Why Would ANYONE Vote for Obama With His Incredible Corruption History?

Many seem to have forgotten about Stockholm Syndrome where hostages become sympathetic to their captors.

double post, sorry.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
A vote for Obama is a straightline vote for MORE corruption at the highest levels of USA government!

When are people going to learn that a vote for anyone is a vote for the SAME corruption that has been going on since the beginning of government?

Anyone who is not a representative of the capitalists (owners of the means of production), who really have the power to control world events, and the economy of course, will never be allowed to run for president.

It's all a fixed game.

If Ron Paul is as genuine as you claim he will never be president. The president, and the party he represents, does not run the country. It is nothing but a front, a way to keep the world of the rich and powerful from clashing with the world the rest of us live in. It is to give us the illusion that we are more than just commodities to be exploited. Look at history, nothing has changed. In fact things are worse now than they have been for many many presidencies. The only real changed we have won over the years came from us, the people, through unions and other worker organizations. Yet the people have allowed themselves to be convinced that worker organization is wrong. But how do you think the capitalist elite have so much power? They are organized and work together.

Why do you think we got a black president? So as to direct our attention away from what is really going on. To give us the illusion of radical change. To divert our attention and bolster the illusion of change, and our part in it.

Think about it, the PTB get a clean slate every time we get a new pres. People forget what happened before, and naively expect things to be different. It takes a couple of years, or more, for people to start noticing things are not changing, only the way they are presented to us. So what do they do? Champion the next favorite politician for president. Like a vicious cycle we vote in never ending presidents, but we are still being exploited the world over for capitalist interests.

Whoever you vote for government wins, and ultimately government represents capitalist interests, at the expense of the people.

I am still watching, listening, researching and deciding about my next vote. You mention vote for Ron Paul....what is so wonderful about Ron Paul...what has he done for our country?

I WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA AGAIN........JUST TO BE EVEN WITH BUSH.....

reply to post by ANOK


You know, the fact that Ron Paul stands for the things he does should quiet any fears whatsoever that he is part of the NWO. I mean think about it. Obviously bringing the troops home and ending the wars would be so ANTI MIC, on that point alone you have enough ammunition to dispel any notions of RP associating with corruption. The fact that he also wants to end the fed just puts the nails in the coffin of the same rumor. Reducing the size of government digs the grave for the coffin, and protecting our own border buries it, performs the funeral service, and sends everyone home with their tails between their legs. No chance Ron Paul is NWO.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ANOK

 

You know, the fact that Ron Paul stands for the things he does should quiet any fears whatsoever that he is part of the NWO. I mean think about it.

I never mentioned NWO. NWO is just the inevitable conclusion of capitalism imo.

If you are right he will never be president anyway. If you are wrong then it will be no different than any other president we thought was good. Personally I don't trust any of them and I think history supports my position.

Obviously bringing the troops home and ending the wars would be so ANTI MIC, on that point alone you have enough ammunition to dispel any notions of RP associating with corruption. The fact that he also wants to end the fed just puts the nails in the coffin of the same rumor. Reducing the size of government digs the grave for the coffin, and protecting our own border buries it, performs the funeral service, and sends everyone home with their tails between their legs. No chance Ron Paul is NWO.

But there is more to this world than just bringing the troops home, or smaller government.

What needs to change is how the worlds economy is organized. It is the capitalist economy that gave us the wars in the first place, not government. Those that really have the power to control are those at the top of the capitalist pyramid. Ron might bring the troops home, but he wouldn't be pres for ever, and he won't do anything about changing the system that causes the problems to start with.

If capitalism was just small ma and pa businesses and we all could participate it would be fine, but it's not like that in reality. Capitalism is corporations controlling government policy in order to maintain their profits.

The only way to stop the madness is to give the people the power, worker ownership of the means of production.
No government, no state, no capitalist control. Libertarian Socialism. The real libertarian choice.

The American 'libertarian party' really isn't, libertarian that is. Capitalism is not liberty, except for the capitalists.
(and no you're not a capitalist unless you use your private property to exploit labour for your source of income)

This year, 2008, marks the 150th anniversary of the use of the word “libertarian” by anarchists.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

The facts are somewhat different. As Murray Bookchin noted, “libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] While we discuss this issue in An Anarchist FAQ in a few places (most obviously, section A.1.3) it is useful on the 150th anniversary to discuss the history of anarchist use of the word “libertarian” to describe our ideas.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

reply to post by ANOK


Have you ever read Rothbard? Anarcho socialist types believe "Property is theft" while anarcho-capitalists believe "property is freedom".

Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. -Murry Rothbard.

Ron Paul often quotes Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Spooner and Walter Block.

This caused me to smile as I have been saying that for years, only about other presidents, congressmen and senators. To answer you, would be to say most elections are bought and paid for. Witness the recent governor of Fl. whom is a crook and everyone knows it, admits it, yet somehow he is governor. Why, who knows, Americans are not too bright.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. -Murry Rothbard.

That is nonsense. Capitalism is the fullest expression of authority.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. How can private ownership of the needs of all of us be anarchism? If you use private property to hire workers at an hourly wage then you make yourself an authority over people. You create a hierarchy. That is not anarchism.

Rothbard obvioulsy was either lying or was ignorant of history...

The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these...

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are
forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.

From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...



True Anarchism has always supported a socialist, or communist, economy. Anarchists know that capitalism is authoritative.

Edit; the confusion comes from Anarcho-capitalists using the dictionary term 'anarchy' to mean the same as the political term 'anarchism'. Anarchy means 'no government', but 'anarchism' means far more than just 'no government'. Anarchism formed from the ranks of the socialists and communists in Europe, when the left split between supporters of the state, Marxists etc., and those that apposed the state/government that took on the term 'Anarchism'. They all formed as radical alternatives to capitalism. 'No government' offers no solution, it's just an anti-statement. Anarchism on the other hand does offer solutions to the capitalist problem. Traditionally that solution to the capitalist problem is socialist, and it's more extreme communist, economies, and libertarianism in it's true original meaning, no state or government.

(socialism as in 'the workers ownership of the means of production', not free health care. Communism as in an economy based on free-exchange, not Russia or China)

Yes... These FactCheck, Huffington Post(AOL), Soros MoveOn and St.Peters Time-PolitiFact "Talking Heads" want 4 more years of this: "Commie-In-Chief"

This is how these 'talk the talk '(can't document sh't) cowards make their money.

Originally posted by truther357
This is how these 'talk the talk '(can't document sh't) cowards make their money.

So are you saying Judicial Watch can't back up the corruption accusations?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Funny, why just obama? Aren't there more powerful a-holes to talk about rather than that stupid puppet? I mean I'm sure you don't have an alternative motive for focusing on obama, right? So why focus on that useless distraction? You're just taking the bait. Good job.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Why would anyone vote Bush in for a second term after all his incompetent decisions and illegal wars? Because the voting public votes blindly. It's called voting along party lines and believing that politicians don't lie. I agree that Obama sold the American public a bag of goods. I think most people liked the fact he said he was going to have transparency in government and stop the Iraq war.

Yet where was this same outrage when Bush was voted in for a second term?

reply to post by TrueAmerican

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
Tacitus

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. AD 96.

en.wikipedia.org...

Agreed. S&F. blahblahblah.

Now lets get down to brass tacks. How do you get an honest man elected to a position in a corrupt system? Paul? Fine. Lets do it. But how? Just replacing the head of the "Hydra" does nothing to replace the claws, the body.

We just can't elect an honest man and hope for the best. We have to do much of the work ourselves. Get involved, attack the problem at several points. We need to replace congress, the senate, local and state pols as well as correct the problems in D.C.. We can't just make our voices heard in Nov and then complain for 4 years. We should get involved with school boards, local laws and legislature.

One step, no matter how big, won't complete the journey, my friend. We need to settle in for the long fight, the long walk (nod to Stephen King), and work for something only our children may see.

Because he's black and the voters are dumb.

reply to post by ANOK

Anarchists recognize anarcho-capitalism as anarchy. This view on attacking anarcho-capitalism because it has different views than other strands of anarchy is becoming very outdated. It seems that Chomsky denies almost every historical example of communism as being statist, then where does your utopia emerge?

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


You've made me smile finest example of irony I've ever read ty.

Um yeah...we all know that with Reagan our presidency was sold out to the corporations and not alot has changed since then. So it's truly not shocking that Obama would be any different. Why anyone would think otherwise at this stage in the game is beyond me. You really think your vote counts? Happy Saturday!