For those people who think their idea of a government is the only good form of government- you're blind. Corruption is everywhere. Even the United States that claims to have a government 'for the people, by the people' just has a few assholes in charge that run everything. Its not truly a government for the people, by the people.

I'm going to state my political views, but I'm not even sure if MINE would ever work. Here it is: A government in which there is NOBODY in charge, except for everybody. The ultimate downfall of every country's government is they place one or two or a few people in charge of everything, leaving no room for the people themselves to decide on issues. Am I saying there should be no organized structure of rank for the police, the military, etc? No. I'm simply saying that as humans, everybody should have an equal vote. A few people in power hold too much power, and that power is the ability to make votes of their choosing count more.

As far as I'm educated, that is. Again, I'm not saying my idea of a government is right. One might call my views somewhat anarchist (and I hope theres nothing wrong with that).

If everyone gets an equal say and it's a straight up democracy nothing would ever be done.  There'd be 30 different things on the ballot for each issue.

We're not arguing which form of government is perfect, we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

  QFT

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

 

  QFT

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

Have to dissagree. The taking over of business has never been done as far as I remember. Perhaps there are some examples from the past but I haven't seen them. These are businesses held in large part by shareholders. Now there are government run boards. Unelected people setting pay at these businesses. If I have heard Shumer right, they are trying to control the pay of all public companies.

I don't remember Bush attacking a news organization.

or attacking private citizens and insulting large portions of the population.

or going after Clinton admiistration.

Later, got to get ready for work.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

 

  QFT

 

I don't know how to do that smiley but I also agree :)

Originally posted by Vemoi

Have to dissagree. The taking over of business has never been done as far as I remember. Perhaps there are some examples from the past but I haven't seen them. These are businesses held in large part by shareholders. Now there are government run boards. Unelected people setting pay at these businesses. If I have heard Shumer right, they are trying to control the pay of all public companies.

I don't remember Bush attacking a news organization.

or attacking private citizens and insulting large portions of the population.

or going after Clinton admiistration.

Later, got to get ready for work.

 

Bush did all of these things.  He basically nationalized the auto industry and banking industry (done on his watch).  He also hated everyone but Fox; only difference is he did this in private.  Also the nationalization of business has happened before, FDR did it during WWII to help the war effort.  Crystler has been bailed out before, I think in the 1970's.  People who were against the Iraq war were deemed to be traitors and unpatriotic.  I'm pretty sure Clinton got a fair blame for 9/11 and not killing Osama bin Laden.

Obama is Bush v2.0 with a better look and well practiced oratory skills.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

 

Bush did all of these things.  He basically nationalized the auto industry and banking industry (done on his watch).  He also hated everyone but Fox; only difference is he did this in private.  Also the nationalization of business has happened before, FDR did it during WWII to help the war effort.  Crystler has been bailed out before, I think in the 1970's.  People who were against the Iraq war were deemed to be traitors and unpatriotic.  I'm pretty sure Clinton got a fair blame for 9/11 and not killing Osama bin Laden.

Obama is Bush v2.0 with a better look and well practiced oratory skills.

Haha, I... uh... like that!    As to the above I can find no fault and agree.

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by smokemonsc

 

Bush did all of these things.  He basically nationalized the auto industry and banking industry (done on his watch).  He also hated everyone but Fox; only difference is he did this in private.  Also the nationalization of business has happened before, FDR did it during WWII to help the war effort.  Crystler has been bailed out before, I think in the 1970's.  People who were against the Iraq war were deemed to be traitors and unpatriotic.  I'm pretty sure Clinton got a fair blame for 9/11 and not killing Osama bin Laden.

Obama is Bush v2.0 with a better look and well practiced oratory skills.

 

Haha, I... uh... like that!    As to the above I can find no fault and agree.

We'll make a libertarian out of you yet, my friend!

Prepare to be disassimiliated. Resistance is required :)

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Vemoi

Have to dissagree. The taking over of business has never been done as far as I remember. Perhaps there are some examples from the past but I haven't seen them. These are businesses held in large part by shareholders. Now there are government run boards. Unelected people setting pay at these businesses. If I have heard Shumer right, they are trying to control the pay of all public companies.

I don't remember Bush attacking a news organization.

or attacking private citizens and insulting large portions of the population.

or going after Clinton admiistration.

Later, got to get ready for work.

 

 

Bush did all of these things.  He basically nationalized the auto industry and banking industry (done on his watch).  He also hated everyone but Fox; only difference is he did this in private.  Also the nationalization of business has happened before, FDR did it during WWII to help the war effort.  Crystler has been bailed out before, I think in the 1970's.  People who were against the Iraq war were deemed to be traitors and unpatriotic.  I'm pretty sure Clinton got a fair blame for 9/11 and not killing Osama bin Laden.

Obama is Bush v2.0 with a better look and well practiced oratory skills.

I am talking of these things coming directly out of the administration. Site where Bush called people traitors.  Bloggers and such did but not the Bush administration.  Crysler I remember, and I was not a takeover.  The government loaned them money and that was the extent of it. Lee Iaccoca (sp?) did the recovering and they paid back the money.  Bush did not threaten prosecution of Clinton people.

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

 

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

Evidence?

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

 

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

 

Evidence?

Just an observation of the way people act and talk around me.

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

 

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

and yet those of us with Ron Paul bumper stickers were put on a list... How odd.

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

 

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

 

Evidence?

 

Just an observation of the way people act and talk around me.

You must hang with some weird folks. I know a lot of conservatives and liberals and never met one conservative that liked Bush so much that hating him was thought to be unpatriotic, much less anyone thinking hating Obama is patriotic.

The people I know don't believe in hate, first of all. Secondly, the conservatives I know never liked Bush, and don't like Obama for the same reason they didn't like Bush -- he was a big spender.

I suggest you move to a new circle. You hang with some really toxic folks.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

 

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

 

and yet those of us with Ron Paul bumper stickers were put on a list... How odd.

LOL yeah, go figure. Plus I still want some evidence that anyone was put on a terrorist watch list simply for "hating Bush."

Methinks our friend is making things up in an attempt to be funny.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Sabiancym

we're arguing which is the least problematic.

Is that why you support a type of government Obama pushes? One where the people are taken out of the equation and the government takes control of everything?

 

Politicians keep preaching about cutting spending and limiting government. But Bush played up to the corporations and Obama is just continuing where he left off. Why are people acting like Obama is pushing some new type of govt when he is just carrying on the status quo? The corporations and lobbyists have Washington, D.C. by the balls and they want their profits met no matter what. The democrats that currently have control can't even do anything with their power, they are too tangled up in the lobbyists and special interest groups to make a solid decision on anything.

So basically if you didn't like Bush you shouldn't like Obama either. Strange that no one seems to get that.

 

Some people would say hating Bush back then was unpatriotic and could get you on the terrorist watch list. Now when people hate on Obama is patriotic and they are exercising their freedom of speech.

 

Evidence?

 

Just an observation of the way people act and talk around me.

 

You must hang with some weird folks. I know a lot of conservatives and liberals and never met one conservative that liked Bush so much that hating him was thought to be unpatriotic, much less anyone thinking hating Obama is patriotic.

The people I know don't believe in hate, first of all. Secondly, the conservatives I know never liked Bush, and don't like Obama for the same reason they didn't like Bush -- he was a big spender.

I suggest you move to a new circle. You hang with some really toxic folks.

Hah, it's no big deal. Different people think different. I do still hear the occasional Obama is a muslim because of his name. I don't get into many political discussions except when the Obama worship starts. Then I start asking questions about the bailouts and the economy and people ask to change the subject and leave economics to the professionals.