The 2012 "Election" thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:52 pm

In response to Rory, Arthur Silber has addressed the war criminal question multiple times.

Barack Obama, Murderer and War Criminal-in-Chief

A Choice of War Criminals

Depraved, Obscene Absurdities

And in brief, of course Obama is responsible for lots of terrible things, and if re-elected, will be responsible for countless more terrible things. I wish, on a daily fucking basis, that this country would have reached the point by now where we would have come together to demand choices beyond the criminal duopoly.

We haven't.

I am confident that a Romney administration will be responsible for all of the same terrible things as the Obama administration. I am also confident, however, that a Romney administration will be responsible for even more terrible things, and an even greater number of innocent human beings will be negatively impacted.

So, in a world where we've failed to create the critical mass to induce people to demand third, fourth, and fifth party candidates, we're left with a choice between these two colossal fucking dildo asshole lying fascist fucks, and if one of them is even slightly less of a colossal fucking dildo asshole lying fascist fuck, then that's the one we should vote for.

It's a shit sandwich, and it's going to leave a really bad taste in your mouth, but ask yourselves if you seriously thought, four years ago, that October 2012 would roll around without a war in Iran. I sure as fuck didn't, and that's the sort of thing that can make an enoumous difference to an enormous amount of ordinary human beings who are just trying to make it through the day without getting their heads separated from their torsos.

Carry on.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:01 pm

.
^^^^^ what cabbage-head said. Quite erudite for a man with cabbage for a head...


User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:10 pm

Rory, thank you for your kind words to me a little bit upthread.

I'm getting shitfaced for the hurricane and soon to join others in this important world-end activity, but I just want to make a couple of things clear:

1) The Scotsman is a great friend, and I'd trust him with my life.*

2) Also, it's too late now, but if I ever met Nordic in person (say, by happenstance on a film shoot) I'm pretty sure we'd get along fabulously - and not just in a superficial way. Internet is just a different mode of interacting, not less valid, not even necessarily nastier in all cases than real life, but with different outcomes.

3) That piece on Obama-hating you posted was correct in every word it had on the main subject, only to ruin it with the ludicrous equivalence to Bush hating, as if Obama=Socialist and not believing the official 9/11 story are remotely comparable. (Also, that healing line did deserve the Cocker. I'd've given it the Cocker too, even if I'd been more delicate than the Scotsman, assuming sobriety. When we're drunk, we get close to being the same person.)

I guess I mind the contradictions less than most. Maybe I'm just getting old. I don't feel like I'm eating a shit sandwich, whether or not I finally vote for Obama or Stein or nobody. I accept the things I cannot change, do this little thing that might affect the weather, and then look to the things that might work beyond electioneering. But I do get easily pissed off when this electoral farce is turned into some grandest of all moral choices about which we must be pure. They give you more power on American Idol than in elections, but it doesn't mean non-participation is superior.

Another thing is you get a different perspective when you live within literally Obama's base. (That would be New York City.) People here aren't cheerleading for him, or for war, or for any of the bad things, and a great many of them are well aware that he's the front man for the same core policies as Romney. But they want their own coalition and concerns on top, rather than those of the insane Christianists just five states to the left. And I agree with them. And I do not view them as the enemy, or as brainwashed, or as fools.

* No exaggeration. Zip, de nada.

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby compared2what? » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:23 pm

Usrename wrote:
compared2what? wrote:To be fair, he really is a war criminal. Same as every other American president of the post-war era, with the possible exceptions of....


Let me reiterate this one more time for emphasis. War criminal has a specific meaning. Under US law it means a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It is an actual criminal charge that is made against a person under the War Crimes Act.


Yes. I know.

I believe that it is generally construed that violation of the Nuremberg Principles is also a war crime under international law.


So it is.

Do you know what these things mean? Do you know what a war criminal is? Can you cite any behavior that would make any president, other than either of the Bush presidents, a war criminal?


Yep. Do you really want me to? Because it'll be lengthy and legal.

Listen, irate Usrename. I wasn't speaking hyperbolically. I was speaking literally. But if you want another "to be fair," here you go:

To be fair, every war that's been fought in my lifetime has included numerous war crimes on both sides. That's the nature of war. It's a very theoretical thing, however. Because they're never going to be prosecuted.

(Or perhaps Reagan, although you'd have to believe that he even knew what was going on.)


FWIW, I think it's much likelier that he did than that he didn't.

I'm telling you that I believe this is a NEW development that we are not prepared to deal with. We've never had to deal with it before. Remember, at the time of our founding we operated under the Law of Nations; it was a different legal framework than what we have now.


Like I said: Theoretical.

...

You know, IIRC, in The Fog of War, Robert McNamara says something very similar to what I just did above, about all wars including war crimes. In connection with the fire bombing of Japan, I think. It was something about how you don't get prosecuted when you win.

That was prior to the Geneva Conventions, obviously. But they had law before that.

Look, I'm all for upholding the law. The closest that I can get to calling Obama a war criminal is to note that he has NOT investigated credible accusations of torture, which he has a duty to do under the UN Convention Against Torture. The convention makes it it's own crime for failure to prosecute, which might be construed as a violation of the Nuremberg Principles if you read them generously, which I do.

But even if you were to make such a case against him I would want to know why, for God's sake, you would do that. You have to know that if any kind of torture case comes before this Robert's court that they are just chomping at the bit to make it legal. Right?!!!


Actually....Well. I'm not so sure. But any potential torture case that involved Obama rather than Bush/Cheney wouldn't go to the Supremes anyway. One of the very first things he did after taking office was move that stuff onto military turf. At least partly for legal purposes, I assume.

So tell me, wtf is anyone (and I include Nancy Pelosi in this because as speaker under Bush she could have complied with requirement herself, she had the authority and she shirked it, which under the convention makes her just as complaisant as everyone else) supposed to do?

Anyone?


I think a citizen is supposed to make an effort to stay informed and to object to intolerable practices. At a minimum.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:39 pm

Belligerent Savant wrote:.

It's one thing to make an argument in favor of a vote for Obama as a "lesser" of 2 evils [or any variant justification], but to come to this board and make any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.

Rory wrote:
Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'

It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.


I really don't care to do so. Don't have the time nor inclination, though there is ample evidence out there to search for on your own, if not provided by others in this board in due time [it seems Barracuda has since kindly provided a snippet as I typed this response]. Perhaps you can share how you believe he is not a criminal, liar, and/or fraud.

No caps this time.


First, Belligerent One, no one in this thread has claimed or attempted to paint Obama as anything but a liar, fraud, or that he is innocent of criminal responsibility for (some of) his acts. And secondly, why would you feel Rory should reply to you after blowing off his question to you? Especially to such a specious question.

I'm voting for Obama because he will be responsible for saving many lives, American lives. Tens of thousands, in fact. I suppose you'd like me to explain how that's possible, wouldn't you? It is true, you know. And I can prove it.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby compared2what? » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:00 pm

Rory wrote:WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?

Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better?


The one that's been made so far is basically that it's all the same/the PTB will just do whatever they want anyway/there's no difference between 3000 and 100,000/SCOTUS doesn't do anything anyway/blah blah blah.

In short: No. Nobody has offered a legitimate argument to that effect. Rage has its own imperative, apparently. And really, that's exactly what makes persistent linkage of Obama-hatred with non-voting such a winning gambit for the right. They can use it to peel off a sector of the electorate that usually thinks straight.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Rory » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:05 pm

JackRiddler wrote:Rory, thank you for your kind words to me a little bit upthread.

I'm getting shitfaced for the hurricane and soon to join others in this important world-end activity, but I just want to make a couple of things clear:

1) The Scotsman is a great friend, and I'd trust him with my life.*

2) Also, it's too late now, but if I ever met Nordic in person (say, by happenstance on a film shoot) I'm pretty sure we'd get along fabulously - and not just in a superficial way. Internet is just a different mode of interacting, not less valid, not even necessarily nastier in all cases than real life, but with different outcomes.

3) That piece on Obama hating you posted was correct in every word it had on the main subject, only to ruin it with the ludicrous equivalence to Bush hating, as if Obama=Socialist and not believing the official 9/11 story are remotely comparable. (Also, that healing line did deserve the Cocker. Even if I'd been more delicate than the Scotsman, assuming sobriety. When we're drunk, we get close to being the same person.)

I guess I mind the contradictions less than most. Maybe I'm just getting old. I don't feel like I'm eating a shit sandwich, whether or not I finally vote for Obama or Stein or nobody. I accept the things I cannot change, do this little thing that might affect the weather, and then look to the things that might work beyond electioneering. But I do get easily pissed off when this electoral farce is turned into some grandest of all moral choices about which we must be pure. They give you more power on American Idol than in elections, but it doesn't mean non-participation is superior.

Another thing is you get a different perspective when you live within literally Obama's base. (That would be New York City.) People here aren't cheerleading for him, or for war, or for any of the bad things, and a great many of them are well aware that he's the front man for the same core policies as Romney. But they want their own coalition and concerns on top, rather than those of the insane Christianists just five states to the left. And I agree with them. And I do not view them as the enemy, or as brainwashed, or as fools.

* No exaggeration. Zip, de nada.

.


No worries jack. I came into this thread to make the point that Obama is a better choice than Romney - that it was an imperative to ensure he was re-elected. Not that Obama was great, or a blameless pawn.

I would go so far as to posit that Obama has more say over the executive decision making and direction than his predecessor. I have enough anecdotal thoughts on Bush to presume that he was not the hands at the wheel. So, perhaps from that logic, Bush is less culpable for the crimes of his admin than Obama. But only due to relative competence.

Nordic has his moments

Nordic wrote:
Let me get this straight. I shouldn't rag on Obama because REALLY BAD NASTY PEOPLE rag on Obama, but for completely different reasons, in fact FICTIONAL reasons.

But because I rag on Obama, and they rag on Obama, WE'RE THE SAME. And it's really BAD to rag on Obama because, why?

Because if those REALLY BAD NASTY PEOPLE hate Obama, then Obama MUST be a GOOD PERSON.

Your logic is shit.

Your arguments are shit.

STFU. You're making an idiot of yourself.


LOL

That was perhaps not his finest.
I'm sure, as you say, that he is better in person - it is kind of moot. But, if it is cathartic to go as he has, then I can only hope it has helped.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt re the Scottsman. Maybe he should attack the article in future, rather than they who posted it. And I don't honestly give a fuck about Joe Cocker. But I do appreciate the irony.

So, I would broadly agree that Obama represents (as stated repeatedly on here) the only sane option, and that voting for him where necessary, should be done as a necessity. In doing so (as repeated by many here) does not mean an endorsement of his administration or crimes, it means to prevent a worse administration taking power.

Batten down the hatches, and fare thee well during this storm. Cheers for your post and remember to vote early, and often.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:19 pm

Iamwhomiam wrote:
Belligerent Savant wrote:.

It's one thing to make an argument in favor of a vote for Obama as a "lesser" of 2 evils [or any variant justification], but to come to this board and make any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.

Rory wrote:
Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'

It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.


I really don't care to do so. Don't have the time nor inclination, though there is ample evidence out there to search for on your own, if not provided by others in this board in due time [it seems Barracuda has since kindly provided a snippet as I typed this response]. Perhaps you can share how you believe he is not a criminal, liar, and/or fraud.

No caps this time.


First, Belligerent One, no one in this thread has claimed or attempted to paint Obama as anything but a liar, fraud, or that he is innocent of criminal responsibility for (some of) his acts. And secondly, why would you feel Rory should reply to you after blowing off his question to you? Especially to such a specious question.

I'm voting for Obama because he will be responsible for saving many lives, American lives. Tens of thousands, in fact. I suppose you'd like me to explain how that's possible, wouldn't you? It is true, you know. And I can prove it.


How can you prove a future event? I'd love to hear that.

My question to Rory was rhetorical above anything else -- I had no expectation that he would answer it.
DO I really need to "prove" how Obama is a liar/fraud/criminal? You said it yourself that "no one in this thread has claimed or attempted to paint Obama as anything but a liar, fraud, or that he is innocent of criminal responsibility for (some of) his acts" -- so why would I need to waste my time or thread space to discuss further [alternatively, if no one in this thread claimed otherwise, why is Rory contesting that statement then? Or is it rhetoric on his part as well?].

