USA Republican Party =mass murder, Cocaine, Drug Use, Prostitution, Homosexuality

No, Not a better idea - I agree with our free republic -- Which is why I can say this..

what I don't agree with is people only TALKING TO FOR CHANGE VERSUS DOING FOR CHANGE


We the People are going to have to Show in numbers to create change.. a VOTE MEANS NOTHING when they control our government.

 

"They" control the government?

Your vote means nothing?



I think its time we got you started on a nice cocktail of chlorpromazine, haloperidol , clozapine , olanzapine , and risperidone.

In the meantime, relax, enjoy a soothing video, and remember all is not lost. There are still people actively creating change, and not by setting up a tent on public property to demand more free gubment money.[video=youtube;xivssxZYNjA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xivssxZYNjA[/video]

 

When the big kids are discussing comparative merit of socialism vs capitalism as economic systems, and you chime in talking about movies and torture... it may be too late to position yourself as the most literate man in the conversation.

Better luck next troll.

 

If you knew anything about economy, let alone the differences between capitalism and socialism then you wouldn´t fail so miserably as a Realtor and wouldn´t need to run from forum to forum, directory to directory trying to become moderator for a few bucks.

 

Again gworld have you ever lived under communism to enjoy it's benefits ? Or are you just talking bull as usual ?

 

There has never been a communist country, so how can I or anyone else live there? That is the reason I always say people like you and Rob cannot differentiate between Communism, old East Europe style governmental capitalism and Hollywood movies.

 

Sorry if it's been a disappointment the rest of us are having a civil discussion instead of joining you in feces throwing. So far you're still the only one that thinks movies or torture are useful additions to a discussion of economic models.

 

It is so funny to see "cowboy" crying.

 

There were plenty of communist countries until 91 . There still are a few relics . I really freaking wish that you would have lived for just one year under communism I would like to see you then talking bull about how bad capitalism and democracy is .

 

The above statement show why one should not discuss Democracy, Socialism, Communism, .... with a chop shop operators.
The east Europe governments were another type of capitalism. Just because government owns and controls something it dozen´t make it a socialist or communist structure, otherwise military would be one of the oldest communist system existing.

 

I'm not sure if the ecstasy has completely burned your frontal lobes or you really believe what you just typed . Although judging from the fact that you post less words with less sense would indicate progressive brain injury .

 

I believe we learn from our mistakes, we don't put up with shit when we know better and more and more is being recorded so the truth is easier to find. When we see rampant capitalism is causing problems then we fix it, and vice-versa when communism is the problem. We can fight over democrat this or republican that, it doesn't matter as long as people are all working to make the place better for the right reasons it will always get better in the bigger picture. No matter what we say or do, life goes on around us.

Much more has happened behind the scenes to consider as we now know the media knows about (and uses) its power, people are more aware about being led, getting information has never been easier etc. We are getting smarter faster than ever before. Whoever gets in power from now on will be subject to the same microscopes (and so they should be) until someone enforces censorship, which they're trying to do, and coming awfully close to acheiving throughout the world.

The trend shows it's going the right way now. If Romney showed those figures I think you would be applauding them right about now. When you know more than likely if Romney was in charge they would be twisted so much more lol.

I have never been a fan of bailouts or the sharemarkets but then I consider what they allowed us to acheive in the first place and that wins imho. Sure, it all might be a great big ponzi scheme but look where it has got us in the last 100 years compared to the 2000 previous years. Amazing really! I happen to enjoy where we're at now and I don't truly want to go backwards if we can avoid it, (not that we'll go backwards from here but new technology stagnates too when an investor crash occurs) and i'm wanting to own a transporter before I die! so I can understand the reasoning of keeping it all afloat. After all it is only money and there's so much more to come! If they made it truly sustainable for us all along the way then that would be even better for my liking. In some respects a break would also be good but I'll support the former.

And, he will be, if there's a more credible opposition he may even get voted out. Romney's not going to fix it. He will apply a bandaid based on what he inherits too. Like Obama he'll spend his first 2 years working out the mess then finish his term with results. Romney has more bad points than good imho, Obama, if re-elected will keep pushing his current agenda though this time round will be much-more learned.

Sometimes we make a straw man as an 'anecdote' and you can't say you haven't heard those points said. I'm almost positive I can find links if requested. My point was; there will always be an opposing argument to everything. We pick and choose sides of a debate based on our experience but some people only choose sides because they get paid to do so, which should be made illegal imho. I think doing that helped fuel wars.

I wasn't making any argument there. My point was the argument can be made and will be made. I've seen it made a number of times already. What do you see as 'the cause of the invasion of Afghanistan'?

Why are there so many 'military' coups around the world? Could it be because the leader of the military has much authority over his troops? Military leaders quite obviously have attitudes, and they hold forceful sway over any president it seems. From a psychological angle the establishment would already be hearing about the 'change' Obama was going to make if he got elected, some would have been defensive against Obama's "change" from the start, ensuring he was going to follow the existing plan and others would be wanting and welcoming change. I don't know which side won.

I disagree there. The few might make things better for themselves and their ilk but the lower-class gets nothing that way. That is moreso a divide & conquer approach that way as both sides will always fight until the right balance is acheived. If they all voted then you get the right representation across the board. If only rich people vote then the rules will be good for rich people only.

LoL. I'm a democrat supporter only in the sense of 'anybody but a republican'. The whole GOP stinks like fundamentalist anything stinks to me. Same as I feel about the Liberal Party here. Old party, old concepts, worthless. To be fair I'll admit it is only the heavy right-wing influence i'm against which seems more pervasive in the current GOP (and the Liberal Party). They're as bad as people taking the bible texts literally imho, neither can grasp the concept of change when everything around them has changed. They're wanting to stick with an old ideology that was never quite right anyway. We, the people, are working towards paradise not away from it.

I do think we need to invest in alternative energy so I can applaud the initiative by Bush. I would want to know more about who and how it all went down to put blame on Obama for its demise. He lent money to a company he thought was going places without dilligent homework. With the push on strongly to get off oil and coal there's a need to find alternative energies, I would have thought it a good start. How would we know what events conspired to bring them down?

Is that a list of crazy people's fears and accusations used as evidence? I tried bolding what I see is the heaviest rhetoric (or is that guesses) though I probably missed some because I don't know enough about the subjects to see through it. All-in-all, nothing concrete I could blame Obama for there that's for sure.

 

Bushranger, you are off of your nut (Again). So much to respond to but I thought these quotes illustrated one point beautifully.

More media != smarter people

Why? Lets take the US morning news today as an example. On CNN, we have Candy Crowley interviewing the CEO of Starbucks. He tells us the leadership in Washington has absolutely failed us on the front of job creation and encourages other business leaders to "forget Washington" and take matters into their own hands. In that spirit, he has created a private fund to provide loans to small businesses, and create jobs in America.

Conversely, we have the cnn print article covering the same interview, which spends half of it's print explaining to us that Shultz makes $65 million a year as CEO of Starbucks, and an indepth focus on how he denies he is running for any political office. HALF OF ITS PRINT! Does Shultz have a selfish motive for helping fund small businesses? Sure! He is aware that small businesses employ 80% of the people in America, and people without jobs don't spend $5 on a cup of coffee. If the number of people who can afford a $5 cup of coffee continue to decline, his $65 million dollar annual salary will not be sustainable. Of course folks like you just read "$65 million dollar compensation" and the thinking stops, which is exactly why CNN added it. Focusing people on class warfare prevents progress but does wonders for helping the reelection chances of losers.

In the same time slot, Chris Hayes spent much of the "You should know" section of his program promoting the site spreadingromney.com, and it's retarded sibling spreadingsantorum.com , where one can find hateful and vulgar redefinitions of the Republican candidates last names. Chris encourages you to visit those sites, if you are so minded. Seriously. This passes for "News" that is making people like you more intelligent.

As you can see, what we wind up with is people like you. Nutters. People who in one sentence talk about the ever present threat of media censorship, and two sentences later talk about making paid pundits illegal. People who say retarded things like "Anybody but a republican", embracing equally retarded stereotypes.

I mean seriously, how do you come up with these types of quotes?

Really? Perhaps after than we can deal with the rampant problems being caused by democracy and equality.

Really? No... REALLY? REALLY?

Stunning. Politics aside, you admit that a mid 40s Obama spent his first two years "working out" how to do his job, and then you somehow make the leap that a 67 year old that has actually run large companies and a state government would face the exact same set of difficulties? Really? If you really believe that, I recommend you take your next major medical issue to a the nearest college, find yourself an undergrad student who is considering going to medical school, and have him do your heart operation. Really.

Well all that information is readily available to you. Millions of articles about it, including the salacious details about how the government agencies in charge were not satisfied that the HALF A BILLION DOLLARS would ever be repaid, and how Obama forced the loan through in time for Biden to do a visit of the facility as a political stunt, and how Obama put his campaign donors ahead of the government on the repayment list in case of loan default, something I dont believe has ever been done before. These facts are all out there and available to someone who is genuinely interested in the information, which apparently does not include you, though you hare happy to weigh in with an opinion.

Once again, thankfully your own country's governance disagrees with you. Its why you have a better informed Parliament to make good decisions on issues 80% of Australians, who are completely uninformed would get completely wrong. Before you get your panties in another twist, the same applies to America.

Uh no. Those are called facts. Really. Easily verifiable facts actually, unless you get your "facts" from the media which is so busily educating people like yourself. Really.

 

Lets say a Republican would win the presidency, would he be able to manage more effectively than Obama ? What would happen to the deficit caused by Obama for the Iraq War, would a republican president be able to fix the deficit or we would hear the same sh!t again like give him more time to do his job or he needs a second term to fulfill it or the same sh!t lines like Obama destroyed the economy and the invasion of Iraq was his fault.

 

Popo, that is the most legitimate question I've seen you post in a long time, so long as we ignore the idea that the Iraq war is solely, or even largely, responsible for the deficit, which it is not. I think the fair answer is, nobody knows for certain. Whether a Republican can or cannot fix the deficit, one thing is certain. Obama will not and can not, and for a variety of reasons.

1) He doesn't want to, because big government means more people voting Democrat.
2) If he did want to, he is incapable of doing it.

The man is uniquely incapable of building any consensus on any issue in Washington. For those who thought Bush was divisive, Bush got most of his legislative agenda through, both with Republicans and Democrats in control of congress. Obama, on the other hand, could not push anything through congress when the Democrats controlled both houses, and he certainly cannot now that Republicans control one house. Harry Reid, Democrat leader of the Senate, won't even bring Obama's budget up for discussion. Its pathetic. Washington is divided and leaderless because it's leader is incapable of leading.

Obama is great at stirring up public resentment though. Years as a community organizer make one a master at that skill. Saul Alinsky built a great rule book on how to get someone into office, but didn't provide an inkling of how to actually lead.

Are you asking if Romney, after failing to accomplish anything in his first term would spend his time blaming Obama for his failures like Obama blames Bush? Again, there is know way to be certain, but judging the man by what we know about his character I find it unlikely.

 

Bushranger - Granted, we agree on darn near nothing, but that's not uncommon in political discussions. If we all agreed the threads would be pretty boring. That said, it's nice to see you re-enter the discussion and post arguments in support of your ideology as opposed to the fece tossing exhibition by our resident troll that preceded beforehand. I don't have to agree with your post to appreciate the enormous difference in tone and content. Thanks.

Where to start? Maybe the best place is the short list O'nation posted that you seem to discount as just biased rhetoric. Pick any one of them and do a little research. They are only the tip of the iceberg, but worthy of close inspection.

The discussion with Soylendra started in the Bush administration, but wasnt funded. Why? Well, the results Obama got when he funded it are a fair reason... But note that he funded it right after being handed a rather large "bundled" campaign donation from one of the Soylendra guys that cant seem to account for where all the money they were given "evaporated" to.

Obama talks a lot about cleaning up DC, but crony deals like that are far too common. Do a youtube search on Fiskar cars. Thats another "green" project Obama threw a half billion plus taxpayer dollars at... and it is now in financial trouble. Biden ran around making speeches about how he and Obama were "re-writing automotive history". he bragged about the "millions and millions and millions" of dollars in jobs it would create.

It created in fact 500 jobs... And they were in Finland... Where Henrik Fisker outsourced the production. [wait... Wasnt obama against outsourcing?!] was this a viable project that was just unlucky? Gee... Is there a big market in this economy for cars that cost almost $100,000 dollars and run out of juice in a shorter distance than the morning work commute?

That project was doomed before it started... But again... Like Soylendra... there were bigname campaign donors that benefitted from the outlay of taxpayer funds on a project doomed to fail because there wasnt a market for it. The company has delivered exactly two cars. We dont have the funds to pay our national bills and the administration blew thru over a billion dollars just on those two crony payback ventures benefitting DNC loyal millionaires.

Another good one to check is the voter intimidation scandal. Theres a cellphone video on youtube that documents two members of the Black Panthers wearing paramilitary uniforms standing in front of the doors outside a polling place during the 2008 election. One stands with a police style baton in his hand. The video provides a very clear picture of voter intimidation, as did the testimony of witnesses that quoted the things they said about being there because they were "tired of white supremacy" and "a black man was going to win" this election.

Theres also footage of a news reporter talking to the remaining guy after the one with the billy club was removed, and he pretends the guy with the billy club was never there and tries to tell the news crew to leave.

The justice dept rightfully filed a corresponding voter intimidation case before Obama took office... Then according to sworn testimony of two whistleblowers, lawyers inside the division of the DOJ prosecuting the case, they were told once Eric Holder took over the DOJ as Obamas attorney general they were NOT to prosecute civil rights cases where the offenders were minorities. The case was glossed over and the whistleblowers kissed their careers at DOJ adios.

We have a constitution that says we all have equal rights under the law... And an attorney general that think civil rights violations are insignificant if the victim isnt his favorite color. Racism is wrong no matter what color the victim may be.

Like i said... This is tip of the iceberg stuff. Our president is fostering class warfare, and his supposed disdain for millionairs is noticibly absent where Democratic campaign donors are in line to suck the DC nipple notwithstanding the merit of their request. For a guy that came in boasting his intent to offer a new type of administration... He sure seems to be just following the well worn Chicago politics playbook... Including staffers that belong to Chicago's generations old "Daley machine".

These are not lunatic fringe GOP charges... this guy personifies the worst traits of politics. I would vote for a random guy in the DC phonebook picked with a dart... regardless of political party / sex / race religion / personal wealth... before I'd vote for a second Obama term. Don't let your dislike for Bush blind you to the reality of the corruption thats being displayed by Obama. He is not just ill-equipped to handle the job, he doesnt have the character for it.

 

Valid question, Jude. Truthfully i wouldnt limit it to a Republican that could do a better job. I honestly believe our financial mess today would be drastically better had Hillary won instead of Obama. She's far from my favorite character, but she was clearly more than just Bill Clintons wife... She wad an advisor.

Whatever one might say about Clinton, he was not ineffective. He got things done even when dealing with a GOP controlled congress headed by Newt Gingrich... who is far from being a shrinking violet. The inability to work in a two party environment is one of Obama's most obvious downfalls. He's good at blaming others, but has no leadership traits beyond getting elected.

Any one of the potential GOP nominees brings better experience to the table than Obama, and have better experience working with the opposing party. Romney ran a state with a majority democrat legislature. Gingrich managed to get things done working across the aisle with Clinton and our budgets not only got passed, the deficit was reduced.

If the Dems were to pose another candidate besides obama it would be the best move they could do.

But regardless of who wins the election... And regardless of what party controls the white house, the senate, and the house... You are absolutely right that we need action to address the real problems, not blame games deciding whose fault they are. the president, whomever that might be, has got to be more than "blamer in chief". Fixing blame doesnt fix the problem. If the next pres concentrates on the blame-game we are SO screwed.

 

Twisting words or didn't grasp my concept?

More real media = good
More fake media = bad

Democrats paying people to spread lies, mining companies, CEOs etc. = bad. (At first I wrote Israel, then repubs there , but in an effort to be genuine I'll take the lead by not writing simply to raise the ire.)

Do you know how easy it is to make 'a report'? I could release a report on the girth of Obama's prick and the MSM would run with it i'm sure. All they care about is having someone to blame, not how true it is.

Sure, we can sue against the lies but we can't contain the damage until after the court case which takes a loooong time and requires a compliant press to retract them. Like the climate change scandals the bullshit gets repeated and repeated until it becomes fact and nobody has any idea who is right.

I initially liked the idea of a license for journalists (that can be revoked) but that could be gamed and prove more dangerous so I will discount that option now.

You do know we have compulsory voting here don't you? Every adult must vote so I don't know where you plucked that from, nor do I understand your reasoning there based on my comment that everyone should vote.

My point is not that they did or didn't happen but how one can blame Obama for them. Given each department makes its own decisions, how, apart from the buck stops at the top, can Obama be blamed for every decision every department makes?

Yes, but you don't have that choice (voting for a stranger). It seems to be Obama and Romney. Going on what I've seen Obama is my choice from those two.

 

So who determines real media vs. fake media? I hate to be the one to point this out, but MSNBC is as mainstream as you get in America. So is Fox, and they are nearly as bad. I personally doubt they are being paid by either party to do what they do. The people who run those companies are people with opinions, and a very loud megaphone. Also, "spreading lies" is not technically correct. Both organizations have legitimate news, which they mingle heavily with their opinion journalists, though even their straight news organizations play the editorial game of omission. They don't have to lie to you. They can simply chose which stories they will report, and which ones they wont, and the how the tone of each story will play out. In the case of my example from CNN, the editor chose to make some completely factual background information on the Starbucks CEO's salary 50% of the story, no lying involved. It reminds me of the headlines from around the world when OJ's verdict was announced. One nation in Africa put it on the cover with the headline "Free at Last!" and Germany ran with "Wrong Verdict".

If you want to say more information(The internet) has made people smarter, I can certainly concede that point. The media (fake or real as you call it), not so much. Here in America, we've had mildly dishonest reporting since the beginning of broadcast television. With the expansion of cable news, digital media and the internet, our media is now overtly dishonest and misleading. Perhaps the only bright side is that viewers are building up a healthy skepticism, though they wouldn't make the propaganda if it didn't work.

That is news to me. I wonder if Australia's voters take any more time to educate themselves, giving the mandatory nature of the vote. What I was driving at is the fact your voters only elect politicians, not the issues themselves, which is also true of our federal elections, but not California state elections.

Because most of those decisions were made directly from the oval office??? Who would you have us blame?

 

Very good point by stating it in a different way. I have truly believed in what you have stated for quite some time now, but it's hard to point this out to many people. They are too oblivious, ignorant, and the worst naive to realize this is what's happening. They think that the government and those in authority REALLY DO have our best interests at heart, want to protect us, even from ourselves, and their such great people with very little to no greed. They look at those caught with their hands in the cookie jar as some anomalous entity that exists as if in some vacuum. What really runs this country? Congress? In a way, but no. Money. And more specifically, those that have it. Big business will continue to do two things. Find ways to maximize profits and keep the flow of profits coming. And if that means "donating" to certain key congressmen, then that's what they'll do.

That's not what they were saying. They were saying that the focus of the people should be on what is really the problem. And that is big businesses control of Congress, who pass biased laws protecting those corporations and making sure their profits stay high. The idea to to go after those to blame and elect better politicians if that is possible, yet necessary. If changes need to be made, then they need to be made, in whatever way possible within reason.