Obama: Because America Needs Four More Years of Change!

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Greenwald has just made it apparent as I have, that Obama is continuing much of the legacy as the Bush administration and previous administrations. I get it, this is about Obama, you have a special issue with him, the actions of the other presidents don't worry you much, it's just this one. Nevertheless, there is nothing to make him stand out. He's administration has changed little, and you're just playing the part of the fake opposition

Please, tell me that the present administrations policy, of promise them anything to continue the previous agenda. Dosn't shock the sht out of you? Cause right now it looks like it does. I can't understand why people still vote. Do you think it makes you look smart ? It dosn't. In fact the opposite. Do you feel like you have some say in matters that way ? You don't ? The only thing left is a some sort of psychiatric addiction affliction.
I just shake my head in wonderment at the stupidity of the whole sham.

It's Insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect to achieve different results. Just stop it.

I vote no on the vote.

reply to post by randyvs


I am beginning to think the only way voting is going to change #, is if they add an option to the ballot:
"All of the above suck, exile them from politics forever, and run another election"
Or something to that extent.

It won't be long before this is true. It's looking more and more true everyday.

reply to post by TKDRL


The only message that can be sent and it's one that would shock the the hell out of them and put the fear back in their hearts, is if no one voted. They wouldn't even know how to act, if that happened. From the candidates to every person employed in the MSN. I'm telling you I'm thinking of starting my own campaign. No not for the presidency but against the vote. Things couldn't possibly get any worse if no one voted.


Sorry I'm getting tired.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I vote no on the vote.

Next year I will be voting third party. The way I figure it, If I don't vote, I should not be complaining.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I'll be voting Constitutional.

And nothing less.

Originally posted by thorazineshuffle
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

ACORN

Oh goodness, it's the ACORN nightmare. What was once an insignificant "get out the vote" association which revealed it's own issues in voter fraud, now has because the prime scapegoat. Now that ACORN has been defunded and picked apart totally out of existence, we still hear the scare stories.

It is a sorry sorry scapegoat for the rightwing.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


They recently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Here in the US anyway...The organization has gone international.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Corporate profits does not equal free market. Tax cuts from congress does not equal a free market.

What anti-free market policies did Obama implement again? You were not specific.

And just as a side note, there will never be a true free market, It's just name that is meaningless, the idea of a free market depends upon your own assumption of what should be regulated and what should not.

Which party are you going to vote for in 2012 again? I'm curious.

And exactly how does putting a moratorium on the very substance that nearly every sector of our economy needs to function helping?

The moratorium doesn't amount to anything, it was a media show put on by the Obama administration in response to the oil spill, assumed you figured that out.

It was blocked as well:
online.wsj.com...

Oil isn't just used at the gas pump it is used in nearly every sector from pharmaceuticals to electronics to food packaging.

And what's your point? I'm well aware of the significance oil plays, that doesn't change the fact that our nation consumption is and will continue to exceed what we are able to produce in this country and outside. The importance of oil is not going to change tha fact.

Now I am aware that conservatives (as the denialists they tend to be) insist upon the idea that there is plenty more to be drilled in this country to last us a century or so. But as far as I can see it, it's just speculation and contrary to the conclusions of many analysts. Right now the reality is, we're growing in size, growing in energy consumption, and we cannot keep up any longer.

Heres a clue for you, the US has grown on dependence on foreign oil from 35% in the 70's to 60% as recently in 2006:
tonto.eia.doe.gov...

And I got my information incorrect before, the US does not consume 15% of global oil exports daily, it consumes nearly 25%. We only produce 4% of the world's oil. Yes we have oil reserves that we could tap into, but they are called oil reserves for a reason. Get that around your head then come back to me.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I vote no on the vote.

Next year I will be voting third party. The way I figure it, If I don't vote, I should not be complaining.

So keep voting and complaining.

I have never voted and I'm still complaining. You are brainwashed. By that kind of thinking.

I have no problem complaining or bitching and if I thought it would be prudent, I wouldn't have problem with doing anything about it either.

I guess you all have nice cheezy little worlds that your afraid to upset.

may be if you didn't get the change youze expected
maybe you should try a different form of governmental selection...
i believe lybia has just been changed...

somewhat...

ps
they got a guy from some university in the states running the "rebel" government i hear

closer to home:
the candidatial selection is a UN plot to get the patriots to ask the UN for regime change

reply to post by projectvxn

Matters not all that much who is president. What does matter is getting the right people in place to roll back the role of government to a constitutional limit, not redefine and refocus government on a different expansionist agenda that may be palatable to establishment dems and reps.

That sounds reasonable, (if it's REASONABLE), the government does tend to go overboard in a few areas and should be reigned in. However, some people's ideas of a constitutional government (IE "the solution to 1984 is 1776" wanna be slave traders) tends to go too far in the wrong direction.

From what I have seen of the opposition candidates so far, Trump seems to be at the forefront. And if he is the GOP choice, with his birther stance, we both know that the country will be electing Obama to a second term.

I would encourage the idea of real independent candidates running, people who are centered politically, that would benefit the country more than radical Republicans disguising themselves as independents and calling themselves a term for oral gratification among homosexual men.

Also when we talk about limiting the role of government, we should also talk about limiting the role of government as far as legislating morality. It's something that I continuously disagree with the right on. I believe that the government should not be interfering with a woman's womb, or same sex couples choice to live in a loveless miserable marriage.

BTW, that's something on Obama's agenda that I disagree with, I believe that same sex couples should have the right to marry. Something that both Obama and the GOP both are against.

In all honesty you all need to start looking at your local elections and gubernatorial elections. The president is one man. And while he holds the bully pulpit, he by no means makes law (at least, not supposed to.)

Many seem so caught up in thinking the president can change the country. He has influence sure, but doesn't hold the purse strings for a reason. The very same reason many were upset and are upset with the actions of former President Bush and current President Obama in regards to the use of Presidential War Powers.

It is also why many are dreading the new health care law. It is littered with regulations that, while accountable and subject to review by Congress, rarely ever are.

I don't know about you, but I would rather have laws created by Congress, in which we have some semblance of control over rather than unnamed, unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats writing regulations that serve as law to dictate my life.

In my opinion it is this lack of engagement in all politics by the people which has led to the craptastic Imperialistic, hardly Federalism, system we have today.

I mean seriously, how many of you take your time to vet the choices for president, senator, representative at the levels where we can decide with the most power....primaries. Instead we see it as a sideshow, nothing of importance. Just like many don't watch a whole sports season until the playoff....

Any American who re-elects that shmuck has to be a single marble in a tin can!

I just put the video on repeat, and I keep watching it over and over.
I like how I feel completely empty at the end, and then a huge rush fills me up when it starts over.
This must be how crack works, this must be emotional political crack.

reply to post by anon102


Guess Palin was right when she asked what happened to that hopey changey stuff. Maybe his kids have been threatened. Maybe he is a sociopath and a liar like the rest.

Ron Paul, 2012! Whhhoooooohoooooo.......

I know everyone thinks it's impossible for him to win but I say turn that attitude around! Voting for the lesser of 2 likely evils is not good in primary votes out of fear of a wasted vote. If you think Ron Paul can win, he can

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by projectvxn

 

If organized massive peaceful resistance will bring government to it's knees. The trick is the organization part.

If no one payed taxes that would cripple the government.

"April fools" right?hardy -har-har: Your Taxes go right to the "fed" to pay on the interest on the "debt" for our money; they print for us. If no one paid taxes congress would just go into " double secret super dooper session" and vote a "continuing resolution". At least for long enough to pass a bill to legally allow troops to put gasoline soaked tires around the necks of handcuffed org.leaders and set them ablaze.
I've come to the conclusion:" We aren't driving this boat and all communication with the pilot house is down".
( And it aint all that far from the deck to the waterline to jump)

I kept expecting that to end with
*Paid for by the Republican Party'

Cut the deficit in half???

I love the part where he says 'i will not rest' as he holds up a nine iron!

Glad you have time for 18 holes Obama.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Matters not all that much who is president. What does matter is getting the right people in place to roll back the role of government to a constitutional limit, not redefine and refocus government on a different expansionist agenda that may be palatable to establishment dems and reps.

That sounds reasonable, (if it's REASONABLE), the government does tend to go overboard in a few areas and should be reigned in. However, some people's ideas of a constitutional government (IE "the solution to 1984 is 1776" wanna be slave traders)

"wanna be slave traders": "RACISM" WUK????What is that a required kneejerk response to constitutional arguments? Sure throw that in:" The constitution is "bad" because it abided .. "racially based slavery"; which was both common and legal in those days... not "right" but accepted..

Originally posted by whatukno
tends to go too far in the wrong direction.

From what I have seen of the opposition candidates so far, Trump seems to be at the forefront. And if he is the GOP choice, with his birther stance, we both know that the country will be electing Obama to a second term.

I would encourage the idea of real independent candidates running, people who are centered politically, that would benefit the country more than radical Republicans disguising themselves as independents and calling themselves a term for oral gratification among homosexual men.

Also when we talk about limiting the role of government, we should also talk about limiting the role of government as far as legislating morality. It's something that I continuously disagree with the right on. I believe that the government should not be interfering with a woman's womb, or same sex couples choice to live in a loveless miserable marriage.

BTW, that's something on Obama's agenda that I disagree with, I believe that same sex couples should have the right to marry. Something that both Obama and the GOP both are against.