RunRyder RC
 5  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 1 page 1134 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Could 2012 be America’s Last Presidential​Election?
12-12-2011 08:14 PM  5 years agoPost 1
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Could 2012 be America’s Last Presidential Election?

Written on December 12, 2011 by Giacomo

I’ve asked this question to a number of people and most them respond as if I were crazy for asking. They tell me that this is America, land of the free and that there will always be elections. I tell them that we are no longer the land of the free and that if Obama gets re-elected in 2012, that this just may be America’s last election.

In the past three years, the Obama administration has been very carefully crafting the nation for a political take over by his Marxist regime and this isn’t just my opinion.

Popular radio talk show host Michael Savage is the son of Russian immigrants and is very familiar with Soviet and European history. Savage warned his listeners this week saying,

“I have to tell you that if this man, God forbid, is the next president of the United States, we’re going to be living in something along the lines of – people say Europe. I don’t believe it’s going to be like Europe – I think it will be closer to Chavez’s South American dictatorship.

“This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history. It’s not politics as usual. It’s not just Democrats versus Republicans. Obama has a long history of being at odds with American values and with America itself and the core principles of this country. They don’t want government-sponsored opinions. They only want government-sponsored ‘Pravda.’ That’s exactly what the government-media complex tells you on a daily basis – nothing but the government-media complex party line. Pay attention. Your freedom may be at stake.”

Over the weekend, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told a small group of people in an Iowa coffee house that,

“Barack Obama is not incompetent, ladies and gentleman. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. He sees America differently than you see America.

[Obama] has gone out of his way to divide this country in a way I haven’t seen since the Great Depression when Franklin Roosevelt went around to divide his country. That’s his hero. What makes America great [in Obama’s mind is that] the government takes money from somebody and gives it to somebody else. No, that’s what makes America, France.”

With his control over the Executive and Judicial branches of the government, the stage is set for a complete takeover of the government. Think about it.

Since taking office, instead of helping the economy, Obama has purposely escalated the economic crisis by plunging the country into unprecedented debt. He has a number of programs that are designed to go into effect in January 2013, just in time for his second term of office. The economic burden and increased taxes on everyone will be enough to cause the final economic collapse of the country. As soon as that happens, Obama declares Martial Law and assumes dictatorial control of the nation.

The Department of Justice has already been subverting federal laws to strip us of a number of freedoms. The Supreme Court and many of the other federal courts have been seeded with socialistic liberal judges that will rule in Obama’s favor on virtually anything, thus ending constitutional rule and law.

He’s already changing the face of America’s military. Allowing homosexuals to openly serve along with changing the retirement program is causing many conservative military leaders to resign commissions and leave the military. Some Pentagon officials are also noting that an increase in the enlistment of radical Muslims into the US military where they get all the training they need on weapons and defense systems. We have no idea how many of them there are in the armed forces or in what positions they may hold.

Obama has been wielding executive powers this past year as if he were already a dictator. When Congress is not doing his bidding, he simply bypasses them and used an executive order to accomplish it anyway. This has set the stage for his disbandment of Congress. He would not be the first world leader to take control of a nation and disband the legislative branch of government.

He has been effectively using the media to anesthetize the public to the dangers he poses. Like a patient being prepped for surgery, people are numb to the changes and won’t have a clue what took place until they wake up in recovery and realize that free America has been removed and replaced with a regime that may parallel those of Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Chavez and Castro.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I earnestly pray that we are spared from what seems a certain future and that Obama is overwhelmingly defeated in 2012. Otherwise, heaven help us.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/2559/c...ntial-election/

My Comments: Ditto !!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-12-2011 10:54 PM  5 years agoPost 2
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's not the communists you need to watch out for, it's the banks. Notice how your Chief Secretary to the Treasury is always a banker nowadays, and how favorable the bailouts were to Goldman Sachs through AIG.

Apparently they have already conquered Europe.

Goldman Sachs conquers Europe.

Here's an independent trader who thinks they rule the world.

Watch at YouTube

Or else, you could keep on checking under your bed for those reds.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-12-2011 10:59 PM  5 years agoPost 3
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This is ''Charles Ferguson's Academy Award-winning forensic analysis of the 2008 global financial crisis. The film traces the emergence of a rogue culture within the finance industry.''

Which traces the banking industry through deregulation in the '80's starting with Reagan, and continuing with every administration since then, right up to the present, and the relationship between the U.S. government and bankers.

But you'll need a U.K. IP address to be able to watch it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...012_Inside_Job/

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-12-2011 11:24 PM  5 years agoPost 4
1800bigk

rrNovice

ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Banks did not force people to go buy more house than they could afford. The gov't encouraged banks to lend to people without proof of income and things like that. Just see for yourself when that happened. Hint, it was after reagan. Banks do not force you to rack up credit card debt to buy things you cant afford.

Now that they are doing their part and not lend money willy nilly to poor risks everybody says they are the enemy. You can go through life and hardly never have to deal with banks. By a house you can afford, drive a used car and live within your means, what is the big deal? Banks just hold your money, go to the atm and withdraw your paycheck every payday if you think banks are so bad. This whole argument that banks are the reasons for all thats bad is like saying guns are why we have murders.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-12-2011 11:40 PM  5 years agoPost 5
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Now that they are doing their part and not lend money willy nilly to poor risks everybody says they are the enemy. You can go through life and hardly never have to deal with banks. By a house you can afford, drive a used car and live within your means, what is the big deal? Banks just hold your money, go to the atm and withdraw your paycheck every payday if you think banks are so bad. This whole argument that banks are the reasons for all thats bad is like saying guns are why we have murders.
Well said.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-12-2011 11:42 PM  5 years agoPost 6
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's not the communists you need to watch out for, it's the banks. Notice how your Chief Secretary to the Treasury is always a banker nowadays, and how favorable the bailouts were to Goldman Sachs through AIG.
THE BANKS ARE THE EVIL ENTITY !!

Looks like old dusty has bought into the rant of the "Occupy" crowd.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 12:50 AM  5 years agoPost 7
fla heli boy

rrKey Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

actually I have to agreee with Dusty on this one. I do, however agree that if you find them distasteful (which I do), then don't do business with them (which I do not).
The whole point of the bailout was to get them to loosen their purse strings, which they obviously have not.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 01:10 AM  5 years agoPost 8
1800bigk

rrNovice

ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They should not have been bailed out. They lent money to people they knew had little chance at paying it back. They should not have to loosen anything because that is why things went south in the first place. If we go back to the old lending model where anybody can just show up and get a loan then we are right back where we started.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 01:47 AM  5 years agoPost 9
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Never should a have allowed $Money and Politics to MIX -- nor Politics and $Money too Mix

With solid boundaries in place the problem we have always had would never exist. Those in charge of leadership & operation's would then actually represent the citizen.

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 01:57 AM  5 years agoPost 10
fla heli boy

rrKey Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They should not have been bailed out. They lent money to people they knew had little chance at paying it back. They should not have to loosen anything because that is why things went south in the first place. If we go back to the old lending model where anybody can just show up and get a loan then we are right back where we started.
Actually not what I meant. The standards are tighter now than they've ever been. I have a client who was on the start up board of several banks in NJ, so I get a lot of my info from him. It's almost impossible for anybody to get a loan anymore.
There's no way we can EVER go back to what they were doing 5-8 years ago, that's why we are where we are. But they've gone in the opposite direction. Why would they load money now??? We bailed them out, got them back in the black and meanwhile, they're sitting on billions (if not trillions) of dollars worth of real estate inventory.
I'm ALMOST OK with bailing them out, but we should've put some conditions on that. At this point, we should start taxing their holdings, giving them an incentive to loan some money. As it is, why loan, when you can just sit back, lay people off and rake the interest.???

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 02:25 AM  5 years agoPost 11
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Anybody see the 60 minutes interview of Odumbo. Steve Kroft did everything but take off Odumbo's shoes and socks and start sucking on his toes. The main stream media is not an honest source of information anymore, they are no better than Pravda. The interview made me throw up in my throat a few times, absolutely sickening.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 02:36 AM  5 years agoPost 12
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Anybody see the 60 minutes interview of Odumbo. Steve Kroft did everything but take off Odumbo's shoes and socks and start sucking on his toes. The main stream media is not an honest source of information anymore, they are no better than Pravda. The interview made me throw up in my throat a few times, absolutely sickening.
I could not sit through it.

Sickening.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 12:06 PM  5 years agoPost 13
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Banks did not force people to go buy more house than they could afford. The gov't encouraged banks to lend to people without proof of income and things like that. Just see for yourself when that happened.
If you lend money to a bum, is it the bum's fault because he doesn't give you it back, or is it your fault for being daft enough to lend it in the first place? What bum would refuse a free loan?

Supposing you could lend money to a bum, then not only sell the debt before the first payment is even due, but insure the debt against non-payment, even though the debt is no longer yours, and you can collect when it goes bad, can you think of a reason why you would not go out of your way to lend money to bums? Particularly when you pay a rating agency to give the loans a AAA rating, and loans to bums earn you more money when you sell them because they were originally sold with a higher rate of interest.

It's like selling your neighbour a dodgy electrical appliance you know is likely to go on fire, then insuring your neighbour's house against fire (if it was possible to do so), so you not only make money selling the appliance, but you also collect on the insurance when your neighbour's house burns down. I suppose you could say that's your neighbours fault for buying the appliance in the first place, and that you were entirely innocent.

Not only that, but you could let your mates know what you are doing and advise them to also buy insurance policies on your neighbours house, so that they could also collect when it burns down. That's how speculators make money on the financial markets, and that's why AIG ran out of money.
Hint, it was after reagan.
I said deregulation began under Reagan, which it did when he appointed Donald Regan who set about deregulating the savings and investment banks to allow them to take risks with their customers' money, which led to many of them failing a few years later, and thousands of people losing their savings. Greenspan endorsed Charles Keating who was subsequently jailed, but Greenspan of course was appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve, which was when he stated that ''regulation of derivatives transactions is unnecessary.'' Then came the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, which effectively overturned Glass Steagall, which had been put in place after the Great Depression to ensure that banks didn't become ''too big to fail.'' Then in 2000 the Futures Modernisation Act was passed which set the stage for the housing bubble. Then in 2004, after being appointed by GWB, Henry Paulson lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission to allow investment banks to sharply increase their ratio of borrowed money to reserves, from 3:1 to 15:1, which is what made them unstable.
Banks just hold your money
No, they don't. They only hold a small fraction of your money and they lend the rest out.
If we go back to the old lending model where anybody can just show up and get a loan then we are right back where we started.
But that's not the ''old lending model.'' Under the old system, a bank gave you a loan, and you paid the loan back to that bank. That's why banks used to be careful about who they lent money to. Under the new system, a bank gives you a loan, then packages that loan up with all sorts of other debt such as credit card debt and student loans, into what are called Collateral Debt Obligations (CDO), which are then sold through investment banks to investors such as pension funds. So when you pay your mortgage, the money goes through the system to the investor. Investment banks of course are still free to insure those CDOs, as is anyone else, and these insurance policies are called credit default swaps.

One reason the U.K. just voted no to new European parliament proposals, is because the rest of Europe are going to ban credit default swaps, to ensure that banks are more careful who they lend their customers' money to, and to prevent other speculators cashing in when loans go bad. The British government is like the American government in this respect, they won't do anything to upset their banker pals.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 12:11 PM  5 years agoPost 14
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Looks like old dusty has bought into the rant of the "Occupy" crowd.
''Old''? Speak for yourself dennis.

I reckon the average ''occupy'' person probably hasn't much of a clue exactly what it is the movement is about, but no doubt most of them have more of a clue than you do.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 01:06 PM  5 years agoPost 15
1800bigk

rrNovice

ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

the way things are now are the way they should have been all along. It should have been possible for a bum to borrow money. All the easy credit that was going on was inappropriate in the first place.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 01:08 PM  5 years agoPost 16
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 01:23 PM  5 years agoPost 17
shawmcky

rrElite Veteran

Isle of Wight,United​Kingdom

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If that independent trader is right,the next crisis will be, who will be to blame when Obama is not around,now that is scary,like withdrawl symptoms, i guess.What should patriots do when the countries foundations have been stolen by the"Few"Infighting and squabbling appears to be the answer.Lets see what difference it makes,watch this space

Team- unbiased opinion.K.I.S.S principle upheld here

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 05:39 PM  5 years agoPost 18
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

the way things are now are the way they should have been all along.
I disagree. First of all I think we would have been better sticking with the system we used to have before deregulation, where the bank you borrow money from, is the bank you pay the money back to. Secondly, it would be better if Glass Steagall had not been overturned by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, so that banks would not be ''too big to fail.'' Thirdly, I think we would be better off without credit default swaps, to prevent speculators from cashing in on loans going bad.
It should have been possible for a bum to borrow money.
Did you mean to say it should not have been possible for a bum to borrow money?
All the easy credit that was going on was inappropriate in the first place.
Agreed.

Dusty

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 07:01 PM  5 years agoPost 19
1800bigk

rrNovice

ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

yeah meant to say not, nothing should be too big to fail because people behave differently and take too much risk and agree to crazy deals when they know the govt will bail them out.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-13-2011 07:13 PM  5 years agoPost 20
ssmith512

rrKey Veteran

Indianapolis, IN USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

However you spin the blame, point the finger, etc., the only thing this entire economic disaster proves is that the majority of the general public has the intelligence of a rock, are incapable of doing ANY sort of research on thier own, are incapable of ANY elementary thought process, are incapable of performing 5th grade math, are clearly only interested in keeping up with, or impressing, others, want success and the material items that go with it instantly, and have no sense of responsibility.

I KNOW what I can and cannot afford. I have KNOWN what I can and cannot afford since the day I received my first paycheck (some 28 years ago). I have never needed, and never will need, a bank, to tell me what I can afford.

Caveat emptor.

Steve

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 1134 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Could 2012 be America’s Last Presidential​Election?
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 5  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, November 19 - 4:54 am - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online