All these bullshit new headlines like "CHANGE HITS AMERICA" are fucking ridiculous.

When wondering why the powers behind the scenes let obama get the presidency, I realized that this will work to their benefit more than anything else. People are generally sick of the traditional conservative views after 8 years of bush. If they would have given the presidency to mccain there would have been a revolution within his 4 years without a doubt.

By giving the presidency to obama it makes the american government appear to actually be controlled by the people because the majority was fooled into jumping on obamas dick. It makes america appear to be accepting of minorities in positions of power, etc.

here's the real point... THE REALITY:

Even if obama genuinly wanted to fight against the true corporate powers that control the government than he would of been taken out as soon as it looked like he was going to get anywhere in the campaign. The fact that he has gotten the presidency tells me that he is obviously apart of the illuminati's grand plans.

Let's pretend that he wants to end the corporate power and influence in the government. Even if he did (though he doesn't), one measly man alone cannot combat these powers. They are far too powerful, there is too much money at stake. The military industrial complex will not be effected by obama, in fact, it will probably even be strengthened. Obama never said once that military spending was too high or anything.

I should probably stop now, this is already too long for the many Jr. High school illiterates on here...

All these bullshit new headlines like "CHANGE HITS AMERICA" are fucking ridiculous.

When wondering why the powers behind the scenes let obama get the presidency, I realized that this will work to their benefit more than anything else. People are generally sick of the traditional conservative views after 8 years of bush. If they would have given the presidency to mccain there would have been a revolution within his 4 years without a doubt.

By giving the presidency to obama it makes the american government appear to actually be controlled by the people because the majority was fooled into jumping on obamas dick. It makes america appear to be accepting of minorities in positions of power, etc.

here's the real point... THE REALITY:

Even if obama genuinly wanted to fight against the true corporate powers that control the government than he would of been taken out as soon as it looked like he was going to get anywhere in the campaign. The fact that he has gotten the presidency tells me that he is obviously apart of the illuminati's grand plans.

Let's pretend that he wants to end the corporate power and influence in the government. Even if he did (though he doesn't), one measly man alone cannot combat these powers. They are far too powerful, there is too much money at stake. The military industrial complex will not be effected by obama, in fact, it will probably even be strengthened. Obama never said once that military spending was too high or anything.

I should probably stop now, this is already too long for the many Jr. High school illiterates on here...


It seems you are making it tautologically true, that any president that is elected has done so because the corporate powers have allowed it. I don't really mind this, it just seems a bit of begging the question.

Btw, I did hear him atleast once talk about cutting defense spending in order to try and free up spending for other things.

Yeah, I've been seeing hints of things that make me wonder if that's the case or if I'm just being paranoid.

Two examples.

1. GWB - Shortly after Obama got elected, GWB made this big show about how he'll be all cooperative in the transition between presidents. Ignoring the question of exactly why he thinks his cooperation would be in doubt (lol), I'd like to point out something that got a passing mention in that article. Last month, October, Bush apparently appointed a special transitions committee for defense and security issues, and it was implied that the successors to these positions would be appointed by the appointees themselves, not the president.

Hmmmmmm. Suspicious sounding.

2. Civilian Military - Someone on another forum was griping about how Obama is just another fascist, and was quoting him from a Youtube as saying something to the effect of wanting civilian militaries. That was rather stupid sounding, but is effectively the same bitching as on Bush, and they did source it.

The question is - why would Obama want this? (i didn't have the opportunity to review the clip). We already have it, to an extent. Does this mean he's promoting the criminal mercenaries (aka civilian military) we've already got with too much influence in our country? And, if that's the case, that suggests he's just another more charismatic version of Mitt Romney, who looked like nominally more qualified Bush -Figurhead with full support of the Cofer Black machine.

Yeah, no news is good news.

When wondering why the powers behind the scenes let obama get the presidency...

That is simple: The powers that be are truly weak compared to the unified masses.

Always have been. Always will be.

Bush ran on a slogan that he was a uniter, not a divider, but the only thing this pitiful excuse for a human being, let alone president, united was the masses against him and his party.

It may be hard to fathom, but the voting public in America, still have the power.

If I were one of the 1% controlling 80% of the wealth, and had designs to continue to rape America economically, I would want more of the masses to become disenfranchised with the real power they truly posses, by believing such things as...

Powers behind the scenes let Obama get the presidency.

This defeatist mentality is one I would strive to cultivate in the hearts and minds of the mob, lest Rome burn by it's hand.

How is that for conspiracy?

That is simple: The powers that be are truly weak compared to the unified masses.


Only if they aren't united behind what 'the powers that be' are selling them.

You're talking about a junior senator that served two years and then ran for president. Of course he's a fucking puppet. That would be like a mail room clerk becoming CEO in two years. The only way the mail room clerk gets that sort of promotion is if he's set up to take a huge dive.

this is rubish!

obama's election is proof that anyone can become a president, look at his background and his humble beginnings.

oh and the 1.7 bilion dollars required to get him were he is now.

but still anyone can do it!

I love it.

A man who came from nothing, graduated top of his class in Harvard Law, became the Editor of the paper there, worked his way through community organizing efforts when he could have been raking in millions as a Harvard educated lawyer...

...ran the closest democratic primary race ever against a heavy favorite, who just so happened to be the wife of a former president with the best economic presidency in recent memory...

...defeated a war hero, while America is at war, whose campaign smeared him with every fringe report, half assed guilt by association argument they could. Basically played the dirtiest politics they possibly could, and...

