Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The more conservotrolls vomit on this forum, the more

Posted 2 years ago on June 22, 2012, 10:12 p.m. EST by francismjenkins (3713)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

encouraged I am to vote for Obama (just so you douche bags have convulsions for the next 4 years, not because I have any faith in the dysfunctional narcissistic cluster fuck that masquerades as a democratic political system).

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by conservatroll (161) 2 years ago

I an pukin right back at ya, frank

[-] -1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Trying to dazzle me with your spelling skills :)

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Gee, you must be a woman or have one as a mother, a sister or a child, or have kids to be educated, or have friends who might be a minority, or be in what's left of the middle class, or are struggling to get there, or be a veteran, or a nurse, or fireman or a teacher, or want to put your life savings (when you get some) into a bank or the stock market, or buy a house, or are retired or hope to be retired sometime in the future, or want insurance to cover health issues, or don't want to be owned body and soul by the 1% or something like that.

You should just forget all of these silly self interests and vote for the guy who belongs to the 1%ers for Justice for the Rich Citizens Untied Club.

They will give you a cookie and pat you on the head. You might even get one of those fun rides in the little cage on the car roof (after you are suitably hosed down, of course.)

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Ummm, if you're gonna diss, at least make a goddamn point? Are you saying that the two party duopoly (two sides of the same coin) will somehow help women, veterans, firefighters, teachers, et al? I mean, okay, I'll concede that the Presidents jobs program (aid to states) would help firefighters & teachers, but it wouldn't really change anything (just a temporary bandaid, placate the masses with a few goodies sort of thing, and people are hurting, so those goodies couldn't hurt, but please don't ask me to go along with the con job that either of these parties give a shit one way or the other about the 99%).

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Sorry, I thought the point was obvious. It seems like the GOP has gone out of their way to stick a finger in the eye of about every constituency group you can identify.It has been almost systematic. The irony is that in spite of this they are running close or ahead in several of the groups that they have crapped on.

Granted that the Dems haven't delivered on their promises, often due to blocking by the Tea Party, but at least they claimed to be trying to help the folks they want to vote for them.

I can't recall another time when either party has opposed the interests of the groups they want to vote for them. I didn't mean to be too subtle.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Frankly, I hope the dems can win it all (white house, congress, the whole banana), since a more progressive party (like the greens) doesn't have a realistic chance at the federal level. While political reform is not real/substantive change, maybe it can provide some degree of relief for people who are hurting (and on that count I'll agree with you, but beyond that ... a lesser of two evils is still an evil).

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The "lesser is still" is absolutely true. That said, in any political system I can conceive of, there will be less than perfect packages of candidates and policies. If you wait for perfect you will wait a long time. Political reform is a good and necessary step toward governance reform. I would say it is substantial.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Our political system is hopeless, I'll say again, hopeless. So a vote for our political system is just a vote for hopelessness.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Hope is a choice. It is your right to give up, mine to keep struggling.

The possible outcomes of this election are not the same.

If the Mafia was one choice, and al Qaeda were the other? One wants my money, the other my life? The old joke was, take my life, I am saving my money for my old age. We all have to do what we think is best.

The GOP has been actively sabotaging our economy for political advantage. That is hard to forgive.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

Wow, yes good strategy. Just imagine, then if the conservatives do the opposite of what Obama and the demos do in an effort to piss liberals off, then we may actually get something good coming out of Washington.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure they've been doing that ... to no avail. My statement was just a cynical remark, take it how you will, but I see little reason to hope that our political system is even capable of changing our society for the better.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

lol. So what/who pushed you over the edge. Was it that nutball linker or crazy stupid secnoot?

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I can't keep track of all these crazy people, but it will be fun hearing their paranoid rants for the next few years :)

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Priceless. Straight ticket. The Dems need to control Congress. That'll drive 'em freaking nuts!! State and local too. Seriously, less neo-lib policy can only be a good thing. You must know this is true.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Dems are knee deep in neo lib policy too.

PS- what is your def of neo lib?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Dems have moved right for 30 yrs, caved in to vote for right wing policies. That is our problem. But if we wake up, protest (OWS?) the Dems can be dragged back to the left and be made to serve the 99%.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

If Dems are knee deep, the Repubs are up to their eyeballs in it. And the wealthy and corporations know they'll get a better return on investment with Republicans who actually buy into neo-lib crap economics. Holy hell. Look at Romney's super pacs.

Even as every indication, common sense, look around - says demand is the problem. They still want to employ supply side policies. The Ryan/Romeny budget would give $256M tax assistance to millionaires. Seriously? When they're already paying the lowest effective tax rates since the Gilded Age 100 years. It's a mystery to me why anyone in the lower or middle classes, with two brain cells to rub together, would vote Republican. Aside from the party base- the gun nuts and Jesus freaks. How many gun nuts, Jesus freaks and just plain stupid people are there out there.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Hey, Romney really does know how to create jobs, in other countries. Bain was the largest investor in two of the industry pioneers in helping US companies export jobs.

Of course he could create them here, as well, at about pay rate of $1.00 per day. Would you like an application?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Indeed. And since he's such a genius businessman, when he's Pres., he'll just sell off underperforming assets. Like California. Mississippi maybe.

'Would you like an application?' I'll pass. But my friend linker wants a free market so we can put our kids to work as wage slaves to compete with China.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/insist-on-a-living-wage-and-not-a-minimum-wage/#comment-769337

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Well, they could take the job here for the same wage and poorer benefits, or in China with a lower cost of living and better education.

There, secnoot wouldn't have to worry about someone stealing his kids toys and giving them to poor kids.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Whoo-hoo. Romney for Pres!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I was sure you would listen to reason.

See above for a more comprehensive list of Gooood reasons to vote for Obama It starts with Gee, as in Whiz

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So what is your definition of neo-lib?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You might be a neo-lib if:

  • You want to employ supply side policies when demand is the problem.

  • You think the Austrian School is a place of worship.

  • You want to abolish the public school system and privatize it.

  • You think Ayn Rand is a Goddess.

  • You believe government policies should favor the wealthy and it will trickle down. (Even though demand is the problem.)

  • You think tariff rates should be zero.

  • You believe the wealthy are the job creators.

  • You believe progressive taxation and government assistance to the needy is communism.

  • Strangely, however, you believe those most fortunate need government assistance (because it will do that trickle down thing. Even though it sounds like a dog pissing down it's leg). Those less fortunate just need to work a little harder.

  • You think the free market is perfect and magical. Corporations are benevolent. Acting for the social good or will be appropriately punished by the market. And government and regulations are the problem. Because there were never any problems or abuses until the government started imposing regulations afterall. We just didn't let the free market work.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

LOLx100!

[-] -3 points by vvv0624 (-13) 2 years ago

All of April's "neoliberal" attributes apply equally to the "rightists" formerly known as "conservatives", just as many "neoconservative" Big-Gov/Big-Spend attributes would in prior years have been labelled "liberal". This should not be news for you:

http://justanotherblowback.blogspot.com/2006/10/dystopia-regarding-neoconservative.html

By contributing to their carefully planned periodic political label redefinition obfuscation, you perpetuate the false divisions that keep the 99% fighting each other rather than uniting to undo their oppressors:

http://amerikanreich.com/labels/

Rather than coming across with all the arrogant ignorance (or ignorant arrogance) of an impotent self-proclaimed anarchist executing all their "activism" from a couch in their parents' basement through the keypad of a slave-produced Apple iProduct, you should be hanging your head in shame. Unless of course - like so many pro-regime plants in this forum - you're just "doing your job".

[-] 2 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

I don't think april or titus need to be attacked

label redefinition obfuscation is definitely a problem

right and left should be used foe physical directions not politic views

[-] -2 points by vvv0624 (-13) 2 years ago

You certainly have the right but totally lack the intellectual capacity to contribute anything meaningful to this thread, MattLHolck.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

ad hominem

[-] 0 points by vvv0624 (-13) 2 years ago

I SEE YOU CORRECTED YOUR SPELLING...

If you plan to use that as a defense, Dufus, you might learn to spell it correctly. Otherwise, keep in mind that telling the truth about someone is never a crime - unless of course you happen to be Julian Assange and that someone is the corporate fascist government of the United States.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

not so great to have some one accused of sexual assault representing getting the truth out

I'd rather he face those charges

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ok, now we can start having a good conversation :)

    1. How do you create demand?
    1. Austrians would never allow countries to become so indebted that the debt has created a crisis.
    1. Im not for private schools. But neither one will work when parents dont want to do their end of the job.
    1. Rand had some good points about facsism.
  • 5 I dont think neo libs are into gov involvement too much
  • 6 Im for not even recognizing countries like China
  • 7 Like it or not, they usually are.
  • 8 I dont think its communism. But I do think too much of either reaches a point of diminishing returns. We are definietly at that pont with the gov assistance part
  • 9 Im totally against corporate welfare.
  • 10 I do think we are over regulated for the average person. The top doesnt have to follow any of the rules, but little guys like myself just get squeezed and squeezed
[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago
  1. Demand should be created through government spending. ie: The American Jobs Act. Paul Krugman recently said that if it had been passed, unemployment would down to 7%.

  2. Too bad Bush missed that part. But we are where we are. And many economists believe job creation/demand stimulus should be the priority right now.

  3. Agreed. But I think many parents are struggling to do their end of the job. Many families with two working parents, maybe working multiple jobs. The ones that are working. Struggling to make ends meet. And keeping up with curriculums and homework assignments. That often takes hours each night.

  4. Seems to me her philosophy is 100% in favor of corporate facism.

  5. But neo-libs believe in stimulating the economy through supply side policies. That's involvement. Of course, if lower tax rates are always the answer, always good, zero must be the best. After that, I think they've just put themselves out of a job. I mean, how much lower can they go when effective rates for the most wealthy are like 15%-20%, the lowest level in 100 years. I don't know what the right number is. But I sure as hell know it's not something lower.

  6. I think tariffs should be higher. It's like shelf space in a grocery store. If you want the best shelf space, you pay for it. If you want to trade with the most powerful economy in the world, you pay for it. Trade is improving the lives of many people there. With more wealth, it brings opportunity for greater freedoms, perhaps some level of democracy in time. I'm not sure ignoring China is the answer.

  7. The wealthy are nothing more than suppliers. They only have the potential to create jobs. If there is demand. They don't create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. They only create jobs if there is demand. Supply is not constrained. There is plenty of excess labor, capacity, corporate profits and cash. So supply is not the problem. The problem is demand.

  8. I think government assistance is a reaction to 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and the financial crisis. But I agree, too much of either has diminishing returns. I would say supply side policies (especially lower tax rates) has already reached that point. It might work under the right set of cirmustances, when supply is the problem. Our tax system now is in no way progressive. "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

  9. One way to limit corporate welfare would be to provide for publicly financed elections. And millionaires don't need a $265M tax cut (the Ryan/Romney Budget). It won't create jobs.

  10. Regulation - I think this is because it is somewhat easy to pass alot of seemingly small regulations or legislation, especially at the state and local levels. The stuff that affects the big guys, they have their lobbyists take care of it. Small stuff doesn't get press coverage, and a person has to be really plugged in to be on top of things. A lot of little stuff adds up. So it becomes a squeeze. I agree. But I'm fairly certain a free market is not the answer either. It would just create a different set of problems. The problems for which most regulations were enacted in the first place. Additionally, I think the amount of regulation is proportional to the size and complexity of the society. That's not to say there isn't alot of crap regulation out there. ''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.'' - Adam Smith.

[-] 0 points by vvv0624 (-13) 2 years ago

All these "neoliberal" attributes apply equally to the "rightists" formerly known as "conservatives", just as many "neoconservative" Big-Gov/Big-Spend attributes would in prior years have been labelled "liberal". This should not be news for you:

http://justanotherblowback.blogspot.com/2006/10/dystopia-regarding-neoconservative.html

By contributing to their carefully planned periodic political label redefinition obfuscation, you perpetuate the false divisions that keep the 99% fighting each other rather than uniting to unseat their oppressors:

http://amerikanreich.com/labels/

Rather than coming across so smug, April, you should be hanging your head in shame. Unless of course - like so many pro-regime plants in this forum - you're just "doing your job".

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

How did you get the bullets to show up?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

try this

"*" test 1 (w/o quotations)

  • test 1

http://etherealmind.com/who-am-i/markdown-reference/

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago
  • lets see if this works
[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

(w/o quotations) and a space after the axterix

  • (w/o quotations) and a space after the axterix

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

Don't let the Demos fake you out. They're pretty evil too. The only difference is that Demos lie about what they're going to do, and the Repubs say it outright. In the end they're both on the same take.

But I like fransismjenkins thinking. He's seeing it straight.

[-] 6 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

What ever. You know, I actually live my life by most of the principals the right like to use as window dressing. Self reliance, loyalty to principals and all the other values that the right love to rally around are values I believe are needed to survive in this world. But after Bush went to Congress in 2008 with his tail between his legs, crying for welfare benefits to counter the bad decisions his bankers made, I came to the conclusion that even the right are full of shit. They talk personal responsibility when they are denying others a social safety net, but when the rubber hits the road, they are just as
likely to beg for a hand out. Bush lost the right their credibility and those who still support their rhetoric are fools. Personal responsibility sounds good, until you are the only one taking said responsibility. Bush's actions have driven me to loose the faith that you righties are blinded by. It's all free markets until your market is in the toilet then the right is just as prone to ask for a hand out.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The biggest problem with Bush was that he went along with anything the GOP Congress wanted. And they foolishly implemented the rhetoric that had been spouting for years and now the results are on the record. He should have saved them from themselves as Reagan did when the chips were down. But he was locked into Faith Based corruption and let the children run amok.

Now, it is pretty hard to get people to want another cycle of voodoo economics after they have lost 40% of their net worth, if they still have a job, or 100%, if they don't. Once you get what you wish for, you have to taste it.

Bleeaaah! Yuk. Ptooey. Bad GOP!

On the other hand, Obama, was prevented by 6 turncoat Dems from getting most of what he campaigned for, so he tried to finesse what he could. What kind of president he would have been with a Dem Congress we will never know. But one thing is certain, it couldn't have been worse than Bush, or McCain with a Tea Party (1%er proxies) in control.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

He had his shot. He had both majorities. It comes down to leadership skills, of which he has almost none.

6 Dems have kept Gitmo opened, Afghan going, Iraq with 15k mercenaries in it, bombing 4 other nations, a fasicst healthcare plan, extending the Bush tax cuts, signing 3 more free trade deals, NDAA indef detention, no federal gay marriage push, increasing prosectution of ganja, no humoring his own commitee Simpson Bowles, currently building 3 more military bases in Africa, the soon to be signed Trans Pacific trade deal (posted on this site multiple times), allowing drones to be flown in the USA,

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I dont think anyone could be worse than Bush, and I voted for Obama. I would never vote for Romney, but I can guaratee you in four more years we will be a shell of our former self.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

All rugged individualists until it's their ass in a hot mess. Casting blame all around. Fed policy. Fannie and Freddie. If only, this or that. Oh the excuses.....

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

I'm not sure who you're calling a rightie? I agree with you 100%.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

My bad, I guess my contention was more to your assertion that the right don't lie. I do agree with your description of the left though, but I think I'm with francismjenkins; I'm going to vote for Obama just to contribute to Consorvatrolls living in consternation for the next four years. Lol

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If Obama wins we will all be living in consternation for the next four years.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I guess after watching Obama lead and researching Romney's past, I really don't believe there will be much difference in policy if Romney gets elected. Besides, the way I see it, if the right wins this election, we once again capitulate to business interests which would embolden them more.

No. This election should be a referendum against big business's over reach. Something akin to hitting a dog's nose with a rolled up news paper when he attempts to snag your pork chop off your plate when your back is turned. It's nothing personal. It's just a good deterrent against future over reaching.

So I don't think i'll be too anxious if the Republicans sit this one out as the minority.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Voting for parties instead of decent and honest people has gotten us into this mess. The way out is clear to see, but for some odd reason, the people still think voting for the same party, year after year, will save them. It makes no sense.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That is what primaries are for. You picked your poison, though your choices were slim, now you have to live with your choice. Besides if we all picked who we agreed with one hundred percent and found to be the most honest, well, that would be one busy primary contest. There'd probably be a million contestants and their philosophies would run the political gambit from extreme to extreme.

That old saying, the lesser of two evils, means to me that I'll never be totally convinced that any candidate is the best choice so I choose the one that sucks least. And the reason i do this, not because i'm simplistic, insane or brainwashed, but because i know that as humans most of us don't like drastic change and will vote pretty much the same way we always do. So with this in mind, I vote for one of the two I know will have the best chance of winning. See, the sad truth is that if we all chose a third party candidate, there'd probably be as many candidates as there are passions found in the electorate.

The two party system is a moderating force, at least that is the belief many Americans hold. There is a reason why Romney and Obama are pretty much the same when it comes to policy choices. In the eyes of most Americans, they are the moderate choices.

OR so I believe.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The primary results do not limit our choices to two candidates. Thinking like that is a symptom of the brainwashing of our political system. Voting for the lesser of two evils will always result in evil. We can vote for anyone we choose in November, even write in our own name. Why settle for the lesser evil when we can vote for the greater good.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

haha

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly. We bailed them out in the S&L crisis. JP Morgan bailed out the gov in the early 1900's.

The right has always been full of shit with that stuff. Same for the left with their "caring" BS.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

They are three of a pair.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

the republicans haven't offered anything

[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

True, I too have no "faith in the dysfunctional narcissistic cluster fuck that masquerades as a democratic political system", so we need a new constitution, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is an Obama forum?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Dont worry Obama is a lock. No one has gone to jail, still, for the corruption in our systems, he's a lock.

He's doing what he's told like a good puppet. No need to replace him.

Be prepared for, after Nov 5th, lots of talk on "Did Romney's faith hurt R turnout?" "Can Obama get things going in his second term" and "With voter turnout noticeably lower than in 2008, are voters very disenfranchised?"

He's a lock. He their perfect puppet. Good looking (for a politician) and well spoken.

If you dont believe me, go ask John Kerry and Bob Dole about pathetic opponets paraded out against a mid term president.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I pretty much agree ... and yeah, I don't view Romney as a viable candidate (true conservatives can't stand Romney, and I'm sure that will be less than inspiring come election day). True liberals aren't particularly gleeful about Obama, but given the demographics, voter trends, how much more important conservative voters are to republicans compared to liberal voters to democrats, etc., Obama is pretty much a shoe in (the numbers are very unfavorable for Romney).

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I agree about Obama. The bankers already have their perfect face for a global takeover, no need to replace him.

[-] -1 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

yeah, you won big in Wisconsin, and San Jose and San Diego and Know vs. the SEIU. The people are behind you, they want socialism!!!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 2 years ago

It's sad that you co-opted this forum into a political one, but I preferred it when you wanted to vote for the Green Party.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I still like the Green Party, sort of (far better than either of the two major parties), but I see the greens as maybe able to win some local/state level races (they don't have a realistic shot at the Presidency, and so I'll probably split my vote). Honestly, I don't see very much hope in the electoral system at all ... but I will vote & continue with occupy (and hopefully something eventually works).

[-] 0 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 2 years ago

but I will vote & continue with occupy

Sounds like the guy who exercises, but keeps eating like a pig and smoking like a chimney.

[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

You forgot jerk off like a jack rabbit :)

[+] -4 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

So you're willing to put your own selfish ideology above the good of the nation?

Why am I not surprised?

You did it in 2008 why would you not do it again?

This whole topic was not worthy of a post,perhaps only to retrieve comments from the likes of me? May this satisfy whatever freak need you have.

[-] 6 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Put it this way, either way we get another warm body in an empty suit, but voting for Obama has one benefit, it pisses you people off (and we can laugh at your paranoid rants for the next few years). And yes, comedy is an industry, in which people work & get paid, so we'll call this a jobs program for comics :)

[+] -4 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

Actually this lame joke will end up costing you and the rest of us more than you'll ever know should you get your wish.

[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Oh no, a Kenyan is trying to sneak in your window :)

[-] -3 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

That actually turns you on doesn't it?