Opinions on Bush(the 2nd).

[mpjh]

The evil overlord was Cheney. Bush was just the front man, the drunk, pathetic front man.

[neanderpaul14]

The evil overlord was Cheney. Bush was just the front man, the drunk, pathetic front man.

Was that Cheney with his hand in the back of the Bush puppet??

I enjoyed Jim Henson's puppeteering far more

[captain.crazy]

Here you Go JJM...

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=6CPQ2YZK

[muy_thaiguy]

JJM, what do you have to say about this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=86146

Saving millions from terrorism my ass. How in the world does a President who had 9/11 happen on his watch get credit for keeping us safe?

And, of course, no response. Because what Bush did here was indefensible.

I didn't hear them mention any of the good things that came out of the decission like how many people were freed from Terrorism.

No one was "freed from terrorism" because of anything bush did. In fact, it is America's global influence and positioning that has caused terrorists to target us. We are the purveyors of Democracy (read as tyranny!)

Wait, what? Terrorists have targeted the US and US embassies for years before 9/11. And the 9/11 attacks weren't exactly the first attempts to topple the WTC either, just the last and, obviously, the successful ones.

[captain.crazy]

Wait, what? Terrorists have targeted the US and US embassies for years before 9/11. And the 9/11 attacks weren't exactly the first attempts to topple the WTC either, just the last and, obviously, the successful ones.

What is your point? That just because the puppet masters couldn't bring the towers down without a believable scenario of Islamic terrorists wanting to cut all our heads off and destroying buildings that they didn't "get er' done" in New York and D.C.?

[Danyael]

He told Bush that they had weapons of mass destruction.

Produce some documentation of this. Why would a congressman on the House Agricultural Committee be transmitting intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to the president?

its boring growing wheat!

[muy_thaiguy]

Wait, what? Terrorists have targeted the US and US embassies for years before 9/11. And the 9/11 attacks weren't exactly the first attempts to topple the WTC either, just the last and, obviously, the successful ones.

What is your point? That just because the puppet masters couldn't bring the towers down without a believable scenario of Islamic terrorists wanting to cut all our heads off and destroying buildings that they didn't "get er' done" in New York and D.C.?

And you call us sheep? Oh noes, you are going to go with a video! I got it covered for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgtHgtyiQG0

[captain.crazy]

Wait, what? Terrorists have targeted the US and US embassies for years before 9/11. And the 9/11 attacks weren't exactly the first attempts to topple the WTC either, just the last and, obviously, the successful ones.

What is your point? That just because the puppet masters couldn't bring the towers down without a believable scenario of Islamic terrorists wanting to cut all our heads off and destroying buildings that they didn't "get er' done" in New York and D.C.?

And you call us sheep? Oh noes, you are going to go with a video! I got it covered for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgtHgtyiQG0

Hey, good for you. You don't believe that our government is controlled by a fundamentally evil elitist organization, so you just mock me because I do. Even when the recipe for tyranny is being implemented right in front of your face. Even as they are telling you that the NWO is coming... don't worry about anything... Your economy has failed... don't pay any attention to that... focus on swine flu... fear the swine flu... Oh? whats that you say? what about all the money that we are printing? what about it... what do you mean it is going right into the same failed banks that crashed our economy... Fear the economy... don't fear the economy...

Go back to sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... WAKE UP!

[Neoteny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-VkRlC ... re=related

[captain.crazy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-VkRlCwt0&feature=related

hahaha... You will be singing that tune when you are locked in your house when martial law has you confined to your house while your non compliant neighbors are butchered in the streets.

[Neoteny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqV0F0Mi ... re=related

[muy_thaiguy]

Wait, what? Terrorists have targeted the US and US embassies for years before 9/11. And the 9/11 attacks weren't exactly the first attempts to topple the WTC either, just the last and, obviously, the successful ones.

What is your point? That just because the puppet masters couldn't bring the towers down without a believable scenario of Islamic terrorists wanting to cut all our heads off and destroying buildings that they didn't "get er' done" in New York and D.C.?

And you call us sheep? Oh noes, you are going to go with a video! I got it covered for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgtHgtyiQG0

Hey, good for you. You don't believe that our government is controlled by a fundamentally evil elitist organization, so you just mock me because I do. Even when the recipe for tyranny is being implemented right in front of your face. Even as they are telling you that the NWO is coming... don't worry about anything... Your economy has failed... don't pay any attention to that... focus on swine flu... fear the swine flu... Oh? whats that you say? what about all the money that we are printing? what about it... what do you mean it is going right into the same failed banks that crashed our economy... Fear the economy... don't fear the economy...

Go back to sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... sleep... WAKE UP!

Yes I fear the swine flu even though my state has had no cases of it reported, and that 34,000 people die from the regular flu in the first place. And I know the economy has gone far down the outhouse into the bowls of the underworld, never once said otherwise, and I am criticizing Obama for following the failed antics of FDR where FDR did the same thing, poured millions into banks, seemed to work for a short time, then everything capsized. WWII saved his ass. However, you run around with speculation, made up "news," and try to call me ignorant, while trying to pass off the first two as facts. You call me and others sheep, while quietly following some psycho on youtube or acid tripping blogger without raising a single question to any of their "facts.
B-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!

[captain.crazy]

Yes I fear the swine flu even though my state has had no cases of it reported, and that 34,000 people die from the regular flu in the first place. And I know the economy has gone far down the outhouse into the bowls of the underworld, never once said otherwise, and I am criticizing Obama for following the failed antics of FDR where FDR did the same thing, poured millions into banks, seemed to work for a short time, then everything capsized. WWII saved his ass. However, you run around with speculation, made up "news," and try to call me ignorant, while trying to pass off the first two as facts. You call me and others sheep, while quietly following some psycho on youtube or acid tripping blogger without raising a single question to any of their "facts.
B-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!

I have raised all the questions son! But when you take the events of the last decade and lay them over the events leading up to Nazi Germany, and you see them lining up perfectly, so much so that even the names and terms used to describe the outfits like "Department of Homeland Security" and "Blackwater" are the same names and terms that were used in the perpetration of the rise of the Nazi party, even as you see the DELIBERATE destruction of our dollar and its economy, you still refuse to believe that there is a bigger plan in motion here. I feel sorry for you.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I have raised all the questions son! But when you take the events of the last decade and lay them over the events leading up to Nazi Germany, and you see them lining up perfectly, so much so that even the names and terms used to describe the outfits like "Department of Homeland Security" and "Blackwater" are the same names and terms that were used in the perpetration of the rise of the Nazi party

cite a source plz

tia

[F1fth]

But it's still just speculation, isn't it? Well, besides the economy stuffs.

We were under threat of martial law if we didn't approve the stimulus bill. Sounds like an administration just chomping at the bit to oppress.

No, we weren't.

I looked it up. What I found was mention of martial law in regard to the Bailout bill and the Bush administration last year, and even so it was only ever brought up by one Democratic representative and I see no mention of it ever again.

See, this is what I mean -- accusing an administration of threatening martial law to get what it wants is a huge deal. Yet, you throw around big accusations like this and you are completely wrong about them. How the hell am I supposed to believe you about anything (Illuminati, NWO, that Obama wants to ruin the US) when you use outright lies like this to try to convince me?

I'll call tyranny when I see tyranny, sir. But thus far from him I've only seen debatable economic practices, (debatable in effectiveness, not morality). So, you'll have to forgive me if I won't blame Obama for crimes that you and some others speculate he will commit.

I dunno, I just get the idea that you want us to think for ourselves, but only if we come to the same conclusions you do. I don't particularly care for that kind of attitude.

[captain.crazy]

But it's still just speculation, isn't it? Well, besides the economy stuffs.

We were under threat of martial law if we didn't approve the stimulus bill. Sounds like an administration just chomping at the bit to oppress.

No, we weren't.

I looked it up. What I found was mention of martial law in regard to the Bailout bill and the Bush administration last year, and even so it was only ever brought up by one Democratic representative and I see no mention of it ever again.

See, this is what I mean -- accusing an administration of threatening martial law to get what it wants is a huge deal. Yet, you throw around big accusations like this and you are completely wrong about them. How the hell am I supposed to believe you about anything (Illuminati, NWO, that Obama wants to ruin the US) when you use outright lies like this to try to convince me?

I'll call tyranny when I see tyranny, sir. But thus far from him I've only seen debatable economic practices, (debatable in effectiveness, not morality). So, you'll have to forgive me if I won't blame Obama for crimes that you and some others speculate he will commit.

I dunno, I just get the idea that you want us to think for ourselves, but only if we come to the same conclusions you do. I don't particularly care for that kind of attitude.

My bad, I mistook the title of one of the multi hundred billion dollar bills that have jammed through congress in the last 6 months. And you are right, that was under Bush... but I contend that they are both working for the same master.

But you don't think that forcing the banks to take bailout money (whether they wanted it or not) isn't tyranny? You don't think that forcing GM CEO to step down isn't tyranny? No US President is supposed to be able to do that.

I get that you don't want to believe that we are on the verge of losing our precious republic... and no amount of internet media that I can show you will convince you otherwise. You will have to be faced with a situation that makes you stop in your tracks and see something that causes you to question everything. Everything that you know. Everything that you believe. For me, it was the bailouts. then it is the pre-nazi Germany style organization of our new president. You can't tell me that he isn't a socialist. You can't tell me that what is coming next is a global communist regime... our governments have been talking about it for 15 years or so now. What is alarming to me is that you and people like you are so satisfied to have someone else take up your slack, that you are willing to trade your liberty for irresponsibility.

[JJM]

Buh didn't flip flop on issues either.

[captain.crazy]

Buh didn't flip flop on issues either.

no, he was just consistently on the wrong side of them.

[JJM]

He was definetly on the right side of Gay Marrage.

[skaterchild3]

I can't wait to read Bush's "Book" when it come's out I can see this for 9\11:

"I was sitting there and reading this new fangled book called "The cat in the sock"- or something like that, It had a lot of big words in it but after a while I got the hang of it. All of a sudden one of the guy's that won't tell me there name because they're "Secret" came up to me and whispered in my ear:

"Mr. President, a plane just crashed into the twin towers."
"The what?"
"Those two tower's that are right beside each other..."
"Oh...Ok, I'll get to it in a minute. this is a really good book."

[F1fth]

Sorry, I wanted to format this reply as paragraphs, but formatted it this way to make it easier to read.

But it's still just speculation, isn't it? Well, besides the economy stuffs.

We were under threat of martial law if we didn't approve the stimulus bill. Sounds like an administration just chomping at the bit to oppress.

No, we weren't.

I looked it up. What I found was mention of martial law in regard to the Bailout bill and the Bush administration last year, and even so it was only ever brought up by one Democratic representative and I see no mention of it ever again.

See, this is what I mean -- accusing an administration of threatening martial law to get what it wants is a huge deal. Yet, you throw around big accusations like this and you are completely wrong about them. How the hell am I supposed to believe you about anything (Illuminati, NWO, that Obama wants to ruin the US) when you use outright lies like this to try to convince me?

I'll call tyranny when I see tyranny, sir. But thus far from him I've only seen debatable economic practices, (debatable in effectiveness, not morality). So, you'll have to forgive me if I won't blame Obama for crimes that you and some others speculate he will commit.

I dunno, I just get the idea that you want us to think for ourselves, but only if we come to the same conclusions you do. I don't particularly care for that kind of attitude.

My bad, I mistook the title of one of the multi hundred billion dollar bills that have jammed through congress in the last 6 months. And you are right, that was under Bush... but I contend that they are both working for the same master.

There were only two bills, and the context of this discussion, which one we're talking about makes all the difference. It's important to get and give facts straight as it often means the difference of proving or disproving one's point, especially since intentional misdirection is so prevalent in politics and the media. It makes you look like you're playing the same game as the people you so often rail against, i.e. politicians.

But you don't think that forcing the banks to take bailout money (whether they wanted it or not) isn't tyranny? You don't think that forcing GM CEO to step down isn't tyranny? No US President is supposed to be able to do that.

You're at it again:

Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.

"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."

He was asked to resign, and he agreed. Quite a far cry from "forcing" him to step down. I don't know much about the bank issue, but I can't imagine a scenario we're they would say no to money, and thus ponder why the President would need to force them to take it.

I get that you don't want to believe that we are on the verge of losing our precious republic... and no amount of internet media that I can show you will convince you otherwise. You will have to be faced with a situation that makes you stop in your tracks and see something that causes you to question everything. Everything that you know. Everything that you believe. For me, it was the bailouts. then it is the pre-nazi Germany style organization of our new president. You can't tell me that he isn't a socialist. You can't tell me that what is coming next is a global communist regime... our governments have been talking about it for 15 years or so now. What is alarming to me is that you and people like you are so satisfied to have someone else take up your slack, that you are willing to trade your liberty for irresponsibility.

I agree. And nothing I or anyone else says or quotes will ever convince you either. That's because we're trying to convince each other that our deeply-held beliefs are utterly wrong. It's a tough task, and you're right that it will take something monumental to provoke that change.

But as for socialism and even capitalism for that matter, I don't think they exists in absolutes as is so often implied. For every issue they are on a spectrum between the two, and even two people who are in the same place on said spectrum may have different ideas about the issue. I think that Obama is more socialist than many other people, but I don't think there is anything wrong with being somewhat socialist. The U.S. is somewhat socialist, and has been (only very slightly in the beginning, and much more so in the early 20th century) for as long as it's been around. Proof? Public education is a socialist idea. So my point is that you can't argue that the things he does are bad because he's a socialist for two reasons:
1. Not everything he does is socialist.
2. Just because something is socialist does not make it bad.

Feel free to hate his policies for decent reasons though.

Damn, I'm long-winded. Sorry.

[F1fth]

He was definetly on the right side of Gay Marrage.

By "right," do you mean "right-wing" or "correct"? If you mean "right-wing", then you are correct. If you mean "correct", which I assume you did given the wording of the post you replied to, then you are incorrect.

I'm not saying you're incorrect about whether gay marriage is a good or bad thing (though I personally think you are), but that being correct on what is a comparably unimportant issue alone makes him a good president.

Also, I agree with crazy about "flip-flopping." If my president is wrong about an issue, I don't want him to stubbornly refuse to admit his mistake and not change his opinion.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I have raised all the questions son! But when you take the events of the last decade and lay them over the events leading up to Nazi Germany, and you see them lining up perfectly, so much so that even the names and terms used to describe the outfits like "Department of Homeland Security" and "Blackwater" are the same names and terms that were used in the perpetration of the rise of the Nazi party

cite a source plz

tia

still waiting for a source on this cap'n

[captain.crazy]

But it's still just speculation, isn't it? Well, besides the economy stuffs.

We were under threat of martial law if we didn't approve the stimulus bill. Sounds like an administration just chomping at the bit to oppress.

No, we weren't.

I looked it up. What I found was mention of martial law in regard to the Bailout bill and the Bush administration last year, and even so it was only ever brought up by one Democratic representative and I see no mention of it ever again.

See, this is what I mean -- accusing an administration of threatening martial law to get what it wants is a huge deal. Yet, you throw around big accusations like this and you are completely wrong about them. How the hell am I supposed to believe you about anything (Illuminati, NWO, that Obama wants to ruin the US) when you use outright lies like this to try to convince me?

I'll call tyranny when I see tyranny, sir. But thus far from him I've only seen debatable economic practices, (debatable in effectiveness, not morality). So, you'll have to forgive me if I won't blame Obama for crimes that you and some others speculate he will commit.

I dunno, I just get the idea that you want us to think for ourselves, but only if we come to the same conclusions you do. I don't particularly care for that kind of attitude.

My bad, I mistook the title of one of the multi hundred billion dollar bills that have jammed through congress in the last 6 months. And you are right, that was under Bush... but I contend that they are both working for the same master.

There were only two bills, and the context of this discussion, which one we're talking about makes all the difference. It's important to get and give facts straight as it often means the difference of proving or disproving one's point, especially since intentional misdirection is so prevalent in politics and the media. It makes you look like you're playing the same game as the people you so often rail against, i.e. politicians.

I guess thats kinda what I meant when I said "my bad" and went on to admit that this was under bush's Administration... Is this one of those forums where I have to say something three times before thick headed Obama lovers understand when someone admits to a mistake?

But you don't think that forcing the banks to take bailout money (whether they wanted it or not) isn't tyranny? You don't think that forcing GM CEO to step down isn't tyranny? No US President is supposed to be able to do that.

You're at it again:

Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.

"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."

He was asked to resign, and he agreed. Quite a far cry from "forcing" him to step down. I don't know much about the bank issue, but I can't imagine a scenario we're they would say no to money, and thus ponder why the President would need to force them to take it.


whatever you say. Have you ever been fired from a job? No, I'm not talking about Jiffy Lube or McDonalds... I mean a real job... I have, they offer you a severance, and they threaten to sue your ass shut if you speak about anything that has transpired in a negative light. If you think they were just chatting about it and the O administration said "Hey Buddy, you've been working real hard, and we commies don't really like that so much. Why don't you take a nice severance, take a vacation and take a hike."

I don't think so.


I get that you don't want to believe that we are on the verge of losing our precious republic... and no amount of internet media that I can show you will convince you otherwise. You will have to be faced with a situation that makes you stop in your tracks and see something that causes you to question everything. Everything that you know. Everything that you believe. For me, it was the bailouts. then it is the pre-nazi Germany style organization of our new president. You can't tell me that he isn't a socialist. You can't tell me that what is coming next is a global communist regime... our governments have been talking about it for 15 years or so now. What is alarming to me is that you and people like you are so satisfied to have someone else take up your slack, that you are willing to trade your liberty for irresponsibility.

I agree. And nothing I or anyone else says or quotes will ever convince you either. That's because we're trying to convince each other that our deeply-held beliefs are utterly wrong. It's a tough task, and you're right that it will take something monumental to provoke that change.

But as for socialism and even capitalism for that matter, I don't think they exists in absolutes as is so often implied. For every issue they are on a spectrum between the two, and even two people who are in the same place on said spectrum may have different ideas about the issue. I think that Obama is more socialist than many other people, but I don't think there is anything wrong with being somewhat socialist. The U.S. is somewhat socialist, and has been (only very slightly in the beginning, and much more so in the early 20th century) for as long as it's been around. Proof? Public education is a socialist idea. So my point is that you can't argue that the things he does are bad because he's a socialist for two reasons:
1. Not everything he does is socialist.
2. Just because something is socialist does not make it bad.

Feel free to hate his policies for decent reasons though.

Please don't use public education as a defense for a socialist agenda. Public education is such a laughable joke in this country, that to use it to suggest that we are socialist is to make an argument for returning to a strictly constitutional republic. You may stick your head back in the sand now... Thank you.

[F1fth]

I knew I shouldn't have replied to your post in sections. It always appears to provoke hostility, and indeed, seems to be drawing out the snide, holier-than-thou crazy.captain. I wonder why it does that? Maybe because it looks like one is trying to pick apart your argument, or something?

Anywho, here goes:

But it's still just speculation, isn't it? Well, besides the economy stuffs.

We were under threat of martial law if we didn't approve the stimulus bill. Sounds like an administration just chomping at the bit to oppress.

No, we weren't.

I looked it up. What I found was mention of martial law in regard to the Bailout bill and the Bush administration last year, and even so it was only ever brought up by one Democratic representative and I see no mention of it ever again.

See, this is what I mean -- accusing an administration of threatening martial law to get what it wants is a huge deal. Yet, you throw around big accusations like this and you are completely wrong about them. How the hell am I supposed to believe you about anything (Illuminati, NWO, that Obama wants to ruin the US) when you use outright lies like this to try to convince me?

I'll call tyranny when I see tyranny, sir. But thus far from him I've only seen debatable economic practices, (debatable in effectiveness, not morality). So, you'll have to forgive me if I won't blame Obama for crimes that you and some others speculate he will commit.

I dunno, I just get the idea that you want us to think for ourselves, but only if we come to the same conclusions you do. I don't particularly care for that kind of attitude.

My bad, I mistook the title of one of the multi hundred billion dollar bills that have jammed through congress in the last 6 months. And you are right, that was under Bush... but I contend that they are both working for the same master.

There were only two bills, and the context of this discussion, which one we're talking about makes all the difference. It's important to get and give facts straight as it often means the difference of proving or disproving one's point, especially since intentional misdirection is so prevalent in politics and the media. It makes you look like you're playing the same game as the people you so often rail against, i.e. politicians.

I guess thats kinda what I meant when I said "my bad" and went on to admit that this was under bush's Administration... Is this one of those forums where I have to say something three times before thick headed Obama lovers understand when someone admits to a mistake?


No, I appreciate that you admitted your mistake. And I was on my way to complementing you on it until I realized you did the exact same thing about the GM CEO in your next paragraph and then I forgot about it, though I still meant to. But what good is admitting mistakes if you repeat them?

But you don't think that forcing the banks to take bailout money (whether they wanted it or not) isn't tyranny? You don't think that forcing GM CEO to step down isn't tyranny? No US President is supposed to be able to do that.

You're at it again:

Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.

"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."

He was asked to resign, and he agreed. Quite a far cry from "forcing" him to step down. I don't know much about the bank issue, but I can't imagine a scenario we're they would say no to money, and thus ponder why the President would need to force them to take it.


whatever you say. Have you ever been fired from a job? No, I'm not talking about Jiffy Lube or McDonalds... I mean a real job... I have, they offer you a severance, and they threaten to sue your ass shut if you speak about anything that has transpired in a negative light. If you think they were just chatting about it and the O administration said "Hey Buddy, you've been working real hard, and we commies don't really like that so much. Why don't you take a nice severance, take a vacation and take a hike."

I don't think so.



Of course they weren't nice about it. Of course they used pressure to push him out of the position. They still didn't hold a gun to his head and he could have said no. So he wasn't "forced" to do anything, so you had made another bullshit statement.

I get that you don't want to believe that we are on the verge of losing our precious republic... and no amount of internet media that I can show you will convince you otherwise. You will have to be faced with a situation that makes you stop in your tracks and see something that causes you to question everything. Everything that you know. Everything that you believe. For me, it was the bailouts. then it is the pre-nazi Germany style organization of our new president. You can't tell me that he isn't a socialist. You can't tell me that what is coming next is a global communist regime... our governments have been talking about it for 15 years or so now. What is alarming to me is that you and people like you are so satisfied to have someone else take up your slack, that you are willing to trade your liberty for irresponsibility.

I agree. And nothing I or anyone else says or quotes will ever convince you either. That's because we're trying to convince each other that our deeply-held beliefs are utterly wrong. It's a tough task, and you're right that it will take something monumental to provoke that change.

But as for socialism and even capitalism for that matter, I don't think they exists in absolutes as is so often implied. For every issue they are on a spectrum between the two, and even two people who are in the same place on said spectrum may have different ideas about the issue. I think that Obama is more socialist than many other people, but I don't think there is anything wrong with being somewhat socialist. The U.S. is somewhat socialist, and has been (only very slightly in the beginning, and much more so in the early 20th century) for as long as it's been around. Proof? Public education is a socialist idea. So my point is that you can't argue that the things he does are bad because he's a socialist for two reasons:
1. Not everything he does is socialist.
2. Just because something is socialist does not make it bad.

Feel free to hate his policies for decent reasons though.

Please don't use public education as a defense for a socialist agenda. Public education is such a laughable joke in this country, that to use it to suggest that we are socialist is to make an argument for returning to a strictly constitutional republic. You may stick your head back in the sand now... Thank you.


Public education was merely an example of something socialist that's been part of the U.S. since it was founded.

But is it funnier than your irrational hatred of socialism straight out of the 1950's, a la McCarthy? Fact is, we've been a mixed economy (i.e. mixture of CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM) since the early 20th century when government started regulating private enterprise. Any regulation of private business is socialism. However, a degree of socialism (and that is how capitalism and socialism exist, in degrees) in a country does not make it Communist and in fact is a good thing because deregulation (the epitome of captialism, laisssez-faire, demands complete deregulation) is part of what fucked up our economy. But once again, you treat the world as one of absolutes. You're either a good ol' conservative American or you're a Commie bastard. I fucking hate it.