It sounds to me, from what I've heard, that Obama is a time traveler from the year 2000, what with his platform of doing things differently in Washington, doing things right in Washington, being a uniter and all....

chopjob wrote:It sounds to me, from what I've heard, that Obama is a time traveler from the year 2000, what with his platform of doing things differently in Washington, doing things right in Washington, being a uniter and all....

Uh huh. If Obama wins in 2008, he has a straitjacket waiting for him, woven from the demands of the international bankers and the military-industrial complex. One man does not go to Washington to make change. Washington changes the man in charge to make you think there has been change.

Shit, bob. Of all the candidates that have an actual chance of winning...(let's say...Edwards, Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney)...who do you prefer?

I'm not sure about Bob, but any surviving members of the Baader-Meinhof will do for me.

Minotaur029 wrote:Shit, bob. Of all the candidates that have an actual chance of winning...(let's say...Edwards, Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney)...who do you prefer?

Heh, for that matter, do you vote, Bob? It seems like with your personal views re: the military-industrial complex, etc. that you would find it a fruitless venture.

DrAwkward wrote:Heh, for that matter, do you vote, Bob? It seems like with your personal views re: the military-industrial complex, etc. that you would find it a fruitless venture.

Yes, I vote, certainly. I described my attitude in an earlier post. It is a necessity for the cabal to maintain the illusion of a two party system, so there has to be some substance to the adversarial illusion. If the right and the left were mirror images, even the sheeple would start to sense that something was wrong.

If you picture a spectrum of political ideology that runs from left to right, zero on the left and ten on the right, zero the most extreme progressive ideology imaginable and ten representing the most extreme totalitarian ideology imaginable, let's say that the government of the US is permitted to oscillate in the range between 4 and 6. We'll call Bush a 6, and we'll call, I don't know, Dennis Kucinich a 4. These two points on the graph define the borders of allowable democratic control over our government, as permitted by the NWO cabal.

So, we do have a choice, but it is a narrow pre-approved choice that is palatable to the status quo. For example, if the election had not been stolen in 2000, we would have had President Gore, who would have still been pro war ( 9/11 could not have been stopped by the visible government ) and would have still sold out Americans to the globalization movement, but would have likely been less psychotic than Bush on issues like the environment or civil rights. The cabal permits liberalism to exist in social issues, because they're so concentrated on perpetual wars and cannibalizing the economy that they really don't care much about human issues like abortion or discrimination. That shit bores them, but they understand that if they let the Left win a few on issues like gay marriage or abortion, it perpetuates the two party illusion.

Minotaur029 wrote:Shit, bob. Of all the candidates that have an actual chance of winning...(let's say...Edwards, Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney)...who do you prefer?

The only two candidates who even make noise in opposition to the cabal are Kucinich and Ron Paul. Not only is neither allowed to win, but neither is allowed to be mentioned as a major candidate by the media, despite the fact that Ron Paul has been a US congressman for 20 years. Even though the controlled media shitheads who analyze politics will complain again and again about how campaign financing needs to be changed and nobody can run for President who can't raise $80 million dollars, they continue to only talk about candidates who are capable of raising $80 million dollars to run for President! They could help fix the system themselves by treating candidates to airtime based on their positions and not on their wallets. Strange how that liberal media fucks us over, isn't it? You know, I'm starting to think they might not be liberal after all.

clocker bob wrote:

chopjob wrote:It sounds to me, from what I've heard, that Obama is a time traveler from the year 2000, what with his platform of doing things differently in Washington, doing things right in Washington, being a uniter and all....

Uh huh. If Obama wins in 2008, he has a straitjacket waiting for him, woven from the demands of the international bankers and the military-industrial complex. One man does not go to Washington to make change. Washington changes the man in charge to make you think there has been change.

This is the most hopeless, defeatist comment I have ever read re: Obama. He gives a lot of people hope... and I hope he wins, and I hope he is able to confront this bullshit.

I have an uncle who holds similar views about the "2-party illusion" and the "military industrial complex control system." He loves to rant about the failures of socialism and the failures of government, and he is devoid of hope in our leaders. Maybe my uncle is correct on some fronts, or maybe he's a ranting lunatic, but I know only one thing for certain, and it's that he has barely a shred of hope left, and he's even less likely to propose any remedies for the things he loves to complain about.

I'm not saying you're this way, Bob... it's just my take on the general stance, as I have experienced it.

I would argue that a president appoints people who steer policy, and regardless of the powers of the "military-industrial-complex," these policies can effect change and trends in the way our country operates.

Just look how the general attitude and condition of the nation has gone to shit over the last 8 years... and then tell me the president doesn't have the power to affect things.

clocker bob wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:Shit, bob. Of all the candidates that have an actual chance of winning...(let's say...Edwards, Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney)...who do you prefer?

The only two candidates who even make noise in opposition to the cabal are Kucinich and Ron Paul. Not only is neither allowed to win, but neither is allowed to be mentioned as a major candidate by the media, despite the fact that Ron Paul has been a US congressman for 20 years. Even though the controlled media shitheads who analyze politics will complain again and again about how campaign financing needs to be changed and nobody can run for President who can't raise $80 million dollars, they continue to only talk about candidates who are capable of raising $80 million dollars to run for President! They could help fix the system themselves by treating candidates to airtime based on their positions and not on their wallets. Strange how that liberal media fucks us over, isn't it? You know, I'm starting to think they might not be liberal after all.

I expected this answer. Neither of these candidates has a chance to win. One way or another, they don't. So this time, tell me who you think is going to win and tell me the lesser of the "six evils."

clocker bob wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:Shit, bob. Of all the candidates that have an actual chance of winning...(let's say...Edwards, Obama, McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, Romney)...who do you prefer?

The only two candidates who even make noise in opposition to the cabal are Kucinich and Ron Paul. Not only is neither allowed to win, but neither is allowed to be mentioned as a major candidate by the media, despite the fact that Ron Paul has been a US congressman for 20 years. Even though the controlled media shitheads who analyze politics will complain again and again about how campaign financing needs to be changed and nobody can run for President who can't raise $80 million dollars, they continue to only talk about candidates who are capable of raising $80 million dollars to run for President! They could help fix the system themselves by treating candidates to airtime based on their positions and not on their wallets. Strange how that liberal media fucks us over, isn't it? You know, I'm starting to think they might not be liberal after all.

I think we would need a president who supports election reform in order to change this... don't you?

Also, you didn't answer the question. You changed the subject.

Also, there is no way in hell I would want Kucinich to be president, and that's coming a bleeding-heart liberal. I appreciate him pulling the agenda to the left in whatever small amount he can, but he's not a leader. I hope he keeps sticking around, though; he's scrappy.