Sorry for posting this here, but if you would...

[gamer0004]

The holocaust, therefor, was actually a massive operation to forcibly deport Jews to Israel. And these camps were not gassing chambers, but delousing chambers. Thus the entire state of Israel is funded by the myth of a dying generation that they are "holocaust survivors".

I don't know who you are. I don't know what this discussion is about exactly except that it's some kind of conspiracy thread. But I can't let this go.
I'm shocked really that somebody can think this. The holocaust was real. It can hardly be denied. There are countless photographs, reports and documents showing that it existed. If the plan really was to get the Jews to Israel, they wouldn't have been killing them on such a grand scale. And again, the evidence is is so vast it is quite impossible to deny that so many Jews were killed.

In the Netherlands, we had a huge civilian registration (names, addresses, parents &c.). This included their belief. When the Germans conquered the Netherlands they used this registration to arrest Jews and transport them to concentration camps.
There were 140,000 people registered as Jews before WW2. After WW2, almost 102,000 of them simply didn't exist anymore. They didn't relocate to Israel, they simply WEREN'T ALIVE. That is, they were dead. Killed in concentration camps mostly.
The photographs and reports of what Allied soldiers found in concentration camps is a vast amount of evidence, complemented by the experiences of Jews who were in those camps and reports by their German guards and the whole infrastructure, which is in some cases still intact. Then there is the extraordinary amount of gas used to murder Jews and the bureaucratic reports on the whole organisation. And don't forget the mass graves (though attempts were made at cremating the bodies, the ovens simply did not have enough capacity so many bodies were simply dumped into mass graves).

One could, as a thought experiment, deny the holocaust, but the inevitable consequence would be that you could deny all of human history, since the holocaust is one of the most well documented historical case ever. If you deny the holocaust, then I can deny the fact that the Industrial Revolution happened and claim it was aliens who built our current infrastructure. That would be about equally correct.

[DaveW]

Regarding conspiracy theories - why is it that when someone believes one, they have to believe everything sites like infowars tell them? For example, say you 'find evidence' (i.e. read on the internet somewhere) that 9/11 was an inside job. What then makes you believe that the government is spraying chemicals in the air, JFK was a CIA job amd Obama is a Kenyan muslim who wants to destroy America?

I just don't think I've ever met anyone who believes one conspiracy theory. It's all or nothing. Human stupidity is impressive sometimes.

[Neveos]

I'm shocked really that somebody can think this. The holocaust was real. It can hardly be denied. There are countless photographs, reports and documents showing that it existed. If the plan really was to get the Jews to Israel, they wouldn't have been killing them on such a grand scale. And again, the evidence is is so vast it is quite impossible to deny that so many Jews were killed.

You only think that, because that is what you are told. You have not examined that evidence. Once one does, one is inescapably left in doubt, at the very least. If you feel so strongly about maintaining the story of the holocaust against revisionists, then please allow the opposition to present their case:

Jewish revisionist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ugVxGQ_sKc

Regarding evidence and feasibility of story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzBpcuE8mpc

Regarding testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GgRWuXcO8

I hope you will be able to watch them where you live. Really, the fact that you wouldn't be able to should throw up a red flag.

Honestly, you must be willing to listen to the opposition before you go vilifying them. We've all played Deus Ex, here, and what did that teach us about enemies of authority?

One could, as a thought experiment, deny the holocaust, but the inevitable consequence would be that you could deny all of human history

It is not denial. It is revisionism. The holocaust happened. It just didn't happen the way we're told. 9/11 happened, it just didn't happen the way we're told.

If you deny the holocaust, then I can deny the fact that the Industrial Revolution happened and claim it was aliens who built our current infrastructure. That would be about equally correct.

Well it is now admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation to get America into Vietnam. As painful as it may be to tell a parent of a fallen soldier that their child was killed over a lie, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Truly, present day conspiracies have origins from massive lies being told since the fall of the kings of Europe in the 1700s. Central banking is easily traced back that far, with the rise of the Rothschild family: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

[Neveos]

Regarding conspiracy theories - why is it that when someone believes one, they have to believe everything sites like infowars tell them?

Actually infowars won't even touch things like Zionist conspiracy theories. They aren't really universally under infowars, either. Infowars is kinda like Joe Green from DX. It is disinfo. Not because he is a shill agent, but because he is a "useful idiot", as we call them.

For example, say you 'find evidence' (i.e. read on the internet somewhere) that 9/11 was an inside job. What then makes you believe that the government is spraying chemicals in the air, JFK was a CIA job amd Obama is a Kenyan muslim who wants to destroy America?

I just don't think I've ever met anyone who believes one conspiracy theory. It's all or nothing. Human stupidity is impressive sometimes.

Well, you tell me what happens when one conspiracy theory becomes true:

I can pull apart Obama's birth certificate in photo-shop. Yet nothing has happened to him since he released it. A lot of people cannot do this next part:

what does that imply about:

Obama
the FBI
the CIA
the NSA
Homeland Security
the media
the republican party
the democratic party
the supreme court
international media
international governments
who controls nuclear weapons

etc.

[Neveos]

Human stupidity is impressive sometimes.

Actually, conspiracy theory is less generous to the human intellect. Official stories are more generous. "How could so many people be fooled?"

CTs believe a select few are completely relying on people being blind and apathetic to what they are capable of doing.

[DaveW]

I can pull apart Obama's birth certificate in photo-shop. Yet nothing has happened to him since he released it. A lot of people cannot do this next part:

Oh god, you fell for that?

It's called OCR - look it up. Commercial scanners attempt to make text legible by sharpening text - this creates layers of the original document and enhanced text. Anyone who has used a commercial scanner post-2005 would know this, and anyone with a bit of common sense would come to the same conclusion.

My questions to you, and I'm genuinely curious:

1) How did you learn of the birth certificate 'forgery'?
2) Did you attempt to do any original research into disproving what you heard? (Note- reading conspiracy websites or watching videos on Youtube does not count)
3) Does the opinion of every independent expert asked on the subject (who, you know, would probably notice something as obvious as 'forgetting to turn the layers off' - if that was evidence of a forgery) mean anything to you?
4) If not, why not? Do you consider them all as 'part of the conspiracy' or having some kind of vested interest?
5) Seeing the above, and knowing that you were wrong, will you admit as such or will you continue to believe it's a forgery?

One more, sort of broader - why are you inclined to believe that Obama is not who he says he is?

[DDL]

The hilarious thing about the birth certificate story is that they seem to be implying that it's a photoshop.

Seriously.

"Hello, I am one of the most powerful men on the planet, apparently placed here by a shadowy organisation, and I am apparently planning to fake my birth certificate. Rather than using the massive resources available to me to actually MAKE A NEW FUCKING BIRTH CERTIFICATE, I will just poorly 'shop in some text onto an existing certificate."

The same applies to every one of these conspiracies: if they are conspiracies, they are SHITTY conspiracies. It seems utterly peverse to ascribe almost unlimited power and resources to these shadowy people and implicate them in such a huge range of events, while simultaneously demonstrating quite how fucking incompetent they apparently are.

Of course, if you read into most of these, you find that for the most part it's not that the 'conspirators' have made a mistake, it's that "it wasn't a mistake in the first place, and the conspiracy theorists are just grasping at anything that validates their worldview, and either not fact-checking, or hoping that others won't fact-check".

[~DJ~]

Regarding conspiracy theories - why is it that when someone believes one, they have to believe everything sites like infowars tell them? For example, say you 'find evidence' (i.e. read on the internet somewhere) that 9/11 was an inside job. What then makes you believe that the government is spraying chemicals in the air, JFK was a CIA job amd Obama is a Kenyan muslim who wants to destroy America?

I just don't think I've ever met anyone who believes one conspiracy theory. It's all or nothing. Human stupidity is impressive sometimes.

that's exactly my thoughts.
I'd believe about the 9/11 "conspiracies" because it just doesn't add up to be honest. No offense.

[Neveos]

I can pull apart Obama's birth certificate in photo-shop. Yet nothing has happened to him since he released it. A lot of people cannot do this next part:

Oh god, you fell for that?

It's called OCR - look it up. Commercial scanners attempt to make text legible by sharpening text - this creates layers of the original document and enhanced text. Anyone who has used a commercial scanner post-2005 would know this, and anyone with a bit of common sense would come to the same conclusion.

If OCR, then why doesn't the document allow the text to be edited? I have scanned using OCR software, and its primary function is to recognize text in the document to make it available for editing. I suppose you are positing that it, for some reason, decided to neglect this functionality, and instead only "sharpen" the text upon scanning it. And this is to account for the, not 1, but 6 to 8 other layers of this document. Such functionality is hardly considered OCR software, and is probably a hashed argument that everyone is desperately clinging to in order to make this what it isn't.

Consider: If "sharpening text" is the function of this program, then what criteria did it use?

Why did it not recognize around 30 perfectly legible characters?
Why did it recognize signatures?
Why did it recognize bloches?
Why did the reproduced text still suffer blotching from type writer print if it is reproducing the print for legibility (cutting letters in half)?

Now, I'm already predicting your next explanation, but let's agree, it is not OCR software, and therefore your first rebuttal is incorrect. I must suggest that anyone willing to debate the issue of whether this is fake via technical means must actually watch this press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1wiGDYPALI

Also, you may hear college professors harp about referencing wikipedia, but it is especially the case for conspiracy theorists. Anyone who attempts to reveal a conspiracy theory in a wikipedia article gets shut down due to lack of credibility, and if the conspiracy theorist can find credible sources, the entry quickly becomes marginalized or directed elsewhere. There are always droves of credible sources ready to back up the official story.

My questions to you, and I'm genuinely curious:

1) How did you learn of the birth certificate 'forgery'?

I keep up with conspiracy theory sites, and videos were already springing up showing the layers of document. I then downloaded the document, and saw it for myself.

2) Did you attempt to do any original research into disproving what you heard? (Note- reading conspiracy websites or watching videos on Youtube does not count)

It is quite apparent to me, from having to explain how OCR software was not applied, that it is you who did not do any research into disproving what you heard. I will not go so far as to say you simply googled for your rebuttal, but I do not believe you bothered to analyze these layers. I feel as though you are projecting, and or committing an ad hominem fallacy by attacking my character. Such is the tactic of a weak position.

3) Does the opinion of every independent expert asked on the subject (who, you know, would probably notice something as obvious as 'forgetting to turn the layers off' - if that was evidence of a forgery) mean anything to you?

I don't understand your sentence, but assuming you meant "Do experts backing up the official story not sway your opinion?" Well, judging from how you gave your rebuttal, I would hold many experts suspect. It is not uncommon for experts to back up an official story, as it is the safest intellectual position position for them, and they would not be considered experts if they did not have a track record for being recognized as such.... which simply does not happen when you oppose people with infinite influence.

4) If not, why not? Do you consider them all as 'part of the conspiracy' or having some kind of vested interest?

The rebuttal that conspiracy is attached to the underlings, even unto the janitors of a building, is a very poor straw man argument. The term is "compartmentalization". If you've ever had a job, you would know what this is like. People tell you to do things, they don't have to tell you why, you either do them and keep the job, or you don't, and you end up on the street looking for a new one. Never ask why, and you're lookin at a promotion.

5) Seeing the above, and knowing that you were wrong, will you admit as such or will you continue to believe it's a forgery?

Ha. I'm pretty sure, now, you have not even looked at the layers of this document.

One more, sort of broader - why are you inclined to believe that Obama is not who he says he is?

I voted for him. I really looked forward to his presidency. I became a little suspicious when he backed up the 9/11 story. I became incredibly suspicious when he bailed out the banks as a plan for economic stimulus during massive national debt. The money he gave was enough to give every person in the US 16,000 dollars. He also failed to end the war and bring the troops home. He also signed the NDAA which allowed the executive branch to indefinitely detain and torture and kill US citizens on US soil. He also signed HR 347 which makes it a felony to protest in the presence of a government official or politician guarded by the Secret Service.

In fact, it is actually overwhelmingly obvious that there is a conspiracy at this point.

[Neveos]

The hilarious thing about the birth certificate story is that they seem to be implying that it's a photoshop.

Seriously.

"Hello, I am one of the most powerful men on the planet, apparently placed here by a shadowy organisation, and I am apparently planning to fake my birth certificate. Rather than using the massive resources available to me to actually MAKE A NEW FUCKING BIRTH CERTIFICATE, I will just poorly 'shop in some text onto an existing certificate."

Given the layers present, it would appear it was actually being pieced together, bit by bit, by an expert, in order to make the inconsistencies of the document even throughout. This would account for the white "ghosting" effect wherein the green safety paper background is missing around the text, and why some of the text, including signatures, is cut in half. It is assumed that the job was never finished, and the current draft was rushed out. Why? (Donald Trump) And, well, you over-estimate their willingness to, not only add people into the cabal (which is just overwhelmingly dangerous), but ability to keep such people under control. You are at a contradiction when you claim the powers that be are too stupid for conspiracies, and yet the conspiracies themselves are the product of stupidity. In fact, yes, the powers that be are stupid, and feel as though they can get away with anything, because they usually do.

The same applies to every one of these conspiracies: if they are conspiracies, they are SHITTY conspiracies. It seems utterly peverse to ascribe almost unlimited power and resources to these shadowy people and implicate them in such a huge range of events, while simultaneously demonstrating quite how fucking incompetent they apparently are.

They do have nuclear weapons, infinite money, and all the most criminal knowledge you could imagine. But they are like the Wizard of Oz. Good enough to put on the show: "The planes hit the towers and the towers came down, and we found Mohammed Atta's passport on the street corner."

So you can see they ignore the technicalities, because are relying on the vast majority of people who don't know the technicalities. They hire specialists, but the ones concocting the plans aren't specialists themselves... so it ends up looking like a cartoon... getting the story across, ignoring the physics and feasibility involved.

Of course, if you read into most of these, you find that for the most part it's not that the 'conspirators' have made a mistake, it's that "it wasn't a mistake in the first place, and the conspiracy theorists are just grasping at anything that validates their worldview, and either not fact-checking, or hoping that others won't fact-check".

oh rofl m a o

[DDL]

Right, but...why not just fill out a birth certificate, and scan that?

I mean, it's a fucking SCAN OF A DOCUMENT, right? There is no need to spend hours getting an expert to photoshop an image (an expert who then somehow forgets to 'merge layers' before finishing, no less -your tax dollars at work, peeps!), when you can just make the document, because you are the fucking ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT, and then scan it. Blank birth certificates in paper form are not exactly uncommon, after all.

You're basically ascribing unlimited power to these people, and then attempting to demonstrate that they never ever actually use that power in any fashion other than in "a hamfisted manner which fuels conspiracy theorists". If anything, your theories (if they were valid) would simply prove that the goverment loves trolling conspiracy theorists. Claiming that they're omnipotent but incompetent (JUST incompetent enough to always get away with it, except for those few 'enlightened souls' who can see through their lies) is just...well, a palpably silly worldview. It invokes far far too many totally unprovable entities to be rational.

Moving on.

I voted for him. I really looked forward to his presidency. I became a little suspicious when he backed up the 9/11 story. I became incredibly suspicious when he bailed out the banks as a plan for economic stimulus during massive national debt. The money he gave was enough to give every person in the US 16,000 dollars. He also failed to end the war and bring the troops home. He also signed the NDAA which allowed the executive branch to indefinitely detain and torture and kill US citizens on US soil. He also signed HR 347 which makes it a felony to protest in the presence of a government official or politician guarded by the Secret Service.

Bear in mind that NOT bailing out the banks would result in the entire financial system effectively collapsing. Also, it's not the same as giving every person in the US 16k, because it's YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's the difference between "using your predicted future earning potential to prevent collapse of the system which is keeping you supplied with wealth currently", and "using your predicted future earning potential to give you money now, and who gives a fuck if this destroys the economy".

If the banks weren't bailed out, then everyone would've lost everything. In effect, everyone already HAD lost everything. The ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET was trillions of dollars in debt. I cannot stress how simultaneously hilarious and depressing this is. The global economy was accelerating ahead of its actual potential, based on hypothetical cash dividends from loans that it subsequently transpired were worthless.

So at the point of the bank meltdown, you need to understand: the money was already gone. Fucked. Most of it was never even THERE in the first place, but the economy acted as if it were, leading to increased wages, economic growth, cheaper commodities etc. The entire planet had accrued an economic debt by..in effect, borrowing trillions from itself, then defaulting on the loan. It's as if you were to go "hey, me: can I have fifty bucks? I'll pay you back later!", then run off and spend that 50, and then when you asked yourself for it back, say "nope! Fuck you, me!".

This almost works with two parties. With one party? Not so much.

So the bailout essentially represents the entire US paying off the loan NOW, in exchange for taking out another (more studiously observed) loan based on the future taxes of the entire population: it's your future money, basically.

So we have this situation:

"Hey, um..all that money you were spending? Turns out it wasn't really there, so..uh, you're now heavily in debt. Sorry."

The difference between "bailout" and "not bailout" is

"We've set up a scheme to cover the debts gradually over future earnings, so everything continues as it was before, albeit you have to tighten your belt"

vs

"Yeah, so..you have no money. None. Nobody does. Whelp, good luck with that! It's been fun! Bye."



There really wasn't an alternative. It doesn't matter whether the banks deserved to be bailed out or not: they fucked up, yes. They fucked up horribly, yes. They'd collapse because of that fuckup, yes. But they'd drag us all down with them. To stop EVERYONE being fucked, it was necessary to cover for their fuckups. It's not fair, certainly. It's ridiculous, certainly. But it was nevertheless necessary, because the alternative was worse. When you have to choose between shooting yourself in the foot and shooting yourself in the dick, the foot loses every damn time.



Moving on.

The iraq war is effectively over. The troops are home.

The afgan war is tailing off, the troops are coming home.

Which war are we talking about here?


Now I'm not saying that everything Obama has done has been perfect, but seriously: you'd've preferred McCain? Hahahahahha.

In the US you basically only ever have a choice between "Rightwing warmongers", "Centre/left warmongers", and (if you want to waste that precious vote) "outright raving lunatics".

It's democracy, and democracy pretty much means you'll be perpetually disappointed with your government. The best you can do is pick the person who appears most competent, and least disappointing. By that metric, Obama scores incredibly highly.

[Jonas]

It's democracy, and democracy pretty much means you'll be perpetually disappointed with your government. The best you can do is pick the person who appears most competent, and least disappointing. By that metric, Obama scores incredibly highly.

It's not just democracy, it's ridiculously poorly designed first-past-the-post democracy. Stop using it! Yeah you too, Britain. It's a shit system!

Here, let me solve most of the problems with your democracy:

1. Switch to unicameralism
2. Use the D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë method to assign seats
3. Implement free education for everyone

Done.

[Neveos]

Right, but...why not just fill out a birth certificate, and scan that?

I mean, it's a fucking SCAN OF A DOCUMENT, right? There is no need to spend hours getting an expert to photoshop an image (an expert who then somehow forgets to 'merge layers' before finishing, no less -your tax dollars at work, peeps!), when you can just make the document, because you are the fucking ENTIRE U.S. GOVERNMENT, and then scan it. Blank birth certificates in paper form are not exactly uncommon, after all.

Babies pop out 'round the clock. They needed the signatures, and the stamps to be consistent. If you watch the conference (I know it is unfair to ask you to spend hours watching stuff like this, but THEY'RE IMPORTANT), they couldn't even find a "1980" stamp for Obama's selective service card, so they took a "2008" stamp, cut it in half, and flipped it upside down to make an "80", and re-inserted it into the clip. The other stamps are all 4 digit. The cold case posse was able to prove this was used because it explained why the "80" was out of position in relation to the other characters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJv3N8C ... re=related

You're basically ascribing unlimited power to these people, and then attempting to demonstrate that they never ever actually use that power in any fashion other than in "a hamfisted manner which fuels conspiracy theorists". If anything, your theories (if they were valid) would simply prove that the goverment loves trolling conspiracy theorists. Claiming that they're omnipotent but incompetent (JUST incompetent enough to always get away with it, except for those few 'enlightened souls' who can see through their lies) is just...well, a palpably silly worldview. It invokes far far too many totally unprovable entities to be rational.

I mean, I must admit. CTs are asking this question. Alex Jones thinks it is some sort of flaunt of their power, to break our will and show us that no matter how obvious a conspiracy, it will amount to nothing. I tend to think there is more to it:

They are stupid, like I said, and they think they can hash it out and get away with it. Which they are doing.

They are limited, and things are difficult for them, so they trip. (this is actually very likely considering that the ratio of "useful idiot" to "shill" is like 100:1... something like a birth certificate forgery can't be delegated to the powerhouse they have made out of useful idiots.)

They are getting "weaker", considering the internet has allowed us to update each other validate and link strong information to eachother, and they struggle with this.

In a speech in 2009, Zbigniew Brzezinski elaborated, "...in early times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is INFINITELY easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2HCcjIyPyg

But you should look at the credulity of your position, here. You are now willing to think the government is actually fooling us, that it is actually committing fraud, but in order to laugh at conspiracy theorists? All the while not suspecting that Obama might be lying. You must see the stubbornness of your position.

I voted for him. I really looked forward to his presidency. I became a little suspicious when he backed up the 9/11 story. I became incredibly suspicious when he bailed out the banks as a plan for economic stimulus during massive national debt. The money he gave was enough to give every person in the US 16,000 dollars. He also failed to end the war and bring the troops home. He also signed the NDAA which allowed the executive branch to indefinitely detain and torture and kill US citizens on US soil. He also signed HR 347 which makes it a felony to protest in the presence of a government official or politician guarded by the Secret Service.

Bear in mind that NOT bailing out the banks would result in the entire financial system effectively collapsing. Also, it's not the same as giving every person in the US 16k, because it's YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's the difference between "using your predicted future earning potential to prevent collapse of the system which is keeping you supplied with wealth currently", and "using your predicted future earning potential to give you money now, and who gives a fuck if this destroys the economy".

If the banks weren't bailed out, then everyone would've lost everything. In effect, everyone already HAD lost everything. The ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET was trillions of dollars in debt. I cannot stress how simultaneously hilarious and depressing this is. The global economy was accelerating ahead of its actual potential, based on hypothetical cash dividends from loans that it subsequently transpired were worthless.

So at the point of the bank meltdown, you need to understand: the money was already gone. Fucked. Most of it was never even THERE in the first place, but the economy acted as if it were, leading to increased wages, economic growth, cheaper commodities etc. The entire planet had accrued an economic debt by..in effect, borrowing trillions from itself, then defaulting on the loan. It's as if you were to go "hey, me: can I have fifty bucks? I'll pay you back later!", then run off and spend that 50, and then when you asked yourself for it back, say "nope! Fuck you, me!".

lol, you're always funny.

I'm not going to touch this issue, because, as you can see yourself, it is a clusterfuck of bullshit. Anyway, what you are actually displaying, is the absurdity of the official explanation for the global debt crisis. Things like everyone being in debt to one's self. Or a whole network of debt between countries mathematically incapable of paying eachother off. Typical output of trading ever-escalating forms of intangible assets, betting on bets, pushing the buck, never seeing enough of the picture to realize everyone else is somehow doing it too...

It sounds like you would like this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk

The iraq war is effectively over. The troops are home.

True.

The afgan war is tailing off, the troops are coming home.

I'm sure you choked on this one. He sent a troop surge, for some reason, and they are still there, in this useless country, now 11 years in, with OBL dead and gone. I don't even think CTs understand why at this point other than strategic positioning. Others have suggested lithium, but I don't always buy the resource control thing.

Which war are we talking about here?

Libya war. Obama's military activities have become covert/and or infused with international bodies. Small? No. These are CIA brand wars. Entire regime changes. Assassinated leaders. Coups of government. Admitted NATO involvement in use of force in Libya, the murder of Qaddafi. Arab spring led to wide spread violence in the streets, some of it good, some of it for devious purposes. Syria and Iran are now in the crosshairs. Mild involvement in middle eastern affairs we have not. The "war on terror" has been continued by the Obama administration, prompting even his staunchest supporter to call him a murderer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCjX7KPfguI

Of course, Ron Paul's take on this is hilarious.

Now I'm not saying that everything Obama has done has been perfect, but seriously: you'd've preferred McCain? Hahahahahha.

The big lol is that you think there is a difference. Even bigger is that you'd think a conspiracy theorist who already admitted he voted for Obama would think that. This interview with this eye-witness film director would probably blow your mind.

In the US you basically only ever have a choice between "Rightwing warmongers", "Centre/left warmongers", and (if you want to waste that precious vote) "outright raving lunatics".

It's democracy, and democracy pretty much means you'll be perpetually disappointed with your government. The best you can do is pick the person who appears most competent, and least disappointing. By that metric, Obama scores incredibly highly.

[Neveos]

It's democracy, and democracy pretty much means you'll be perpetually disappointed with your government. The best you can do is pick the person who appears most competent, and least disappointing. By that metric, Obama scores incredibly highly.

It's not just democracy, it's ridiculously poorly designed first-past-the-post democracy. Stop using it! Yeah you too, Britain. It's a shit system!

Here, let me solve most of the problems with your democracy:

1. Switch to unicameralism
2. Use the D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë method to assign seats
3. Implement free education for everyone

Done.

The US is a democratic republic. Which means it elects representatives. Popular votes almost always select a second tier of voters, and then those voters vote on people who run things. All the while, the individuals who "run things" aren't allowed to do anything which would breach the rights of individuals set forth by the bill of rights in the constitution.

The point of the founding fathers was that there would be no government, or as little government as possible. A peaceful anarchy. America was never intended to be referred to by it's government, as it was supposed to be a sort of play pen with rules that everyone agreed to play by. That's what all this "free and independent" stuff is all about.

[Jonas]

Like I said. A shit system.