Quote from Obama's 2007 bait & hook Campaigning rhetoric: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ

Now is this really the kinda of spineless sycophantic propaganda poster boy that really understands how to run a country I mean he has a background in Wall Street nothing more.

At 10/10/12 09:39 AM, 24901miles wrote:

I've never seen a person who knew so little about politics, the major players, and yet had this much to say about them.

Why try and back up a lying war monger and Wall Street man heck he could be a murder and you would still justify his actions. People that have the ability to create solutions in society include engineers, tradesmen, architects, scientists, mathematicians, properly trained teachers & Philosophers, etc. Politics try and keep things archaic and subservient to the ruling monarchy.

At 10/10/12 10:16 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Why try and back up a lying war monger and Wall Street man heck he could be a murder and you would still justify his actions. People that have the ability to create solutions in society include engineers, tradesmen, architects, scientists, mathematicians, properly trained teachers & Philosophers, etc. Politics try and keep things archaic and subservient to the ruling monarchy.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Obama a professor? A professor is essentially a teacher at a more advanced level.

At 10/10/12 11:26 AM, JoS wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Obama a professor? A professor is essentially a teacher at a more advanced level.

Obama is a Lawyer by profession and also has strong ties to wall street.

At 10/10/12 11:35 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/10/12 11:26 AM, JoS wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Obama a professor? A professor is essentially a teacher at a more advanced level.

Obama is a Lawyer by profession and also has strong ties to wall street.

He was a professor of Constitutional law before he joined a law firm. When he was a lawyer he practiced civil rights law.

At 10/10/12 09:39 AM, 24901miles wrote:

Oh, wow. Obama has a background in Wall Street? He shouldn't be in power because he promised to end the wars?

That's not the point the point is you have a Dictator for a 4 year reign. When the dictator or will call him the "figure head" to be more sensitive to the sheep lye's about the things they will do when they are in power and tell the people want they want to here just to get into power that is a big suckin problem if they do not follow through because a fraud can do allot of damage in 4 years and there is not a dam thing you or anyone can do about it.

At 10/10/12 01:56 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 10/10/12 12:01 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/10/12 09:39 AM, 24901miles wrote:

Oh, wow. Obama has a background in Wall Street? He shouldn't be in power because he promised to end the wars?

That's not the point the point is you have a Dictator for a 4 year reign. When the dictator or will call him the "figure head" to be more sensitive to the sheep lye's about the things they will do when they are in power and tell the people want they want to here just to get into power that is a big suckin problem if they do not follow through because a fraud can do allot of damage in 4 years and there is not a dam thing you or anyone can do about it.

We don't live in Super Fairy Mystically Ideal Candyland

That the best you've got to come up with in response to your preferred system of lying Dictatorship for 4 year terms. The system you are sticking up for is not infallible like you claim.

At 10/10/12 02:06 PM, 24901miles wrote:

I didn't say it's infallible, but it's better than anything you could come up with.

It's not about ONE person or ONE dictator regime it is about creating a new system from the roots for the people by the people.

At 10/10/12 02:46 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's not about ONE person or ONE dictator regime it is about creating a new system from the roots for the people by the people.

Because that plan has worked so well everywhere it's been tried for the last hundred years.

Democracy doesn't work.

You know I was a skeptic of leanlifter at first, but his constant dodging of people's arguments and constant elitism has convinced me. We really do live in a fascist society where the government can tax people and the president sends soldiers to war. We should start a revolution by not voting at all because it will send a message to ELECTED officials that they should do a better job if they want the vote of people who won't vote.

At 10/11/12 12:15 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/10/12 03:54 PM, stonecold-basilisk wrote: Democracy doesn't work.

Which is why we tend to prefer a Republic.

But we sure as hell don't want a combination of both. North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! That's all the proof you need!

At 10/11/12 12:20 AM, Feoric wrote:

But we sure as hell don't want a combination of both. North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! That's all the proof you need!

Just because they call themselves a Democratic Republic, it doesn't make them one.

By the same token, I could call myself a porn star, but that won't make my phone ring from a barrage of porn producers with job offers.

At 10/10/12 09:36 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Quote from Obama's 2007 bait & hook Campaigning rhetoric: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.

Now is this really the kinda of spineless sycophantic propaganda poster boy that really understands how to run a country I mean he has a background in Wall Street nothing more.

First thing he promised to bring troops back home was the first promise he broke, again this is one of the big reasons why our current President shouldn't be re-elected, broken promises bring corruption to one's inner self.

The bigger the promise broken the greater the inner corruption will become, yet some people still even to this day still unwilling to listen to reason, and I also bet some people don't even realize they are voting for someone who's fallen into a state of inner corruption itself.

I say again and again and again, our current President of 2008 is only meant to be a one-term President, nothing more and nothing less, those who read this might as well spread the word if not already, those who read this message who haven't already MUST come to realize how corrupt our current President of 2008 really is, those who haven't already MUST consider the idea of voiding there votes to our current President of 2008 and those who fund him like "George Soros" have sheer intent to bring this nation down, people like George Soros and our current President of 2008 aren't to be trusted.

At 10/11/12 01:08 AM, TucoM wrote:

At 10/11/12 12:20 AM, Feoric wrote:

But we sure as hell don't want a combination of both. North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! That's all the proof you need!

Just because they call themselves a Democratic Republic, it doesn't make them one.

I thought it was obvious that I was joking.

At 10/11/12 04:23 AM, Feoric wrote:

I thought it was obvious that I was joking.

Parody sometimes loses it's punch on the net.

At 10/10/12 03:47 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 10/10/12 02:46 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's not about ONE person or ONE dictator regime it is about creating a new system from the roots for the people by the people.

Because that plan has worked so well everywhere it's been tried for the last hundred years.

It hasn't as Humans have been farmed and slaved but just under the illusion of freedom for the illusion creates better productivity and more profit for our slave farmers/masters and global elite. In others words we have never EVER seen a world or even a simple country run for the people by the people.

At 10/10/12 11:14 PM, Warforger wrote: You know I was a skeptic of leanlifter at first, but his constant dodging of people's arguments and constant elitism has convinced me. We really do live in a fascist society where the government can tax people and the president sends soldiers to war. We should start a revolution by not voting at all because it will send a message to ELECTED officials that they should do a better job if they want the vote of people who won't vote.

Precisely as voting is rewarding the system and if you do not agree with some core foundations of the system you are voting for then you must withhold your vote and voice your opinion on the things that went wrong, the broken promises, the false unjust wars etc ... and what they need to do in order to EARN your vote back.

At 10/11/12 08:37 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Precisely as voting is rewarding the system and if you do not agree with some core foundations of the system you are voting for then you must withhold your vote and voice your opinion on the things that went wrong, the broken promises, the false unjust wars etc ... and what they need to do in order to EARN your vote back.

You do realize that politicians won't give a shit if you don't vote right? In fact many politicians particularly Republicans try to keep people from voting.

Also you do realize I was being sarcastic right? Taxes and armies are characteristics of all governments, not just Fascists.

At 10/11/12 07:24 PM, Warforger wrote:

You do realize that politicians won't give a shit if you don't vote right? In fact many politicians particularly Republicans try to keep people from voting.

Just because you might not mind letting your bussy get diddled by your favorite politicians does not mean actively withholding your vote is a bad idea until they clean up there collective act.

At 10/11/12 09:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/11/12 07:24 PM, Warforger wrote:

You do realize that politicians won't give a shit if you don't vote right? In fact many politicians particularly Republicans try to keep people from voting.

Just because you might not mind letting your bussy get diddled by your favorite politicians does not mean actively withholding your vote is a bad idea until they clean up there collective act.

Boycotting the vote isn't going to help. They'll write it off as apathy instead of protest.

At 10/11/12 07:24 PM, Warforger wrote:

You do realize that politicians won't give a shit if you don't vote right? In fact many politicians particularly Republicans try to keep people from voting.

Link?

At 10/11/12 09:18 PM, TucoM wrote:

Boycotting the vote isn't going to help. They'll write it off as apathy instead of protest.

People not voting is actually an expression of having no trust in the system. You could say that low voter turnout is as legitimate as high turnout as long as the right to vote exists but that is very highly dictatorship like and as well it is very pretentious. I choose not to vote and that is my right and I expect you to respect it just as I respect your right to vote.

At 10/11/12 09:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

People not voting is actually an expression of having no trust in the system.

That is.........a good description of one reason behind voter apathy.

:You could say that low voter turnout is as legitimate as high turnout as long as the right to vote exists but that is very highly dictatorship like and as well it is very pretentious. I choose not to vote and that is my right and I expect you to respect it just as I respect your right to vote.

I'm not telling you whether or not you should vote. Your choice on the matter is just that......your choice. All I'm saying is that boycotting elections will be seen by the powers that be as mere voter apathy. Your first sentence in your post says exactly that.

Real radical changes in our system may require armed revolution........and that's a big can of worms that might best be left unopened.

At 10/10/12 01:56 PM, 24901miles wrote: We don't live in Super Fairy Mystically Ideal Candyland wherein a politician saying "I will end the war in _____ which has been going on for 6 years" means he that the day he enters into elected office, he can drain the military budget to transport thousands of people and military equipment back to the United States before completing certain military tasks, against the better knowledge and experience of the paid military professionals and world community, magically not resulting in an angry and militant population in that nation, an enormous domestic unemployment rate, and magical candy apples of happiness and success will rain down from heaven for everyone involved.

We live in the real world. Here, enough policy makers, military personnel, ambassadors, and voting adults who have all sorts of positions in the economy have a say in the way the government works, but none of them has singular control over the entire nation. The President isn't the entire brains of the operation, that's a shared responsibility of thousands of people, and the millions of people who put them into power.

And as the US Military leaves a country, it creates a vacuum into which another power will enter. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, that will be the Al Qaeda.

And guess what? Everyone has ties to Wall Street. Wall Street decides where private capital is to be invested, and Politicians are actually a type of investment.

Pretty much all of this but less sarcastically. Who really cares if hes been in wall street or has been a professor, he isnt now and it has no effect on what he is now. He cant magically fix everything so stop pretending he can. It will take years to pull out of the war and hes got everything rolling so theres no anything critisize about it. The president doesnt control everything as some people assume, so you should look it up on wikipedia OP. And whats all this dictator crap you are spouting?

At 10/12/12 12:56 AM, TucoM wrote:

At 10/11/12 09:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

People not voting is actually an expression of having no trust in the system.

That is.........a good description of one reason behind voter apathy.

You say apathy but that is not the right word at all as a choice to not vote took at leased as much thought but more than likely more than the choice to vote. Trust and as you say apathy are very different. There are many people who could give a dam about politics because they are to busy living and enjoying life and to you that is apathy which is a complete false statement. To loose trust in the system means one is actually thinking and using there brain functions therefore not voting is contrary to apathy.

You could say that low voter turnout is as legitimate as high turnout as long as the right to vote exists but that is very highly dictatorship like and as well it is very pretentious. I choose not to vote and that is my right and I expect you to respect it just as I respect your right to vote.

I'm not telling you whether or not you should vote. Your choice on the matter is just that......your choice. All I'm saying is that boycotting elections will be seen by the powers that be as mere voter apathy. Your first sentence in your post says exactly that.

As I said trust and apathy are very very different words so please look up the meanings. Just by you saying that they will see low voter turnout as apathy which is an erroneous statement to begin with should be enough for you to see how corrupt it goes. We have never even had "high" voter turnout as most of the population due to an array of reasons cannot vote ether bylaw or otherwise so what is left is a bunch of mindless sheep who only do what they are told and a bunch of crazy gun toting pro military, religious, fascists turning out to vote to do there part to usher in the "fascist utopia".

Real radical changes in our system may require armed revolution........and that's a big can of worms that might best be left unopened.

I believe in the non-aggression principle as it is one that can not be argued against without admitting that you condone the initiation of violence. An eye for an eye leave's "US" all blind.

At 10/11/12 09:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/11/12 07:24 PM, Warforger wrote:

You do realize that politicians won't give a shit if you don't vote right? In fact many politicians particularly Republicans try to keep people from voting.

Just because you might not mind letting your bussy get diddled by your favorite politicians does not mean actively withholding your vote is a bad idea until they clean up there collective act.

How does that change anything? If you don't vote then politicians will still win elections and all it does is get the government to concentrate on less people. If you don't vote they don't have a reason to care about you, all they have to do is go after people who will. If say the President is elected but only 10 people show up to vote, that doesn't mean that the President is going to give a shit it just means that he's going to have to appease those 10 people more. He's not going to care if voter turnout is higher because it doesn't matter.

To Everybody who doesn't like Obama in power: let's all go back to anarchy. You start.

At 10/12/12 07:47 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: To Everybody who doesn't like Obama in power: let's all go back to anarchy. You start.

What ?

At 10/12/12 07:47 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: To Everybody who doesn't like Obama in power: let's all go back to anarchy. You start.

The fuck are you talking about?