At 11/14/12 10:51 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Who says there are only two sides to choose from THE GOVERNMENT ? The Media ? LOL That is refereed to as a false dichotomy and therefore rendered illegitimate and fallacious as there are many other options.

No one ever said there was, neither did I. It's just a fact that since the Dem's and Rep's are the popular majority that most will vote for one of the two sides, and then bitch/cheer about it when their guy wins/loses. That's all I was saying.

They are not the most popular they are the most publicized and monetized and that's why there are only two choices both actually the same but with a different name to create the illusion of choice. When will people wake up LOL. Also the Constitution mandates there will only be one form of Government.

At 11/14/12 01:56 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Lord Obama took over the student loan industry so this could happen. I don't think he'd be very happy with people using federal money to settle on fast food jobs. Then again, it isn't his money so....

Nice hyperbole, LOL.

At 11/15/12 03:06 PM, Ilssm wrote:

They are not the most popular they are the most publicized and monetized and that's why there are only two choices both actually the same but with a different name to create the illusion of choice. When will people wake up LOL. Also the Constitution mandates there will only be one form of Government.

Doesn't matter, my point still stands.

The incidentals don't matter ! It's the overarching agenda that does matter.

At 11/15/12 08:14 PM, Ilssm wrote:

The incidentals don't matter ! It's the overarching agenda that does matter.

All I was saying in the first place that the wins and losers here are both very arrogant and won't shut the fuck up, no matter who wins. That's all, nothing more.

I understand what you are saying ! What I am stating is that "The incidentals don't matter ! " It's the overarching agenda that matters !

The winners and losers bitching does not matter it's the "Overarching Agenda" that that transcends the two that matters.

At 11/15/12 07:44 AM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:

Nice hyperbole, LOL.

No, it's the truth. The government is currently in the student loan business.

At 11/16/12 01:49 AM, Soviet wrote:

At 11/14/12 03:58 AM, TheKlown wrote: Americans telling other Americans to move out of the Country if you don't like the economy, yet how are people suppose to move out if they have no money to move anywheres else?

How about you quit being such a loser and get a job, work your way to the top and EARN the money to move. If you can't do that then you deserve whatever the economy hits you with.

I can tell you voted Obama in the election.

How are you supposed to save when the cost of living supersedes what you make/EARN LOL ?

I can tell you are an asshole !

Also I can tell that statistically speaking you also do not have the ability to move out of Country even if you wanted to so STFU sheep !

At 11/14/12 11:49 AM, Travis wrote: "I'm going to bitch about how I can't find work and the economy sucks."

If you have a family to support, then swallow your pride and put in an application at McDonald's because those fuckers ARE HIRING.

That's something that's always pissed me off... there ARE JOBS out there. OF COURSE ITS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT, but seriously, you can bitch about it after you get the job, quit acting all fucking helpless.

I completely agree with this. I'm trying to get my diploma so I can provide for my girlfriend, I don't care if I have to work as a janitor for the rest of my life, if I'm making good money and I'm able to support a family, that's good enough for me. Just because you're not getting paid to sit on your ass and play games all day, doesn't mean there isn't a job that's not as 'fun' out there which can support you.

Honestly, a lot of people are having a hard time looking for work, but most people are just a bit too spoiled.

At 11/14/12 09:41 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/14/12 08:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

LOL ok but you forget there is only a two party system both representing the same interests but under the guise of opposition to maintain the illusion of choice.

Nazi tactic 101 give 4 choices on the ballet
A. Republican
B. Republican
C. Republican
D. Republican

Actually there is a multiple party system, or rather potential of it. The realization of it is based on whether or not people care enough to change things. They don't. And that's the difference between our system, and say, a Nazi system. Hitler basically outlawed his political opponents. In America, this is not so. The only reason we have a "two party system" is because that's what the people want.

But really, anyone can become president, provided they are US born, and over age 35. The voting public have handed the ability over to the rich.

I agree, but I honestly think that if we're going to get anything fixed in our country, we don't need just a president, we need one who can get both the democrats and republicans to work together.

At 11/16/12 01:14 PM, DelRio1991 wrote:

I agree, but I honestly think that if we're going to get anything fixed in our country, we don't need just a president, we need one who can get both the democrats and republicans to work together.

Americans don't want that.

Romney had a history of being able to work with his opponents. Obama flat out said he COULDN'T.

People don't give a shit about that stuff. They care more about Obama-phones and "cheap" healthcare.

Americans don't want that.

Romney had a history of being able to work with his opponents. Obama flat out said he COULDN'T.

People don't give a shit about that stuff. They care more about Obama-phones and "cheap" healthcare.

I hate the fact that you're right. The majority of voters, I think, don't look too deeply into what each candidate is actually promising and what they can accomplish.

Honestly, I liked Obama when he first ran, but after seeing what he's done (or, rather, failed to do) it's obvious we need someone who will do more than give us free stuff.

"Vote for me so you can get free healthcare and cell phones"
vs
"Vote for me so we can fix the economy"

I'm not pretending I'm some sort of political genius, but I would rather have the deficit reduced than free crap.

They're preparing to secede, that's why. For extra bonus points, wait for them to secede and then declare a counter-revolution.

At 11/16/12 03:47 PM, YomToxic wrote: They're preparing to secede, that's why. For extra bonus points, wait for them to secede and then declare a counter-revolution.

There will only be a revolution if Obama decides to pull a Lincoln and become violent over the situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did that, if the way he treats the Mid-east is any indication.

At 11/16/12 06:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

There will only be a revolution if Obama decides to pull a Lincoln and become violent over the situation.

Not meaning to be a dick here but honestly do you think that the general populous is even trained in SWAT to be able to combat the municipal police let alone the Military Forces of Canada/USA. We are talking Regimented Battalions trained in the art of intimidation of hard core gorilla war veterans of say the Middle east for example. Heck the general populous don't even grasp basic gorilla warfare tactics and if you think shooting a gun at the range is tactics then your in for a world of pain. Obama will declare war on his people in the name of "National Security" and you now what there is nothing anyone can do about it. You think that constitution will help anyone in a war LOL.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did that, if the way he treats the Mid-east is any indication.

True. But honestly not probable but it would not surprise me. Remember there is a jail cell and casket for every single American citizen FEMA !

At 11/16/12 07:12 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Not meaning to be a dick here but honestly do you think that the general populous is even trained in SWAT to be able to combat the municipal police let alone the Military Forces of Canada/USA.

Who said general populace? There are military bases in states that wanna secede, you know.

At 11/16/12 07:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/16/12 07:12 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Not meaning to be a dick here but honestly do you think that the general populous is even trained in SWAT to be able to combat the municipal police let alone the Military Forces of Canada/USA.

Who said general populace? There are military bases in states that wanna secede, you know.

LOL you think Obama will let them have US Property in Tanks, Guns, Troops, Planes etc etc etc ... Delusionals believe in freedom realists know there is no such thing.

At 11/16/12 07:52 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

LOL you think Obama will let them have US Property in Tanks, Guns, Troops, Planes etc etc etc ... Delusionals believe in freedom realists know there is no such thing.

Depends on a number of factors.

At 11/16/12 09:13 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 11/16/12 08:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/16/12 07:52 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

LOL you think Obama will let them have US Property in Tanks, Guns, Troops, Planes etc etc etc ... Delusionals believe in freedom realists know there is no such thing.

Depends on a number of factors.

The most important one being if American soldiers would stand against the general populace, let alone if they decide to side with them.

The thing you have to understand is that Solders are US Property and if they go against orders they will be tried and charged with treason and put in Military prison camps even if they are in the morally correct stance.

At 11/14/12 03:58 AM, TheKlown wrote: Americans telling other Americans to move out of the Country if you don't like the economy, yet how are people suppose to move out if they have no money to move anywheres else?

This has been going on forever. It's easy jingoistic bullshit instead of dealing with real problems and disappointments in a mature way.

Right up there with the lies that the Repubs have been spouting for how they didn't actually lose the election, the woman who ran over her husband for not voting Romney, and states trying to cecede because all of a sudden they decided they don't want to play anymore...

At 11/14/12 04:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Do you have proof that the voting system/elections are not rigged ?

You've just asked him to prove a negative, a logical fallacy.

I guess you have never heard of a lobbyist ?

Lobbyists don't rig elections per se, lobbyists job is to push the agenda of the entity they lobby for, this can be done through a variety of ways but has not ever been credibly proven that one of them is by rigging election results. That's left to companies like Diebold.

At 11/17/12 04:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/14/12 04:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Do you have proof that the voting system/elections are not rigged ?

You've just asked him to prove a negative, a logical fallacy.

Yes it is a negative and that was the intended point as nobody can unequivocally prove or disprove that anything in Politics is quantifiabley legit.

I guess you have never heard of a lobbyist ?

Lobbyists don't rig elections per se, lobbyists job is to push the agenda of the entity they lobby for, this can be done through a variety of ways but has not ever been credibly proven that one of them is by rigging election results. That's left to companies like Diebold.

It's all a numbers game and those with the most money win simple as that there is only the market. Money is politics directly or indirectly official or not is tantamount to corruption and will ned in cronyism.

At 11/17/12 02:57 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The thing you have to understand is that Solders are US Property and if they go against orders they will be tried and charged with treason and put in Military prison camps even if they are in the morally correct stance.

If you're under the impression that soldiers are ever required to follow an illegal order, you are living in a world where you've never dealt with the U.S. Military.

At 11/17/12 05:48 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/17/12 02:57 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The thing you have to understand is that Solders are US Property and if they go against orders they will be tried and charged with treason and put in Military prison camps even if they are in the morally correct stance.

If you're under the impression that soldiers are ever required to follow an illegal order, you are living in a world where you've never dealt with the U.S. Military.

That's what I said a solider can go against an order however but that does not mean that there is still not punishment for insubordination. If a solder is willing to take an oath to protect whats right they should also be ready to do whats wrong and challenge illegitimate orders. The thing I don't think you see is that Solders from day one are taught to obey immediately and without question orders from their superiors. The key is for solders to educate themselves so they understand when the right time to disobey arises. A military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

At 11/17/12 11:34 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 11/17/12 02:57 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The thing you have to understand is that Solders are US Property and if they go against orders they will be tried and charged with treason and put in Military prison camps even if they are in the morally correct stance.

Unless they, you know, just go to one of those seceding states. Who's going to go after them? Other soldiers who might be on the seceding side?

Seceding is an abstract feel good philosophical that will never happen and further more is a media buzz campaign nothing more. If this so called Seceding were to happen it would have already. Also were and how do you think Obama will let these seceders LOL have WMDs to defend themselves with. Do you really think Obama will give them weapons ? Do you really think for a min Obama will let them have weapons ? All that is besides the point as they would need to rewrite the whole consitution before anything happened so good luck LOL.

At 11/17/12 02:57 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: The thing you have to understand is that Solders are US Property

No

:and if they go against orders they will be tried and charged with treason and put in Military prison camps even if they are in the morally correct stance.

This has been true in every revolution ever.

At 11/17/12 05:36 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Yes it is a negative and that was the intended point as nobody can unequivocally prove or disprove that anything in Politics is quantifiabley legit.

No...what you did is a logical fallacy. You don't ask someone to disprove something you claim, you have to prove the claim. If you contend elections in the US are currently being rigged, you need to prove the rigging, not ask someone who challenges your claim to disprove the rigging.

It's all a numbers game and those with the most money win simple as that there is only the market. Money is politics directly or indirectly official or not is tantamount to corruption and will ned in cronyism.

I don't see how this relates to what I said...this looks like a fairly crappy redirect away from a claim made that you really weren't entirely savvy on and couldn't prove, so now you're trying to redirect the attention and hope to put things into a wheelhouse where we may have common ground.

Not playing. Don't make claims you can't back and we'll get along famously :)

At 11/18/12 04:59 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

No...what you did is a logical fallacy. You don't ask someone to disprove something you claim, you have to prove the claim. If you contend elections in the US are currently being rigged, you need to prove the rigging, not ask someone who challenges your claim to disprove the rigging.

NOBODY CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE ! can you ? I can't and he didn't.