Nader Reaches Out To His Base: Jocks
You’d think he’d realize that his 15 or 16 remaining fans have no idea who Coby Bryant is in the first place.
You’d think he’d realize that his 15 or 16 remaining fans have no idea who Coby Bryant is in the first place.
It could be part of the joke but his name is “Kobe”
KOBE not coby
BTW the Knicks could use a good low post man
first, that ad is amazing – even before it spells out how little “change” obama is bringing to the table. second, what is you problem? jocks are bad . . . is that all you have?
lol, good catch!
sorry, but I don’t see anything “amazing” about the ad. I think those numbers are suspect at BEST.
1. “Wall Street,” “Big Energy,” and “Pharmaceutical Co.’s” (sic) aren’t defined.
I can assume reasonably that “Pharmaceutical Companies” mean, every Pharmaceutical Company. But what is “Big Energy”? Can I buy a qualifier, Pat? Anyone?
2. If these donations are from individuals, how does that make them special interest groups? If I work on Wall Street and give 200 bucks to a candidate I like (on no behalf of a company or organization) is that counted in his numbers? According to Nader, there is no difference between the two.
Since Nader is making such lofty claims,
he should probably back it up a little better. It’s not my responsibility to justify his numbers. It’s his, and he clearly hasn’t done that.
He’s just shotgunning his argument at the “man” and hoping something sticks or that fools will buy it hook line and sinker.
woa not to bust in on your numbers argument, because its a valid point, but it is a television commercial, its there to make a dramatic point. check out the details the nader might present elsewhere in a more suitable format, he’s not a dumb man. But the larger point here is that every main stream politician is going to have numbers like that, the system is broken, etc… but nevertheless the end of the conservative era that has dominated the political scene since Nixon is a huge change that is happening regardless of Obama. The point is, that we don’t know what’s good and progressive anymore and what’s conservative, the ideological field is being redefined, so using the math of the last 50 years to approach this election is backwards thinking. Yes, in general corporate interests have proven to be a negative influence, but I don’t think we know how to think about them yet in an age where green change is happening specifically because of a market shift and the aggressive ad campaigns of corporations. Of course they are self interested, and I don’t want to make a reagan argument to believe in capitalism’s will to right itself, but might there be a way to tread the line of a corporate relationship that forces adaptation by way of a working relationship, that also plays off of the forces of grassroots, perhaps forcing the corporations to shift policy and support to maintain the allegiance of politicians who can function without complete dependency on the PAC money? If you throw out the relationship you become a pariah like Nader and nothing gets done, so the key might be making the relationship work towards your political goals.
I dubbed it with Her Space Holiday’s The Ringing in My Ears – makes it nice!
Nader ’08!
……………………. /¬¥¬Ø/)
………………….,/¬Ø ..//
…………………/… ./ /
…………./¬¥¬Ø/’…’/¬¥¬Ø ¬Ø`¬∑¬∏
………./’/…/…./… …./¬®¬Ø\
……..(‘(…¬¥(..¬¥…… ,~/’…’)
………\…………… ..\/…./
……….”…\……… . _.¬∑¬¥
…………\………… ..(
…………..\………. …\