US predicted to fall in 2010

[sventvkg]

Forget it

[deanmass]

RANT WARNING---

RE: Nader...Voted for him...Yes VOTED for the man. Seen movies on him, read his books. What does Obama have that he does not? Obama is not divisive. Bush was a weak candidate in 2000 AND 2004, and likely did not win the election anyway. Ralph Nader is very intelligent, but then so is Jimmy Carter. He failed as a president, but is still an excellent human being. I am optimistic that Obama will succeed at both being a leader and a human being in the eyes of the public and world, and his clarity in speech, thoughtfulness and persona will re-establish he positive face on American politics in the world. It is a lot to ask hell yes, but if he was not batting cleanup for a retard ( Bush), his job would still be tough. McCain was a weak candidate as well, and he still pulled in a ton of votes, which in my mind exposes a racist redneck America I had hoped was long gone. McCain is a good man, a hero, but NOT a leader. Palin seems better suited to run a Wendys ( no offense to Wendy's people..) Nader is a great man, very intelligent, but like McCain, very bitter and seems to be more determined to 'be right than happy'.

 

In a perfect world, we would have had a FIELD of strong, intelligent, moral and focused candidates to choose from on both sides. In reality this time, the GOP screwed the pooch totally, and Obama stomped the rest with a cool head, great marketing, and a 'bring everyone to the table' approach and message.' I donated to the Ron Paul campaign early on, but, as I saw him not widening his platform so to speak, and confronted my own strong opinion on national health care ( for it, it is crippling our economy NOT to have it), and had to get off his bandwagon, although I really like him and hope he stays loud and keeps asking questions.

 

Obama simply represents our countries best chance at moving us forward, not backward. We need to help him make it happen. If he fails, things are gonna get uglier than they have been since the 30's, but we cannot let it happen.

[the stranger]

Here's the rub:

We can do one of two things...

We can let Obama be another leader, or we can make him our representative. He'll either be another puppet for special interests, or people will start taking their responsibilities seriously and governing themselves the way our founding fathers intended.

We the people. We the people tell them what we need. Not the other way around.

In order to manifest change in government, we must manifest change in ourselves.

[Jotown]

Forget it

Good idea. It is amazing that there are actually people out there who believe that crap.

[alfonso]

I don't think that something like that will happen. Crisis is evident, but a mature democracy, even with all its quirks (like any other), has got some self-repairing abilities, like the election of Obama, in my opinion, shows well. And I think this not because I see Obama as a miracle-man and the "deus ex machina" but because I saw the citizens of a big country make a choice well behind of schemes and feel the need for a change...... this is the change.
But I must say also that I find quite surprising and pretty naive that someone might think that in case of an improbable dissolution of the federal power the citizens of Alaska could reject a Russian attack with their private guns....hey, do you have the slightest idea of what weapons would be used in such a scenario? Some technology has occurred from the Boston tea party times, ya know?

[7sickstrings]

I also support Ron Paul and any other representative that actually represents. ...Nice to see you are another one of these dems that will blame anything and everything to deny the reality that the Democratic party is irrelevant.

Yeah, 'cause Ron Paul and his rEVOLution aren't at ALL the complete fringe of the left wing. WAY better than being a Nader devotee.


Congratulations on answering your own question though. What made Barak Obama the right man for the job is that he, in a large way, MADE the democratic party relevant again.

Another one of the HUGE things that makes him the right man for the job, is that it would have been easy to vote for Clinton, Edwards, or God help us, Ron Paul, if for no other reason than because they're not republicans. Obama offered a choice that was more than just the lesser of two evils. Personally, I think a lot of people considered him the right man for the job just because he was smart enough to pick someone other than Sarah Palin for VP.

[sventvkg]

Alright..Now I have no choice.

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

 

 

[Super 8]

I mean com'on, you got a bunch of whack job libbies ala Nancy Pelosi with full control of the House AND the Senate.

 

 

Dude, your party had it's chance to clean up corruption and lead us all to the Promised Land, and then immediately went about the business of serving it's own selfish interests. You people have no room to bitch. You were your own undoing. If you can't drive the car, turn the wheel over to someone else.

[Super 8]

And can you explain in detail why you think he "was the man for the job"?

Because Nader didn't stand a chance in hell. Even I could have beaten Nader. :poke:

It takes an Ohioan coming up on what was thought would be a close election, and watching their jobs slip away to cast a vote for Nader.

His candidacy was "he isn't George Bush" or a republican.

By that logic, John Kerry should have won in 04. I believe Ohio was instrumental in ensuring a second term for Bush.

[BlueStrat]

 

 

 

 

 

[chipmcdonald]

REALITY:

1) the math surrounding the existence of the United States as We Know it precludes it's continued existence. The U.S. doesn't exist financially anymore;

2) the NWO faction was in control all along, and it's in full swing. There's nothing you can do about it, except hope they're smart about things;

3) the NRA/guns angle WAS SELF DEFEATING and did a good job of culling the "upstart" portion of the population back before the Clinton era;

4) the defense department is spending basically more on "non-lethal crowd control" weapons (that are not being used in Iraq or Afghanistan...) than other weapons;

5) the way things work on the planet has NOTHING to do with the way you've been taught in school, OR the way it's presented in the media;

6) Bush/Obama are two sides of the same coin. One side is smarter; I'm for the smarter side;

7) the NWO philosophy is actually a pretty objectively sound solution to the overriding problem of the planet, the Malthusian equation. The implementation of it differs depending on who is in charge;

8) our government, and every other government, are owned. You can't change it. Yelling for independent influence takes you out of play.

The only thing we can do as citizens of der Homeland is to talk in a civil manner about the *philosophy* behind modern politics in the context of the *reality* that exists. Not armchair retro-patriotic zeal that doesn't have any actual relevance, or left vs. right arguments. That's part of Managing Your Democracy, and you're just being a tool in that case.

/ trying to pragmatically retire from useless political discourse this year

[UstadKhanAli]

Chip and sventvkg, I would like to genuinely learn more about where you are coming from, especially in terms of the NWO. For instance, would you say that either of these links are an accurate description of the NWO? The latter is generally what I've heard about it, going back to Bush I.

 

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

 

If they are not, can you point to resources that you feel accurately reflect your views? Thank you. And no, there's no other agenda; I just want to learn where you are coming from. Thanks.

[the stranger]

I could point out a whole list of resources and information regarding the various theories and such...but, I'd think real hard before you go and eat the red pill.

[gtrbass]

IMHO The breakup of the US is unlikely.

The turbulence of the great depression gave rise to nazism & fascism in Europe. While times were incredibly tough, the US did not collapse or become overrun by communism.

The situation was in incredibly volatile in 1968. The assasinations of MLK and Bobby Kennedy, coupled with public outrage over Vietnam conflict did not incite overthrow of the US government or the fracturing of the US.

Russian pundits can point to similar events which triggered the breakup of the Soviet Union, but the foundations of the the USSR and the US are different.

The US is able to survive events which could destroy other nations. Americans are regionally interdependent economically and socially. We have the freedom of expression. We have a common language. We have common social interests ... and the list goes on.

[UstadKhanAli]

I could point out a whole list of resources and information regarding the various theories and such...but, I'd think real hard before you go and eat the red pill.

Seriously, I can find tons of resources as well, but I want to find out accurately what their views are so I can better understand where they are coming from when they post their views.

I'd also love to see links to Chip's 4th point and what the implications of this are.

[Dessalines]

I'm not a "devotee". That's just your uninformed perception. I also support Ron Paul and any other representative that actually represents. Ralph inspires me, Obama doesn't. How does your opinion carry more weight than mine? As for your theory, the dems sold out and that's why somebody like Ralph left the party. I support truth, plain and simple. The two major parties have been far too short on truth. Nice to see you are another one of these dems that will blame anything and everything to deny the reality that the Democratic party is irrelevant. How many neocons do we need?

Since your posts show Ron Paul nowhere but do reference Nader, forgive me if I erred. How was I to know? Kind of deceptive to keep that hidden and just spring it on me... Kidding.

Define represent...

My opinion doesn't carry more weight than yours, its an opinion.

