I'm loving this video, but realistically the difference between Obama and McCain is not as fabulous presented here. I mean McCain will bomb Iran and Obama will instead bomb Pakistan.
However, be sure to check out your local propositions and candidates. Your vote can make all the difference for the 15 year old incest victim seeking an abortion, the high school student being lured into the army by lying soldiers, and yes even the definition of marriage.
This is not good. It's getting really difficult to stay away from the Sarah Palin bashing and humor:
Aside from the mistake from his mouth at 5:29, I <3 this man:
And in case you were wondering, "what a police state looks like":
Doesn't this just make the Obama ticket sound even more appealing?
And now the real fun begins...
Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, becoming the first black candidate to lead a major party into a campaign for the White House. Vanquished rival Hillary Rodham Clinton swiftly signaled an interest in joining the ticket as his running mate.
Obama arranged a victory celebration in St. Paul, Minn., at the site of this summer's Republican National Convention — an in-your-face gesture to Sen. John McCain, who will be his opponent in the race to become the nation's 44th president.
The 46-year-old Obama outlasted Clinton in a historic campaign that sparked record turnouts in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.
"Choosing an option means that you endorse it only if there are better options offered. But if the other choice is worse, then actually you are endorsing the difference between this and the less harmful option. Take for example eating unslaughtered meat for a starving person. He is allowed or even obliged to do so, yet does it mean that he is endorsing eating unslaughtered meat? Rather, he is endorsing the difference between these options which in this case is saving his life. Saving his life by eating unslaughtered meat is good compared to starving to death."2. Voting means integration which means eventually losing our Muslim identity.
"I agree that full political participations might lead to major problems for Muslims and we have to be very careful when stepping into this arena. However, ticking the box for one of the candidates does not mean full political participation."3. We should focus on strengthening Muslim communities and establishing independent states.
"I think no one disagrees that the Muslim community needs to strengthen themselves and build their own organizations and schools etc. However, this is not an option that is incompatible with having party A,B or C in power. This is one matter and that is another, there is no contradiction between the two options. We can vote to select the best option while we are working for our community and our future."4. Since voting isn't going to get us anywhere, we should abstain from it.
"...abstention from voting is actually indirect voting. Let me explain this by the following example. Imagine that 6 people were to vote for two parties named A and B. A says in his manifesto that he will legalise pornography, ban faith schools, kill 1000 Muslims, prevent Muslims from Hijab and other rights. While B said that he will legalise pornography but allow faith schools and kill 500 Muslims. 3 of us vote for A and 2 vote for B and Me as a Muslim believing that voting is kufr abstained from doing so. Then what will happen? A will win, however if I vote for B, then no one will win. So I participated in lessening the evil. Let us now say that we have 2 more people, either they vote for B or abstain. Abstention will not change the situation while encouraging them to vote for B, who will do all these filthy things, will mean that A will loose which means that we saved the life of 500 Muslims and had a chance to have faith schools and practice hijab!"5. Voting will not bring Muslims to power.
"...who said that our aim in the near future is to bring a Muslim into power. Our realistic aim in the near future is to have a better person with a better system in power. It is impossible and impractical to think of having a true Muslim leader in the near future in most or even all the non-Muslim countries. Our ultimate aim is to help those who are better than their co-politicians into power."6. Boycotting elections sends a message to politicians.
"...such boycotting will not be effective unless all Muslims do so. That is why, before we arrive at such conclusions a deep discussion with all Muslims involved in politics and other related fields should take place. It should not be an individual opinion of a single party or so. However, we should bear in mind that if a decision were taken to boycott elections, then we should be clear why we do so."
We lost Kucinich, but Nader's coming to the rescue:
MR. RUSSERT: Will you run for president as an independent in 2008?
