Hey, a positive thing! Barack Obama and Hillary Cinton are on TV right now together. There's Hillary telling us to vote for Obama with him right next to her! It's kind of hard to believe my own eyes/ears. Hang on world, the Bush Nightmare is almost over.
Hey, a positive thing! Barack Obama and Hillary Cinton are on TV right now together. There's Hillary telling us to vote for Obama with him right next to her! It's kind of hard to believe my own eyes/ears. Hang on world, the Bush Nightmare is almost over.
Neocons or democrats... how different are they really? From where I'm looking, it seems like the only choice you've got is the choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum : two sides of the same corrupted coin.
Republican candidate Ron Paul was the only one I can respect. The rest are nothing but puppets of big business.
If Ron Paul had a chance, I 'd be there - he wasn't even on the ballot in my state.
I was a Perot supporter.
[...]
I am an independent
I never understood why most Americans just keep on voting for Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I never understood why the American audience is so eager to keep voting for the same two parties rather than voting for an independent candidate or someone who oposes the party agenda (like Ron Paul). Why are they so gullible to let themselves fooled by the idea that a third party vote is always wasted? Don't they realise that it is wasted only because so many people think like that?
Our kids are very excited about Obama.
Don't get your hopes up. He's no less a puppet of big business than figurehead like the Bushes, Reagan, Clinton or Gore.
You do realise that Gore only published his famous An Inconvenient Truth because big business can profit from the whole eco-industry, right?!
We have lots and lots of political parties, (in the US) but basically only two that have any chance, someday perhaps three. What the parties say or said they stand or stood for is changing like the wind...
The parties are self-serving, of course. This is called "indirect democracy". There is another thread already done on this.
They are not self-serving but rather serve corporate and banking interests. Both parties basically serve the same people, which is why it can never get any better for the US and the world as long as everyone just keeps on voting for either party. Only a rebel like Ron Paul could make a difference, but by ignoring him in the mainstream media and not putting him on the ballot everywhere the GOP made sure he was chanceless anyway.
Ron Paul ran in the primaries just like all the others. He was in the debates just like all the others.
Ron Paul was marginalised by the media worldwide by various means : ignoring him, giving him less bandwith, ridiculing him, etc. Even though he was the only candidate who really promoted the spirit of your founding fathers and even though he had a significant and increasing amount of supporters through his internet campaign, he was never given the chance he deserved. The fact that he didn't even appear on the ballots in all states makes that painfully obvious.
His backers poured money into his campaign resukting in a better financed campaign than many of the other candidates.
The average donor was probably common Joe and Jane Public who saw in him the only candidate who supported what they stand for as an American, whereas you can bet that most candidates received the bulk of their support from big business. That seems to be the American spirt of today.
Less than 15% of the voters wanted him as a candidate. There was no conspiracy. People saw him, heard him, and rejected him.
People never really got the chance to know Ron Paul. The media never allowed them.
Was that because the big bad media was keeping us from the information? Was that because we are not able to educate ourselves? Or was it perhaps that he is not as good of a salesperson as the other candidates?
Or was it perhaps a mixture of some or all of these? It's no use to keep thinking of the cause, while the US and the world in general keeps on corrupting because the masses don't realise they're being duped by their so-called leaders. We should think of the solution ! !
I think you are very wrong there. I think that if any of the above were true, we need to figure out the cause, because otherwise the solution will never be found.
All we should know, is that our political system is bonkers and we need a way out of it. As long as we keep discussing on details, things will only get worse and worse.
Fact is, politics have always been and will always be corrupt.
That's something our leaders want you to believe just to discourage you from fighting them. I cannot believe that never in the history of man there have been true idealists in charge.
Was this supposed to be a positive thread? Oh well.
How can a thread about political puppetry be a positive thread? 
I am sorry that everything that I do, irks you. Can't you just keep it to another thread?
Is this because you know I liked Obama and you liked Hillary, things have not been the same ever since? See you in PM, or not. Not on this thread.
You are delusional.
I just wanted to take a moment and apologize for calling atypical delusional.
That is a statement regarding a mental condition that does not belong on the forum, per forum guidelines, as they have been stated several times.
It was inappropriate wording. My apologies.
DogBrain, BuckQuido in this thread cut and pasted a reply from somewhere not on AFF with the quote about bigoted republicans for 200 years (obvious exaggeration). here is No self merely said he liked it. The quote.
So Dogbrain said that "whoever wrote that" was stupid and bigoted, but Dogbrain, it wasn't There is No Self that wrote it, or BuckQUido.
