America does not have a 2-party political system, it has a one-party political system. That is the Business/corporate party. The business party has 2 factions, the democrats and the republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies and provide the people with the illusion of choice, so they don't rise up in revolt. America is effectively not a democracy or a republic anymore, it is an oligarchy, and more specifically, a corporatocracy. -Noam Chomsky, combined from several quotes.

Why not vote for RP? Then your vote is at least towards a better person for the 'old USA and it might make a difference! Even id he doesn't get elected at least it will show how tucked up the system is if he doesn't.

Vote liberty!

Thank you for the very detailed post. Don't let the naysayers get you down. Few people are willing to admit the truth of the situation.

More and more are starting to "get it". Those that do shouldnt sit back and let the naysayers get any of us down. Were strong in numbers.

The truth being that NLP is pretty much regarded as pseudo-science? I can't help but doubt the rest when the first point is lacking a massive amount of evidence and doesn't prove anything. The whole Stuxnet thing is very interesting though, and I will admit that I believe that we are provided a false sense of choice in our candidates. In the end, we all vote for the business party. The oligarch-corptocracy that has taken over democracy.

the best choice we all have [...] is actually not to vote.

So, it's better to not vote at all, than to vote for Ron Paul a third party?

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

It was called The Second Bank of the United States and had the same modus operandi as the Federal Reserve. Jackson abolished it.

• It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution,
• It exposed the government to control by foreign interests,
• It served mainly to make the rich richer,
• It exercised too much control over members of Congress,
• It favored northeastern states over southern and western states,
• Banks are controlled by a few select families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Opposition_to_the_National_Bank

“Political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” -George Washington

It may be a far- reaching conclusion, but this type of biblical, ‘Revelations’-type global disaster, just like the BP- oil disaster (where the CEO of BP sold all his stocks just weeks before the ‘desaster’) or the thousands of birds and fish dying for no apparent reason, may point towards an intent to enact the prophecies of the old scripts. It may be too far-flung for many readers but the following clip may show to you how deep the rabbit hole actually goes in this respect. ‘BHU’ is only an artifical ‘artist’ name, a closer look reveals that it has a profound meaning in Hebrew. Wasn’t BHU widely celebrated as the ‘messiah’ in the press after the dire G.W. Bush aera? Watch this with an open mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcbloBA2Lek&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Congrats, that is one of the most bat shit crazy things I have ever read.

Be glad he's not voting

[deleted]

Are you claiming that what you wrote above is 'reality'? Are you suggesting the revelations and the bible are 'reality'? Are you suggesting that a giant spaghetti monster lives in the sky and rules over us all and that his greatest enemy and the very embodiment of evil... is the President?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why BHU instead of BHO?

Do a like analysis on GWB.

I would rather see a like analysis on Jeb Bush seeing as Kissinger thinks he will be the next president.

Why not.

But an analysis of GWB would be quite revealing as well and provide context for 2012.

[deleted]

I have done a personal one over the years. But I am not as adept at posting as you are.

Brilliant work, sir. Can't wait to dig into the links later on tonight when I have a bit more time. I have had this sense for a while now -- that the two are really just one -- but have not had the knowledge and wherewithal to tie it all together with historical references and whatnot.

You're an idiot. Obama was born in Hawaii.

I'm impressed and refreshed by the intelligent dialogue taking place here. Minimal name calling. Bravo!

Obama is obviously a better choice than Romney. Even by your own arguments:

"Mr. CIA-creation" who has dealings with "terrorists" (terror is just a means; the ends may or may not justify any sorts of means. You've just bought into buzz-word-mania), and also deals with this "Jew-World Order" would have to be at least able to reason in a logical fashion, would be able to have reasonable discussions with this global organization, and would have means to either offer something, or means to defend against any attempted wrongs. And he would be the president of America. Even if he were working solely for his own interests (assuming they're not purely evil, like Stalin's), screwing over the populace would not be in his interests, because a happier populace produces better goods and services for internal and international trade alike.

Then we have Mr. Mormon, who's involved in corrupt affairs, probably has insane views on various issues that shouldn't even be legislated on, and probably lacks the necessary skills to hold presidential office.

From those two, Mr. Obama is obviously the better choice, especially considering that he graduated from law school (a very demanding subject), and has been both patient and effortful in babysitting and trying to guide congress to making decisions that are productive and not wasteful.

All the same, if you really don't want to vote for either, why not vote for an independent or some other party candidate to contribute to a trend towards a more-than-two-party system? People say you'd be "stealing votes" but since you don't support either anyways why the fuck not? Not voting at all sounds silly by comparison, unless you just don't want to exert the effort to go to the voting place that day (still a bit silly).

And you can still vote with your other actions, dollar-spending included. Like really, how long does it take to fill in a few bubbles!

And moreover you'd be better off researching the congressional candidates, since they're the bigger problem right now. Obama's not doing too badly IMHO. Even if you have to write them in, not researching them and making stupid claims instead isn't helping anyone.

You could even advocate non-D/R candidates and voting therefor, that would be better than not voting at all. What legitimacy is there to a claim that your voice was not considered if you didn't even bother to make it heard?

How about having like a 7th Reich - of sanity. Maybe Reich v. 8.0 will be even better... if it is attempted to improve it, without being too selfish.

[deleted]

Obama seems like the most moderate, and yet deliberate president the USA has had for a long time.

I like Ron Paul; he's obviously a genius - he has at least proven wise as a doctor. But given the political climate, and considering that Obama is a negro, and how the US has treated negroes (and non-white people in general) pretty much throughout its history, I have to grudgingly admit the possibility that he is nevertheless the more safe choice - for balance - in this election if one is to vote for a candidate who "could" (in all likelihood) be elected this year.

But he'll win the election anyways IMHO. If you want to make a vote for a more long term evolution of the political system, then it would be a good idea to vote for basically any independent candidate, to contribute to a multiparty system for the longer-term future, like they have in many European countries. Germany is doing pretty well economically, as I understand. And they're doing it more or less the right way, by hard work, brutal honesty, and unsqueamish reasoning. But they have a culture that is receptive to such an attitude, and the lack thereof is a large part of the problems facing the USA today.

Also, consider that, since shortly after Obama became the president, unemployment has been dropping and the economy has been improving. Sure, he's not perfect; no-one is. But he's been doing an incredible job at improving the nation considering that the Republicans are opposing literally everything he's doing, and is a damn sight better than the alternative.

I agree. Unfortunately it's not only the republicans. Dems are prolly just as bad in general. They're just wasting opportunities to improve life for everyone, and in the process wasting time and money to push the perpetuation of a broken system. Just hampering repairs.

This, as a whole, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Especially your last paragraph:

…the best choice we all have, and this true almost worldwide (also in Germany), is actually not to vote.

Like it or not, one of the two of them will be the president. Pick one as the lesser evil, or as simply more competent, and vote for them. If you don't, then their mindless supporters will. This election looks like it will be close, so every vote matters.

...Vote by not taking vaccines.

Those things which can save your life from deadly diseases? Yeah, I'm totally not getting those.

I notice that all but one of your links for Obama are to Youtube. You do know that it's possible to lie on Youtube, right? I know it sounds crazy ("Who would lie on the internet?") but it's true. The remaining link, meanwhile, appears to be for the ravings of a madman who's somehow gotten attention and influence; there is an entire section of articles for Medical "Tyranny" and another for Police State. I think that this source can be disregarded, considering the other things it endorses.

Once again, this is the most idiotic thing I've ever read.

1. Voting for the lesser of two evils is EXACTLY how the powers that be control us.

2. Vaccines are absolutely terrible for you. Do your research and you will find out why. Don't tell me you still believe them when they say fluoride is good for you.....

I don't know what you think a vaccine is, but it's good for you. Do you want to get polio, chickenpox, or anything else that could easily have been avoided with a simple shot? Do you want your kids to get them?

[deleted]

Are you serious? Or sarcasim?

Shill alert, obvious shill is obvious.

I came to this subreddit because I wondered if anything here had any merit. Clearly not. Now, when I try to educate you, you dismiss me as a shill of your 'conspiracy'. There is obviously no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.

You're stating that vaccines are good for people, espousing the typical nonsense that results from not actually doing your research a la the "fluoride is good for us" mentality. I am simply pointing out that you are a probable shill given your total lack of concrete argument FOR vaccines given the plethora of research out there that shows how bad vaccines are for you.

"when I try to educate you"

That's your problem right there, coming into a subreddit where your average individual is 10x more "educated" (in the real sense of the word) than your average redditor in general. You trying to "educate" me on the merits of vaccines is pretty amusing to say the least.

Flouride is used as part of many different compounds, some of which are dangerous and others of which are not. Sarin, for example, is a deadly nerve agent defined as a weapon of mass destruction. Efavirenz, however, is a medicine. You can't simply say that flouride is good for you, or that it's bad for you; it depends on how it's being used.

Flouride is used to prevent tooth decay; there are several studies showing this. You may be confused by the word 'caries' in this specific article: a caries is a progressive destruction of any bone structure, including teeth.

As for your claim that vaccines are bad for people, you have provided no evidence either. Science, however, is quite providing.

Medical and scientific evidence surrounding vaccinations demonstrate that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases far outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.

Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as one in seven children in Europe. Vaccination has almost eradicated polio. As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the US since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988. Fully vaccinating all US children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.

Please, provide a link to a scientific journal (not a conspiracy website) covering a study which shows that vaccines are ineffective.

****On Vaccines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

Method

We evaluated data on diseases that are preventable by vaccination, infectious and atopic diseases, and vaccinations received that had been collected between 2003 and 2006 in a representative sample of 17 641 subjects aged 0 to 17 years in the framework of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurvey, KiGGS).

Results

Evaluable data on vaccinations were available for 13 453 subjects aged 1–17 years from non-immigrant families. 0.7% of them (95% confidence interval: 0.5%–0.9%) were not vaccinated. The lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects. Unvaccinated children aged 1–5 years had a median number of 3.3 (2.1–4.6) infectious diseases in the past year, compared to 4.2 (4.1–4.4) in vaccinated children. Among 11- to 17-year-olds, the corresponding figures were 1.9 (1.0–2.8) (unvaccinated) versus 2.2 (2.1–2.3) (vaccinated). The lifetime prevalence of at least one atopic disease among 1- to 5-year-olds was 12.6% (5.0%–28.3%) in unvaccinated children and 15.0% (13.6%–16.4%) in vaccinated children. In older children, atopy was more common, but its prevalence was not found to depend on vaccination status: among 6- to 10-year-olds, the prevalence figures were 30.1% (12.9%–55.8%) for unvaccinated children versus 24.4% (22.8%–26.0%) for vaccinated children, and the corresponding figures for 11- to 17-year-olds were 20.3% (10.1%–36.6%) versus 29.9% (28.4%–31.5%).

Conclusion

The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

Fluoride: http://www.fluoridealert.org/re/lu-2000.pdf

The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was measured in 118 children, aged 10-12 years, who were life-long residents in two villages of similar population size and social, educational and economic background but differing in the level of fluoride in drinking water. The children in the high-fluoride area (drinking water fluoride 3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L [ppm]) (mean ± S.D.) had higher urinary fluoride levels (4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L) than the children in the low-fluoride area (drinking water fluoride 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L) (urinary fluoride 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L). The IQ of the 60 children in the high-fluoride area was significantly lower, mean 92.27 ± 20.45, than that of the 58 children in the low-fluoride area, mean 103.05 ± 13.86. More children in the high-fluoride area, 21.6%, were in the retardation (<70) or borderline (70-79) categories of IQ than children in the low fluoride area, 3.4%. An inverse relationship was also present between IQ and the urinary fluoride level. Exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may therefore carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence. Keywords: Fluoride and IQ, Fluoride excretion in urine, Fluorid

Clearly fluoride put into the drinking water is bad for you, as this one study (and there are many like it) proves.

At the very BEST vaccines are simply ineffective, as the vaccine study posted above also proves.

I meant what I said when it quite literally amuses me that you come into this subreddit asking for scholarly studies, and it takes no more than 5 minutes worth of time to pull up simple research. Don't act all high and mighty if your argument is going to get blown to pieces with such little effort....

Also, when it comes to fluoride and tooth decay, if it was so effective in preventing cavities, why is it that communities that do not fluoridate their water have the same cavity rate as those that do?

http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm

Even if fluoride WAS effective in preventing cavities, given the amount of brain damage it does...it's hardly worth adding it to our water supply....

I have read both of these articles. The first says that allergies and non-specific diseases (the ones not prevented by the vaccines) doesn't depend on vaccination status. A vaccine doesn't affect any other diseases than the one it's made for aside from very closely related ones. The second is hosted on a site called flouridealert.org, which certainly sounds like a conspiracy website to me. Furthermore, 118 children is (to my knowledge) too small for a statistically significant measurement of something which varies as much as IQ, and they fail to define how similar similar is. If the two villages were identical in every way aside from flouridation levels, that would be ideal, but obviously that's impossible. There are other possible causes for the variation; perhaps one of the villages had more closely related people, resulting in more inbreeding.

What does it matter what site hosts the scholarly article? I found these articles from doing a simple search on GOOGLE SCHOLAR.

Not to mention, the website is primarily influenced/ran by one of the most reputable scientists in the world when it comes to neurotoxicity:

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix....

http://www.fluoridealert.org/pmullenix.htm

I suppose fair enough on your point about the 118 kids. Heres a study done on fluoride and arsenic done on 720 kids.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852689/

The study seems to focus on arsenic more than fluoride, but still makes a point to say:

The mean IQ score for the high-fluoride group was 101 ± 16 and significantly different from that of the control group (p < 0.05).Children in the control group were taller than those in the high-fluoride group (p < 0.05)

Also, I want to make a point that vaccines DO work to prevent the specific disease they are designed for, but in doing so they permanently damage the immune system. If you are really interested in understanding this, here is a decent link:

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Your-Immune-System-How-It-Works-And-How-Vaccines-Damage-It

and a better link:

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=968

If vaccination does indeed permanently weaken the immune system, then why did your own article state that the rate of non-specific diseases does not depend on vaccination status?

This link is more persuasive than your first link. It is indeed possible that flouride compounds can affect IQ, although I suspect that effect would've been noticed. Furthermore, this is a study from China, which has different environmental regulations than the US; the flouride compound they use may be different then the one used in America. It may also be tainted by some other chemical. Also, I'm afraid that I'm confused by the bold; can you translate (P < 0.05)? I know that the mean for high-flouride is 101 points, with an error margin of 16 points, but I'm not sure what (p < 0.05) means in this context.

Please refrain from editing your posts to add things in what I assume is an attempt to make it seem that I didn't address all your points. Also, you now say

At the very BEST vaccines are simply ineffective

but you also say

vaccines DO work to prevent the specific disease they are designed for

which contradict each other.

I edit my posts for clarification, and because I find other links to add, not to try to trap you or something. Which is ironic, because you didn't address my additional links that I linked.

If it's a scientific study published in a journal, you can be damn well sure they used the same chemical across the board, and it was not tainted. Not to mention, regardless of what specific type of fluoride is used, it exhibits the same general action on lowering IQ by calcifying the pineal gland anyways...but I digress.

The P <0.05 seems to be some kind of statistical difference in measurement between the groups, almost like a margin of error.

Vaccines DO indeed prevent the specific disease they are designed for. And again, at the very BEST...they are ineffective...insofar as contributing to your general health. This is because they may prevent the specific disease, but still deteriorate general health, so at the very best they are INEFFECTIVE when general health is concerned.

The conclusion from the article I linked to stated The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

The definition of a non-specific infection is as follows:

*Non-specific medical conditions or symptoms have more than one possible cause. *

The following link is to direct breakdown of the kiggs study, with multiple graphs showing that SPECIFIC diseases (e.g. herpes) were MORE prevalent among children vaccinated than those that were not. There is an across the board consensus in the numbers that shows this is the case.

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/vaccinations-in-general/health-unvaccinated-children/survey-results-illnesses.html

It just hit me, why would people want to do this? Is it just a thirst for power over everyone and everything? It stymies me as to why anyone would want to do anything like the BP oil spill, fukushima, and all these other 'accidents' to any of the hard working innocent people of their citizenry.

Who cares about the people? It's the $$$ that matters.

First I'd just like to ask for proof about this NLP stuff. I can't find any clear documentation linking AASP (who are arguably a bunch of quacks) to NLP and Obama.

[deleted]

I watched the video. I'm not asking for an explanation on how NLP works. I want documentation from AASP that proves that Obama was doing that, as the video and the video title claims that AASP has proof.... It offers no proof....just speculation.

Edit: This is a good read too.

The term "Neuro-linguistic programming" has been characterized as pseudo-scientific.

I wouldn't say "just don't vote" I will most likely vote 3rd party. But nothing is helped if you just "don't vote" unless there is literally not 1 single candidate you can get behind.

Willard Mitt Romney

The CEO of BP didn't sell all or even most of his stocks weeks before the disaster. He sold a few hundred thousand shares about 1/3rd. He also lost out big on his unvested shares because of it.

[deleted]

And your point is? He still lost out on the unvested shares which were 4x the number he had and 12x the number he sold.

[deleted]

How do you know they were unusually concentrated? Do you have historical figures to back that claim up?

[deleted]

You sound like you don't know much about finance so what makes you qualified to determine if something was unusual or not in a financial transaction? How do you know Goldman don't sell blue chip holdings regularly?

I respect your right to an opinion. I don't however have to respect an uneducated one.

PAUL

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think you missed his point entirely...

BHU is a master speaker, a rhetoric genius, highly intelligent and eloquent and he has the skills to make almost anything sound good to the ears, which is quite useful for a politician.

Anyone can be a master speaker with the help of a teleprompter. None of the "eloquent" speeches are his words, he just reads whatever his speech writers lay on paper for him. I think the credit should go to the person who writes the speeches not to the puppet who reads them out loud.

[deleted]

that's sarcasm, right?

Not at all, I think Rachermagnet is right about that.

If your position is that anyone can read a teleprompter as well as the next person, well then I invite you to watch your local news for a few evenings and then get back to us.

The fact is, that almost all public speaking is rehersed and prepared in advance at this point. But that doesn't mean that there aren't skills involved in the presentation of those speeches. Howard Dean's little scream torpedoed his presidential campaign, and he was in the lead.

Barrack Obama is a master orator, Rachemagnet is right about that. Tone, inflection, tempo, tenor, these things are all performance skills that Obama controls during his presentations. And for what it's worth, you don't rise the level of President of the United States without giving a few good speeches on the way, without a white house staff. President Obama is writing his own speeches, or at least weighing on them.

It's funny that nobody mentions this about Ronald Reagan.

OK, So politicians are being politicians. And? Also, you could've left out the 'He's a Muslim' thing. That's media hype and buzz.

[deleted]

The way you just described it his religion is being used to join people on a global scale not divide and conquer.

But which one is the reptilian?!?

when half the people in the country don't vote, it single-handedly rips the ability to whine about democracy out of everyone elses hands. blame people, not the choices

Why BHU instead of BHO?

I have read both of these articles. The first says that allergies and non-specific diseases (the ones not prevented by the vaccines) doesn't depend on vaccination status. A vaccine doesn't affect any other diseases than the one it's made for aside from very closely related ones. The second is hosted on a site called flouridealert.org, which certainly sounds like a conspiracy website to me. Furthermore, 118 children is (to my knowledge) too small for a statistically significant measurement of something which varies as much as IQ, and they fail to define how similar similar is. If the two villages were identical in every way aside from flouridation levels, that would be ideal, but obviously that's impossible. There are other possible causes for the variation; perhaps one of the villages had more closely related people, resulting in more inbreeding.