I, for one, refuse to drink Obama's Kool-Aid

[Jointsmith]

This is the age-old question, isn't it? The ideal would be to have a small enough government that would be just short of anarchy. What this would mean is, the people would be in charge of government instead of government being in charge of the people. This is what once was.

We had such a system once; it was prior to the silent socialist revolution that occurred in this country beginning in 1933 when the Roosevelt administration came into power. Much like today, in the name of a financial crises, the people turned over the public treasury to the executive branch, giving that branch unlimited powers over the people.

Those of us who study and know unrevised history are very concerned with what is happening today. Over a trillion dollars of our future income has been commandeered by the Treasury Department in the name of the current "crisis" to make up for the stupid errors of our true masters ... the bankers. The Obama administration will use this platform of Bush's final days to ratchet up even more government powers over the people.

Lenin must be beaming from ear to ear from the grave.

Vi

Sorry Vi, but what about the banking system is at all socialist?

Your bankers amass wealth by selling the service of providing your currency....this is CAPILTALISM.

And the bankers BUYING the co-operation of your president....thats CAPITALISM too.

Have you read the communist manifesto Vi?

How does a Bunch of RICH CAPITALIST FUCKS essencially BUYING POWER bare any resemblance to a socialist revolution?

Maybe your country could use an ACTUAL SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, maybe then there wouldn't be 37 MILLION people in poverty in your country.....ironically thats propably more people in poverty than most African countries.

 

[jsn9333]

I agree the gov't is too big. But I don't think it should be just short of anarchy. It should be strong enough to have no problem kicking ass when ass needs to be kicked. The problem with this country is that most people have allowed themselves to be convinced (mostly by the media) that they have to vote for one of the two corrupt major political parties that use the strength of the government to further their own corrupt agendas.

I don't believe the government before 1933 could be described as "just short of anarchy". The only time in the history of this country that I can think of such a government (besides the civil war) was during the time under the Articles of Confederation, before the Constitution. The government tried to collect taxes to pay off Revolutionary War debts, the people refused to pay, and nothing could be done under the law. That the country was on the brink of division and collapse was obvious to most everyone, so the Constitution was written and ratified... providing for a stronger central government... one that could govern.

This is the age-old question, isn't it? The ideal would be to have a small enough government that would be just short of anarchy. What this would mean is, the people would be in charge of government instead of government being in charge of the people. This is what once was.

We had such a system once; it was prior to the silent socialist revolution that occurred in this country beginning in 1933 when the Roosevelt administration came into power. Much like today, in the name of a financial crises, the people turned over the public treasury to the executive branch, giving that branch unlimited powers over the people.

Those of us who study and know unrevised history are very concerned with what is happening today. Over a trillion dollars of our future income has been commandeered by the Treasury Department in the name of the current "crisis" to make up for the stupid errors of our true masters ... the bankers. The Obama administration will use this platform of Bush's final days to ratchet up even more government powers over the people.

Lenin must be beaming from ear to ear from the grave.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

Obviously, you believe that history began in 1960.

Vi

Yeah that's right Vi, I believe that history began in 1960. You are so fucking lame.

 

[ViRedd]

1. Sorry Vi, but what about the banking system is at all socialist?

Government has control of the printing press, creating money out of thin air. Government controls the money through the National Bank (Federal Reserve). This is socialized money that is out of the control of the people where it used to be prior to exiting the gold standard.

2. Your bankers amass wealth by selling the service of providing your currency....this is CAPILTALISM.

Inflationary currency that erodes the people's savings, to the benefit of government, is not capitalism.

3. And the bankers BUYING the co-operation of your president....thats CAPITALISM too.

Paulson, our Secretary of The Treasury hardly "bought" the cooperation of the president with that trillion-dollar bailout.

4. Have you read the communist manifesto Vi?

Yes I have ... a number of times. Here's the fifth plank:

"Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

5. How does a Bunch of RICH CAPITALIST FUCKS essencially BUYING POWER bare any resemblance to a socialist revolution?

You took issue with FDR's socialist revolution that I alluded to. This administration outlawed honest money, backed by gold, which took the control of money out of the hands of the citizens and placed that control into the hands of government. This allowed the building of the Welfare State and all of it's socialistic programs. See the fifth plank of the communist manifesto.

6. Maybe your country could use an ACTUAL SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, maybe then there wouldn't be 37 MILLION people in poverty in your country.....ironically thats propably more people in poverty than most African countries.

Define the term "poverty" as you see it. Poor people in this country have cars, public transportation,TVs, air conditioning, free schools, free meals at school, free medical, subsidized food though food stamps, a roof over their heads provided by government if necessary. In spite of anything you've read or heard, we do not have people starving in the streets here. We do not have people digging through dumps to eke out a living. Yes, we have homeless people, but most of those are on the streets by choice. Either they are substance abusers or nutz. Most, when offered shelter, turn it down. The poor in this country would be middle class in many African, and other poor countries.

Vi

 

[jsn9333]

That was an excellent post, Vi.

Government has control of the printing press, creating money out of thin air. Government controls the money through the National Bank (Federal Reserve). This is socialized money that is out of the control of the people where it used to be prior to exiting the gold standard.... (the rest of this quote has been edited out to shorten it)

Vi

 

[max420thc]

in the USA..even our poor drive cars and are FAT..name me one other country in the world whos poor are FAT?

 

[Parker]

D, I vote because I am not being led, I am being represented. They just need some serious reminding is all. Start by voting OUT incumbents.

Agreed. Thats's the big problem, people keep voting in the jerks from their own backyard in spite of their record. Even Homer Simpson gets it after awhile.

 

[Hand Banana]

Why are you acting like Obama is the first politician to ever have to make a compromise? That's the nature of politics. At least he was for the decriminalization of marijuana, and there's no advantage to taking that position. He had to back off on that stance a little bit during the campaign since it's political suicide, but we all know what his leanings are now. I think with the strong Democratic representation in Congress and the Senate, and Obama in the driver's seat, we can look forward to a more bud-friendly environment in the years to come.

 

[Seamaiden]

Ok, Banana, you can call it "making a compromise", I call it backpedaling.

 

[medicineman]

Ok, Banana, you can call it "making a compromise", I call it backpedaling.

Give it a rest untill he has at least a year in office. You never liked him to start with. Since your guy Paul didn't get in, it wouldn't matter if he pissed gold and flew like an angel, you'll never be able to like him. give him a chance. I'll be the first one to criticize him if he starts backing up past a certain point. No-one could ever get R.P.s agenda passed in this or any other congress, admit it. He faces the same obstacles, a republican minority that has already postured a possibility of Filibustering any disliked Obama legislation. It's not a one man show.

 

[Hand Banana]

Give it a rest untill he has at least a year in office. You never liked him to start with. Since your guy Paul didn't get in, it wouldn't matter if he pissed gold and flew like an angel, you'll never be able to like him. give him a chance. I'll be the first one to criticize him if he starts backing up past a certain point. No-one could ever get R.P.s agenda passed in this or any other congress, admit it. He faces the same obstacles, a republican minority that has already postured a possibility of Filibustering any disliked Obama legislation. It's not a one man show.

Repped for the breath of reason!

 

[jsn9333]

Why are you acting like Obama is the first politician to ever have to make a compromise? That's the nature of politics. At least he was for the decriminalization of marijuana, and there's no advantage to taking that position. He had to back off on that stance a little bit during the campaign since it's political suicide, but we all know what his leanings are now. I think with the strong Democratic representation in Congress and the Senate, and Obama in the driver's seat, we can look forward to a more bud-friendly environment in the years to come.

I'm not "acting like Obama is the first politician to ever have to make a compromise." I'm just tired of people acting like he's not a politician... like he is a change from politics as usual.

And actually, there is a *ton* of advantage to taking the position he took on marijuana. That is a *great* way to start a grassroots movement... as with Ron Paul's and Ralph Nader. The problem is, while a decriminalization position will get you a lot of grassroots support from a certain segment of young, energetic voters... it will not get you elected. (At least not until more people start standing up in public for the Truth).

How can you say "we all know what his leanings are now"? All you know is that he either lied about being for decrim early or he lied about being against it late. There is no way for you to know with certainty which is the truth. All you know with certainty is that *now* he is pro-jail time for pot users. Those are his "leanings". If by "we can expect a more friendly bud environment" you mean we can expect to be in jail for 1 year instead of 2... maybe you're right. But I seriously doubt it. And even if you are right, he's still a fucking asshole for wanting to put me in jail at all.

Folks can call this a hater thread or whatever... I could not care less. Any person as knowledgeable as Obama who will still put me in a cage in order to win votes and power can kiss my ass. *Obama* is the hater who uses our prisons for his personal agendas... I'm just calling him out on it.

This is about more then weed, though, again. He lied about campaign financing too... and not disowning Wright. This is simply my prediction that he's not going to follow through on most of these promises (especially that one about stopping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws against medical patients). We'll see though... I'm the first to hope I"m wrong.

 

[ANC]

We are so screwed, he works for the same guys as Bush and Bush sr.

 

[Hand Banana]

I'm not "acting like Obama is the first politician to ever have to make a compromise." I'm just tired of people acting like he's not a politician... like he is a change from politics as usual.

No one is acting like he's not a politician, so patch up your straw man argument. How is any politician who has any hope of getting elected supposed to appeal to you, and to the senior citizen, the veteran, and the crazy gun-toting hick in Alabama? No candidate is perfect, it's an imperfect system, and it's an imperfect world.

And actually, there is a *ton* of advantage to taking the position he took on marijuana. That is a *great* way to start a grassroots movement... as with Ron Paul's and Ralph Nader. The problem is, while a decriminalization position will get you a lot of grassroots support from a certain segment of young, energetic voters... it will not get you elected. (At least not until more people start standing up in public for the Truth).

First of all, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader were for legalizing marijuana, not just decriminalizing it, so we're not comparing apples to apples. And frankly, I don't think anyone was getting too excited about his decriminalization position--we had much bigger fish to fry in this election. Here's a question, if you loved everything Ron Paul stood for, and you could guarantee his election to the presidency if he backed off on his legalization stance--at least during the campaign--would you do it?

How can you say "we all know what his leanings are now"? All you know is that he either lied about being for decrim early or he lied about being against it late. There is no way for you to know with certainty which is the truth. All you know with certainty is that *now* he is pro-jail time for pot users. Those are his "leanings". If by "we can expect a more friendly bud environment" you mean we can expect to be in jail for 1 year instead of 2... maybe you're right. But I seriously doubt it. And even if you are right, he's still a fucking asshole for wanting to put me in jail at all.

I think Obama is one of the most sensible, practical politicians we've seen in recent years. Decriminalizing marijuana is the sensible thing to do, and from what he's said, it's what he'd like to do--it's just not a popular thing to do. People were already wary of Obama with all the FOX News gibberish that he was palling around with Bill Ayers, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, he's a closet Muslim, etc. With so many forces working against him, why would he add to it by putting the issue of decriminalization in the limelight? It's exactly what the Republicans would've wanted, like when they shift the focus of every election to gay marriage and abortion. Sure, he might be a hero to the bud community if he maintained his position, but he'd never be elected, just like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul.

On the use of medical marijuana:

McCain - "No town hall meeting in New Hampshire is complete without some young man who has been sent here to talk to me about medical marijuana ... The fact is I do not approve of the medical use of marijuana, I never have and I never will, and you all keep coming to the town hall meetings."

Obama - "My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that's something I'm open to"

I think the leanings of each candidate are pretty clear.

Folks can call this a hater thread or whatever... I could not care less. Any person as knowledgeable as Obama who will still put me in a cage in order to win votes and power can kiss my ass. *Obama* is the hater who uses our prisons for his personal agendas... I'm just calling him out on it.

The fact of the matter is, more people care about the prisons in Guantanamo being used for the wrong agendas right now. If you think marijuana was the most important issue in this election, then you've had your head in the sand for the last 8 years.

This is about more then weed, though, again. He lied about campaign financing too... and not disowning Wright. This is simply my prediction that he's not going to follow through on most of these promises (especially that one about stopping the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws against medical patients). We'll see though... I'm the first to hope I"m wrong.

McCain lied about his campaign financing too, and he co-wrote the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform!! So yes, McCain and Obama are both disingenuous politicians--but that doesn't mean they're the same. As for Wright, Obama rebuked his statements, that's enough for me, no need to write off the man's whole life. What did you want him to do, take him out into a stadium and summarily execute him?

 

[jsn9333]

Hand,

I don't think you've read much of what I've written. I not mad because Obama didn't disown Wright harshly enough. I'm mad that he disowned him *at all*! Wright was one of the only people the media was focusing on that made any fucking sense at all, and when Obama promised to not disown him I literally praised God. Then he disowned him as his pastor and spiritual mentor. He also flipped on decriminalization. And he flipped on public campaign financing. He started showing his true colors. He is a fucking liar... have some self-respect and don't make excuses for him.

You said, "if he maintained his (supporting decriminalization) position, he'd never be elected, just like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul." That is just not true. Half if not more of the people in this country support decriminalization. The reason Ron Paul didn't get elected is not because of his positions. It is because the media and the two party monopoly that basically is in control of all major media did as much as they could to keep him out of the public eye. Most old people who aren't into youtube or whatever don't even know who the fuck Ron Paul is. Ask Ron why he didn't get elected, and he will share story after story of how the system is set up to keep people like him (even if they have popular ideas) from getting known and elected.

You're saying decrimalization is "what (Obama) would like to do." Bro... quit putting words in his mouth and listen to the man, will you? He said he is *against* decriminalization. He is already elected... he is not struggling for votes now. Still, his current position is that decriminalization is *not* something he wants to do. But you're saying he does want to. At this point you've drank so much damn kool-aid you're even brainwashing yourself!! Stop making excuses for the man.

He's a liar. He lies to you and me and he'll continue to. He's not going to do things much differently then Bush. What? Is my saying that heresy to you or something?

What you don't understand is that all these corrupt, lying fuckers have the same bosses... the banks and the corporations (which is why they're handing them cash hand over foot right now when the majority of Americans have said DON"T DO IT). More then half the "debate" between the major leaders of the Dems and Repubs are staged bro. I'm not even kidding. You have no fucking clue. Sure, Obama may close Guantanamo... but he's just going to put those prisoners somewhere else. Sure, he may give them some more rights to a hearing then Bush did... but he's not going to give them anything close to the trial all humans deserve... trust me. Just watch and see. He's not going to end the war in Iraq, he's just going to call "combat" troops by another name. Just watch. It's all about "producing" and "manufacturing" change without really having to change much. Just open your eyes, man.

Anyway, you asked, "... if you loved everything Ron Paul stood for, and you could guarantee his election to the presidency if he backed off on his legalization stance--at least during the campaign--would you do it?"

Answer: No... anyone who sacrifices his principles to get elected is corrupt. That would mean he has to lie to people in order to get their votes. Listen to what your fucking saying!!! Man, if you think that is the right thing to do your just as fucking corrupt as the rest of them. Neither McCain nor Obama is one of them, but there *are* candidates that don't lie for votes. And its only when people like you will find them and gather the balls to vote for them that real change will come.

P.S.

Yes, people *are* acting like he is not a politician... people are acting like he is Jesus fucking Christ. I'm not saying you are... I'm saying there are people that are.
... but you're pretty damn close now that I think about it, after reading all these excuses you keep making for him... like you are the Defender of his Character or some shit... anyway... peace.

No one is acting like he's not a politician, so patch up your straw man argument. How is any politician who has any hope of getting elected supposed to appeal to you . . . (edited out of quote for brevity) . . . . As for Wright, Obama rebuked his statements, that's enough for me, no need to write off the man's whole life. What did you want him to do, take him out into a stadium and summarily execute him?

 

[Hand Banana]

Hand,

I don't think you've read much of what I've written. I not mad because Obama didn't disown Wright harshly enough. I'm mad that he disowned him *at all*! Wright was one of the only people the media was focusing on that made any fucking sense at all, and when Obama promised to not disown him I literally praised God. Then he disowned him as his pastor and spiritual mentor. He also flipped on decriminalization. And he flipped on public campaign financing. He started showing his true colors. He is a fucking liar... have some self-respect and don't make excuses for him.

I was hoping this could be a collegial discussion, you should calm down a bit.

First, on the Reverend Wright issue, I don't think it should've even been made a campaign issue. I'm tired of people cherry picking into someone's past for dirt; every elected official has some kind of skeleton in the closet. But his association with Reverend Wright was made an issue, and the most damning soundbites from his sermons were thrust into the limelight. You may agree with Wright's opinions, and maybe even Obama agrees, but the vast majority of Americans don't. You do understand that the goal of a presidential campaign is to appeal to the largest number of people right?

He obviously didn't want to disown Wright, listen to his speech:

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
​

Unfortunately, Wright wouldn't stop soaking up the media spotlight, and continued to release inflammatory statements over the next 3 months, prompting Obama to leave the church and choose another minister. Why should Obama have thrown himself on the cross for this guy with so much at stake for the country? There's millions of people out there losing their jobs, and thousands in Iraq fighting who don't give a flying fuck about Reverend Wright and what he has to say. Continuing to press Wright as an issue would be doing a disservice to everyone suffering right now.

Look, I'm a stone cold atheist, and I'd love to have a president who would just admit he's not religious. I get the feeling that Obama isn't that religious, but guess what, I sure as hell wanted Obama to say he's religious so he can get elected and reverse the fundamentalist direction this country is taking.

You said, "if he maintained his (supporting decriminalization) position, he'd never be elected, just like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul." That is just not true. Half if not more of the people in this country support decriminalization. The reason Ron Paul didn't get elected is not because of his positions. It is because the media and the two party monopoly that basically is in control of all major media did as much as they could to keep him out of the public eye. Most old people who aren't into youtube or whatever don't even know who the fuck Ron Paul is. Ask Ron why he didn't get elected, and he will share story after story of how the system is set up to keep people like him (even if they have popular ideas) from getting known and elected.

You're saying decrimalization is "what (Obama) would like to do." Bro... quit putting words in his mouth and listen to the man, will you? He said he is *against* decriminalization. He is already elected... he is not struggling for votes now. Still, his current position is that decriminalization is *not* something he wants to do. But you're saying he does want to. How can you jump on me for calling Obama a liar when apparently you don't even trust what he is currently saying about his being against decriminalization?!

He's a liar. He lies to you and me and he'll continue to. He's not going to do things much differently then Bush. What? Is my saying that heresy to you or something?

First, half of the nation does NOT support decriminalization. Who released that figure, NORML? Just look at the difference in gun death figures from the NRA and the Brady Campaign. Find an independent study.

Second, the two-party system does suck, but it's all we've got. I wish it could change, but it's been the same for a long time, and that's a lot of momentum to overcome. Voting for some far-leaning third-party candidate doesn't change the system. I just keep thinking back to 2000, when everyone was lambasting "compromise" and "choosing the lesser of two evils"--"Oh yeah, Gore and Bush are pretty much the same, I'm gonna vote for someone else!" The 2000 election proved above all else that not voting for the lesser of two evils means you're voting for the greater of two evils.

What you don't understand is that all these corrupt, lying fuckers have the same bosses... the banks and the corporations (which is why they're handing them cash hand over foot right now when the majority of Americans have said DON"T DO IT). More then half the "debate" between the major leaders of the Dems and Repubs are staged bro. I'm not even kidding. You have no fucking clue. Sure, Obama may close Guantanamo... but he's just going to put those prisoners somewhere else. Sure, he may give them some more rights to a hearing then Bush did... but he's not going to give them anything close to the trial all humans deserve... trust me. Just watch and see. He's not going to end the war in Iraq, he's just going to call "combat" troops by another name. Just watch. It's all about "producing" and "manufacturing" change without really having to change much. Just open your eyes, man.

Someone once said, "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive." On the issue of campaign financing, I agree, it sucks that special interests carry so much sway. But unless there's someone who can step in with a bill that levels the playing field for everyone, there's not a whole lot you can do. If you want to win, you have to get as much money as possible, playing by the rules as they've been laid out, because that's exactly what the other guy is gonna do. Remember when Ron Paul was getting all that flack for getting campaign contributions from Neo Nazi organizations and white supremacists? He made the argument that even though he didn't agree with their positions, he shouldn't have to return the contributions. I strongly agree. Does that put a dent in your love for Ron Paul?

Anyway, you asked, "... if you loved everything Ron Paul stood for, and you could guarantee his election to the presidency if he backed off on his legalization stance--at least during the campaign--would you do it?"

Answer: No... anyone who sacrifices his principles to get elected is corrupt. That would mean he has to lie to people in order to get their votes. Listen to what your fucking saying!!! Man, if you think that is the right thing to do your just as fucking corrupt as the rest of them. Neither McCain nor Obama is one of them, but there *are* candidates that don't lie for votes. And its only when people like you will find them and gather the balls to vote for them that real change will come.

I could read you a laundry list of things that Ron Paul, and every other elected official has flip flopped on. For example, Ron Paul is for free trade, but he's against the NAFTA superhighway. In his 1988 presidential bid, as a Libertarian Party candidate, he favored the elimination of the border patrol - a stand from which he now runs away!

All politicians lie, flip-flip and obfuscate. Get over it. We don't live in a fantasy gumdrop world where everyone does what they say, and says what they're going to do. The most we can hope for is that Obama will have the political capital to make good on what he's said he's going to do, and to push less popular issues that he didn't have the luxury of supporting during the campaign.

 

[jsn9333]

Hand,

First you say, "I was hoping this could be a collegial discussion, you should calm down a bit." Then you say, "Does that put a dent in your love for Ron Paul?" You do realize you're being an asshole, right? I've never once said I love Ron Paul, in this thread or any other. I've said a lot of people agree with his positions, and I've said the media do their best to keep people like him, Nader, and other's out of the spotlight.

So, if you are honestly "hoping this could be a collegial discussion," don't put words in my mouth.

And if someone changed his views on the border partrol between 1988 and now (after Sept 11, 2001 and whatever else happened in that 20 years) that doesn't mean he flip-flopped to me. If you think so we'll just have to disagree. I don't know too terribly much about Ron Paul and I didn't vote for him... but if that's one of the best "flip-flops" of his you can come up with, maybe he's okay in my book.

When someone says he'll take public financing, never disown his pastor, and supports decriminalization, and mere weeks or months later (when he is searching for votes other then the ones those first positions attracted ) changes his mind 180 complete degrees on each of those issues... that, my friend, is a *flip-flop*.

. . . The most we can hope for is that Obama will...

That's your problem. You seriously should find someone who doesn't lie for a living to put your hope in.

Have you ever stopped to think perhaps Bush acted as stupidly as he did *exactly* because people started voting for "neither of the two evils" in such greater numbers in 2000? Have you ever thought perhaps, just maybe, Bush is a liar, and his whole presidency has been a lie and a fluke? Dude... Bush was this bad *on purpose* in an effort to scare the liberal and libertarian (more like it) wing back into voting "lesser evil" (ie the Democratic party) instead of voting third party. The powers that be had to nip this third party thing in the bud, and quickly!

Yes... the Republicans wanted the Democrats to win this election, that's what I'm saying. Did you think they were really trying with that erratic, sort of rude old man and that bimbo VP?

They had to scare the "swing" (or should I call them "swig") kool-aid drinkers back into line so they'd vote major party (in this case, Democratic) this year. The Dems and the Reps are run by the same core institutions of corrupt power, bro. Don't buy their sack of shit psuedo-debates. Neither of them is less evil then the other... they try to convince you one of them is less evil every 4 years (and sometimes they *both* try to get you to vote for that one of them... I'm not even kidding). The lay people are sincere, but most in the media and the upper reaches of power in the parties themselves are as corrupt as corrupt gets. Don't convince yourself otherwise, or let them convince you rather...

peace,

 

[jsn9333]

Quick follow up, Hand. The fact that you hoped all along Obama would lie to voters (about his religiosity or anything else) to get elected shows how deep the problems are in this country. I mean just listen to yourself. You openly, unashamedly support lying to your neighbor in order to deceive him out of his vote.

What you're saying there is fucked up and wrong. Have you heard of 'what goes around comes around'? Because of what you wish for (that your leader lie to others to get their votes), you deserve to be deceived out of your vote as well. (And you probably already have been, you just don't know it yet...)

peace,

 

[max420thc]

so..obama can sit in a openly racist..anti israel church..anti american church associate with known anti american terrorists..and hey..dont bring that shit up..your a racist if you do..LOL...what a joke..obama got a free pass on rev wright..he got a free pass on how he plans on paying for all his new welafare programs..he got a free pass on his proposed tax increases ..he got a free pass on rezco..he got a free pass on his muslim extremist connections...you want to know what he is not going to get a free pass on? in six months after he takes office unemployment is going to be over 10% or around it..there are going to be waves upon waves of bankruptcys..and foreclosures..and massive debt defaults.. guess who is going to get the blame..guess who cant handle the job he just got elected to?LOL...he is in over his head..without a doubt..on top of the worst economy since the great depression..he is going to have iran..russia..poland..georgia pakistan..india afghanistan..and every other explosive situation going on that you can imagine...by the time obama gets out of office this country is going to look more third world than it already is. i wonder if obama is going to do what mugabe has done?time will tell i guess

 

[jsn9333]

Obama has gotten a free pass on a lot of things, you're right about that... but he didn't get one on Wright. The thing with Wright is that there just wasn't much there to ding Obama with anyway. There aren't many black churches in the country that don't have preachers that get a little "fired up" on issues like Wright's now and again. So Obama went to a black church... hello, he's half-*black*.

As far as Wright, if your family line had been enslaved or denied civil rights for 200 of the last 250 years you might say God damn America too. Cut the guy some fucking slack... just let the old man vent.

And as far as "domestic terrorists" or whatever... if I were alive during viet-cluster-fuck-nam I might've planted some harmless bombs out at the Pentagon as well... hell, I might've even planted some harmful ones. Do you realize the corrupt people that were in power in this country while they were sending 50,000 of our men to die for jack shit? Are you forgetting that the people who *founded* this nation did it by fighting the corrupt, ruling government... and they fought them to the death?

If you take these people's (Wright, etc.) comments in context, they aren't anti-American... they are pro-reform of America. They want the corruption out and *real* freedom to begin. Those are the people Obama first associated with... but then chose to disown and distance himself from to win this election (the reasonable marijuana, legal, campaign, and liberty-minded reform folks). That alone should tell us these next 8 years aren't going to hold much change for the better.

At least we agree things won't likely get much better under Obama. I dsagree that we'll be third-world in 4 or 8 years though. We're going down the drain more slowly the that... but until people wise up and start standing up to the corrupt power structure and refusing to vote for them (either party), down the drain we'll keep going.

so..obama can sit in a openly racist..anti israel church..anti american church associate with known anti american terrorists..and hey..dont bring that shit up..your a racist if you do..LOL...what a joke..obama got a free pass on rev wright..he got a free pass on how he plans on paying for all his new welafare programs..he got a free pass on his proposed tax increases ..he got a free pass on rezco..he got a free pass on his muslim extremist connections...you want to know what he is not going to get a free pass on? in six months after he takes office unemployment is going to be over 10% or around it..there are going to be waves upon waves of bankruptcys..and foreclosures..and massive debt defaults.. guess who is going to get the blame..guess who cant handle the job he just got elected to?LOL...he is in over his head..without a doubt..on top of the worst economy since the great depression..he is going to have iran..russia..poland..georgia pakistan..india afghanistan..and every other explosive situation going on that you can imagine...by the time obama gets out of office this country is going to look more third world than it already is. i wonder if obama is going to do what mugabe has done?time will tell i guess