Guest Post: Does America Face An Election Between Two Moderates?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

Does America Face An Election Between Two Moderates?

This weekend the runoff election will be held in Egypt to decide who will be the next president.  The country’s first democratic election in decades comes one year after former President Hosni Mubarak was ousted during a massive civilian protest.  Despite decades of financial support from supposedly democracy-friendly U.S. and Western governments, it’s was widely acknowledged that Mubarak’s constant reelection was the product of ballot rigging.  He aggressively held power for years by censoring and controlling the media along with suppressing political dissent.  Mubarak was shielded from most opposition by the fact that he used his office as a tool of political corruption and was the quintessential Western puppet of a dictator.

At the beginning, most journalists in the West were celebrating the Egyptian revolution as a victory for democratic governance.  They saw the possibility of untainted elections as the best way for Egyptians to adopt their values.  With the first presidential runoff ballot since Mubarak just around the corner, the good feelings have begun to wear off.  Many prominent media publications are dismayed that this weekend’s contest is looking like a battle between two radical candidates.  The Globe and Mail reports:

If this is what democracy is like, maybe we’re better off without it, many Egyptians voting in their first-ever truly free presidential election must be thinking.

With a choice between a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and a former air-force commander and prime minister for Hosni Mubarak on the other, not only do these virgin voters have to choose between two political extremes, but the majority of Egyptians don’t want either of them to win.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman equates the runoff election with “having to choose between two diseases.”

From the mainstream, corporate media perspective, this isn’t how elections are supposed to play out.  In America, the Democrat vs. Republican paradigm forces both parties to appease centrists and independent voters.  The nominees must campaign not as extremists, but pragmatic moderates who embody the level headedness of the people.  The victor in November is thus given an electoral mandate from the voters to carry out their collective will.

This is also the election process taught in public schools and universities.

But while the American public has been duped into believing such a process gives rise to pragmatic and temperate leaders, quite the opposite is true.

With former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney now the presumptive Republican nominee, campaign season is now fully underway.  Romney is being portrayed as the free market loving, social conservative choice to Barack Obama’s cool, calm, and collected liberalism.  Instead of falling victim to the stereotype of being a fragile leftist, Obama’s ramping up of the War on Terror has been applauded by the right as a step toward the center.  Weekly Standard editor and all around warmonger Bill Kristol declared the President a “born again neo-con.”  And in spite of initially supporting a public option within his key legislative achievement of health care reform, Obama opted for the less extreme alternative of the individual mandate that the conservative Heritage Foundation once endorsed.

As for Romney, he was portrayed by his opponents as Obama-lite due to his pioneering the President’s health care scheme during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts.  Romney has gone on record stating “I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year” as it would “cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work.”  Of course his logic only works if you believe the money stolen and spent by the government actually creates wealth despite the expenditures never having to compete in the open market.  Statements like these are what leads to Romney being called a “closet Keynesian” by Paul Krugman and the “Massachusetts moderate” by Newt Gingrich.

Though the November election will be hyped as two opposites squaring off against each other, both candidates are considered rather moderate compared to who could have been the nominees.

The question is, are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney really that moderate?

Let’s account for the similarity in policy of both.

–Both are large supporters of the military industrial complex.  Romney has vowed to increase defense spending and wants the Navy, which is larger than the navies of the next 13 nations combined, to ramp up production of warships.  Numerous times the former governor has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon even if it means offensive military action.  For Obama, as the New York Times recently revealed, the President spends every Tuesday morning playing God by picking out drone targets on what could be mistaken for baseball cards.  His unlawfully ordered death strikes are based on flimsy evidence and incredibly vague criteria for determining who the enemy is.  And then there are the hundreds of civilian casualties that have been a result of the unaccountable killing spree.  The drone war won’t end in a second Obama administration and military aggression will likely escalate under a Romney presidency.  This policy does absolutely nothing to keep the U.S. safe and everything to put the public in harm’s way.

–Both show no opposition to the Federal Reserve System and the banking cronyism it has institutionalized.  Both supported the Wall Street bailouts and the unprecedented bout of money printing that took place during the financial crisis.  While Goldman Sachs was Obama’s biggest private donor in the last election, the investment firm is currently Romney’s largest donor.  This election is shaping up to be more of the same as Wall Street is bankrolling both candidates.  Seeing as how the whole banking system operates under the veil of solvency due to fractional reserve lending, it is in the elite money lender’s interest to use their easy access to the printing press to keep the house of cards from collapsing.

–Neither candidate has made a peep out of ending the needlessly expensive and socially degenerating drug war.  In fact, the Obama administration has increased spending on drug enforcement and has cracked down on medical marijuana distributors more than any other president before him.  Romney hasn’t taken a position on the drug war but considering his socially conservative talking points, it’s extremely unlikely he will allow others the freedom of putting what they want in their own bodies.  In short, both candidates are supporters of the prohibition on dry plants and the seedy and dangerous black market it has created.

–And then there is the drug of which all of Washington is addicted to: spending and borrowing.  Neither Obama nor Romney have presented budgets that have actually brought expenditures in line with revenues.  The national debt would balloon under both their proposals.  Being that, as Lew Rockwell identified, pork barrel spending is the “entirety” of the federal government’s budget, denying the welfare dependents of their food stamps, the elderly of their Social Security checks, farmers of their subsidies, green energy companies of their taxpayer loans, Wall Street of its implied bailouts, dictators of their foreign aid, and military contractors of their lucrative deals has become electoral suicide.

Those opposed to the above polices are typically referred to as radicals.  This is especially so for the independent minded who see politics as a game played by well dressed mobsters and the state as an institution of pure thievery.  In modern American discourse, peace is now the policy of ignorance.  The right to do what you want with your self and property must come second to the will of the ruling class.  Being in favor of free markets and not the crooked capitalism which politicians love means wishing to see workers starving in the streets.  True liberty is only of value to the dimwitted and unpatriotic.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul was a steadfast supporter of sound money, nonintervention, the unfettered market, and significantly axing government spending before a now guaranteed financial collapse.  His reward was being treated like a senile uncle and his presidential campaign being subjected to an incredible amount of voter fraud.  He was deemed too much of a threat to the establishment.

In the end, Paul and others who are disgusted at the utter cronyism that is the state aren’t the extremists.  What’s extreme is a blind adoration of government power.  Paul isn’t a radical; he is practically the only politician in Washington who isn’t a closet socialist or fascist on an egotistical power trip.

With such radicalism deeply entrenched in the U.S. government, the best hope the country has is for this fall’s election turnout to be the lowest on record.  Like Egypt, the choice is between two radicals seeking to use the state’s apparatus of violence to help their political buddies and mold society to their liking.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil and immoral.  The freedom to not vote is still available to Americans.  They would be best to exercise it before it’s too late.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
i-dog's picture

Exactly. Why is the election even being discussed on ZH? It's an insult to our intelligence!

What's next? ... Baseball batting averages? Analysis of Dancing With The Stars entrants?

The They's picture

They don't sound like moderates to me. They both sound like authoritarians... authoritarian left or right.

sitenine's picture

I never saw a close correlation between socialism and fascism until recently.  Let's face it, the US gets Fascism (yes, with a capital F) with either one, but they have differing opinions on religion - strangely, no one talks about religion anymore.  It does appear that it's all about the money after all.  Did you really expect it to be any different?

[edit] @The They - I checked out your blog.  +1

Deo vindice's picture

They are not moderates.  They are two radicals who are too radical.

You know the country is listing badly when a radical is considered a moderate.

Lednbrass's picture

You must not be watching enough television- a radical is one of those lunatics that want to limit the reach of central government and resuscitate that antiquated piece of paper dreamed up by evil white men known as the Constitution.

