Another 4 Years of Obama?



The problem ain't Obama, it's the system. You have people voting who can't name 2 founding fathers. Who can't name two amendments to the Constitution.
People who are net recipients of welfare. People who can't name their congressperson.

You can't operate a democracy (which is a fucking mess at best) when people don't understand the issues, the ideas, etc.

Then you add in liar politicians and good luck bro.

It doesn't matter who gets elected, the system (and the people in it) are the problem.

When the American people become better, they will get better government. I wouldn't hold my breath for that.
 
Wow, nice speech or at least part of it.

I seriously am starting to think O is in trouble.

To actually say that DC can't be changed is a sign of giving up. Yes the system is messed up but real leaders figure out how it is rigged and scare the riggers a bit to be less corrupt.
 
To actually say that DC can't be changed is a sign of giving up. Yes the system is messed up but real leaders figure out how it is rigged and scare the riggers a bit to be less corrupt.

Being less corrupt is still corrupt. DC can't be changed for the better, only tweaked into a more favorable, still corrupt, alteration that will only last until it is in the Politician's best interests to tweak it again.

That's what he was getting at.

If you're going to change the system for the better, it's going to come from completely reshaping the system from the ground up and defenestrating a majority of the previous Bills. That is something that won't happen without completely breaking the political scene because it's not in anyone's best interests that are already controlling it.
 
The problem ain't Obama, it's the system. You have people voting who can't name 2 founding fathers. Who can't name two amendments to the Constitution.
People who are net recipients of welfare. People who can't name their congressperson.

You can't operate a democracy (which is a fucking mess at best) when people don't understand the issues, the ideas, etc.

Then you add in liar politicians and good luck bro.

It doesn't matter who gets elected, the system (and the people in it) are the problem.

When the American people become better, they will get better government. I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

Well said, you eloquently outlined all of my issues with American "democracy".
 
Things are working as they are meant to work. The ignorance of the subjects is essential to perpetuating the faux legitimacy of the rulers. Why?

From John Taylor Gatto:

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose - the actual purpose - of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.


Or to hear Woodrow Wilson explain it:

Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
 
vdWb9.jpg



wY9nF.jpg



LOL... But seriously.... Gary 2012.
 
Obama may not be a very good president, but you're fooling yourself if you think Mitt Romney will do a better job. Yes, I'll probably be taxed more under Obama, but I don't want to see the country go down the fucking drain.
 
Obama may not be a very good president, but you're fooling yourself if you think Mitt Romney will do a better job. Yes, I'll probably be taxed more under Obama, but I don't want to see the country go down the fucking drain.
It's been going down the drain since 1861.

Or 1913.

Or 1971.

Or 2011.

You give Obama way too much credit if you think he is driving the bus off the cliff.
 
Corporate-bought and owned rich, multi-millionaire, Mormon businessman who is awkward and not that likable, but knows how to make money in the private sector.

vs.

Corporate-bought and owned anti-colonialist community organizer and professor who has never run a business before, has a 4-year history of record deficits, bowing to world leaders, and has never had to meet a payroll before.

I'll take the first asshole, thanks.
 
Obama may not be a very good president, but you're fooling yourself if you think Mitt Romney will do a better job. Yes, I'll probably be taxed more under Obama, but I don't want to see the country go down the fucking drain.

Puppet A, or puppet B, they both have the same hand up their ass. Enjoy the show.
 
It really doesn't matter does it.

Both are bought and paid by the Israeli lobby AIPAC
Both are protecting Goldman Sachs and their army of scammers
Both see no problem with Bernanke inflating you to poverty
Both want to go to war with sand people
One is bought by the unions the other is bought by the corporations

What's the difference really?

Oh yeah, Obama is for free condoms to college sluts and Romney is against some forms of abortion.

The two party system has to be the biggest sham ever. How can you ever expect 300 million people to choose 'red or blue'.

God damn people are stupid sometimes.