| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| The apple is rotten. Okay, so what do you about it (election wise that is)? |
We know what to do on November 6th: vote third-party. I'm more interested in what we do on November 7th and beyond. Protests and Amendments and Consensus-building and Dissidence and Civil Disobedience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In my post I mentioned we need a viable 3rd party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| In my post I mentioned we need a viable 3rd party. |
I caught that, that's why I used the plural first person.
Ladies, you need to stop voting based on abortion. Roe v. Wade is almost 50 years old. Its not going anywhere. Vote third-party. I promise you'll be able to control your own body. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any party that is viable will not be targeting the various financial terrorists and cockroaches that plague our lands. The act of targeting bankers etc will immediately have the media in a hysterical and united attack against the xyz'ist party. They'll come up with a catchy name for them and push the "tin foil hat" line and all of you will disavow the party for fear of being associated with quacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| In my post I mentioned we need a viable 3rd party. |
I caught that, that's why I used the plural first person.
Ladies, you need to stop voting based on abortion. Roe v. Wade is almost 50 years old. Its not going anywhere. Vote third-party. I promise you'll be able to control your own body. |
Why do they have to choose? The Green Party supports abortion rights and also offers a package of issue-positions which would be appealing to many pro-abortion female voters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| In my post I mentioned we need a viable 3rd party. |
I caught that, that's why I used the plural first person.
Ladies, you need to stop voting based on abortion. Roe v. Wade is almost 50 years old. Its not going anywhere. Vote third-party. I promise you'll be able to control your own body. |
Why do they have to choose? The Green Party supports abortion rights and also offers a package of issue-positions which would be appealing to many pro-abortion female voters. |
That would be fine. But I don't think the women most concerned about abortion are hanging their hopes on the Green Party's Supreme Court picks. I could be misreading that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Here's something I'd like answered: is this crony capitalism new or the same ol' same ol'? Was this stuff common in the 90s, or was it not, or is it just more pronounced now? Were the apples and oranges always so disfigured and worm-eaten? |
I might be cynical about the whole thing but I truly believe it's been going on since the dawn of governments. The difference now is the common man's access to information. People had to read newspapers, watch the nightly news, and read specialty magazines (newsweek, time, the economist, etc.) just to get a glimpse of information like this. In the late 90's and up until now, information is readily available. I don't know how many times I've googled something about topic A, and through a series of links and clicks of the mouse, ended up reading about something not even remotely related to my initial search. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hari seldon
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:36 am Post subject: Re: Barack Obama: Crony Capitalist |
|
|
Barack Obama's Att. Gen. Eric Holder won't prosecute Goldman Sachs
| Quote: |
| Thursday�s announcement that there will be no prosecutions [against Goldman Sachs] should hardly come as a surprise. In 2008, Goldman Sachs employees were among Barack Obama�s top campaign contributors, giving a combined $1,013,091... |
I doubt Obama gives a damn about Goldman Sachs. Romney's promised to roll back the Dodd-Frank regulations put into place to prevent future bank bailouts so the Goldman Sachs bankers are now the governor's biggest campaign contributors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fosterman
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
no president or judge can try some of the wall street bankers!
NO MAN! because they god damn own the country!
so don't blame Obama,
there are a few people in the world who can't be touched.
The Rothschilds are one of them.
when you own almost every central bank in every country in the world. you are pretty much god! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm telling you the apples are rotten, and you are here telling me how bad the oranges are. The topic is the apples. I encourage you to go make a thread about how bad Mitt Romney and the Republicans are. I may even contribute positively to it.
Here's the thing: Barack Obama is the President. He's the incumbent. He has a record to run on. But his record appears to be cronyism and corruption behind every turn, rotten dealings and government capture within each of his major policies.
Here's something I'd like answered: is this crony capitalism new or the same ol' same ol'? Was this stuff common in the 90s, or was it not, or is it just more pronounced now? Were the apples and oranges always so disfigured and worm-eaten? |
Nihilism is all fine and good.
What is it you want as a result?
We already have a GOP candidate who is saying vote for him as the pig in a poke with no idea of what policies he will support and encourage.
How will voting for Johnson or Paul or any other far extreme right-winger do anything but turn over society to the CEOs even faster? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Nihilism is all fine and good.
What is it you want as a result? |
You keep trying to make this about me.
But, as I've stated before, the more important expressions should occur from November 6th onward. Hopefully you'll join us in criticizing the President once he's secured his second-term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Nihilism is all fine and good.
What is it you want as a result? |
You keep trying to make this about me.
But, as I've stated before, the more important expressions should occur from November 6th onward. Hopefully you'll join us in criticizing the President once he's secured his second-term. |
Ya-ta is absolutely hopeless. He couldn't even address your simple (and very well placed) question and concerns above. He is literally incapable of admitting Obama could in any way be at fault for anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Potential Secretary of State Susan Rice heavily invested in Canadian oil companies
| Quote: |
Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice�s first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project.
Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America.
Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice�s personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada�s eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan�s Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. |
Barack Obama calls Susan Rice extraordinary.
For more, see also politico. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
A friend of mine and his colleagues at state are hoping she gets shot down by Congress. She doesn't have the best rep at State. Nothing to do with Libya or this pipleine biz, but connected to her role on Clinton's NSC in the 90s and the fact she has no sense of diplomacy whatsoever.
At first I was annoyed by the GOP senators for going after her (and still think they've done a poor job about it), but I can certainly see why they're not fans of hers. Then again, they also are going after her so Obama goes for Kerry, opening up a seat again in MA.
Anyway, thanks for the links, really uplifting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
She's an internationalist. She sees the United States not as a sovereign nation but as the engine and muscle of the global progressive revolution. Her adherence (did she coin it?) to Responsibility to Protect means more wars and national ruin.
She worked for McKinsey, which means she is really good is selling extremely disastrous ideas. Her mentor was/is Madeleine Albright, and I can't think of a limit to the pejoratives I'd throw at that ghastly cockroach.
In short, she's your typical DC insider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
