Former Tea Partyer/Still a Right Leaning Libertarian: Voting Obama in 2012

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Have you lived during that period of time?

It wasn't all fun and games.

Heavy regulated society.

reply to post by neo96


2007's calling. They want me to inform you that the current occupant of the White house is no longer George Bush.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The Tea Party was a renaissance of classical conservatism (or Libertarianism) which ever you want to call it.

No, it was a renaissance of rebranding. I see all the bragging about winning elections but nary a sign of that classical conservatism has arisen from therein.

I do not understand the point of this thread at all. Of all the "I want to hurry up and get the end times over with so we can start over" threads I have read, this one seems to be missing something. Perhaps it is conviction.

Real change will only come when people look beyond left and right, and take what works from both sides of the spectrum to forge a muscular new ground-up approach. This is what TPTB fear more than anything...they are terrified that OWS and the Tea Party will realize they have more in common than that which separates them.

I don't believe America is yet ready for this. Maybe in the 2016 election cycle. Maybe. Or maybe the realization will only come after the mechanics of democratic election themselves have ceased to function. But until America realizes this, it is totally immaterial which side gets its puppet in the oval office in 2012. Nothing substantial will change...wars will still go on, the southern border will still be leaking like a sieve, corporate bailouts (corporate socialism) will still be the order of the day, outsourcing and offshoring will continue to wreck what's left of the economy, debt, both public and private, will soar to even more surreal heights, people will pay more for less, the texture of daily life will become coarser, and so on.

That's been the game plan for the last 40 years, no matter whether a democrat or a republican has held the presidency. Why should it be any different this time? You will get some high-profile wrangling on a showpiece legislation (i.e., "Obamacare" this time) but the deeper structural issues discussed above will not be treated by either party. You know what they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Anyone who expects different results from 2012, no matter who wins, has drunk the coolaide.

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Have you lived during that period of time?

It wasn't all fun and games.

never claimed it was. But it's a damn sight better than what came next.

Originally posted by FallenWun
I do not understand the point of this thread at all. Of all the "I want to hurry up and get the end times over with so we can start over" threads I have read, this one seems to be missing something. Perhaps it is conviction.

Little webs we weave, and the seeds that need to be planted.

Depends upon the affect you are looking to create.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


2008-2011 calling and we are talking about the current Potus nice try haven't seen any Government shrinkage but seen a lot of my wall shrinkage and seen massive increases.

Thanks.

Suppose to be wallet but wall makes sense considering the dow was over 14000 under that terrible last potus

Oh well

4 more years of Obama will absolutely end our nation. Period. It isn't even his being liberal to the extreme

Is this a joke? If our nation is destroyed it will be by corporate power and corruption- not Obama. They have destroyed much of our society already and will complete eradication if Republicans regain control.

Extremely liberal? Obama's great problem is trying so hard to be in the middle. How many war mongering, bank loving, tax cutting liberals do you know of? The only thing liberal about Obama is that he is pro choice, and he doesn't want to destroy the government, which is considered extreme liberalism by todays mindless populace.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Never claimed it was. But it's a damn sight better than what came next.

Maybe we just had to be vigilant when it comes to temptation.

Now, we know how the path twists and turns. We can learn from past mistakes. Right?

reply to post by Section31


Okay then, have fun destroying our countries core values.

Meanwhile, me and a bunch of other American soldiers will be voting and fighting otherwise.

Unless this was sarcasm, though I don't really think its very funny at all.

reply to post by RSF77

I knew from writing the initial post that there would be backlash.

All alternative perspectives are welcomed.

All criticism is also welcomed.

I agree with the OP. I had my revelation about an Obama vote in 2012 here on ATS in a discussion not that long ago. I could easily consider myself as the op does a "Former Tea Partyer/Still a Right Leaning Libertarian." The way things are, and the system manipulated, putting the only other viable party in would only slow the planned destruction of the country. The Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin. When one gets in, they screw the country one way, then vice versa. Neither one works towards truly restoring freedom and prosperity.

Some third parties have good ideas, but none honestly have a chance. It is all part of the show, you can't go off-script.

So for freedoms sake, I will vote for Obama. People will truly have to have their lives destroyed to fight back, and only then appreciate what was lost. We can't complain, protest or vote our way back to freedom from where we let ourselves get. We aren't deserving of the liberty our country was established to secure.

Originally posted by neo96
2008-2011 calling and we are talking about the current Potus nice try haven't seen any Government shrinkage but seen a lot of my wall shrinkage and seen massive increases.

One, Obama didn't run on a platform of shrinking the government.

Two, can you please note - in specific, where those "massive increases" have been?

Thanks.

Suppose to be wallet but wall makes sense considering the dow was over 14000 under that terrible last potus

Oh well

edit on 30-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Funny how gains on the DOW don't reflect gains among the general citizenry of the nation, isn't it? Markets were up, but employment was tanked, main street was folding, small businesses were dying...

This may surprise you, but the well-being of the fortune 500 isn't actually a very good rubric for the nation as a whole.

Originally posted by CB328
Is this a joke? If our nation is destroyed it will be by corporate power and corruption- not Obama.

No sure on how to respond to this reply.

If politicians are responsible for taking lobbyist money, Obama being one of those who have, would not that also mean he was apart of the problem?

Your logic.

Originally posted by Section31
Little webs we weave, and the seeds that need to be planted.

Depends upon the affect you are looking to create.

Conviction then? Thought so.
Whatever your real goal here is, let me know when you reach it. I am curious.

Originally posted by Section31
We can learn from past mistakes. Right?

Well, ideally. Unfortunately, that requires intellectual honesty and self-criticism. These are in short supply, particularly among those who worship the invisible hand and perceive Reagan as its prophet.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
One, Obama didn't run on a platform of shrinking the government.

Obama ran on the platform: (1) End Bush's policies, (2) less spending, (3) bring the troops home within a year, (4) regulate everything, (5) redistribute the wealth, (6) remove lobbyists, and (7) reduce the national deficit.

Hmmm... I see some hypocrisies.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by CB328
Is this a joke? If our nation is destroyed it will be by corporate power and corruption- not Obama.

No sure on how to respond to this reply.

If politicians are responsible for taking lobbyist money, Obama being one of those who have, would not that also mean he was apart of the problem?

Your logic.

edit on 10/31/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

A lesser part, yes. See, the trouble is, a "good" politician, who doesn't take the... "perks?" They get run out of office by the very people who were trying to buy them - all that money goes to bribable competitors in the next campaign. Since a sad rule of American politics is "whoever spends the most, wins" (at a rate of 90% or so) Honest politicians end up punished by the system itself.

So the greater problem is the ability to supply bribes in the first place. The financial lobbying, the lack of checks and transparency on campaign funding, etc. That is the real foe. Not the politicians who are faced with the option of either buying in or getting kicked out.

Strike hte corruption at its root, and bribery will become an exception, easily identified and dealt with.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

One, Obama didn't run on a platform of shrinking the government.

Oh yeah sorry his platform was "Hope and Change"

Two, can you please note - in specific, where those "massive increases" have been?

Name alot of things like Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and Welfare nearly doubling not to mention all that "anti war" crap and go bombing the hell out of other countrys not named Iraq and Afghanistan and adding Libya,Somailia,Pakistan,Yemen,Uganda to name a few.

Oh well let's pay no attention to those little things shhh lets not talk about the credit downgrade our increased Goverment backing of student loans and bailing more corporations and unions you know all that some people on here just don't ever want to hear.

Some icing on the cake here is this website but pay no nevermmind to it either

www.usdebtclock.org...

CLick on the red and green arrows at the top right and select your year oh and those red numbers don't mean stop either.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

...but, you folks just painted Obama as a saint.

How does that work exactly?