[Jim Kirk]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Obama - the others are all a joke - including Cain. Its either the Bonnano's or the Gambino's

The socialist documentary film maker John Pilger gave a speech to some 'workers of the world' group where he claimed that Obama was the fulfillment of Reagan/Bush/Klinton/and Bush Jr. and an act of political correctness par excellance - the Wall Street 'candidate' would be a Chicago bastard mullatto wanna be 'mack' raised all over the world with half brothers living in shacks from Indonesia to East Africa - who never did anything more than act the part of a third-rate community organizer - this is just the 'yang' to 'yin' Village idiot George W - the draft dodging idiot son of an oil oil family with a born again 'Christian' wife -

To a large extent - the President mirrors a very large chunk of the American population - Obama mirrors 60% of the public.

[Samseau]

(09-28-2011 11:12 PM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Obama - the others are all a joke - including Cain. Its either the Bonnano's or the Gambino's

I don't know if that's true, I'm not sure if Paul can take the primaries, but I do know for damn sure there isn't anyone else I'd ever consider voting for. If Paul doesn't win the primaries, I'm not even gonna vote.

[Jim Kirk]

I doubt Paul will get the nomination - if he does he would probably beat Obama. The ruling class in both parties would rather have Obama, or any clown really, get the Presidency as opposed to anyone with beliefs like Paul

[Pusscrook]

(09-28-2011 11:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-28-2011 11:12 PM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Obama - the others are all a joke - including Cain. Its either the Bonnano's or the Gambino's

I don't know if that's true, I'm not sure if Paul can take the primaries, but I do know for damn sure there isn't anyone else I'd ever consider voting for. If Paul doesn't win the primaries, I'm not even gonna vote.

Ill tell you who is responsible for Obama's demise. It's Nancy " my face is pulled back tighter than a crab's ass" Pelosi. That whore dragged Obama so far left, that he forgot that governing almost center-right is the political drum beat of the country. He became too much of a puppet for the far left, and I think with the things we are seeing now,proves that he has realized it. It may be too little too late. Time will tell.

[afronoob]

(09-27-2011 05:32 PM)El Rey Wrote:  

(09-27-2011 05:04 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

That will happen as soon as American girls stop wearing Ugg Boots and Flip-Flops.

No matter who gets in, (even if he has noble ideas) the elites will throw their hooks in the guy and he will be exactly like Bush. Or Obama.

Left and Right doesn't matter anymore (if it ever did). It's all about benefiting the elites- Wall Street, CEO's etc.

Was Bush conservative? No.

Was Obama liberal? No.

The both did (and do) things that benefit the rich. That's it.

Yep. American policy has pretty much been the same under each president starting with Reagan. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama - it's been deregulation, lower taxes for upper class, military and intelligence buildup and increased presence around the world, tax loopholes for corporations, wielding more power to the Fed, lobbyist and corporate influence taking over gov't, etc.

The Powers That Be just use stupid social issues (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, gun control, death penalty, etc.) to distract the average citizen from what's really going on. There is no such thing as an election anymore. It's just a selection now, as both candidates are vetted by The Powers That Be. That's why I rarely waste my time with politics bullshit or the news.

Hear! Hear! Reading this thread it appears you're all caught up in the smoke and mirrors of the 'electoral process:' the opinion polls,debates,caucuses,hot issues are as stage managed as WWE pro wrestling. The candidates themselves are cardboard characters mind controlled and/or secretly black mailed by the real powers behind the scene,call them what you will-those who really decide America's direction and bamboozle the voter with subliminal TV adverts.
Given the true nature of the entire political process, at the end of the day it doesn't matter who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania ave; Bush/Clinton/Obama or Donald the Duck. It matters not whether they're 'fiscal conservative'/'compassionate conservative'/'social liberal' or any other category created by their controllers.
The real issue is: will the prez do what is demanded by his handlers (controllers)?

[Dash Global]

(09-29-2011 12:31 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

The real issue is: will the prez do what is demanded by his handlers (controllers)?

This is a non issue also.

Ovcourse the pres will do the bidding of the powers that be.

You dont make it all the way to the White House without understanding how the game is played.

[afronoob]

(09-29-2011 07:07 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 12:31 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

The real issue is: will the prez do what is demanded by his handlers (controllers)?

This is a non issue also.

Ovcourse the pres will do the bidding of the powers that be.

You dont make it all the way to the White House without understanding how the game is played.

Then what's all the analysis and excitement about? Everything that has happened has been pre ordained-the sub prime mortgage crisis and the ensuing economic chaos were scripted in advance. Every white house occupant is part and parcel of the same system-Obama/Paul/Palin can no more roll back the economic meltdown than they can stop a train its tracks.
Which is why I seriously wonder whether forumers have an understanding how the game is played.
On the other hand if a genuine opposition candidate came in,not the tea party bullshitters, I'd sympathise with his aims.

[Dash Global]

(09-29-2011 07:28 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 07:07 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 12:31 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

The real issue is: will the prez do what is demanded by his handlers (controllers)?

This is a non issue also.

Ovcourse the pres will do the bidding of the powers that be.

You dont make it all the way to the White House without understanding how the game is played.

Then what's all the analysis and excitement about? Everything that has happened has been pre ordained-the sub prime mortgage crisis and the ensuing economic chaos were scripted in advance. Every white house occupant is part and parcel of the same system-Obama/Paul/Palin can no more roll back the economic meltdown than they can stop a train its tracks.
Which is why I seriously wonder whether forumers have an understanding how the game is played.
On the other hand if a genuine opposition candidate came in,not the tea party bullshitters, I'd sympathise with his aims.

Most people dont understand how the game works. Hence all the analyses and excitement.

I dont give a fug about the election for the most part.

Like i pointed out in this thread the only things that matter are a few social issues the elite powers that be could give a rats ass about. Stuff like gay marriage, abortion, gun laws, ect.

[portofmanteau]

(09-27-2011 12:46 AM)mycleverid Wrote:  

I've long respected the way the GOP fights for the little stuff. Country seats that control voter rolls. Redistricting. Procedures to control votes in Congress.

This is dead on - the Republicans have had this game on lockdown for 20 years now, a well-oiled machine, despite Dems' superior numbers in the overall electorate. Pretty embarrassing if you're a southpaw.

[portofmanteau]

(09-28-2011 10:12 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

"There are a number of substantial issues where left and right make a serious difference. For example, tax cuts/hikes. A liberal will want to raise taxes(at least on the rich)"

Right, but Obama has never once raised taxes.

He has only extended Bush tax cuts.

He is not a liberal. He is a shill for the rich.

"and the right will want to slash taxes"

You should add: "only for the rich".

"And then there are a host of other things left and right disagree on such as what to do about climate change, whether we should be trading carbon credits, whether we legalize gay marriage, what is the role of government in health care, do we extend unemployment benefits, do we increase school spending, etc etc."

These issues are great to distract everyone while the elites get richer.

Bush and Obama are more or less the exact same.

Bush is a phony conservative and Obama is a phony liberal.

Spitting truth here - though if a politician does it, they get crucified. Phony conservatives cling to god, guns, and gays (or babies, or gay babies if they had a double dose of grits that morning), divisive, meaningless issues. Phony liberals cling to climate change, welfare, and, you guessed it, gays. These issues are admittedly just distractions for creeping corporatism - both parties suck at the teat of international finance.

[thegmanifesto]

"and G - as far as Christie not being a tough talker - he wasnt last night, but go to youtube and put in 'Chris Christie teachers union' and sit back and enjoy"

He might be a "tough talker", but I was expecting more of a "tough guy" as well.

Instead he seems like a fat sissy.

That is why I said earlier he needs a new image. Like smoking a cigar on stage.

[thegmanifesto]

As big a disappointment as Obama has been, you have to give the man credit for three things:

1. There has been no Terror attacks (and he has thwarted a few).

2. He got Bin Ladin.

3. He is from somewhere I would actually choose to go to (Chicago/Hawaii). Unlike all other candidates that are from crap places.

And don't go down the road that "he" himself didn't get Bin Ladin, or "he" himself didn't prevent terror attacks.

He would get the blame if things would have gone wrong on those fronts, so you have to give him credit if things go right.

[Brian]

Obama had about as much to do w/ catching Bin Laden as I did. They dragged him off the golf course, propped him up in the corner of the room, and took some pictures.

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-...n-laden/2/

[Basil Ransom]

(09-29-2011 09:43 AM)portofmanteau Wrote:  

Phony conservatives cling to god, guns, and gays (or babies, or gay babies if they had a double dose of grits that morning), divisive, meaningless issues. Phony liberals cling to climate change, welfare, and, you guessed it, gays. These issues are admittedly just distractions for creeping corporatism - both parties suck at the teat of international finance.

You call the liberals phony, but they simply don't care as much about economic egalitarianism any more. Liberalism has appointed new gods, and has little use for the old ones. First it was about economic equality. Then racial equality. Now it's sexual equality (i.e. feminism) and homosexual equality, plus environmentalism. Hell maybe Christie will lead the next wave, of fattie equality. It's never completely given up on any of these, but its priorities have definitely shifted.

To everyone here calling Obama a puppet: what exactly is it that you expect him to do? What would make him not a shill?

Has Obama moved the country to the left? Undoubtedly. Obamacare & the ending of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Two liberal Supreme Court Justices. The Stimulus bill. Bailing out GM.

[thegmanifesto]

(09-29-2011 11:19 AM)Brian Wrote:  

Obama had about as much to do w/ catching Bin Laden as I did. They dragged him off the golf course, propped him up in the corner of the room, and took some pictures.

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-...n-laden/2/

Right.

That is why I said:

(09-29-2011 11:09 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

And don't go down the road that "he" himself didn't get Bin Ladin, or "he" himself didn't prevent terror attacks.

He would get the blame if things would have gone wrong on those fronts, so you have to give him credit if things go right.

Above.

[speakeasy]

(09-29-2011 11:19 AM)Brian Wrote:  

Obama had about as much to do w/ catching Bin Laden as I did. They dragged him off the golf course, propped him up in the corner of the room, and took some pictures.

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-...n-laden/2/

So when something bad happens under the president's watch(such as the economy),it's his fault, but when something positive happens, the president deserves no credit for it. Interesting how that logic works.

And I take anonymous "insider" sources with a grain of salt. If someone won't sign their name to their claims(so they can be held accountable for veracity), why should I jump to believe it?

[Brian]

you're free to believe whatever you want. but if you think Obama, who has spent his life with socialist mentors, rally poor blacks, giving speeches, and whatever else he has been doing had anything to do with a high level military operation that has been in the making for a long time you're welcome to. i dont.

[speakeasy]

(09-29-2011 01:56 PM)Brian Wrote:  

you're free to believe whatever you want. but if you think Obama, who has spent his life with socialist mentors, rally poor blacks, giving speeches, and whatever else he has been doing had anything to do with a high level military operation that has been in the making for a long time you're welcome to. i dont.

Uhh...he is commander in chief by default. You know that right? After all the guy has the nuclear codes and the red button.

I've heard people call both Bush and Obama "murderers". Or Bush personally blamed for Abu Graib even though Bush didn't order anyone to do what they did and he had no personal involvement in it. Yet since he was commander in chief, he got the blame for it nonetheless. So if Bin Ladin is captured, why doesn't the commander in chief get the credit for it? You can't have it both ways.

[Pusscrook]

(09-29-2011 02:01 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 01:56 PM)Brian Wrote:  

you're free to believe whatever you want. but if you think Obama, who has spent his life with socialist mentors, rally poor blacks, giving speeches, and whatever else he has been doing had anything to do with a high level military operation that has been in the making for a long time you're welcome to. i dont.

Uhh...he is commander in chief by default. You know that right? After all the guy has the nuclear codes and the red button.

Speak,

At some point you have to ignore some of the things you read/hear, and not waste too much time on trying to convince people who have already made up their minds, or those who enjoy antagonizing someone with opposing views. Shake the dust off your feet, go to another house, and enjoy a healthy debate and some wine.

[Brian]

(09-29-2011 02:01 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-29-2011 01:56 PM)Brian Wrote:  

you're free to believe whatever you want. but if you think Obama, who has spent his life with socialist mentors, rally poor blacks, giving speeches, and whatever else he has been doing had anything to do with a high level military operation that has been in the making for a long time you're welcome to. i dont.

Uhh...he is commander in chief by default. You know that right? After all the guy has the nuclear codes and the red button.

I've heard people call both Bush and Obama "murderers". Or Bush personally blamed for Abu Graib even though Bush didn't order anyone to do what they did and he had no personal involvement in it. Yet since he was commander in chief, he got the blame for it nonetheless. So if Bin Ladin is captured, why doesn't the commander in chief get the credit for it? You can't have it both ways.

how am i having it both ways? i wasnt blaming him and i'm not crediting him

[Caramel Communist]

LoL at the Obama ate my homework thread.. Funny how in the land of personally accountability everybody wants to blame the president....If ppl actually knew how the levers are pulled they wouldn't even bring this guys name up...I highly recommend going to youtube and entering "how a bill gets made"...very informative.

Your beef is with congress not having a strategic direction...not presidents, not china, not the treasury...all the ppl continue to vote for politicians because their name sounds "familiar" or they made the opponent look "scary" instead of actually demanding they lay out their plans in detail are getting what they deserve...sorry but america is getting it's just desserts and the world see's it and laughs...

[Pusscrook]

(09-29-2011 05:04 PM)Caramel Communist Wrote:  

Your beef is with congress not having a strategic direction...not presidents, not china, not the treasury...

Caramel,

This is an accurate and time tested statement. Congress controls the purse strings , and it reduces the President's power to get anything done that may be meaningful. When the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, why didn't they focus on the economy? As I said before, Obama's demise is squarely because Nancy " my face is pulled back tighter than a crab's ass " Pelosi, lead him around with hooks in his nostrils.This has always been a center-right country politically, and she leaned on him so hard to the left, that he couldn't turn to the center even when he tried. Clinton learned that after the government shut down with Gingrich. Reagan learned how to work with Tip O'neal. Working with Pelosi, a liberal , from the same party ,who helped you get elected, made him vulnerable and loyal to a fault

[oldnemesis]

(09-28-2011 05:57 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

These rich people are exactly the ones who want more taxes. In 2008, Obama got more votes from the richest households than McCain did.

Well, I'm one of those who are considered "rich" by Obama, and have quite a few friends who are too. None of us wanted more taxes.

[Giovonny]

Its gonna be close. Assuming the Republicans don't pick some short, ugly guy. I think Perry has a shot, the Mormon is great but I don't think America will elect a Mormon, I keep hearing about Ron Paul but I haven't seen him.

Lots of time, alot can happen. Gonna be interesting.

[kerouac]

My money is on Obama unless Romney wins the primary, then it's going to be a close call. Otherwise, Perry acts too extreme for most Americans, and he doesn't have the center's support since we're not being fed the war propaganda like we were under GW. Bachmann is too extreme for the majority. Ron Paul is too libertarian for the majority. Obama it is. I see Obama vs Romney with Giuliani, Bachmann, or Trump as VP, although I doubt Trump would give up his position in private life for a VP title.