'Leaders of the free world'...

oioioi wrote:
Pay attention ibaster you might learn something :p

Then again as the guy says in the vid, I seriously doubt it.

Just to emphasise:

You have to speak to fifty American voters on average before you come into contact with one that didn't vote for Obama or Romney.

He is paraphrasing exactly what Jesus said.

But not without shaping it to his own POV.

This is a sermon.

Game on.

Any takers?

mikey mikey wrote:
Its exactly what Jesus intended.
He was an anarchist in my book. Romans XIII etc came long after.

Anybody on the internet who thinks they know about me and my motivations and views, without actually listening/reading to my words, is a bit presumptuous.

If this topic was aimed at me in particular then it would have probably been best placed in a pm. I don't think it was though. If you really knew me then you would perhaps not be making assumptions about me.

I don't agree with everything in the video or with the claim that people who vote are cattle. We could discuss it like adults but not on this forum.

i-baster wrote:
You are correct.

i-baster wrote:
I'm going off the pro establishment view you've put forward thus far.

i-baster wrote: I think cattle is putting it a bit strongly, and I don't like that sort of description myself.

I would, however, describe voting for the two corporate candidates that are put up for the great unwashed to give the illusion of choice as staggeringly, stupefyingly naive. It also displays a complete ignorance of the society around you, not to mention what actually occurs in the political process. Finally, it gives indication to the establishment that whatever they do, no matter how bad things get, you will turn out and keep supporting them.

The above applies to 49 out of 50 American voters, so although I don't like to use the word 'cattle' or 'sheep', one can understand why they get used.

Just in case there's any confusion, the above is all equally applicable to Britain.

I think the vid's really well worded and makes an excellent point.

The only thing I'd disagree with is the hostility aimed at ordinary folk, because I think that voting and having blind faith in 'the system' are conditioned reflexes, and most wouldn't for an instant associate their actions with causing the world's ills. But maybe it would take something as strongly worded / accusatory to jolt some people into re-evaluating things and recognising the part they play.

Gilly wrote:
The hostility is well deserved.
They have a libertarian party and they can vote that party into power, they have always had that choice.
Their behaviour has indeed lead to most of the worlds ills so to speak by keeping the psychos in power. The information has been publicly available for plenty long enough now.

So voting Libertarian is o.k.? That sounds pro establishment to me.

i-baster wrote:
The video quite clearly said voters who vote for the dems or the pubs.
It could be said that voting libertarian is pro establishment in as far as its a choice involving non violence for progress.
If it removes all the military bases, the wars, the taxation and the tyranny then its hardly pro NWO establishment.