Where does Obama’s Money Come From?

[jillio]

? I've repeatedly said socialism more than Marxism. Check back. and yes I've read his speech word by word. still not convincing me. All I hear is expansion of government, 90% of his promises will not even come to fruition, and lack of incentive for healthy market competition

Okay then, compare and contrast Obama's vision with socialist policy to show where his vision is socialist. Marxism or socialism...makes no difference to me. Just, please, for once, substantiate the absurd claims you continue to make.

 

[Jiro]

Its not how I perceive it. Its the way it is. You promised substaniation today, and now you are trying to back out of it.

Nope I did not promise at all. I only said that I'll look into it later tonight. Maybe I'll post my finding tomorrow. Could be weekend. meanwhile - sit tight but not too tight

 

[Jiro]

Okay then, compare and contrast Obama's vision with socialist policy to show where his vision is socialist. Marxism or socialism...makes no difference to me. Just, please, for once, substantiate the absurd claims you continue to make.

nah not tonight. Like I said - I'm not going to do anything productive. No need to keep goading.

 

[jillio]

And I quote:

fair enough. although - I'll have to get back to you on that later tonight when I'm off the work. I'll have to seep thru Obama's homepage and find the exact wording from it - for the sake of accuracy and avoiding confusion

Your statement clearly states "getting back" and that means that you stated that you would have a reply.

I guess you shouldn't have put it in writing.
And I'm not going to keep goading. I'm done. You have already shown every one that you cannot back up a single thing you claim. That's good enough for me.

 

[Jiro]

you must be proud of yourself. give a pat or two on your butt. I still haven't broken my word. Here's my finding - Looks like I need some more time to seep through.

 

[BradB08]

you must be proud of yourself. give a pat or two on your butt. I still haven't broken my word. Here's my finding - Looks like I need some more time to seep through.

You've got to be the most clueless person I have ever seen in my life, online or offline.

 

[Jiro]

You've got to be the most clueless person I have ever seen in my life, online or offline.

oh well. that's why people like you are not in office. Good Riddance!

 

[Hermes]

Uh, you might want to check with the Iraqis on that one.

No matter what I say , you still think I support it right? I am just telling what is happening.. Corporations are already there and more will follow. Iraq goverment will start borrowing money for re building the country. Oil companies will get the good size of oil money, rest of the money will be spent on re arming iraq in the future by the goverment. Iraqie people will not recieve much . They will keep strugling with tribe wars.

This is never about freedom and doing any good. This is just a balancing act. Once the ball moves too far a side they throw it to other side. If you look world history there are cycles. Doing that creates the flow in world markets and economy.

But do you think it is the American goverment benefits from it? No. This was not for USA, this was for lending another trillion dollars to American people. All American people together with the goverment will pay it ,plus the interest.

See it is never about one goverments gain or other people freedom and hapiness. They discovered when there is a war there is no winning sides except money lenders. Now both USA will pay the money borrowed for financing the war, and Iraq will give up everything it has to foreign companies and banks. Lose-lose situation for countries, win-win situation for financers.

Hermes

 

[jillio]

No matter what I say , you still think I support it right? I am just telling what is happening.. Corporations are already there and more will follow. Iraq goverment will start borrowing money for re building the country. Oil companies will get the good size of oil money, rest of the money will be spent on re arming iraq in the future by the goverment. Iraqie people will not recieve much . They will keep strugling with tribe wars.

This is never about freedom and doing any good. This is just a balancing act. Once the ball moves too far a side they throw it to other side. If you look world history there are cycles. Doing that creates the flow in world markets and economy.

But do you think it is the American goverment benefits from it? No. This was not for USA, this was for lending another trillion dollars to American people. All American people together with the goverment will pay it with the interest.

See it is never about one goverments gain or other people freedom and hapiness. They discovered when there is a war there is no winning sides except money lenders. Now both USA will pay the money borrowed for financing the war, and Iraq will give up everything it has to foreign companies and banks. Lose-lose situation for countries, win-win situation for financers.

Hermes

I didn't say anything about you supporting something or not supporting something. In fact, my posts have been political in nature, not personal. I don't know where you are getting that one.

The issue wasn't about money lenders or who benefits from war. The issue was that another poster and I were discussing a definition of democracy, and the ethnocentric attitude to the U.S. conservatives that supports amoral wars intended to force the US.'s particular brand of democracy down the throats of 3rd world nations, and the futility of doing so.

 

[BradB08]

oh well. that's why people like you are not in office. Good Riddance!

People like you shouldn't be either.

 

[Jiro]

People like you shouldn't be either.

Better me than you. I think many would agree. I am Jiro and I approved this message.

 

[jillio]

People like you shouldn't be either.

I don't think we need to worry about that one. One has to be able to follow through on conduct a political campaign, and convince perople that he indeed, is capable.

 

[Hermes]

I didn't say anything about you supporting something or not supporting something. In fact, my posts have been political in nature, not personal. I don't know where you are getting that one.

The issue wasn't about money lenders or who benefits from war. The issue was that another poster and I were discussing a definition of democracy, and the ethnocentric attitude to the U.S. conservatives that supports amoral wars intended to force the US.'s particular brand of democracy down the throats of 3rd world nations, and the futility of doing so.

And I explained to you why it is forced down the throats of 3rd worlds nationes. U.S conservatives of course will support amoral wars because the whole idea presented them as "for the love of your country, help us make world a better place" and they bought it. At the end its not about conservatives. They are not the main cause of it.

Is it better punching who is next to you than looking into whats going on? Beat them as you will, at the end there will be just more conflict.

Hermes

 

[BradB08]

Better me than you. I think many would agree. I am Jiro and I approved this message.

Maybe once you learn to talk politics without training wheels.

 

[jillio]

And I explained to you why it is forced down the throats of 3rd worlds nationes. U.S conservatives of course will support amoral wars because the whole idea presented them as "for the love of your country, help us make world a better place" and they bought it. At the end its not about conservatives. They are not the main cause of it.

Is it better punching who is next to you than looking into whats going on? Beat them as you will, at the end there will be just more conflict.

Hermes

The conservatives are the cause of it, and it most certainly is not for "love of country" or "making the world a better place", even though the convservative factions have managed to convince a certain shallow thinking segment of the population that is what it is. It is about profit, it has always been about profit. Nothing nobel in the least. And still ethnocentric and presumptuous.

And, dear, I have been "looking int what is going on" for any number of years. I have a very good grasp of the hidden motive, the dishonest gloss, and the reality of the situation.

 

[Reba]

ah-ha.... a huge gaffe on my part. for correction

You're welcome.

 

[Hermes]

The conservatives are the cause of it, and it most certainly is not for "love of country" or "making the world a better place", even though the convservative factions have managed to convince a certain shallow thinking segment of the population that is what it is. It is about profit, it has always been about profit.

And what did common conservative party voters gain from it? Their children died maybe. Did you see your neighbors are getting richer because of that? Or the guy living down the street?

 

[jillio]

And what did common conservative party voters gain from it? Their children died maybe. Did you see your neighbors are getting richer because of that? Or the guy living down the street?

The conservative voters gained nothing. The conservative politicians gained much. I guess that is where you are getting confused regarding my posts. I am referring to conservative politicians and the policies they implement.

 

[Hermes]

The conservative voters gained nothing. The conservative politicians gained much. I guess that is where you are getting confused regarding my posts. I am referring to conservative politicians and the policies they implement.

Politicians make very good money but they are not the real beneficiaries. Although few of them might have good stakes in this "war investment" , not the majority of politicians are the financiars of the war. They actually are the ones who needs financiars for their political carrier. So they keep saying yes yes..

Thats why I keep asking "who has the real stake in these wars", who makes the biggest profit. If you think its the conservative politician, you will repleace them. New ones will join the system and nothing will change.

Thats why I told you in my earlier post, when kings started to became weaker, and common people started to demand more rights, they replaced the system. Kings and kingdoms became history, but nothing really changed. Because you just focus on and change the front man. People doesnt look what creates it behind.

 

[jillio]

Politicians make very good money but they are not the real beneficiaries. Although few of them might have good stakes in this "war investment" , not the majority of politicians are the financiars of the war. They actually are the ones who needs financiars for their political carrier. So they keep saying yes yes..

Thats why I keep asking "who has the real stake in these wars", who makes the biggest profit. If you think its the conservative politician, you will repleace them. New ones will join the system and nothing will change.

Thats why I told you in my earlier post, when kings started to became weaker, and common people started to demand more rights, they replaced the system. Kings and kingdoms became history, but nothing really changed. Because you just focus on and change the front man. People doesnt look what creates it behind.

Benefits, my dear, are not always cold hard cash. Think outside the box.

And I am attempting to replace the conservative adminsitration this country has suffered under for the last 8 years. I am casting my vote for Obama. And millions of others are, as well.