Voting Disinformation Must Read!!

I was watching Neil Cavuto interview Clint Eastwood today and Clint said something that made me think and that is "if your man drops out you shouldnt not vote because your man didnt make it"

So I say to myself this is the same thing that the media and government and all the pundits say if your person doesnt make it vote the party. Why is this? Why do I have to vote for someone that I disagree with just because he is in the same party as my candidate. Why should I give a blank check to candidate because he is republican or democrat?

Now Im going somewhere with this cause I believe this is a big disinformation campaign and Ill explain why.

A lot of people out there including myself think that the elites choose our president that they are not elected they are allowed. If you dont believe that premice then you will not agree with this at all. So as I continue so once these rigged primaries weed down the candidates the the best in republican and best in democratic party you should just vote for them because they are in your party. They do this because it give the feeling to people like their vote made a difference that we as a people vote for who should be president that way we cant question the fact that these are already preset.

By the way just for full disclosure so people dont think that Im saying this cause Im mad about Romney dropping Im actually for Paul or Huckabee both who are still in the race. Why should I have to vote for McCain if I dont agree with crap that he says and if I think that he is a career politician and that there should be no such thing as a career politician.

So to close Im not going to vote for a candidate if mine drops out unless I like their policy. If I dont agree with anything they say they will not get my vote. I think if people voted on what they believe instead of because they are in a certain party it would send a message to people that the 2 party system does not work and does not get anything done. We should vote for people on ideas and policy not because they are republican or democrat.

I believe that you still can write down the name of the person you want for president even if he is not on the ballot.

The only problem is the voting machines, I have not clue how is done when is on an electronic machine.

I really do not like Hillary and she is the one that will end up in the democrats side, and McCain will be for republican I do not like him either.

So because I don't like the candidates should I sit at home and do not vote in the elections?

This makes no sense.

If you dont like any of the candidates why vote for someone just because they are in a certain party. So yeah in a sense that is what I am saying stay home. If you like democrats but like obama and not hillary should you vote for hillary if obama drops out?

I have been a conscientious non-voter for quite some time and for this very reason.

I am sick of people telling me that I should not complain about the way things are if I didn't bother to vote. This is nonsense. No matter who gets into office, we're all gonna pay the piper. Take immigration for example. Neither party is going to do anything about illegal immigration because it is the agenda of the NWO to create the NAU.

I have also heard it said that only people who bother to vote, bother to pay attention to what is actually going on. I beg to differ. Most people vote like they're rooting for their local ball team. The issues don't matter as long as their team wins.

Lastly, I would like to add the the two-party system is a sham. It gives the people the appearance of having a choice. Why is it that there is never a candidate that really stands for the things that you believe? Take gun control for example. The NWO has slated the Democrats to disarm the people, but when Republicans are in office, they let the people think that there is someone still looking out for their right to bear arms. Or the economy. Put a Democrat in office to create a budget surplus, and to share the wealth as a sort of pressure valve to keep the people from revolting. Then put a Republican in office to spend all the money on upgrading the police-state and expanding the empire.

I don't vote because there are very important issues to me that ALL need to be adressed. Not a few this term at the expense of the others I am willing to have undermined, in hopes that the damage can be repaired with a new President down the road. And of course that down-the-road President will only undermine the work on the issues I felt were important this time around. I hope I'm getting that out clearly. Let me make an example. Why can't we have a President who is both pro-gun and pro-choice? This is America. Shouldn't our President be pro-freedom?

I hate to jump on the band-wagon, but my write-in is going to Ron Paul. Just so I can at least say I voted in the last Presidential election of the United States.

Hail Hillary! (She's got the Rothschild fix in.)

I agree totally Jack which is why I started this thread because I know I am not the only person who feels this way. Its like rooting for a ball team you hit it right on the head forget that issues arent getting fixed and the country is going down the tubes but hey the dems won or hey the repubs won yay.......this is another one of those root problems that we are dealing with.

and since I was kinda invited here I have to just say... I TOTALLY disagree. If you have similar beliefs with a particular party, it's better than being one of 10,000 people nationwide who vote for a write in candidate. We wouldn't be dealing with bush if people like me had realized the improbability of a dark horse candidate getting elected. I HATE to this day the I voted for Nader in 2000. I truly feel I let my country down... I can't say Al would have been much better... But right about now I feel ANYONE would have been better than Bush...

(Plus I live in Al's Home state... Had all of us Nader voters voted for Al... He Would have WON TN... though it's only 13 electoral votes... it could have helped him Tie up Florida. ('specially considering the Nader votes in Florida, that would have gone for Gore had Nader not been in the race)

once again... This is politics... It's like religion and sex... you may not agree with me... but I (and you) are entitled to our opinions.

Coven

Reply To Coven:

Actually you bring a different point of view to this and I like that. It does bring up a good point although I still think voting for who you want instead of for a party is better you do have a valid point although I do disagree. Lets face it if others voted for who they wanted instead of bush cause he was a republican bush probably wouldnt of got a lot of votes. There were a lot of republicans who didnt like bush in 2000 but voted for him because of party status.

Oh and I dont think there is much we can disagree on as far as sex^^

[edit on 9-2-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I would like to add the the two-party system is a sham. It gives the people the appearance of having a choice.

Ever see the Futurama episode where the clones were both running for office. Thats what our election seems like.. Just diffrent faces.

The Episode is called

Futurama - S02E07 - A Head In The Polls

Like i said before, and i will keep saying until Americans finally stands up and has a revolution. Voting does not matter. Whatever Candidates are on the N.W.O's list, will be the ones that win. Hillary and Obama are on that list for sure. Not 100% sure about McCain. Did you ever wonder why J.F.K., Lincoln, Lennon, got killed. It was because they Went against the System. Lennon was promoting peace, and because he was such a big icon he was a threat. J.F.K. wanted to get rid of I.R.S. and the federal reserve like Ron Paul. Lincoln was freeing the slaves. luckily One of them got through before the end, or else we probably would still have slaves today. You see none of those people above were part of the elites plan. So they were erased, leaving a mark on history.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by darcon]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I have been a conscientious non-voter for quite some time and for this very reason.

I am sick of people telling me that I should not complain about the way things are if I didn't bother to vote. This is nonsense. No matter who gets into office, we're all gonna pay the piper. Take immigration for example. Neither party is going to do anything about illegal immigration because it is the agenda of the NWO to create the NAU.

I have also heard it said that only people who bother to vote, bother to pay attention to what is actually going on. I beg to differ. Most people vote like they're rooting for their local ball team. The issues don't matter as long as their team wins.

Lastly, I would like to add the the two-party system is a sham. It gives the people the appearance of having a choice. Why is it that there is never a candidate that really stands for the things that you believe? Take gun control for example. The NWO has slated the Democrats to disarm the people, but when Republicans are in office, they let the people think that there is someone still looking out for their right to bear arms. Or the economy. Put a Democrat in office to create a budget surplus, and to share the wealth as a sort of pressure valve to keep the people from revolting. Then put a Republican in office to spend all the money on upgrading the police-state and expanding the empire.

I don't vote because there are very important issues to me that ALL need to be adressed. Not a few this term at the expense of the others I am willing to have undermined, in hopes that the damage can be repaired with a new President down the road. And of course that down-the-road President will only undermine the work on the issues I felt were important this time around. I hope I'm getting that out clearly. Let me make an example. Why can't we have a President who is both pro-gun and pro-choice? This is America. Shouldn't our President be pro-freedom?

I hate to jump on the band-wagon, but my write-in is going to Ron Paul. Just so I can at least say I voted in the last Presidential election of the United States.

Hail Hillary! (She's got the Rothschild fix in.)

Listen to this guy, finally someone who sees the truth!!!

Casting a vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. If every person in this country would not vote for someone because they do not truly believe in them the voter turn out would be less than 5%. There is no mandate to rule anything in that case. That's why the powers that be always spin this "vote anyway".

Even though the majority of the people would not choose either of the canididates on their own they are told that the "other guy" is going to be so terrible that you have to vote just so that oh so terrible "other guy" won't get elected. That's why we have a two party system. It makes everyone who wishes to be polticially active have to choose sides. Then both sides hype up how horrible the other side is going to be which in turn increases the passion for the person listening to the hype which results in that person turning out to vote lest the "other guy" win and ruin the country. This fervent "us vs. them" situation is what creates record voter turn-out in our country. It creates the appearance of a Democratic government because so many damn people particpated. When in fact most people are voting just sdo the "other guy" won't win.

Remember 2004? The country was completely divided, the people were completely split Red vs. Blue. Everyone turned out so that the "other guy" would not win. When you watched the debates what happened? Well there were the two opponents shaking hands and smiling at each other. Turns out they are cousins, went to the same school, voted for the same policy decisions (before voting against it), and ultimately the winner did the exact same thing that the pundits said the evil "other guy" that lost was going to do.

A person's only absolute possession is their principles. The Media in collusion with Government have created a way in which the People give up the only thing they really have. It's quite terrible.

Vote your choice. If the "other guy" wins because you did not vote for their opponent, well so be it. You still voted for who you thought would best represent you. Don't regret voting for Nader because W won. Do your beliefs mean so little? There your beliefs, stand up for them always. Embrace the challenge and know that even through threat of something horrible you did the right thing. Kind of like if the US had never started torturing their prisoners. Always maintain the moral high ground, careful when fighting dragons not to become a dragon, etc etc etc.

Voting is an act of violence. It is essentially using your will to overcome the freedom of another. Vote at your own risk. Or vote Ron Paul. He's not trying to hurt anybody.

What freaks me out is that we run around the globe touting democracy, and help them to create voting centers, and everyone knows that our votes do not count.
Its embarrassing...

reply to post by darcon


Every other western country got rid of slaves without war except for the US. Lincoln was assassinated because he was a treacherous bastard. He suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus, he suspended and arrested memebrs of congress, he had prison ships full of dissidents and journalists, he executed prisoners without trial, he received bribes from weapons manufacturers and railroad companies and northern industrialists. Lincoln is a myth. Slavery was bound to end, most economic historians do not think it could have lasted more than another 30 years without government intervening to retain it as an institution. European countries were already looking for alternates to slave produced agricultural and textile goods. As soon as Europe stopped buying the South's economy would start to collpase and the market woudl have adjusted slavery right out of the picture with or without help form the local and federal government. All Lincoln did was ensure that slavery ended with a million dead Americans. He was the culmination of the slavery problem. An honest man would have found a way to keep the union or not, end slavery, and avert war. Lincoln paved the way for the government we have now.

Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to do away with the Federal Reserve. No doubt about it.

My two cents!

And yet the Americans build a STATUE of him?????

reply to post by darcon


History is controlled by the victors, not by the truth.
Slavery was terrible, reprehensible, and other strong words. It stopped after the war. Lincoln himself said that if he could preserve the Union, whether or not slavery ended, it would make no difference to him.

Some people think the assassination was actually plotted by the industrialists because Lincoln was in talks with northern black leaders about repatriating the African-Americans back to Africa and they did not want to lose the pool of cheap labor.

Corpratism at it's finest.

Sorry about the momentary hi-jacking of this thread!



[edit on 9-2-2008 by Tinhatman]

Your not high jacking anything I like hearing all points of view especially when history is involved. I love history but I dont like how it gets distorted. Your correct on Lincoln his main goal was Union preservation. Slavery just happen to be a convenient excuse in addition to preservation. Kinda like the excuses we use now on this "war on terror"

With mention of Lincoln here, I can't resist plugging my own thread from a little while back. Hope you don't mind.

A Bigger Picture (Rise of the NWO)

Enjoy!

Didn't know how much Lincoln was a scam artist, thanks for the eyeopener Tinhatman and jack.


[edit on 9-2-2008 by darcon]

reply to post by darcon


I prefer to leave open the possibility that Lincoln may have been being scammed himself. He was not a very happy person either, almost as if he was not quite a willing participant.

I also think that Woodrow Wilson was scammed into allowing the Federal Reserve Bank to be set up, judging by his regrets about it later in life.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Agreed. I think Mr. WIlson had no idea what he was creating. Most politicians now a days have no idea what the Federal Reserve does. Just listen to the questions asked of Bernanke when he testifies to congress. Other than Dr. Paul, no one else up there seems to have a clue.

Lincoln had some issues and he may not have been 100% willing participant. That does not change the fact that he set the Precedent later followed by FDR and then by GWB in essentially taking dictatorial powers while in executive office. Every one writhes and complains about Gitmo and Abu Graib etc, Lincoln opened the door for that kind of behavior. Against the Advice of his advisors who warned him what a dangerous Precedetn it would set for the Future!!!

If (when) the US reverts to a Police state or Totalitarianism (debatedly it has already due to the "2 party" system. There is no difference between the Reps and the Dems) you can trace it's history from GWB to FDR to Wilson to Lincoln to Hamilton and the Federalists. And many others along the way.