America Has Passed the Rubicon, Welcome to the USSA and Eventually, Collapse.

Lets see some of the statements I have heard from democrats are:
I chose not to be informed
Well its the first black president, you have to vote for him
Hes for the little guy
I feel better voting for a black president. I can tell my grandchildren that I voted for the first black president
He will bring us together
and then the famous , I want that hope and change, lol

OMG it is amazing the reasons some voted for him.

I fail to see what the panic is about.

The Kent-state uni massacre f.i. was the handiwork of a republican prez, who let the Governer sick the National guard on unarmed students. Result : 4 dead, 9 serious wounded.

A couple of days later Wa state uni (a black uni) was also attacked by state troops, firing indiscriminatly into a dorm, killing 2
It's exactly the way a communist dictatorship "fixes" trouble.
And You people are scared of a Democratic president?

I repeat, that dictatorship-like deadly deployment of National Guard against unarmed citizens was under a REPUBLICAN prez...

Get real!

We are already seeing the signs of the election. Stock market is starting to tumble, companies are shortening hours and putting a stop to hiring. (i.e Applebees & Papa John's) Food Stamps are surging to an all time high!

Dont kill the messenger, read it for yourself.

twitchy.com...

www.wptv.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

Originally posted by dutchmilpo
I fail to see what the panic is about.

The Kent-state uni massacre f.i. was the handiwork of a republican prez, who let the Governer sick the National guard on unarmed students. Result : 4 dead, 9 serious wounded.

A couple of days later Wa state uni (a black uni) was also attacked by state troops, firing indiscriminatly into a dorm, killing 2
It's exactly the way a communist dictatorship "fixes" trouble.
And You people are scared of a Democratic president?

I repeat, that dictatorship-like deadly deployment of National Guard against unarmed citizens was under a REPUBLICAN prez...

Get real!

edit on 11/11/12 by dutchmilpo because: (no reason given)

I guess you forgot about Pres Clinton and Janet Reno's debacle down in Waco, Texas, which was a lot more recent than what happened at Kent State??

reply to post by camaro68ss


They showed us that this election? So not electing an official who has historically raised the debt and brought us to war isn't for a better economy? I mean this just sounds more like republicans complaining like I said, Romney has constantly profited off of job loss and wasn't the right choice, nevermind the fact that he ran on one thing one day and something totally different the next. The people here want change you can see that with gay marriage support and legalization of MJ in two states. I guarantee the debt would be closer to 30 trillion after a Romney presidency, and I'm optimistic about what lies ahead.

Originally posted by carl6405
We are already seeing the signs of the election. Stock market is starting to tumble, companies are shortening hours and putting a stop to hiring. (i.e Applebees & Papa John's) Food Stamps are surging to an all time high!

Dont kill the messenger, read it for yourself.

twitchy.com...

www.wptv.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

Ehh. No

-S&P500f +0.03
-NASD +0.32
-DOW +0.03
-CAC 40 +0.47

The only lackluster results are in Euro funds.

Originally posted by carl6405

Originally posted by dutchmilpo
I fail to see what the panic is about.

The Kent-state uni massacre f.i. was the handiwork of a republican prez, who let the Governer sick the National guard on unarmed students. Result : 4 dead, 9 serious wounded.

A couple of days later Wa state uni (a black uni) was also attacked by state troops, firing indiscriminatly into a dorm, killing 2
It's exactly the way a communist dictatorship "fixes" trouble.
And You people are scared of a Democratic president?

I repeat, that dictatorship-like deadly deployment of National Guard against unarmed citizens was under a REPUBLICAN prez...

Get real!

edit on 11/11/12 by dutchmilpo because: (no reason given)

I guess you forgot about Pres Clinton and Janet Reno's debacle down in Waco, Texas, which was a lot more recent than what happened at Kent State??

edit on 11-11-2012 by carl6405 because: (no reason given)

'S cuse me.

You apparently forgot one teensy weensy detail concerning WACO.

The WACO-Wacko's were, contrary to thosepoor students, hárdly "unarmed" .50 siper rifles, AK47's Ar's etc etc.... Keep on believing in "evil Democrats" I won't.

So, I keep with my former observation. The use of deadly Government force against it's own citizens on a larger scale, is solely a Republican bit of history.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Hi Camero68ss, I read through your post and I feel compassion and empathy for your point of you and although I largely disagree with the points that you made I feel compelled to offer another point of view that may appease some of your worries, though it may leave new worries in their place.

The first thing I would like to address is there seems to be some confusion about the difference between Communism and Socialised welfare programs.

Communism is "a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order"

This means abolishing free market Capitalism completely and I would argue that establishing a socialised medical care program in the USA in no way shape or form constitutes Communism and to construe otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what Communism actually is. 'Obama-care' in it's purest ideological terms, simply provides a safety net for the poorest and most needy people in society who cannot afford health insurance. You are still free to buy health insurance if you can afford it and it doesn't affect your rights in any other way. It doesn't increase the amount of tax you pay as an individual in and of itself, it just means that some of your tax dollars will go towards saving someones life.

It is a 'socialist' policy in the same way that social security is a 'socialist' policy and by your definition, America has been a 'socialist' country since August 1935 when the Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt.

The second thing that seems to need clarification is the difference between debt and deficit and also the factors that lead to debt and deficit to begin with.

Firstly remember that the Clinton administration left America with a Surplus of $236 billion. (It should be noted that some attribute the current economic woes to having a government surplus in the first place but that's another issue)

Deficits occur when you spend more than you receive. Economists generally advocate budget deficit during recession, lest the government collapse completely. Debt is the total sum of these annual deficits combined.

Are you aware that more than 50% of the projected national debt by 2019 ($20 Trillion) is attributed to Bush era tax cuts and military spending? $10 Trillion dollars. Do you think that by voting in Mitt Romney who advocates these very same policies that this will somehow improve? I and many others are doubtful, especially as Mitt has declined to elaborate on how he planned to do this, short of tax cuts for the rich, sweeping cuts to public services and increased military spending.

More info her e

But lest I get carried away with the details and come across as partisan, I think it's far more important to examine the bigger picture.

Democrats and Republicans, in ideology both agree that debt and deficit is largely BAD. Do not allow yourself to believe that Democrats are PRO debt. They are not. Americans are all in the same boat. If you take a step back from the bipartisan political theatre that is playing out, you will hopefully catch a glimpse of the larger forces at play.

Who benefits from debt? Who benefits from deficit? The people who lend money to governments. Debt is profit, just not profit for you and I. The more debt, the more profit.

here's a quote from 1863: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned business, that operates in order to make a profit for it's owners. It has never been audited, operates outside the control of Congress and since it's inception it has 'monopolised for private gain every dollar of the public currency'.

A vote for Obama or a vote for Romney either way is just a vote for the international banking cartels.

I highly recommend watching for an historical overview of the silent forces that have lead to these global economic crises.

Bipartisan politics is just another way to 'divide and conquer'. As long as Americans are squabbling about the evils of Red vs Blue or vice versa, they are blind to the root of those evils and defenceless against them.

Americans are still screwed, I see Obama as the lesser of two evils only JUST, because at least those at the bottom of the heap will be extended some basic dignity in the form of medicine and housing.

Unless Democrats and Republicans stand side by side and drive fractional reserve lending out of the American financial system, the cycles will repeat ad infinitum

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by RedDragon

 

Actually a trade war is EXACTLY what we need! It will bring back jobs to america, stop overseas corporate imperialism like forcing cheap labor, increase revenue for the government indirectly(many people choose to buy foreign merchandise), lower taxes.

Think again my friend!

The jews in wall street will tell everyone otherwise....

You may have a few more jobs but you won't be able to buy anything because prices will be too high.. You want to build wealth -- not jobs. Jobs should be a side-effect of wealth. No one wants to work for work's sake. They want the stuff that they get with work.

The 'jews on wall street' allocate resources more efficiently than you would. That's why they're 'investment' banks. They're the reason your retirement portfolios and savings don't have the value of a 3rd world country's resource allocations.

If you were a better investor, you'd own your own investment bank instead of the 'jews'.


Your opinion is so wrong that it would actually be better policy to still allow using overseas labor and just give unemployed people useless make-work jobs like digging holes or something. You'd have more wealth, higher wages, and, because of the useless make-work, a lower unemployment rate than your plan.


When your world-view has devolved into racism and ignorance, it might be time to pick up an economics 101 textbook and educate yourself.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Collapse? didn't we already collapse under Bush Jr.? Hard to collapse something that is already flattened. As for being the USSA, we already are, as soon as our military industrial complex (State protected industries mind you) started running the show we signed the future of our economy to those with a vested interest in keep us in a state of conflict. So go ahead and blame the guy in office you didn't vote for, go ahead and blame the people who voted for him but remember all the finger pointing and teeth nashing is just misdirected rage.

If you want to see who is to blame, just look in the mirror because all of us let this happen.

reply to post by dutchmilpo


The Governor called in the National Guard, not the President. Nixon actually ended the Vietnam War and that war was started under a Democrat President.

James Allen Rhodes (September 13, 1909 – March 4, 2001) was an American Republican politician from Ohio, and as of 2006 one of only five US state governors to serve four four-year terms in office. As governor in 1970, he decided to send National Guard troops onto the Kent State University campus, resulting in the shooting of students on May 4. Four students were killed and nine others were wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[1]

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by dutchmilpo

 

The Governor called in the National Guard, not the President. Nixon actually ended the Vietnam War and that war was started under a Democrat President.

James Allen Rhodes (September 13, 1909 – March 4, 2001) was an American Republican politician from Ohio, and as of 2006 one of only five US state governors to serve four four-year terms in office. As governor in 1970, he decided to send National Guard troops onto the Kent State University campus, resulting in the shooting of students on May 4. Four students were killed and nine others were wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[1]

Do you know what a dixiecrat is? The people who make-up each party have changed so much that it's worthless to point to what a party did 50 years ago and criticize them today for it. A criticism of the democratic party 50-60 years ago would be a more valid criticism of today's republican party.

reply to post by RedDragon


I disagree. I think the media has Democrats brainwashed with disinformation or complete lack of information in the news.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

reply to post by jimmiec


My mistake -- I thought you were also trying to say things in support of today's republican party. A lot of ignorant/ misled libertarians (I'm a libertarian) nowadays try to act like they support the Republican party because of its historical tendencies toward peace and freedom, not realizing that today's Republican party is yesterday's Democratic party and vice-versa post-1965 Civil Rights Act.

reply to post by RedDragon


You mean the Civil Acts bill that Al Gore SR. was filibustering when JFK was shot effectively ending the filibuster? The new Civil Rights Bill that was actually a reincarnation of the GOP Civil Rights Bill passed in 1875?

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Senator Charles Sumner and Representative Benjamin F. Butler (both Republicans) in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Ulysses S. Grant on March 1, 1875.[1]

The Act guaranteed that every person, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement). If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a fine above $500 but not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment 30 days or longer but not exceeding one year, or both.

However, the law was rarely enforced, especially after the 1876 presidential election and withdrawal of federal troops from the South. Finally, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional on the basis that although the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, it does not give the state the power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals.[2]

Many of the 1875 Act's provisions were later enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, this time using the federal power to regulate interstate commerc

Originally posted by dutchmilpo



'S cuse me.

You apparently forgot one teensy weensy detail concerning WACO.

The WACO-Wacko's were, contrary to thosepoor students, hárdly "unarmed" .50 siper rifles, AK47's Ar's etc etc.... Keep on believing in "evil Democrats" I won't.

So, I keep with my former observation. The use of deadly Government force against it's own citizens on a larger scale, is solely a Republican bit of history.

edit on 11/11/12 by dutchmilpo because: (no reason given)

Who initiated the attack? The federal government did.

How about Randy Weaver up in Ruby Ridge, ID? Federal agents killed his son and his wife because he refused to work for them.

Oh, and for the record: Not a single .50 "sniper rifle" was ever found in Waco.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Utterly hysterical. The shrinking Right Wing echo bubble is an amusing thing to behold.

All these gloating democrats are reminding me of Dallas Cowboy fans. In our first game this season we beat the NY Giants, in an away game no less. Just like always happens, people started talking about how we're going to the super bowl. Since then, we've hardly won another game, and after today we'll have zero chance of even making the playoffs. Democrats are craping their pants with joy, thinking they'll never lose another election to the evil republican morons again.

Then we have poor dejected republicans feeling like the country is over with, because a rotten turd like Oboma gets elected for a second term in spite of the fact that every single one of them voted against him. They're never going to win another election again because everyone has gone commie

The truth of the matter is they're both wrong. Oboma won by 2%. of the vote. That means only 2% of the voters decided the election.

Before the election every poll showed that a vast majority thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. I'm one of these people. I hate both the democrat, and the republicans parties, even though traditionally I always used to vote R.

There's a lot of people like me. More than 2% of voters I assure you. We see that our population is being controlled by the MSM, not just in America, but world wide, and that we're headed for world wide collapse, or worse.

What no one is mentioning until now, is we voted for collapse because we don't think it's fixable. We're the reason Oboma won. and we say burn it down.

So the best thing to do is celebrate our victory, while you can.

reply to post by camaro68ss


And you honestly believe it would have been different under Romney?

By the way, every time someone mentions "communism" as America's future I want to pat them on the head saying "it's ok grandpa, Kennedy will beat those evil Russkis". For crying out loud, we live in the 21st century! At least bother reading the definition of communism and marxism so you realise how stupid your accusations are

reply to post by ShakaDoodle

That was great. Really enjoyed your post!!!!!