Election 08 (Make your prediction)

Interesting opinion, I'm not denying my opinions aren't unconventional but 'too much', really? Ok. Yes, and Article 51 of the U.N. Sercurity Council says that "either the treat or use of force is illegitimate unless it is in self-defence against an armed attack". We know how well thats followed by the US, so lets not pretend that rules are obeyed. So you don't consider Obama from the upper class? Ignoring what he campaigned for, since I hope by now we know better that to expect what is campaigned for to reflect what is actually carried out, what about Obama makes him middle class? Please don't say color. They are both from the elite side of America, childhood need not be included. Obama is an Ivy League graduated lawyer, he is also a millionare, I don't know what you consider the upper class or special class but I think those to facts about him qualify him as such.Again, i'm not saying the wrong person won, but i'm not saying the right person won either, i'm saying the person that was supposed to win, won.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

lol, nice.I see what you're saying. I'll concede that he does know what it's like to struggle. But, im not sure, and of course only time will tell, what, if any impact that kind of up bringing will make. He is still going to have to play the game. He is still going to be forced to submit to special interest. I'd call 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp a bit more than a few bad years, but point taken none the less. I agree that the media propagnada was amazing for this president elect. Was, finacial reasons did not permit this to continue. Was also taking philosophy, but that too was derailed. I had kids too young. However, now, I do stand up which is a whole lot better, and take online courses. Hopefully this reasoning that you speak of will come back to me...but maybe, just maybe, im the voice of reason and the blinded ones are you guys. But...What part would you consider a conspiracy/crackpot theory?The US has always been controlled by the upper class, this president is no different. It may give we the people the illusion because of his up bringing, which I conceded on, but that makes it even more effective. I stated that from the beginning, he is the right man for the job because of his name, color, and background. If I had foreign business relations, and the current opinion of the US is what it is, I would want Obama to represent the US.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Rrhain, Agreed, it is not the same as party, as I meant to say that the US is controlled by one class, not one party. I think you know what I meant. I know what ballots look like, but none of the other candidates are relevant, and the media makes sure. You can't herd cattle properly if they have too many choices of where to go. You gotta keep it simple.By media standards there were two candidates, can we agree on that? I never said I supported Nader, you compared me to him by calling me Mr. Nader, and yes he is from the upper class. But, yes you are right he is not one of the "both", the only two who are relevant. I meant one class, not one party, as written above. I stand corrected on Nader, but I never said the Repubilcans are not bought out by special interests either. Im pressed for time but I'll give you a quick one off the top of my head, Service Employees International Union.Heres a small thing on them,

quote:

---

For more than a year, the head of the powerful Service Employees International Union has been running a political campaign against private equity firms to allow him to organize workers at the companies they own. This month in California, the SEIU suffered a major setback when a bill that would have restricted state pension fund allocations to sovereign wealth-backed private equity firms was shelved by lawmakers. The measure was Mr. Stern’s brainchild, and its ostensible purpose was to target sovereign wealth funds in countries with spotty human rights records.

​

The real impetus for the bill, however, was to help the SEIU organize employees of ManorCare, a nursing home chain owned by the Carlyle Group private equity firm. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, another private equity outfit and owner of the Hospital Corporation of America, has also been a major target of Mr. Stern’s campaign.

​

The SEIU wanted to ratchet up the pressure on Carlyle and others by cutting off two gigantic sources of private equity capital: the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (Calstrs), which manage $240 billion and $167 billion of assets, respectively .

​

Calstrs and Calpers estimated that their funds would lose a combined $7.5 billion in the first five years alone under Mr. Stern’s bill .

​

. Calpers and Calstrs have had the sense and wherewithal to push back against the SEIU’s bullying. As they see it, Andy Stern’s war on private equity would kill the goose that lays golden eggs for their retirees. His bill would have prevented them from maximizing their returns, which happens to be their fiduciary duty. It’s also what’s best for working families.

---

Also,

quote:

---

Obama Is A Leading Recipient Of Independent Political Expenditures.
"Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of
outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than
any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political
expenditures, records show. The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given
him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has
railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other
special-interest money backed his opponents." (Jim McElhatton, "Obama
Favorite Of Outside Groups," The Washington Times, 3/24/08)

​

Labor Unions And Other Independent Groups Have Already Spent Over $7.1
Million In Support Of Obama's Campaign. "The political arm of the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have
spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's
bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show." (Jim
McElhatton, "Obama Favorite Of Outside Groups," The Washington Times,
3/24/08)

​

-- The SEIU Alone Has Spent At Least $4.9 Million In Independent
Expenditures Supporting Obama. "Since last week, the SEIU reported
spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama
through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which
holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million
in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past
month." (Jim McElhatton, "Obama Favorite Of Outside
Groups," The Washington Times, 3/24/08)

---

Sorry for this, I was upset at the Nader comment because I did not show support for any candidate either. You didn't but the Messiah comment was meant as a general comment about the fanatical Obama supporters, not specifically for you. But, you did vote for Obama, right? lol Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Not at all. However, the power is distributed amongst the upper class, and the upper class also controls the media.I'll respond to the rest of the post later, but I just didn't want you to think I believe there's some kind of secret group that runs things. Thats a conspiracy theory. What im saying about the upper class is not a secret at all. They control the power and the way it is distributed. Rrhain agreed with this too, and I'd like to see somneone show proof against that. Name one media market that isn't run by big business?When I use the word "they" I should be more specific but it is just used as a general term for big business and the upper class that controls power/media.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Rrhain, I just meant in this election. I mean, who can forget Teddy Roosevelt? Oh, yeah, I did. But, he wasn't relevant for this election so my forgetfulness was ok. I did not know he and I shared opinions, however, this man is a genius by my standards then. So are many millionares. Why would that exclude him or them from being placed in a tax bracket? I will concede this point and take you on good faith that he actually does this. I'm liking this Nader guy more and more. I gauge it by the same standards that the IRS does. Is there another way to define it? To compare gay peoples struggle to that of Service Employees International Union does not seem equal. Gay people are not looking to corrupt politics, Unions are, whether to our benefit or not is arguable. It depends on which side of the fence you are, again, here is another issue that takes strict party divides. How can you trust anything that is said from either side when their only objective is financial gain? They are all suspect.However, you see it how you see it, im not going to argue that. You asked me for a special interest group and I gave you one. The point is not to say, Well Obama stands for this cause, the point is to ask, WHY does Obama stand for this cause? What does he stand to gain with Union support? Is he just following party guildance? Is it for their campaign contribution? Perhaps, yes perhaps, no. But whenever there is very large sums of money poured into any paticular parties campaign, it becomes suspect as to what his/their actual intentions are. That to me seems like fair and balanced skeptisim. I have to admit, it rushes in unbiddened. The second attempt was a joke, thats why the (lol) was there. But, ok, we'll keep this humor free.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

As a sub-topic, we can discuss WHY did Perot drop out of the election having 20% of the votes?Who stood to lose more voters if Perot continued?Who benefited by Perots exit from the race?Who would Perot be more affiliated with, Democrats or Republicans?IMO Perot droped out because he placed more of a burden on the Republican party, a party he would probably more affiliated with. Your thoughts...?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Perhaps, but I think there was more to it than just 'not getting attention'.From what I can remember, I was 17 years old at the time, he was getting alot of spotlight. I was thinking more along the lines of Republican, due to his financial interests. Your reply seems like the honerable position, but since I don't trust these politicians, even though granted he was not one per-se, I doubt that the independent party was anything more to him than 'the chic that brought him to the dance'. I cannot argue that, It did solidify the fact that any attempt at going at it without one of the two major parties will be futile. Even at 17 I liked Perot overall. Oh come now, you didn't like Gary Coleman for Gov.? lol I like it, but this would create mass confusion. Its hard enough as it is, let alone people getting 2 votes.At any rate if you don't have the two parties sharing equal power then they can't properly campaign to their voters with fear tactics. They'd have to actually deal with real issues and this will create a loss of the illusion for the controling powers. I agree. But the media circus is part of the disinformation agenda. What will the advertisers do?! But, they share equal finanicial interest, perhaps a persuation from the Bush party to drop out because Perots votes would have affected Bush? Im just speculating obviously.Also, the religious affiliation in the republican party is just a tool used to divide party lines. I don't think its an issue when financial interests are involved.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Yes, and...? "He is in the upper class", currently, better? Yes, I further explained that it could be a good or bad thing, depending on how you see. But, ok, we can disagree.I just don't see unions working for the benefit of their works anymore, it has lost that quality about it. I was a memeber of Local 349 of the IBEW in Miami, capital gain is the bottom line, not workers rights. Go to any union hall and ask how many 'qualified' guys are sitting waiting for work, then ask how many executives in the union are sitting down waiting for work? If they even give you an answer, you will see the difference. There are two sides to the unions, the corporate side, and the labor force. There is a significant difference between the sharing of the wealth between those sides.**This is just my opinon having seen it first hand. See answer above... We were talking specifically about unions, and Obamas support of them. Of course poverty is a bad thing, now you're arguing using propaganda tactics. It's like asking me, Don't you support our troops? Or, Whats wrong with patriotism? You can't argue against it. Like your statement, of course I don't think poverty is a good thing, but do you really think the unions are out to cure this epidemic? Equally, do you really think Obamas support of the unions is to help people in poverty?Really?! Ok... When they lose sight of basic human rights, it's wrong. When they lose sight of workers rights, then they are wrong. If financial gain is done at the expense of a financial down fall to a smaller groups, then it is wrong. When the financial gain bestows an enormous amount of power to one side, that in turn uses this power to manipulate governement for their benefit, they are wrong. I can go on, but I think you get the gist. I agree, that is the kind of propaganda tactic used to force peoples opinions. The same has been done with Social Security, saying that we should put the money into stocks because SS is "broken" and "we need to fix it". Once that propaganda gets out there there is a shift within the media to talk about it and get people involved, when SS is not broken, they just want to get that money into the market. Its all propaganda. Im just saying to question their motivation, thats all. I understand what you're asking, for certain issues conditions are made for minorities to champion their causes. What I am questioning is Obamas support for the unions, but I hope I was able to present my case for that with my answers above.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky