>> ^uzema:
Nice rhyming there Nader but i thought that education was one of the few things left up to the states and the president has little bearing on what goes on within our school districts.


Even with state control, education systems have been more and more laden with heavy regulation and standardization. There are many times of the year in many grades where teachers have to drop their lesson plans just to get students ready for the "mega standardized test to determine if your school gets more funding or not" tests. Here in Texas that was the case, I know it is getting that bad in other states as well.

These tests don't help children or teachers for the most part, they just go to falsely gauge the success of different school systems against others for the bragging rights of certain Politicians and government bureaucracies. I can name teachers and people in my life that have made a real difference in my life, but they never administered a multiple choice test to size me up and point me in the right direction.

Standardized testing is teh sux as far as I am concerned, at least, for the types of tests that are given out today.

Check out Colorado's ballot. Apparently it is easy to run for president there.
By the way, expect long lines in CO and OH. The CO ballot is insane, and OH voters will have a ton to vote on. THREE pages.

http://www.co.pueblo.co.us/assets/0/187/191/716/29bae9c8-8df6-486c-9ac6-73693b47e85a.pdf
They have freakin'
"Boston Tea Party" and what looks to be a webpage ad, HeartQuake'08

John McCain / Sarah Palin - Republican
Barack Obama / Joe Biden - Democratic
Chuck Baldwin / Darrell L. Castle - Constitution
Bob Barr / Wayne A. Root - Libertarian
Cynthia McKinney / Rosa A. Clemente - Green
Jonathan E. Allen / Jeffrey D. Stath - HeartQuake ‘08
Gene C. Amondson / Leroy J. Pletten - Prohibition
James Harris / Alyson Kennedy - Socialist Workers
Charles Jay / Dan Sallis Jr. - Boston Tea
Alan Keyes / Brian Rohrbough - America’s Independent
Gloria La Riva / Robert Moses - Socialism and Liberation
Bradford Lyttle / Abraham Bassford - U.S. Pacifist
Frank Edward McEnulty / David Mangan - Unaffiliated
Brian Moore / Stewart A. Alexander - Socialist, USA
Ralph Nader / Matt Gonzalez - Unaffiliated
Thomas Robert Stevens / Alden Link - Objectivist

My ballot here in Ohio has:

John McCain (Republican)
Cynthia McKinney (Green)
Brian Moore (Socialist)
Ralph Nader (Spoiler)
Barack Obama (Democrat)
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
Bob Barr (Libertarian)
Richard Duncan (no party listed)

Plus write-in.

We also have an issue on the ballot for legalizing gambling.

Ralph Nader - Helping Republicans control the White House since the year 2000.

Honestly though, if he feels so strongly that the Democratic party is no longer operating in the interest of the American people, then why not run in the primaries and try to get the platform changed instead of trying to roll out the red carpet for the neocons in the fall election?

OK, this is an awesome discussion.

I think Ralph Nader has more economic sense than Ron Paul and his entire rEVOLution put together.

All this Democrats vs. Republicans, Blue vs. Red bullshit is really hurting the US. It can't even be considered a democracy if one of two parties will always be in power. Ralph Nader is one of the few politicians in the US who not only understands this, but also tries to change it. Although he's doing a good job, he'll never be able to change anything unless the majority of the US population wakes up.

NordlichReiter, you're part of Nader's conspiracy to actually do what's best for the american people, how dare you?

>> ^charliem:
"I plan to get as many votes for him [Nader] as possible, because it will take the votes away from Obama..." - Ron Paul.
Sir, you have just lost a serious amount of respect that I had for you. Throwing this race to McCain in lieu of a broken system is fucking childish, and it will not change a damn thing.
For shame.


"I don't see any difference between the two candidates -3:13-" Ron Paul

"No! I want to change the system! I want third party debate!." Ron Paul

"This is a ritual! This is a charade!" Ron Paul

Our only present hope for our country and American values is Ron Paul. I'm writing him in - my conscious will be clear. Perpetuation of a facade is not my choice.

I've not seen Obama state that we need to give more support to Georgia. In fact, the charge was made that Obama's response wasn't forceful enough because, as Lieberman put it, it had a "moral ambiguity" as far as placing blame on either country (since Georgia isn't blameless).

I've also seen a lot of statements from the Obama campaign that "there's only one President", referring to a tradition of, well, not trying to undermine the President's authority in the midst of a crisis.

To the larger charge of their policy being the same, I think that's inaccurate -- they're similar in their view that America has a role to play on the world stage, and that our national interests involve places like Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

The way they choose to deal with those challenges differs wildly.

Grampy McSame John McCain wants to forego diplomacy, and move straight into the military response phase with all of those guys (except Pakistan, oddly). Obama thinks diplomacy is in order, with military action being a last resort, not a first resort.

McCain believes in the right of the United States to act with total disregard of the international community, Obama seeks to work within the International community first, while reserving the right for unilateralism as a last resort.

It's true that both have a huge difference from Ron Paul's policy of total non-intervention, but I'm not sold on the concept that America should try to change instantly from it's current level of involvement to Switzerland in one go.

Obama moves us several steps towards Switzerland, McCain moves us closer to a Roman Empire model.

Much as I wish Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney had a shot at winning, they do not. Either Obama or McCain will be our 44th President.

If you believe in what Paul has to say about foreign policy, Obama's your guy.

I think it's time the American public realize that regardless of who they vote for this election they lose. Even going outside the mainstream parties you have Bob Barr and Ralph Nader on the other ends. It's a lose - lose situation. The GOP picked a terrible blinded lose cannon for a candidate, and the DNC picked an idealizng and fantasizing puppet.

>> ^Irishman:
>> ^NetRunner:
Your definition of neocon is about as accurate as me calling Ron Paul an anarchist. They have a couple things they agree on, but they're definitely not one and the same. Pure flamebait, frankly.
Who do you think we should hand Iraq over to?

A couple of things they agree on. Like policy, and policy.
Obama is flying around the planet making speeches about fighting extremism, Iranian nukes, terrorists hiding in caves plotting to take over America, this is the same exact stuff we've had for 20 years now.
What is wrong with people's heads who can't see this. It's plain daylight stuff folks, the stuff Obama has been saying should really be scaring the shit out of people.
Wrong president America, wrong president. Europe and the rest of the world will NEVER forgive America for electing this man.


MrFisk actually preemptively gave much of my answer, which is that neocons and Democrats are in absolute opposition on domestic policy.

With foreign policy, Neocons are now in favor of a form of imperialism -- drum up casus belli, invade, substitute the old government with a new friendly one, and incidentally get some sort of contract to a material resource (like oil). That's why we invaded Iraq for WMDs that weren't there, while North Korea's nuclear test was met with mere diplomacy. It's why the same gambit is being run in Iran.

Obama just wants us to focus on just fighting to keep the Taliban from re-taking Afghanistan, and working with Pakistan to root out the Al Qaeda camps. Every other foreign policy issue out there, he wants to use diplomacy to solve, though he says he won't shy away from the use of military if necessary (to avoid appearing weak before the ravenous American populace).

As jwray said, all Obama does here is acknowledge that there is some threat, and in fact this is actually a clip of the very speech where he got attacked by McCain for downplaying Iran's threat, because he said it was less threatening than the Soviet Union.

McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", makes a joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes, and clearly says there will be more wars.

As much as I wish third party candidates had a shot of being President, they simply do not. One of these two will be President.

Between the two, which worries Europe more, the candidate who occasionally talks about potential threats against a backdrop of talking about the need for diplomacy, or the one who cavalierly uses the language of fear every time a camera is stuck in his face, and attacks his opponent for wanting to talk to the leaders of other nations?

I think Europe will be able to forgive us for electing Obama over McCain.

If you're hoping for Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or even Ron Paul, as much as I wish they had a fair chance of winning, they simply will not.

>> ^ObsidianStorm:
I just don't get it. But you know, when things don't make sense, something else is going on...
All I can think of is that the Bush administration has shit on a critical mass of the Democratic leadership or some other "nuclear option" that's holding them in check...


Nader claims the latter.

AIPAC calls the shots when it comes to US foreign war policy. I keep coming back to this speech and thinking, how do you begin to fix a political system that is entirely corrupt?

>> ^dead_tofu:
i saw this on youtube few months ago and i couldnt believe it. moore and maher, people i had so much respect for, on their knees begging nader not to run. not to bring democracy to the u.s, the bringers of democracy. comon, having 1 more political party than communist china, or 1 more party than a 3rd world country with military dictatorship isnt exactly a flourishing democracy......i lived i 3 european countries and the u.s, what i like over here is that i have the right to vote for a socialist,communist or whatever you like to call it, party...evil party....i wont, but i have the choice, and the right.


Respect for moore and maher? Who actually has that?

>> ^eoe:
Trying to take a more objective stance on all this from the overwhelmingly liberal point of view on this page, I find it aggravating that -again- the media is concentrating -entirely- on anything -but- the issues themselves. I can, for myself, see whether Obama or McCain is a better orator. I don't need the media to tell me that. What I do need is them to be fact checking the -content- of the speech, which is something I can't necessarily do while they are giving the speech.
For the love of crap, regardless who's on the stiff end of the stick, be it the Democrat or the Republican, or Ralph Nader, I want to hear about the god-damned issues already.


I agree, though if you're interested in the issues, you shouldn't be listening to a campaign speech from the candidate. You should look at their website, and then read the online critiques of the candidate/policy from a source you trust.

For God's sake, don't take the candidate, or TV media's word for it.

Trying to take a more objective stance on all this from the overwhelmingly liberal point of view on this page, I find it aggravating that -again- the media is concentrating -entirely- on anything -but- the issues themselves. I can, for myself, see whether Obama or McCain is a better orator. I don't need the media to tell me that. What I do need is them to be fact checking the -content- of the speech, which is something I can't necessarily do while they are giving the speech.

For the love of crap, regardless who's on the stiff end of the stick, be it the Democrat or the Republican, or Ralph Nader, I want to hear about the god-damned issues already.