WAR ON TERROR: Bin Laden body was flown To US military mortuary

It’s sad that ANONYMOUS and Wikileaks have more credibility to me than the U.S. government. Very sad.
LINK URL: https://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,10164.0/topicseen.html

“Fairly popular?” No, Obama. It was THE most popular question. Nice way to dodge the issue. Oh, and while you’re at it, insult everyone intelligent enough to try to have a voice and use your website that you bragged about as being “Change”.

Some comments I enjoyed:

“Barrack Obama was quoted on January 21, 2004 saying “The War on Drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws.” He goes on to say “But I am not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana. What I do believe is that we need to rethink how we are operating in the drug wars and I think that currently we are not doing a good job.” What happened between then and now? He won’t even think about decriminalization now. He’s wrapped around someone’s finger” -phokuzbt@youtube

“Obama, I voted for you but you are slowly losing my confidence in your ability to put science before theology. Surely someone with the education you have knows that hemp (aka marijuana) was made illegal for all the wrong reasons. You are slowly losing your grassroots supporters, you have already lost me.” -sahenke13@youtube

“The only reason they opened up that forum on the whitehouse site was to make people feel like they have a voice, and that it’s being heard. Clearly that is not the case. Prohibition of alcohol failed. Prohibition of marijuana failed too. What is the big deal? They know it could bring in huge tax revenue. What could possibly be turning them away from that. “Look, when I was a kid, I inhaled frequently. That was the point.” -Barrack Obama” -phokuzbt@youtube

“what was disturbing was his chuckle(laugh). I guess it’s funny that 800,000 thousand non-voilent offenders get lock up every year or we spend billions apon bilions of tax payer dollars to “try” to fight the war on marijuana.” -dub@MPP blog

“He spent a good amount of time on Financial Aid. If Obama knew his facts he would realize that over 200,000 students have been denied Financial Aid do to cannabis convictions.” -Solon594@MPP blog

“I am offended and disappointed at President Obama’s response to our questions… and then making a joke of what we collectively think should happen is simply not ok. I am so tired of the same old attitude and stereotypes… I thought he was a fresh thinker, a brave new political maverick… Someone that could see past previously held beliefs and find truth… I voted for this?” -dw@MPP blog

My response: Well, DW. Some of us were smart enough not to vote for Obama. Did you really the Democratic party was going to change anything? They just swing the pendelum in the other direction. That’s not the same as change.

“Well, now we’ve been given our official lip service. Once again a gullible majority believed a politician. What a HUGE surprise. It doesn’t matter if they’re republican or democrat, grey or gray. They will never stop being opposite sides of the same old coin.” -JW@MPP blog

“what change? looks like obama favors the status quo. i wonder if he even realizes how and why marijuana was first criminalized in the first place. racism anyone? first black president? wha… this administration is a joke. this isnt about change at all… it’s about certain vested interests. we got played.” -Jon Stotz@MPP blog

Anyway, I’m still waiting for this so-called “change”. Let’s see how things are in 4 years… (more…)

Dead right.


I’m hearing a lot people say, “providing a certificate of live birth should not be enough for Obama to prove he’s eligible for president.” What with, you know, the big stink being made about if he’s really an American citizen. The one thing these people are right about is that, yes: The constitution specifics you have to be a born citizen to be president. Period. There’s no exceptions, and if you think there should be, might I recommend Arnold Schwarzeneggar as our next president? Yeah. Didn’t think so.

But anyway, my whole problem with these people is the way they have shifted the burden of proof onto Obama to prove that he IS a citizen. What if his paperwork is lost?

I guess if you lose your irreplaceable paperwork in a fire or something, you lose your constitutional right to become president, since you can’t prove it?

I would say any rights you have as a citizen fall under the “innocent until proven guilty” concept. He should not have to prove his citizenship. Someone should have to prove he was a citizen/born elsewhere. I’m not disagreeing with their basic investigatory concept of wanting to know the truth here; I’m disagreeing with where they are placing the burden of proof: Onto Obama, who is essentially a defendent in this.

I lost my papers and found out myself — ther’es NO FUCKING WAY to get them back. Your state will gladly let you spend $55 on a Live Birth Certificate, but it is a useless document that WONT get you a social security card, which you need to get a driver’s license if you lack other papers. And you can’t get a driver’s license without the right id either – including social security card. If your’e missing it all, too bad for you. You’re a blank. Fortunately I had applied for a passport, so 6 weeks later that came back. Until then, there was NO recourse. I felt like Tuttle being enveloped in newspapers at the end of the movie Brazil. They wouldn’t let me drink. I couldn’t get into some clubs, despite being in my 30s. I would have had to pay lawyers to figure it out for me. If I was homeless I’d probably stay that way because I’d never be able to get the paperwork to be eligible to hold a job again.

Did I lose my first amendment rights to free speech? No.
Do I lose my constitutional rights just because I lost my papers? No.

I’m all for not letting him be president if he’s not a citizen. I’d love to see the Democratic party go down in flames for that. But the burden shouldn’t be on Obama to prove himself innocent anymore than I should hvae to prove I’m a citizen to excercise my free speech after losing my papers.

If they can prove he was born outside of the country, though — more power to him. But Obama shouldn’t have to prove anything himself. His citizenship wasn’t in question in the past. And the system currently considers him a citizen, which means he has those rights, even if he doesn’t truly deserve them. At that point, it’s innocent until proven guilty. He shouldn’t have to furnish shit. Someone else has to furnish proof that he was born elsewhere. So bring it. (more…)

Congratulations, America. While you did not vote for significant real change, at least you managed to outvote the 50% of morons who actually think John McCain would somehow, someway, inexplicably be a good idea for America. And at least you voted in the first black president, and the first president with a “terrarist name”. It’s taken a good 150 years for us to come this far.

PunditKitchen is like LOLcats for politics

First off, the easy part: I wont be voting for McCain because I’m not a fucking retard who ignored everything that happened the last 8 years, A vote for McCain is like saying Bush did nothing wrong, war in the middle east is good, and the relaxing of banking regulations was a good move because the market must be free. (Gee, look what happened.) Nevermind the fact that as the gay-marriage-hating party, they now literally are the party that wants to use the govenrment to repress 10% of people from having equal rights, simply because those rights are counter to their prevailing religius beliefs.

Now, the hard part: I wont be voting for Barack Obama, although I will say he is clearly, clearly, clearly the better candidate out of the two.

Why? Becuase he sure as hell doesn’t represent “change”. If by “Change” he means, “Not Bush”, I would expect that from any sensible candidate. (Note that this does not include John McCain.) But he barely represents change.

Let’s see…

Barack Obama voted for immunity for the telecom corporations that illegally spied on Americans after claming to be against THAT as well! I 2007, he said: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” Yet in 2008, he failed to do just what he said, and helped grant immunity to the telcos, who helped commit what is quite likely the greatest illegal mass surveillance of a company’s own customers in American history.

Barack Obama said he was against the Patriot Act, yet, just like with the telecom immunity, helped vote to re-authorize it anyway. “This is just good leadership” people will claim, probably citing that it was the leseser of two evils versus not passing it. Of course, that’s just how they want you to think… That our politicians have no other choice but to do the things they are. In which case, if they are so helpless, why do we bother to vote? (Oh wait. Americans vote far less than most democracies. 2008 will hopefully turn out to be a big exception to that!)

I have to ask — is it really “Change” when he doesn’t live up to his own word and changes nothing?

Barack Obama supports the failed drug war and does not believe in the legalization of marijuana. Of course, this drug war is something that has cost more American lives and dollars than 911, Afghanistan, and Iraq put together. He has also called for stepped-up enforcement. Considering that the drug war disproportionately jails racial minorities, we have black people basically voting for a black man that would cause them to continue to be jailed. Real smart. (But again, he’s better than McCain in this aspect.) Of course, if you truly believe the drug war is a problem, you should never vote for a candidate who supports it. The Libertarians have not once run a candidate who supports the failed drug war — other than in 2008. Bob Bar is a scumbag who directly blocked the D.C. Medical Marijuana referendum as a Georgian congressman. Just because he had a change of heart and now supports the Libertarian platform doesn’t mean he’s not an enemy to democracy. The Libertarians fucked up big this time. Of course, Ralph Nader does not support the drug war at all. At least Obama (and McCain too, I hear) both want to end the federal government’s involvement in raiding marijuana dispenseries that operate within state laws. Go federalism!

Barack Obama supports military action against Iran (“The U.S. should take no option, including military action, off the table.”) It’s off the table with Nader. And regardless of what the consensus is, it would be a BAD, BAD, BAD idea (the Pentagon agrees). Nevermind the fact that we never won the war in Afghanistan, despite what conservatives may claim. Joe Biden has stressed that Obama is strongly pro-Israel. I’m not. I don’t think they should be getting the amount of money we get when they are already the per-capita leader in military expenditures (america is #2, and #1 for total expenditures, not even counting what we fund Israel). And I think Israel is largely behaving like a bully — much like America, actually. We shouldn’t protect their peace when they refuse to make any with the Palestinians. And I say this as someone of Jewish decent. (Grandma in Nazi camp, Grandad liberated her, yada yada.) That of course means that if anything happens between Israel and Iran, we’ll somehow be “required” to step in. Just great, considering Israel has been trying to clear the way for an invasion of Iran for some time now.

Barack Obama also supports military strikes inside of Pakistan. Ironically, McCain doesn’t appear to support this. (!!!!) Nevermind that Pakistan actually has nukes, UNLIKE Afghanistan. Nevermind that we have not once, but twice now caused Pakistan troops to fire on American troops. Nevermind that we have now dropped bombs inside of Pakistan, killing civilians. It’s not possible for us to simultaneously fight every nation of our choosing on the planet. Nader simliarly does not support any action against Pakistan at all. It’s off the table.

Barack Obama voted against a federal gay marriage, yet he is against it personally, and thinks that laws about marriage should be left to the states. Can you imagine if we had said the choice to discriminate against black people best be left to the states? People would justfiably go ape-shit at such a statement! Either you consider the choice of being able to marry who you love a basic civil right, or you don’t. If it is a basic civil right, it should exist it the federal level and apply to all Americans, and a President should support making this happen. We don’t have “Freedom of speech, except in Texas”; we have freedom of speech for all. There’s really no room for compromise in this. Nader thinks the government should “get out of the marriage business”, which is what I’m all about. I may be splitting hairs, but I’m simply trying to make the point that Obama is not the best candidate. Like Obama, McCain also masked his tolerance for intolerance as being pro-states’ rights as well. Neither of these guys is going to make a difference for the right to marry at a federal level, but McCain is of course more intolerant — he thinks gays should be out of the military completely.

Barack Obama supports the criminal bailout of failed corporations, as does John McCain. It’s no coincidence that the two corporate business-loving parties love the idea of socializing losses (but keeping profits private; Exxon broke it’s record AGAIN this quarter). Of course, every other major 3rd party candidate (Bob Barr, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin) sensibly opposses this measure, which was bullied on the american public like a mafioso visiting a Mom-and-Pop convenience shop, big stick in hand, threatning softly: “You wouldn’t want anything to happen to the economy, would you? Accidents happen. People get hurt. Better pay up your protection money.”

Barack Obama supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers for murders. That’s like suing McDonalds for making you get fat. Or suing a detergent manufacturer if someone poisons your spouse with detergent. Anyone who thinks it automatically makes sense to sue someone who manufactured something that killed someone is obviously forming their opinion from the emotional area of “I don’t like guns, therefore I support any action taken against guns”. If you don’t care about the constitutional right to own a gun, or the freedom for people to do things that YOU DON’T LIKE, then please move on over to the “suppressionist” side; you are not a freedom lover, you just love actions that you agree with. Freedom means allowing people to do things they don’t want, and last I checked: Owning a gun was a constitutional right. Like free speech. Exactly like free speech. This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for the first time in 70 years just last year.

Barack Obama supports towns having stricter gun laws than what is federally allowed. Gee, last time I checked it was a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Imagine if a candidate said, “I support towns having stricter freedom of speech laws than what is federally allowed.” It would be a death knell to any campaign to broadcast a basic disdain for the constitution, especially since the first thing a President does is take an oath to uphold the constitution. Yet, because bleeding-heart liberals hate guns, the constitution somehow becomes something that can be disregarded. These are the same people who are mad that they are arrested at protests, and made to protest in “free speech zones”. They are mad that their first amendment is violated, yet they are quite willing to stand behind someone willing to violate the second amendment. That’s hypocritical, and not true respect for freedom. Barack supported the D.C. gun ban as well, until it was determined to be unconstitutional — at which point he had no choice but to flip-flop.

Barack Obama does not believe in concealed carry licenses, despite the fact that not knowing which people around you might be carrying a gun is indeed a deterrent to crime. If it wasn’t, then why do we have secret air marshalls on the planes? They’re not just there to enforce the rules, but to deter as well. I have had friends who have been seriously attacked and hurt by ex-spouses/lovers, and have had to resort to such measures to protect their own lives; I support anyone’s basic right to life, and the right to protect their own life is even more basic to me than the right to free speech or food.

(Even more so since the police get to excercise this right in spades, being able to legally kill anybody they even falsely perceive as a threat; even a robber with a plastic gun inside a bay window at a Halloween party on Halloween, which I use as an unfortunate-but-true example.)

Barack Obama wants to expand the H1-B visa program. No surprise. Democrats love profit too. Ralph Nader wants to stop the H1-B “brain drain” visa, which definitely harms american workers. A lot of the liberal tech community (readers of Slashdot, for example) believes this as well, and it’s no surprise: We want to protect our own asses. I’ve worked with H1-B Visa holders. If they lose their job, they go back to China. Of course they’re willing to work for cheaper when faced with that, and of course that distorts the market by supplying cheap labor. It hurts the wages of every citizen and helps the corporations. I don’t see eye to eye with Barack here at all.

Barack Obama, health-wise, will be bad. A many people have pointed out, BOTH PRESIDENTS would result in fewer people getting medical coverage! Between 1 and 50 million, depending on what you read. Nobody anywhere is saying either candidate will result in more people being covered! How many young liberals who don’t have proper medical plans are going to get bankrupted by medical bills (the leading cause of bankruptcy) themselves over the next 4-8 years? And out of those, how many will have voted for Obama? Ralph Nader (and Cynthia McKinney) supports a single-payer health care system and full Medicare for everyone. EVERYONE. You can still have your fancy expensive private doctors if you are a rich (and you can afford extra taxes too! Don’t be greedy, rich!). But the 40M, soon-to-be 41M, 60M or 90M (depending on who’s numbers you trust) Americans without insurance would be able to have care too. And 95% of them are going to vote against their own care, by not supporting a candidate who supports this! Just stab yourself; it’ll be the lesser of two evils! Even Libertarian candidate Bob Barr wants to cut costs by reducing controls and regulations.

Ralph Nader has said he is specifically against corporate welfare. I wish Obama would say something like that. Maybe he has?

Barack Obama wont pull troops out of Iraq as fast as Ralph Nader, but at least he says he will eventually do that.

Joe Biden supports the 21 drinking age, something that I’m pretty sure 100% of people would be against. Yet how many people who complained when they were 18, 19, and 20, now support him and vote for him? How many people who got in trouble for drinking underage are going to turn around and vote for someone who supported it?

I also read Joe Biden helped create the mandatory minimum system, but don’t know if that is the case. If so, then he’s helped take away more unnecessary liberty from American citizens than almost anyone I know — even Bush.


Suffice to say that, while in the middle of writing this posting, I went out and voted for Ralph Nader. The Democratic party is certainly a lot closer to what I would call “sanity” than the current withered Republican party, and if this were truly a 2-party election, they would get my vote. But it isn’t, and they are way too centrist for me, and not nearly pro-freedom enough. They’re not even socially liberal enough!


Also, be prepared for me to say “this is what you Obama voters caused” at every bad thing prepetrated by this administration’s platform for the next 4-8 years.

When we attack another country in a bullshit war, when we break the annual record for marijuana arrests yet again (which happened under Clinton, too, even though he smoked it!), when the next bad thing happens, and there’s no one else to blame it on — I’ll be telling you: “Don’t blame me; *I* didn’t vote for him!”


Still, I have a sense that there will be less to complain about than during the Bush administration. And for that, I will be thankful for the extra free time I get when NOT having to bitch about something online. :) (more…)

Seriously, every 4 years I get pretty disgusted at people for allowing themselves to be manipulated into voting as if we have a 2-party system. I am reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where the evil aliens Kang and Kodos take over the 2 presidential candidates. Humans all realize this, and one human shouts — “We’ll just vote for a 3rd party then.” Kang then shouts out: “Go ahead. Throw away your vote!” Later, Kang has won, but Homer says, “Don’t blame me; I voted for Kodos” — as if that absolves him of any responsibility whatsoever for voting like an idiot.

Take this to heart. The “evil aliens” would have you believe that by voting incorrectly, you are somehow “throwing away” your vote. What does “throwing away” mean exactly?

Is your vote not counted? No, it’s still counted.

Do you lose a mulitplier bonus for voting for the winner? No, this isn’t a video game. You don’t get bonus points, and you don’t lose bonus points. Your vote is always just that: One vote.

Is the election going to be decided by one vote? No. And if it was: Your vote is STILL no more important than every other vote in your state. ANY person could have decided the vote by changing it, and this could be true no matter how you vote.
BUT IN REALITY, an election that close is going to be decided by arbitrary factors such as hanging chads, voting machines, and obscure court rulings. (The Florida recount was stopped; Kerry would have won.) Oh, and of course the electoral college can ignore your vote completely, and vote for McCain even if the majority of the state votes for Obama. While not a common practice, it’s happened in America before. Funny, that.

And don’t give me the “Nader handed Florida to Bush!” argument. Bush won by 537 votes, but only because the recount was stopped. Oh, and the fact that 12 percent of Democrats in Florida in 2000 voted for George W. Bush! That’s 200,000. If just ONE percent of these traitor democrats had decided not to do that, Kerry would have been president.

The irony of all this was that they probably voted Republican because they hated Kerry, not because they thought a Republican leader would be the best leader! They were probably choosing the perceived “lesser of 2 evils” themselves — and look where it got us. To me, A 2-party system is actually the cause of the problem, and then proponents of the system say that those who voted 3rd party were the ones who caused Bush to be elected. BULLSHIT! You can place the blame on any 537 people randomly selected out of non-Kerry voters — and this blame squarely falls on the people who voted for the lesser-of-two-evils using “2-party thinking”.

In the end, you can vote for change, or you can vote for the same old party simply because it claims “change”.

This country is at rock bottom. “Change” is the least I would expect from any president. It’s really not promising that much.

Don’t read this as an endorsement of McCain.

You really have to be morally broken in several different ways to think there’s anything acceptible whatsoever in voting for McCain. You have to be so fucking retarded as to ignore the last 8 years; to ignore the fact that the bank collapse was due to Republicans voting for relaxed baking rules; to ignore the fact that BIN LADEN WON, and Bush played right into his hands by taking away our rights with the Patriot Act; to ignore the culture of fear perpetrated by the republicans (and supported by the democrats), the wholesale violation of the rights of Americans as well as non-Americans; the suspension of due process and the creation of a war with no known end or terms for victory.

If you vote for McCain, you pretty much deserve to have your teeth knocked out.

But at the same time — If you think the Democrats are here to save the day, you’re just voting like a scared child put in a corner. You’ve been whipped by the Republican party for 8 years, and you’re so scared of this continuing that you’ll side with the first stooge who comes up to you and offers protection. This is vastly different from electing someone who shares your actual beliefs.

I wonder how many people who think the war on drugs is a failure are still going to vote for the 2 parties that have perpetrated it? The War On Drugs is a big issue, completely ignored in the political race. Yet, it has wasted more American money than the War On Terror; it has directly taken away the rights of more Americans than the War On Terror; it has led to military interventions abroad, but in public and in secret, just like the War On Terror, and it has led the laws which effectively take away even more rights (asset forfeiture, anyone?) (What about No-knock raids? Raids where the cops are justified in shooting you to death, even if you don’t have drugs and are legally defending your family from masked intruders breaking in in the middle of the night? Last I checked, it shouldn’t be legal to kill someone for excercising their constitutional rights.)

There are lots of problems in America, and they are getting worse.

But hey — spank some voters with the shittiest president of our lives for 8 years, and they’ll willingly vote for a party that has done all kinds of damage to our nation. The lesser of two evils is just that: Still an evil.

Read on for part two. (more…)


DRCnet posted a good article at StopTheDrugWar.com about our two candidates, and how they differ on the war on drugs. It’s informative, and merits a read by voters — especially those on the fence. It also talks about the motivation for voting for a 3rd party, which I plan to do.

Anyway, as expected: the prevailing two parties have nothing new to offer, basically meeting the “trying the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results” definition of insanity. But, as usual, the Repugnantcans are still more insane than the Democraps:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/555/obama_mccain_barr_mckinney_nader_drug_policy_reform_2008_election (more…)

Hmm, socialism for those that are financially sick, but not socialism for those who are actually physically sick and dying. Interesting how that works.


How much bribe money does it take to transfer $700 Billion taxpayer dollars to Wall Street’s elite?

(BTW – I heard the top 400 richest Americans have gotten over $700B richer under the Bush administration already anyway.)

Obama, Barack (D-IL) $691,930
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $468,200
Romney, Mitt (R) $229,675
McCain, John (R-AZ) $208,395
Himes, Jim (D-CT) $114,748
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $111,750
Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) $105,400
Edwards, John (D) $66,450
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $47,600
Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL) $32,950
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $30,100

How much money did your Represenative get from Big Bankers to look the other way and pass a bill that the American people clearly do not want?

(My representative, Moran (D-VA), was only given $4200 and of course sent out an email saying he was against the bailout. He is the only representative to ever consistently agree with me, despite the fact that many think him a madman and that he has thrown punches on the state senate floor before.)

http://www.WashingtonYoureFired.com (more…)

You go, girl! (more…)

Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures
see Sarah Palin pictures (more…)

OK… I get it now.. When Republicans say “sending them on a task from god”, according to her backpedaling, what they are really saying is “let’s hope we are on the same side as God”. Freakin’ hilarious spin. And an obvious lie. Who says something is “a task from god” if you’re just hoping that you happen to be on the same side as him? You know what? I’m going to murder a baby puppy — it’s a task from God. At least, I’m hoping that I’m on the same side as god when I do it.

Nader Says Free the Dopers, Jail the Corporate Crooks. FIVE YEARS for North Dakota Man Who Bought $32 Worth of Salvia Divinorum. (more…)

Next Page »