Looks like Obomber is going to use today's shooting to create a constitutional crisis

[ralis]

Hah, yes, well, probably the only mistake greater than trusting what Obama says is trusting what his political opponents say about him. They need to use lies to attack him, since there's so little truth they can attack him with that's 'safe' for the sheeple's ears.

 

Although I wouldn't trust some fancy statistics published by the Wallstreet Journal. You can take authentic numbers and take them out of context and thus mislead people. It's a long information chain and you only have to manipulate at one point to make it all untrustworthy.

 

The data are from the CBO. Check it for yourself as opposed to stating pointless opinions! FYI, the WSJ is owned by the right wing hack Rupert Murdock.

Edited January 3, 2013 by ralis

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Owl, I feel ya, don't get me wrong, but I cant see a solution to our problems mattering on a forum. what, unless we're all getting ready to push the revolution??? Otherwise, i'll just laugh till I need to fight.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Knowledge before action.

 

Before one can motivate/ move the masses they must first be educated... this is a slow process (lots of time/ effort/ sacrifice for nothing generally... only the desire for and to share truth... + to set the world free from this nightmare compels us.

Edited January 3, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ShenLung]

It has taken over one hundred years of slow and steady 'progress' for the USA to get into this mess, a little patience unraveling it wouldn't hurt.

[chi 2012]

It's nice to pose as the savior when you are part of the problem.

Doing just what the banks want, making a blackmail work, is not something I give credit for. He bent down to his monetary masters. (You know, various banks are major contributors to his campaign.) You're judging by propaganda and history written by the winners.

Clinton had the renditions running (circumventing basic legal principles of the USA by sending prisoners to other countries where servile corrupt regimes do the dirty work for them) and he started an illegal war. Reagan was mostly a puppet, he was less bright than George W. Bush ... good intentions, but very naive, and much ugly stuff happened during his administration. JFK was responsible for an act of war against another sovereign country. The CIA told him they wouldn't get caught doing their totally illegitimate thing, and that was good enough for the President of the United States to greenlight it. But I guess he learned quickly, and he was murdered by the federal reserve banksters for the monetary reforms he attempted.

 

To me, a good president is one who wouldn't get elected in the current system, because the system doesn't allow it. First the people have to change the system so that they deserve a better president. It's a perpetual folly of the people to elect a champion instead of a representative. Ron Paul is one of the very few prominent politicians who actually prove sincere, because their actions match their words. And the degree of media manipulation regarding his campaign is appalling and not even in any way hidden. It's the clear message that those who are really in power don't have to conceil their influence; they feel safe and probably get a good kick out of witnessing how easy it is to fool the majority.

 

You have to look past the propaganda storm, beyond the mainstream common-knowledge history version. If you call Reagan a good president because he 'ended a war', then you'd have to love Henry Kissinger. You know... he got the Nobel Peace Prize. ... Truth is, though, that he's a war criminal.

 

The politics in the USA are so far away from legality and following the Constitution that people confuse that sick state with normality. It's telling that when people call Ron Paul a constitutionalist, they say it like he's some kind of quaint freak clinging to ancient concepts, when in reality the Constitution is still a valid part of the US legal system. Bush should have been hanged for treason for his utter disrespect of it, but people take a lot of shit without seeing clearly.

 

Man, there's so much stuff to open your eyes. I, too, started off with shaping my opinion based on the official version of events, but some things were unsatisfying and so I investigated. Many people now realize what's going on. It takes some courage to realize most of our idols are crooks. Not much left then, but that which is left is what we need to focus on. It's not about being on the winner's side. It's about being on the right side.

 

In short: In a system like the one the USA had for a long time now, there is no such thing as a good president, because the president is of very little relevance.

 

If a Libertarian like Ron Paul were elected in 2008 and got his way - there is a good chance the U.S. would be in a huge depression and a very good chance that a terrorist would have detonated a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city. Although tragic, the U.S. dropping bombs in other countries is preventing another 911 type tragedy. U.S Presidents simply represent the sum total consciousness of the U.S. population. No modern day U.S. President has been evil. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden - and dictators of countries that kill their own people are evil.

 

What you are saying about U.S. Presidents might be true on one level.....But things that are true on one level aren't necessarily true on higher levels. Ultimately there are no levels. Everything is one...But to explain things - sometimes the concept of levels is used.

 

For example....Lets take a guy named "Bob" who is a church going Christian Fundamentalist. Let's say he sometimes spanks his children, and donates money to his church and gets a tax write off. On one "level" you can say that "Bob" is an evil brainwashing child abusing tax cheating asshole. This might be true on one level....But the reality is "Bob" is a productive member of society who is raising responsible children who will also be productive people.

 

So, what you are saying about U.S. Presidents is the same thing people could be saying about "Bob". It is a very limited and paranoid way of looking at reality.

[gendao]

Well Obama did save the country from another Great Depression. The Libertarian fantasy where the U.S. just sits back and does nothing is just a theory that isn't practical.

Lol, all he's doing is borrowing even more from dynastic bankstas and future generations to largely to finance offensive wars, a whole self-unsustaining way of life and vote-whoring, 0rwellian entitlement programs now.

And also diluted the value of our USD by printing $2 trillion out of thin air to spread the debt like a giant flat tax.

So instead of vastly cutting back our defense (& other) unnecessary spending - he's simply "spent it forward" to keep building the NW0 here and allowed just enough crumbs to trickle down to his future slaves to buy their votes at bargain basement prices...

Honestly, it's like he stole $200 from your wallet, went on a global shooting spree... yet you're still happy because he brought you back a lollipop?

 

 

Meanwhile, this former pothead has aggressively fought against any truly progressive, FREE measures that would VASTLY improve all aspects of our nation's welfare from green-economy-to-energy-to-health like LEGALIZING CANNABI5!!!

Edited January 4, 2013 by vortex

[ralis]

Lol, all he's doing is borrowing even more from dynastic bankstas and future generations to largely to finance offensive wars and vote-whoring entitlement programs now.

And also diluted the value of our USD by printing $2 trillion out of thin air to spread the debt like a giant flat tax.

So instead of vastly cutting back our defense (& other) unnecessary spending - he's simply "spent it forward" to keep building the NW0 here and allowed just enough crumbs to trickle down to his future slaves to buy their votes at bargain basement prices...

Honestly, it's like he stole $200 from your wallet, went on a global shooting spree... yet you're still happy because he brought you back a lollipop?

 

 

Meanwhile, this former pothead has aggressively fought against any truly progressive, FREE measures that would VASTLY improve all aspects of our nation's welfare from green-economy-to-energy-to-health like LEGALIZING CANNABI5!!!

 

Your post is absolute BS and you know it. Read my earlier post from the CBO. Stop posting BS from the Heritage Foundation which is a fascist right wing organization! BTW, why not stick with one point.

Edited January 4, 2013 by ralis

[ShenLung]

Knowing the Way, trusting in the Way, what conclusions can be drawn about those who seek power and hold power in a time when the great Way is lost? The offices that manipulate and obfuscate do not have the Way; true wisdom is far from them. This is fortunatete, for if they indeed had the way of sages, then the people would always remain ignorant.

 

Not knowing the Way, the officials dress themselves in finery, and practice deciet; the Way of heaven will prevail. The wise and the able hide in these times, knowing the Way of heaven. When there is nothing that can be done, do nothing. Consider the greedy and the selfish; and take a breath. Can one hold this forever?

 

Not doing is not simply not doing, but doing enough, and knowing when enough is enough. Perfect the self, teach the Way, and trust in the law of heaven.

 

 

(edit) oh jeez, I just became a priest ... someone is bound to try to eat me now ...

Edited January 4, 2013 by ShenLung

[chi 2012]

Although the Iraq war was most likely a mistake - U.S. Presidents have to order "Code Reds" in order to keep the whole world safe.

 

[Owledge]

If a Libertarian like Ron Paul were elected in 2008 and got his way - there is a good chance the U.S. would be in a huge depression and a very good chance that a terrorist would have detonated a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city. Although tragic, the U.S. dropping bombs in other countries is preventing another 911 type tragedy. U.S Presidents simply represent the sum total consciousness of the U.S. population. No modern day U.S. President has been evil. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden - and dictators of countries that kill their own people are evil.

 

...

 

For example....Lets take a guy named "Bob" who is a church going Christian Fundamentalist. Let's say he sometimes spanks his children, and donates money to his church and gets a tax write off. On one "level" you can say that "Bob" is an evil brainwashing child abusing tax cheating asshole. This might be true on one level....But the reality is "Bob" is a productive member of society who is raising responsible children who will also be productive people.

 

...

Oh man, you compare what presidents did to spanking your children?

 

The first paragraph shows how much you are still thinking based on propaganda lies and scare tactics. Claiming that wars prevent terrorist attacks, when the whole reason terrorism occurs is because of governments terrorizing their own and other people. If it still has escaped your awareness how for the US government everything that serves their imperial agenda is "good" and everything that doesn't is "evil", then do some in-depth studied. The USA are the biggest supporter and performer of terrorism in the world, and in parts they don't even try to hide it! They don't have to, because servile US citizens will know that those are called "freedom fighters", and labels are truth, especially if their masters are making them.The US government is putting militant organizations on and off and on and off and on and off their terrorism list as they please. The CIA trained Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and supported the Taliban against the Russians. And you claim that wars prevent terrorism.

9/11 was welcomed and arranged by the US government, just like past pretexts for war were. The US government has a long record of killing their own people when it serves their agenda. The past pretexts, while not that widely known, are accepted as truth by the mainstream, but as long as the most recent deceptions are always swallowed as truth, people will repeat the mistakes over and over and nothing will change.

 

But hey, people are so dumb... first they swallowed the lies about Iraq without question, then the lies were revealed, and now the same is happening with only one letter difference in the country's name and many people are fooled again.

 

Ironically, even G.W. Bush mentioned a saying that applies here: "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"

 

And regarding Ron Paul and depression: War is only profitable for the industry. Ron Paul would have ended some wars, and you might not know this, but the US war budget is appalingly huge. It's even said publicly all the time that the USA are in trouble because they wage wars they can't afford anymore. Ron Paul would have removed that problem a long time ago. (in theory, in praxis, ad I said, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place)

 

Although the Iraq war was most likely a mistake - U.S. Presidents have to order "Code Reds" in order to keep the whole world safe.

Oh my, you are still in USA benevolent world police mode? That's almost more backwards than I was thinking 12 years ago. And I did extensive research all the time.

 

Looking at all that the USA did, it makes perfect sense they have so many enemies and feel a need to 'defend' themselves. If you act like a criminal, a mass murderer, ruthless beyond comprehension (I'm talking about historical facts now), there's no moral highground to justify anything but humble focus on one's own turf and affairs and keeping out of other people's business.

 

I might sound harsh, but I really wish to open your eyes to all the stuff that is drowned in the propaganda storm. The corporate media blatantly censored Ron Paul during campaigning. If you think that was a good way, that he needed to be treated unfairly to 'prevent' him from becoming president, for the greater good, then you will get what you ask for ... deception. If you support deception, then you will be deceived. ... In a way you already are then.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Owledge

[chi 2012]

Oh man, you compare what presidents did to spanking your children?

 

The first paragraph shows how much you are still thinking based on propaganda lies and scare tactics. Claiming that wars prevent terrorist attacks, when the whole reason terrorism occurs is because of governments terrorizing their own and other people. If it still has escaped your awareness how for the US government everything that serves their imperial agenda is "good" and everything that doesn't is "evil", then do some in-depth studied. The USA are the biggest supporter and performer of terrorism in the world, and in parts they don't even try to hide it! They don't have to, because servile US citizens will know that those are called "freedom fighters", and labels are truth, especially if their masters are making them.The US government is putting militant organizations on and off and on and off and on and off their terrorism list as they please. The CIA trained Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and supported the Taliban against the Russians. And you claim that wars prevent terrorism.

9/11 was welcomed and arranged by the US government, just like past pretexts for war were. The US government has a long record of killing their own people when it serves their agenda. The past pretexts, while not that widely known, are accepted as truth by the mainstream, but as long as the most recent deceptions are always swallowed as truth, people will repeat the mistakes over and over and nothing will change.

 

But hey, people are so dumb... first they swallowed the lies about Iraq without question, then the lies were revealed, and now the same is happening with only one letter difference in the country's name and many people are fooled again.

 

Ironically, even G.W. Bush mentioned a saying that applies here: "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"

 

And regarding Ron Paul and depression: War is only profitable for the industry. Ron Paul would have ended some wars, and you might not know this, but the US war budget is appalingly huge. It's even said publicly all the time that the USA are in trouble because they wage wars they can't afford anymore. Ron Paul would have removed that problem a long time ago. (in theory, in praxis, ad I said, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place)

 

Ron Paul is right in one sense that the U.S. brought the terrorist attacks on themselves....But his strategy to just drop everything would result in more attacks for a long time. There are also a certain percentage of muslims that want to spread Islam throughout the world - and would most likely still have an agenda to destroy the U.S. even if the U.S. had never done anything to cause the attacks.

[Owledge]

Ron Paul is right in one sense that the U.S. brought the terrorist attacks on themselves....But his strategy to just drop everything would result in more attacks for a long time. There are also a certain percentage of muslims that want to spread Islam throughout the world - and would most likely still have an agenda to destroy the U.S. even if the U.S. had never done anything to cause the attacks.

Well, there's still a huge difference between real defense and the US version of defense. Nobody wants to drop all security measures within a day. Ron Paul is smart enough to know that you can't make drastic changes without drastic results. BUT he would end those activities which have no positive influence whatsoever.

Radical Islam is in a way caused by an environment of threat, and surely there are some people who are in it for the power and influence. But as spirituality teaches and demonstrates, when you remove the fear factor from an environment, everything cools off and positive processes can flourish.

With the most possible political change imaginable in the USA regarding world politics, it would still take time until the past is forgiven. It's always like that. Sincerity is very powerful. Only sincerity (words matching actions) can dissolve mistrust.

 

One more thing: Even in the scenario of deconstructing defenses, it would most likely not be 'real' islamists going on the offensive. When changes like that happen, most afraid are those who have great power - afraid of losing it. They have great power in the first place because they feel a need to have it. And those people are usually the ones responding with false attacks to create false facts, to 'prove' that their enemy would use the opportunity to attack. There are many examples in history from all areas of society where when an enemy vanishes, those who fought it will create a new one to secure their fearful basis of existence.

 

Considering that most terror attacks in the US were fake media reporting or false flags anyway, with a sincere change in US politics there probably wouldn't have to be defenses police-state style like the USA has now - if it wasn't for the 'own' people who fear a world without enemies.

 

This can be seen very metaphrocial, too. Fear can be like an inner demon who demands attention, acknowledgement, to be fed in order to survive. It's common that people will project their fears outwards, see that everywhere which is only in their own mind, and here's another spiritual principle: When you act based on that perceived reality, your actions will seek to (re)create that reality. If you think that everybody is your enemy and live that way, then eventually everybody will be your enemy ... especially if you have a lot of power and are using it. And THEN you will have solid proof that you were right all the time. Thing is just that that solid proof was manifested by yourself. And you yourself then will be unable to see how you have become what you fear.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Owledge

[ShenLung]

If a Libertarian like Ron Paul were elected in 2008 and got his way - there is a good chance the U.S. would be in a huge depression and a very good chance that a terrorist would have detonated a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city. Although tragic, the U.S. dropping bombs in other countries is preventing another 911 type tragedy. U.S Presidents simply represent the sum total consciousness of the U.S. population. No modern day U.S. President has been evil. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden - and dictators of countries that kill their own people are evil.

 

What you are saying about U.S. Presidents might be true on one level.....But things that are true on one level aren't necessarily true on higher levels. Ultimately there are no levels. Everything is one...But to explain things - sometimes the concept of levels is used.

 

For example....Lets take a guy named "Bob" who is a church going Christian Fundamentalist. Let's say he sometimes spanks his children, and donates money to his church and gets a tax write off. On one "level" you can say that "Bob" is an evil brainwashing child abusing tax cheating asshole. This might be true on one level....But the reality is "Bob" is a productive member of society who is raising responsible children who will also be productive people.

 

So, what you are saying about U.S. Presidents is the same thing people could be saying about "Bob". It is a very limited and paranoid way of looking at reality.

 

Under a fellow like Ron Paul, the US public would know they were in a depression. Bringing to concious awareness does not create the condition, only allow the opportunity to remedy the condition. All things considered, Ron was not the best choice for president, as the rapid raising of conciousness can be quite disturbing to some, as you have so eloquently pointed out.

 

Evil, now that is an interesting concept. If I were to burn my hand upon a hot iron, I might consider the Iron as evil, or learn from the experience. When a sufficient number have burned themselves on the iron of bad governance, the desire for good governance will emerge. So great will be the clamor for good governance, that bad governance will find it quite dificut to conceal the means by which it manages to perpetrate it's existance. This is an awakening that has yet to happen in The USA, but it has happened elsewhere. We noticed, but bad governance pretended that we didn't. We noticed that, too.

 

Bob's children will likely place him in a retirement home that has a reputation for abusing it's residents, and they will not care. Hopefully, the children of Bob's children will recognize the error, and not repeat it in their generation. This sort of correction has also not gone unnoticed, as it is already happening. The children of Bob's children have seen, they are aware, and the changes that need to take place are happening.

 

Trust in the Way of heaven. Filial piety is natural for children who's parents have the Way.

[ralis]

@ Owledge,

 

You know very little about Ron Paul. He has stated publicly that he is against the 'Voting Rights Act', the 'Civil Rights Act' and other laws that he claims are unconstitutional. His claim is that the Constitution is not a dynamic document that changes with the times but is as was written by the framers. Therefor, according to his world view, we would still have segregated schools, racism and rampant discrimination among other things.

 

The delusional right wing propaganda that whatever is not enumerated in the Constitution is unconstitutional is nothing more than an attempt to institute a society based on authoritarianism and social Darwinism.

Edited January 5, 2013 by ralis

[chi 2012]

Well, there's still a huge difference between real defense and the US version of defense. Nobody wants to drop all security measures within a day. Ron Paul is smart enough to know that you can't make drastic changes without drastic results. BUT he would end those activities which have no positive influence whatsoever.

Radical Islam is in a way caused by an environment of threat, and surely there are some people who are in it for the power and influence. But as spirituality teaches and demonstrates, when you remove the fear factor from an environment, everything cools off and positive processes can flourish.

With the most possible political change imaginable in the USA regarding world politics, it would still take time until the past is forgiven. It's always like that. Sincerity is very powerful. Only sincerity (words matching actions) can dissolve mistrust.

 

One more thing: Even in the scenario of deconstructing defenses, it would most likely not be 'real' islamists going on the offensive. When changes like that happen, most afraid are those who have great power - afraid of losing it. They have great power in the first place because they feel a need to have it. And those people are usually the ones responding with false attacks to create false facts, to 'prove' that their enemy would use the opportunity to attack. There are many examples in history from all areas of society where when an enemy vanishes, those who fought it will create a new one to secure their fearful basis of existence.

 

Considering that most terror attacks in the US were fake media reporting or false flags anyway, with a sincere change in US politics there probably wouldn't have to be defenses police-state style like the USA has now - if it wasn't for the 'own' people who fear a world without enemies.

 

This can be seen very metaphrocial, too. Fear can be like an inner demon who demands attention, acknowledgement, to be fed in order to survive. It's common that people will project their fears outwards, see that everywhere which is only in their own mind, and here's another spiritual principle: When you act based on that perceived reality, your actions will seek to (re)create that reality. If you think that everybody is your enemy and live that way, then eventually everybody will be your enemy ... especially if you have a lot of power and are using it. And THEN you will have solid proof that you were right all the time. Thing is just that that solid proof was manifested by yourself. And you yourself then will be unable to see how you have become what you fear.

 

Well I agree with most of your post - except maybe the false media flag stuff. I think Obama is doing pretty much the same as you say Ron Paul would have done. Obama is going in a better direction than McCain or Romney would have.

[Owledge]

@ Owledge,

 

You know very little about Ron Paul. He has stated publicly that he is against the 'Voting Rights Act', the 'Civil Rights Act' and other laws that he claims are unconstitutional. His claim is that the Constitution is not a dynamic document that changes with the times but is as was written by the framers. Therefor, according to his world view, we would still have segregated schools, racism and rampant discrimination among other things.

 

The delusional right wing propaganda that whatever is not enumerated in the Constitution is unconditional is nothing more than an attempt to institute a society based on authoritarianism and social Darwinism.

I don't think he's claiming what obviously is not true. He's smarter than that. The Constitution has amendments, duh!

But all the time he says that stuff is happening that violates the constitution. He points out that the Constitution has to be obeyed first, that it contains principles that other laws cannot render void. And people like Bush didn't even try to conceal that they consider that legal document non-binding. He and Cheney are more like: 'It's not useful, so we don't feel bound to it. And we don't think people would see the wisdom in changing it, so we'll just ignore it.'

The people can update the legal basis for their society. But in a state where the government violates it all the time, you cannot expect a positive outcome.

Please point out how obeying the Constitution would result in segregated schools.

(I won't even go into the "racism and rampant discrimination" thing, since that's still happening and very much practiced and encouraged by the government, just in different clothes.)

 

Well I agree with most of your post - except maybe the false media flag stuff. I think Obama is doing pretty much the same as you say Ron Paul would have done. Obama is going in a better direction than McCain or Romney would have.

Well, far from all of it. He's not ending foreign wars. He's expanding on that.

And I don't think a rep. president would have been worse. In an environment of propaganda and deception, maybe the only thing that can make people wake up is a more radical, faster change. You know, like the thing with the frog in the hot water.

Bush was widely unpopular - people knew what mentality he was running on. But with Obama it's more problematic, because he makes a smiley face and speaks fancy words and is doing the opposite behind people's back.

The mass craze during his campaign was really unhealthy. People idolized him like a rock star based on his skin color - that's so shallow. I think even people on XTC don't behave that extreme.They deserved to be fooled. But many are still in that state.

So now Obama is making fake tears when children are shot in a school massacre that's maybe another setup (Osama apprehension was ridiculously implausible), claiming it hit him hard emotionally, but he has no problem raining bombs on weddings. After all, those are Pakistani children, and they are so far away. I might have said it before, but that makes him a sociopath if he's sincere and a deceptive piece of scum if he's not.

 

I wish people would finally stop fighting over whether Coke or Pepsi is best.

[gendao]

Although the Iraq war was most likely a mistake - U.S. Presidents have to order "Code Reds" in order to keep the whole world safe.

LMAO.

 

The baser reality is that men like Gaddafi are actually heroic global resistance freedom fighters against the same violent banksta cabals who have hijacked this country and are running it into the ground. Hence, these potential liberators are labelled our/their "great enemies" - rather than courageous allies.

 

 

Anyhow, what about some NEW creative solutions here?

 

How about allowing taxpayers to earmark what percentage of their taxes will go to several major categories of spending like healthcare, military, welfare, infrastructure, etc (perhaps within reasonable limits) on their tax forms? Because if we could literally "vote our taxes," I sincerely doubt our budgetary pie charts would end up looking like THIS!!!

Edited January 4, 2013 by vortex

[Owledge]

@vortex

Very nice pictures there.

I'll watch the Gaddafi video later. I'm not sure whether Libya was a case where the overthrowal was a pro-US act, but I didn't research that case in-debth.

Could you elaborate about the pic with Ahmadinejad? When did he deny dollars for oil? Right now it's more like the other way round, with the illegal sanctions against trade and banking.

[ralis]

I don't think he's claiming what obviously is not true. He's smarter than that. The Constitution has amendments, duh!

But all the time he says that stuff is happening that violates the constitution. He points out that the Constitution has to be obeyed first, that it contains principles that other laws cannot render void. And people like Bush didn't even try to conceal that they consider that legal document non-binding. He and Cheney are more like: 'It's not useful, so we don't feel bound to it. And we don't think people would see the wisdom in changing it, so we'll just ignore it.'

The people can update the legal basis for their society. But in a state where the government violates it all the time, you cannot expect a positive outcome.

Please point out how obeying the Constitution would result in segregated schools.

(I won't even go into the "racism and rampant discrimination" thing, since that's still happening and very much practiced and encouraged by the government, just in different clothes.)

 

 

Well, far from all of it. He's not ending foreign wars. He's expanding on that.

And I don't think a rep. president would have been worse. In an environment of propaganda and deception, maybe the only thing that can make people wake up is a more radical, faster change. You know, like the thing with the frog in the hot water.

Bush was widely unpopular - people knew what mentality he was running on. But with Obama it's more problematic, because he makes a smiley face and speaks fancy words and is doing the opposite behind people's back.

The mass craze during his campaign was really unhealthy. People idolized him like a rock star based on his skin color - that's so shallow. I think even people on XTC don't behave that extreme.They deserved to be fooled. But many are still in that state.

So now Obama is making fake tears when children are shot in a school massacre that's maybe another setup (Osama apprehension was ridiculously implausible), claiming it hit him hard emotionally, but he has no problem raining bombs on weddings. After all, those are Pakistani children, and they are so far away. I might have said it before, but that makes him a sociopath if he's sincere and a deceptive piece of scum if he's not.

 

I wish people would finally stop fighting over whether Coke or Pepsi is best.

 

When the Constitution was framed, slavery was still legal and women could not vote. Only white property owners could vote. Schools were segregated according to race in the South until the Civil Rights Act was passed. Blacks in the South were segregated from public buses drinking fountains and other public services.

 

Given the problems with human nature the US. passed amendments and laws to protect minorities.

 

What Ron Paul is harping about in the following video is about property rights that originally allowed one to vote. Only property owners were allowed to vote until that was changed. He is discriminating against ones that do not own property.

 

Google searches will give you much more info

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2013 by ralis

[chi 2012]

Well, far from all of it. He's not ending foreign wars. He's expanding on that.

And I don't think a rep. president would have been worse. In an environment of propaganda and deception, maybe the only thing that can make people wake up is a more radical, faster change. You know, like the thing with the frog in the hot water.

Bush was widely unpopular - people knew what mentality he was running on. But with Obama it's more problematic, because he makes a smiley face and speaks fancy words and is doing the opposite behind people's back.

The mass craze during his campaign was really unhealthy. People idolized him like a rock star based on his skin color - that's so shallow. I think even people on XTC don't behave that extreme.They deserved to be fooled. But many are still in that state.

So now Obama is making fake tears when children are shot in a school massacre that's maybe another setup (Osama apprehension was ridiculously implausible), claiming it hit him hard emotionally, but he has no problem raining bombs on weddings. After all, those are Pakistani children, and they are so far away. I might have said it before, but that makes him a sociopath if he's sincere and a deceptive piece of scum if he's not.

 

I wish people would finally stop fighting over whether Coke or Pepsi is best.

 

You say I buy into propaganda - and then you buy into this Obama fake tear shit. There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Have you ever studied Spiral Dynamics? Remember what I said about levels? Republicans like Bush, McCain, and Romney are operating under Blue/Orange meme thinking. Libertarians are stuck in the Orange meme. Obama is a little higher with Green/Orange meme thinking. The goal is to get out of the first tier and get into the Second Tier. Only 2 recent presidents have exhibited any desire to enter into 2nd Tier thinking - and that is Clinton and Obama.

[ralis]

@ Owledge

 

Since you are trying to school us here in the U.S. why not take a look at your country. Here are a few examples.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8347040.stm

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/xenophobia-still-prevalent-in-germany-20-years-after-neo-nazi-attacks-a-851972.html

 

Is not discrimination and racism outlawed in your country? I don't need to remind you about Germany's past.

[ralis]

edit

Edited January 4, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Here is another crank comment from Ron Paul who has no understanding of the Constitution! Ron Paul has no understanding of human nature and the need for governments to rein in aberrant human behavior. In this case civil rights violations.

 

 

I am having trouble embedding these videos.

Edited January 4, 2013 by ralis

[Aetherous]

If you take out the s after http, it will embed by itself.

[ralis]

If you take out the s after http, it will embed by itself.

 

Thanks