I do not recall offering up a theory, unless you are referring to verbiage about Ralph leaving the democrats because they wouldn't listen to him, which is actually a bit of history. He was a liberal, very liberal democrat, (not that I have an issue with that), and they wouldn't listen to him, so he left and has been a thorn in their side ever since. If any of that is theoretical, let me know how.

If democrats are irrelevant then why are they preparing to take control of the levers of power, instead of say.... um.... Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? Tens of millions of voters that's why. Is that irrelevance? I don't think so. Political irrelevance is conferred by the voters, not by you. Politics is the art of getting votes and that is all it is. It isn't sorcery or magic, it is simply getting the votes to put your program in place, whether those votes are in a general election or in the legislature.

Look, I like Nader and I like some of Paul's positions as well but basically its a two party system and that isn't going to change anytime soon, it isn't. It hasn't changed since 1865. I would like more parties, many more parties because there a myriad of positions out there and this set of forums proves that in spades. You and I aren't that far apart. However, it isn't going to happen because the existing parties will do all they can to prevent it and let's face it, the average citizen is just not that politically engaged. So despite all the shades of political opinion, if you want your vote to mean anything at all and not have it be a joke, like writing in Frank Zappa, you have to ask yourself where you stand and vote accordingly. Of course you can choose to be John The Baptist too.

I am by passion an historian, not a partisan.

[frankthomson]

print more money and eliminate foreign trade

[Dessalines]

Here's the rub: We can do one of two things... We can let Obama be another leader, or we can make him our representative. He'll either be another puppet for special interests, or people will start taking their responsibilities seriously and governing themselves the way our founding fathers intended. We the people. We the people tell them what we need . Not the other way around. In order to manifest change in government, we must manifest change in ourselves.

 

 

 

I believe the Constitution defines how the founding Fathers wanted the country to be governed. Yes? If that is true, are you aware that the Constitution still contains verbiage that defines slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of constitutional representation as well as the number of electoral votes a state gets to leverage? Those clauses were superceeded by amendments that came after the Civil war. If you are referring to the Constitution, it is a living document, despite what Scalia and his ilk say and those Civil war amendments prove that. It can be changed. It has been changed. The rules are not static. So is it just the "We the People" thing or are we going to use the whole document, which defines the powers and responsibilites of the various parts of the government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, not to mention their relationship to each other? Most of what you are talking about has more to do with personality rather than how government works.

 

I am sorry but I find your understanding of how the government opperates to be somewhat minimalist. "In order to manifest change in the government we must manifest change in ourselves"???????? In order to change the government you need to first choose a position or philosophy, second stay informed, third VOTE, fourth stay engaged. That's a nice slogan you put out there but what does it really mean?

 

Finally the greatest check on any government is a well educated and politically engaged citizenry. Is that what we have going in America, when most people only pay attention in the last two weeks of most poltical campaigns?

[Beck]

...stay engaged.

Don't do it! Next thing ya know you'll be at the alter.

[the stranger]

Since your posts show Ron Paul nowhere but do reference Nader, forgive me if I erred. How was I to know? Kind of deceptive to keep that hidden and just spring it on me... Kidding.

 

 

Define represent...

 

Listens to constituency and provides service towards the needs and concerns of the constituency, vs catering to platforms and /or special interests.

 

My opinion doesn't carry more weight than yours, its an opinion. I do not recall offering up a theory, unless you are referring to verbiage about Ralph leaving the democrats because they wouldn't listen to him, which is actually a bit of history. He was a liberal, very liberal democrat, (not that I have an issue with that), and they wouldn't listen to him, so he left and has been a thorn in their side ever since. If any of that is theoretical, let me know how.

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

If democrats are irrelevant then why are they preparing to take control of the levers of power, instead of say.... um.... Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? Tens of millions of voters that's why. Is that irrelevance? I don't think so. Political irrelevance is conferred by the voters, not by you. Politics is the art of getting votes and that is all it is. It isn't sorcery or magic, it is simply getting the votes to put your program in place, whether those votes are in a general election or in the legislature.

 

I see their irrelevancy in the fact that they lost the 2000 and 2004 elections. Both should have been giveaways to the Democrats, but they weren't. I think 2004 being the best example. Yes, there was election accountability issues and other questions concerning the count and the court's ruling, but it was still an almost even race. I just can't get over how they could have lost that election. In one view, you could say we owe the Democrats for the last four years, since they blew a giveaway election.

 

Look, I like Nader and I like some of Paul's positions as well but basically its a two party system and that isn't going to change anytime soon, it isn't. It hasn't changed since 1865. I would like more parties, many more parties because there a myriad of positions out there and this set of forums proves that in spades. You and I aren't that far apart. However, it isn't going to happen because the existing parties will do all they can to prevent it and let's face it, the average citizen is just not that politically engaged.

 

I see your points, but disagree because I see this as a defeatist attitude that is usually sold to people as "pragmatism". I just can't in good conscious vote for the two party candidates (at the federal level), because the track record of the past says all I need to know.

Btw, I've voted across party lines at the state and local level since I have been voting.

 

I voted Libertarian in 2000/2004...Nader in 2008, although if Ron Paul would have been on the ballot, I would have been inclined to vote for him. And the reality is that in my county, third party candidates actually pulled down an impressive number of votes.

 

And I would have voted for the Democrats in 2008 if they would have nominated Dennis Kucinich, but of course they didn't.

 

I think we can get more parties and adequate representation in this country, but we have to keep forging that path and not give in to the pragmatic approach which as you pointed out, has been screwing us since 1865.

 

I'm one of these "the lesser of two evils is still evil" types. Both result in evil, one just takes a little longer to get there.

[the stranger]

 

I believe the Constitution defines how the founding Fathers wanted the country to be governed. Yes? If that is true, are you aware that the Constitution still contains verbiage that defines slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of constitutional representation as well as the number of electoral votes a state gets to leverage? Those clauses were superceeded by amendments that came after the Civil war. If you are referring to the Constitution, it is a living document, despite what Scalia and his ilk say and those Civil war amendments prove that. It can be changed. It has been changed. The rules are not static. So is it just the "We the People" thing or are we going to use the whole document, which defines the powers and responsibilites of the various parts of the government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, not to mention their relationship to each other? Most of what you are talking about has more to do with personality rather than how government works.

 

 

Simple answer? Powerful forces has subverted the rule of law in this country.

 

 

I am sorry but I find your understanding of how the government opperates to be somewhat minimalist. "In order to manifest change in the government we must manifest change in ourselves"???????? In order to change the government you need to first choose a position or philosophy, second stay informed, third VOTE, fourth stay engaged. That's a nice slogan you put out there but what does it really mean?

 

 

It means what it means. And it means what you said. And I do exactly the things you mentioned, but most people don't. What I see is a people who are waiting to be saved by "Obama" or whoever the next cult leader is, rather than realizing they need to save themselves.

 

 

Finally the greatest check on any government is a well educated and politically engaged citizenry. Is that what we have going in America, when most people only pay attention in the last two weeks of most poltical campaigns?

 

 

See above comments. And you perfectly illuminate my concern with a major party candidate. We know who funds them and we know they are all interconnected. So, can you trust a status quo candidate with an ignorant populace? I think not. That's why I would rather see somebody get elected on qualifications and a proven track record, not charisma and all the other stupid pet tricks politicians do to get elected.

 

To put it all in a nutshell: I don't vote for "politicians", I voted for "representatives"...big difference.

[Super 8]

...shows that he was the Aquarian age candidate in this past election. Team building, networking, technology and getting young people involved are all Aquarian/Uranian principles.

 

Why attach meaningless words to him? People elect who they elect. There's nothing more to it.

[Jotown]

Why attach meaningless words to him? People elect who they elect. There's nothing more to it.

Words are only meaningless when you don't understand what they mean.

[Super 8]

Words are only meaningless when you don't understand what they mean.

 

 

So? A deeper understanding doesn't mean there's anything substantive behind those words. You can connect the dots anyway you like, but that doesn't mean those dots were meant to be connected.

 

 

It's interesting to read this thread and see such wide ranging perspectives. You can only get this on the internet.

[the stranger]

It's interesting to read this thread and see such wide ranging perspectives. You can only get this on the internet.

Yeah.

When they make me moderator of the poli forum, it will be just like this thread.