Elections = Futile

the elections (2008) are already over, you can go about your business as usual.


The winner in 2008 will be the status quo. We'll just get to choose a flavor, republicunt or democrap.
Chocolate Icecream or Strawberry Icecream, they're both still Icecream.
Fuck the Icecream, I want a root beer float.

Granted, I'm not going to get that, but I still have a craving for delicious root beer float.

>>1
You're quire correct.  Republicans = warhawks who also want to continue raping the middle class and destroying the social safety net.  Democrats = chickenhawks who also want to continue raping the middle class and destroying the socio-economic system with bailouts.

No matter who wins the Presidency in 2008 (Clintonobama or Guilianiromney), the same pro-corporation, anti-worker, pro-banker, pro-globalist WANKER will be in office making sure that the rich get richer and that everyone else has to pay to make that happen.

In contrast, people could vote for a moral and Constitutional leader like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader ... but, naaaaah!  Sheep don't trend that way.  Sheep FLOCK ... even when it's right over the fucking cliff.

We're getting the government we deserve ... and we're getting it sideways and sharp in our bungholes.  You'd think that after all the anal pain suffered so far from partisan politics, Americans would wake up and toss the bums out ... but, ohhhhh noooo!  Not THAT!  That sounds so ... so ... confrontational!  Despite the evidence of a red-dripping anal annulus, it's somehow better to mill around in the flock and "baaa baaa" with the rest.

>>2
What's wrong with being pro-corporation, pro-banker and pro-globalist?

>>3
You are very insensitive. I know a lot about having things forced into my bunghole and can you guess where? Jail. That's where, for child molestation.

I'll say Nader; sure, Ron Paul; hopefully not.

>>3
Because those 3 things are ANTI-HUMAN.  Note well I also said "anti-worker", which your deceitful ass omitted from the list.  They all go together.

Look, fuckknob, the rich need no advocates.  Leaders don't need to look out for the wealthy since the wealthy have enough to look out for themselves.  As long as the mass of the common folk don't actually turn upon the rich like a pack of rabid wolves, the government (being definably Populists) should consider the wealthy rather transparent.

As for globalism ... that's just a scam for moving wealth around so as to avoid government taxation and Populist regulation.  Read David Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World", David Cay Johnston's "Perfectly Legal", and Raymond Baker's "Capitalism's Achilles Heel".  You really need an education on what happens when a Republic turns into an Empire, and when citizens turn into subjects.

Fuckin' A, FailCream...back with his slapstick politik!

>>7
Why don't you just admit you don't read books and that you largely get your knowledge from the Jew-controlled TV?  That's where the REAL slapstick politics is happening.

>>8

You don't seem to get it. You're just not entertaining, funny, witty or informative. That's all people mean by calling you "slapstick". You're such a round the clock fucktard that no one can take you seriously.

>>9
Have you looked up those books yet?  Or are they, too, not considered "informative"?  Oh, yeh, that's right:  there's no "Booklover's Channel" on the idiot box, is there?  If it's not on the set, it just doesn't fucking exist to you queers.

>>9
In all fairness, RedCream's arguments tend to make sense, though he does develop and express them in a hair-brained kind of way. #6 especially is right on the money, though I haven't read those books.

Personally, I've read Noam Chomsky's "Failed States", and it touches on many of those subjects. For example, "free trade" is a misnomer, as it includes monopoly agreements and has other attributes that benefit foreign corporations. Venezuela has earned the wrath of the CIA for turning away from "free trade" and pursuing policies that benefit the people as a whole rather than the very rich. While it remains to be seen if the distribution is going to work out, the per capita income is definitely increasing.

I like chocolate and mint. Who do I vote for?

Why do many people suck Noam Chomsky's balls? It puts us libertarian's ass licking of Milton Friedman to shame!

fggf

>>13
I don't even like Noam Chomsky. Most of his books are shit, but "Failed States" is a good one. Of course, you haven't read it and you won't read it, making RedCream's assertion that you're a TV-watching bozo seem even more true. So, you don't have an argument against mine, you just have the stupid viewpoints you've absorbed from wherever inferior people get their broken world-view.

Normal people > RedCream >>>>> Libertarians

>>15
There are a lot of things I could read, why should I read this faggot's drivel since all his followers just bitch whine constantly about evil corporations but never actually take these evil corporations to court on corruption charges whilst poncing around pretending to be the saviours of "the people"? They don't have a case and Chomsky is wrong. I shall read John Stuart Mill's essays on utilitarianism, representative government and liberty instead and be thoroughly glad I am not joining the Chomsky "oh woe, there are problems in america" bandwagon!

>>16
By refusing to even countenance that there are problems with the American socio-economic apparatus, you are accordingly unable to fix anything that's wrong with it.

You can just tell who the rubes are ... they're the ones who like to diss those who quote Chomsky without every having picked up even one of his books or essays.  You may as well diss Dr. King without ever having read his "Letter From Birmingham Jail".  The motivations for these dismissals and disrespect are perfectly clear.  Rubes can't argue with the truth, so it only remains to perform ad hominem attacks on the messengers of that truth.

>>16
He's 'wrong', is he? How is it that virtually every paragraph in his books has a footnote that generally leads to an unbiased source? Oh, that's right, you don't think he's wrong because you have evidence against him- you just don't like how he disagrees with your warped world-view.

>>17
I agree. "Rubes" can't argue with the truth because they are so disinterested in other opinions that they don't even attempt to learn what they are.

I had never heard of "Letter from Birmingham Jail", but thanks to you I've been able to skim it. There's a lot here that's controversial even today, and every bit seems true. Now I'm curious about what Reinhold Niebuhr has to say ("groups tend to be more immoral than individuals").