It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama or Clinton, its not your choice.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:03 AM
Yes, it’s that season again...

No, not hunting season... not anti-Muslim/fear mongering terroristic event season again.. Hell its not even anti-bush hysteria season..

Yes, its elections.

That time of year again where the politicians concede to baby kissing, releasing unrealistic policies, even down right bribery as to convince you they are the best man for the job.

So, being patriotic Americans, you will hit the polls. Not voting for whom you believe to be the best, but for whom you believe to be the 'least-worse'

At least that’s how it used to be.

At the turn of the millennia, we as members of the free west noticed a change in American voting. Your vote didn’t seem to matter any more, infact it appeared as if the presidential candidates were no longer selected through primaries but through the thumbs up of those pesky, fancy, dancy Neo-Conservatives.

So in opening the paper today, during my lunch break I read an article on Obama, and realised.. The turn of election methods at 2000 have come a long way. Things have changed dramatically.

The candidates are no longer lobbying for your vote, they are driving the election bus towards the neo'cons.. Hoping for their green light

Point in note, Obama's comments on Pakistan

There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qa'eda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"


That’s pretty tough talk, especially when you’re trying to convince the war-weary American public you’re the right man for the job, to end the blood shed.

So, what does he say about Iran?

Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.
The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said.

American public opinion polls show that vast majority of the American public DO NOT Support military action against Iran.
So it beggars belief as to why he'd take this path, knowing his public support would drop due to it?


So what about Hillary?
Surely a lady, a woman, a bringer of life would hold some compassion and integrity when dealing with the lives of another human being?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations,"


NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."


Crap, she's even more of a war mongerer then her running foe....
I mean after all, she has been dubbed:

Hillary Clinton, War Goddess
She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran


I am at a loss..

Why rally for public votes, when you’re preaching acts the public clearly don’t want?

They arent debating for you, they are debating for the neo'cons thumbs up.

""Who's more insane, with more brains than bush and capable of convincing the public into following us into our for-told endeavour through the oilfields of the Middle East?"" they must be asking...
Surely Clinton and Obama know the reality behind the government selection process.... this would explain the offensive election techniques.
Why rally your public for support, by promoting WAR?

McCain lost all his credibility '' bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Errran ''
It was just too obvious.....

Who's got more credibility in the public’s eye?

A women baring the name of one of the greatest presidents, who's been dubbed

War Goddess

Or a nice, grassroots Black man, who preaches his civilian qualities and his -in touch- with the people perspective

Who do the neo-cons believe would best suit their interests out of these two people. Both clearly are debating action is needed, the public dont want action, the neo-cons do.

Sorry America, your destiny has been written. voting, is useless.. 8yrs went by and not one serious accusation was publically aired about President bush being handed an election he lost.
Its paved the way for the president to be appointed and not selected.

Mein Fuhrer, cominzee here!

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:06 AM
Jesus, its all coming true. Hillary will win the election, this "playing down by the Bush administration" over the threat of Iran seems premeditated, all the while Hillary talks of war with Iran. How perfectly covert

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:18 AM

This person could soon be the most powerful leader in the free world.

God help us all

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 01:31 AM
^^^ That is Priceless!

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:49 AM
Let's get out and vote!
Let's make our voices heard.
We've been given the right to choose,
between a douche and a turd.
It’s democracy in action!
Put your freedom to the test.
A big fat turd or a stupid douche,
which do you like best?
(The above is from an episode of South Park)

So which do you like better??

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:54 AM
Sometimes I wonder if we are choosing not a president, but a CEO of the major corporate interests that seek to infiltrate the highest levels of government to suit their greedy needs.

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 04:18 AM
It has been my experience that women, are in fact the devil.

So I am not so sure about that "giver of life" and "nurturer" you put in there about hilary. I honestly think that women's rights will go out the door as soon as we get a woman president..........i mean seriously, have you ever been around 2 women that live together? Sheesh hahahah

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 04:38 AM
Great post Agit8dChop!

The whole election/campaigning thing has gotten pretty ridiculous, since I started really following politics in the early 90's. The campaigning politicians are not even talking about what is best according to the American public. It is not like they are even trying to get our vote anymore. Most of them just to be running an agenda and preaching towards the big business funders of their campaigns. After all, you can't win an election anymore without enormous amounts of money to grease the wheels.

