We needed Barack Obama.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Throughout the elections, after I became convinced Ron Paul was done, I begain rallying effortlessly for John McCain. McCain is a principled, dedicated, loyal American patriot, with bold plans and decisive ideas. In my mind, no one other then Ron Paul is as fit to lead this Nation as McCain, and no one at all would be a greater commander in chief.

Where I go to school, the VAST, vast majority of students are black/mexican "gangster" kids, and in my region (the California Bay Area), liberals are as abundant as rednecks in the deep south. But I've been noticing something; people are fired up for Obama. I mean, seriously fucking fired up. It's like a revolution or something. I'm seeing people more passionate and exited then any generation has been for a president; more then Republicans for Reagan, more then liberals at the height of the Clinton era. And when I see this exitement, I slowly start to realize something that I never really saw while I was rallying for McCain;

We needed Barack Obama to win this election. As much as we've ever needed anything in this country, we needed Barack Obama to become president.

For not only the good reasons, the ones we're supposed to acknowledge, but also for the bad reasons, the reasons that aren't supposed to effect who is and isn't a president, we needed him to win. Because he is passionate, we needed him to win. Because he is a man who inspires his followers in the same way Hitler did for his people, we needed him to win. Because he is inexperienced and idealistic, we needed him to win. Because he is black, we needed him to win. And even because he is a socialist, we needed him to win.

It becomes more and more obvious, the more time passes, that I will likely not see my dream of a radically free-market and extremely limited government come to pass in my lifetime. People are growing less and less receptive to the libertarian principles, not more. When 'Reagan', the symbol of limited government, actually increased government like no other, and when the definition of a 'conservative' is George Bush, a man who would be considered hardcore leftist in any other era, it becomes strikingly clear that America is getting fed up with a free market that they've never even seen before. We as a country have been moving closer and closer to socialism since our founding, and it's now the time when we must finally take that step. Barack Hussein Adolf Satan Mao Sepiroth Obama is dedicated to introducing socialist healthcare and tax redistribution to America, and I have absolutely no doubt he will succeed. I also have no doubt that more and more socialist programs will follow; such is the nature of the beast.

As a dedicated libertarian, I am more sure in my beliefs then I have been about anything else in the world; socialism DOES NOT WORK. I would bet my own life against 20 dollars that socialism in America will fail; I'd bet the lives of everyone I love. I simply do not believe, nor will I ever, that socialism can work. However, if America wants to shift that way, then the only course of action I see is to fully embrace Obamas socialist plans, and merely to hope that once these plans fail we, as Americans, can one day correct ourselves and dissolve them. I hold this willingness to embrace Obamas ideas because I am convinced that once America attempts a free market, libertarian system, it will work astoundingly, and once it does work we will stick with it. With this idea in mind, I think that expirementing with socialism is better then sticking too our mediocre system, if not because it will do better (it will not), then because it's another experiment that will be done with before Libertarianism is the last option.

Some may think that the entire notion is foolish, and that we can simply avoid socialism alltogether if we fight hard enough against Obamas ideas. I disagree. The democrats have control of congress, and I believe that liberals will have control of this country for many, many years to come. If we manage to defeat Obamas ideas of socialist reform, then someone else will only take his place. We can only switch the tide by electing a die-hard capitalist, low government president, but with Neoconservatives (aka leftists in republicans clothing) taking over the GOP, that simply is not going to happen anytime soon. Mark my words; socialism is coming. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. And with that in mind I fully believe the time should be now, because I can think of no president that I would trust more then Barack Obama to lead us in these dark waters. I pray that has the integrity to know when he's wrong, and I pray that he is supporting socialism for America's sake and not for socialism's sake; it seemed to often with Bush that he continued policies long after it became obviouse that they where not serving a purpose.

Would I like to make it so America would never experiment with Socialism? Of course. Do I think Obama will be a horrible president? Of course. Do I think he'll wind up corrupt, like every single politician theres ever been? Of course. But the cold reality is that as much as I wish Obamas horrible, moronic policies never came to pass, they will. If not with him, then with someone else.

Of course, he may just get shot

[am-WEE]

Thank goodness that McCain didn't win.
America is such a huge power in the world and religion and government should be separated, somehow i don't think McCain would do that.
Sarah Palin is ridiculous, I can't believe they thought she might encourage people to vote Republican!!
I'm not sure exactly what Obama's policies are but anything has to be better than McCain.
I was celebrating and I live in Australia!
Obama will be the change the world needed. I don't know how anyone could possibly say that McCain is better...

[JackTipper]

At 11/7/08 03:53 AM, am-WEE wrote: Thank goodness that McCain didn't win.
America is such a huge power in the world and religion and government should be separated, somehow i don't think McCain would do that.
Sarah Palin is ridiculous, I can't believe they thought she might encourage people to vote Republican!!
I'm not sure exactly what Obama's policies are but anything has to be better than McCain.
I was celebrating and I live in Australia!
Obama will be the change the world needed. I don't know how anyone could possibly say that McCain is better...

Obama's policies are essentially the same as McCains. Their campaigns were founded by the same corporations. In fact Obama got three times the Wallstreet money than McCain did and when he made his speech when he found out he won the election he said he didn't start off with much money. Lawl, he bullshitted the first minute he found out he was the president. He's garbage.

Ron Paul was on a radio interview with Alex Jones talking about Obama and his world government ideals. If you want to listen to it check out the Link,

[Zeistro]

At 11/7/08 03:53 AM, am-WEE wrote: I'm not sure exactly what Obama's policies are but anything has to be better than McCain.
I was celebrating and I live in Australia!

I facepalmed after reading this. Sadly, this is how the majority of Obama supporters are.

[am-WEE]

At 11/7/08 06:11 AM, Zeistro wrote:

At 11/7/08 03:53 AM, am-WEE wrote: I'm not sure exactly what Obama's policies are but anything has to be better than McCain.
I was celebrating and I live in Australia!

I facepalmed after reading this. Sadly, this is how the majority of Obama supporters are.

Well you know what, I know that that's really ignorant and whatever but after watching an interview with Sarah Palin saying that she doesn't believe in abortion even in incestal rape cases it turned me right off the whole republican party. Cause that's just fucked up and I'm sure Obama has to have some kinda of soul to be against that kinda crap, I know McCain might not agree with that either but he's the one that decided on Palin.

[dySWN]

At 11/7/08 06:38 AM, am-WEE wrote: Well you know what, I know that that's really ignorant and whatever but after watching an interview with Sarah Palin saying that she doesn't believe in abortion even in incestal rape cases it turned me right off the whole republican party. Cause that's just fucked up and I'm sure Obama has to have some kinda of soul to be against that kinda crap, I know McCain might not agree with that either but he's the one that decided on Palin.

I double facepalmed. Poor grammar is poor, and weak argument is weak. We can debate abortion all we want, but that's a single issue that wasn't even that big of a factor for the American public.

[JackTipper]

dySWN could you tell me what issues you think brought him into office? Cause all I've seen is people hating Bush and the republican party choosing Obama cause he is the complete opposite of him, cosmetically of course.

[Mast3rMind]

At 11/7/08 07:09 AM, JackTipper wrote: dySWN could you tell me what issues you think brought him into office? Cause all I've seen is people hating Bush and the republican party choosing Obama cause he is the complete opposite of him, cosmetically of course.

Rationally. The "Opposite Equation" was made a reality a couple of years ago when the Dems took the House and Senate. Especially in many cases where the Republicans only crime was just having the R next to their name. That's not a factor anymore, only for people that don't keep up in politics and haven't had a care about politics until the past election says that. Simple. A lot of people expect him to pull off what FDR did in 15 years, or what Clinton did somewhat in 8 years. Fix the economy. FDR was the only Democrat that was able to juggle both a war and a massive debt.

A lot of people also see him as the JFK in ways of actually inspiring some of the youth to actually get out and do some shit. An energy neither office in a long time has been able to bring forth. It's also ironic that Democrats seem to only do good in office when the economy is bad. A la Carter. When he wasn't that bad of a President, in my opinion. I did a lot of reading upon his character.

As for the talks about Ron Paul, I'd have picked Ralph Nader before Ron. Not like it really matters though. I've read on Ron Paul's policies and also know that for some reason a lot of people vet him as the person that could "Blow the whistle on the Illuminati or New World Order" (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I ask that you skip this part of the post. Only conspiracy theorists know what I'm talking about here. I am not one, although have been around long enough to see the signs, but also take into light even Alex Jones can be wrong, along with David Icke in terms of members of the Illuminati."

America as far as I know will be under two party rule for about a decade. This is my prediction. The world banks will see the GOP dying off and will end up picking Libertarians to fund. (If you believe in all that.) As for the policies of both, I already know that they mirror each other quite well. Ralph Nader had pointed it out several times. Doesn't matter though, I'll always vote Dem, even though I acknowledge his wisdom. Even he said and I quote "If the Dems cannot win this election in a landslide then Democrats should quit, or change itself somehow."

Independents candidates compared to 2000 and 2004 are no longer spoilers. At least not this time around. Which makes sense. Upon leaving Clinton leaving the White House did anyone expect what they'd get for 8 years? No one did. So yeah. Feel free to call the candidates garbage and so on. But very much like the good leaders of the past. If you don't have the people on your side, there isn't much you can get away with. And I say that as a nod to the Presidents from 1932-2008. As well as some other historical figures, one being Fidel Castro. Pretty much the only one that made Communism work. Also, let it be known that I'm not really arguing with you. I'm not in the mood to waste anymore bone marrow E-Arguing.

[JackTipper]

At 11/7/08 10:02 AM, Mast3rMind wrote:

At 11/7/08 07:09 AM, JackTipper wrote: dySWN could you tell me what issues you think brought him into office? Cause all I've seen is people hating Bush and the republican party choosing Obama cause he is the complete opposite of him, cosmetically of course.

Rationally. The "Opposite Equation" was made a reality a couple of years ago when the Dems took the House and Senate. Especially in many cases where the Republicans only crime was just having the R next to their name. That's not a factor anymore, only for people that don't keep up in politics and haven't had a care about politics until the past election says that. Simple. A lot of people expect him to pull off what FDR did in 15 years, or what Clinton did somewhat in 8 years. Fix the economy. FDR was the only Democrat that was able to juggle both a war and a massive debt.

A lot of people also see him as the JFK in ways of actually inspiring some of the youth to actually get out and do some shit. An energy neither office in a long time has been able to bring forth. It's also ironic that Democrats seem to only do good in office when the economy is bad. A la Carter. When he wasn't that bad of a President, in my opinion. I did a lot of reading upon his character.

As for the talks about Ron Paul, I'd have picked Ralph Nader before Ron. Not like it really matters though. I've read on Ron Paul's policies and also know that for some reason a lot of people vet him as the person that could "Blow the whistle on the Illuminati or New World Order" (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, I ask that you skip this part of the post. Only conspiracy theorists know what I'm talking about here. I am not one, although have been around long enough to see the signs, but also take into light even Alex Jones can be wrong, along with David Icke in terms of members of the Illuminati."

America as far as I know will be under two party rule for about a decade. This is my prediction. The world banks will see the GOP dying off and will end up picking Libertarians to fund. (If you believe in all that.) As for the policies of both, I already know that they mirror each other quite well. Ralph Nader had pointed it out several times. Doesn't matter though, I'll always vote Dem, even though I acknowledge his wisdom. Even he said and I quote "If the Dems cannot win this election in a landslide then Democrats should quit, or change itself somehow."

Independents candidates compared to 2000 and 2004 are no longer spoilers. At least not this time around. Which makes sense. Upon leaving Clinton leaving the White House did anyone expect what they'd get for 8 years? No one did. So yeah. Feel free to call the candidates garbage and so on. But very much like the good leaders of the past. If you don't have the people on your side, there isn't much you can get away with. And I say that as a nod to the Presidents from 1932-2008. As well as some other historical figures, one being Fidel Castro. Pretty much the only one that made Communism work. Also, let it be known that I'm not really arguing with you. I'm not in the mood to waste anymore bone marrow E-Arguing.

There isn't much of an argument here. I'm glad to see you said what you said without giving immunities to anyone on either side of the spectrum. Only thing that bothers me is people seemed so disillusioned by his celebrity that they truly don't know what they're in for and I think if some people would take one or two hours out their day to investigate what he's supported as a senator and take a closer look at his policies they could at least be more level headed. It's year 2008, there is no need to run to the library or go out and get a news paper, if you're reading this you can stay sitting on your ass and research the motives and initial agenda this new leader is going to put in place for this counrty. And when people see what the true change is I hope it moves them in some way.

[Mast3rMind]

At 11/7/08 12:02 PM, JackTipper wrote: And when people see what the true change is I hope it moves them in some way.

Ha ha ha. I'm not laughing at you by the way. It just reminded me of an old saying. "Ignorance is bliss" It rings true. Hear me out on this one, because it falls on deaf ears from President to President and also falls under the category of "Can't please everybody." Under Clinton, Minorities were happy, while rich people and those were in the army were constantly pissed off at Clinton. Especially how he fucked up big time with the "Black Hawk Down" situation and wasn't giving them aid like Reagan did. People were either too happy or pissed off at the President to see from either spectrum what Clinton was doing. And when I say that, I mean everything from both sides.

The same goes under Bush's Adminstration to a certain degree. I've had friends that served wars dating back to the Korean War to these two. I know I'm 21, but I got a lot of friends that have served throughout the ages. Honestly I don't know how they see Bush, because with these it's a mixed bag when it comes to soldiers this time. Minorities are pissed off this time, but not many are willing to actually see everything for what it is. While only the rich are prospering and getting bailed out. No one on either side is seeing everything unless they look into it.

So all in all. Ignorance is bliss, and there is many facets of it. Agree?

[MortifiedPenguins]

If it makes you feel any better at all Cuppa Lettuce Nog, this may be the death toll to the Neo Conservative Movement within the Republican party.
While you will still have your social conservatives, I do not believe, that after this campaign in particular, will you have any strong leadership towards that faction.

Right now the Republican party is split in it's ideals between a bunch of groups. You have Ron Paul's more isolationist, liberterian classical liberal view, Mitt Romney's more traditional business orientated Republican view (which I support in my own right) and the remnants of of the social conservatives and neo cons which I feel will collapse or intergrate within something extreme.

My only optimism is that we have a more traditional Republican party show back up. Not a Reagan and Bush Republican party, but a Eisenhower and Roosevelt party. Back to the concerns of Business.

[The-Wolfe]

Barack Obama is a SOCIALIST. Mcain isn't any better. People, both democratic and republican parties will only put forth canidates who will serve the party's purpose. There is absolutely no way to stop such an occurance in a government this big. There is no way for a leader to accurately serve the purpose of his people when he leads some 400 million people. It just cant happen. the only way we could possibly have a leader who serves the purpose of his people is to revert back to some system similar to tribal leadership, where everyone personaly knows the leader, and the leader personaly knows all of his own people and therefore can accurately judge what is best for them. The very size of our government promises to keep it corrupt and problematic for its people. All I can say is I honestly hope that all the 2012 doomsayers are correct, and humanity as a whole is put back in the stonage where it belongs, and where we cannot overpopulate and distroy the world around us.

[JackTipper]

Mast3rmind - Agreed.

[AbstractVagabond]

At 11/7/08 02:28 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Throughout the elections, after I became convinced Ron Paul was done, I begain rallying effortlessly for John McCain.

Facepalm.

That's like leaving Sweet-N-Low for cyanide. Yikes!

Was your call. I'm just saying.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/8/08 01:11 AM, AbstractVagabond wrote:

That's like leaving Sweet-N-Low for cyanide. Yikes!
Was your call. I'm just saying.

It's like getting a diet coke when the waiter informs you they don't have any regular cola that day.

I still would have voted Ron Paul if I was able to vote, but I rallied for McCain in terms of the realistic options.

[marchohare]

At 11/8/08 01:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: It's like getting a diet coke when the waiter informs you they don't have any regular cola that day.

Not quite. McCain's pro-life stance is the antithesis of what Dr. Paul stands for, as is his position on the War On (some) Drugs.

We don't know Obama's position on the latter, or at least I don't. If it ever came up during this election, I didn't hear about it. Funny, that. In 1980, that's all you heard. It was a cornerstone of Ronald Reagan's campaign, and G.H.W. Bush's after him. Clinton scarcely mentioned it (except to say he'd tried pot but didn't inhale--then he increased Drug War spending to several times over Bush One's ridiculous level). G.W. Bush didn't say much about it either. I don't know Obama's position, and I probably don't want to know.

Sadly, I'm sure Obama will continue to flush money down the Drug War toilet, however... that is, if the country can afford it. He might end up being the President who takes a chunk out of it, not because he opposes it, but because we can't afford it.

* * *

I do not consider mainstream Republican politicians my friends. They talk small government, but what they deliver is a bloated elephant... especially when it comes to intruding into people's private decisions. Republicans only mean "small" when it comes to interfering with rape by the uber-uber-rich. In every other respect they are for HUGE government. Both mainstream parties are.

* * *

I have less of a problem with policies designed to benefit the poor than I do with the LACK of sensible policies designed to limit the power of the uber-uber-rich (who are no longer American even if they are American citizens; they're Globalists). The economy is now coming apart at the seams largely due to a lack of such policy.

* * *

Like Cuppa, I identify myself as a Libertarian, but I'm more left-of-center than he is. I don't believe individuals and small businesses need to be regulated much, but I do believe in checks on unlimited power and wealth. I'm not talking about your ordinary Joe who makes a couple of million a year; I'm talking about Globalists worth billions and billions. They're wagging the dog.

I am not a "hate the rich" guy. You might feel jealous of the guy who makes seven figures a year, but he's in the same boat you are. When the economy comes apart (as it shows every sign of doing: notice the lack of a post-election markey rally), Joe the Fabulously Wealthy Plumber will be in the same shape you're in. He'll just have farther to fall, and when he does, he'll be one of the biggest Socialists on the planet.

But the uber-uber-rich, the Globalists, already have Socialism. See the 850 Billion Dollar Bailout for one sterling example.

* * *

Bad businesses should be allowed to fail. A depression might result, but that's going to happen anyway. The only difference now is that those On Top Of The Heap will be able to weather the storm. The rest of us are shit out of luck.

* * *

I didn't vote for Obama either. I didn't vote at all. With the exception of Dr. Paul, who never stood a snowball's chance in hell, there was nobody standing on the playing field worthy of my support.

But I was sort of glad Obama won, mostly because it was a middle finger in the face of business-as-usual.

That said, I still suspect he's just another Sold-Out Whore. I don't listen to what politicians say, I watch where they get their campaign financing.

In that regard, this election gave us no choice at all.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 11/8/08 05:28 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/8/08 01:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: It's like getting a diet coke when the waiter informs you they don't have any regular cola that day.

Not quite. McCain's pro-life stance is the antithesis of what Dr. Paul stands for, as is his position on the War On (some) Drugs.

Except Ron Paul is "strongly pro-life".

We don't know Obama's position on the latter, or at least I don't. If it ever came up during this election, I didn't hear about it.

True, it didn't come up much at all. People were mostly concerned with other things like the economy and the war in Iraq. This is an important issue to me, and I would've liked to have heard some more about Obama's stance on it, but overall, he's infinitely better on drug issues than McCain.

Here are some videos of him talking about drug policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGzHgcrK7 5c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYss wI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8U eA

Here's some from McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAlH1oZ0N fU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTcC6Ypky -Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3PndjzQ-
Qk

[marchohare]

At 11/8/08 07:05 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Except Ron Paul is "strongly pro-life".

He is, but only as a personal, philosophical matter and regarding Roe v. Wade. Incidentally, I'm Pro-Choice, but I agree with Dr. Paul about Roe. It's un-Constitutional. It should be abolished, and a Constitutional protection applied if such is the Will o' the Pee-pull. Stare decisis doesn't cut it. The concept of the superprecedent is idiotic. It's just a fancy way of saying the mistakes of yesterday should be preserved for tomorrow. It sucks.

Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter up to the States. Any state stupid enough to ban abortion can deal with the consequences of its decision. If we, as a country, believe that the right to an abortion is so fundamental that the federal government should prohibit the States from banning it, that should be dealt with as a new Constitutional Amendment.

Personally, I'd favor a "Hands off my Body / Hands off my Property / Hands off my Spiritual Faith" Amendment in general, but you'd never get the current flock of bleating sheeple (God bless their black, flabby little hearts) to ratify one.

In the future, once we've realized that Big Government tinkering with private decisions (abortion, drug use, prostitution, marriage choice, etc.) is in violation of the Separation of Church and State... maybe.

It is, you know. Furthermore, it's expensive, ineffective, and stupid.