...Obama wins, and he wins b/c of some shadowy corporate overlord puppet master?

Sorry no.

Now, did rich and powerful people donate money to him, will they be kissing ass, and groveling like the pathtic avarice bound worms they are? Yes. Does this mean he is automatically a corporate puppet? No.

I will give the man a chance to show me he is a true leader, that he was the right choice, that he was honest, that he keeps his campaign promises...

...if not, I will be his harshest critic.

Wow....a lot of dumb posts here. For starters Obama most certainly got voted in by the masses. But who really wanted him in? Anyone who thinks that Corporations aren't running the World are in a dream. Of course we voted him in but we were influenced to vote for him.and heres where the symbiosis of Corporations and Poltics manifests into what we see today. Yes we "technically" pick our president but ask yourself who finances presidential candidates. These people are called corporate lobbyists who literally donate millions of dollars to whatever president they feel is better. The more money they have the more publicity they have. Now even though Obama isn't directly affiliated with corporations there are many politicians that we have in power right now who aren't just tied to big companies but who were literally part of the company. Dick Cheney was head of Halaburton, which is a company that works with the Military in providing basic facilities and other necessities to U.S troops. George Bush was head of an oil company before he started his political career. But those are just the main stream top officials. you still need to look at the President of the World Bank Robert B. Zoellick who was managing director for Goldman Sachs and who was the United States Deputy Secretary of State. The list just goes on. So when it comes down to it leaders of corporations and politics are intertwined and in fact this has been going on for years.

money from lobbyists who significantly helped bring him to what he is today. So essentially with the power of money he was able to buy publicity which exposed him more than most politicians anyway. Mix that with a little bit of Change Rhetoric and bam! You got the next president. That's exactly what George Bush did. Used corporate money to build up his reputation. Then when all eyes were on him he'd spout out sugarcoated words and eventually that lead him to his presidency. So when you really look at the full spectrum of things, yes we appointed the president, but with a substantial amount of influence from corporations. And because corporations also own the media they can literally change peoples perspectives to influence them to the left or to the right. They want X president to to run because he's going to put X dude as chairman of blah blah blah because that chairman was either part of a corporation at one point or gained corporate influence through the use of Money.

So basically this pretty much voids all notions of democracy because politics, Feds, and corporations all go hand in hand but rather than working antagonistically creating a system of checks and balances they all work synergistically to keep the money supply rolling in their court. It always comes back full circle. You guys are all looking at this on paper. It says all of these things in documents but in reality because of this and that particular flaw it leaves it open for corruption and thats literally whats going on now. It's literally Tammany Hall but at a macro level.

Now you can say that Because of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 it does place a limit on lobbyists in that they have to verify that they are legit lobbyists and have a limit on how much money they can give but there are loop holes around this. Even though it places a limit on corporate donations it doesn't include "grassroots" donors. Yes they also have a cap on how much an individual can donate ($2,300), however, this doesn't mean its impossible for corporations to donate a sufficient amount of money to a presidential candidate. This Act merely makes it more difficult to do so. All they have to do is get many individuals to donate money to them. Simply pay individuals, who doesn't even need to be affiliated with a corporation, then provide them with 2300 dollars to donate to a presidential candidate. And if you really want to cover your tracks well, make the donations vary rather than have them all be 2,300 dollars. Mix that factor in with a bunch of other "true individuals" who support him and there's the financing he would to win. And Corporations are making so much money they can literally afford to not only give the individuals money to donate but also pay them to perform the donation. Furthermore I have a pdf you should read that discusses the understaffing of officials who are supposed to oversee these issues to make sure donated money doesn't point back to large industries. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33065.pdf.

Let me start by saying, Broke Prophet, I respect you and have always valued your contribution to Totse and many times agree with you, but do wonder WHY you have seemed to loose some of your critical thinking skepticism in reguards to this topic... when did you gain this level of naiveness?? :(

I love it.

A man who came from nothing, graduated top of his class in Harvard Law, became the Editor of the paper there, worked his way through community organizing efforts when he could have been raking in millions as a Harvard educated lawyer...

...ran the closest democratic primary race ever against a heavy favorite, who just so happened to be the wife of a former president with the best economic presidency in recent memory...

...defeated a war hero, while America is at war, whose campaign smeared him with every fringe report, half assed guilt by association argument they could. Basically played the dirtiest politics they possibly could, and...

...Obama wins, and he wins b/c of some shadowy corporate overlord puppet master?



Don't you think these impossible odds further proves my point of this puppeteering going on here? It would be one thing if Obama did have a reasonable chance of winning, not taking into account the grab bag of reasons why he shouldn't have, but the fact that all of these things you have stated plus the reasons you didn't only further solidifies my argument.

There was no probable reason he should have won, and the fact he did suggests that he either is the luckiest one in a billion chance of legitimately winning without help of a third party (improbable) or he utililized the support of the true powers controlling the american system (MNC's, the capitalist class, etc) and sold his soul to win (much more realistic).


Now, did rich and powerful people donate money to him, will they be kissing ass, and groveling like the pathtic avarice bound worms they are? Yes.

So we can agree. However that this was not the only motive of the government + corporate powers. Another significant reason of giving him the presidensy was to restore faith in the fake democratic system. After 2 elections of blatantly flawed elections, by pitting obama against essentially another bush (something nobody wanted) and having the only other option being a postmodern, hip, new ''change'', it allows people to believe that because he won the american democratic system must be real after all. Quite the contrary, this was exactly the plan.

Does this mean he is automatically a corporate puppet? No.

Seems to be a little contradictory of your previous statement, no? What evidence do you provide to support your new stance of the millions of dollars given to a politician not affecting his policies? This is the same shit as any politician of this system. You CAN buy influence. Money is synomonous with influence. Indisputable...



I will give the man a chance to show me that he was the right choice, that he was honest, that he keeps his campaign promises...

Has ANY politician ever done this...? When was the last president that was obviously ''the right choice'', was honest, AND kept his campaign promises?! That is too far of a stretch. This is america. It hasnt happened, and it probably wont with capitalism fueling motivations of presidency. Nuff said.


...if not, I will be his harshest critic.

Welcome to my world...

"It doesn’t matter that he sides with destruction of the Palestinians, and sides with the embargo. It doesn’t matter that he turns his back on 100 million people and won’t even campaign in minority areas. It doesn’t matter than he wants a bigger military budget, and an imperial foreign policy supporting various adventures of the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter that he’s for the death penalty ,which is targeted at minorities. But if you say one thing that isn’t PC, you get their attention. I tell college audiences, a gender, racial or ethnic slur gets you upset, reality doesn’t get you upset.

Can Obama speak truth to the white power structure? There’s every indication he doesn’t want to."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11072008.html

Life, the World & such is very scary. People love to project their hopes & their dreams of safety onto likely leaders. Doesn't mean that they aren't just deluded. Will O. please some of the public, what with the strapped Federal Budget? Somewhat no doubt.

Will many wake up with a need for a pillow, a very soft pillow, for their ravaged butt? No doubt too. It's of little use to prejudge his actions too much though. We'll all just have to wait & see. His voice is of a deeper & more calming timber than W's. Most probably it's just jive.

I do believe though: there is nothing, no nothing!, so cute as another shithead in a suit.;)

All these bullshit new headlines like "CHANGE HITS AMERICA" are fucking ridiculous.

When wondering why the powers behind the scenes let obama get the presidency, I realized that this will work to their benefit more than anything else. People are generally sick of the traditional conservative views after 8 years of bush. If they would have given the presidency to mccain there would have been a revolution within his 4 years without a doubt.

By giving the presidency to obama it makes the american government appear to actually be controlled by the people because the majority was fooled into jumping on obamas dick. It makes america appear to be accepting of minorities in positions of power, etc.

here's the real point... THE REALITY:

Even if obama genuinly wanted to fight against the true corporate powers that control the government than he would of been taken out as soon as it looked like he was going to get anywhere in the campaign. The fact that he has gotten the presidency tells me that he is obviously apart of the illuminati's grand plans.

Let's pretend that he wants to end the corporate power and influence in the government. Even if he did (though he doesn't), one measly man alone cannot combat these powers. They are far too powerful, there is too much money at stake. The military industrial complex will not be effected by obama, in fact, it will probably even be strengthened. Obama never said once that military spending was too high or anything.

I should probably stop now, this is already too long for the many Jr. High school illiterates on here...


Please reference the Southpark that came out on November the fife, 2008. it will help you better understand what is really happening.

My whole point about the tough uphill battle it has been, was that the powers that be, must not be that powerful, considering it was the closest primary, and a very close election.

Saying Obama is clearly their man, does not follow.

Now if you wish to enter the bleak assertion that the powers that be bought Hilary, John, Obama and a few other long shots just in case anyone of them become president...then fine, but suggesting Obama was THEIR man the whole time is retarded.

I don't believe in some grand conspiracy this far reaching, and powerful. I believe corporate cronies buy men in Washington from time to time, sure, but I do not believe Walmart is in bed with Exxon and Lockheed Martin trying to figure out how to get there good buddy Obama in the big chair.

I believe the people of America, still hold the power. Some are so apathetic or paranoid as to disagree, but the FACT remains that the masses DO HOLD THE POWER.

I believe these masses, actually saw through the bullshit and voted on a guy, with a lot of charisma, a positive message, a cool head, who did not have a long toxic history in the cess pool of Washington, and THAT is why it was the race was so close.

There was no probable reason he should have won......

He ran the best campaign. He had some of the most resounding messages with the voters. He has charisma to spare and delivered the best speeches, drew the largest crowds, won the debates and maintained a cool when others may (and some argue did) shit themselves. He motivated his grass roots workers, and was able to connect and motivate people he never he met before. He did this, without help from Walmart, GE, Exxon, Westinghouse, Lockheed, or Dupont, and that is why I think the man won.

You CAN buy influence. Money is synomonous with influence. Indisputable......

You can buy influence, but you cannot buy it with everyone. The fact that Obama was acting as a community organizer with a Harvard Law degree in which he graduated with honors, indicates to me, money is NOT the motivating factor in this man's life.

I could be wrong...but will wait until I have more than a gut feeling before I tar and feather the man.

Has ANY politician ever done this...? When was the last president that was obviously ''the right choice'', was honest, AND kept his campaign promises?! That is too far of a stretch. This is america. It hasnt happened, and it probably wont with capitalism fueling motivations of presidency. Nuff said.

Capitalism HAS fueled the motivations of the presidency, but again, given the fact that Obama chose to help those less fortunate, when he could have been partner in a multi-million dollar law firm, indicates to me that on some level, this avarice affectionately known as capitalism was not his motivation for becoming president.

Welcome to my world...

It is my world as well, I am just prepared to let the fucker get sworn in, before I convict him with only suspicions of corruption, and paranoid concepts about corporatism brainwashing the masses to elect their good buddy Obama, whom they have had little to no contact with by comparison of the other contenders to the presidency this time around.

If you are right, and they have fooled me, you would only be right by blind reflexive paranoia rather than by any actual evidence to back up your assertion that our election was fixed by men in the shadows.

Shocking as it may seem, I actually have to agree with BrokeProphet on this. Give Obama a chance to fail or succeed - he's not even in office yet, and we still have the other shithead for a month and a half.

This is to BrokeProphet:

You obviously didn't read my post on this discussion earlier where I spent quite a bit of time researching how it is legally plausible for Corporate donations to be easily done under the table. Obama had just as much affiliation with Corporations as with McCain...the difference? Obama is smarter than McCain in that he received most of his donations indirectly. I will most certainly try to prove this soon but for now I have to keep it simple because I have a movie to attend to. But if you want to look up the people who are closest to him. His New Cabinet. Top Advisors. Senators who spoke highly of him and so on. The trick to discovering the truth is to go beyond what's in front of your face. Don't research Obama's past or corporate affiliations. By doing that you're going to get this painted picture which is totally correct and thats why these people felt he would be easy to get elected because his past life is sound and the fact that he's black and has little affiliations that are out in the open. However by going around that and looking at the people surrounding him like his Advisors then you would see the ties that acts like a link to other corporations as well. At least thats what I did with the bush Administration as well as Obama. Also when I get time I'll try and send a link discussing Obama's donation to Israel of 30 Billion for Military aid. In spite of this, I did provide evidence that would suggests the easy way around the Lobbying Disclosure Act so feel free to check that out.

Bush and Cheney were obvious corporate shills, does not automatically mean Obama is.

This the disclosure act, and the loop hole you mentioned, I have a problem with it. If individuals can only donate 2,300 dollars, and Obama winds up with tens of millions, how many people (all being silent about it mind you, how lucky) do the corporate overlords need to pay, to have them donate the max 2300?

The kitchen sink. Everything was thrown at Obama. The man, his life, his family, his finances, his friendships, his financing, his religion were gone over with a fine tooth comb by the GOP in an effort to smear the shit out of him.

Why haven't they found ONE of the tens of thousands of "phony" donors to support your loophole case?

--------

I agree Wahington is corrupt, men and women can be bought, and that it is generally a cesspool of corruption that the powers that be, create and stir up.

I agree that Obama CAN be bought off.

I just don't think he has been yet. I, perhaps naive, believe America actually made an intelligent choice and elected a guy who gives a shit about them, a guy who was not corrupted by the powers that be.

I am not willing to believe the man is in bed with devil, simply b/c every president in my lifetime has been. I am not this hopeless and apathetic yet, and I still believe it is an indisputable fact that the masses hold the power true in this government, whether they realize it or not.

If I am wrong, I will freely admit it. But I am going to give him a chance, and not jump to conclusions, at least not until after the man actually becomes president, and starts either recants his promises, or makes good on them.

The powers that be are R I C H. They don't want to pay higher taxes, I promise. If Obama keeps his promise, it will definitely be a point for Obama in the "Is he a corporate shill" game.

Bush and Cheney were obvious corporate shills, does not automatically mean Obama is.
the fact of the matter seems to be this, when companies are doing well, they want nothing to do with the government, but when they're doing bad, they lobby the government for all they can get (Chrysler in the 80's I think, GM today).
Why haven't they found ONE of the tens of thousands of "phony" donors to support your loophole case?
perhaps they did it all in cash.
I agree that Obama CAN be bought off.
He could have been bought off in the past, and the affects may linger into the future.
The powers that be are R I C H. They don't want to pay higher taxes, I promise. If Obama keeps his promise, it will definitely be a point for Obama in the "Is he a corporate shill" game.
Like I said, because the economy is doing bad, businesses and anyone with the money to lobby will press for government intervention to prevent a passing of the torch from them to their competitors (the last thing they need is more serious competition, even if their competition is doing the right things and deserves to be allowed to thrive because of it ->which is why they want to sit at the table when the regulations are drawn up), the second things get any better they'll be begging for less intervention, lower taxes, loose regulation and no oversight. Businesses will always behave this way, it's what they do, look out for themselves and their profit margin, not much else, maybe the law and ethics (if you run into especially clean business, but usually there isn't much to it other than profit).

Yes. Give him a chance. Yet? Any man, any leader is only going to be able to do just so much. He is constrained by his reality. What are the economic conditions? Who are his allies & what connections do they have?

What compromises must he make in consideration of his chances of re-election in 2012?

Who is going to fuck up his act just because he has African Blood? More than just a few million Americans would mess with his plans if he didn't look "Black", but was just known/rumored to have a "Drop" of African blood.

It is completely normal to diss the "Other" the not "You". The not your "Kind". It is kind of self-destructive to cut your own throat/your society's throat in doing it? It doesn't mean that shitheads won't proceed to do just that though.

It is completely normal to diss the "Other" the not "You". The not your "Kind". It is kind of self-destructive to cut your own throat/your society's throat in doing it? It doesn't mean that shitheads won't proceed to do just that though.
so you're trying to say we're racist, because we believe that obama, like many an elected official, has the potential to go down the long, and painful road of corruption. This maneuver was done frequently by communists in soviet russia. Anything which was against the party line was fascist, therefore evil and unintelligible. What you're saying is that any speculation that you don't agree with regarding barack obama is racist, therefore evil, and unintelligible. playing the race card? your doin it right.

so you're trying to say we're racist, because we believe that obama, like many an elected official, has the potential to go down the long, and painful road of corruption. This maneuver was done frequently by communists in soviet russia. Anything which was against the party line was fascist, therefore evil and unintelligible. What you're saying is that any speculation that you don't agree with regarding barack obama is racist, therefore evil, and unintelligible. playing the race card? your doin it right.


You're going "Too Far"? I'm saying that it is possible, not necessary. Though your seemingly reactionary post is an apparently good example of weird racist behavior? The just flying off the handle with strangeness? :)

I wanted to post something, but then this shit just turned into a Conspiracy! thread.

All these bullshit new headlines like "CHANGE HITS AMERICA" are fucking ridiculous.

When wondering why the powers behind the scenes let obama get the presidency, I realized that this will work to their benefit more than anything else. People are generally sick of the traditional conservative views after 8 years of bush. If they would have given the presidency to mccain there would have been a revolution within his 4 years without a doubt.

By giving the presidency to obama it makes the american government appear to actually be controlled by the people because the majority was fooled into jumping on obamas dick. It makes america appear to be accepting of minorities in positions of power, etc.

here's the real point... THE REALITY:

Even if obama genuinly wanted to fight against the true corporate powers that control the government than he would of been taken out as soon as it looked like he was going to get anywhere in the campaign. The fact that he has gotten the presidency tells me that he is obviously apart of the illuminati's grand plans.

Let's pretend that he wants to end the corporate power and influence in the government. Even if he did (though he doesn't), one measly man alone cannot combat these powers. They are far too powerful, there is too much money at stake. The military industrial complex will not be effected by obama, in fact, it will probably even be strengthened. Obama never said once that military spending was too high or anything.

I should probably stop now, this is already too long for the many Jr. High school illiterates on here...


..Yeah? Have a little respect for your president.

CONSPIRACY!

..Yeah? Have a little respect for your president.

CONSPIRACY!

Respect is earned. Getting the presidency may be earning a tiny bit of it, but all that is - is setting stage.

Up to him, and his administration, to succeed or fail once he gets the office.

...if not, I will be his harshest critic.

Citizens should ALWAYS be the president's harshest critics.

http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/10000/6000/600/216671/216671.full.gif

Though it is difficult to be honest with a public that is mostly oblivious to the issues. As Americans are not necessarily well educated or even those who are have little time to study the issues. Heck even politicians themselves aren't always well studied on the issues they vote on.

Many people only get their info from TV or radio news. How much should they be told? When they have little knowledge & little interest?

I, perhaps naive, believe America actually made an intelligent choice and elected a guy who gives a shit about them, a guy who was not corrupted by the powers that be.

Obama has nothing in common with the common man. Have you seen the way he lives? In fact, nobody who has the money and influence to run a successful presidential campaign has anything in common with the common man. You have to be elite to be President.

Anyway, don't you think it's a little odd that Obama can't remember who made all those million-dollar donations to his campaign? He can remember a $260 donation from his aunt but he forgets where the other $640 million came from.

Let's not forget two years ago when Barack Obama opposed McCain's proposition for more government oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Guess who has received the most campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie in the past few years? That's right, Barack Obama!

He's already been bought out. Bend over.

I know that McCain had over a hundred Lobbyists working on his campaign. I'm not sure how many Obama had on his.

Is it a normal thing for lobbyists to work for political campaigns? I wonder: are they doing this for "noble" & democratic reasons? Of their own free will or are they commanded to do so by their employers?

Fact is, none of you have any valid evidence, at this point, to convince me that Obama is a hollowed out corporate drone.

The only thing that will convince me, is the actions the man takes WHEN he is in office.

Fact is, none of you have any valid evidence, at this point, to convince me that Obama is a hollowed out corporate drone.

How about this one: HE RAN A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

Just more proof how much influence/control the media has. We don't need a revolution, we need someone to infiltrate Hollywood and deliver a message. It would be just as effective.

Even with the best intentions & being able to properly implement whatever programs he decides on? A contracting economy will hold him back from some choices. No?

"Much of the issue may be out of Obama's hands. The $700 billion financial bailout threatens to push the deficit into the stratosphere. "The poor man has his hands tied by the economic and financial mess we have right now," said John Tuck, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan. "I don't know what his options are. They're very, very limited.""

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/110908dnpoleconomy.22f8d68.html

For instance look at all the cutbacks & new bridge tolls being put on by New York City. Many cities & states are cutting back. Washington has deeper pockets, but are they bottomless?

How about this one: HE RAN A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

That's not evidence of anything except partisan support and charismatic appeal. You need to show a link, and you haven't.

How about this one: HE RAN A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

That is only evidence that he ran a successful campaign. If you want to draw a correlation between that and him being a hollowed out shell, you will have to actually DRAW A VALID CORRELATION!

I see what you are trying to do, and appealing to the apathetic emotions of Americans where politics is concerned, is not valid evidence, and is arguably a fallacy.

I am not an emotional whore. I will not let that apathy, that defeatist feeling of powerlessness that effects most Americans, myself included, to jump me to a conclusion that is unsupported by anthing substantial.

You should not either.

I see what you are trying to do, and appealing to the apathetic emotions of Americans where politics is concerned, is not valid evidence, and is arguably a fallacy.

No, what I'm trying to do is point out that it takes so much money to run a successful Presidential campaign, that nobody who does it is an uncorrupted political virgin.

I should say, it is extremely statistically unlikely that anyone who secures enough campaign contributions to run a successful presidential campaign has not been corrupted or bought out.

Guess who has received the most campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie in the past few years? That's right, Barack Obama!

Failing to mention the very important point that those contributions where from general employees of Fannie and Freddie - which include things like janitors, repairmen, etc. - aren't corporate buyouts, doesn't help your point. It makes you look dishonest.

I don't know: are there any knowledgeable voices speaking in praise of those he is appointing?

"But Obama’s advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush’s. Richard Holbrooke, was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador in the Clinton administration. He implemented the policy to enlarge NATO and to place the military alliance on Russia’s border in contravention of Reagan’s promise to Gorbachev."

"Ralph Nader predicted as much. In his “Open Letter to Barack Obama (November 3, 2008), Nader pointed out to Obama that his “transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights . . . to a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby” puts Obama at odds with “a majority of Jewish-Americans” and “64 per cent of Israelis.” Nader quotes the Israeli writer and peace advocate Uri Avnery’s description of Obama’s appearance before AIPAC as an appearance that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.” Nader damns Obama for his “utter lack of political courage [for] surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention.” Carter, who achieved the only meaningful peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs, has been demonized by the powerful AIPAC lobby for criticizing Israel’s policy of apartheid toward the Palestinians whose territory Israel forcibly occupies."

"In his letter to Obama, Nader points out that Obama received unprecedented campaign contributions from corporate and Wall Street interests. “Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart.” "
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11102008.html

Is he actually choosing who he wants or is he having to pick from a small selection that he's offered as his only choices?

Failing to mention the very important point that those contributions where from general employees of Fannie and Freddie - which include things like janitors, repairmen, etc. - aren't corporate buyouts, doesn't help your point. It makes you look dishonest.

So you think that when Barack Obama saw hundreds of thousands of dollars coming in from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it didn't influence his "no" vote on more government oversight?

Don't you wonder why Barack Obama always comes out in favor of government oversight and regulation... except for that one time when Fannie and Freddie were involved?

1. What the fuck does that have to do with your blatant dishonesty in not explaining correctly where these donations actually came from?

2. You're yet again misrepresenting the truth:

First of all, it wasn't "Hundreds of thousands". It was $120,349 (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html) and it came from individuals - again, this includes pretty much any employee that thought Obama was a good candidate... like the thousands of employees who would benefit from his tax-cuts on the middle/lower class.

Second of all, you're suggesting Obama got all that money before the vote. When did Obama make the vote, and how much money had he received in donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees before then (in order for the money to be a meaningful influence in his voting)? You fail to even consider this.

3. A more important thing to consider is who had money invested in these Companies. You can keep a donation and not do what the people who donated money wanted you to do. However, if you have money invested in these companies then you have a substantial interest in seeing them do well even after they've donated money for your campaign. Obama apparently had none:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/congressmen-may-have-lost-17-m.html

--

So to summarize: Could Obama be in the tank for these large corporations? Sure. Have you provided any evidence to support that allegation? No. Instead of evidence you've given us half-truths and misrepresentations that only discredit your point further.

I agree with the OP Obama has no real power to make any real change. The change thing is an illusion for the citizens, not to make them vote for him, that is irrelevant, but to generate the feeling of democracy and that the ordinary citizen can actually decide and thus protect the status quo.
For example he has made the promise of closing the Guantanamo jail. This is to generate the feel of change, it is absolutely meaningless as USA has plenty of this kind of jails all over the world, including prisoners in us navy ships. Guantanamo happens to be the most known and most criticized.
People then can say "They change has started, Guantanamo Jail is in the past" while in real no sustantial change will take place

HEY, hey, nao. Stop all the damn infighting...we need to be working together in a bi-partisan fashion here, folks. Reach around the aisle ever now and then, and tickle our fellow partisans. It's what the obama has commanded!

Together we stand, divided we fall! Remember, always give your partner a reach around in a bi-partisan manner!!!

This thread belongs in Conspiracy.

That or B&M.

this is rubish!

obama's election is proof that anyone can become a president, look at his background and his humble beginnings.

oh and the 1.7 bilion dollars required to get him were he is now.

but still anyone can do it!

Anyone doesnt have 1.7 billion dollars. So How can anyone become president? Ok , lets see David Duke become President without a complete revolution.

Anyone doesnt have 1.7 billion dollars. So How can anyone become president? Ok , lets see David Duke become President without a complete revolution.

Anyone can become president as long as you meet the few simple requirements laid forth in the constitution. This is a matter of fact.

me and my room mate were having a conversation similar to this on election night. like wouldn't it be funny if obama rallies all these moderates and independents behind this message of change to get elected and then in his first term is like "ok, now we're going to nationalize the american oil industry."

obama's real problem all along has been that he often doesn't live up to what some of his rhetoric implies, but right now everything in american politics is so fucking skewed to the right if he is worth his weight in shit he should completely overhaul a lot of american political policy.

Obama might get Hillary included to his new Administration. Fuck that shit. He's been sucking mainstream dick and wanking about all the good America, note WHITE AMERICA did and now that he's elected he's going to add in Republicans and fucking Hillary? FUCK THAT SHIT.

EDIT: Oh and him wanting to re-build the military and "fight terrorism" and that BS. Sucking Zionist dick.

And don't forget the Second Amendment under threat. What is it again, Assault Weapons Ban? This is a black guy who has lived in the South Side of Chicago for a while, in the fucking ghetto parts at that. In Chicago there are a bunch of occasional "turn in your gun" activities to be used for rebates of other coupons, etc. it's funny given some of the local community activists have questioned it. Some guy had a T-shirt saying "don't turn in your gun to the police. They'll plant it on you when they kill you". something to that effect.

somewhere on http://chicago.indymedia.org/index.php cant find it now

I understand WHY people are stocking up on guns and feel bad for them given what might happen with Amendment II. What was it again, a narrow SCOTUS decision regarding handguns in Washington D.C.? Stock up guys before he takes your guns away. Or TRIES to with a democratic-majority Congress.

EDIT:



* Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. They will develop national guidelines for service- learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience. Green Job Corps: Obama and Biden will create an energy-focused youth jobs program to provide disadvantaged youth with service opportunities weatherizing buildings and getting practical experience in fast-growing career fields.

the fuck. hes FORCING this down our throats
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/


Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

he doesn't have to mention 'faith'. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS JOB



And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

so? What's wrong.


For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change,...........I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.


when you're not beating your kids or forcing them to do religious praying things and not leave them alone to just watch from a distance and deal with the thanksgiving BS


You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

Oh. He was speaking in a Black Church lol



More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms.

why do you have to? Why do you have to mention god or whatnot?

Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.


so you have to BS?


Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

eh don't care.

secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

your point being? There is a difference. Secular Government =/= religious life. So what.

somewhere else
#
Secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists:

Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years, and will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
#

hipocrisy much given the US has the most nukes?


Barack Obama will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran:

sounds like being a douchebag..

Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.


and what gives the US and Israel the right to have nukes then. And the US sponsors 'terrorism' all the time but no one cares...

Iran has sought nuclear weapons,

so the us does. point?

supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region,

so did the us

and its leaders threaten Israel

fuck Israel

and deny the Holocaust.

why should I care?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/index.php




1. Supporting democratic partners and upholding principles of sovereignty throughout Europe and Eurasia

like some of those Central Asian nations the US helps? HAHAHAA

#
Barack Obama will rebuild the military for 21st century tasks:

Obama and Biden will complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. They will also invest in 21st century missions like counterinsurgency by building up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, foreign language training and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply.


.....


Sex Offenders

Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate in July of 2005. This legislation was incorporated into a larger bill, the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which Senator Obama supported and which has been signed into law.

He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12 and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill would also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.

Senator Obama is a cosponsor of the KIDS Act, which requires convicted sex offenders to provide their Internet identifiers, such as e-mail addresses and instant message addresses, for inclusion into the national sex offender registry.

Fighting the Spread of Methamphetamines

Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act, which provides more money for fighting methamphetamine (meth), tightens controls on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to the children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate and became law in the 109th Congress.

Senator Obama has supported greater funding to fight meth through the use of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. The Byrne Grant program provides important funding to many local Illinois law enforcement groups. For example, the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group (SIEG), a meth taskforce that polices 31 Illinois counties, pays for 5 of its 12 agents through Byrne grants. During Senate consideration of the Department of Justice funding bill, Senator Obama cosponsored an amendment to raise Byrne funding to $900 million in 2006; the amendment passed the Senate.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/crime/



still better than McCain though.

Warsie, I totally agree with you, fuck Israel.

But...

As much as I hate fucking Zionists, we need that piece of shit country there to secure our interests. It wouldn't be easy to fuck around in Middle East politics (cough*code for oil*cough) if we didn't have some cumdumpster country to stick up for. As long as our nation is dependent on foreign sources of oil, which will be true for at least the next couple decades, we need to do everything possible to keep the pipelines running.

I fucking hate Republicans, and I don't like us being in a war like Iraq, but we need that oil. Saddam Hussein was a daft cunt with too much oil, and the US needs a stable and friendly government there to supply us with oil.

Until we can phase out a majority of our oil consumption with alternatives, we have no choice but to be global bullies. There's no way around it: We can't go Brazilian (reference to ethanol) withing the next few years.

By the way, I don't hate Jews, just Zionists. Just like I don't hate black people, but I hate "gangsta niggaz"

Why don't we let him get in office first?


No one can prove anything quite yet so bickering over this is rather pointless

just a bunch of people saying their speculation is right compared to other speculation...effective argument we have going here :rolleyes:


oh and just quick side thing: To say Obama won't change anything is to miss the point. A black president in a country where black people couldn't vote 40 some years ago!? Are you fucking retarded? How is that not unbelievable change?...

I agree, he won't change policy not nearly as much as everyone thinks. However, what Obama represents is an end to racism and bigotry...If any of you fail to see the implications of that then you really are all a bunch of morons.

43 American Presidents, all very rich, very connected white guys. Up until several weeks ago. When Obama was born black people couldn't vote. End of discussion, Obama may not change jack shit in policy but the cultural change he's brought is fucking enormous.

However, what Obama represents is an end to racism and bigotry...If any of you fail to see the implications of that then you really are all a bunch of morons.

Racism and bigotry will NEVER end. It's a nice dream, but that's all it will ever be - a dream.

Racism and bigotry will NEVER end. It's a nice dream, but that's all it will ever be - a dream.

To a degree, yes, there will always be hatred. But people, regardless of race, can live in harmony with one another. Malcolm X talks about how this is the case when he goes to Mecca and people of all colors are accepted and racism is non-existent...


Besides, if you asked a slave if there will ever be a black president what do you think his response would be? Shit, 40 years ago a black person couldn't drink at the same water fountain and now a black man is running the country....

The gap between those two situations is so ridiculously large that to not believe racism will ever end may be even more naive than the contrary...The government was beating and killing black people in the streets for marching...Now its run by one....Think about that...

The gap between those two situations is so ridiculously large that to not believe racism will ever end may be even more naive than the contrary...The government was beating and killing black people in the streets for marching...Now its run by one....Think about that...

Yeah, the President is going to be a black man in a few months, and I'm sure that scares the hell out of a lot of people because they are bigoted. If anything, I think Obama will spark MORE racial conflict just by being the first black President.

Look, people are always going to be afraid of people who are different from them. Racism will continue to exist until every person on earth is the same color (which will happen eventually unless humans become extinct before we breed to that point).

Yeah, the President is going to be a black man in a few months, and I'm sure that scares the hell out of a lot of people because they are bigoted. If anything, I think Obama will spark MORE racial conflict just by being the first black President.

Look, people are always going to be afraid of people who are different from them. Racism will continue to exist until every person on earth is the same color (which will happen eventually unless humans become extinct before we breed to that point).

Its possible, but I think the fact that Obama became president does mean alot. A black man who was raised on food stamps became our president, I think that says enough, to be honest, I didn't think I would see a black president for another 20-30 years and when I was younger the idea never even crossed my mind...So obviously things have changed, you can only hold human progression back for so long...

Calling Obama more of the same just doesn't make sense, maybe policy wise, but the amount of change he brought to this culture is exponential

If anything, I think Obama will spark MORE racial conflict just by being the first black President.

The fact that the majority of voters, in a predominately white country, voted for a black guy, foreshadows MORE racial conflict?

I disagree for obvious reasons, but you are entitled to your opinion.

The fact that the majority of voters, in a predominately white country, voted for a black guy, foreshadows MORE racial conflict?

I disagree for obvious reasons, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You have much to learn, young Grasshopper!

The fact that the majority of voters, in a predominately white country, voted for a black guy, foreshadows MORE racial conflict?

I disagree for obvious reasons, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Right, a majority of people voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean the bigoted minority isn't going to try and start some shit.

Shiite Muslims make up something like 65% of the Iraqi population but there is still sectarian violence. For example.

Right, a majority of people voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean the bigoted minority isn't going to try and start some shit.

A majority of bigots in America, are too cowardly to actually back up their ignorant convictions with anything more than a nigger joke or two around the 'ol water cooler.

I imagine a minority may try to start some shit, I imagine a Klan meeting will burn an effigy or some other dumbshit, but as far as anything close to the sectarian violence in Iraq.....I think not.

Please explain how Obama getting elected has given rise to racial tension in this country and, if you can, give an example of such or admit your opinion is rather baseless.

A majority of bigots in America, are too cowardly to actually back up their ignorant convictions with anything more than a nigger joke or two around the 'ol water cooler.

Yeah, but it doesn't take a majority of anyone to start some shit. There was only one Eric Rudolph, and look at what a fuss that caused. How about John Brown or Edmond-Charles Genet?

My point is only that there have been plenty of times in history when one individual catalyzed something much larger than himself.

Please explain how Obama getting elected has given rise to racial tension in this country and, if you can, give an example of such or admit your opinion is rather baseless.

You mistake me, good sir. What I mean to say is that I think having a black President will expose racial tension that is already present and give the extremists an excuse to start something up. I don't think this is going to make people of one race think, "gee, now that you mention it, I really hate this other race for being different from me!"

We are trapped in a positive socioeconomic feedback loop. Racial disparity in American society reinforces and perpetuates the animosity and negative stereotypes that caused it in the first place. Black families are twice as likely to be poor and half as likely to be wealthy as white families. Race is obviously still an issue in many parts of American society and it needs to be addressed rather than idealistically overlooked.

We can't all be treated equally if we don't first acknowledge that we are currently NOT all treated equally. Obviously, that makes the issue two-sided.

We have a black President. On the surface, it seems like we've finally progressed to the point where minorities are empowered in our society. It seems like we're transcending the social bullshit.

What everyone fails to realize is that Obama doesn't have too much in common with the average black person. He doesn't have that much in common with the average white, Hispanic, or Asian person either. Barack Obama is a member of the economic elite. He went to private schools in Indonesia and Hawaii as a child and got degrees from Columbia and Harvard. He was also a professor of law for 12 years and what's that other thing... oh yeah, he got elected to the Senate. I'd say he doesn't have much in common with most voters.

Sooner or later, people are going to notice this. I realize that this is of course a great inspiration to minorities all over America, but what happens when everyone starts to consider what types of people have degrees from Harvard and spent years in a private college prep school? Disillusionment, perhaps. Anger, definitely. People who never voted or paid attention to politics before are suddenly paying attention. These people want change, and they want it NOW.

But what we are looking at is four years of some poor sap having to clean up the mess that Bush left behind. The economy has some SERIOUS downhill momentum that won't run out for a long time and those pesky corporate tax cuts somehow got renewed for another two years. Iraq gets worse and more expensive every day and let's not forget that we are in pretty rotten international standing after that whole scenario.

What it comes down to is this:
I predict that people will start paying attention to the system for the very first time and see a lot of shit that sucks. They're going to be pissed. Don't you think that there are enough assholes out there willing to take out their issues on blacks in general to make that a problem?

This isn't going to magically create racism, but it sure as hell is going to fuel the prejudice that's already there.

</tangent>