2008 United States Election

fileunderFound in Home
Sort by: Oldest  •  Newest  •  User

You know, it makes me sad and disapointed in 'Americans' that they can see and admit their government, and its representatives, have commited the Highest Crime there is - the only "Crime" defined by the US Constitution...but... they choose to ignore it and allow the government, and its representatives, to continue to commit these crimes as there are, "Larger issues" involved.

Well, there is only one issue here and that is Criminal, by any definition.  It is also "Your" government doing it, and it is doing it in "Your" name or by your authority.

I would be happy to prove every single bit of what I said, that these actions are Treason as defined by the US Court system and US Law - it is also the exact reason that the treason clause was added by Madison. I would also be happy to prove that the US Constitution and the rights and limits setout therein cannot be voided by any act, that is not treason. IE: It cannot be amended to void a right already defined. Both in law and caselaw dating back to times before 'america' was founded such actions are Treason. I will also show you the caselaw where the US Supreme court has said this since 1803. I will also show you where the people that wrote the constitution are "THE" authority to its definitions, and the US Supreme Court agrees.

Remember though that it will require you to read things, lots of things, and read resource material, such as:
DOJ and FBI crime statistic reports - IE: that show that there has been NO decrease in crime since the implementation of handgun ban's - in Washington DC as well as internationally in other countries. In fact the Washington DC Handgun ban has been in effect for over 30 years, and there has been NO decrease in crime in that area; in fact the states with the largest drop in crime rates have been the ones that have passed Concealed Handgun laws.

These things will teach you, without question, but you will not like them as you will realise that the 'mass media' event (so spoken of in the first posts here) are a lie, that you are not being told the truth, or worse you are only being told 1/2 the truth. You will also learn to think for yourself instead of what 'they' think you should think.  You will also learn to question things.  You will stop listening to CNN, FOX, or whatever media you currently listen to and it will not take long before you realize that they are lieing to everyone, and then you like a lot of others will stand on the outside and be amazed at what people will believe simply because the TV said so.

However I will not waste time in showing you this information if you will not read it, or take from it what you can learn.  I have wasted many years of my life attempting to teach the blind to paint, the deaf to play Vivaldi, and the average person to understand how their own government was created or "how it was soon parted from its original intent" (T. Jefferson).
Remember, that I will teach you nothing, you MUST learn it yourself but I will be happy to provide all the source material for you to do just that.
You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.


I guess we'll agree to disagree on some of that, Charon9.


On the topic of the actual primaries, the Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island primaries are today. If Obama wins, he has a good chance of winning the nomination. If Clinton wins, the race will go straight up to the Democratic Convention in the summer.


These Obama music videos were created by Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Pea's. More information can be found at www.yeswecansong.com and on the YouTube pages of the videos in the movie information section.



Clinton won in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama won in Vermont. The current totals are Obama at 1,515 and Clinton at 1,424. McCain now has over the 1,191 delegates needed to win, and is now officially the Republican nominee.


ah, stumbled onto this productwiki and wandered onto the forums :)

And now I'll needlessly voice on my views on the US election.

(BTW...this text box is acting funny whenever I press ENTER, it resets the view so the line I'm tying it at the bottom of my firefox window...is this intentional?)

Preface:  I'm a fairly libertarian person, so if I could, I would have voted for Ron Paul.  Yet he didn't get the nomination, and I'm a Canadian, so it's rather pointless :)  

I'll make a 2 main points about Obama.

1.  He is your run of the mill democrat in terms of policies:

There is very little in his platform that actually make him stand out.  As a matter of fact some of his policies are strange.  For example his promise to have seniors making under 50k not pay any tax.  How does this make sense?  Younger people are just starting out in life; definitely don't own a house  and might even have kids to take care of.  Yet, he promises this tax break for only seniors? 

2.  The hope people are putting in him is dangerous. 

I'm more concerned with this point actually.  I'm Indian, but I grew up in Africa and I've heard this kind of politician before.  Great speaches, able to rise the masses with promises of equality and the end of poverty.... let's just say it doesn't end well.  It's actually one of the reasons I admire Nelson Mandela.  He earned the freedom of his country and then left politics.  He didn't promise the world...only freedom.  This is not about black or white.  It's about people putting their faith in politicians to fix bad situations in an easy way.  It's this kind of mentality that led to Germans electing Hitler.  Germany was in bad shape post WW1.  Rather than deal with the realities of the country, they elected Hitler who promised a return to glory, jobs, pensions...  I'm not saying Obama is going to be this bad...but it's the mentality of people that is worrisome.

I can't even think of a single politician who promised people such things and actually delivered a good solution.

I doubt a libertarian candidate will ever get elected as too many people are dependent on government, but if we were to take a Canadian example:

I liked the chretien/martin years.  They were not at all inspirational, but they did what government is supposed to do...they got the job done.  They got the country's finances under control, reformed the pension system...

Contrast that with Canada's closest thing to Obama, Trudeau, who didn't bother to pay for any of his programs.  He just spent like a drunken sailor (debt from 24% GDP ot over 45% GDP) and acted in a very fascist way towards quebec.

This worshiping of politicians is also what gave George Bush his elections.  It just so happens he made great promises to those on the right.  We just needed to 'believe' in him to change the world...so much good that did.

So call me the guy who wants to vote the most boring but effective politician.  That's the only time I've seen politicians be effective.

If I had to vote for any of the US Candidates right now:  Obama, Hilary, or McCain... I would say they're all bad choices.  Yet, I would ultimately vote for McCain as he seems to promise the least and appears the most boring.

As I say...if you want inspiration...find Jesus/Allah/Bhudda.... leave the politicians out of it.

This post was edited by yaminb on 4/06/2008 1:20 AM


You seem like I was a few years back :)  Very hyped on liberty.  I don't know if you'd agree, but maybe this will add another perspective:

(My Shameless Plug) http://freedompages.wikidot.com/can-we-have-freedom

Well if we look around the world, there are not any 'free' countries. Some are freer than others of course :)
Some are free in economic ways (Singapore) but lack social freedoms.
Some are socially free, but not economically free.

The US constitution was arguably the most free constitution every written. There is no way the founding fathers of the USA would have permitted the kind of government involvement in the USA today. Income taxes? Drug wars? World police/Imperialism? Heck no.

So what do you do about it? I don't think the answer lies in political action. I don't think a 'freedom' party has ever been elected and done what it set out to do. Too much of the population is dependent on government in one way or another and demands their cut of the loot. Want to reform education=fight teachers. Want to reform drug laws=fight police/social conservatives. Want to reform income tax=go up against the poor and public sector as a whole. You'll never change society by changing the government.

Well, I've largely given up on political action. Sure, maybe we'll have a couple small reforms but nothing big.
Whereever you are, the government will be. Try a revolution, have no fear, the government will slowly take it over in a few generations. Just ask the French and the Americans who both had great revolution of liberty only to become some of the biggest governments in the world.

So what do you do then as a freedom loving person?
Just live your life as if you were free. Does your state prohibit smoking marijuana…do it anyways (without being stupid about it). With enough people doing it, eventually the law becomes redundant (just go to British Columbia in Canada to see this). You can live without the state's approval.

If you're gay, just live your life as a married gay person. Who cares about government rules? Just ignore them. Can you be just as happy without the official certificate from the government?

Mad about income taxes? I am too. But what can you do about it? Change your state of mind. Instead of thinking you make 100k, but only take home 60k, just think of your salary as 60k. I mean considering all the money manipulation and inflation and the fact that money is not backed by real assets anymore, just take your pay and maximize it.

This is not to say sometimes the state is so involved in your life that you cannot just 'ignore it'. In those cases, fight the good fight as best you can.

Am I sounding like a defeatist? Possibly. Yet it is reality.

This is going to sound like a strange analogy, but in a perverse way political freedom parties are like political Islam.
Political freedom parties promise liberty and a solution to many of the world's ills, but they can never do it right. Whenever they try it, it eventually fails…and fails horribly. USA, France, England…all had great revolutions for freedom of big government…they all eventually become big bad governments themselves.

In the same way, you see all these muslims in the middle east claiming political islam is the solution. In an ideal world, maybe it is. Islam will set them free from their oppresive governments in Egypt, Syria…. But whenever political Islam is put to action, slowly, but surely it is taken over by more and more oppression.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine… There is not a single example of the so-called glorious Islamic State.

Just as their is no example of the so-called 'free-state'.
Maybe there were brief period when such states existed, but they always…always…always…always end up in oppression.

So why not just stay where you are and fight the small political fights you can win; instead of dreaming of a fantasy that will not come to fruition.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong and just a defeatist…in that case, I'll come to whatever country you manage to achieve this freedom in.


Please forgive the shoddy and fast reply here, I am so very busy that you may not believe it.

