Bing! We have a winner! Gore totally pussed out. Sure, things were corrupt as hell from top to bottom also, but Gore just lubed our collective a-hole for the ramrodding of the century. Ouch.landrvr1 wrote:Bush won Round 1 because GORE WAS AN ABSOLUTE FUCKING PUSSY WHO SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT THAT FUCKING RULING TIL THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE STREETS AND HEADS ROLLING. My God. He didn't even try. Not even a little.
I want to believe in Obama, but he looks worse and worse to me every day. Sure he's against the war in Iraq, but his foreign policy advisers (Brzezinski et al) are awfully concerned with Russia and the Balkans. Brzezinski was involved in the US drawing the USSR into Afghanistan, much as similar minded folks today are doing with Georgia. The arms and training we sold to the Afghani's sure ended up biting us in the ass on 9-11 huh? Which in turn led to the war in Iraq, and another war in Afghanistan. See how these cycles work?
Clinton was so great...I admit things sure felt better then, but he was bombing the hell out of other countries at the time, advancing an imperialist agenda, signed NAFTA, and did very little to reverse our desperate financial situation. The economic policies undergirding the Clinton administration (and every administration for the past century) are the foundation of the economic problems we have today. Meanwhile, everyone forgot what a piece of shit Bush I was, and allowed Bush II to get close enough to the presidency to steal it.
Obama represents "progressivism" which is the old idea that the government is best suited for taking care of everyone. Humans just won't help each other out unless the government is there to take everyone's money and spend it as it sees fit. Sure, that may mean spending $700 BILLION a year on defense in the process, but hey the government knows whats best right?
To me, if Obama really represented "change", he would be talking about dismantling the system of corporate welfare, dismantling the federal reserve (which creates the inflation we are experiencing now!), drastically reducing US military presence around the planet, and using the hundreds of billions of dollars saved each year to pay off all the debts, and increase education, health-care, etc in the US.
Instead he seems to be talking about petty financial changes, moving the wars to other locales, and instituting more costly social programs with little realistic means of funding. No real issues are addressed here. I can't support either candidate without compromising what I believe, so I'm probably not gonna vote at all.

