Sepharad--You know that peole in the US find it difficult to find unbiased news. You seem like a good person--could you please provide me with some links or references to news articles to back up some of that information?

Because, here in the US, it was fairly widely known that, Sharon (for whatever hero he may have been to some Isaelis or some American Jews) is considered by UN and others, to be a war criminal. So is Bush, Rummy, Cheney. Among other things, what happened in Lebanon was HORRIBLE for Lebhanon (which was trying to create an economic resurrgence, though tourist spots on the beach, etc.)--and seemed a complete overreaction by Israel (The troops didnt look none to happy abou it either--some of them settle here--) Hezbollah didnt realy seem to be targeted. It was also very bad for ISRAEL.

The settlers in the new areas, should never have been told to settle there. It was Palestinian -promised land. Sharon, if I am correct, told them to settle there. Before they left (from what I saw on IFC--Indepenednt tv), the Israeli settlers destroyed most of their own houses. Many said that they would rather see it destroyed than for a “palestinaian to get it”. The truth is, they never should have been there.

But, the people in power are surely to blame. Otherwise, you have to believe Palestinians are “genetically violent”, and that’s just not possible.

If many in the US seem to be turning on Israeli, it is the Israeli leaders wh are to blame. (Just likt the US leaders are mostly to blame for the hatred most feel towards the US) It is in the Us and Israel’s best interest that we both refuse a military solution to these problems.

sepharad--I know that the issue of Israel is difficult for many people of Hebrew descent.

I think that, in both the uS and Israel, it is important to somewhat ( not completely ) separate the actions of individuals from the actions of the govt. It’s not always true, but, blaming imdividuasls for entire actions of their country’s govt and military, would seem to be a dead-end argument.

I know that Jewish people every country, often disagree on the matter of Israel. There are, of course, bigots who just hate the Jewish people. But, I think , that the majority of people who complain about Zionism and Israel, are well-meaning and actually think that the state of Israel is not helping itself very much with current policies; many feel the same way about the US.

But, still, I think that the middle east is, for hte most part, a conundrem, about oil. I wish we had no nukes. I wish the uS would stop selling them to everyone--most recently , India. This is sure to make things worse in Pakistan. But, I just dont see how Iran getting nuclear power (Russia offered to monitor it--we could have, I think trusted Russia at that point, and, maybe, let the EU in on it--thanks to Bush/Cheney, we can forget that!)is much more of a threat than all these other middle eastern countries having nukes. A.Q. Khan (sp?) and the US made sure that the idea of a “nuclear free middle east” would never happen. That one is gone. We signed out of the non-proliferation treaty, and, I djust dont see hwo we get the genie back in the bottle, if Bush keeps selling the genie to any buyer with money.

Of course, weapons are about our only export these days.

The US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, we signed out of non-prioliferation and we sell them to anyone. The US govt is largel;y to blame for the failure to limit nukes.

sepharad--what an insightful and well thought out post.I dont agree with al of it--but you make your points without attacking others personally.

As for space--I can empathize. I mean, its good top have a small house (energy, space, etc. ) but mine is similar (700 sq.ft.) and, after I “inherited” furniture ( yu cant use the upstairs--it shoud be condemned and yu cant stand up!! LOL And the ceiling fell in when I tried to have i insulated--cant sue HEAP!)--it is beginning to look like a storage area! (with a kitchen and bath). I gave some away, try to keep sentimental stuff, send stuff to my sisters’ larger houses (pretty expensive to ship), but i do accumulate books. A friend bought me huge, oak shelves a few years ago--great!! But, guess--they are full, and now the floor and boxes are filing up!! I go to alot of book fairs, where you can get books for , like ten cents. Sometimes I just cant resist. I , then, give some back, but some , I just refuse to part with

I wish I knew what to tell you about your sons. I did not have the opportunity to have kids (glad I didnt with my ex), but, once I found the right person, I probably would have not made such a great parent (physical disability--well, not that disabled cant make great pareants. I would have lost my leg, though). I am stronger now, but, if not finances, then, the general state of the world makes it seem too unfair these days. Dont know if I could or not. But I wont.

It must be frustrating to have two great little peopel that could help the world, but be unable to give them a leg up. YOu sound very decent and obviously love them very much. They will be OK.

Re: Tony Wincher:

Everything you offer here is based on reality as opposed to ideology, and that is where the break occurs. For instance, on this:

• “…In regard to government funding of the “faith-based initiatives”, it seems to me that the government ought to be able to work together with non-governmental organizations toward any objective that is socially desirable, such as helping the poor. In many cases a church has deep roots in the community that no non-religious organization has, which is likely to make it more effective, and to exclude churches from being eligible for such funding while giving it to non-religious NGOs would seem to be discrimination against religion. The question of how this is to be done, what sorts of church programs would qualify is so far undetermined.

In reality, the government SHOULD be able to work with NGO’s toward any objective that is socially desirable, and that’s exactly what those of us involved in such organization have been attempting to accomplish.

I’ve said before that I am very much in favor of NGO’s, and my own academic work is largely associated that effort. But the IRONY that I was attempting to display for Outraged, is that the ‘concept’ of NGO’s is NOT NEW. In fact, that concept has grown from the roots of –yes-- RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS!!! That is the reality, and you’ve explained it here, with the reminder that these religious organizations AND CHURCHES, reach far more deeply than any state organization, into the soul and composition of so many communities.

This is PARTICULARLY the case in the black communities, though it certainly is not restricted to those communities. For centuries Churches have provided for the social services of hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be totally unconnected. Churches were largely involved in the abolitionist movement. Churches have for centuries been the center of the social community; where people gathered to hear news that was important to them, and might not otherwise be aware of.  These same have provided services for Centuries, making house calls to the infirm, or providing supplies to the needy. In short, they are no different than the NGO’s that have sprung from the same concept.

But there has always been the element of radical extremism, and I suspect it THAT element which Outraged is focused on. At least that has been my own assumption based on former posts regarding her experiences in evangelical fundamentalism. I understand those very legitimate concerns, (the indoctrination that is poisonous) but the point is that these are *not* the habits or traditions of all people who happen to be ‘believers’. It’s that simple, and I don’t believe in absolutes. Even gravity has been defied.

So it is also either superficial or hypocritical to assume that an NGO is in anyway different than an organization that happens to include or be sponsored by individuals with any particular religious affiliation. Are we to assume that ALL members of NGO’s are atheists? Ralph Nader isn’t an atheist. He’s a Maronite Catholic for Christ’s sake, as are MANY Lebanese, and others of Arab ethnicity. *I’M* the atheist, (or at least the agnostic) and that’s after 12 years worth of a Catholic education and a grandmother who was more Catholic than the Pope. (guess the indoctrination didn’t ‘take’ with me – at least not as it may have been intended).

Or, maybe it DID ‘take’. Maybe because common sense and reality did prevail with me and the millions of others who like me, don’t have to believe in a god, or a prophet in order to see the good in humankind, and to recognize that while we don’t necessarily believe that God or Jesus is any different than Kokopelli, we still understand that religion is very important in many (if not most) societies. Recognizing that does NOT require a violation or compromise of the principle that separates church and state.

Sepharad--Thanks for your post.

Actually , if youve read Krugman’s column, you prob. “
have read the book”. LOL

I just still love the feel of a book, and write al over it and , besides, I wanted an alternative to Goldwater"s “Conscience of a Conservative”.

My parents were GOP--my dad jumped ship when Bush Sr. invaded Iraq--it realy pissed my mom off-- he said, “I’m voting Nader--no blood for oil”. I loved it. at the time. LOL All 3 of us ended up being Dems or liberals.Or Socialists.

When you think about it, at least people like Goldwater ( although could never agree with them) were purists. What we have now, is a hybrid of neo-iberalism that takes care of its own and looks down the nose at everyone else. Not a good way to build the “broad progressive coalition” I keep hearing about.

cyrena,

That was a great response to Outraged. Thank you. How clearly you describe the political process in regards to the FISA bill!

In regard to government funding of the “faith-based initiatives”, it seems to me that the government ought to be able to work together with non-governmental organizations toward any objective that is socially desirable, such as helping the poor. In many cases a church has deep roots in the community that no non-religious organization has, which is likely to make it more effective, and to exclude churches from being eligible for such funding while giving it to non-religious NGOs would seem to be discrimination against religion. The question of how this is to be done, what sorts of church programs would qualify is so far undetermined.

Nader has never seriously run for any office that I know of with an actual intention of winning. That’s why he’s so pure, and that’s why he’s a professor and Obama is about to be President. His followers, like our friend Outraged, are reduced to a state of permanent moral outrage without being able to do anything about it. Sure I can agree with everything in Nader’s platform and still vote for Obama. Nader calls this “strategic voting” and tells me to vote my conscience instead. Well, my conscience tells me to do what is best for my country, and when I envision the next four years with Obama as president as compared with McCain, my conscience leaves me in no doubt as to who to vote for. My conscience also tells me that voting for Nader would be the wrong thing to do, regardless of my agreement with Nader’s platform, because it is no time for a protest vote
when the choice between the major candidates is so clear and urgent. I must say I don’t understand why Nader’s conscience doesn’t tell him the same thing.

Come to think of it, what is this “conscience”, anyway? Here’s a goofy thought: what if instead of “my conscience”, we called it “Jesus”?

RE: Leefeller:

“On the other hand, a movement from the bottom, a solid grassroots people mover is what Obama suggested from the beginning, I do not if he is serious about it though.”

~~~~~~~

Leefeller,

How can we tell if he’s serious? I’d say by looking at what he’s more than ‘suggested’ but what he’s actually BUILT. Obama began grassroots organization 2 decades ago in his own area at the time..the South side of Chicago. I don’t know how familiar you are with the South Side of Chicago, but I am. To have begun anything there, and to have accomplished something...not HIS accomplishment, but the accomplishment of the PEOPLE LED by him, is quite an accomplishment.

The movement that he’s built since then, is ALSO proof of how serious he is, but as long as folks continue to question how serious ‘he’ is, rather than how serious the ‘movement’ is, the point is lost.

This is what we see in lichen’s postings, and the clear animosity there, based on we know not what. BECAUSE, the very thing that these types are demanding, is what Obama has been able to produce..a willingness of ordinary people at the grassroots, to join together to bring about some changes that work on behalf of their own interests.

So, when I hear these assertions that Obama only has cultists behind him, I know immediately that these people are at the foundation, simply frauds. They claim they want to see a grassroots movement, and when it happens, they insult the members of the movement by accusing us of idolatry.

It’s an insult on multiple fronts, because for one thing, Obama has consistently said that this is NOT ‘about HIM’. It’s ‘about US’. *I* take that very seriously, and I know a whole bunch of his supporters who do as well.

There will ALWAYS be those standing on the outside who will refuse to join and collective effort, and will do their best to destroy whatever collective effort might take place. They will criticize genuine efforts, and yet never offer a single other suggestion for what would work better, and attempt to explain why it would work better.

They are zero sum people, who’s only goal is to block any possible progress that others might achieve.

What other explanation could there be?

Separad--I assume that you have read Paul Krugman"s “Conscience of a Liberal”. I just wondered what you thought of it.

Leefeller--You’re right--change is upon us. Change is always difficult.But if the people do not direct the sail, we will end up going in the same circle over and over.

Both of the major parties have totally lost touch with (if, indeed , they ever had “touch with") what it is like to be a middle or lower class US citizen.

It does help, I think, if someone has, in the past, not been wealthy. As long as they dont forget where they came from, which seems to happen to a good 3/4 of the peoel who “represent” us in DC.

lichen and Sepharad,

Many of us would like to see a strong third party, one which supports ideas of principals which included the peoples interests, instead of corporate. 

Present control over media and general ignorance of most the population has gotten stale. Some ideas would be perceived as anarchy, I even see the usual trotting out and flagging of Commie and Socialist. On the other hand, a movement from the bottom, a solid grassroots people mover is what Obama suggested from the beginning, I do not if he is serious about it though. 

Your ideas may work at the local level, but the national level may be so polarized in allowing or enabling success of real change. Look at the Palin flap?

Forced change is upon most of us like it or not. Even the Party comfort zones have been opened to question, so your ideas may have a foot in the door. I too am impatient for change, not the one which we been seeing. 

Change, scares the hell out of many people and I suspect most, implementing change must be inclusive, egos opportunism and power may be the sticky wicket

Sepharad, what I’ve meant by talking about this movement is that it would be completely free of electoral politics.  I’ve read many papers on how it is these dynamic, active, large social movements which can ultimately not merely change the faces of electoral politics, but keep things moving in the right direction.  If a movement is solely based on getting a certain candidate or party in power, and then sits back to wait for them to do whatever they want to there (or if most of that movement’s infrastructure gets swallowed into the government,) things grow increasingly static, people become jaded, the movement collapses and the promises die out. 

However, if you look at for instance Venezeuala, there the movement for political change remains very decentralized--independent mass social movements which aren’t towing the ‘party line’ or idolizing Chavez are keeping the reforms coming, and building new forms of democracy--so he isn’t just working with fawning supporters, but people with real left demands that he has to contend with.  And you are right that I don’t see this in America, certainly not with the blindly compliant democratic party membership and its organizations such as Moveon (and definitely not with Obama’s people.)

What I’m proposing, thus, is that people try to get out there and form these social movements so that, yes, Palin or Obama or anyone else will not be able to wreck our country or the world, because we refuse to let them.  It is my opinion that putting up the democratic party as false saviors for the past eight years is dead wrong, and that though there is a place for, for instance, the green party and other socialist parties and independent campaigns, they must not ultimately be our only front, otherwise they will just become like any other discredited, corrupted, status-quo political party in the world (for instance, we know that the green party in places like Germany has evolved into an organization that supports cutting social services, privatizing public interests, and propping up a police state.)

Ultimately, though, I have no bigger arguments for not voting Obama; if you feel it is the choice for you, then I won’t try to stop you.  As I said, for me it is a compromise I won’t make.

1 of 2 re Outraged

• “..Obama is leading one, this I cannot deny...but I am uncomfortable with it because of his choice to NOT protect the people when it meant EVERYTHING.”

Outraged, I know that we’ve probably been through this before, (or at least I guess we have), but I’ve never really been able to ascertain exactly what you think Obama should have done in terms of the FISA thing. So, I’m hoping that you’ll tell me, based on the reality of parliamentary procedure.

You say that *HE* did NOT ‘protect’ the people, when it meant EVERYTHING. First, I would argue that this part about it “meaning EVERYTHING” is the issue that I had before when I suggested this to be rhetorical histrionics. It didn’t mean EVERYTHING, because while it was certainly a major issue to many of us, (and remains as such) contrary to what you might wish to believe, there are just as many Americans to whom it simply DOES NOT MATTER.

Yes, I hate that, and I was appalled when so many of the students here, (MOST) have shrugged their shoulders at the whole issue of the telecoms spying. Granted, they are a much younger generation, and maybe they are more accepting of such intrusions. The common response that I got, (and I spent several class sessions on this) was something like, “So what? What about my text messages or phone calls could they be interested in?” Of course I explained that it was the principle of the law and the constitution and all the rest. (that’s why I spent so much course time on it). And that in fact, there was NO guarantee during these fascist times, that the feds wouldn’t turn a perfectly innocent text message or cell phone call into a crime to hold against them or any other American.

That said, we’re back to the fact that FISA doesn’t mean EVERYTHING. In fact, in comparative terms to what other violations this regime has committed, and the CONGRESS has ALLOWED, it isn’t even as bad as say the Military Commissions Act, which is probably the worst, in terms of ‘NOT’ protecting Americans. And I just wonder if you even realize how bad it is. It would be worth the read. There are others.

Besides that though, my other really large question that I’ve posed many times, is to ask WHY you 1. Appear to hold Barack Obama *solely* responsible for the passage of the last FISA bill, and 2. What you seem to believe he could have done to prevent it from passing. You specifically claim that HE did NOT ‘protect’ the people, and I find that totally ridiculous for any intelligent person who followed the course of that legislation. You know that this had been the most contentious issue in Congress for probably 3 years. You know that the legislation was written in the House, and approved by the House before it was passed to the Senate. You know that the majority of Congress had already agreed that there needed to be some changes, (although I assert only very minor changes) to allow for advances in telecommunications technology since the original legislation was created back in the days after Nixon. You know then that the most contentious issue of this last bill was the fact that it let the telecoms off the hook. You also know, (or should) that Obama wrote a revision/addendum to the House version that WOULD hold the telecoms responsible, and you know (or should) that this additional provision/correction was voted on in the Senate, (Obama in the lead of course, since he wrote/introduced the revision) and that it FAILED! (yes, that was a separate vote, and if memory serves me, there were less than a dozen – including him- that voted in favor of it).

So, I am admittedly very, very, curious about why you (of all people, since you’re generally pretty rational) seem so determined to hold Barack Obama personally responsible for the passage of admittedly bad legislation, when he was one of 535 members of Congress involved. I don’t get that at all.

2 of 2 – Outraged

Now we can go on later about all of your obsessions with the definitions of compromise, but the bottom line is that compromise in parliamentary procedure, is generally for the purposes of avoiding gridlock. Much like what we have in CA now, with our budget. IOW, to move the thing along. And while the telecoms did get off the hook in respect to the civil issue of their crimes, (the money) they can still be held CRIMINALLY responsible for their spying. – retroactively.

Now your other beef is the thing with the so-called ‘faith based’ initiative. It’s a bad name, and I think you know that. I think that if you know (according to a prior post from you) that Obama has allegedly PROPOSED providing something like half a million dollars for such programs, (and I don’t remember the figure you used) then you very well know the rest of the details as well.

