Originally posted by inimalist
how does adding an additional lever of manipulating democracy make the system better?
We covered this already, didn't we?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Why must every thread in the GDF turn into in and ddm playing teacher/student?
It's been inimalist and I arguing, lately, mostly. Mostly about republicans.
Originally posted by inimalist
you might have something that seems convincing to you...
You had a similar reason/justification as well.
It's just that you are not trusting of the establishment. But I see your reason as being the same exact reason for doing it: voting has corruption. Instituting testing with verifiable results would make that easier to expose while also forcing the voters to educate themselves.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
How is the Rublicans pushing him around? He is doing things his way and he should not had made promises he can't keep and it is all about controling everything and everyone around him. I also don't see how the economy been getting any better since he became president.
As it stands now, unless we get a real democratic primary challenger or a legitimate, popular third party candidate, the the election can be summed up as Gordon Gecko (Romney) vs. Fritz Kuhn (Santorum) vs. Elizabeth Dilling (Bachmann) vs. some guy no one cares about (Huntsman) vs. a sexier, more Jew-hating Ayn Rand (Ron Paul) all in a contest to see who can beat the Democratic Herbert Hoover and his loud, mutated Clintonoid parrot of a vice president to answer the question of whether the rich should enslave the poor or whether they should steal from and exterminate the Jews, Blacks, Gays, Muslims, and Latinos.....and then enslave the poor.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
As it stands now, unless we get a real democratic primary challenger or a legitimate, popular third party candidate, the the election can be summed up as Gordon Gecko (Romney) vs. Fritz Kuhn (Santorum) vs. Elizabeth Dilling (Bachmann) vs. some guy no one cares about (Huntsman) vs. a sexier, more Jew-hating Ayn Rand (Ron Paul) all in a contest to see who can beat the Democratic Herbert Hoover and his loud, mutated Clintonoid parrot of a vice president to answer the question of whether the rich should enslave the poor or whether they should steal from and exterminate the Jews, Blacks, Gays, Muslims, and Latinos.....and then enslave the poor.
There's just so much wrong with this post.
But, I'll focus only on one thing.
How in the world is Obama like a dem. version of Hoover?
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's just so much wrong with this post.But, I'll focus only on one thing.
How in the world is Obama like a dem. version of Hoover?
Obama is a lazy, corrupt corporate puppet who tries to solve our depression by doing nothing, denying it exists, and occasionally sending money down for half-assed, mismanaged and corporate run public works projects that don't particularly do much of anything other than cause traffic jams and create temporary low-paying jobs instead of creating real employment programs and hammering the rich and the corrupt until they break. Sure FDR didn't do that until people got out in the streets but people are in the streets now and Obama is ignoring them because he's too afraid of losing his ill gotten bankster cash or being hurt by the tea bagger silver shirts.
And what I insinuated was that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans as parties is that while they both want to screw the poor, the Republicans have what I perceive as a clear mindset towards ethnic cleansing at the first opportunity.
We deserve a better choice than thee fascists and three Nazis on one side and a Herbert Hoover democrat who's functionally to the right of Ronald Reagan on the other side.
Originally posted by Darth Jello+
Obama is a lazy, corrupt corporate puppet who tries to solve our depression by doing nothing, denying it exists, and occasionally sending money down for half-assed, mismanaged and corporate run public works projects that don't particularly do much of anything other than cause traffic jams and create temporary low-paying jobs instead of creating real employment programs and hammering the rich and the corrupt until they break. Sure FDR didn't do that until people got out in the streets but people are in the streets now and Obama is ignoring them because he's too afraid of losing his ill gotten bankster cash or being hurt by the tea bagger silver shirts.And what I insinuated was that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans as parties is that while they both want to screw the poor, the Republicans have what I perceive as a clear mindset towards ethnic cleansing at the first opportunity.
We deserve a better choice than thee fascists and three Nazis on one side and a Herbert Hoover democrat who's functionally to the right of Ronald Reagan on the other side.
I see now where you are comming from.
However:
1. We are not in a depression. There's a difference between a recession and a depression. A depression we are not in.
2. Public Works project, eh? Sorry, wrong. Not even close.
Have fun reading about all the promises Obama has kept, broken or partially kept and then sorting out which ones were public works projects (hardly any):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
3. Saying that "people are in the streets" and comparing them to pre New Deal circumstances is just rediculous. However, since you did not believe in my point #1, you would obviously conclude what I just called rediculous.
4. You think his money comes from "banksters", eh?
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=91841226
That news source indicates half of it comes from small time donars with the other half coming in large chunks. 95% of the donations come in sizes $200 or less. This should clearly indicate that, no, Obama is not primarily bank rolled by "banksters".
And based on the following information, you have a much better case that "retiree gangsters" are bankrolling Obama:
Finally, the last nail in your coffin is a Snopes article that addresses just what you indicated:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp
It says a majority of Obama's contributions were $200 or more and those must be listed. So those are listed somewhere on the interwebs. I could not find anything that gave exact numbers, however.
This does not mean I don't agree with your larger point, however. I just took issue with your rediculous comparison to Obama being like Hoover.
Yes, Dems and Repubs are more of the same. In order to get "real" chance, we need to get rid of a majority of our congress and replace them with "not dems or repubs".
Originally posted by dadudemonRed-iculous...like the colour at the bottom of the misspelling of ridiculous. giggle
rediculous.
Here's my take on Obama.
Goldman Sachs was his top donator...
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM😛OLITICS
And Goldman Sachs of course have soaring profits each year whilst everyone else is in recession...
http://www.stockmarketdigital.com/financial_services/goldman-sachs-q2-net-profit-rises-77-to-109-bln
and, well...
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/18/139758303/sec-documents-destroyed-employee-tells-congress
Yeah. Destroyed the relevant documents...
This really takes the cake to be honest.
Just a bit of fun from one of ddm's links
Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alertlolUpdate August 11th, 2011: U.S. had the chance in the Nuclear Posture Review but didn't take it
Originally posted by lord xyz
Red-iculous...like the colour at the bottom of the misspelling of ridiculous. giggle
I'm glad you find misspelling of words funny when people are forced to use IE 6 at work.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Here's my take on Obama.Goldman Sachs was his top donator...
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM😛OLITICS
Did you read your own article? I guess not:
"Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign."
The number is skewed to begin with because it includes people that made individual donations BUT listed GS as their employer.
On top of that, please tell me how $994,795 is significant to $1 Billion dollars?
Originally posted by lord xyz
And Goldman Sachs of course have soaring profits each year whilst everyone else is in recession...
http://www.stockmarketdigital.com/financial_services/goldman-sachs-q2-net-profit-rises-77-to-109-bln
This point would have required your previous point to be legitimate, which it is not. This point is, therefore, invalidated.
This particular point would also require you to point out an action (not inaction) of Obama's that directly contributed to the "success" of GS. You didn't do that but just pointed to success without a logical linker.
Originally posted by lord xyz
and, well...
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/18/139758303/sec-documents-destroyed-employee-tells-congress
Yeah. Destroyed the relevant documents...
This step requires you to have first established that this had any relevancy to Obama, of which it did not.
Originally posted by lord xyz
This really takes the cake to be honest.
What takes the cake is you did absolutely nothing to add to the conversation. At best, you succeeded in painting yourself as a conspiracy theorist (truth) who makes sweeping claims with no logical linking completed (truth).
Originally posted by lord xyz
Just a bit of fun from one of ddm's linkslol
So you are admitting to outright trolling and you never intended to actually make a legitimate point? I thought we were past this?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm glad you find misspelling of words funny when people are forced to use IE 6 at work.
>at work
Originally posted by dadudemonAfter spending all that time at work responding to trolling.
So you are admitting to outright trolling and you never intended to actually make a legitimate point? I thought we were past this?
Originally posted by dadudemonI don't know what time your shifts are, but since most people in the US work at around 10am, which is when you typed that post, and it was about 3 hours after your initial post which you admit was at work, I assume you were still at work, and spend your time at work arguing with trolls on the internet.
I am home, now. I'm confused as to what you're on about.