I already dedicate plenty of time towards such discussions with others not of the R.I. mindset; I presumed it would go without saying here that it's essentially a prerequisite for any/all Presidents to be liars/cheaters, including Mr. Obama.

Good for you that you have your reasons/justifications for voting for Obama. Glad to hear you have comfort in your decision.

Doesn't change the fact neither option represents the interests of the majority. To the contrary, they both represent detriments to the majority -- one a bit less so than the other.

I did my best to keep this response short as I tire of the circular discussion. Believe what you wish, vote however you wish. Congratulate yourselves for a [presumably] slightly less disastrous 4 years should the 'Bama be elected.

Yes, he may certainly be the better of 2 SHITTY options. But his "win" certainly won't make me content about the situation we're all in and will continue to be in.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby thatsmystory » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:03 pm

compared2what? wrote:
Rory wrote:WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?

Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better?


The one that's been made so far is basically that it's all the same/the PTB will just do whatever they want anyway/there's no difference between 3000 and 100,000/SCOTUS doesn't do anything anyway/blah blah blah.

In short: No. Nobody has offered a legitimate argument to that effect. Rage has its own imperative, apparently. And really, that's exactly what makes persistent linkage of Obama-hatred with non-voting such a winning gambit for the right. They can use it to peel off a sector of the electorate that usually thinks straight.


Yes let us blame the fuzzy thinking voters instead of assigning blame to President Obama. After all what sense would it make to blame the person in charge?

Analogy:

You go to a restaurant and the waiter says our choices are spoiled milk and rotten chicken salad. Which one do you want?

Do you say I want the spoiled milk because it will only lead to a few hours of vomiting?

No. You say this choice is absurd.

Who do you blame--the person saying the choice is absurd or the restaurant offering the tainted food?

Evidently some folks would say the person at fault is the person who has the gall to object to food poisoning.

"But it's only a few hours of vomiting. Tough it out!"
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:18 pm

I had been planning on voting for Jill Stein — even to the point of planning an as-visible-as-possible project in support of her and telling all my friends, inviting a lot of angry criticism — but if my state is really heading to legitimate swing-state territory, I might (begrudgingly, regretfully) change my vote. Possibly.

Realistically, though, none of us are going to slow any of our various activism against the empire. We all know how elections work, many of us have read that recent Harper's piece about election rigging. The vote is just the easiest and most popular of democratic aspirations.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby brainpanhandler » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:32 pm

Belligerent Savant wrote: Believe what you wish, vote however you wish. Congratulate yourselves for a [presumably] slightly less disastrous 4 years should the 'Bama be elected.


How about you congratulate yourself for managing to misunderstand the motives of those who suggest voting for Obama after 35 fucking pages. Holy fuck.

Yes, he may certainly be the better of 2 SHITTY options. But his "win" certainly won't make me content about the situation we're all in and will continue to be in.


Yah, no shit. No one else posting in this thread will be content either.

I did my best to keep this response short as I tire of the circular discussion.


You could have fucking fooled me.

I knew I never should have opened this fucking thread. Jesus fucking christ. 35 fucking pages of the same shit around and around and around and around.....

Shame on me.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5121
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:10 am

brainpanhandler wrote:
Belligerent Savant wrote: Believe what you wish, vote however you wish. Congratulate yourselves for a [presumably] slightly less disastrous 4 years should the 'Bama be elected.


How about you congratulate yourself for managing to misunderstand the motives of those who suggest voting for Obama after 35 fucking pages. Holy fuck.


No, I understand their motives just fine, and indicated as such pages ago. Most of my recent replies are responses to questions directed to me.

brainpanhandler wrote:
Yes, he may certainly be the better of 2 SHITTY options. But his "win" certainly won't make me content about the situation we're all in and will continue to be in.


Yah, no shit. No one else posting in this thread will be content either.

I did my best to keep this response short as I tire of the circular discussion.


You could have fucking fooled me.

I knew I never should have opened this fucking thread. Jesus fucking christ. 35 fucking pages of the same shit around and around and around and around.....

Shame on me.


Seems to me Nordic started this thread, not you. And I'm the cause of the 35 pages, huh? I posted 31 times -- less than 1 per page.

It's responses like this that make me prefer in-person discussions. Would have very much liked to have you attempt that tone with me in person.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby compared2what? » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:19 am

thatsmystory wrote:
compared2what? wrote:
Rory wrote:WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?

Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better?


The one that's been made so far is basically that it's all the same/the PTB will just do whatever they want anyway/there's no difference between 3000 and 100,000/SCOTUS doesn't do anything anyway/blah blah blah.

In short: No. Nobody has offered a legitimate argument to that effect. Rage has its own imperative, apparently. And really, that's exactly what makes persistent linkage of Obama-hatred with non-voting such a winning gambit for the right. They can use it to peel off a sector of the electorate that usually thinks straight.


Yes let us blame the fuzzy thinking voters instead of assigning blame to President Obama. After all what sense would it make to blame the person in charge?


Well. You see. What I do is hold people responsible for the stuff they're, um, responsible for.

As in: I am responsible for the clarity of my thoughts. Obama is not responsible for the clarity of my thoughts.

So it's not actually fucking blaming voters for stuff instead of the person in charge to speak of the decision-making processes of the voters. Whom I wasn't blaming for anything anyway. Incidentally..

.

Analogy:

You go to a restaurant and the waiter says our choices are spoiled milk and rotten chicken salad. Which one do you want?

Do you say I want the spoiled milk because it will only lead to a few hours of vomiting?

No. You say this choice is absurd.


Uh-huh. If not voting resulted in some ill not occurring that otherwise would have, that might be a true and useful analogy.

Sadly, it's more like:

You go to a restaurant and the waiter says: "Our choices are spoiled milkand rotten chicken salad. I'm going to poison a thousand people unless enough customers order the spoiled milk, in which case I'll just poison three. Which one do you want?"



Who do you blame--the person saying the choice is absurd or the restaurant offering the tainted food?


In both cases, I hold the restaurant responsible for what it does and the customer responsible for what he or she does.

Evidently some folks would say the person at fault is the person who has the gall to object to food poisoning.


Where is that evident?

"But it's only a few hours of vomiting. Tough it out!"


Oh, please. Nobody has made an argument remotely fucking equivalent to that on this thread.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Nordic » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:23 am

Wow, I forgot I started this thread. Had I known where it was headed, I wouldn't have.

I sure didn't think the people here at Rigorous Intuition would get into arguments about the merits of voting for (gag) Obama.

I figured almost everybody here had risen above that shit.

And, thatsmystory, that's a good analogy. Get the fuck out of that restaurant. Call the health department on that fucking place. Burn it down. Whatever.

This has been an interesting education that has shown me just how deep the conditioning and fearmongering has gone. And has made me feel even more hopeless than I did already, if that's even possible.

Whatever. I got better things to worry about than which tool of the MIC is going to be their head PR guy for the next four years.

And C2W, how do you KNOW that Romney is gonna kill more people than Obama? Considering they both work for the SAME PEOPLE, why would you even think that? It's ludicrous, is a blind assumption, and shows you have a lot of fear in your mind regarding this. They want you to fear Romney. That is their JOB, to make you fear Romney. See how well it's worked?

I fear stupid people.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby compared2what? » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:34 am

Nordic wrote:
And C2W, how do you KNOW that Romney is gonna kill more people than Obama? Considering they both work for the SAME PEOPLE, why would you even think that?


Look at their contributors yourself if you want to see whom they work for. And stop yelling at me please.

It's ludicrous, is a blind assumption, and shows you have a lot of fear in your mind regarding this.


It's a blind fucking assumption, huh? I see. On what fucking dossier of data and research do you base your assertion that they work for the same people, oh wise one?

They want you to fear Romney. That is their JOB, to make you fear Romney. See how well it's worked?


I don't fear Romney. But he's been bought and paid for by people like Sheldon Adelson, to whom he will owe a war with Iran or something very much like one if he's elected. That's not a certainty because the future isn't written. But it's also not an obscure or ambiguous thing. People like Sheldon Adelson don't fucking invest thirty-six million of their own dollars in a presidential candidate if they're not realistically expecting a return on their investment. And it's not difficult to figure out what manner of return is expected in this particular case. Sheldon Adelson only has one interest.

I fear stupid people.


Yeah, me too. Not as much as I fear for them, though.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests