has the voice of a
Submitted on February 28th, 2008 by ntmachines"He has the voice of a president" .... are you kidding me?
I like...
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by DebbieKatthe part about he is capable of running an empire, myself.
First of all, what is this capability based on?
Second, what empire will he be running? Last time I checked, we were a republic.
I don't know why this guy is coming here to bait Gravel supporters. Shouldn't you be on some Clinton board somewhere? Or maybe you're there too.
Obama is not the right candidate for people who don't want to be in perpetual war. Neither is Clinton or McCain.
In fact, I would have rather seen ANY of the other Democratic candidates end up being front runners besides Obama and Clinton. The two least experienced out of all the Democrats that were running.
It's frustrating that the republicans and democrats both have swung things in such a way so that it is nearly impossible to get elected to any office unless you are one of those parties. Independents barely have a voice except in places like New Hampshire. This needs to change. The people need to get back their voice again. We can do this with Mike's National Initiative. This is a brilliant idea. The truth is that our current system is severely broken. With lobbyists paying off our politicians for their compliance all over the place, the people are no longer represented anywhere. There are so few politicians that are aware of this. Kucinich is one of the few. He has very stoically stood for civil rights and voted better than nearly any politician I have seen in recent years. And what is happening? He's fighting like hell to keep his congressional seat BECAUSE SOME CORPORATE IDIOTS ARE BACKING A CONTENDOR. Same goes for Ron Paul. The two who spoke out fervently AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ are the two who are fighting to keep their seats as incumbents when most of the country no longer supports this war? Does this make sense? SOMETHING IS BROKEN.
But I'm off on a tangent.
Obama will not be able to fix this. He will be beholden to corporate interests just like Clinton.
Both of their healthcare policies are wrong-headed. We need to take insurance out of the mix altogether. I find it disgusting that someone is essentially wagering bets on our health. And if we start to make too many claims, they can lower the boom at any time and terminate your policy. There are too many cases of this happening today. The overhead for insurance companies is something like 30%--just for administration and profits. We could immediately save a ton of money by cutting them out and instantly healthcare costs would drop. Mike's voucher program is a far better idea.
The original poster talked in another thread about how Obama "talking about" things was more important than his voting record. I don't understand how you could think that. Actions speak louder than words. They always do. Talk is cheap. It changes nothing. Tallying up Obama's non-votes as a strategy seems assinine to me. Either you are there to vote for or against the bills or you are not. Kucinich still found the time to vote on these bills and EVEN READ THEM. He's got one of the most progressive voting records and he is principled.
Both Clinton and Obama, even though they were IN TOWN, failed to vote against the retroactive immunity for telecoms with the FISA bill. That is unacceptable to me. They have failed the American people by not protecting our civil rights.
No, Gravel has my vote.
http://onlinejournal.com/artm
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by VotinForGramps08http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2948.shtml
Why do Peggy Noonan, George Will and David Brooks favor Obama? (David Seaton’s News Links)
Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that’s why . . . It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans . . . They don’t want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that. As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, “This is your Life” . . .
And below are some of the things they’ll bring out about him. Now, to those who will surely say that I shouldn’t do the right’s work for them, I say you must have been living under a rock for the last 18 years. The information below is already in the belly of the beast, waiting for the right moment to regurgitate all over the “transformation.” And to those who say I shouldn’t “bash” Obama, I say, it’s not bashing if it’s true. How can Democratic primary voters possibly make an informed decision about which candidate to vote for, when they know almost nothing about one of the two who remain?
We Illinois progressives sent Obama to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. He’s not a progressive. But he’s a master at pretending to be one. “Obama is a company man.”
His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics. My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, caught Obama using right-wing talking points on what to do about Social Security and about his health care plan.
His voting record is pro-business and pro-war. He glorifies American imperialism. He flip-flopped on the Palestinians and Israel, and now is AIPAC-approved.
He has shown repeatedly what good friends he is with anti-gay African American preachers.
He misuses history, according to a prominent historian.
He, uh, stretches the truth.
Example: Trying to sound authentically African-American during a speech memorializing the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights March at the Pettis Bridge in Selma, Obama claimed that his black (Kenyan) father and white (Kansan) mother married and conceived the future Barockstar because of the great Civil Rights struggles fought in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama . . . (Obama 2007) Wow. Too bad Barack Obama, Jr., was born in 1961, two years before the famous campaign to desegregate Birmingham, three years before the Civil Rights Act, and four years before the famous Selma march!
His chief political adviser is a Daley machine strategist.
And then there’s his Tony Rezko problem.
When are we Americans going to stop getting fooled and fooled and fooled again?
More on Rezko
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by VotinForGramps08http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections...
An undeclared $3.5 million (£1.8 million) payment from a corrupt Iraqi-British businessman has landed Barack Obama’s former fundraiser behind bars.
The payment, disclosed in court papers, is the first time that Mr Obama’s long-serving bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian immigrant to the United States, has been linked to Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of Britain’s richest men. The relationship is a potential embarrassment for Mr Obama, who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a central plank of his campaign.
Court papers describe Mr Rezko as a close friend of Mr Auchi. The two are involved in a large Chicago land development together. But it is unclear how long the two men have known each other or whether they were linked before the 2003 Iraq war. Neither side would discuss their relationship.
The Times has, however, discovered state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to Mr Obama’s fundraiser in May 2005.
Fintrade’s directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr Auchi’s wife. Mr Auchi’s spokespeople declined to respond to a question about whether he was linked to this business.
Mr Rezko, to be tried for corruption this month, had his bail revoked on Monday after he disobeyed a court’s instructions to keep it informed of changes to his finances. Prosecutors feared that he could try to flee abroad.
The property developer has been condemned by Hillary Clinton as a “slum landlord”.
According to prosecution documents Mr Rezko tried to persuade unnamed Illinois officials to help Mr Auchi to get a US visa after he was convicted of fraud in France. Mr Obama’s aides deny that he was approached.
Mr Rezko has been indicted for pressuring companies seeking state business for kickbacks and campaign contributions, although none for Mr Obama. He was granted bail in October 2006. He told a judge that he had no access to overseas money. But in April 2007 Mr Auchi’s business, General Mediterranean Holding (GMH), wired $3.5 million to Mr Rezko from a bank account in Beirut via a law firm.
The Chicago businessman has already been an embarrassment to Mr Obama’s campaign. The presidential challenger has tried to dampen criticism by paying $150,000 to charity to make up for donations from Mr Rezko. The Illinois senator has said that he made a “bone-headed mistake” to get involved in a property deal with Mr Rezko at a time when he was known to be under investigation.
Mr Auchi has attracted attention at Westminster because of his closeness to politicians and the Establishment. He says that his brother was executed by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
His business partners in Britain have included Lord Steel of Aikwood, the former Liberal leader, and Keith Vaz, the Labour MP and Home Affairs Committee chairman.
On the 20th anniversary of his business in 1999, Mr Auchi received a greeting card signed by 130 politicians, including Tony Blair, William Hague and Charles Kennedy, who were then leaders of their respective parties.
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP, went on to table parliamentary questions asking why the Blair Government appeared slow to respond to a French extradition request.
Mr Lamb said last night: “It’s a matter of public interest to understand why the payments were made. This deserves thorough investigation.”
Mr Auchi founded GMH in 1979, a year before he left Iraq. He says that he did business with his native country when it was considered a friend of the West but ceased to trade with Saddam’s regime once sanctions were imposed after the invasion of Kuwait.
US prosecution documents recall Mr Auchi’s suspended jail sentence and €2 million fine for corruption in France five years ago.
Defence lawyers said that Mr Auchi lent the $3.5 million for legal and family expenses. Most of the money had gone directly to law firms and there had been no attempt to flee. “While the Government attempts to besmirch Mr Auchi’s character,” they said, “he is one of Britain’s wealthiest men, has been a guest at the White House and met with two of the last three presidents, was Co-Chair of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is President of the
Anglo-Arab Organisation, and has received numerous awards and honorary positions from heads of state, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope John Paul II, and King Abdullah II of Jordan.”
Mr Auchi’s lawyers added: “Mr Auchi flatly and categorically denies any wrongdoing in relation to the matters that led to his conviction in France and he is pursuing an appeal against it.” Mr Auchi is also suing the oil company Elf in France for dragging him unwittingly into the scandal.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27018
Obama wants Clinton's tax returns, because she used her own money in the campaign. Seems to me that Obama's got his own questions to answer, if he wants to play this game. There are things in his past Obama still won't talk about it.
Today Howard Wolfson let it rip with Linda Douglas for the National Journal "On Air" show, which airs tomorrow. Here's the transcript:
Q: Your campaign often brings up this issue of whether or not Obama has been vetted, and I'm sure you saw Roger Simon's column in Politico where he makes the argument that there will be new issues raised about Hillary Clinton as well if she is the nominee, and he brings up the issue of why she's not releasing her tax returns. Why isn't she releasing her tax returns?
Lets boil a few things down
Submitted on February 14th, 2008 by kyeotLets boil a few things down here. You claim that your reasoning for being here is that supporters of Gravel hold information needed for you to convert from Obama and take up Gravels plight for the Presidency. No insult intended but that in itself is a lazy state of mind, your asking us to provide information that is readily available so that you may have a deeper understanding of this election process.
The need to want to learn is what is wrong with the American public at this point in time. Your asking us to take the role of main stream media and dictate to you why Gravel is the best choice for President instead of you having a concern yourself, learning about the issues, and making a educated decision of why you support the candidate that you do. If you carry this mindset of having others telling you what to do you will never understand why Mike Gravel is a better choice.
Until you reach that level of maturity to want to learn why it is that America has taken the direction of subservience vs. conviction it is hard to take you seriously. My suggestion is become inclined to want to learn on your own, examine the reasons why we are failing as a nation, study why nothing has changed in the last 35 years concerning our problems in America, and then ask yourself why is your decision relied upon doing something someone tells you to do (us or mainstream media).
If you can take it upon yourself to do these things I've suggested, I'm sure you'll learn why we support Mike Gravel and the reason that you should too.
Troll....
Submitted on February 14th, 2008 by blupepcIf you were truly interested in the facts than you would research all the candidates. You are merely running your mouth about all the great things you see in Obama on Gravel's support forum. Why shouldn't you take the time into your own hands and look into Gravel yourself if he has caught your interest enough to bring you to his site, register a forum name, AND post on that forum. Oh wait, I know, cause you have already made up your mind and look to discredit us about our choice of Gravel over Obama, grow up. When you start questioning Gravel's campaign rather then comparing it to someone elses you might actually learn something.
And while we're at it let's make this the Obama discussion web
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by jflAnd while we're at it let's make this the Obama discussion web...
Don't feed the troll.
--
Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel
I am not a troll.
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageI am not a troll.
"Hello, I am an Obama
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by BamaGravelian"Hello, I am an Obama supporter and here are my lame ass reasons for voting for him. You Gravel guys seem to know what you are talking about, so could you please give 10 detailed reasons (with hyperlinked citations, of course) why Obama should not be our next emperor?"
Give me ten reasons to vote
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by rosslGive me ten reasons to vote for Obama, substantiated with links, and I'll give you ten reasons to vote for Gravel, with the same.
And "he's good at speaking" doesn't count...
Sure thing!
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageSure will then.
http://boards.thenest.com/boards/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=42137681&MsdVisit=...
good at pro choice stratagies.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7577.html
Obama has spoken out numerous times against the influence of lobbying in the United States.
During an October 2004 debate, Obama stated that he opposed education vouchers for use at private schools because he believes they would undermine public schools
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html
Obama has encouraged Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other church-going people, saying, "if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at—to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own—we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."
That proves Obama is a uniter. Something america needs.
http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2006-07-02.3949597607
Obama believes the death penalty is used too frequently and inconsistently.
http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty
Obama supports embryonic stem cell research and was a co-sponsor
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060717-statement_of_su/index.php
He voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Against Bay prison
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm
Sure he hasnt' supported the bills, but it's more important to say you are against it, better at influence.
He's for going after terrorists in Pakistan
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233...
He formulated a strategy of "direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.
Very cool I think.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_forum_remarks/index.h...
This man is the man for the job.
Now, I would love to see your list for Gravel. And also, would you like to respond to my points on why we should vote for Obama? I have given links, plenty to go through.
Don't have time for links
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by rosslDon't have time for links right now. Will provide them soon enough.
1. Mike Gravel has a solid record of standing up for what is right, like when he singlehandedly filibustered the renewal of the draft for 5 months straight, against the advice of the Democratic leadership.
2. Mike truly wants to change the way Washington is run. This is different from Obama, because he only wants to change Washington's attitude.
3. Mike wants to make our country more democratic.
4. Mike supports drastic environmental initiatives, which are needed in a time of environmental crisis.
5. Mike does not have interests in coal or nuclear, like Obama does.
6. Mike is an honest man with integrity.
7. Mike is determined, to say the least.
8. Mike has military service under his belt.
9. Once again, the National Initiative.
10. The National Initiative. Plus, Mike's honest and has integrity.
11. Did I mention the National Initiative? Or Mike integrity? What about his determination?
NI4D
Submitted on February 14th, 2008 by Mike__MAlso, the National Initiative.
One shouldn't vote for Obama
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by HitsumeiOne shouldn't vote for Obama because I don't know if he is pro-choice or not (he was constantly absent during a vote on abortion http://boards.thenest.com/boards/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=42137681).
He also wants to add 100000 troops (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/barack-obama-i-want-to-end-the-mindset-that-got-us-into-war-in-the-first-place/), his advisor is Brezinsky (the guy who boasted about putting in place the future Taliban during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 80s http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/obama-foreign-policy-brezinsky ), he is for a war in Pakistan ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/04/alqaida.pakistan ), he said that all options are on the table for Iran ( http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article ), he has money from the MIC (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?sort=D&name=&state=&zip=&employ=Halliburton&txtCand=&txtCID=ALL&amt=a&txtSoft=N&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?sort=D&name=&state=&zip=&employ=Lockheed&txtCand=&txtCID=ALL&amt=a&txtSoft=N&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?sort=D&name=&state=&zip=&employ=Boeing&txtCand=&txtCID=ALL&amt=a&txtSoft=N&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?sort=D&name=&state=&zip=&employ=Northrop&txtCand=&txtCID=ALL&amt=a&txtSoft=N&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=&name=%28all%29&employ=General+Electric&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A), his health care plan is subsidized health insurance (http://boundrationality.blogspot.com/2007/05/mr-obamas-health-care-doublespeak.html), he was absent during the Mukasey confirmation (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00407), he didn't bother to vote on the Iran resolution (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349) , his support for the MIC means no healthcare, no education and no change...He also makes political speeches in churches (he's a theocrat http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2007/04/obama-theocrat.html ), and he opposes same-sex marriage (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071030/NEWS09/710300384/-1/caucus ).
One of the links does not support your case.
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageFrom
http://boards.thenest.com/boards/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=42137681
But was Obama hiding behind that big yellow button -- or playing out a broad, perhaps even more noble, reproductive rights strategy? Earlier criticisms of Obama's "present" votes did not mention that they were all part of a bigger plan. As Obama supporter Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote in an e-mail responding to Illinois NOW, "The facts are clear -- in the Illinois state senate, choice advocates asked strong pro-choice legislators like Senator Obama to vote 'present' on Republican-designed bills like a ban on partial birth abortion to protect a woman's right to choose," she wrote, adding, "Senator Obama has always had a 100 percent pro-choice rating [from NARAL], and he is the only candidate running for President who stood up and spoke out when South Dakota passed an incredibly restrictive ban on abortion." Fine. But why not "no"? According to Illinois Planned Parenthood president Pam Sutherland, the group feared that several senators waffling under Republican attack would cave and vote yes. They persuaded Obama to vote "present" as a means of encouraging the waverers to do the same -- thus preventing the bills from scoring the majority votes they needed to pass. Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood's Chicago affiliate, explaining it last night on HuffPo,a> makes the plan sound even grander: "When Obama was an Illinois state senator he worked with Planned Parenthood to develop a strategy combating a series of extreme anti-choice measures designed to paint pro-choice legislators into a corner. Obama and numerous other state senators voted 'present' on these bills in order to protest the politicization of the health and safety of Illinois women. As a matter of fact, Senator Obama wanted to vote 'no' on these bills. But, he stood with his colleagues in protest against the anti-choice extremists who controlled the Illinois Senate at the time." Please only use links that support your hatred for Obama.
A few questions.
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageWhat is wrong if his healthcare plan subsidizes health insurrance?
What's wrong iwth having Brezinsky on board?
What's MIC?
He's for civil unions, who cares about gay marriage?
Got anymore criticisms with links?
Thanks for your time.
reply
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by parisdGays care about gay marriage and their families, how would you like it if you were told you are a second class citizen. That is part of civil rights too. As far as insurance companies aubsdizing health plans, that is the problem now. Why would you want to give insurance companies more power. We need health care off the backs of business and administrative costs need to be controlled.
Civil unions give the same
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageCivil unions give the same rights. And what part of Obama's plan gives insurrance companies more power?
The Irony of Obama's "Civil Unions" Position:
Submitted on February 15th, 2008 by JaywinIt's just another form of "Separate but Equal"
Maybe we should have gay people go to separate schools, drink at different water fountains, and ride in the back of the bus, as well...as long as they still get "the same rights", of course.
You're Wrong...
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by J. Skyler McKinleyWe've had a separate-but-equal policy in the United States before.
How'd that work out?
Oh that's right.
Civil Unions do not equal marriage, and it's a great tragedy that people think it does.
As a straight person, i'd
Submitted on April 2nd, 2008 by hadrianAs a straight person, i'd rather not get married. I think that civil unions should be given the same rights as marriage. I think that Marriage and its ties to the church make it homophobic - and i certainly won't get me to spend thousands of dollars to support an institution like that. thats just me though.
marriage is not...
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by DebbieKatonly a ceremony provided by the church. Marriage is actually a civil state. You need to be married before you can file taxes together as a couple, which are more beneficial, usually than filing separately, for example. Married partners have rights that other couples don't. Why do you believe that getting married puts money into the church's pocket automatically. My husband and I were married by someone certified within our state as able to perform marriage ceremonies. There was no mention of god or church in our ceremony at all. Just my 2 cents. :-)
Yet you offer just four unsubsantiated assertions...
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by jfl'Give me ten reasons why I shouldn't vote for Obama, substantiated with links please.... ', you say with a smirk.
Yet you offer just four unsubsantiated assertions of your own on the "goodness" of Obama. And the middle two are purely assertions on style.
Your attitude is so superficial that I'm sure you'll remain unconvinced by any facts. You're looking for a glib and pretty face for the new emperor and you've found it in Obama.
Your last assertion, "He knows how to run an empire", says it all about your requirements. I don't think we have anyone here looking for a new emperor. Could you give us a link to the spot where Obama establishes his imperial cred? Just one. We don't need ten.
Here's a link to a spot where Obama does pledge to be a good emperor. His recipe is for more of the same, however. So I guess it is just a change in style that you're after? The empire's in fine shape except for the ugly emperor. Off with his head. Long live the new, beautiful emperor.
--
Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel
reasons
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by parisdYour reasons are superficial,
Here are some reasons not to.
He is inexperienced, with looming financial crisis headed toward us along with the mess in Iraq, we dont need some one who can be easily influenced by corrupting influences to advance their own agenda's
He says absolutely nothing on restoring civil liberties, like repealing the military commissions act, patriot act, pres. directives.
He wants to try to incorporate religious discussions into politics, where it has no business being into.
He is lousy on veteran affairs. This man sat on the veteran affairs committee, and yet the deplorable conditions of Walter Reed Hospital that were occuring, either he chose to ignore or was very ignorant to. Mike Gravel called him on that in the second presidential forum. on Jun 3
He lies about not taking corporate money when he has over 322 bundlers. Gravel also called him on that.
He doesnt stand up when it comes to controversial issues, like casting a vote to block McKasey from becoming attorney general, or against the Iran/Kyle/Liebermna resolution. He is cowardly.
About 1/3 of his voting record is either not voting, absent, or voting present, what is that.
He continues to vote for funding for the Iraq, but claims to be against the war, and does nothing to help put an end to it.
He is disrepectful toward the older generations and has no sense of history what so ever.
He says he doesnt oppose all wars. Does he mean illegal ones as well? He says he opposed the Iraq war because it was strategically bad, but does that mean if someone sells him some bull strategy that makes going to Iran look good, does that mean he would buy into it.
Are these ten reasons good enough for you.
Links?
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageCould I have links to your criticisms of Obama?
Thank you.
You filthy little
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Peace CzarYou filthy little imperialist.
When you quoted Obama "knows how to run an empire," I knew you were devoid of decency and compassion, so why bother convincing you of something you don't want.
Continue your self-congratulatory American-superiority complex.
When you want a real leader of the world, pick Mike Gravel. Until then, stick with a constructed representation of the American ego that is Obama. Arrogant, pious, and all in it for the money.
Woah.
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Obama4theUSageHey, no need to be rude. If you would like to discuss imperialism vs. Peace, I am all open to that.
If you're knowingly aware of
Submitted on February 13th, 2008 by Peace CzarIf you're knowingly aware of the Unites States' role as an imperialist power and are happily complicit, I don't think you have the faintest idea or comprehension of peace.
Maybe you believe in violating the UN Charter like Obama, when he has implied the threat of force with regard to Iran.
But to gladly regard yourself as an imperialist, despicable.
Also, did you catch this?
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mike_Gravel_Obama_s_Message_is_Unadult...
there was no smirk
Submitted on February 12th, 2008 by lapager1As a Gravel supporter, there are plenty of reasons to be discouraged. However, I do think there are plenty of reasons to stand firm. Whether or not Gravel gets elected, by engaging in meaningful conversation with individuals actual change can start. Speaking of, "chnage" is the probably the main reason I supoprt Mike. Many of America's problems stem from structural issues. Our system of government has facilitated corrupted and partisan politics. How, in a "free" nation where ideas would be expected to flousrish, do we live in a two-party system. Absurd. Whether or not this changes, the National Initiative could provide us with a way to truly change this country. While Obama does represent some form of change, it really is not change at the level Mike would bring. Obama represents more of a "shift in focus." Granted, this shift would seem to be greater than most of the other "main" candidates. Bottom line, if you want real change, it needs to somehow affect the system/structure. As far as I can tell, Obama is not concerned with this degree of change.
Regarding superficial reasoning, these need to be taken seriously. It seems clear that this kind of reasoning is quite powerful in America. Many people are just not going to base their votes on much more than this. "Gravel is that crazy old nut." Such a statement is enough for plenty of people to dismiss him, regardless of his positions (which they dont really pay close attention to). I have family plan on voting for Hillary only because she's a woman. It is just a fact that this kind of thinking guides a lot of people in how they vote. Hopefully, conversation and a little open-mindedness can surpass such thinking, as the media is not gonna do anything about it.
Democrat vs Republican
Submitted on February 28th, 2008 by mykyleAlright you guys. If you think supporting Gravel is in your best interests kudos but, I find it amusing that you guys will vote for someone who isn't going to win and then say your government is screwed when you won't vote the second best option, that being Obama. George W gets into office in 2000 because people like you vote for guys like Gravel and Nader (it's been shown statisically that Gore would have won the election if not for Nader) and then you say "oh well, that's life our government is screwed". Please don't try to say that Gore is the same as Bush because then you really will sound ignorant. Americans shout "INDEPENDENCE, FREEDOM" but then instead of voting for people who believe in those things they vote for someone else just because that person better represents their interests even when it's obvious that your vote WON'T MEAN anything unless you support the best out of two (in your opinion) bad options. Supporting Mr.Gravel I think is a good thing he obviously is willing to fight lots of battles that help ordinary people out, but voting for him when you know he won't win. Your asserting your FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE by being selfish and consquently your actually hurting your freedom and independence (it wasn't a Democrat who installed "the patriot act"). The point is, even if you don't like the Captain of your team doesn't mean you should help the other team. That's what you guys can't seem to understand but I'm not surprised because that's a classic American line of though "WE WILL STAY THE COURSE" (ring any bells). Your famous leader Mike Gravel even ADMITTED that the Democrats (Clinton or Obama) are a better option than the Republicans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH9SbwSQCk4 (2:30) but as I said before suit yourself. I do like America but being Canadian is so much more fun, Universal Health Care!!!! HA HA we've had that since the 60's, I guess the USA was too busy planning for that Nuclear war that never happened.
Long Live Multiparty Democracy, Long Live The Commonwealth
O CANADA!!!!!!!!
How about Corporatists vs.
Submitted on February 28th, 2008 by BamaGravelianHow about Corporatists vs. the People? Democrats and Republicans=Corporate Party
Sorry, I don't belong to that team, so your inane statements don't apply to me.
Ever heard of voting fraud, BTW? Man, this is so stupid. Well, funny people show up occasionally...
Did you even listen to the
Submitted on February 28th, 2008 by BamaGravelianDid you even listen to the full interview? Wow, you're being an idiot.
Hmm, from looking at the last few sentences, maybe this is someone posing as Canadian. Ha, ha? Maybe you're being sarcastic? It's hard to tell; I see this type of idiocy so much.
If you're serious--and boy, do I hope you're not!--you haven't the faintest clue what Gravel stands for. Please go somewhere else with your ignorance.
Voting
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by mykyleAs I told you before SUPPORTING Mike Gravel makes sense as he gives you a voice in the Debates and Congress etc...... But the debates are over, supporting Gravel is one thing, VOTING for him or Nader is something else. From a realistic perspective it would make no sense to vote anybody else other than Obama (if he's the winner in the primaries), the only way it makes sense is if you want to help Mccain. Why does it make sense to vote for someone who isn't going to win, in Canada it makes sense because we don't have a winner takes all system unless one party wins the majority (10% more than the other guy I think) but as an American you have 2 choices: Obama (maybe Clinton) or Mccain, there's no in between. All those people who voted for Nader or any of the other candidates in 2000, what did they prove ? What did that get them ? George W !!! Yikes!!!! If that's logical to you than I can see why America has so many problems.
Oh, and I want to add
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by BamaGravelianOh, and I want to add something else. Why is Obama over McCain a given? Obama is so terrible, I can't say I would choose him over McCain. I would never allow myself to be that much of a defeatist, although in my darker moments I have sometimes weighed the consequences. (Honestly, I think Obama is more dangerous than McCain, but I really don't want to go into that right now. Maybe later, but I think it's better stick to the positive right now.) Someone would have to point a gun to my head to make me choose between the two. (However, I guess that could potentially happen in the upcoming election.)
Sorry, I am not going to
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by BamaGravelianSorry, I am not going to accept corporatism (fascism) without a fight. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're the one that has problems, not me. Gravel's working to change the system. The system does not change with people rolling over at the first sign of inconvenience. The true reform that is needed can only come from the people. You can make all the smug comments you want about the deficiencies of the American populace, but when things get really bad here, you're gonna feel it also. And then maybe you might regret that you had not shown greater appreciation towards Gravel's efforts. Naw, you'll probably blame him!
(BTW, your efforts to convert us to Obama are a waste. I don't think you'll find "idgit voters" here.)
My Bad
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by mykyleSorry, correction, because in Canada we have a Parliament, one party doen't get a lot of control over the federal government unless they get more votes (or seats in parliament more specifically) than the other minority parties combined. It's just such a smart way to do things, Canadians (myself included) don't even bother with the details, We know that it works, most of the time. Look it up on Wikipedia, the Europeans (specifically the English) run their show quite similarly.
mykyle, stop promoting
Submitted on March 1st, 2008 by Hitsumeimykyle, stop promoting Britney Spears, double standards (you're basically saying "the rest of the world is better than the US", but vote for the pro-war candidates that are systematically promoted by the media. And you're saying that if you were in the US, you would vote for whoever the media is telling you to vote for) and stagnation (whether it's in the US, in Europe, in Canada or elsewhere, representative government is absolutely broken and cannot fix the issues. I've spoken to French people, Americans, French Canadians...and that's the main conclusion I came to. Most of the world has oligarchic representative governments. Only Switzerland has a democracy) .
mykyle, did you know that the media wants war, scandals and the monopoly of information? In 2000, Nader was marginalized because he threatened the media's corporate interests and the military industrial complex (Gore was not a viable alternative because his VP was Lieberman, the man who initiated the Iraq resolution in 2002 and the Iran resolution in 2007. Bush was also horrible. Bush's death penalty record scared me back then). In 2004, the same thing happened again. In 2006, Deborah Vollmer (a democrat who didn't take lobby money, who was really anti-war, pro-impeachment, anti-lobbyist...) was censored (I didn't hear about her in 2006. But I made up by voting for her in 2008 for Congress. Unfortunately, she only got 9% of the vote) when she exposed Van Hollen (a pro-war, anti-impeachment and pro-McCarthyist democrat) in the midterm elections. In 2006, I didn't know about Green Party candidates Gerard Giblin (who ran against Van Hollen) and Kevin Zeese (he exposed Ben Cardin and Michael Steele, who both took money from lobbyists and were pro-war). In 2008, Gravel is honest and anti-war. He threatens the media's monopoly on information with the national initiative for democracy (if the people have a daily presence in government, become the 4th branch in the system of checks and balances and vote on every single law and make their own laws, then the media can no longer pick and choose the info from the government).
In other words, the lucid pacifists are always marginalized by the media and deemed crazy. The warmongerers, however, are deemed sane when they're actually insane.
If Nader, Vollmer, Zeese, Giblin and Gravel can't break the media machine, then how can I break the media machine if I run for Congress in 2014, the Senate in 2018 or the White House in 2024?
The media loves pro-war, pro-stagnation and pro-corporatism candidates. The media hates pacifists and genuine improvement.
I refuse to sell my soul.
Here is how polls work. The more a person is shown, the more that person gets percentage points in the polls. Then that person has money ties to the media (conflict of interest). The media also supports candidates who will promise them more articles (=more profit, more war, more misery...), especially when a channel like NBC is owned by General Electric (GE=war profiteer that sells military aircraft). The media is happy right now (hint: look at Chris Matthews' grin).
So in other words, people are voting for commercial products.
But if Gravel wins, then the media will have fewer stories of misery to make because Gravel is going to improve the US and the world. The media does not want that (addiction to profit).
I think that the media should be stripped of any conflict of interest, election polls must be banned (that way, people can vote according to their convictions and not some stupid poll) and there has to be a law ordering the media to provide equal coverage of all the candidates. the media shouldn't be allowed to receive funding from advertisers (advertisers influence the content of the media, whether it's big pharma or the military industrial complex...).
The media's funding should only come from ordinary donors who like the show (The Real News is a perfect example).
The media has been voting for the presidents, not the people. And I want to stop that horrible phenomenon. Let the people genuinely decide, not the media.
You don't understand that a true democracy is the power for the people to make laws. Voting for a personality is not a democracy, especially when a personality censors you by voting against your wishes (I once called Mikulski and Cardin to oppose the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment. They voted for it).
I want to be a lawmaker in this political system, not a beggar.
Obama said that he thinks that religion has a place in politics. That sounds a lot like Bush talk (and I am very non-partisan about this). http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d...
We need a viable alternative to military industrial complex 1 (who proposes adding 100000 troops in Iraq and wants to add a war in Iran and Pakistan ie Obama) and military industrial complex 2 (100 years in Iraq and who loves singing "bomb Iran" ie McCain), you know.
I am increasingly seeing a one-party system of corporatism, war, imperialism and stagnation.
So there has to be an alternative.
Gravel will run as an independent because it's the only way he can stay in the race until November.
If a political party and the media censored you because you told the truth, then what would you do?
I would run as an independent (losing the primaries is not a reason for me to see my country crumble even more and quit).
People are telling me to buy into the idea of "gradual change". But I see absolutely no change under McCain and Obama. So there has to be an alternative and the notion of human governance must change. We are at a breaking point. The irrelevancy, inefficiency and incompetence of a representative government in 2008 is comparable to the inefficiency of an absolute monarchy in the 18th century (hint: the increasing number of problems and complaints).
Today, I had the misfortune of encountering an Obama supporter who advocated imperialism and thought that a president had to threaten other countries and believed that countries could be terrorist states.
Usually, I encounter people who want change and put that ardor in the wrong candidate (then they switch to Gravel).
But sometimes, I meet imperialists who support Obama.
Obama will not change the fact that 1 in 100 people is in prison in the US (he will not end the war on drugs).
I no longer want to be ashamed of my country. I want to be proud of being born in the US for once.
So stop trying to tell people to make decisions that will make the US look even worse.
When you're telling Americans how to support a clone of Bush like Obama, you sound no better than the American imperialists who are teling Iraqis how to run their country, This is arrogance at its worst.
Don't you realize what's at stake? Obama and McCain (and Hillary and Huckabee) want a nuclear world war against Iran. Obama, McCain, Hillary and Huckabee are psychopaths. I don't want to die in a nuclear world war. I also don't want the US to collapse.
After 8 years of Bush the horrible, I don't want 4 years with a clone of Bush.
Hmmmmmmm
Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by mykyleTypical paranoid Americans, WHO are the corporations, media facists that you are talking about ? Who's their leader ? What's their aim ? You act like corporations and the media have some secret underground society with some sort of Big Brother leader at the head. The fact of the matter is that corporations are MADE by the people, through greed, there is no politician that is EVER going to have the power to change that, it has to start with the people first. But you are completely on the moon if you think that Bush is in anyway similar to Obama. The comparisons you guys make are not based in reality, have you ever left the USA ? Have you travelled around your own state, or your own county for that matter ? You don't understand the vastly complex society you live in. To compare Bush/Mccain with Obama is like comparing Wal-Mart with Google or Microsoft, they are all corporations but they do business in vastly different ways. Do you know that Warren Buffet is going to give 83% (30 billion) of his fortune to the Bill and Meleinda Gates foundation ? A foundation who's sole purpose is to give money away to help improve people's lives in poor countries and elsewhere. Bill Gates has stated that he plans to give away 95% of his money before he dies. Do you know that Google has a kitchen that serves health oriented organic food to its staff and that it's head office is powered by solar panels ? That's a lot different than Wal-Mart's $1 a day rate to it's factory workers in China and absolute disregard for the environment. I spent 39 days cycling from Maine down to Florida, I've stayed in strangers houses I've seen all kinds of different Americans, stop being so paranoid and go and learn about the place you live in, you want all these radical changes but are you willing to change yourself ? Do you drive to your friends house or do you ride a bike ? Does Mike Gravel ride a bike to his friends house? Does he eat organic food? Does he buy things that have been made in China ? Do you ? Are you a vegetarian ? Do you know it takes about the same amount of space and energy to raise one cow for one person to eat as it would to grow enough soybeans for 100 people to eat. Don't give me all your high and mighty bullcrap about taking down the corporations unless your willing to go live in a strawbale house, eat orgainc food grown in your own backyard fertilized with your own feces (which I might add you can actually do, not that you would know) become vegetarian and drive your (I bet it's not even a hybrid) vehicle only when it's an emergency. Are you all talk and no action ? I'm willing to bet you don't even do one of the things I just mentioned. Face it, everything you touch has a corporation involved in it, some of them are good, some bad, maybe Obama does have some strong corporate ties but I also know that if you want to give $5 to his campaign you can and he's gottan lots of money that way. Corporations don't have to be bad, they can be run by bad or good people, same with governments. You guys are just plain paranoid if you really think Obama and Bush/Mccain are the same, you really are. Take some time to actually learn about the environment, sustainabiliy, science, history, the human mind. Be a tourist in your own country, America is an illusion, it's like the European Union but everyone speaking the same language. If you want to see everything that's in the box at the same time , you have to step out the box, I've done that, can you say the same ?
Bullshit
Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by BamaGravelianYou are ill informed and your condescending attitude really ticks me off. Some of your arguments are akin to saying I am not patriotic for supporting the Patriot Act. You are wasting your time here.
You are a superior cyclist and you know more about America than I do. You win.
"People will have to suffer a level of frustration and anger sufficient to reason their way out of this conundrum and reach for an "out of the box" solution to their own empowerment." (page 6 of Citizen Power)
*shoud be "for NOT
Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by BamaGravelian*shoud be "for NOT supporting the Patriot Act"
Anyway, the United States might look good to you on the surface, but the illusion is busting open at the seams. Eventually, you will not be able to ignore the underlying problems, even though you live in Canada. Your complacency annoys me, but there's nothing I can do about it. You just came here to tell us how wrong we all are, so you won't listen to anything I say.
"People will have to suffer a level of frustration and anger sufficient to reason their way out of this conundrum and reach for an "out of the box" solution to their own empowerment." (page 6 of Citizen Power)
Yes, I have.
Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by cuzimrayMichael, I have lived in 28 of our states, visited every one of them and been abroad. I have seen an incredibly diverse population. Most of them have a common belief that they are nothing short of the underpaid Chinese workers that you spoke of. They are correct. Greed has begat further greed in our country and we have become desensitized to it's existence. I believe most Americans today have no idea what they want... the idea of creating a lifestyle is an antiquity: now you choose a pre-packaged deal in your youth and attempt to fulfil your concurrent responsibilities. This being the case, everything blends together. Goulash and gumbo are completely different upon inspecting the ingeredients, but the tastes and textures are similar enough to be bracketted similarly. You have read on this site people comparing McCain and Obama and do not understand the similarities in taste and texture to the American people. The people on other political sites would NEVER compare the two, but the enlightened individuals here see that neither goulash nor gumbo are the entree that America needs. Both dishes would sustain us, but not truly fulfill our palate. The supporters here desire something truly different.
As for your corporate arguments, my rebuttal is much of the same. Yeah, corporations are not all the same beast; nontheless, greed and bravado have created corruption that needs to be fought. Maybe not defeated, but competed against for the sake of humanity in our country. Further, the competitve commerce and marketing here keeps most from filling their cupboards the way they would like. If you've got $50.00 in your pocket and need to but your daughter a coat, you are gonna go buy a 50 dollar coat at walmart, not a $200 woolrich at a specialty store. That also means you are going to have to purchase another coat for the next 4 years due to quality, which continues to feed the monster.
Please understand that a change is needed here. Not a changing of the guard. McCain and Obama ARE different politicians, but both offer us a very similar result from their potential election.
MAKE A DONATION TO GRAVEL'S CAMPAIGN NOW!
Ask everyone you know if they can name all 3 Democratic candidates!
Politics
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by mykyleI like your thinking cuzimray, I can tell you've been around the block. If there's one thing that this site has taught me is that politics is just not really something to get too involved in. Regular people are not informed enough and the people who are really interested in governing for the people don't make it through the grind machine because of it. Fortunately I'm Canadian and our government just isn't big enough to support the incessant wheeler dealing and backstabbing that goes on in the USA. That's the price you pay for a capitalist minded market system, a system of have and have nots, America separated from Britain through war, helped by the French. Canada seceded from the British Empire gradually, peacefully and still remained part of the commonwealth. If you ever want to get a good look into the energy guzzling consumer oriented American system try the website http://www.storyofstuff.com/. In fairness, on a per capita basis Canada isn't much better, oh well, to me the most important thing is to live your life decently, treat others well and let God decide who won at the end of the game.
AUM SHANTI
No thanks. No razor blades
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by BamaGravelianNo thanks. No razor blades for me please.
"People will have to suffer a level of frustration and anger sufficient to reason their way out of this conundrum and reach for an "out of the box" solution to their own empowerment." (page 6 of Citizen Power)
I don't think that's a good
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by rosslI don't think that's a good view on politics. How do you think poltical movements succeed? They change the mind of everday people and intimidate those in power. Every movement has to start somewhere, and if the National Initiative is our movement here at the Gravel campaign, then so be it if Gravel doesn't win, as long as our movement is furthered, as long as we're closer to making this movement a success.
When someone tells you that
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by BamaGravelianWhen someone tells you that civil rights movements can only happen through small incremental changes and adaptation to the system, call them out on their bullshit and send them this link:
http://crmvet.org/info/votehist.htm
(Thanks to old hack for making me aware of this.)
The truth is far from the case. That so many people believe otherwise is a testament to the resounding success of the brainwashing effect of corporate media. There is a new type of slavery today, and it's not about gender and race. (Actually it's not that new, but we're reaching a tipping point now.)
"People will have to suffer a level of frustration and anger sufficient to reason their way out of this conundrum and reach for an "out of the box" solution to their own empowerment." (page 6 of Citizen Power)
I don't understand. So
Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by rosslI don't understand. So there was organized resistance to discrimination, and once the resistance grew strong enough and there were a few opportune openings in history, the movement took off. What are you trying to say?