Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[AE14]

the only thing I am going to add, is that anyone who thinks this is a partisan issue is fooling themselves, and anyone who thinks this guy in the WH is a socialist does not understand the definition of the word.

At the end of the day, this regime has been a tremendous disappointment, however, so have many of the most recent Presidencies. I have no doubt a Romney presidency will as well.

 

[Geoforce]

the only thing I am going to add, is that anyone who thinks this is a partisan issue is fooling themselves, and anyone who thinks this guy in the WH is a socialist does not understand the definition of the word.

At the end of the day, this regime has been a tremendous disappointment, however, so have many of the most recent Presidencies. I have no doubt a Romney presidency will as well.

This is true. Both parties are virtually the same with just different flavors of big government. I actually prefer the way the Democrats send their message. They don't hide behind the ruse of small government and personal freedom that Republicans do. They tell you they are for big government. Republicans run on small government, but then govern big with war, no gay marriage, ending women's choices, etc. And all want to do all this while cutting taxes at the same time.

Anyone who sees a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans hasn't studied the last 30 years much. Where were all these people who clamor about "the left" during GWB's reign? Why didn't they run him out after the Iraq War, Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, etc? Getting mad at Democrats for doing the same thing Republicans did cracks me up. Most of my far right buddies weren't making much noise a few years ago.

We need a third party, but it won't happen.

 

[Rahl]

This is true. Both parties are virtually the same with just different flavors of big government. I actually prefer the way the Democrats send their message. They don't hide behind the ruse of small government and personal freedom that Republicans do. They tell you they are for big government. Republicans run on small government, but then govern big with war, no gay marriage, ending women's choices, etc. And all want to do all this while cutting taxes at the same time.

Anyone who sees a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans hasn't studied the last 30 years much. Where were all these people who clamor about "the left" during GWB's reign? Why didn't they run him out after the Iraq War, Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, etc? Getting mad at Democrats for doing the same thing Republicans did cracks me up. Most of my far right buddies weren't making much noise a few years ago.

We need a third party, but it won't happen.

Amen.

It's a choice between which part of government you want big. The military/law enforcement complex or social services/entitlements.

 

[ax1]

They are republicrats, both bring wars, big goverment and socialist services.

We cant go by what they say, but what they do. The democrats talk on tv like a kinder, gentler human, but really they are all wolves hiding behind sheeps skin.

There is no difference in policy between George Bush and Barrack Obama.

 

[ax1]

We need a third party, but it won't happen.

I disagree. We dont need a 3rd party, or a 4th, or 5th etc. From a technical standpoint we would need a 2nd party for starters since there is only 1 party that has help power for 100+ years, which are the republicrats.

Anyways, we dont need any more parties, we need to ban political parties. All parties once in power will get infiltrated and corrupted in no time.

What we need is to have people vote based on individual, not some party following, as ultimatly besides the previous issues presented, party voting ends up with millions of blind faith voting in society.

Ban the political party system, and have term limits in all phases of goverment including congress and the supreme court.

 

[Geoforce]

I disagree. We dont need a 3rd party, or a 4th, or 5th etc. From a technical standpoint we would need a 2nd party for starters since there is only 1 party that has help power for 100+ years, which are the republicrats.

Anyways, we dont need any more parties, we need to ban political parties. All parties once in power will get infiltrated and corrupted in no time.

What we need is to have people vote based on individual, not some party following, as ultimatly besides the previous issues presented, party voting ends up with millions of blind faith voting in society.

Ban the political party system, and have term limits in all phases of goverment including congress and the supreme court.

I could get behind all this. So many people (and I think we all know them) pretty much figure out what their side thinks and then thinks that. They don't look at issues on a case by case basis. They say "well what do other Republicans think" and then just agree.

 

[Whacked]

This can be easily summed up as follows IMO:

The liberals run this country. Their lobbying effects, pressure, strategies and presence are cut throat, manipulative, and powerful (consdervatives sit around rather quietly and do nothing but complain - Thank GOD for the Tea Party that has emerged and galvanized what's left of any Pride in America).

Look at the media outlets:

Every single new channel is on his jock and either spins or conceals the truth except for Fox News).
Hollywood (95% liberal) and very vocal and influential.

then there's the overplayed reverse racism garbage that exists (if you dont like Obama, that somehow makes you a racist LMAO).

Additionally, there is an undeniable pernicious agenda driven by BIG TIME MONEY (George Sorros to name one big player) that will not quit until we are a Socialist States of America, moving towards a one world government and one world currency.

IMHO, the deep-rooted, well-financed agenda is much bigger than any of us can ever even comprehend!

The only thing I can't understand is how the 45-50% of Americans that follow him have gone this long without researching for themselves and seeing the faultiness in his philosophy.

There are so many other countries that we can observe in order to see the failures in socialism and communism not to mention the various cases of genocide in the process (over 192 million people have died by the hand of socialism and communism around the world since 1900). Just goes to show how far people in power will go to keep their power...

And secondly, I feel that America has to ask itself a question --> What do we want to be or represent?

If we're all about "quality of life" then we need to stick to original American values which is capitalism, democracy and absolute freedom. It's where religion and ethics dominate daily social behaviors and the laws of the land are only there to define when punishment starts.

But if we're just about "mass production" or "total efficiency" then yes, we need to move toward communism and be like China where production is great but quality of life sucks. But if we chose that, we wouldn't be "american" anymore. We'd be something else altogether. Something that fancies a liberal's heart I guess.

 

[ax1]

This can be easily summed up as follows IMO:

The liberals run this country. Their lobbying effects, pressure, strategies and presence are cut throat, manipulative, and powerful (consdervatives sit around rather quietly and do nothing but complain - Thank GOD for the Tea Party that has emerged and galvanized what's left of any Pride in America).

Look at the media outlets:

Every single new channel is on his jock and either spins or conceals the truth except for Fox News).
Hollywood (95% liberal) and very vocal and influential.

then there's the overplayed reverse racism garbage that exists (if you dont like Obama, that somehow makes you a racist LMAO).

Additionally, there is an undeniable pernicious agenda driven by BIG TIME MONEY (George Sorros to name one big player) that will not quit until we are a Socialist States of America, moving towards a one world government and one world currency.

IMHO, the deep-rooted, well-financed agenda is much bigger than any of us can ever even comprehend!

These labels can be a bit misleading. I know liberals who are very smart and despise Obama, Soros, Gore, and the mainstream liberal media.

You see, thats the problem, there is a particular party, or a particular group and they get infiltrated by "pretend liberals" to manipulate them.

George Soros is a prime example, he is a human piece of waste and he has been buying up all the liberal/alternative media and declaring war on the media he has not conquered/purchased yet.

The Tea Party has also been infiltrated, what was a good movement at first, before you know it they have Sarah Palin giving a "tea party" speach on CNN as if she was the leader of the movement, or you have that crazy nut Michelle Bachman portraying herself as a tea party major player, which of course they are totally opposite.

You see, the smart ones have this all planned out, execution by force is doomed to failure. Execution by stealth is far more dangerous.

 

[StangBanger]

I have to comment this thread is amusing....

for those who label all dems as liberals and all repubs as conservatives - get a clue.
for those who think Obama is a socialist - get a dictionary and cry when you are proven clueless
for those that think George Bush was better than Obama - you are clueless - they BOTH sucked equally as bad

We need some middle ground. This RIGHT and LEFT sh*t has to go - they are both so wrong is sickening and unamerican. The socialist direction of the democrats is pathetic and the tea party republicans are just an embarrasement to us real americans.

We need a CENTER party... an alignment of whats right with Republican agenda and whats right with Democratic agenda and run with those.

If anyone says "there is no right in the Republican party" - you are an idiot - if anyone says "there is no right in the Democratic party" - you are an idiot.

For the extreme Liberal left and the extreme Convervative right - you are BOTH DOMESTIC TERRORISTS aka Extremists who have no business in politics.

This country was founded on the basic principal of " I can do whatever the f*ck I want as long it doesnt affect my neighbor " has somone how turned into " I am going to make my neighbor do what I do, think like I think, and behave as I see fit"

WTF.

 

[AE14]

This can be easily summed up as follows IMO:

The liberals run this country. Their lobbying effects, pressure, strategies and presence are cut throat, manipulative, and powerful (consdervatives sit around rather quietly and do nothing but complain - Thank GOD for the Tea Party that has emerged and galvanized what's left of any Pride in America).

Look at the media outlets:

Every single new channel is on his jock and either spins or conceals the truth except for Fox News).
Hollywood (95% liberal) and very vocal and influential.

then there's the overplayed reverse racism garbage that exists (if you dont like Obama, that somehow makes you a racist LMAO).

Additionally, there is an undeniable pernicious agenda driven by BIG TIME MONEY (George Sorros to name one big player) that will not quit until we are a Socialist States of America, moving towards a one world government and one world currency.

IMHO, the deep-rooted, well-financed agenda is much bigger than any of us can ever even comprehend!

again, I think you are looking at this incorrectly. It is not a left/right issue. They are the same. Both are for spending, unconstitutional decisions, and big government. The big government they are after is just slightly different.

There is no middle/moderate party or major players anymore. It is a shame.

I am no fan of Jefferson, but he was correct in his statements about revolution and it seems that we are in need of something.

 

[ax1]

I think the Bilderberg Group may possibly pick Marco Rubio as Romney's running mate.

 

[AE14]

I think the Bilderberg Group may possibly pick Marco Rubio as Romney's running mate.

You thought they were picking Perry/Palin. I don't think it will be Rubio. Too green. I am thinking someone like Jindal

 

[ax1]

You thought they were picking Perry/Palin. I don't think it will be Rubio. Too green. I am thinking someone like Jindal

I didnt think so, lol I was only hoping so just so my late night comedy shows get more entertaining.

Al Kamen from the Washington post hinted the Bildeberg connection by the way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-the-loop-shout-at-a-dictator-get-some-vp-cred/2012/04/11/gIQAtpNOBT_story.html

 

[Whacked]

Well, you all obviously know your politics better than me so kudos to you all

Cool discussion - good stuff

 

[AE14]

I didnt think so, lol I was only hoping so just so my late night comedy shows get more entertaining.

Al Kamen from the Washington post hinted the Bildeberg connection by the way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-the-loop-shout-at-a-dictator-get-some-vp-cred/2012/04/11/gIQAtpNOBT_story.html

No disrespect ax, but the Edwards connection is faulty. Kerry begrudgingly took him at the request of his advisors, similarly the way the McCain took Palin.

I don't think Rubio, Ryan or Portman do anything for the ticket. Haley would be good if she had more experience. A minority or a woman is a must, just don't see where it will go.

I think rice (although moderate in certain respects) or Jindal are the best 2 options. I doubt Jindal though, as he was a Perry supporter at the beginning.

 

[ax1]

Well, you all obviously know your politics better than me so kudos to you all

Cool discussion - good stuff

Its a false "left, right" paradigm here in America. Its a duopoly. You create, buy out, and/or infiltrate your own competition and give people the illusion of choice. That is what they call a democracy today. One good example is how Goldman Sachs has been funding both the Obama and Romney Campaign.

 

[AE14]

Its a false "left, right" paradigm here in America. Its a duopoly. You create, buy out, and/or infiltrate your own competition and give people the illusion of choice. That is what they call a democracy today. One good example is how Goldman Sachs has been funding both the Obama and Romney Campaign.

They always win. :bigok:

 

[ax1]

No disrespect ax, but the Edwards connection is faulty. Kerry begrudgingly took him at the request of his advisors, similarly the way the McCain took Palin.

I don't think Rubio, Ryan or Portman do anything for the ticket. Haley would be good if she had more experience. A minority or a woman is a must, just don't see where it will go.

I think rice (although moderate in certain respects) or Jindal are the best 2 options. I doubt Jindal though, as he was a Perry supporter at the beginning.

Id have to look into that more, but questions to ask are, who are the advisers? Who are the advisers affiliated with? What lobby group is approaching the advisers? Who is funding them? etc...you see where Im getting at. We can all speculate, but we cannot confirm exactly everything what goes on behind the scenes.

Rice is too ugly for me, Palin can be a sexy milf at times.

 

[fueledpassion]

the only thing I am going to add, is that anyone who thinks this is a partisan issue is fooling themselves, and anyone who thinks this guy in the WH is a socialist does not understand the definition of the word.

At the end of the day, this regime has been a tremendous disappointment, however, so have many of the most recent Presidencies. I have no doubt a Romney presidency will as well.

Tell me how the WH hasn't pressed for socialism in the past 20 years. Obama corporatist? That's a made up name for a socialist. Is redistributing high end wealth to the low end NOT an essential part of socialism? I at least have formal education on the topic to give myself some credentials. Call it whatever you want but redistribution of wealth and total government regulation is what Obama's administration (along with many others in the past) have been pushing for.

2 great current examples (but certainly not limited to)

1) Obama wants to regulate health insurance and penalize (tax) those who don't have it.
2) Obama wants to force the requirement of abortion services on private organizations that do not have such activities as a part of their mission.


The fact that he wishes to mandate every bill that he tries to implement tells me that his office is desiring total government management, which is essential exclusively to socialism and communism. And if that mandate passes (Let's hope not), then it will be a snowball effect from there. If the supreme court passes that, what can they do to stop the feds? The federal government would have then stepped over the boundaries of interstate trade commerce regulation and into the personal lives of every human in the country. That's not a democracy.

If he isn't socialist (aka corporatist), then what is he? He sure isn't capitalist and he doesn't stand for democracy - his Obamacare proves that. I know full well what the definition of socialism is and I also know what it looks like on paper vs. actual implementation. They're totally different.

 

[carpee]

Tell me how the WH hasn't pressed for socialism in the past 20 years. Obama corporatist? That's a made up name for a socialist. Is redistributing high end wealth to the low end NOT an essential part of socialism? I at least have formal education on the topic to give myself some credentials. Call it whatever you want but redistribution of wealth and total government regulation is what Obama's administration (along with many others in the past) have been pushing for.

2 great current examples (but certainly not limited to)

1) Obama wants to regulate health insurance and penalize (tax) those who don't have it.
2) Obama wants to force the requirement of abortion services on private organizations that do not have such activities as a part of their mission.


The fact that he wishes to mandate every bill that he tries to implement tells me that his office is desiring total government management, which is essential exclusively to socialism and communism. And if that mandate passes (Let's hope not), then it will be a snowball effect from there. If the supreme court passes that, what can they do to stop the feds? The federal government would have then stepped over the boundaries of interstate trade commerce regulation and into the personal lives of every human in the country. That's not a democracy.

If he isn't socialist (aka corporatist), then what is he? He sure isn't capitalist and he doesn't stand for democracy - his Obamacare proves that. I know full well what the definition of socialism is and I also know what it looks like on paper vs. actual implementation. They're totally different.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

 

[fueledpassion]

This is true. Both parties are virtually the same with just different flavors of big government. I actually prefer the way the Democrats send their message. They don't hide behind the ruse of small government and personal freedom that Republicans do. They tell you they are for big government. Republicans run on small government, but then govern big with war, no gay marriage, ending women's choices, etc. And all want to do all this while cutting taxes at the same time.

Anyone who sees a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans hasn't studied the last 30 years much. Where were all these people who clamor about "the left" during GWB's reign? Why didn't they run him out after the Iraq War, Patriot Act, Medicare Part D, etc? Getting mad at Democrats for doing the same thing Republicans did cracks me up. Most of my far right buddies weren't making much noise a few years ago.

We need a third party, but it won't happen.

I agree with that. I don't think Obama is unique in the WH for certain. Heck, I feel like Obama has been an extension of Bush in many ways. Romney will be just the same and as you said, he'll have a new flavor of the same big government.

 

[ax1]

Tell me how the WH hasn't pressed for socialism in the past 20 years. Obama corporatist? That's a made up name for a socialist. Is redistributing high end wealth to the low end NOT an essential part of socialism?

Its all in the intent...Obama is a corporitist/fascist and not a socialist. Reasoning is that all he and the banks/corporations are doing is giving chicken feed and hope to less fortunate people, and he wants to take it from the rich. In the meantime the ultra elite and corporations are solidifying power and eliminating their competition (the rich people).

To sum up (and I may sound repetitive,) a corporatist wins over poor people by giving them chicken feed and an illusion of opprotunity and hope while power and fortune is consolidated to the aligarchy elite. Its an illusion of socialism but really just propaganda and the middle and upper class (not the elite class) diminishes and the primary benefit goes the corporations/banks/elite the most.

 

[fueledpassion]

I disagree. We dont need a 3rd party, or a 4th, or 5th etc. From a technical standpoint we would need a 2nd party for starters since there is only 1 party that has help power for 100+ years, which are the republicrats.

Anyways, we dont need any more parties, we need to ban political parties. All parties once in power will get infiltrated and corrupted in no time.

What we need is to have people vote based on individual, not some party following, as ultimatly besides the previous issues presented, party voting ends up with millions of blind faith voting in society.

Ban the political party system, and have term limits in all phases of goverment including congress and the supreme court.

I agree. We should vote on a person based on the same things that an employer would look at to hire a new employee:

-Skills
-Experience
-Education
-Character
-Decision-making abilities
-Leadership/character qualities

Granted, I feel like people should get a grip on the character qualities and realize that everyone can find dirt on anyone and we aren't perfect. We should be realistic and only ask our president to "lead" us, not to "be perfect".

 

[ax1]

Its all in the intent...Obama is a corporitist/fascist and not a socialist. Reasoning is that all he and the banks/corporations are doing is giving chicken feed and hope to less fortunate people, and he wants to take it from the rich. In the meantime the ultra elite and corporations are solidifying power and eliminating their competition (the rich people).

To sum up (and I may sound repetitive,) a corporatist wins over poor people by giving them chicken feed and an illusion of opprotunity and hope while power and fortune is consolidated to the aligarchy elite. Its an illusion of socialism but really just propaganda and the middle and upper class (not the elite class) diminishes benefit the corporations/banks/elite the most.

These labels are all silly anyways, its what they do that counts the most.

 

[fueledpassion]

Its all in the intent...Obama is a corporitist/fascist and not a socialist. Reasoning is that all he and the banks/corporations are doing is giving chicken feed and hope to less fortunate people, and he wants to take it from the rich. In the meantime the ultra elite and corporations are solidifying power and eliminating their competition (the rich people).

To sum up (and I may sound repetitive,) a corporatist wins over poor people by giving them chicken feed and an illusion of opprotunity and hope while power and fortune is consolidated to the aligarchy elite. Its an illusion of socialism but really just propaganda and the middle and upper class (not the elite class) diminishes benefit the corporations/banks/elite the most.

10-4. This makes sense now, THANK YOU! So connecting what you are saying to what I've been taught over the subject is that corporatism is what comes out of a somewhat socialist movement. On paper, socialism looks good but in the end I always know (because of man's selfish intent) that it winds up with a very few in power and wealth - or what you call "corporatism". Either way whatever you call it - I don't like it and I'm willing to bet that others wouldn't either.

lol, you don't get that kind of honest definition on wikipedia or dictionary.com!

 

[ax1]

10-4. This makes sense now, THANK YOU! So connecting what you are saying to what I've been taught over the subject is that corporatism is what comes out of a somewhat socialist movement. On paper, socialism looks good but in the end I always know (because of man's selfish intent) that it winds up with a very few in power and wealth - or what you call "corporatism". Either way whatever you call it - I don't like it and I'm willing to bet that others wouldn't either.

Goverment just cannot be trusted, I like ideas of socialism but goverment scares the crap out of me.

 

[fueledpassion]

I have to comment this thread is amusing....

for those who label all dems as liberals and all repubs as conservatives - get a clue.
for those who think Obama is a socialist - get a dictionary and cry when you are proven clueless
for those that think George Bush was better than Obama - you are clueless - they BOTH sucked equally as bad

We need some middle ground. This RIGHT and LEFT sh*t has to go - they are both so wrong is sickening and unamerican. The socialist direction of the democrats is pathetic and the tea party republicans are just an embarrasement to us real americans.

We need a CENTER party... an alignment of whats right with Republican agenda and whats right with Democratic agenda and run with those.

If anyone says "there is no right in the Republican party" - you are an idiot - if anyone says "there is no right in the Democratic party" - you are an idiot.

For the extreme Liberal left and the extreme Convervative right - you are BOTH DOMESTIC TERRORISTS aka Extremists who have no business in politics.

This country was founded on the basic principal of " I can do whatever the f*ck I want as long it doesnt affect my neighbor " has somone how turned into " I am going to make my neighbor do what I do, think like I think, and behave as I see fit"

WTF.

Nice points! It's both parties and I do agree with what you are saying, especially that last statement. I just hope that someone who is more moderate can in fact get in and find a way to get us back towards having the freedoms to do what we want so long as we aren't harming those around us.

 

[fueledpassion]

They always win. :bigok:

Sounds like to me Goldman Sachs knows how to invest, lol.

 

[fueledpassion]

again, I think you are looking at this incorrectly. It is not a left/right issue. They are the same. Both are for spending, unconstitutional decisions, and big government. The big government they are after is just slightly different.

There is no middle/moderate party or major players anymore. It is a shame.

I am no fan of Jefferson, but he was correct in his statements about revolution and it seems that we are in need of something.

What exactly did he say? Paraphrased maybe?

I'm learning from you guys. My research is alittle less involved. I miss the trees for the forest you could say. Maybe I should delve into some specifics to help solidify my writings. Oh, it turns out that my definition of scientific socialism = ax1 version of "corporatism". They are all bad, imo regardless the title.

 

[ax1]

What exactly did he say? Paraphrased maybe?

I'm learning from you guys. My research is alittle less involved. I miss the trees for the forest you could say. Maybe I should delve into some specifics to help solidify my writings. Oh, it turns out that my definition of scientific socialism = ax1 version of "corporatism". They are all bad, imo regardless the title.

Every political system is in danger of infiltration and failure by the selfish. If its a democracy, socialism, corporatism, even the constitutional party its all in danger of the selfish few.

People constantly need to be educated (not by the government run public school system), wake up and fight for their freedoms or its all gone.

Problem is that the elite operate in 25-50 year plans, and the average attention span of people these days is about 3 seconds.

 

[fueledpassion]

lol, touche on the attention span

 

[EasyEJL]

Socialism is just redistribution of poverty

 

[AE14]

What exactly did he say? Paraphrased maybe?

I'm learning from you guys. My research is alittle less involved. I miss the trees for the forest you could say. Maybe I should delve into some specifics to help solidify my writings. Oh, it turns out that my definition of scientific socialism = ax1 version of "corporatism". They are all bad, imo regardless the title.

As I said, I am no fan of Jefferson, in fact I believe his an overrated hypocrite. However, his thoughts on this were interesting, but show his odd allegiance to the French of the time. He made reference to every generation or so, if the need should strike, that the people should deem it their right to have a revolution and overthrow the existing government.

 

[Whacked]

Nice. Im here to learn. Preach on brutha!

Its a false "left, right" paradigm here in America. Its a duopoly. You create, buy out, and/or infiltrate your own competition and give people the illusion of choice. That is what they call a democracy today. One good example is how Goldman Sachs has been funding both the Obama and Romney Campaign.

 

[ax1]

Socialism is just redistribution of poverty

T-shirts anyone?

 

[fueledpassion]

T-shirts anyone?

haha that's hilarious. I'll take one...

 

[mikeg313]

This thread makes me want to stockpile weapons and ammo.

 

[steppinRazor]

This thread makes me want to stockpile weapons and ammo.

This comment and thread makes me pissed of I'm a felon..no guns for me. Voting I could really care less about..but still its the principle

 

[carpee]

This comment and thread makes me pissed of I'm a felon..no guns for me. Voting I could really care less about..but still its the principle

I've been looking into getting a firearm.

dunno where to start

 

[ax1]

I've been looking into getting a firearm.

dunno where to start

Wallmart

 

[Whacked]

I recall reading something about the NRA has a means to get your rights restored for carrying/purchasing a firearm due to some constitutional thingy (when convicted of a felony provided it is NOT a violent crime). Google "gun rights attorneys" for your respective state.

They are a very wealthy powerful lobbying organization and money can buy anything in the KUNTRY.

Good luck.

This comment and thread makes me pissed of I'm a felon..no guns for me. Voting I could really care less about..but still its the principle

 

[mikeg313]

This comment and thread makes me pissed of I'm a felon..no guns for me. Voting I could really care less about..but still its the principle

Don't know what you were convicted of but I'm personally against the laws where non violent felons aren't aloud to own guns or vote

 

[StangBanger]

2 great current examples (but certainly not limited to)

1) Obama wants to regulate health insurance and penalize (tax) those who don't have it.
2) Obama wants to force the requirement of abortion services on private organizations that do not have such activities as a part of their mission.

So does Romney - look up RomneyCare - written by the SAME people who wrote Obamacare, Romney says he will kill Obamacare immediately... know why? so he can implement ROMNEYCARE - true story..... so how is that socialist again?

 

[ax1]

So does Romney - look up RomneyCare - written by the SAME people who wrote Obamacare, Romney says he will kill Obamacare immediately... know why? so he can implement ROMNEYCARE - true story..... so how is that socialist again?

They are a clone of each other, the election is a joke. Both are financed by the same people.

 

[mikeg313]

It's all a big shît show. Puppets on strings entertaining a country full of puppets. The human race is just destine to be no good. It's hard to say when I look at my son everyday but it's sad we start off as the most beautiful and innocent creatures and end up all fuked up focused on bullshît that doesn't have any natural affect on our happiness. Doomed to a life lived chasing our own tails.

 

[EasyEJL]

I've been looking into getting a firearm.

dunno where to start

a 357 revolver, a 12 gauge shotgun, a small to mid caliber rifle (22 is iffy but ammo is so cheap, 223-308 is nice)

 

[mikeg313]

a 357 revolver, a 12 gauge shotgun, a small to mid caliber rifle (22 is iffy but ammo is so cheap, 223-308 is nice)

Exactly^^

 

[aceroni]

All I gotta say is.. These elections are bull****. They have become the same thing as highschool popularity contests. The younger more attractive candidate wins. and if you vote for looks- dont ****ing vote. Go kill yourself.

The matter of the fact is. if you care about yourself, your rights, your country, you would have been smart enough to vote for RON PAUL. Its sad that the media doesn't even cover him, because they know he is actually for something just- when everybody else is focusing on gay marraige and stupid as ****, RP is defending your constitutional rights. Something to think about people....

 

[StangBanger]

a 357 revolver, a 12 gauge shotgun, a small to mid caliber rifle (22 is iffy but ammo is so cheap, 223-308 is nice)

a man after my own heart... that's my exact lineup..

 

[grngoloco]

ManBeast for president ... he's in the testicle party!!