Grateful Dead

dead.net the official site

what if... the 2-party system was soon-to-be the downfall of this country? http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html =================== moc.swencigolyzzuf.www ===================

I agree with the above. But the deeper issue is our dependence on oil and ethanol is not the answer. And the deeper issue than even this is our perceived need for automobiles. (yes, I too am part of this) We drove around the country touring and contributing to what? The dark side? Kind of mind boggling. The yin and the yang of the road. If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. William Blake

I'm with you Daisy.

To me, there is no choice. One party is about war, and their candidate proudly says we "could be in Iraq for 100 years".... this is with YOUR MONEY AND MINE. We MUST stop this horrible carnage. Vote peace, vote Obama!

Nice post Mr. Pid. Thank you. I respect your views, and even agree with many of them, which is why I support Mr. Obama. The article raises some alarming concerns for me personally. I understand if you do not share the same feelings, or have reconciled them. I have not. I do not expect Mr. Obama to visit the grateful dead fourm and reply, although that sure would impress me if he did =) Some days ago, I went to the official Obama web site, and submitted the article, voiced my concerns and hope Mr. Obama would reply in some official capacity directly to the article. I have no idea if he will respond, at least at this point, since he is attempting to obtain the nomination from his party. Once the actual campaign for President begins, hopefully articles like this will come more to the surface by the press, and an official response may come. I believe, and hope, his reply to such an article would make me feel better enough to move on, and remove this question mark for me. Until then, it will remain just that, a question mark I would prefer an official response from Mr. Obama on. Many here have likely not seen this article, which is the only reason I posted it. If like you, others here have reconciled the issues it presents, I respect that, but I hope we can agree the fact I need more of a direct response from Mr. Obama does not make me stubborn, or narrow minded. The article makes me very uncomfortable, and I would prefer to hear a direct reply to it from the man we may elect as President of the United States. Peace -EW

Mr. P.

EW, I do understand and appreciate your concerns. Thank you for having the decency to air them for the enlightenment of all. I, too, was very concerned by the obvious racism exhibited in Ms. Glick's article but chose not to make an issue out of it. But since you brought it up, I would like to offer this personal observation: Those who paint with a broad brush would be best served to mind the spatter. Casting individuals as being "anti-Israel" or "pro-Arab" or holding that they are "appeasing jihadists and dumping Israel" merely because they are prepared to engage in dialogue and diplomacy in hope of negotiating peaceful resolutions to disputes tells us more about the author than it does about the subject of her work. Please don't misunderstand my perspective here. I am not "anti-Israel." But I'm not anti-Palestine either. I believe that Israel could greatly enhance it's security by doing everything in it's power to assist in helping the Palestinians create a robust, economically viable and sustainable State. People with full bellies and fat wallets don't strap bombs to themselves. My father has been a life long conservative. Many years ago when he was living in New York City, he was actively involved in something truly unusual, the successful campaign and election of a Republican congressman from a Manhattan district. He has since moved to California, and in the recent primary, for the first time in his life cast a vote for a Democrat running for any office. It wasn't for Mrs. Clinton. As near as I can tell, the success of Mr. Obama's campaign so for defies traditional demographic boundaries. I think that is a reflection of a significant weight of the American electorate that chooses to move beyond seeing demographically defined attributes such as race, gender, religious affiliation or sexual orientation as valid political issues. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I would like to believe that we are finally approaching a society where the character of any individual is defined and assessed solely by the actions of that individual, and that people will be seen for who they are, rather than what they are. As far as getting an official response from the Obama campaign to appear on this venue, I would love to believe that the political mainstream was prepared to take this community seriously enough to do so. One can only hope. Conversation is always more interesting than recitation, so speak your mind and not someone else's.

Mr. PId, The importance of the article authored by Ms. Glick, revolves around the question of racism. You dismiss the article for the reasons you mention below, but entirely miss the question of character it calls to question. I suggest you re-read Ms. Glicks article as if it was written by an American author. Perhaps that will help you understand the important points it is raising. -EW "Mr Pid wrote: While US foreign policy is certainly a relevant and germane issue, it is NOT the most ordinate one. The election of a US President is about what's best for the US, not what's best for Israel."

I'M PARALYZED FROM MY NECK DOWN BUT MY BRAIN WORKS FINE I WILL VOTE 4 MCCAIN CLINTON DID NOTHING 4 ME SO ONLY SMART CHOICE

I dug everything you just posted, couldn't said it better myself. + a very interesting picture ( in both sense of the word)