It's immoral to vote for ANYONE who has risen up through the fetid ranks of this so called western democratic system simply due to the fact that to do so, they MUST sell their souls.
There is no other way around this equation. Pathological systems predicated on lies and illusion attracts those for whom such a reality fits. They bind to it and gain succour from it. Obama is no different, though it is a bitter pill to swallow for many still stuck in the delusion of democratic politics. After the obvious caricature of Bush it does create some cognitive dissonance when Obama's words do not remotely match his deeds not least all the dead piling up in the wake of his pre-arranged Nobel Prize.
There lies the secret. And here's the disturbing Irony: Obama's effects and result of his "yes we can" marketing ploy are far, FAR worse than anything Bush did. And this was said by many at the time. Not only would Bush be replaced by someone more intelligent, more appealing and more sexy but that he would present an image that would effectively hack off any remaining resistance from the left and the black and hispanic communites.
There lies the secret. And here's the disturbing Irony: Obama's effects and result of his "yes we can" marketing ploy are far, FAR worse than anything Bush did. And this was said by many at the time. Not only would Bush be replaced by someone more intelligent, more appealing and more sexy but that he would present an image that would effectively hack off any remaining resistance from the left and the black and hispanic communites.
And now Obama will undoubtedly take the fall. That bit he didn't "bank" on due to his suitably gargantuan ego. And if he did, I'm sure he was expecting a safety net. As with all these guys their wishingful thinking gets them everytime.
------------
I don’t like mixing politics with morality, but sometimes it’s unavoidable. What I mean is this: how can anyone cast a ballot for a man who they know will continue to kill people in other countries merely to advance US policy objectives? That’s the question people need to ask themselves.
Under normal circumstances, I can understand the “lesser of two evils” theory of voting, just as I can understand why people would think that Obama would be better president than his GOP opponent. But these aren’t normal circumstances, are they? After all, we’re not just talking about which candidate might be more inclined to protect Social Security or Medicare. We’re talking life and death. The question is whether one is willing to throw their support behind a policy that kills people in exchange for the presumed protection of Social Security? That’s a pretty cynical calculation.
Knowing what we know now, we can say with 100% certainty that Obama will continue killing people wherever he deploys the US military, the US intelligence services and US drones. How can anyone in good conscience sign on to that type of thing?
Under normal circumstances, I can understand the “lesser of two evils” theory of voting, just as I can understand why people would think that Obama would be better president than his GOP opponent. But these aren’t normal circumstances, are they? After all, we’re not just talking about which candidate might be more inclined to protect Social Security or Medicare. We’re talking life and death. The question is whether one is willing to throw their support behind a policy that kills people in exchange for the presumed protection of Social Security? That’s a pretty cynical calculation.
Knowing what we know now, we can say with 100% certainty that Obama will continue killing people wherever he deploys the US military, the US intelligence services and US drones. How can anyone in good conscience sign on to that type of thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment