Santorum: Iran would nuke Missouri

[fast eddie]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

I already know that. Tell it to wake_up_bomb.

Well cool then.

The republican/democratic bullshit is simply to divide us up. It works great too. And it is foolish to buy into it.

They all need their asses whipped.

[vancity eagle]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

Well if it were just the Republicans you might have a point.

Obama claims to be a Christain, and he is killing brown people left and right. So, what's the difference? did you honestly think warmongering belonged to one side of the political spectrum exclusively?

politically its the same, but i gaurantee you the average Republican voter is much more in support of war and killing people than the average Democrat voter, that's why I despise the average republican voter much more than the average democrat voter.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

politically its the same, but i gaurantee you the average Republican voter is much more in support of war and killing people than the average Democrat voter, that's why I despise the average republican voter much more than the average democrat voter.

The democrats were in total control of the Presidency and Congress from 2008-2010. During that period, US wars EXPANDED.

When the US goes to war with Iran, it will be at the hands of a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate.

Quit believing the lies the media are telling you. BOTH PARTIES LOVE WAR

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

politically its the same, but i gaurantee you the average Republican voter is much more in support of war and killing people than the average Democrat voter, that's why I despise the average republican voter much more than the average democrat voter.

Democrat voters:

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...sneaker-fight/

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

Well if it were just the Republicans you might have a point.

Obama claims to be a Christain, and he is killing brown people left and right. So, what's the difference? did you honestly think warmongering belonged to one side of the political spectrum exclusively?

No, of course not, anyone that believes this is utterly deluded. I think there is a difference between the core Republican and Democrat support, though, that believe that they are voting for something different, even though the candidates put forward are bought and paid for and promote the same policies.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

No, of course not, anyone that believes this is utterly deluded. I think there is a difference between the core Republican and Democrat support, though, that believe that they are voting for something different, even though the candidates put forward are bought and paid for and promote the same policies.

this is the crux of the matter.
once someone gets to the white house, they have already sold out.
those in real control would not be favoured by the average voter.

[vancity eagle]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

The democrats were in total control of the Presidency and Congress from 2008-2010. During that period, US wars EXPANDED.

When the US goes to war with Iran, it will be at the hands of a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate.

Quit believing the lies the media are telling you. BOTH PARTIES LOVE WAR

You are clearly not understanding what I said. I said that the politics of both parties is the same, however the values of the VOTERS for the parties differs. The average Obama supporter believed Obama was ANTI-WAR, unlike Bush and the Neo Cons. I will say it again, the average Obama supporter believed Obama was an anti-war candidate as opposed to Neo-con republicans. I would bet that most Americans who support bombing Iran, would be of the Republican persuasion, the evangelical "support Israel" "muslims are terrorist" types.
Again read what I said carefully.

[apollo_gnomon]

There are three obvious layers in American politics:

a) the Voters, who are easily persuaded to support candidates with similar check-box beliefs to their own.

b) the Money, which will support the the candidate who has been advertised as most supporting their interests. The Money consists of individual voters with larger than average wallets.

c) the Parties, who each list a given set of check-box issues they either support or oppose.

A fourth layer, less obvious, is any over-arching control of more resources.

Do the Parties realize they are controlled by outside forces? I argue that they don't. Each party thinks they are the illuminated ones who are struggling against the forces of humanity to control the Earth. Or something.

So who supports the various candidates in the current GOP (Republican Party) lineup?

The Republican Party does not appear to support any of the current candidates, same as 2008 when McCain (red-headed stepchild of the Republican Party for years) is finally allowed to reach the final stage but nobody wants to run as his Vice President. He finally reaches deep enough in the barrel to scrape up Palin, who makes a big deal of McCain's "maverick" status, meaning that she has noticed he is not getting party support but lacks the intelligence to add 2 and 2 for herself.

In 2008 a black man was elected president of the United States. Amazing victory for Liberal politics, civil rights and social progress? Not so much.

The RNC has stepped back and wants Obama to win in 2012. The NeoCons led a minor revolution against the RNC and managed to get their puppet elected in 2000 so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could have a second chance at running some kind of scheme. They fucked up the US economy so bad by getting involved in Iraq for no apparent reason that the Republican National Committee want the Democrats to win. Why? Because the Dems will fix the economy (in theory) and the Repubs can then come in and raid the coffers again.

Meanwhile, someone is sitting back and cackling gleefully in a smoke-filled room playing both sides against each other.

Who is the question.

[lizzyking]

RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../07/le.00.html

[lizzyking]

Exxon-Mobil is the first US-based oil giant to benefit. Under the terms of a 20-year contract, Exxon-Mobil and Shell plan to boost daily production at West Qurna from less than 300,000 barrels to 2.3 million barrels per day over the next six years. As well as the Iraqi government compensating the companies for the cost of upgrading the field—which may run as high as $50 billion—they will be paid $1.90 for each barrel extracted, or some $1.5 billion per year. Exxon-Mobil holds an 80 percent stake and Shell the remaining 20 percent.



The contract is only the second signed by the Baghdad regime with foreign energy companies. Last Tuesday, the Iraqi government concluded a deal with British Petroleum (BP) and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), giving them development rights to the massive Rumaila field and its reserves of 17 billion barrels. BP holds a 38 percent stake and CNPC, a 37 percent share. The plan is to boost production from around 1 million barrels per day to 2.85 million barrels, generating profits of over $2 billion per year.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/no...pers-n11.shtml

*

[mikey mikey]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

There are three obvious layers in American politics:

a) the Voters, who are easily persuaded to support candidates with similar check-box beliefs to their own.

b) the Money, which will support the the candidate who has been advertised as most supporting their interests. The Money consists of individual voters with larger than average wallets.

c) the Parties, who each list a given set of check-box issues they either support or oppose.

A fourth layer, less obvious, is any over-arching control of more resources.

Do the Parties realize they are controlled by outside forces? I argue that they don't. Each party thinks they are the illuminated ones who are struggling against the forces of humanity to control the Earth. Or something.

So who supports the various candidates in the current GOP (Republican Party) lineup?

The Republican Party does not appear to support any of the current candidates, same as 2008 when McCain (red-headed stepchild of the Republican Party for years) is finally allowed to reach the final stage but nobody wants to run as his Vice President. He finally reaches deep enough in the barrel to scrape up Palin, who makes a big deal of McCain's "maverick" status, meaning that she has noticed he is not getting party support but lacks the intelligence to add 2 and 2 for herself.

In 2008 a black man was elected president of the United States. Amazing victory for Liberal politics, civil rights and social progress? Not so much.

The RNC has stepped back and wants Obama to win in 2012. The NeoCons led a minor revolution against the RNC and managed to get their puppet elected in 2000 so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could have a second chance at running some kind of scheme. They fucked up the US economy so bad by getting involved in Iraq for no apparent reason that the Republican National Committee want the Democrats to win. Why? Because the Dems will fix the economy (in theory) and the Repubs can then come in and raid the coffers again.

Meanwhile, someone is sitting back and cackling gleefully in a smoke-filled room playing both sides against each other.

Who is the question.

Great post

[arcyclus]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

but i gaurantee you the average Republican voter is much more in support of war and killing people than the average Democrat voter,

Then why aren't the democrats out there protesting Obama's killing machine like they were when a Republican was in office?

Such is the hipprocrsy of the democrat. Republican kill people="bad",
Democrat kill people="good"

[mikey mikey]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

Then why aren't the democrats out there protesting Obama's killing machine like they were when a Republican was in office?

Such is the hipprocrsy of the democrat. Republican kill people="bad",
Democrat kill people="good"

Cuz like ther are no protests going on right now

Wall Street protests mix with anti-war demonstrators

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-07/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

[arcyclus]

Originally Posted by mikey mikey

Cuz like ther are no protests going on right now


http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-07/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

Don't see any signs accusing obama of being murderer.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

You are clearly not understanding what I said. I said that the politics of both parties is the same, however the values of the VOTERS for the parties differs. The average Obama supporter believed Obama was ANTI-WAR, unlike Bush and the Neo Cons. I will say it again, the average Obama supporter believed Obama was an anti-war candidate as opposed to Neo-con republicans. I would bet that most Americans who support bombing Iran, would be of the Republican persuasion, the evangelical "support Israel" "muslims are terrorist" types.
Again read what I said carefully.

I understood what you said, but I believe you are incorrect. Some democrat voters like to pretend that they are antiwar but for most that's all it is, a pretense. They didn't vote for Obama because he was antiwar. They voted for him because his skin was black and they thought he would give them money. No matter how many children and civilians Obama kills, most voters will still vote for him. Nor is this support for war among democrats anything new. Vietnam was a democrat war.

As for who supports bombing Iran, it appears to be everyone, both democrat and republican. Only a few people at the far left and far right seem to oppose it.

[fast eddie]

Originally Posted by arcyclus

Don't see any signs accusing obama of being murderer.

Well I'm a registered democrat and I'll say it.

Obama is a murderer. Obama is a neocon's wet dream. He's a sheep in wolves clothing; a deception.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by fast eddie

Well I'm a registered democrat and I'll say it.

Obama is a murderer. Obama is a neocon's wet dream. He's a sheep in wolves clothing; a deception.

of course he is.
he's a fucking politician.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by fast eddie

Well I'm a registered democrat and I'll say it.

Obama is a murderer. Obama is a neocon's wet dream. He's a sheep in wolves clothing; a deception.

It's very rare, but always nice, to hear democrats admit Obama is a murderer as well as republicans admitting Bush was a murderer.

[302bluefog]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...5#.TzIAvFw2-uI

wtf...

[fast eddie]

Originally Posted by 302bluefog

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...5#.TzIAvFw2-uI

wtf...

Santorum Surge as He Comes From Behind

Sorry mates, I couldn't help myself