He specifically said at the time, that he did NOT have ‘all of the details’ worked out, but that as long as there was no discrimination involved, (like groups discriminating against anyone else in the hiring or providing of these services) and as long as they qualified, based on the laws, that he wanted to consider providing federal funds to what are essentially the SAME as Ralph Nader’s groups. These are just as much NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS as the dozens that Nader has sponsored.

At the time, your big argument was that these organizations with these religious affiliations were no better equipped to provide services than the State was. I agreed, and reminded you only that the STATE was NOT providing the services. Not because they couldn’t necessarily, but because they WEREN’T. If we depended ONLY on the State for many of the social services that we get, we just plain wouldn’t have them.

Yes, I know that your larger complaint here was about the ‘indoctrination’ that these organizations supposedly promote. I disagreed, because I know many that do not, but I still get your point. There ARE in fact a number of the more fundamental type organizations that DO promote a version of whatever their religion is, and I don’t believe that they should be doing it with federal funds either. But then, I also have a problem with all of the Mormons who establish their multiple wife communes and put all of the wives on welfare.

But that isn’t my real issue here. What concerns me is the fact that you are so obsessed about what you call Obama’s PROPOSAL, for what are exactly the SAME type organizations, (NON-State) that Ralph Nader has spent his life establishing. That *IS* Nader’s claim to fame, for at least the past decade.

It’s impossible to believe that you aren’t aware of this, because it was YOU who directed me/us to the Wikipedia entry on Nader. (one that I’d read long, long, long ago) and right there in the text, there is not only the explanation of his establishment of these NGO’s, but it lists a couple of dozen, (at LEAST) projects that he’s since placed under the umbrella of this NGO. These are the SAME social services, (NON-state provided) that Obama proposed funding.

So you see the irony there I hope. Have you checked to see HOW all of these dozens of projects and services are funded? Do you think that Nader spent his OWN money to do it all? Sorry, professors don’t earn that much. I wish they did. I think they’re worth it.

Now I don’t know myself, the exact funding details for every single project Nader has established, and I’m probably not going to look, because *I* don’t have a problem with these being funded or partially funded with public funds. But I do find an uncomfortable irony and even a measure of hypocrisy in your adamant disapproval of Obama’s PROPOSAL, while you continue to cheer Nader for having accomplished the exact same thing.

I hope you can help me out with this. I really would like to understand.

Re: Tony Wicher

Your comment: “I don’t disagree with anything in Nader’s platform. It’s just that Nader is not leading a mass movement that can win in 2008 and Obama is. If Nader (and his supporters) would compromise enough to join the Obama movement, they would find that there are many Democrats such as I who agree with them that they could work with, and they could have a beneficial influence in pushing Obama to be more progessive.”

>> You don’t disagree with anything on Nader’s platform, but you choose to vote for Obama.  Have you seriously considered your premise.

In addition, your comment “Nader is not leading a mass movement that can win in 2008 and Obama is.” Yes and no.  I guess I see several indiscrepancies here.  Nader has been leading a “mass movement” for decades, and realistically, a trusted one.  Obama is leading one, this I cannot deny...but I am uncomfortable with it because of his choice to NOT protect the people when it meant EVERYTHING.  Many cheered for Hitler also, he too had “a movement”.

In addition, your assertion than Nader “compromise” is questionable, especially regarding the circumstances.  Should we/Nader capitulate or compromise?  A compromise has these definitions. I’ll challenge you, how did Obama “compromise” regarding FISA?  In addition, should we be “compromising” with this type of enormous illegality...?  If so, why...?

COMPROMISE:

* a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.  (dictionary.com unabridged)

* A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. (American Heritage Dict)

* a middle way between two extremes (wordnet)

* To adjust and settle by mutual concessions; to compound. (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dict)

I agree with Sen. Feingold that this was a capitulation, not a compromise.  In a compromise, both sides concede something.  What did the “other side” concede...?

To call this a compromise is ridiculous.  What did our “side” get?  The only thing I can ascertain is that WE “got” shafted.

Sepherad, Joe Biden’s ‘foreign policy experience’ is a sham; he’s only supported imperial war and war crimes in his tenure.  Further, his drafting of the 2005 bankruptcy reform act keeps millions impoverished (while not limiting the ability of corporations to file at all,) including me.  He and Obama have no plans of putting anything other than a bandaid, a small cosmetic change on the bush administration’s policy.  I will never morally support their candidacy; I will, however, support an independent mass social movement that is capable of forcing whoever is in the presidency to do our bidding. 

Tony and Cerena, you simply don’t share my or Outraged’s political views; that is why you are voting for your candidate, while we are not.  Let’s not pretend that the case is otherwise.  I am not together with you on this, and nor will I ever be. There is no use in compiling false arguments when the perspective you come from is clearly just incompatible.

I just think that campaigning equally in all states (including Mississippi, Alabama. etc.) is a waste of time and money. But the Dems stopped taking advice from Dems (and former Dems) a long time ago.

I hope it works out for yu

Tony Witcher,

Compromise, compromise, Nader does not need no stinking compromise. Actually you are right it would be a very good gesture on Nader’s part. Or does he believe he can win?  Nader may be delusional and full of himself, so maybe instead he should run with Palin?

By Outraged, September 15 at 9:50 pm #

Re: Tony Wicher

Where’s your backbone?  Where’s your fighting spirit?  Many have died so that we could have the freedoms that we see slowly but surely being usurped. We need to stand up, and we need to do it now.  We CAN do that with our vote.

What part of Nader’s platform do you disagree with?
-----------------------------------------------------
As I see it, we have the best opportunity in generations to stand up effectively by voting for Barack Obama. Or, we can reduce ourselves to political impotence by continuing the alienated politics of the 60’s and voting for Nader, which is nothing but a futile protest vote.

What Obama said of Nader was that he respects him but “I won’t be getting his endorsement because he’s asking for too much”. In other words, he did try to get Nader’s endorsement, but the political price was too high. He’s trying to win an election.

I don’t disagree with anything in Nader’s platform. It’s just that Nader is not leading a mass movement that can win in 2008 and Obama is. If Nader (and his supporters) would compromise enough to join the Obama movement, they would find that there are many Democrats such as I who agree with them that they could work with, and they could have a beneficial influence in pushing Obama to be more progessive. As it is, by refusing to compromise they are pushing Obama to the right to find support and splitting the progressive vote.

By KDelphi, September 12 at 9:14 am #

I said I liked Dean--who doesnt! That isnt the point at all. I just think that running all over the Deep South, saying that Dem stronglholds “didnt matter”, --I’m just not so sure it is working as well as they had hoped. I would rather have Obama win than McCain--but it is no skin off my ass either way. If I’m going to get decent health care, buy a house that will hold its value--I’m not going to be able to do it in the US.

I dont think my remarks were derogatory about Dean or Obama at all! YOu cant even suggets what you think the canpaign might need to correct ? That’s ridiculous and is not helping at all.
-------------------------------------------------
KDelphi,

I don’t know if you are addressing me, but I certainly never said you said anything derogatory about Dean. I just happen to think Dean’s 50-state strategy is working.

The rest of your statement, however, is crazy. Letting the Republicans continue to run the country into the ground is “no skin off your back”? I’m speechless. Republicans are responsible for both the housing crisis and the health crisis. It is going to make one hell of a lot of difference who is president - one hell of a lot!

Sepharad,

You post makes sense of nonsense, thanks for the insight on Nader, while reading it, I almost put a skirt on Nader and see Palin.

@ Sepharad;

So, whats to think?  Your last paragraph convinced me to vote for Obama.  The alternative is just beyond imagining....

Just FYI, folks, the term “psychopath” is not used anymore. (As in “psychopthic deviate") It is now “sociopath” or sociopathic personality disorder.

It is very rarely used, because it became such a “catch all"phrase, and entered into poppular lexicon--it became like calling someone and “Idiot”, “imbecile” or “moron"--which were all orginally terms used to indicate a specific level of intellectual disability.

Unless you are a psychiatrist, diagnosis has become so subjective , that it is really used for billing purposes these days. The MMPI (Minn. Multiphasic Peronality Inventory) , which was the classic diagnostic tool, fell into disafavor as being non-predictive, and, in any case, it was compiled using a group of institutionalized “mental patients” who wer asked questions like, “Doorknobs seem to look at me” and they were to answer yes or no only; on all questions. Also, subjective ones like “My mother was a good person”.

And, you can trust both of the TWO BIG PARTY candidates , whoever wins, to make us wish that they hadnt!

Re: Tony Wicher

Where’s your backbone?  Where’s your fighting spirit?  Many have died so that we could have the freedoms that we see slowly but surely being usurped. We need to stand up, and we need to do it now.  We CAN do that with our vote.

What part of Nader’s platform do you disagree with?

You can trust Nader not to get elected.

Re: Cyrena

First off Cyrena, “I” didn’t say this: “And I may add that the test of time and his monumental services for the consumers have proven that he is UN-CORRUPTIBLE and adheres firmly to what he believes in..” ***If you scroll down to “Sodium’s” comment and recheck mine you will SEE that I was only reposting Sodium’s comment in order to respond to it.  Don’t worry about it, these things happen to the best of us.  I know I’ve done it...LOL

Aside from that, your comment:
“So why now Outraged? And, maybe more importantly, what do you really expect to come from a comparison of Obama and Nader? I think you should be careful what you wish for, because I’ve already done a very careful comparison, and while there are one or two major differences in personality and temperament, the similarities, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF ISSUES CONCERNING THE AMERICAN POPULATION, are overwhelming SIMILAR!!!

>> NOW, is because we have ACTUAL presidential candidates, something we did not have before.  Everything prior to this was about THE PARTY PRIMARIES.  Do you honestly think it would have been applicable for Nader to request to be a part of the Democratic or Republican debate when he’s is running as an INDEPENDENT...?

I am very cognizant of what I wish for, but thank you for caring.

As per your comment: “I’ve already done a very careful comparison, and while there are one or two major differences in personality and temperament yadda...yadda.  Cyrena, your “careful comparison” of “temperament and personality” is specious.

Don’t vote for Nader if you sincerely feel that ALL these years of fighting for what Americans care about are meaningless.  I don’t.  I think it means something, in fact, I think the things Nader HAS done are incredible and important.  Nader HAS earned our TRUST, we can’t say that about our other “contestants”....can we...? Be truthful.

Per your comment: “UNBENDING, UNCOMPROMISING and UNWILLING to consider ANY OTHER WAY OR VIEWPOINT, **** Who’s proven this..?  Have you?  Has anyone?  Simply because Nader DOESN’T kowtow to every whiner out there, does NOT make him any of the things you aver.  It’s rhetoric, and nothing else.  The fact that Nader has according (again) to Wiki:

“In 1971, Nader founded the non-governmental organization (NGO) Public Citizen as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and investigates Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues....

“....In 1980, Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, forcefully campaigning against what he believed to be the dangers of large multinational corporations. He went on to start a variety of non-profit organizations”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

>> Does this SOUND “UNBENDING, UNCOMPROMISING and UNWILLING to consider ANY OTHER WAY OR VIEWPOINT” type of persona...?  Who are you listening to?  Nader HAS taken on what we many times refer to as “the big boys” AND HE’S WON.  If that makes him uncompromising in your estimation, so be it.  I do not see it that way at all.

I see it as EXPERIENCED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, CARING, TOUGH, FLEXIBLE AND DETERMINED.  It will take this magnitude of determination to turn this mess around.  I TRUST Nader, he doesn’t waiver or cave.  Obama does.  I gave Obama a shot, he BLEW IT, SEVERAL TIMES.  I shudder to think what will happen with Obama OR McCain holding the reins to the power of this country.

By rights..., Nader should tell everyone just to “fuck off”.  He fights with us and FOR US. I understand that some people do not comprehend that, but I do.  In addition, I think there are MANY others who do also.  Some people never learn, but I don’t worry much about them, nor do I take their rhetoric as anything other than just that....rhetoric.

Good. Open the debates to people who got enough signatures.

I spent the firsy half of my life voting Democratic (except for a couple election) It didnt “work”. Things are worse than ever.

I think I’d like to spend the second half,(if I get one) working for something better. Even if it doesnt “work”. The few people on here who arent voting Obama, are NOT going to “throw the eleciton”. Thats just BS.

The harsher his followers seem to get, the further behind Obama seems to fall.Where in the world did you get the idea that this is effective?

• “Nader’s public interest groups have always PROTECTED the people.  The fact that the Dems wouldn’t even give, NOT NADER, but his groups the time of day, says something about who the dems are actually complicit in protecting.  The dems have made huge contributions to the ruination of our rights and our protections.”

Outraged,

So, it’s the DEMS that wouldn’t give Nader’s groups the time of day, eh? Please spare me the bullshit. I’m weary of it.

Let’s cut to the chase Outraged. I have supported Ralph Nader in his efforts for many years. I will continue to do that, and I hope that he will continue to build on what he has devoted his life to.

In the meantime, I’m going to vote for Barack Obama for president, and I might even give way to prayer in the interim. It would be wonderful if, upon inauguration, Obama would ask Ralph Nader to assist in his administration, and even more wonderful if Ralph would accept.

That’s the bottom line. Unfortunately we (collectively) lost the opportunity to play fantasy games and waste time with bullshit rhetoric. I admit it was fun back in the day. Those days are gone.

And, just in case it matters, Nader’s public interest groups haven’t done a goddamned thing for ME, or thousands of others that I’ve personally met in the last 8 years. So, I guess we must not be among those “People” that he’s protected.

Oh well.

Re lichen, September 13 at 6:07 pm

Tony,

You Being a democratic partisan is a petty little game, and obviously you didn’t get my point about what INDEPENDENT mass social movements are; Obama’s corporatist charade is not one of them.
---------------------------------------------------
What “independent mass social movement” might you be talking about, other than some fantasy existing only in your own head, may I ask? Obama has millions of passionate supporters. Obama raised 69 million last month the great majority of it from individuals (including my $200 I could ill afford) and very little of it from corporations.

Large parts of corporate America do support Obama.  Warren Buffet and Bill Gates support Obama. Just as intelligent capitalists supported Roosevelt and the New Deal in the 1930’s.

This is a watershed election. Obama is Roosevelt, McCain is Hoover. The choice is the clearest it has been since 1932.

The debates should be open to those that got enough signatures to appear on the ballots of 40-odd states.

Re: By Outraged, September 15 at 2:58 pm

• “In addition, your skewed premise is always to contrast Obama and McCain, as if other candidates don’t exist or matter.  They do.  And the American people have a right to hear them too.  Contrast Nader and Obama.  How will Obama fair THEN?  Why are Obama and McCain against an OPEN DEBATE?  This might help:”

Outraged, is Obama REALLY against an ‘open debate’? Has he said why? Has he wondered, (as I have) why Nader is only insisting on that NOW? (even Ron Paul whined about not being included in the initial debates, and I thought that he SHOULD be).

So why now Outraged? And, maybe more importantly, what do you really expect to come from a comparison of Obama and Nader? I think you should be careful what you wish for, because I’ve already done a very careful comparison, and while there are one or two major differences in personality and temperament, the similarities, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF ISSUES CONCERNING THE AMERICAN POPULATION, are overwhelming SIMILAR!!!

So, I don’t think you really wanna go there. Because, while you say THIS:

• “…And I may add that the test of time and his monumental services for the consumers have proven that he is UN-CORRUPTIBLE and adheres firmly to what he believes in..”

What we’re just as likely to observe is a NON-compromising and INflexible position on just about everything that matters. What we’re likely to see from that, is the potential for hopeless gridlock that always results when a leader or person in power decides that they will not budge from their position, NO MATTER WHAT!! UN-CORRUPTIBLE is great. UNBENDING, UNCOMPROMISING and UNWILLING to consider ANY OTHER WAY OR VIEWPOINT, is really fucked-up. So, help us understand the purity and nobility of ‘adhering firmly to what one believes in” even if only a minority of the population believe in the same thing. Help us understand how ‘firmly adhering’ to what we believe in, actually makes it happen. For instance, I FIRMLY BELIEVE that anybody who wants to should be able to attend Harvard Law School, just like Ralph and Barack did. Is Raphie gonna hook that up for us? Or, does he maybe not share my belief in that respect?

And what about these debates? I think they should be OPEN as well. I AGREE with Ralph. So I’m sure he would welcome my own participation, and the participation from Barr, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, Oprah, the Bush twins, EVERYBODY who got to be in on the first ‘rounds’ of debates, plus Bill Clinton, the Flintstones, (at least Fred and Wilma), the Jetson’s, and any damn body else who is a natural born American citizen over the age of 35. Let’s just have a damn OPEN debate, if we’re gonna have one at all! I agree!! No doubt that will be satisfactory to Mr. Nadar.

That will provide the perfect opportunity to find out about the hero he’s been to the CONSUMER’S of the 70’s and 80’s. (and he is of course…did tons of work for consumers). Now that alone may not impress as many people in the year 2008 of the 21st Century, because..well, MANY of us AREN’T CONSUMING ANYTHING ANYMORE!!! That’s because we don’t have any fucking money to BUY shit with.

But, that’s OK. Maybe he has some ideas for that, and he can share them with us at the open debate. OR, he can compare his very excellent efforts (at least as good as Obama’s) in the organization of NGO’s. I (personally) find that impressive, (because I’m partial to this sort of organized work) but he better make damn sure he goes through that list with a fine tooth comb, to be certain that not a single solitary person in ANY of those groups that he’s organized at the grass roots, has any sort of religious affiliation attached to them. You know what would happen then. He would see the extent of your wrath, and that ain’t pretty either.

Part 2 of 2 re By Outraged, September 15 at 2:58 pm

Another thing Ralph can do at the debates is to overturn that bad/illegal legislation that THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS PASSED on the SPYING. That was all Obama’s fault of course, but no doubt Nader can fix it instantaneously. (never mind that he’s never bothered with that piddly stuff of Congressional representation as an elected official…that just sooooo, ‘common’…for the little people of course.)

So, I’m ready for the open debates. Inquiring minds wanna know this stuff. And, Americans have