FEDbuster's picture

Does anyone really think it will matter who wins?  Hasten the Collapse, Obamney 2012

Michael's picture

The best way to fuck over the whole system is to hold your nose vote for Obama and press for impeachment.

I'm voting for Obama and against all incumbents in the primaries and in November.

Why do you think Nobody talks about ousting congress critter incumbents in the primaries and general elections? That's how we got rid of the R Dick Luger.

Harbanger's picture

Wow, I see you've been "empowered".  Unfortunately there's nothing you can do to "fuck over the whole system ".  It's already done, you're a consequence and example of those past mistakes, best you can hope for is to not end up a victim or statistic.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

They are both authoritarian statists and crony capitalists. Both serve the corporate and banking elite and both will push the Trans-Pacific Partnership because the corporate and banking elites want it. 

Andy Lewis's picture

Damn straight: a Wall street stooge vs. a Wall Street thug.

redpill's picture

I'm voting Libertarian and am planning on burying time capsules in various places explaining how I tried to stop dumb fucks from voting for Obamney and the like but they did it anyway.  Then at least when aliens find the remains of the human race in the future they will know that some of us understood that voluntary slavery never leads to freedom.

Michael's picture

I really like the Apple Corporation.

They came back after the Dot-Com bubble bust and did really good. And Forest Gump is one of my favorite movies.

I have one of the best inventions ever made, the Ipod Touch. It's an interface to the Internet, and other things and is so slimline in look, nothing will be more modern looking than it except for the BIC lighter, the second greatest invention.

Just sayin.

El Viejo's picture

If you think the movie was good try reading the book. It has extra episodes not in the movie. Forrest finds he is a natural for doing a certain orbital calculation and they lauch him into space. He and a female Air Force Col land in Borneo amongst head hunters, one of which went to Harvard(a natural choice) and learned to play chess before dropping out and returning home. He teaches Forrest chess and when he starts to beat the teacher they are considered food for the pot...  LMAO - funniest book I ever read.

They are All moderates until the second term.  Impose term limits vote out all encumbents! 

derek_vineyard's picture

does america face an election between two idiots?

headline amended  (that shouldn't be in the form of a question though)

Pool Shark's picture



"Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos."



Escapeclaws's picture

Check out Webster argues that libertarianism was actually an invention of the CIA to engender a false conciousness, to prevent people from really understanding what is in their own interest. Watch him debate Adam Kokesh, who is as fundamentalist libertarian as you can get. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist evolutionist. Furthermore, Adam Kokesh tries so hard to show he just as intelligent as Tarpley that he won't let him get a word in edgewise. Tarpley is ever patient and gracious and never loses his cool this debate. He almost has to sneak in his own thoughts.

Also watch Tarpley try to get his points across about Ron Paul on the Alex Jones show. Jones keeps hounding him, taking away the microphone, etc.

Tarpley is not a socialist or a Marxist. He calls himself a Hamiltoninan and represents what used to be the American tradition before this extreme Reagan/Thatcher free-market ideology got the upper hand in the 1980's.

Tarpley is incredibly well-informed and attacks both the left and the right. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, he has some of the most provocative and intelligent analysis out there. He detests Obama and Romney and basically feels that Paul is a stooge for Romney.

He makes the point that the Bilderbergers have already decided that Obama is out. No need to vote unless you want to write in someone--the election is already determined.

Gully Foyle's picture



Ayn Rand called Libertarians 'Hippies of the Right".


For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

“Brief Summary,”
The Objectivist, Sept. 1971, 1

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

“What Can One Do?”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 202

The “libertarians” . . . plagiarize Ayn Rand’s principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute . . . .

In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the “libertarians” are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one’s own future.

Harry Binswanger, “Q & A Department: Anarchism,”
The Objectivist Forum, Aug. 1981, 12


(Libertarians don't even understand what exactly their roots are)

Libertarianism refers to political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor.[5] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[6][7][8] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system. Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified.[9][10][11] Some Libertarian socialists reject deontological and consequential approaches and use historical materialism to justify their political beliefs.[12]

Political scholars such as Noam Chomsky assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism.[13] It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues, going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States.[14


( Libertarians are the Goddes worshipers of the Right. They claim they want something different, but only slightly different. Ted Rall once saids somethging like US citizens vote for change but only very little change, they can't handle radical change.)

“Well I sometimes call myself a libertarian but that’s only because most people don’t know what anarchist means. Most people hear you’re an anarchist and they think you’re getting ready to throw a bomb at a building. They don’t understand the concept of voluntary association, the whole concept of replacing force with voluntary cooperation or contractual arrangements and so on. So libertarian is a clearer word that doesn’t arouse any immediate anxiety upon the listener. And then again, libertarians, if they were totally consistent with their principles would be anarchists.”

Robert Anton Wilson

Marco's picture

An awful lot of words to talk about what Objectivists think of libertarians ... with a conspicious absence of actually putting into words the practical difference between Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalism and Objectivist Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Forget about the ad hominems for a moment, what are the concrete differences in the political/economic systems they want to implement? I see none.

Escapeclaws's picture

GF good post. I'm really struck by how you can't argue with a libertarian because they already have all the answers. No different than arguing with a milatant feminist, a militant Darwinist, etc. The point is, these people already know all the answers and the only thing they will study for is to get even more reinforcement for their ideology. I care less about what they advocate than about the fact they they have a closed system--they are "true believers".

i-dog's picture

I believe what you did there is called "projection". :-/

Anyway, don't get sucked in by Tarpley ... his scholarship and geopolitical ananlysis is second to none (and I like him a lot as an individual), but his proffered solutions are pure elitist "big government". Some brand him as a Marxist (I know I have in the past!), while he now calls himself a "Hamiltonian". Either way, he wants either an all-powerful Politburo (Marxist) or an all-powerful central government with a King and an aristocratic hereditary upper house (Hamiltonian).

For the record, Hamilton was opposed to state governments and wanted a single central government with complete political authority as "the perfect union". His idea of "checks and balances" was to retain a monarchy and a house of lords to make sure the peasants in the house of representatives didn't get too cocky! Sheer elitism of the very highest order! ... and Tarpley hangs his hat on that peg!?!

Hamilton also championed absolute Central Planning (as Tarpley does), where the government would "foster commerce" (ie. pick winners and losers, and subsidise buddies), "foster revenue" (ie. keep ramping up taxes to fund aristocratic excesses, and to buy votes) and be "strong enough to earn the respect of other governments" (ie. to effectively foster an arms race)! What Hamilton wanted is exactly what Herman van Rompuy is pursuing in Europe (for his masters down the road beside the Viale Vaticano).

To cap it off, Tarpley's other great hero is Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... grandson of wealthy master drug trafficker, Warren Delano, and tool of the Vatican's WW2 machinations. No coincidence, since FDR embodied all of Hamilton's "ideals".

PS. I'm neither a libertarian nor objectivist, and I reject all their and RP's platforms. I'm a voluntarist and want both you and Tarpley to stop telling me what I want! I'll sort that out for myself, and in co-operation with my local community, thank you very much.

Cathartes Aura's picture

be nice if people would stop tying themselves in (k)nots while looking for a label to "vote" for - be it in their lives, or for candidates who can never live up to every-body's miniscule variants.

this propensity for adding modifiers to political ideologies, making five-word-long labels that often conflict in definition the further down the sentence one goes, just goes to show that "things" are fracturing, the center cannot hold, etc.  which is inevitable when a take-over is under way, as we are living through now. . . "they" love it that people are arguing over which "freedom" or law is to be allowed in the new systems being invented, massive distractions and arguing amongst the populace, while "they" continue to roll back all liberty, at a pace not seen since?  forever?

but people love their labels, it's shorthand to use them as descriptives - we all do it - why anyone still believes a politician asking for money is going to adhere to any labels the individual uses to justify the donation - that's just amazing to me!

"voluntarist" as you've described - I like that one. . . until, of course, someone running for a position of power co-opts it and attracts a following. . . *smiles*

i-dog's picture


"until, of course, someone running for a position of power co-opts it and attracts a following"

They can do what they want, CA! We (in a local community) won't nuke them if they don't come stomping in demanding money for their harebrained schemes.

The world of today is a far different environment than that of the past. In the past, any small community had to build a great army or ally with a great power to avoid being overrun by a neighboring imperialist despot and his adoring masses. Now, we (ie. a small local community) have the means of MAD to deter such activity and it is time to consider that when breaking down this headlong rush towards a global feudal government.

A new paradigm for the century ahead needs to contemplate that each community, or tribe, or sect, or nation, could exist in peace and trade in peace if each held the means of MAD as a deterrent to outsiders. We just need to get rid of the Imperial Zionist-Anglo-American Military first!

Cathartes Aura's picture

these times have their moments of sheer breathlessness, in that some of us are creating safe spaces in our minds first, through resistance and bravery, and others of a like mind are "finding" more similars as they speak of their desires, autonomy from authority. . .

going forward, speaking personal truths, gathering peoples - it's definitely happening, I see it daily!

so yes, "we in a local community" will most definitely defend our space(s), our friends and family (however these are defined, and it does vary), keeping a low profile, quiet dignity, in the face of tyranny. 

occasionally I "worry" about the "IZAAM" - and I know we'll never really be rid of them overall - but more and more I realise that what is happening is an evolution of sorts, a "new paradigm" as you say - we have to be strong and steadfast to maintain inner equilibrium, and trust that we become part of a greater whole going forward.

keep overturning those rocks i-dog, expose those bugs to the light of truth!  

always best wishes to you & yours.

smb12321's picture

Militant Darwinist?  Oh brother.  What about those kooks who hold to the germ theory or the idiots that maintain we're made of virtually empty entities called atoms?  Clue - someone who accepts tested scientific data is not a true believer.

The Heart's picture

Here is today's show on GCN. Webster Tarpley was talking to someone in Greece about what is coming tomorrow.:

Part 1:

Part 2:



gall batter's picture

I'll have a bilderburger with bacon, cheese, and let us prey on little children with dark skin in countries rich in resouces.  

Winston Smith 2009's picture

"I'm voting Libertarian"

I used to do so for many years.  I now realize it was a complete waste of time as I am surrounded by persistent morons.

"Then at least when aliens find the remains of the human race in the future they will know that some of us understood that voluntary slavery never leads to freedom."

"Look, Grokk, some of these apes with car keys weren't quite as stupid as the others.  Unfortunately for them, they still thought that voting mattered even when they were up against abject voter stupidity and ignorance promoted by the beneficiaries of a multi-trillion dollar taxpayer gravy train."


FlyoverCountrySchmuck's picture

In the Church of Obama, the Kool-aid is always free.

The guy behind you in line has to pay for it.

BennyBoy's picture

One takes orders from the Financial Elite.

The other is the Financial Elite.

eclectic syncretist's picture

Neither candidate has the balls, brains, moral rectitude or intestinal fortitude to do the right things.  Pathetic really

I will also be voting against incumbents

Winston Smith 2009's picture

I'd vote against all incumbents, too, if I actually still bothered to waste my time and gasoline voting.  I'm unjustly stuck in a Moron Academy and my vote won't counter the majority morons. 

Hell, I even tear up mail ballots these days.  Eventually, they'll stop wasting my money sending them to me.

gall batter's picture

Wrong, e s, they're both doing what they are operated to do.  This is unrelated to what you think about having balls, brains, moral rectitude or intestinal fortitude. Voting against or for incumbents is pointless.  An illusion.  

FlyoverCountrySchmuck's picture

Obama is NO MODERATE, he is an Academic Socialist Radical.

Meanwhile, Romney is about as center of the road as it gets.

