About Obama

[allesok]

The main page of this website reports on how Obama has used subliminal messages and the like to win.

But I wonder if that is really so bad? What would the options be?

Either MacCain would have won and continued the disastrously wrong Bush politics. Would that be any better? Or would it be much worse?

Or Clinton would win. She's not honest, too tricky and not trustworthy. Her stiff face expresses no emotions. You don't know where you have her. There are reports in the Internet that she may be a shape-shifted reptilian - if that is true. So what would that have lead to? No-one knows ...

So it could be that Obama really is the best chance for a change, after all. To the better or to the worse? I wonder how much worse it could get ... But maybe it will really become better.

So maybe it isn't bad, after all, that Obama now has the chance. And if he hadn't used such techniques, he wouldn't have got it ... and we would be stuck with one of the two others. As said, MacCain would certainly be no better and things are in no way clear about Clinton. So maybe it is worth it that he won that way!

If he advocates RFID and such stuff: That is what Bush has been trying to get through already in the last months. It was reported about in the Internet. So we would probably have got it, anyway.

Furthermore, the first colored president is a good lesson for all the racists ...

By the way, why did the Israeli nazionists start a war in Ghaza now? Probably because they wanted it as long as Bush is still in power and they suspect that things would change to their disadvantage when Obama comes.
That may be a positive sign in itself ...

Or maybe they hoped that Iran would intervene and the US would respond with a military action. The thus arisen emergency situation might have stopped the presidential change. Did they hope for that? Luckily, that didn't happen.

JES

[reversi]

:eek:
:eek::eek:
:eek::eek::eek:
:eek::eek::mad::eek:
zZzzZz
zZzZZzZz

[yozhik]

The main page of this website reports on how Obama has used subliminal messages and the like to win.

But I wonder if that is really so bad? What would the options be?

So it could be that Obama really is the best chance for a change, after all.



Is it really so bad?
Ummm ... yes.

Options?
Gee, let me think ... having meaningful elections would be a good start; one where the candidates are real choices of the people, rather than a sham, mock vote for pre chosen puppets.

Hmmm ... what about some credible candidates; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich spring instantly to mind.

If you want to play the race card and ensure a coloured POTUS, then you could do a lot worse than have someone with the honesty, integrity and conviction of Cynthia McKinney as POTUS. I'm sure there are many others.

[meksar]

The main page of this website reports on how Obama has used subliminal messages and the like to win.

But I wonder if that is really so bad? What would the options be?

Either MacCain would have won and continued the disastrously wrong Bush politics. Would that be any better? Or would it be much worse?

Or Clinton would win. She's not honest, too tricky and not trustworthy. Her stiff face expresses no emotions. You don't know where you have her. There are reports in the Internet that she may be a shape-shifted reptilian - if that is true. So what would that have lead to? No-one knows ...

So it could be that Obama really is the best chance for a change, after all. To the better or to the worse? I wonder how much worse it could get ... But maybe it will really become better.

So maybe it isn't bad, after all, that Obama now has the chance. And if he hadn't used such techniques, he wouldn't have got it ... and we would be stuck with one of the two others. As said, MacCain would certainly be no better and things are in no way clear about Clinton. So maybe it is worth it that he won that way!

If he advocates RFID and such stuff: That is what Bush has been trying to get through already in the last months. It was reported about in the Internet. So we would probably have got it, anyway.

Furthermore, the first colored president is a good lesson for all the racists ...

By the way, why did the Israeli nazionists start a war in Ghaza now? Probably because they wanted it as long as Bush is still in power and they suspect that things would change to their disadvantage when Obama comes.
That may be a positive sign in itself ...

Or maybe they hoped that Iran would intervene and the US would respond with a military action. The thus arisen emergency situation might have stopped the presidential change. Did they hope for that? Luckily, that didn't happen.

JES

No disrespect but you got a lot of waking up to do,Obama is a puppet like the rest of these sleazebags who answer to the Rothschilds/Rockefellers. The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg group etc are controlled by the elite Zionists who pick and choose their next ass kisser.

[allesok]

"Hmmm ... what about some credible candidates; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich spring instantly to mind."

What is that remark good for?
THERE WERE NO OTHER CANDIDATES THAN MACCAIN, CLINTON AND OBAMA!
How do you want to change that?

JES

[yozhik]

"Hmmm ... what about some credible candidates; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich spring instantly to mind."

What is that remark good for?
THERE WERE NO OTHER CANDIDATES THAN MACCAIN, CLINTON AND OBAMA!
How do you want to change that?

JES

Why were there no other candidates?

You're treating this issue like the doctor who treats a brain tumour with aspirin for the headache.
You are treating the headache - the symptom ... rather than the tumour, the root cause.

... and if we play by your rules, Clinton wasn't an option. She never received the nomination of the Democratic party and so was never an official option for POTUS. (thank God)

The best option from those given was; None of the above.

[xpleet]

And you join these forums to tell everyone?

Who pays you? :p (I'm serious)

[allesok]

Why were there no other candidates?

You're treating this issue like the doctor who treats a brain tumour with aspirin for the headache.
You are treating the headache - the symptom ... rather than the tumour, the root cause.

... and if we play by your rules, Clinton wasn't an option. She never received the nomination of the Democratic party and so was never an official option for POTUS. (thank God)

The best option from those given was; None of the above.

In the end race there were, regrettably, no one else but the three left. I'm sorry, but that is a fact we have to live with, even though there SHOULD have been other and better candidates. But there were not ... And would any of the other two really have been any better?

JES

[yozhik]

In the end race there were, regrettably, no one else but the three left.
Inaccurate.
Simply not true ... facts below.

I'm sorry, but that is a fact we have to live with, even though there SHOULD have been other and better candidates.
There were better candidates.
Facts below.

But there were not ... And would any of the other two really have been any better?
There were ... but as with most people, you swallowed the MSM BS and assumed there were only ever 2 candidates, 2 parties and 1 choice (Obama or McCain).

Hillary Clinton was never a candidate.
She failed to receive the nomination for POTUS from the Democrats; and as she never ran as an independent against McCain and Obama - she never was a candidate.

There were not 3 candidates for POTUS; there were actually SIX (6) candidates for POTUS in 2008;

Obama (Democrat Party)
McCain (Republican Party)
Ralph Nader (Independent)
Cynthia McKinney (Green Party)
Bob Barr (Libertarian Party)
Rev. Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)

From this list of candidates; McKinney and Nader were FAR SUPERIOR candidates, for the position of POTUS, than either Obama or McCain.

[allesok]

Maybe you can get me right this time.
Sure some others would have been a lot better! I agree!
Up to quite near the end, Clinton and Obama were both competing to become a candidate for the Democrats. So far there were still THREE PERSONS (rather than candidates) in the race.
Then only Obama and MacCain were left.
The others were - REGRETTABLY! - already out of the race quite long before that.

So would Clinton have been better than Obama as a candidate for the Democrates? Would you have preferred her? And would MacCain have been better than Obama?

So, effectively, at the end only the two latter were left, and not very far from the end Clinton was also still in the run.

No doubt there would be far better candidates! But - again REGRETTABLY! - they were out of the run much too soon.

So with the choice we were finally left: Would you have preferred MacCain?

And why the discussion on this Website? Because David Icke begins it on its very first page …

[yozhik]

Maybe you can get me right this time.
Sure some others would have been a lot better! I agree!
Up to quite near the end, Clinton and Obama were both competing to become a candidate for the Democrats. So far there were still THREE PERSONS (rather than candidates) in the race.
Then only Obama and MacCain were left.
The others were - REGRETTABLY! - already out of the race quite long before that.

So would Clinton have been better than Obama as a candidate for the Democrates? Would you have preferred her? And would MacCain have been better than Obama?

So, effectively, at the end only the two latter were left, and not very far from the end Clinton was also still in the run.

No doubt there would be far better candidates! But - again REGRETTABLY! - they were out of the run much too soon.

So with the choice we were finally left: Would you have preferred MacCain?

And why the discussion on this Website? Because David Icke begins it on its very first page …

You're missing the point.

The electoral contest for POTUS is separate and independent from the state ballots, although run simultaneously.

The Main Stream Media blurs the lines and connects the two.

There were SIX (6) candidates that could have been voted for in the POTUS race.
Only two - Obama and McCain - were promoted and represented as options to the people ... even though 6 existed.
Any man or woman who went to a polling booth could have voted for any of the other 4.
All six were legitimate choices for POTUS.
Hillary Clinton was never one of them.

So, is your question about who should have received the votes as POTUS?
Or is it pertaining to who should have received the nomination for the Democratic party?
This is where Hillary Clinton failed.
She did not fail to become POTUS - she failed in her attempt to become a nominee for POTUS.
She never even reached the starting line.
If it was the Olympic 100m event, Hillary never made the final event. She was beaten in the qualifying heat; so was never in the running for a medal.

You seem to be confused and unable to distinguish between the two.

[allesok]

Do you see that we are in many ways saying much the same thing, but in different words? You call it promotion and I call it being in the final race. That is what they were promoted for, isn't it?. And Clinton was promoted in the race within the Democrats, where she lost the run before she could have become a presidential candidate. So we can say that three PERSONS were more or less PROMOTED, and the better ones not. Maybe you like that formulation better.

Anyway, I am glad that MacCain wasn't elected to continue the Bush disaster! Then Obama is in any case better. Even though those who would have been far better were promoted away.

JES

[zoe1]

With all due respect Allesok, we did not have a choice. Obama was chosen years ago to be the next POTUS after W. The election was simply another exercise that we're put through now and then. Please keep an open mind.

[januspolanski]

"Hmmm ... what about some credible candidates; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich spring instantly to mind."

What is that remark good for?
THERE WERE NO OTHER CANDIDATES THAN MACCAIN, CLINTON AND OBAMA!
How do you want to change that?

JES

In the end race there were, regrettably, no one else but the three left. I'm sorry, but that is a fact we have to live with, even though there SHOULD have been other and better candidates. But there were not ... And would any of the other two really have been any better?

JES

You must understand that the US election being fair is a total illusion. McCain Clinton Obama are all handpicked, given vast media coverage and praise, all given vast donations(money talks). So by the time the actual presidential election comes around the good candidates i.e Ron Paul are out of it.

[januspolanski]

Any man or woman who went to a polling booth could have voted for any of the other 4.

Assuming that the electronic voting is legitimate.

[yozhik]

Assuming that the electronic voting is legitimate.

Of course.

I agree, Obama was pre-selected many years ago.
However;

IF there was such a thing as a legitimate vote, where people's votes actually counted ... and
IF the MSM had truly reflected ALL of the POTUS candidates and given equal promotion/marketing/etc ... and
IF the whole U.S "democracy" label actually existed ...


(... I know, I know ... fantasy land ... but we can dream, can't we?)

Then maybe ... maybe ... the result would have been one which would not result in a curious mixture of bile and vomit appearing in my throat, every time I reflect on the past 8 political years in the U.S.

[atticus_finch]

With all due respect Allesok, we did not have a choice. Obama was chosen years ago to be the next POTUS after W. The election was simply another exercise that we're put through now and then. Please keep an open mind.

Quite. An open mind helps but rather than take it at face value the original poster can clarify his or her position by simply systematically examining Barak Hussein Obama's meteoric rise in politics. Vast amounts of funding for the election campaign coupled with marginalised opposition, are key points of interest along with his Chicago connections.

[yozhik]

Anyway, I am glad that MacCain wasn't elected to continue the Bush disaster! Then Obama is in any case better. Even though those who would have been far better were promoted away.

JES

You genuinely think Obama is going to deliver the "Change" you interpret it to be? :eek:

Wow ... thats one hell of a leap of faith.

Good luck with that.
I think it will be same bullshit, different face.
In fact, a larger part of me is saying; "more bullshit, the "change" will be in the magnitude of fascism."

Rather than covert, pseudo-fascism ... we're about to get a "Change" - make no mistake about it ! ... a Change to overt, true fascism.

[yozhik]

Quite. An open mind helps but rather than take it at face value the original poster can clarify his or her position by simply systematically examining Barak Hussein Obama's meteoric rise in politics. Vast amounts of funding for the election campaign coupled with marginalised opposition, are key points of interest along with his Chicago connections.

You got that right !

From relative obscurity, an inexperienced candidate rises to the top, catipulted into the minds of every person in the world by a $600 million marketing juggernaut, in conjunction with an extremely compliant, unquestioning Mainstream Media.

Ask yourself; what sane man would spend $600 million to secure a job that will probably pay $1 million over the course of the 4 year term ?
That's a hell of a lot of "payback" and backroom deals that need to be squared away in just 4 years.
I don't care what anyone says; no one, nor no lobbyist, spends $600 million ensuring "their boy" gets into office without some WIFM (what's in it for me) driving the process.

Biggest spending campaign = biggest level of (in)vested interest.

Can't wait to see what kind of "change" money can buy ... :rolleyes:

[zoe1]

Quite. An open mind helps but rather than take it at face value the original poster can clarify his or her position by simply systematically examining Barak Hussein Obama's meteoric rise in politics. Vast amounts of funding for the election campaign coupled with marginalised opposition, are key points of interest along with his Chicago connections.

Precisely. Chicago politics are the most corrupt in the US, in my opinion. The current governor is under impeachment as we speak.

Obama's rise from "obscurity" to becoming the next POTUS, is truly amazing. It happened so fast and furious that folks didn't realize what happened until after it happened. I tried to figure out where all the money came from and it became a tangled web of smoke and mirrors. George Soros' billions were part of it, and that has been reported. But that's about all I can pinpoint at the present.

[zoe1]

You got that right !

From relative obscurity, an inexperienced candidate rises to the top, catipulted into the minds of every person in the world by a $600 million marketing juggernaut, in conjunction with an extremely compliant, unquestioning Mainstream Media.

Ask yourself; what sane man would spend $600 million to secure a job that will probably pay $1 million over the course of the 4 year term ?
That's a hell of a lot of "payback" and backroom deals that need to be squared away in just 4 years.
I don't care what anyone says; no one, nor no lobbyist, spends $600 million ensuring "their boy" gets into office without some WIFM (what's in it for me) driving the process.

Biggest spending campaign = biggest level of (in)vested interest.

Can't wait to see what kind of "change" money can buy ... :rolleyes:


Well, so far I have not seen any change. All I see is the same old guard dusting off their desks to assume their positions in this "new" administration. obama didn't spend the $600 million. The folks behind the curtain did.

[allesok]

QUOTE: "You genuinely think Obama is going to deliver the "Change" you interpret it to be?"

No, I'm afraid not - to be honest. But I feel pretty sure that MacCain would do it much less, that is: not at all, that is: driving still more into disaster.

So again: When at the end there were only two left who were PROMOTED - which means that others had no chance, anymore in the manipulated masses of voters - MacCain would certainly have been the worst choice. If any change to the better at all, however small, it could rather come through Obama. But there is no guarantee that it could not become worse, yet probably less so than under the Bushist MacCain ...

That is what I mean, see?

Which election in the world is honest? None is and none has ever been ...

(Some of you sound like lawyers who want to win a case with technicalities.)

JES

[yozhik]

QUOTE: "You genuinely think Obama is going to deliver the "Change" you interpret it to be?"

No, I'm afraid not - to be honest. But I feel pretty sure that MacCain would do it much less, that is: not at all, that is: driving still more into disaster.

So again: When at the end there were only two left who were PROMOTED - which means that others had no chance, anymore in the manipulated masses of voters - MacCain would certainly have been the worst choice. If any change to the better at all, however small, it could rather come through Obama. But there is no guarantee that it could not become worse, yet probably less so than under the Bushist MacCain ...

That is what I mean, see?

Which election in the world is honest? None is and none has ever been ...

(Some of you sound like lawyers who want to win a case with technicalities.)

JES

Not at all.

But, being honest - neither would have received my vote.
My vote - if I was an American with one - would have been for Nader or McKinney.

The shame is, mainstream media duped enough Americans into thinking these two were their only choices.

If enough people had used their heads, instead of following what the media told them to do, this situation would not have arisen.

[cacadores]

No disrespect but you got a lot of waking up to do
The admonition to 'wake up' is in defiance to the fact he was unlikely to have been able to type his post whilst asleep.:)

It's a discussion forum. Convince us.:rolleyes:

[jonny78]

Doesn't matter who we ended up with, at least of the top two candidates, the end result would be the same.

Definitely no hope in either one of them. Though it is worth noting that Obama was the one talking about setting up mandatory voluntary service (oh, Orwell must be spinning) for kids.

The Hitler Youth of America is part of the Elite gameplan anway, I'm sure. Obama's got a better chance of selling it than McCain. Hell, they've already got kids singing praises in Obama's name.

How pitiful.

[allesok]

OK, this will be my last statement.
If a lot more hadn't voted, we may have had the WORST CASE: MacCain as president!
The second worst case would have been Clinton, if she had made it to become a candidate.
The third worst case is Obama.
Bear that in mind when reading what David Icke wrote: IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!
That is what I mean.

Then it is, of course, very true, indeed, that the better and best were manipulated out ... as it always happens ...

JES

[yozhik]

OK, this will be my last statement.
If a lot more hadn't voted, we may have had the WORST CASE: MacCain as president!
The second worst case would have been Clinton, if she had made it to become a candidate.
The third worst case is Obama.
Bear that in mind when reading what David Icke wrote: IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!
That is what I mean.

Then it is, of course, very true, indeed, that the better and best were manipulated out ... as it always happens ...

JES

The flaw in your argument is that you separate McCain and Obama.
They are cut from the same cloth. It isn't a choice. It's the one option, just with a different external appearance.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the name of Clinton; she was not a final choice. May as well throw Huckerby, Romney, Paul and Giuliani in there as well.

I also vehemently disagree with your statement that the better options were manipulated out; they weren't. They existed. They were on the ballot.

The dumbed down, mass media fed, non-thinking voters simply took the lazy route and didn't do their own due diligence, nor did they exercise their democratic right ... they simply did what they were told to do.

You could have voted for one of six POTUS candidates, but succumbed to your money made myopia, closing off your vision and your thinking to just two candidates.

The choice for better was available.
For those that voted for McCain and Obama, using the argument "Obama was better than McCain", you shift responsibility for a poor choice from yourselves.

[mightiswrong]

The choice for better is still available. Who do you elect to govern you? Yourself or some strangers none of your family or friends have even met?

[cacadores]

The choice for better is still available. Who do you elect to govern you? Yourself or some strangers none of your family or friends have even met?
How can I elect myself?
I'd need at least a few people to agree with me and a lot of money for a campaign, wouldn't I?

[twistedconcept]

How can I elect myself?
I'd need at least a few people to agree with me and a lot of money for a campaign, wouldn't I?

You'd also need to align yourself with Rockefeller, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, etc.

I can't believe some people are still falling for this false political paradigm. Obama is a puppet of Brzezinski, Soros, Rockefeller and the CFR.

He reminds me very much of Blair, with his mantra of 'education, education, education!' Of course, the agenda never changes in politics; it's simply a show for the public. The real work is done behind the scenes, as most people on here know. They control and fund all sides.

Obama will help sell their agenda perfectly, with his demagogic techniques.

[mightiswrong]

You don't need the support of anyone to be in charge of your own life. I can't see why anyone would hand responsibility over to some total strangers.

[twistedconcept]

You don't need the support of anyone to be in charge of your own life. I can't see why anyone would hand responsibility over to some total strangers.

Try becoming the President without being in league with the aforementioned names. You won't get far.

[astro zombie]

Look how far Ron Paul got.:)

[cacadores]

Look how far Ron Paul got.:)
Not very?

[astro zombie]

Exactly! lol