MR. NADER: Let me put it in context, to make it a little more palatable to people who have closed minds. Twenty-four percent of the American people are satisfied with the state of the country, according to Gallup. That's about the lowest ranking ever. Sixty-one percent think both major parties are failing. And, according to Frank Luntz's poll, a Republican, 80 percent would consider voting for a independent this year. Now, you take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut, shut out, marginalized, disrespected and you go from Iraq to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts, getting a decent energy bill through, and you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, should we elaborate the issues that the two are not talking about? And the--all, all the candidates--McCain, Obama and Clinton--are against single payer Health insurance, full Medicare for all. I'm for it, as well as millions of Americans and 59 percent of physicians in a forthcoming poll this April. People don't like Pentagon waste, a bloated military budget, all the reports in the press and in the GAO reports. A wasteful defense is a weak defense. It takes away taxpayer money that can go to the necessities of the American people. That's off the table to Obama and Clinton and McCain.
The issue of labor law reform, repealing the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that keeps workers who are now more defenseless than ever against corporate globalization from organizing to defend their interests. Cracking down on corporate crime. The media--the mainstream media repeatedly indicating how trillions of dollars have been drained and fleeced and looted from millions of workers and investors who don't have many rights these days, and pensioners. You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great is sues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president.MR. RUSSERT: How would you feel, however, if Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot tilted Florida or Ohio to John McCain and McCain became president, and Barack Obama, the first African-American who had been nominated by the Democratic Party--this is hypothetical--did not become a president and people turned to you and said, "Nader, you've done it again"?
MR. NADER: Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication that he's the candidate of perpetual war, perpetual intervention overseas? You think they're going to vote for a Republican like McCain, who allies himself with the criminal, recidivistic regime of George Bush and Dick Cheney, the most multipliable impeachable presidency in American history? Many leading members of the bar, including the former head of the American Bar Association, Michael Greco, absolutely dismayed over the violations of the Constitution, our federal laws, the criminal, illegal war in Iraq and the occupation? There's no way. That's why we have to take this opportunity to have a much broader debate on the issues that relate to the American people, as, as, as a fellow in Long Island said recently, M . Sloane, he said, "These parties aren't speaking to me. They're not speaking to my problems, to my family's problems."
. . . as a responsible voter, you should at least attempt to hold him accountable.
ACTION ALERT:
Call the Obama Campaign: "Understand" [Apartheid]Israel's starvation
THE UN SAYS:
...so you could vote for Ron Paul, please excuse me while I laugh at you.
This is why people of conscience attempt to avoid voting Republican at all costs:
A Palestinian civilian has been killed and over 40 injured in an [Apartheid] Israeli missile attack that destroyed the deserted, Hamas-run interior ministry in Gaza City.
The building, destroyed on Friday, was situated in the heart of a residential neighborhood but had been vacant since it was severely damaged in a air raid two years ago.
A woman was killed and at least 46 other civilians were injured in the attack, hospital officials said.
People are sometimes surprised and even upset that I haven't yet jumped on the Obama wagon. I'm not saying I won't, just that I haven't. It's really simple actually: I can't get over Dennis Kucinich. As Presidential candidates go, he's FABULOUS.
He is, right on:
Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson said if Kucinich is excluded, he'll issue an injunction stopping the televised debate.
The judge sided with a lawyer for the Ohio congressman, who says debate host MSNBC at first invited Kucinich to take part and then told him last week he couldn't.
Sen. Clinton's behavior is hardly unusual among the candidates for president. Barack Obama, who expressed some sympathy for the Palestinians before he set his sights on the White House, now has little to say about their plight, and he too said little about what should have been done at Annapolis to facilitate peace. The other major contenders are ardent in their declarations of support for Israel, and none of them apparently sees a two-state solution as so urgent that they should press both sides to reach an agreement. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security advisor and now a senior advisor to Obama, noted, "The presidential candidates don't see any payoff in addressing the Israel-Palestinian issue." But they do see a significant political payoff in backing Israel to the hilt, even when it is pursuing a policy -- colonizing the West Bank -- that is morally and strategically bankrupt.
To get on the ballot, a candidate must demonstrate two requirements: that he or she is viable nationally and has spent time campaigning in the state.
Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party and a member of the executive council, suggested Wednesday that Colbert did not meet the standard of national viability.
. . .
Meanwhile, long shots Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel did make the cut.
"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich, a quirky, long-shot candidate in the race for his party's presidential nomination in the November, 2008 election. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."
Posts
All Comments