Perhaps you guys - I think you are al guys in this case? Aren;t actually mad at each other, but mad at absurdity? Or maybe I am wrong and you guys are just having a fun political debate here.
I doubt there are any defenders of bush likely to pop in on an Obvama thread.
Can we lighten up?
(edit) three typos fixed.
DogBrain, BuckQuido in this thread cut and pasted a reply from somewhere not on AFF with the quote about bigoted republicans for 200 years (obvious exaggeration). There is No self merely said he liked it. The quote.
So Dogbrain said that "whoever wrote that" was stupid and bigoted, but Dogbrain, it wasn't There is No Self that wrote it, or BuckQUido.
Perhaps you guys - I think you are all guys in this case? Aren't actually mad at each other, but mad at absurdity? Or maybe I am wrong and you guys are just having a fun political debate here.
I doubt there are any defenders of bush likely to pop in on an Obama thread.
Can we lighten up?
I agree with the fictional Matt Santos quote about liberalism and I agree that the Republican Party has been on the wrong side of just about everything since slavery, but as far as Obama "handing McCain his *** in November", I don't buy it. I hope and believe Obama will win, but it's going to be close and it's going to be against a decent man. I don't care how many Bush/McCain barbs are thrown at him, everybody knows John McCain is nothing like W, and they clearly despise each other.
My squeeker prediction falls apart if Obama picks Clinton. Obama/Clinton is an unstoppable steamroller and if Barack is as pragmatic as I think he is, he'll do it. I think he is as good a politician as Bill Clinton was, and Bill lays awake at night thinking the same thing. If Obama picks her, Bill is going to slam his fist on the table, pick up the phone, call James Carville and say, "That guy's good!"
I may have misread it, I was stuck on the idea that Obama can hand bush his ***. Or, someone, anyone lays some kind of hand/ on bush or his ***, not McCain, but bush and the (few or many) republicans in the republican party that have been in power for 7 years... trampling the constitution etc., etc., I don't blame, gerneralize or accuse the whole party though. I don't think that groups are uniformly homogenuous (always the same; showing a single form or character in all occurrences).
Still not Capitalizing Gov. bush's last name, and like the comedian Geroge Carlin says, "Gov. bush becase that is the highest position in government he was actually elected to>" 
Not your average joe, I happen to agree it may be a squeaker of an election. (even if the actual votes get counted). I disagree on the CLinton aspect. I still recall "Clinton fatigue" and that a whole bunch subset of extreme republicans that aren't for MCCain would only be sufficiently riled up (to *support MCCain who they don't like) if they had a Clinton to wage war against. Going over who donated to the Clinton library and where the 30 million dollars donated to that library came from would be a distraction in my opinion. Better to turn the page.
Looking at Hillary as a candidate without her husbands past, (I mean that he was a president) she is a great candidate. Highly qualified, well spoken, driven and determined. Unfortunate she can't be separated from her name. Her name is a problem, like this is some kind of monarchy that only Clintons or Bushes get elected? That is not in line with the premise of Obama's change message.
(I was for McCain in *2000) and then Perot.
Evidently, John Quincy Adams really did set the rule...
Former 1st lady Barbara Bush is a close descendant of the 14th Pres. of the US (Franklin Pierce) her maiden name is Pierce.
Quincy however, was a one term president. (History called him one of the worst no< lazy etc., ?) G. W bush (43) would have been a one termer if his "handlers" didn't learn from G. P.Bush (41) and his mistake about not timing "war" better. W.'s "people" knew that hisroty shows that during "war" incumbants always win. (I think that this is a big reason why this election will be such a squeaker, fear trupms hope)
Got hope?
Oh, loved the fictional Santos on Wesy Wing, loved the Alan Alda Republican pres. nominee as well. I remember watching that speech and thinking, thank goodness someone is trying to take back the word liberal....
Evidently, John Quincy Adams really did set the rule...
Former 1st lady Barbara Bush is a close descendant of the 14th Pres. of the US (Franklin Pierce) her maiden name is Pierce.
Quincy however, was a one term president. (History called him one of the worst no< lazy etc., ?) G. W bush (43) would have been a one termer if his "handlers" didn't learn from G. P.Bush (41) and his mistake about not timing "war" better. W.'s "people" knew that history shows that during "war" incumbants always win. (I think that this is a big reason why this election will be such a squeaker, fear trumps hope)
Got hope?
Oh, loved the fictional Santos on West Wing, loved the Alan Alda Republican pres. nominee as well. I remember watching that speech and thinking, thank goodness someone is trying to take back the word liberal....
(edit typos) darn laptop / small screen! (and my fingers/ eyesight...?)
I hope that hope trumps fear.