Rez born - nonBIA here. So I catch it from both sides.
To give a little background for you. I had a history teacher who used to be a lawyer (of all the combo's). He enjoyed pointing out the inconsistencies in the history books, and the hugely debatable issues as well. He inspired me to do the things I am doing now, and have done as well.
I think he had the best plan. He was truly teaching us, and those few who would listen to him he gave as much information as we could handle. Note that he did not "tell us" this or that, he gave us the information so we could go learn it ourselves. I learned quickly that to understand "Law" and or "Politics" you had to study religion and a lot of history.
In any case I have been through the gambit on it; about 25 years now, and that one teacher is to blame!
I will not say you’re a defeatist, simply frustrated that nothing works would be more like it. It also does not help that people don't care as long as they don't have to stand in line too long, unless of course it directly affects them then they scream to high heaven about the injustice.
I agree there are no "Free" countries anymore, but we have to define "Free" I think. Absolute Freedom is the ability to do anything you want, unchained by morals or society (don't remember who said that) - so no, Freedom is anarchy - IE: no structure at all. Freedom within the context of society is the freedom to do anything you want as long as you do not cause harm to another in doing it.
I also agree with the US Constitution on its original design, IMHO some of the best minds worked out that document to create a government that was the best blend of a Representative Republic ever brought about. They did not invent it, admittedly, they stole it from other works that have been around for a very long time.
The people who designed it in fact did have a LOT to say on the shape it took after they were too old or out of the main-stream for it. All of this stuff is public info, the problem is it has not been made into a TV show so no one takes the time to read for themselves, check out http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/ (a collection of Jefferson's writings on constitutional issues).
I have read about half of Jefferson's library (all of his personal observations and letters), what I can find from Madison, and everything by Story (printed). 
Madison and Jefferson both said that they designed the US Government to be so cumbersome that it couldn't do these things, one of the largest reasons (ways) was to design provisions that there was no standing army so they (the USA) could not get involved in foreign wars (foreign intrigues, to quote Jefferson).
In any case however you are correct that the USA has become all that, and more (if you research the background stuff that does not make the news).
All of this was facilitated by the shift to Communism in the 1930's - the "people" were bribed with socialist programs to ensure it happened without a rebellion - a true bloodless rebellion if you will.
(Revolution - the process of thought brought on by a new ideal (Plato) / Rebellion - an upheaval in society or government that normally follows a revolution (Plato))
So, What to do about it...
First up you cannot change what is there, from the inside or by any normal action.  It was designed to be cumbersome and unwieldy for a reason, what they did not really foresee is the unwillingness of people to charge their leaders with the only crime they gave us against them; Treason. Or to take the other powers the people were given in hand and do something about it (Jury Nullification, it ended prohibition). Think of "Death by 1,000 cuts" and that is what all these small and almost insignificant violations have become.
I also agree that you are correct about society as a whole. You simply cannot raise children and teach them these things all their lives and expect them to behave any differently. Hitler and the Nazi's learned very fast that if you can get the children you have the parents, the only mistake they made was making these changes fast - america is smarter it is making them slowly. It adjusts their minds from not only school but from the #1 source, TV.
People think this is a "Three Branch Government" (the USA and its constitution) - However people cannot read, it is a Four Branch Government, with the first power listed first - "We The People" I think it was a mistake to not enumerate 'those powers' if you will. Jefferson and Story both had a lot to say on that, but what is done is done.
In any case (because this is getting long and not well written). In an idealistic world anything will work, but in reality people are mean, dirty, and self-centered - and that is the good people. Ask yourself if you have ever made an off the cuff racial slur, or other comments like that. I have, and it is not right.
I have had others tell me to pick my battles, and aim for the winnable fights. I ignored them. For many years people have told me that the battles I have chosen, the really big ones, are not winnable or even fightable - but I am today proving them wrong. I tried to 'win the small ones' but found out that you cannot change the little stuff when there is a bigger problem behind it, the small ones will fall in line with it.
I am not a defeatist, I also do not aim for the top of the tree when I know I can reach the top of the mountain, then I aim for the moon - because the mountain is something I know I can do.
Here is a story for you, you should know how this works (Being "Indian"):
In my front yard I have a HUGE pile of ants; they come in my house bite my feet and cause havoc. I have swatted a few but I have an all natural way to poison their food and kill the queen, so that is what I did.

I had to come back and add this as it was eating at me, another one of those blanket a$$'s stories if you will:

When I was in grade school (5th grade) I was part of the schools track and field team.  I was ok in most events, but really good at the long jump and relay.

In any case we were about to do our yearly qualifications for the long jump, and we had a new coach.  This coach came out there and put the qualification line three feet from the jump line - no joke, 3 feet - and said qualifications will now begin.  Needless to say every single person qualified as most of us could step over those two lines.  The coach said ok, 2nd round qualifications will now begin.  She then set the qualification line a good 75 feet from the jump line.  We screamed and hollered and complained etc..etc.. until she finally agreed to set it back to the normal 12 or 15 feet we had every year.  Before we jumped however she told us one simple rule, as long as we aim to only qualify (the 3 feet line) we will never jump as far as we could.  Those of us that did qualify asked her to remove the line completely that year, I came in 2nd (because I fell back) but even then I jumped further than I ever had before. Durring practice that year the coach kept a line at the olympic world record as our goal, we never reached it (I didn't even come close).  At the All City event that year, our school won the long jump.  Last years winner (A smug little rich brat) jumped about as far as he did the year before, Mark (our #1 guy) beat him by almost two feet.  I came in 4th or 5th, but I can still remember my final jump, the only thing I could see was that world record goal, not Mark's jump or anyone elses. Oh, and the year before that I didn't make the top 10.

I don't know how old you are, and I really don't think that matters a lot, but I do know over the last 45 years I have learned a lot of truth from those old stories - they stay around because you will realize some day that they are cold hard facts (irrelivant of age).  Giving yourself a known and reachable goal will make sure you qualify 4th or 5th for sure, setting those goals much higher than you know you can reach will move you up a few notches, you just may win - but you will set the goal higher for the next that tries in the least.


The Pennsylvania Rundown

So yesterday was the Pennsylvania primary. This didn't mean much for McCain, as he is already the presumptive nominee, however it could have ended the battle with the Dems between Hillary and Obama if Obama had won. Obama did not win. The vote was 55% Hillary, 45% Obama. The current delegate total is as follows:

Barack Obama - 1719

Clinton - 1586

Personal Political Views

I am pissed off. Unless Hillary gets 100% of the vote from now on, she is going to be behind Obama. She can not match his pleged delegates or popular vote. She needs the superdelegates to win. And the superdelegates are not going to go against the will of the voters, because they want to get re=elected again. All that Hillary is doing is hurting the Democratic party in general by constantly attacking Barack Obama. McCain doesn't have to do anything at all, Hillary doing all the fighting for him. If the Democrats lose in November, I'm blaming it on Clinton.

Barack Obama needs to win the Indiana and North Carolina when their primaries come up in two weeks. He's definitely got North Carolina, but currently he is behind in Indiana. If he manages to win both of these, the race is pretty much over. The same thing could have happened with Pennsylvania, but Obama couldn't pull it off. What's kind of annoying is that Obama has had some many chances to get the nomination in the bag, but hasn't quite pulled it off. After Iowa, Super Tuesday, the Texas/Ohio/Vermont primaries, Pennsylvania. It's not to say that Obama hasn't done well, he just hasn't won every state when it mattered the most. Hillary needs to drop out. I will not stand for McCain as our President.

Additionally, I watched Hillary Clinton on the Today show and Good Morning America this morning, and whenever they asked a question that mattered, such as questions about the negative nature of her campaign, and the fact she can't win in pleged delegates, she didn't actually answer. She evaded the question by talking about similar things, and then said that she actually had more individaul votes than Barack Obama, which is not true. Obama is up by about 500,000 in the popular vote. (14.8 to 14.3 million). The news anchors need to be harder on Clinton.


Man... I missed Charon's last 2 posts... very powerful stuff.

I was going to respond to add to dialup's post, but i'm gonna have to let Charon's sit for a bit and digest.

Just one note about the PA primaries: The actual spread is closer to 9% than 10%. Might not mean a lot in regards to delegates and all of that, by psychologically "double digits" means more than "single digits". Though this all goes back to Charon's point that it's all on the TV, and they're claiming 10%.


"Obama is up by about 500,000 in the popular vote. (14.8 to 14.3 million). The news anchors need to be harder on Clinton."

I'm sorry, I'm no backer of Clinton, but this is hardly a trouncing by Obama.

Total votes = 14.8 + 14.3 = 29.1 mil

Popular vote gap = 500k

%difference = 500k/29.1 mil = 1.7%


Give how weird the democratic nomination process is and the weirdness with Florida and Michigan, the superdelagates do have their work cut out of them.  I'm not doing the calculations for them, but if they do the math and find that for example clinton is ahead of obama in 'key' states then they might take that into account.

Throw in Michigan and Florida where some say Hilary would do better.  So I don't see any reason why Hilary shouldn't fight this out.  If you think Hilary is hurting Obama with whatever attacks she comes up with...consider it preparation for the real election when Obama faces republican attacks.  You could even be a positive.  Obama will have been attacked so much, by the time the republican machine starts attacking him, it will be old news.


Post Reply:

File Under: