Before Obama and Clinton were running there was Ron Paul who defiantly would have won. For the presidential debate they brought in 2 types of people the world would like to see win. A Woman and a Black man. Neither of their policies match Ron Paul's. The Majority of votes were based on popularity to a point where none of the candidates ever existed in the first place.
Fresh blood is absolutely needed and I think a 3rd party and even a 4th party would be fantastic. Ron Paul wasn't quite what I had in mind but I guess he was better then Ross Perot. One thing is certain, Republicans and Democrats have fucked us over for too long and we are long over due for REAL CHANGE.
Fresh blood is absolutely needed and I think a 3rd party and even a 4th party would be fantastic. Ron Paul wasn't quite what I had in mind but I guess he was better then Ross Perot. One thing is certain, Republicans and Democrats have fucked us over for too long and we are long over due for REAL CHANGE.
There are reports of Obama being related to the Bush family. 11 to 13 generations. There is also a report of Obama being related to up to 6 US presidents. 2 Bush's within a span of 20 years as president (8 years being Clinton who Bush adores). What are the odds of that in a nation that exceeds a population of a quarter billion ? Even if Hillary won, that would have been as silly.
Personally I think the American voting system is for show. And the media is a tool for shaping the world as we see it. In the end "The Real Change" will have us accept a solution that peacefully brings us into a greater state of entanglement.
Fresh blood is absolutely needed and I think a 3rd party and even a 4th party would be fantastic. Ron Paul wasn't quite what I had in mind but I guess he was better then Ross Perot. One thing is certain, Republicans and Democrats have fucked us over for too long and we are long over due for REAL CHANGE.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of his supporters, Ron Paul would never have won this election. He couldn't even win his party's nomination. He only way he could've won would've been by default, if everyone else had dropped out... sorta like how McCain ended up on the ticket.
If you haven't been paying attention for the past few months, the GOP has been having an identity crisis. They've managed to purge most of their moderates as not being ideologically pure enough. There were so many howls over John McCain's supposed "leftist" ideals that there's no way Paul -- against the war in Iraq, against the "War on Drugs" -- would ever get the support from the base that he'd need to pull off a win. It would never happen in a million years in a party that thinks Sarah Palin is a model of conservatism.
We had front-page photos and a lengthy story in our newspaper. It was my day to design the front page, too. I managed to avoid using the headline I wanted, which was Teabaggers go nuts. Instead, I used a much simpler Conservatives rally against government spending.
Why am I not surprised in the least that you are a journo seeing as you are probably the most left person on this site… lol
More or less you prove Tom’s point.
Also please stop using the term teabaggers and get off of Maddow’s dick… No one attending the events used that term and its just annoying that people who are only trying to discredit the event keep using it.
It's not like they were protesting anything specific. It was a big anti-Obama hissy fit. Most of the people in those crowds were getting tax cuts. The time to start protesting would've been when Bush was racking up huge deficits by cutting taxes and starting wars, or when Bush started the bailouts.
Instead, they wait until the Democrat is in office. Of course.
You completely missed the point of the event (not surprised) and seem to completely overlook the history behind the event. The tea parties are an accurate analogy of the current situation happening in the government. It is about taxation without representation. The issue is that it is not the current people who are not represented but it is in fact the people who are not even born yet who will be flipping the bill for all of this spending. They are being taxed.
These events started a year or two ago as a part of the Ron Paul campaign and most of the major current tea parties were planned by the Ron Paul supporters and were going to happen regardless of who was actually elected because we need a dramatic cut in spending. I will admit that some of the attendees that were there were people who were just there because they hate Obama but they were most definitely in the minority. The funny thing that I realized at the event that I actually attended (unlike yourself im sure) was the amount of people there who seemed more angry at Bush for starting us down this path than Obama for continuing it.
The events for the most part did end up being non-partisan as advertised. There was even a funny clip where a republican senator who is planning on running for the governor of South Carolina got booed off of the stage for being part of the problem.
You say that we waited until a dem was in office but the truth is that April 15th is the logical time to have such an event due to the fact that many people are angry about just writing a big check and this happens to be the first April 15th since all the bailout bullshit started happening. If this were a GOP event why is it that the chairman of the RNC Michael Steele was denied the right to speak at the Chicago tea party event.
That being said I am disgusted about how many people are actually bandwagoning onto this and getting credit for its creation but I guess at least the information is getting out there. And let me tell you what… I gave out about 300 fliers for the campaign for Liberty at the event to people of all parties and told countless people to contact their congressmen and senators about HR 1207 and getting it passed.
For those interested in what HR 1207 is here is a video.
Your probably right. I didn't really see anyone in this election we had who was worth actually supporting. I'm really getting tired of choosing "who will do the least damage to the country" when I step into a ballot box.
Unlike most of you, I'm not brainwashed into believing Bush was an evil man. I see him for want he was. A spoiled rich kid who only got as far as he did because George Bush Sr. was his dad. That doesn't make him evil, just completely unqualified to hold the office he had because had it not been for his father he would never had been elected.
How is Obama any different? A junior senator who never finished his first term in office. An affirmative action candidate who would NEVER have been elected if he was a white guy named John Smith. Never been in charge of anything, skilled only at reading a teleprompter and reciting pre-written speeches. Dejavu running his Einherjar shell twice a week arguably has more leadership experience then Barack Obama.
If you people were all as fair-minded as you think you are, you'd realize we are in deep shit with Obama in charge and if we do survive, not financially destitute as a nation, it will be because of the perseverance of the American people and not this shit for brains whose currently running things into the ground.
I don’t think bush was evil… I think he was an idiot…
I don’t hate Obama because he is black… I don’t actually think Obama is an idiot… I just think that he is extremely wrong.
Thank you for the bode of confidence :wink: now apparently there are two of us that think I would do a better job than him… I am starting a movement people!!!
You know… there is the possibility of not voting for someone because there is the better choice despite the color of their skin. There is that other quality… called merit.
Yes and alot of white people voted for him only because he was black. I know many for them that were so "excited" they were voting for the first black president. "Oh boy, oh boy. it's going to be so great when we have a black president."
Its not racism but it does bring up an interesting point. I know several people who claim that they voted for Obama solely for the reason that they didn’t want to be perceived as a racist despite their thinking that he was in fact the inferior candidate. (Note … I see McCain and Obama as equally terrible and voted for neither…)
Now on the other hand there is an extremely valid argument that the black voters for Obama were racially motivated seeing as 95% of the “black vote” went to Obama. Can you imagine the shit storm we would have seen if 95% of white voters voted for McCain yet this issue goes largely unspoken.
I completely agree which is why the government needs to stop trying and get out of the way and let the invisible hand take over and fix all of our problems. Yes we will have a quick and severe recession but that is what is necessary to pay off the debts that we have already accumulated.
Fresh blood is absolutely needed and I think a 3rd party and even a 4th party would be fantastic. Ron Paul wasn't quite what I had in mind but I guess he was better then Ross Perot. One thing is certain, Republicans and Democrats have fucked us over for too long and we are long over due for REAL CHANGE.
While I appreciate the enthusiasm of his supporters, Ron Paul would never have won this election. He couldn't even win his party's nomination. He only way he could've won would've been by default, if everyone else had dropped out... sorta like how McCain ended up on the ticket.
If you haven't been paying attention for the past few months, the GOP has been having an identity crisis. They've managed to purge most of their moderates as not being ideologically pure enough. There were so many howls over John McCain's supposed "leftist" ideals that there's no way Paul -- against the war in Iraq, against the "War on Drugs" -- would ever get the support from the base that he'd need to pull off a win. It would never happen in a million years in a party that thinks Sarah Palin is a model of conservatism.
Thanks largely to the media of the time… I think you would be very surprised if there was another GOP election right now because I believe that RP would be a very strong second to Romney who I still think was the best of all the mainstream candidates. The funny thing about Paul is that although he may not have the neocons… he would have most of the evangelicals and bring in a ton of independents and dems. Then the neos would have to chose between a dem or a constitutionalist and they would begrudgingly support RP.
Sadly I think the best thing for the GOP is just to die and make way for a new party to take its place but that’s just my opinion of course.
Hey, I'm not the one who chose teabags as my big protest symbol. It's not my fault if the organizers don't know how to use Google. It's a hilarious term and I'll keep using it because it's funny. The folks who protested against the invasion of Iraq were labeled anti-American hippies, so boo-freakin'-hoo.
That's pure crap. There is no "taxation without representation" in this country. We all have elected officials that we send to Washington to represent us. Modeling that protest on the Boston Tea Party is just poor form; those guys had no representation. We have representatives who voted in favor of the bailouts under Bush and also the ones under Obama.
You can't even argue that it's about future kids being taxed without representation, because then the problem goes all the way back to the massive deficits run up by Saint Reagan, and I didn't see too many signs protesting Reagan. It was all Obama-this and Obama-that. They're just trying to force the protest to fit the symbol they want.
The funny thing about Paul is that although he may not have the neocons… he would have most of the evangelicals and bring in a ton of independents and dems.
Ron Paul couldn't even beat Mike Huckabee and you think he'd win the evangelicals if they had the election again today? You're fooling yourself. Pulling in the independents and moderate Democrats was supposedly McCain's strongest factor, and Ron Paul is barely a blip on the radar in comparison.
Blame the media all you want, but Ron Paul is an Internet phenomenon who didn't have a chance in the real world.
Hey, I'm not the one who chose teabags as my big protest symbol. It's not my fault if the organizers don't know how to use Google. It's a hilarious term and I'll keep using it because it's funny. The folks who protested against the invasion of Iraq were labeled anti-American hippies, so boo-freakin'-hoo.
Would you prefer if we used loose tea... it doesn't really come in barrels that often nowadays like it did back in colonial days. Its about connecting this event to the Boston tea party not the bag... anyways... i don't think its possible to change you mind on this one so i guess i will just drop it and continue to think your close-mindedly left.
That's pure crap. There is no "taxation without representation" in this country. We all have elected officials that we send to Washington to represent us. Modeling that protest on the Boston Tea Party is just poor form; those guys had no representation. We have representatives who voted in favor of the bailouts under Bush and also the ones under Obama.
You can't even argue that it's about future kids being taxed without representation, because then the problem goes all the way back to the massive deficits run up by Saint Reagan, and I didn't see too many signs protesting Reagan. It was all Obama-this and Obama-that. They're just trying to force the protest to fit the symbol they want.
Yes the officials were elected and they are spending the money of current voters... The problem is that they are also spending the money of generations to come. How is this different from the tea party in 1773. There a government which was largely out of control was taxing a group that did not have the ability to dictate the laws... hence no representation. Now we have a group of people who are not even born yet who are getting taxed and have no ability to dictate the laws... hence no representation.
As you pointed out correctly this is not a recent transgression but it is in fact the point of the rallies. It was anti-obama from the perspective of no one at these events thought that he was doing the right thing... but i heard more anti bush sentiment than anything.
I fully admit Reagen was part of the problem. Basically every president since Woodrow Wilson and the start of the progressive movement has been. But you have to admit that Bush and Obama have greatly accelerated the problem since the economic problems have started.
Ron Paul couldn't even beat Mike Huckabee and you think he'd win the evangelicals if they had the election again today? You're fooling yourself. Pulling in the independents and moderate Democrats was supposedly McCain's strongest factor, and Ron Paul is barely a blip on the radar in comparison.
Blame the media all you want, but Ron Paul is an Internet phenomenon who didn't have a chance in the real world.
Opinions. But it is amazing that in December of 2007 there was a tea party money bomb for Ron Paul and it did fairly good for the time bringing in a little over 6M and now look at how big the tea parties are getting where the same message is being spread however there is no candidate at the forefront. The ideas of Liberty and Freedom are growing in this country and a candidate who espouses these ideals will do very well in the next election cycle especially if they have a voting record nearly as spotless as his to back it up. Sadly i fear that by that time RP will be too old to actually make another run but i do hope that someone else will carry that torch.
Here watch your friend maddow, this is the most accurate thing she has said about this event.
How has Obama accelerated the problem? Despite the fact that everyone thought things would get worse before they got better, the market has definitely shown improvement since the change in president. The real tests have obviously yet to come, so you and I have no idea what kind of short and long term effects Obama's changes have made. You are delusional if you think you could know for sure what will happen in the economy during the next few years and beyond.
Disagreeing with how things are being handled is one thing, but spouting off about how its ruining the country is just retarded assumptions. These guys aren't idiots, they have a pretty big education in this shit and know a fair amount about the market. I'm not saying you have to believe they are right, but you should at least accept the notion that these people do know what they are talking about and have a decent shot at being successful.
How has Obama accelerated the problem? Despite the fact that everyone thought things would get worse before they got better, the market has definitely shown improvement since the change in president. The real tests have obviously yet to come, so you and I have no idea what kind of short and long term effects Obama's changes have made. You are delusional if you think you could know for sure what will happen in the economy during the next few years and beyond.
Disagreeing with how things are being handled is one thing, but spouting off about how its ruining the country is just retarded assumptions. These guys aren't idiots, they have a pretty big education in this shit and know a fair amount about the market. I'm not saying you have to believe they are right, but you should at least accept the notion that these people do know what they are talking about and have a decent shot at being successful.
Keynesianism ... The thing is that when Obama got in office it scared alot of investors into panic selling. This is shown by the fact that the dow already down when Obama got into office fell from 9,625 to 6,547... or a loss of 32 percent. Now it has recovered somewhat but that is due to the fact that many of the investors now realized that they overreacted.
The way that i look at this is that it is most likely a suckers rally... and the real pain is still coming as the dow continues to slip but our money is inflated away from us.
http://www.signaltrend.com/Stock-Market-Great-Depression.html
Here is a Chart from the great depression. It shows the "Crash of the stock market back then. Now there is a very interesting part of this chart which is the period of the chart from C to D where in 1930 the dow actually started going back up significantly for a time. It is referred to as a bull trap in a bear market where the few people who have money left are trying to time the recovery in the market and actually end up buying only to watch their investments decline further. This is the period that i believe that we are in with alot of falling still to do.
The issue that i have is that i do not think that this will be visible in the dow alone due to the inflation that is coming very soon as well. With the rate that money is being thrown at problems the dow could very well be worth 6-8000 still but the problem is that the actual value of the dollar if hedged in something with intrinsic value like gold will decrease dramatically. For a long time i have said that i think the end of this problem will be when the dow is worth 3 ounces of gold and i still think that will be the case. This bear market rally will end soon once the fresh money wears out and inflation sets in which many economists that i like to listen to are predicting will happen in the early summer.
For me this is the time to take all of your money out of the dow and put it into gold. The IMF just sold off like 400 tons and has pushed the gold price down significantly due to the basic rules of supply and demand. The dow is overvalued and gold is poised to make a huge bull run very soon.
I am reminded of a Metaphor that i was taught about Keynesianism that i think is about as accurate as possible and it is "pushing on a string". What this means is yes you can use certain methods to influence the market but just because you are influencing it does not mean you have any control over it. You can pull on a string and bring something closer but you cannot use the string to also push it away.
The simple fact is that i do in fact believe that the deficit spending policies that have been used by the government for many many years are in fact ruining the country and i feel that it is my and anyone else who feels the government has lost its way's responsibility to speak out against these policies. The problem is and has been spending... Overspending inflated the bubble that got us into this problem and overspending to maintain the bubble is not the solution.
Yes and alot of white people voted for him only because he was black. I know many for them that were so "excited" they were voting for the first black president. "Oh boy, oh boy. it's going to be so great when we have a black president."
Its not racism but it does bring up an interesting point. I know several people who claim that they voted for Obama solely for the reason that they didn’t want to be perceived as a racist despite their thinking that he was in fact the inferior candidate.
When your ONLY criteria to vote/hire/choose/whatever someone is because of their RACE. It's RACISM. When you favor one particular race your ipso facto DISCRIMINATING against another. Not really sure how much simpler I can make this. What color you are is completely irrelevant. Is the person discriminated against because of your racist policy, even if you are the same race as them, supposed to feel better some how because of that fact?
When your ONLY criteria to vote/hire/choose/whatever someone is because of their RACE. It's RACISM. When you favor one particular race your ipso facto DISCRIMINATING against another. Not really sure how much simpler I can make this. What color you are is completely irrelevant. Is the person discriminated against because of your racist policy, even if you are the same race as them, supposed to feel better some how because of that fact?
I don't agree a lot with Tom, but I do agree with the point hes trying to get across.
I think Obama being black did have an obvious effect on the election, but I think more than anything it just added to his platform of "change" and really got some people on-board believing in change because he himself exemplified change as a "black" person in a position that was 100% white previously. Its a bit of a grey area really, I would say its not racist to acknowledge that him being black is something to consider when you decided who to vote for, but deciding that vote purely on him being black would definitely be and would be offensive to both Obama (Because hes worked hard to become who he is, focusing only on the thing out of his control, race, is an insult) and McCain (because obviously he isnt black).
I'm not so sure that being Black won Obama the general election, but it sure as hell won him the primary. If the black constituents were voting on the issues not the candidate's color, they'd have backed Hillary Clinton, no question asked. Instead they voted for this lawyer who capitalized on the big 3 of the Democratic Party:
Uptight, upper class urban whites with white guilt.
Liberal youths who vote for the trendiest candidate regardless of what their platform is.
Black people who will vote for whoever they perceieve to be the "blackest." Which means 99% of the time, whichever white guy plays the saxophone and eats at Mcdonalds.
Now, none of my black college friends would admit that they were voting for Obama because he was black, and said they'd support him 100% the same if he was white. Are they liars? No, that's what they in their heart believe. Yet if you dissect the black vote, there's no fucking way I'm wrong.
There are white people too who vote for the white candidate cause they're white. They'll probably be seen as racist while in the end we accept that black people will vote for a black candidate. I say, with voting, it's not racism. You can vote for whoever the fuck you want, for whatever reason and nobody has a right to judge you. You can vote for Obama and say, "I won't vote Hillary because women have inferior intelligence." Whatever. It's not anyone's place to question other people's voting criteria.
Now, hire a person for a regular job, or deny their loan app or something of that matter, based on their race, that's something to be called out on. But voting... and dating, people's own business. If you don't want to date some chick because you don't find asian girls attractive or something, nobody's business.
