poncho
Well-Known Member
I do not believe that is his intention. I do believe it was or perhaps I should say is an unintended consequence of the Republicans decision, before Obama was sworn in back in 2008, to oppose absolutely everything he proposed. They have done this, even to filibustering their own idea when the Democrats agreed.
There's a good reason for republican dissent. Everything he (Obama) proposed is anti American, anti free market and anti freedom. He is an international corporatist pretending to be an American that has overseen the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class and poor to the elite ruling class in the history of mankind. Talk about being pernicious.
Under the guise of socialism. Like I said earlier, socialism is a system of control to transfer wealth from the poor and working class to the elite ruling class. Socialism is merely the means to an end. Poverty and control. Poor depressed people that are dependent on government are easier to control than a prosperous people living in liberty.
I don't know of any such surveys. As I said, from my own volunteer experience. There are some who are very opposed to Obama and though they would not admit it, it is primary racial. But they do believe that those in need should be helped.
You just said you were in favor of unity but here you are in the same thread using the same race card that Obama and the democrats have used to divide us and further stir the pot of hate.
I would rather the government follow the constitution and not hold a gun to anyone's head for any reason. But hey if having a gun to your head is what motivates you into giving more I'm sure there's no one here that will argue that you don't have a right to hold a gun to your own head for motivational purposes.Personally, I would rather the gov. hold a gun to my head, as you say, to help those in need rather than hold a gun to my head so they can kill innocent people.
Obama and the democrats know just how you feel about that Crabby. That's why they frame their own military adventures as "humanitarian interventions" instead of the imperial pursuits they are.A foreign policy of help would, IMHO, go further than a foreign polity of kill. I am not saying that war can never be avoided, but we are reaping the whirlwind of bad decisions in the past.
This has been going on for years by both parties. It is finally catching up with us and the current crop of politicians are afraid to seriously address the problem.
Well yeah they ought to be afraid of addressing it they created the problem by letting a group of private bankers control the issuance of our money. Now they prefer to play dumb while the country sinks into depression and chaos.
But don't worry they have a contingency plan all lined up ready to be put into action the minute people realize what they've done to this country and why.
It's called a centralized cyber Stasi militarized big brother police state. Which I personally view as Lucifer's attempt to become omnipresent.
80 billion dollars a month is the price of ransom money we the people are being forced to fork over at gun point to an un elected un accountable international private banking cartel that is holding the country hostage under the threat of extreme economic duress if we don't pay them off. Better known as the banker bailouts.I am not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate on this for me.
Last edited by a moderator: