Mike wrote:
Obviously i agree with you Mike

It's important to note that wall street bailout took place at the end of 2008 before Obama assumed office in January 2009.

Something i wanted to know, and i almost made a thread about on DIF is this....

If the UK claims to be as multicultural as America why have they not had black prime minster... (serious question)

And does anyone see a black prime minster in the near future for the Great Britain?

Mike wrote:
Nope, Obama has done jack shit and you obviously approve

.......... wrote:
Winston Churchill was actually black (he just looked white). Thats why, in Britain, every black family calls their first-born son Winston. Its almost the law here....

& Obama is really a white guy who's into dodgy fake tan. So in actual fact, he's probably orange.

I'm not bothered if the US President is black, white, mixed-race, brown, yellow, orange, green, Afro-Caribbean, of Far East Asian lineage, with Asian subcontinental links, an Eskimo, female, male, gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, polygamous...it's totally irrelevant. It says something about how infantile culture and society is that skin colour is even an issue.

Three basic jobs for the US President:

(1) Uphold the US constitution.

We asked “has President Obama done anything to uphold the US constitution, despite professing to have studied it for years during electioneering”?



(2) Hold the vested banking-military-industrial interests to account that actually run the country.

We asked “has President Obama done anything to challenge the vast special interests that really run the United States”?



Trust me, you could write a book on that one.

(3) Improve the conditions of the tens of millions of poor people in America, and maintain a strong middle-class.

The answer to this should just be self-evident.

Are you sure you've covered all the possible racial & sexual stereotypical angles there WUB?

(I'll just go & check with Prince Phillip....)

Prince Philip says you missed a few.

& he's actually black too you know RA (well Greek, which is the same thing at the end of the day).

.......... wrote:
This guy has potential:
www.chuka.org.uk/

I was watching some Cornell West yesterday, he was making the point that the US constitution was a racist, pro- slavery document, what are your thoughts on the Constitution, do you think it's out of date?

Stalin was black too mike....did you not know?

This is fun....everytime I say someone's favourite person is black, they log off.

Do you reckon it'd work on the DIF? What would happen if I said Icke was black on there? Would the place shut down or what...

Mike wrote:
So are you saying that voting is not an endorsement?

en·dorse
/enˈdôrs/
Verb

Declare one's public approval or support of.

Space Bandit wrote:
Wait a second, Andy made a comment about the Sceptre which is in reference to the Royals.

So since when did anyone vote to be ruled by a Monarchy...

.......... wrote:
In that case we have an excuse that we are ruled by force rather than through choice eh?
However,
www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/howthemonarch...hemonarchyworks.aspx

So how do they get elected? Could it just be that people cast votes for a parliament and thereby endorse the monarchy?

.......... wrote:
ffs what is with you lad?
/slaps RA with a big wet kipper

The comment was in regards to your saying that the brits are ruled by some royal sceptre.
However, you totally disregard how your own govt fucks you royally up the butthole and even seem happy about it, how good obama is etc etc, yet as I pointed out, he has done nothing. You have a different guy in the whitehouse doing the same shit as the last guy, regardless of what colour he is.
Gitmo is still there, still in afghanistan, still in iraq, the chagos islanders are still without a home and now generals can declare martial law in america whenever they feel like it and obama obviously approves and therefore so do you, simple as.
If you actually wanted 'change' then you'd have voted libertarian.

andyh wrote:
Andy i already told you and WUB that i would have voted for Ralph Nader if that had been an option.

Space Bandit wrote: Not 100% maybe a very small percentage of the dumbest of voters think in such black and white terms?
I doubt you'd find anybody who 100% endorses any political party.

I don't really take anything non-voters say about politics seriously, there's no justification (except not being allowed) for not voting.

But feel free to explain to me how you're more democratically active than somebody who merely ticks a box every four years and I might change my ways and take you seriously.

.......... wrote: I actually think America needs a widescale social revolution, if any of the third parties start doing well stealing democrat votes, you could well end up with a dodgy Republican like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin making president, Nader despite his good intentions could easily cause one of those paleo christards to get elected, the alternative to that or a dramatic change in the structure of politics in the U$A is to keep voting Dems i guess?

I couldn't imagine Mitt being taken half as seriously on the global platform as Obama, I think despite the continuing War on Terror and Terrorist detainments ongoing in Gitmo he's done a lot to restore America's global image, especially with the UN and the Mid East.

Mike wrote:
So who should anarchos be voting for?

oioioi wrote: It depends what you mean by anarchos? I bet there will be some who vote tories to increase the speed towards civil disorder, but generally anyone with left wing principles should vote labour in the UK.
As you live in Greece I want to hear what reason you have if any for, not being involved, a member or voting for Syriza

Space Bandit wrote: If you weren't so dozy you'd know there are political groups in the UK who run almost solely on the anti-Monarchy, "Republican"(English not USA Bastardization of the term) platform, I think even the Labour party has official party organizations that actively lobby for such policies to become official labour policy.

But yeah you seem to think democratic participation is to be scoffed at for some reason?

Multinational lobbying groups don't seem to be so arrogant?

Mike wrote:

They want to govern.