ADVERTISEMENT

OT: US Patent Office cancels "Redskins" trademark regisgtration

Am I the only one who sees the excessive irony of Democrats in our country vilifying the moral/religious leaders of our nation for trying to impose their views onto our society whike at the same time the left is daily attempting to impose their own views or morality?

Its one of the biggest scams perpetrated on our nation using "social progression" to further divide and tear apart our people building a stranglehold on a broken two party system. Insuring a moderate party will never be the voice of our country. Horrific to think about.
 
Originally posted by floridahog:

I am headed out to the casino now to take a poll since its the closest thing we have to a reservation around here. I have my CDIB card to prove I am a fellow tribesman, I will report back later after I finish playing poker, I mean polling. GHG
Ask them how they feel about the US Patent Office giving Washington this trademark.....then taking it away.
 
Originally posted by mikedamone:

Originally posted by Sir Dennis Eeatin-Hog:
Wow, Dr. Phil Damone prescribes professional help one day, then the next he fires off a couple of arrogant, from-the-holster judgments that because the mascot is not meant to offend, then it not only shouldn't be considered offensive, but it should be considered an honor.
You really got your feelings hurt by me calling you out on your poor reading comprehension on that ridiculously stupid article that "backed up" your opinion. LOL, sorry I disagreed with your constant beating of a dead horse.

It may not seem like it now, but its going to be OK. Time heals all butthurt. You will make it through this.
Oh, none of this changes my opinion that you are normally an outstanding poster. And the "calling out" you do doesn't bother me, because you are usually in the vicinity of the truth. What bothers me is that you are often a drama queen, which to me doesn't equal what you normally bring and reduces your take. We're all weak enough to make mistakes, damone, and time will continue to reveal the best and worst of us. I'm "healed" as much as the next guy, bro. Time's already done it's job in that regard.

BTW, the post I made today was not just aimed at you, it was aimed at several points that were brought up in this thread.
 
Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:
Am I the only one who sees the excessive irony of Democrats in our country vilifying the moral/religious leaders of our nation for trying to impose their views onto our society whike at the same time the left is daily attempting to impose their own views or morality?

Its one of the biggest scams perpetrated on our nation using "social progression" to further divide and tear apart our people building a stranglehold on a broken two party system. Insuring a moderate party will never be the voice of our country. Horrific to think about.
Boss, I tend to be in the middle of everything, not on the left. I feel as if I need to state that before I go on with my post because around here, anything that doesn't side with the GOP tends to be looked at as a bed wetting liberal. I have a very passionate view on the media as a whole and politics as well, even though this media stuff ties it all together, but I'll leave the politics part for another board. However, my views on the media really boil down to one thing....money. Money rules the world, especially in this country. Therefore, everything is typically financially driven, good or bad. It just depends on which side you are own and the media is more than happy to help lend you a public relations hand, of course, for their fair share of the pie. Who really controls the media? Is it the so called "liberal media" that those on the right complain about controlled by Hollywood and liberal special interests? Is Fox News controlled by the Republican Party? If you believe any of these generalizations you are dead wrong and the truth will shock you. Major multinational corporations, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and Saudi Princes, all hell bent on protecting their own interests, choose what you will see on the nightly news and trick you into believing it is unbiased reporting. For example.... Regardless of what they make you believe, Boss, all of the major news outlets contributed heavily to George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, so any argument that they are controlled by liberals evaporates quickly. In this case they all supported the candidate that promised to allow consolidation of multiple media companies, hence furthering their agenda of media takeover and ensuring to their clients a bigger footprint into every household. In todays world of the lazy, we gladly let everyone else tell us what is right or wrong or how to feel about everything or what anything means. We do not fact check anything and there hasn't been any sense of "truth" without agenda to the "news" in decades. The mainstream media knows this and they promote this to their clients. When it comes to politics or civil matters, it's all a bunch of propagandist info to support ones political views or the corporate interests of clients in the name of Capitalism. Just keep those dollars flowing with TV driven adds to sway support or opposition toward anything their clients and big supporters agree/disagree with. It's all about money. Corporations control the airways, our state and federal leaders, the media, etc... That is the fact of the matter. Not saying it is wrong, just that people should research their news and there should be more of a Hippocratic oath to what is reported on the daily "News." But, that would prohibit those in positions of power from getting what they want all the time, and they won't stand for that. So, we are where we are today because of that. You pay the money, you get what you want 99% of the time and any bad pub you get from it is far outweighed by the financial benefit you gained from it. Example.......The Iraq War. Agree or disagree, you can not argue that a few companies made out like billionaires over that war and oh, btw, they happen to be connected closely to the administration. I'm not bashing on Bush, just pointing out this is how it works.

Here is where I am going to disagree with you. But, don't believe me, go look it up for yourself and see who owns the airways and TV networks and how many households they reach on a daily basis and how big the "right" owned media footprint is and how their outlets dwarf everything else. It's about 3:1. Also, look up the Council On Foreign Relations and tell me what their goal or mission is and get back to me and tell me if you still feel the same about the so called liberal media. The Council's sole mission is to own and manipulate the "News" to bring about a new world order of corporate control of everything. That is not my opinion, it is stated in their mission statement and again, it is comprised of mostly right-wing members and contributors. Out of the top 20 broadcasting companies, 18 contributed heavily to Bush and have right leaning agendas. Again, don't believe me, its' out there for you to find.

The very news stories that you are fed by the mainstream media are manipulated to mirror the public relations campaigns of companies that operate nuclear plants, sprawling theme parks that gobble up wetlands, defense contractors, oil companies, social media sites, investments companies and even Saudi Princes. Everything corporate has public relations and they advertise and support the mainstream media. It's how they pay the bills. Of course they are going to do whatever they are told and present it in a way that sways public opinion to their product, needs or desires. Remember the old "Outer Limits" TV shows where the announcer says "We control everything you see and hear, the vertical, the horizontal," etc? The corporate controlled news media controls all you see and hear. There is no freedom without freedom of the press and the quicker we as a people make our government do something about that, the better off everyone would be. We might actually get some sort of truth out of the news instead of constant manipulation by agenda.
 
Originally posted by pigboy7:

Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:
Am I the only one who sees the excessive irony of Democrats in our country vilifying the moral/religious leaders of our nation for trying to impose their views onto our society whike at the same time the left is daily attempting to impose their own views or morality?

Its one of the biggest scams perpetrated on our nation using "social progression" to further divide and tear apart our people building a stranglehold on a broken two party system. Insuring a moderate party will never be the voice of our country. Horrific to think about.
Boss, I tend to be in the middle of everything, not on the left. I feel as if I need to state that before I go on with my post because around here, anything that doesn't side with the GOP tends to be looked at as a bed wetting liberal. I have a very passionate view on the media as a whole and politics as well, even though this media stuff ties it all together, but I'll leave the politics part for another board. However, my views on the media really boil down to one thing....money. Money rules the world, especially in this country. Therefore, everything is typically financially driven, good or bad. It just depends on which side you are own and the media is more than happy to help lend you a public relations hand, of course, for their fair share of the pie. Who really controls the media? Is it the so called "liberal media" that those on the right complain about controlled by Hollywood and liberal special interests? Is Fox News controlled by the Republican Party? If you believe any of these generalizations you are dead wrong and the truth will shock you. Major multinational corporations, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and Saudi Princes, all hell bent on protecting their own interests, choose what you will see on the nightly news and trick you into believing it is unbiased reporting. For example.... Regardless of what they make you believe, Boss, all of the major news outlets contributed heavily to George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, so any argument that they are controlled by liberals evaporates quickly. In this case they all supported the candidate that promised to allow consolidation of multiple media companies, hence furthering their agenda of media takeover and ensuring to their clients a bigger footprint into every household. In todays world of the lazy, we gladly let everyone else tell us what is right or wrong or how to feel about everything or what anything means. We do not fact check anything and there hasn't been any sense of "truth" without agenda to the "news" in decades. The mainstream media knows this and they promote this to their clients. When it comes to politics or civil matters, it's all a bunch of propagandist info to support ones political views or the corporate interests of clients in the name of Capitalism. Just keep those dollars flowing with TV driven adds to sway support or opposition toward anything their clients and big supporters agree/disagree with. It's all about money. Corporations control the airways, our state and federal leaders, the media, etc... That is the fact of the matter. Not saying it is wrong, just that people should research their news and there should be more of a Hippocratic oath to what is reported on the daily "News." But, that would prohibit those in positions of power from getting what they want all the time, and they won't stand for that. So, we are where we are today because of that. You pay the money, you get what you want 99% of the time and any bad pub you get from it is far outweighed by the financial benefit you gained from it. Example.......The Iraq War. Agree or disagree, you can not argue that a few companies made out like billionaires over that war and oh, btw, they happen to be connected closely to the administration. I'm not bashing on Bush, just pointing out this is how it works.

Here is where I am going to disagree with you. But, don't believe me, go look it up for yourself and see who owns the airways and TV networks and how many households they reach on a daily basis and how big the "right" owned media footprint is and how their outlets dwarf everything else. It's about 3:1. Also, look up the Council On Foreign Relations and tell me what their goal or mission is and get back to me and tell me if you still feel the same about the so called liberal media. The Council's sole mission is to own and manipulate the "News" to bring about a new world order of corporate control of everything. That is not my opinion, it is stated in their mission statement and again, it is comprised of mostly right-wing members and contributors. Out of the top 20 broadcasting companies, 18 contributed heavily to Bush and have right leaning agendas. Again, don't believe me, its' out there for you to find.


The very news stories that you are fed by the mainstream media are manipulated to mirror the public relations campaigns of companies that operate nuclear plants, sprawling theme parks that gobble up wetlands, defense contractors, oil companies, social media sites, investments companies and even Saudi Princes. Everything corporate has public relations and they advertise and support the mainstream media. It's how they pay the bills. Of course they are going to do whatever they are told and present it in a way that sways public opinion to their product, needs or desires. Remember the old "Outer Limits" TV shows where the announcer says "We control everything you see and hear, the vertical, the horizontal," etc? The corporate controlled news media controls all you see and hear. There is no freedom without freedom of the press and the quicker we as a people make our government do something about that, the better off everyone would be. We might actually get some sort of truth out of the news instead of constant manipulation by agenda.
All of that would make a lot more sense if the biggest papers in the country, cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, npr, etc., actually held the left(particularly the current prez) accountable for stuff like Bengazzi, fast and furious, side stepping the Constitution at will, trading 5 terrorists for one deserter, running up debt that can't be paid back w/o collapsing the economy, entitlement programs fraught with fraud, and on and on and on. Instead, they do TV specials about Hillary(free pub for her 16 run), rant about global warming, and lightly gloss over the aforementioned stuff like it just isn't a big deal. Bengazzi breaking just before the 2012 election would have doomed anybody but Obama b/c the media would have been all over it non-stop. Were they truly right wing leaning as you suggest, they would have certainly used that to kill Obama's re-election hopes. Watergate was minor in comparison to what is routine for BA and Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace over it. BA has gotten people killed with Bengazzi and Fast and Furious, blatantly defied his oath to uphold the Constitution, and gets one fluff piece after another done on him by everybody except Fox and AFR.

So, if these guys are tools for the right, they need to get some new guys b/c these guys suck at what they do.
 
Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:

Orig posted by ermackey:

Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:

Originally posted by Da Biz:
LOL you get lost in the weeds. Back on topic, per Albert Breer twitter:

Asked Erik Syverson, a partner and intellectual property attorney at Raines Feldman, to review the Redskins ruling for me yesterday. ...

Syverson said he'd view this as significantly different from the 1999 case, because of the shift in public sentiment, which matters here.

He emphasized that the appellate court never ruled that the evidence brought in 1999 was insufficient to prove "Redskins" is disparaging.

The 1999, rather, was reversed on a laches defense, a doctrine that says if you wait too long to take action, you lose the right.

Change of venue is important here too, per Syverson. Appeal goes to a different court due to realignment under the America Invents Act.

As we know, this isn't over legally. But Syverson says it could be the final straw. Businesses sometimes see these as opp's to change.
Dont give me "public sentiment" as viable evidence to overturn freedom of speech. Provide me 5 examples of civil suits won based on the use of the term Redskin outside of the Football teams situation and Ill listen. If this is a term that inspires hatred surely it has been addressed in the courts previously. If not this is nothing but a witch hunt to get headlines. But something tells me you wont be abke to find that. Again were using the term Redskin for the basis of this topic not general native american discrimination.
A trademark is not "Freedom of Speech". If it was, there would be no need for a trademark.
It is a privately owned company. His choice to adopt whatever marketing he choses for his business is indeed free speech. Its his money but the market will decide his fate right......isnt that the lefts standpoint.....just not when the market doesnt side with the lefts views then they must legislate their views instead of sticking with the whole land of the free bs. That freedom garbage is sooooo overrated.
And the trademark decision infringes on his first amendment rights how? It did not ban anything.
 
Originally posted by ermackey:


Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:


Orig posted by ermackey:


Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:


Originally posted by Da Biz:
LOL you get lost in the weeds. Back on topic, per Albert Breer twitter:

Asked Erik Syverson, a partner and intellectual property attorney at Raines Feldman, to review the Redskins ruling for me yesterday. ...

Syverson said he'd view this as significantly different from the 1999 case, because of the shift in public sentiment, which matters here.

He emphasized that the appellate court never ruled that the evidence brought in 1999 was insufficient to prove "Redskins" is disparaging.

The 1999, rather, was reversed on a laches defense, a doctrine that says if you wait too long to take action, you lose the right.

Change of venue is important here too, per Syverson. Appeal goes to a different court due to realignment under the America Invents Act.

As we know, this isn't over legally. But Syverson says it could be the final straw. Businesses sometimes see these as opp's to change.
Dont give me "public sentiment" as viable evidence to overturn freedom of speech. Provide me 5 examples of civil suits won based on the use of the term Redskin outside of the Football teams situation and Ill listen. If this is a term that inspires hatred surely it has been addressed in the courts previously. If not this is nothing but a witch hunt to get headlines. But something tells me you wont be abke to find that. Again were using the term Redskin for the basis of this topic not general native american discrimination.
A trademark is not "Freedom of Speech". If it was, there would be no need for a trademark.
It is a privately owned company. His choice to adopt whatever marketing he choses for his business is indeed free speech. Its his money but the market will decide his fate right......isnt that the lefts standpoint.....just not when the market doesnt side with the lefts views then they must legislate their views instead of sticking with the whole land of the free bs. That freedom garbage is sooooo overrated.
And the trademark decision infringes on his first amendment rights how? It did not ban anything.
Yeah, trademarks are no big deal in the business world are they? Being denied the right to own your 80 year old trademark is no hindrance is it? Try producing and selling some Hog stuff that hasn't been cleared through the AD and see how it works for you. It would take a complete moron to fail to see what it infringes on. Cheap and devious political move to create more victims to vote left. You know, like open borders and no voter ID. You guys are a sleazy bunch.
 
Originally posted by mikedamone:

Originally posted by Sir Dennis Eeatin-Hog:
Wow, Dr. Phil Damone prescribes professional help one day, then the next he fires off a couple of arrogant, from-the-holster judgments that because the mascot is not meant to offend, then it not only shouldn't be considered offensive, but it should be considered an honor.
You really got your feelings hurt by me calling you out on your poor reading comprehension on that ridiculously stupid article that "backed up" your opinion. LOL, sorry I disagreed with your constant beating of a dead horse.

It may not seem like it now, but its going to be OK. Time heals all butthurt. You will make it through this.
wow that was an article? . I thought it was Sir D going all JRO again with 10 paragraphs of dribble.

I might go back and look as I will read an article because it might have something in it I might be interested in.
 
Originally posted by Sir Dennis Eeatin-Hog:

Originally posted by mikedamone:

Originally posted by Sir Dennis Eeatin-Hog:
Wow, Dr. Phil Damone prescribes professional help one day, then the next he fires off a couple of arrogant, from-the-holster judgments that because the mascot is not meant to offend, then it not only shouldn't be considered offensive, but it should be considered an honor.
You really got your feelings hurt by me calling you out on your poor reading comprehension on that ridiculously stupid article that "backed up" your opinion. LOL, sorry I disagreed with your constant beating of a dead horse.

It may not seem like it now, but its going to be OK. Time heals all butthurt. You will make it through this.
Oh, none of this changes my opinion that you are normally an outstanding poster. And the "calling out" you do doesn't bother me, because you are usually in the vicinity of the truth. What bothers me is that you are often a drama queen, which to me doesn't equal what you normally bring and reduces your take. We're all weak enough to make mistakes, damone, and time will continue to reveal the best and worst of us. I'm "healed" as much as the next guy, bro. Time's already done it's job in that regard.

BTW, the post I made today was not just aimed at you, it was aimed at several points that were brought up in this thread.

roll.r191677.gif
that's all I got lol. Unbelievable.
 
Originally posted by rzrbk7777:
Originally posted by ermackey:


Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:


Orig posted by ermackey:


Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:


Originally posted by Da Biz:
LOL you get lost in the weeds. Back on topic, per Albert Breer twitter:

Asked Erik Syverson, a partner and intellectual property attorney at Raines Feldman, to review the Redskins ruling for me yesterday. ...

Syverson said he'd view this as significantly different from the 1999 case, because of the shift in public sentiment, which matters here.

He emphasized that the appellate court never ruled that the evidence brought in 1999 was insufficient to prove "Redskins" is disparaging.

The 1999, rather, was reversed on a laches defense, a doctrine that says if you wait too long to take action, you lose the right.

Change of venue is important here too, per Syverson. Appeal goes to a different court due to realignment under the America Invents Act.

As we know, this isn't over legally. But Syverson says it could be the final straw. Businesses sometimes see these as opp's to change.
Dont give me "public sentiment" as viable evidence to overturn freedom of speech. Provide me 5 examples of civil suits won based on the use of the term Redskin outside of the Football teams situation and Ill listen. If this is a term that inspires hatred surely it has been addressed in the courts previously. If not this is nothing but a witch hunt to get headlines. But something tells me you wont be abke to find that. Again were using the term Redskin for the basis of this topic not general native american discrimination.
A trademark is not "Freedom of Speech". If it was, there would be no need for a trademark.
It is a privately owned company. His choice to adopt whatever marketing he choses for his business is indeed free speech. Its his money but the market will decide his fate right......isnt that the lefts standpoint.....just not when the market doesnt side with the lefts views then they must legislate their views instead of sticking with the whole land of the free bs. That freedom garbage is sooooo overrated.
And the trademark decision infringes on his first amendment rights how? It did not ban anything.
Yeah, trademarks are no big deal in the business world are they? Being denied the right to own your 80 year old trademark is no hindrance is it? Try producing and selling some Hog stuff that hasn't been cleared through the AD and see how it works for you. It would take a complete moron to fail to see what it infringes on. Cheap and devious political move to create more victims to vote left. You know, like open borders and no voter ID. You guys are a sleazy bunch.
I didn't say it didn't hurt. I just said that a Trademark was not a part of free speech. In fact, it is a government program to limit speech and monetize ideas. Words have meaning and I just want you guys to at least get your argument right. If anything, a Trademark is a property right, not a speech right. And I would argue it isn't a "right" at all since it is based in the US Trademark and Program and not in an inherent constitutional right to have a trademark. Before you look, there is no constitutional right to a trademark.

The solution here is pretty simple. The Potomac tribe has already offered to let them use their name. Change the name to the Washington Potomac and keep the logo and image. This is not hard.
This post was edited on 6/21 11:40 AM by ermackey
 
my point is that they play both sides to keep you in this box or the other. I could just as easily say that they didn't do the same exact things when Bush invaded Iraq 12 years ago. The point is, the truth never comes out because it isn't beneficial for it to come out for either side. That's why we find it out 8-10 years later. Benghazi will be the same. There appears to be a two party system, but it really is a one party system, a corporate system. They just go back and forth letting one have a few years before the other gets back in again. It's like a giant puppet show. Ask yourself this, for everything that George W. Bush ran on,( ending abortion, lowering taxes, and several other right-leaning social issues) what really changed?? He had majority control for at least two years, much the same as Obama. So, what changed? The answer is, nothing significant. Just like with Obama, nothing significant has really changed. I suppose that if you are dead set against him, then you would say Obamacare is significant, but really, how much has that effected you? How much did the Iraqi War and the start of the bankrupting of the country because of it effect you? Bailouts? If one party or the other were so against certain policies, then when power shifts, why didn't Bush do away with certain spending deals? Why didn't Obama deal with gClimate issues when he had Senate Majority? The answer is, because the both may say they are against particular interest of the other side, but in the end, once it is a law, they don't go out of their way to do anything about it. They just campaign on it to get elected so they can shift enormous sums of money around to particular corporate interests that usually do not happen overnight. it's solidifying the future for their supporters. That's the reason why nothing that is done in a current administration will have a true effect until about 8-10 years after they are out of office. Then you can see what they were truly doing. The media is just a willing agent in the whole ordeal to promote and pull the wool over everyone's eyes to get it done.
 
Originally posted by ermackey:


Originally posted by rzrbk7777:

Originally posted by ermackey:



Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:



Orig posted by ermackey:



Originally posted by BOSSHOGFREE:



Originally posted by Da Biz:
LOL you get lost in the weeds. Back on topic, per Albert Breer twitter:

Asked Erik Syverson, a partner and intellectual property attorney at Raines Feldman, to review the Redskins ruling for me yesterday. ...

Syverson said he'd view this as significantly different from the 1999 case, because of the shift in public sentiment, which matters here.

He emphasized that the appellate court never ruled that the evidence brought in 1999 was insufficient to prove "Redskins" is disparaging.

The 1999, rather, was reversed on a laches defense, a doctrine that says if you wait too long to take action, you lose the right.

Change of venue is important here too, per Syverson. Appeal goes to a different court due to realignment under the America Invents Act.

As we know, this isn't over legally. But Syverson says it could be the final straw. Businesses sometimes see these as opp's to change.
Dont give me "public sentiment" as viable evidence to overturn freedom of speech. Provide me 5 examples of civil suits won based on the use of the term Redskin outside of the Football teams situation and Ill listen. If this is a term that inspires hatred surely it has been addressed in the courts previously. If not this is nothing but a witch hunt to get headlines. But something tells me you wont be abke to find that. Again were using the term Redskin for the basis of this topic not general native american discrimination.
A trademark is not "Freedom of Speech". If it was, there would be no need for a trademark.
It is a privately owned company. His choice to adopt whatever marketing he choses for his business is indeed free speech. Its his money but the market will decide his fate right......isnt that the lefts standpoint.....just not when the market doesnt side with the lefts views then they must legislate their views instead of sticking with the whole land of the free bs. That freedom garbage is sooooo overrated.
And the trademark decision infringes on his first amendment rights how? It did not ban anything.
Yeah, trademarks are no big deal in the business world are they? Being denied the right to own your 80 year old trademark is no hindrance is it? Try producing and selling some Hog stuff that hasn't been cleared through the AD and see how it works for you. It would take a complete moron to fail to see what it infringes on. Cheap and devious political move to create more victims to vote left. You know, like open borders and no voter ID. You guys are a sleazy bunch.
I didn't say it didn't hurt. I just said that a Trademark was not a part of free speech. In fact, it is a government program to limit speech and monetize ideas. Words have meaning and I just want you guys to at least get your argument right. If anything, a Trademark is a property right, not a speech right. And I would argue it isn't a "right" at all since it is based in the US Trademark and Program and not in an inherent constitutional right to have a trademark. Before you look, there is no constitutional right to a trademark.

The solution here is pretty simple. The Potomac tribe has already offered to let them use their name. Change the name to the Washington Potomac and keep the logo and image. This is not hard.

This post was edited on 6/21 11:40 AM by ermackey
Funny stuff to have a hard left radical like you that supports your side every time it steps on the constitution to start trying to interpret free speech. Using trademark law to stifle what the left doesn't agree with is what your kind is all about. They have been using the irs to hassle Christian and other right leaning non-profits under Obama while letting left leaning non-profits get away with whatever they want. Bunch of damn traitors. My uncle didn't die in the war for a bunch of fools like you to piss our freedoms away just b/c you like a big money wasting government for your own personal gain.

I wasn't talking about constitutional rights you dildo, I was talking about the left sidestepping rights for their agenda. If the Redskins name is that offensive to the masses, financial fallout will take care of it w/o needing the left to shove it down our throats with government bureacracy. If I want to know about the constitution, you will be the absolute last person I ask zippy.
 
Originally posted by pigboy7:
my point is that they play both sides to keep you in this box or the other. I could just as easily say that they didn't do the same exact things when Bush invaded Iraq 12 years ago. The point is, the truth never comes out because it isn't beneficial for it to come out for either side. That's why we find it out 8-10 years later. Benghazi will be the same. There appears to be a two party system, but it really is a one party system, a corporate system. They just go back and forth letting one have a few years before the other gets back in again. It's like a giant puppet show. Ask yourself this, for everything that George W. Bush ran on,( ending abortion, lowering taxes, and several other right-leaning social issues) what really changed?? He had majority control for at least two years, much the same as Obama. So, what changed? The answer is, nothing significant. Just like with Obama, nothing significant has really changed. I suppose that if you are dead set against him, then you would say Obamacare is significant, but really, how much has that effected you? How much did the Iraqi War and the start of the bankrupting of the country because of it effect you? Bailouts? If one party or the other were so against certain policies, then when power shifts, why didn't Bush do away with certain spending deals? Why didn't Obama deal with gClimate issues when he had Senate Majority? The answer is, because the both may say they are against particular interest of the other side, but in the end, once it is a law, they don't go out of their way to do anything about it. They just campaign on it to get elected so they can shift enormous sums of money around to particular corporate interests that usually do not happen overnight. it's solidifying the future for their supporters. That's the reason why nothing that is done in a current administration will have a true effect until about 8-10 years after they are out of office. Then you can see what they were truly doing. The media is just a willing agent in the whole ordeal to promote and pull the wool over everyone's eyes to get it done.
We agree on the fake two party system for sure. Just like pro wrestling, the dems and the repubs have fought publically for us to choose sides while they team up and screw us behind the scenes for decades and decades. They don't really care who picks which side as long as we fight amongst ourselves and blame the other side while giving our side a pass.

Bush(both of em actually), was a crappy president by any standards. He ran up debt at record rates(until Obama showed him what wasteful spending really looks like), supported open borders, and was all talk when it came to fiscal responsibility. He took care of his cronies on both sides of the aisle.

Problem is, the current regime isn't playing that game anymore and the good old boy system doesn't have a clue what to do about it. Because Obama is the first black president, the good old boys all lack the nads to buck him and risk getting the race card pulled on em. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Cantor, Holder, etc., have run roughshod over the system to push their radical agenda and when they lost the House they simply started using executive orders and government agencies to bypass congress. They ignore laws they don't like, use government agencies to harass folks they don't agree with(and reward those they agree with), and get away with stuff b/c the good old boy system is scared of them and keeps hoping things will get back to normal(which isn't good either).

The real problem is that elected office has become a career choice when it was meant to be the servant role of patriots. Government has become predictably corrupt as politicians have traded favors for wealth. Sadly, we have dumbed down the electorate to the point that we elect a Chicago community organizer with less management experience than a seasoned McDonald's asst. manager, questionable citizenship, a muslim background, and a record of not liking our country just b/c he became a media darling b/c he was black. Even when his first 4 years resulted in a huge debt increase, huge gas increases, and an extremely unpopular debacle of a law sure to run our debt into the stratosphere, we re-elected him. Of course, the republican party's staunch desire to put for a candidate(Romney) that plays the game instead of a conservative, didn't help.

We need a strong, black, conservative patriot to run for president so as to heal our country and end this radical crap that is going to end it as we know it if it keeps going. Ben Carson are you listening?
 
There is a school on a Indian Reservation and guess what? That's right, their nickname is the Redskins! This is all B.S. by a people who want some attention.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT