StarGateWars Forums

Thriller wrote:NO, you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. The fact you believe people voted for obama be out of pity shows that your extremely naive. You should listen more, research things more, and not expect the brain dribble you spew out to be taken as a point for sensible discussion.

What he said!

And to I am thor, I suppose that if John Edwards was for some reason the winner, it wouldn't have been for pity/feel good I'm sure?
If another candidate had EXACT same program and ideas as Obama, but was white, it would be for his program, isn't it? (didn't say she as it could also be vote for "pity", who knows? >_< )

God, those double standards based on skin are really annoying me... >_<

corporate sponsors, sponsor both sides in a campaign and you guys still think you have a choice who takes office?
it doesn't matter if the man is black, white, pink yellow or if its even a female, the fact that the same sponsors are sponsoring all sides should tell you all you need to know...

better to keep your tunnel vision glasses on and think obama means change, he will bring change but not the change your all hoping for!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:corporate sponsors, sponsor both sides in a campaign and you guys still think you have a choice who takes office?
it doesn't matter if the man is black, white, pink yellow or if its even a female, the fact that the same sponsors are sponsoring all sides should tell you all you need to know...

better to keep your tunnel vision glasses on and think obama means change, he will bring change but not the change your all hoping for!

yah, yah,first hillary was bringer of the Apocalypse, now obama.

I'm pretty sure you guaranteed me Hillary was going to win... a while back during the election, what happened there?

i don't remember saying she would 100% guaranteed win, i could be mistaken, cant remember and cant be arsed to go look.
i remember saying i wouldn't be surprised if she won, but as i said, i could be mistaken...

tbh, does it really matter who is in the office when all sides are bought and payed for by the same people?

you should thank your lucky stars, you yanks at least have the illusion of a fair and equal opportunity election...we in England got lumbered with an unelected PM, a person that no ones liked from day 1

I can really see how Obama is going to be unactive given what he already started after about 2 monthes...

All the same they are isn't it?...LOL!

And to be honest the only bringer of apocalypse that existed in those elections was McCain's VP...oh and Ron Paul but he was bound to fail lol

please explain to me how Ron Paul would have been "the bringer of the apocalypse" had he won the election?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:please explain to me how Ron Paul would have been "the bringer of the apocalypse" had he won the election?

Not the apocalypse of the world...more apocalypse of good sense, USA's credibility, and structuration state..

meh, in other words, its a joke...ok, cool, whatever.



guys, i want to ask you all a couple things...

how can you lot STILL have faith in a system which has failed so consistently, and i would go as far to say...has never worked...EVER?

well maybe it works just fine for those at the top, and its doing exactly what its sposed to do


and let me just as this...why the hell does everyone refer to the US as a democracy? America has NEVER been a democracy, its a flaming republic, always has been...unless the declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution are figments of my imagination???
anyways, ANY and ALL officials (including the prez), or those working in the media should be hung by the short and curlys as traitors for calling the US a democracy (and any member of the general public who calls the US a democracy SERIOUSLY needs educating), they are supposed to be the best and brightest (dunno about the bush bloodline) America has to offer and yet they don't know what type of system they are living under

there is a world of difference between a democracy and a republic and i for one think the democratic form of government is no better than a dictatorship.

there is no problem with calling the US a free society, just don't call it a democracy.

The USA is a democratic society that uses the republic system of government. There is no contradiction in that and it is quite fair to call the US system of governance a democracy, especially if you call what the UK or most of the Eu has a democracy

so thats why the US is called a republic...because its a democracy...that makes sense...

sorry for the sarcasm, but as far as i am aware, the founding fathers of the US detested the very word "Democracy".

true, or am i wrong?

been a democratic society has nothing to do with how you are governed, it is more a state of mind of your populace & the US populace like most of western Europe have a democratic mindset.

You knwo even rome was refered to at the time by its own senators as a democratic society dont you??

Society != government

Well well...

Republic wrote:# democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

Democracy wrote:# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

I wanted to say this but felt quoting Princeton dictionary would be faster for me lol

the dictonary is not the initial meaning of a word only the most common use of said word

if you want to get picky about it only the greeks had a true (to the original sense of the word) democracy the current Democracies and republics found world wide are the mutant children of there idea but not true democracies

as for obama all he's doing is nationalising the US one step at a time while selling it to China but it's defenatly change

Well there was an attempt that failed to sell a port to Saudi Arabia few years ago, or so I was told..
So it wouldn't be new, although I'm sure he'll not do that.
I see you americans have a great skill to diabolize things.

hey i'm not an american i'm a proud Aussie

and to be honest i cant say china owning the US would be a bad thing while the us may not be selling the land directly almost all of the current US debt (not to mention Australian English and others) is in chinas hands and currently china are buying up power and mineral rights all over the world. combine this with the world wide bailouts which mean the governments own large portions of companys and you have china gaining control

prehaps even the start of KMA's NWO