I'm Voting For Romney

[Something completely different]

After reassessing my views on my "Americans, Do Not Vote" thread, it seems that I am going about things the wrong way. You guys are right: Obama is the better candidate, and Romney would surely screw things up. That's just it, though. He would leave America in shambles! That's exactly what we need to shock the public into having a revolution of sorts. In order for them to truly realize our political quagmire, they must first be awakened. Once they are ruined by the current establishment, the public will rebel, causing a shift in values. This shift will allow the population to gain a new perspective needed for positive change.

Therefore, I will do my small part and vote for Romney.

I know I sound a little extreme, but Americans need a wake up call. Sometimes, a little destruction is needed, before things can be rebuilt.



Who is with me?

4 years ago your nation was ruled by a bunch of men, who lied not only their own nation but also the netherlands, britain and poland into a war, for a cooperation - to gain the right on oilfields - which in the end they didn`t eaven get.
This bunch isolated your nation interantionaly by making it look like a bloodfirsty bunch of savages who would bomb everything that didn`t stop aside.
They ruined not only your nations, but the world economy.

And worst of all - they got away with it.

How much worse can it get?!?!?!
It was only 4 years ago, that this had ended and your countries people seem to have fallen into a collective case of amnesia.
No matter how much one party fucks up your nation - by the next election they will recreate their image.

One cant create a new patry on the bsis of the failure of others - one has to create it on the base of arguments of how to handel the current situation

[Brian37]

After reassessing my views on my "Americans, Do Not Vote" thread, it seems that I am going about things the wrong way. You guys are right: Obama is the better candidate, and Romney would surely screw things up. That's just it, though. He would leave America in shambles! That's exactly what we need to shock the public into having a revolution of sorts. In order for them to truly realize our political quagmire, they must first be awakened. Once they are ruined by the current establishment, the public will rebel, causing a shift in values. This shift will allow the population to gain a new perspective needed for positive change.

Therefore, I will do my small part and vote for Romney.

I know I sound a little extreme, but Americans need a wake up call. Sometimes, a little destruction is needed, before things can be rebuilt.



Who is with me?

4 years ago your nation was ruled by a bunch of men, who lied not only their own nation but also the netherlands, britain and poland into a war, for a cooperation - to gain the right on oilfields - which in the end they didn`t eaven get.
This bunch isolated your nation interantionaly by making it look like a bloodfirsty bunch of savages who would bomb everything that didn`t stop aside.
They ruined not only your nations, but the world economy.

And worst of all - they got away with it.

How much worse can it get?!?!?!
It was only 4 years ago, that this had ended and your countries people seem to have fallen into a collective case of amnesia.
No matter how much one party fucks up your nation - by the next election they will recreate their image.

One cant create a new patry on the bsis of the failure of others - one has to create it on the base of arguments of how to handel the current situation

If our voting public had long term thinking like Muslims and Jews republicans would have been out of power a long time ago. Unfortunately we have a WWE Reality Show memory span.

[paintpooper]

The REAL solution is to fix things at a local level, local governments and boycott/kick the federal government out, quit giving them legitimacy to govern us. Change must happen at the local level as the nation wide elections are filled with cheating and corruption.
What do you think the Civil war was about, slavery lol, according to fed dept of education sure.

[Autumnlicious]

The Civil War was about the right for states to secede in order to continue a criminal system of enslavement under the banner of "State's Rights".

But please, do go on about how local level is so much more pure/better than the federal gov't.

[Brian37]

The Civil War was about the right for states to secede in order to continue a criminal system of enslavement under the banner of "State's Rights".

But please, do go on about how local level is so much more pure/better than the federal gov't.

THANK THE FUCK OUT OF YOU!

I

---

The Civil War was about the right for states to secede in order to continue a criminal system of enslavement under the banner of "State's Rights".

But please, do go on about how local level is so much more pure/better than the federal gov't.

Thank the fuck out of you!

I have a third party friend on another website that falsely thinks that states rights would be the economic cure. I guess if you don't progress and stagnate in the past, slavery would work if that were the only thing funded by the state or federal government. Personally most agree that that war was llost.

I really hate this mantra of "government bad" but it is unfortunatly rivaled by the same absolutiism of "majority rule". If rights were dictated by the absolute rule of the majority or the minority, federal vs state, we a simple vote would be all it would take. Since that is not what we have then both sides would do better to focus not on "states vs federal" but on what would I want if I did not end up in the majority.

[paintpooper]

The Civil War was about the right for states to secede in order to continue a criminal system of enslavement under the banner of "State's Rights".

But please, do go on about how local level is so much more pure/better than the federal gov't.

Well that is not the true reason, so how can I compare. Why don't you tell me why the Fed is so much better then the PEOPLE at their local levels controlling their government because the PEOPLE is the government. The fed is not for the people by the people.

[Autumnlicious]

The true reason?

I take it simply letting states secede from the Union when they don't like the laws their brethren pass is supposed to be allowed?

Nullification and other of Calhoun's ideas died long ago. I find it funny that you'd choose to raise the spectre from the dead...

[The Grand Nudger]

The Civil War was about the right for states to secede in order to continue a criminal system of enslavement under the banner of "State's Rights".

But please, do go on about how local level is so much more pure/better than the federal gov't.

A decision driven in part by the disproportionate allocation of power (votes) based upon the number of slaves owned (something slaveholders didn't like the idea of giving up- which would be completely eradicated if slavery were eradicated, the three-fifths compromise being an earlier version of the same argument). Power, control, and wealth. Then of course, the north could not allow the south to leave the union, and lets not imagine that their reasons were pure as the driven snow.

[JohnDG]

I see your point, but my children... Believe me, I hate our system, loathe it, actually. If I didn't have kids, I'd be right there with you rioting in the streets. But it's the only system we've got. If we could just work within the system to get money and big business out of politics, I think we'd be okay. I think there's still a more peaceful way.

Trying to fight the system from inside will eventually corrupt you.

Spec is right in a way sort of, in the land of revolutions, considering how many revolutions we had up untill the 90's were in a sorry state. Every decade has had is revolutions and from what I've seen in my last 10 years of life is nothing... No changes only degradation, a people once famous for standing up are now chained down by entertainment. Like it or not spec is right and we need to revolutionize.

"Learn to live for revolution, instead of always dying for it." Immortal Tech

[Autumnlicious]

A decision driven in part by the disproportionate allocation of power (votes) based upon the number of slaves owned (something slaveholders didn't like the idea of giving up- which would be completely eradicated if slavery were eradicated, the three-fifths compromise being an earlier version of the same argument). Power, control, and wealth.

They had too good a deal. All the power, wealth and control concentrated to the slave holders, little left for the poor whites, and none for the slaves who were bred like dogs.

Yeah, I can see why any criminal would fight to keep it, and fight to keep their right to enslave, murder and abuse another human being.

Just because every shitstain, white trash and corrupt statesman was invested heavily in it didn't change the fact they tried to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

If anything, the above justifies Sherman's March to the Sea. He wasn't vicious enough, in my opinion.

If he was, perhaps the South wouldn't be so cavalier about trying to romance the confederate flag.

Then of course, the north could not allow the south to leave the union, and lets not imagine that their reasons were pure as the driven snow.

Self preservation comes to mind -- letting states secede sets a dangerous precedent. It may even allow a foreign power to bribe away the loyalties of an individual state from their neighbors to divide and conquer.