The saddest thing is the media push for the front runners with the biggest cash stash. It saddens me to here people saying they won't vote for the politician they agree the most with, because the media tells them it is a "wasted vote." There supposedly are no wasted votes in a democracy!

Anyway, I think the first step would be complete campaign finance reform. With free and equal air time for every candidate. Of course, that will probably never happen. The whole system is pretty broke.

The most important thing is voting in the primaries.

I wish there was someway Ron Paul or Mike Gravel could get the nods, but we all know the system doesn't want that. I wouldn't even mind John Edwards, who actually said the other day that the Bush government was completely run by corporate interests, such as big oil and big pharma.

I still think this election will probably be an interesting one, even if it's rigged. Just having politicians speaking out about the real wrongs of government is good enough for now.

If I were running I would pander to big business, enough to get financed and possibly elected. Then once elected, they would not be allowed in my White House. I wonder if any of the candidates are actually doing just that?

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:15 AM
Its the american way after all, the system you got is the one that represents you as a people. What does it say about the people in america, if it represents you all.

Yep threadstarter you are right as we all know, non of the usa population has any choice in this except those who have the money. For me obama talking out of his ar*e, there is no way he would be able to do all the stuff he is promising. Just go along and vote for hillary, she after all has been there before, and your country needs people like this to lead you.

You have to remember that we do not use our brains, and they do(thats what they say anyway). How arrogant is that, but arrogance is the american way.

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:53 AM
If ultimately, you only get to choose between TWO parties, its never been much of a vote anyway. I stopped caring long ago, because for me a proper CHOICE would be to have a list of 20 people of all types of political flavours and variations and then get to choose whos my no.1 and no.2. THAT would be a choice. I hope more and more people see that the choice of TWO is not really much of a choice.

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by BlackOps719

This person could soon be the most powerful leader in the free world.
God help us all

You mean instead of this one?

Before you suggest what either of the candidates "might" do, remember what this imbecile has done. Most candidates say whatever they want before the election. We all know they never keep their word. So perhaps they are just pandering, but I would take ANYBODY over Bush.

God help us all indeed.


[edit on 3-8-2007 by kinda kurious]

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 07:50 AM
I'm at that point where if Barack Obama or Ron Paul don't win the upcoming election, I'll have to seriously think about leaving this country. While I believe this country has the utmost power to become the country the founding fathers originally intended, it never came to pass. It wasn't meant to be.

If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. - George Washington

The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. - George Washington

Security over our freedoms. What's sad is that people are falling for it just as predicted.

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Donoso
I'm at that point where if Barack Obama or Ron Paul don't win the upcoming election, I'll have to seriously think about leaving this country.

Security over our freedoms. What's sad is that people are falling for it just as predicted.

I am with you Donoso. Although I add Dennis Kucinich to the list. I used to be a flag-waving, only buy American cars, our-country-right-or-wrong citizen. Now I question the America we have become. I just found this interesting read.

The number of U.S. citizens who moved to Canada last year hit a 30-year high, with a 20 percent increase over the previous year and almost double the number who moved in 2000.

We had better put on our Flame Proof Suits. The Rush Limbaugh radio show is almost over the the neo-cons will be checking their favorites on ATS. I can hear them now...something about a door hitting us in......


posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 05:23 PM
LOL....good stuff KK....but I dislike Bush almost as much as I do Hilliary. She is the only candidate that I could potentially see being WORSE than W. and that in my mind is terrifying.

Thie two pictures show that great minds think and act alike...haha

RON PAUL in 2008!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 08:40 PM
I think this week more or less ended any chance that Obama will be nominated. He's made so many foreign policy faux pas, from the meeting with despots comment, then the invasion of Pakistan comment, then his total flub over nuclear weapons.

His campaign is effectively dead at this point IMO.


posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:54 PM
Most democrats I have encountered in person really dislike hillary. They also feel like Obama is unelectable and most of them really like Ron Paul. Add them in with all the independents, real conservatives, and libertarians that are backing Paul all over the country.

I hope americans make a statement and vote out alot of politicans in 08 be it republican or democrat. They should also rally behind Ron Paul. Who would want another globalist CFR president anyways? We don't have much to choose from, all of the candidates are globalist open borders CFR members except for a few.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by ape]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:51 AM
What does Ron Paul have to say? Is he the only one against the neo-cons?

new topics


log in