Benjamin Glutton's picture

They are both center right.


either will sign off on renewal of the Fed Res charter, war with Iran, Patriot Act etc.


neither will alter the general course set over the previous 12 years.

Everybodys All American's picture

Obama is the most liberal presidents we've ever had and his Congressional voting record backs this assessment. He is definitely not center right unless of course you consider Karl Marx to be a moderate.

Can they have the same Federal Reserve policy? Sure. But that does not make the two center right candidates. There are far more policies that come into play. Obama is our version of Hugo Chavez when it comes to redistribution and that is not center right.

My question is if Obama is center right then who is a leftist.

malek's picture

His voting record? Are you stupid??

Look what he has done or not done during the 3+ years as a president!

Lednbrass's picture

The DKos crowd has come out in numbers here thanks to GW, to them anyone who isnt flat out foaming loony California left is center right. An interventionist foreign policy isnt so much left or right as just an extroverted Wilsonian progressivism.

Romneys record is little if any better than Obamas, the only question in November is what color Obama we want.

Lets see, I want to vote for the effeminate Ivy League twerp who:

1)  Will give an incompetent financial sector everything it wants

2) Will appoint leftist judges

3) Is generally hostile to the 2nd Amendment

4) Will muck around in the Middle East with no clear goal or reason

5) Has a political record of excessive deficit spending and a massive debt that is somehow not their fault, though they held executive power when it was incurred.

6) Has no discernable spine or backbone, and will bend like a reed in the wind for political expediency

Its only whether we want the black twit or the white twit.

Tsukato's picture

Here we go again. Why you gotta go insultin a brother this way? Aint you gots no sense?! This brother OBAMA is so unpopular just cuz you ignerent muthfuckas are just racists, and anti-semites! I've been seein the way you dis the joos and us powerful men of color. Well, I got news for you fuckin crackers... we been takin your fat bitches for the past 20 years, and your welfare for even longer. I been personally fuckin lotsa married white women down at Appleby's on ladies nights, and they was all married. Anyway, we're gonna have a race riot soon, and mop up the streets with your white asses, then us brothers gonna go fuck all your bitches and daughters, then we're gonna come take all your escalades. Its a brothers' world cummin, and Mr. President of the USA Obama, has made it all possible. Choke on that girls.

BeetleBailey's picture

LOL. Nice post.

Obama isn't even black, so your post is an epic failure.

Oh, and even if your post was a "serious" one, you are outnumbered badly - 10 to 1. Try this "mopping up the streets" shite and you'll get beaten like a rented mule.

IF you are serious, you've gotten duped again. Obama played you. He's Arabic - dickhead - not black.

What a putz. Go screw all the white women; it's all you're "good" for.

Tsukato's picture

Yeah baby, gonna start with yo momma, gf, and/or wife. You some sorta soldier, limp dick? I'm gonna be drinkin PBR oughta yur skull when this is all finished.

Cathartes Aura's picture

trollin' 101, just the basics.

gotta love how some dudes love to talk of all the harm they'll do with their dicks, when it's so very obvious you rarely leave the house, and most likely type with one fist in yer lap.

here's hoping you're still in your teens, anything else would be too pathetic to consider. . .

BeetleBailey's picture


Big boots. Big Hat.

No Cattle.

My "momma" is dead. Go fuck a corpse, chump. My girlfriend hates black men.

Know why - chump? They are all cheap, and think with their dicks.

Go suck down a bucket of Popeye's chicken, douchebag.

Lednbrass's picture

Dont waste time, that ones a pure troll and not even a good one.

Awhile back he was a successful American in China, next week he will be something else.

Nothing but a mentally ill idiot on the internet, just move on when you see that one. When it doesnt get attention, it will wither.

Eireann go Brach's picture

Tsukako, are you speaking fucking English or what type of language are you speaking?

Iwanttoknow's picture

Great.let's start a race war.That should solve every problem.get a life,moron.

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

"Romney is about as center of the road as it gets"

As a former US Congressman once told me: all you find in the center of the road is yellow stripes and dead skunks!