2012 Vote

[Pidgeon]

Who are guys voting for if you don't mind me asking. I've looked and looked and all the candidates appear to be shit. Its kinda pissing me off. I guess I'm leaning towards Ron Paul (it makes me sick to say that). I don't want Obama back and all these republicans are fucking idiots. Idk man, what do you guys think

[travz21]

Ron Paul. Most people that don't like him are either uninformed or misinformed about who he actually is as a politician. Or they just plain don't understand the complexity of some of his issues (free markets and sound money).

If you read about his issues and don't agree with most of them, then I don't know what to say. He's all about freedom and liberty. If you don't like that, I guess you're fine with the government controlling how we live our lives from cradle to grave and you're fine with it spending our country into oblivion.

He's the clear choice imo.

[sotrix]

Barack Obama.

[Vriska]

Who are guys voting for if you don't mind me asking. I've looked and looked and all the candidates appear to be shit. Its kinda pissing me off. I guess I'm leaning towards Ron Paul (it makes me sick to say that). I don't want Obama back and all these republicans are fucking idiots. Idk man, what do you guys think

Welcome to how most of America feels.
Republicans and Democrats are both anti "freedom" -as twisted a buzzword that may be.

[Dean]

Ron Paul. Most people that don't like him are either uninformed or misinformed about who he actually is as a politician. Or they just plain don't understand the complexity of some of his issues (free markets and sound money).

If you read about his issues and don't agree with most of them, then I don't know what to say. He's all about freedom and liberty. If you don't like that, I guess you're fine with the government controlling how we live our lives from cradle to grave and you're fine with it spending our country into oblivion.

He's the clear choice imo.
Having supporters who mostly just harp on about how ignorant everyone is and do relatively very little to actually vindicate their own views probably doesn't help either.

I bet you think you're completely different to the Obama hype bandwagon from four years ago too. You aren't. If Ron Paul gets elected I'll put good money on him being another politician with a ridiculous cult of personality who ends up failing miserably. Of course, that'll be just because he's too deep and smart for everyone else.

I mean, he probably won't. But that way you'll get to carry on saying "I told you so!" and lording it over everyone. So it's a win win situation for your superiority complex.

[travz21]

The majority of America is ignorant. The majority of America works 40 hours a week and doesn't have time to do any research on who will best serve as president. The majority of America has no idea about current events regarding our economic and foreign affairs. It's not their fault that they have lives to live. I can't blame them.

But the information is all over the web. I can't explain days and days worth of reading material to try and convince people. It's a learning experience. It's a different way of thinking about things. We as a society have totally forgotten about our liberties and freedoms and have gotten used to the government owning us. That's not how it used to be, nor how it should be. We're on a very dangerous path to losing our freedom and possibly destroying our nation if we keep electing people who are nothing but status quo candidates.

Ron Paul isn't just some standard candidate who people hype over during every presidential race. He's been saying the same things for over 30 years and has consistent views over that time. He doesn't flip-flop to fit with society's views. He's been persistent because he knows what's best for our country and won't compromise like other two-faced members of the government.

He predicted the housing bubble, the rising prices, the 9/11 attacks, and the endless wars. He understands Austrian Economics and knows how to heal our broken system of doing things.

People are hyping on this 76 year old prophet because he knows what he's talking about, and we're finally ready to listen before it's too late. If people don't want to take the time to understand his views of freedom and prosperity, like the founding fathers proposed, we're pretty much a hopeless society. Here's to hoping we're smarter than that.


Here's some ok reading material. Some issues of his are linked on the side of the page. There's also the other candidates there, too. http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Paul/Economy.php

[Timothy]

The majority of America is ignorant. The majority of America works 40 hours a week and doesn't have time to do any research on who will best serve as president. The majority of America has no idea about current events regarding our economic and foreign affairs. It's not their fault that they have lives to live. I can't blame them.

But the information is all over the web. I can't explain days and days worth of reading material to try and convince people. It's a learning experience. It's a different way of thinking about things. We as a society have totally forgotten about our liberties and freedoms and have gotten used to the government owning us. That's not how it used to be, nor how it should be. We're on a very dangerous path to losing our freedom and possibly destroying our nation if we keep electing people who are nothing but status quo candidates.

Ron Paul isn't just some standard candidate who people hype over during every presidential race. He's been saying the same things for over 30 years and has consistent views over that time. He doesn't flip-flop to fit with society's views. He's been persistent because he knows what's best for our country and won't compromise like other two-faced members of the government.

He predicted the housing bubble, the rising prices, the 9/11 attacks, and the endless wars. He understands Austrian Economics and knows how to heal our broken system of doing things.

People are hyping on this 76 year old prophet because he knows what he's talking about, and we're finally ready to listen before it's too late. If people don't want to take the time to understand his views of freedom and prosperity, like the founding fathers proposed, we're pretty much a hopeless society. Here's to hoping we're smarter than that.


Here's some ok reading material. Some issues of his are linked on the side of the page. There's also the other candidates there, too. http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Paul/Economy.php

And you're calling other people brainwashed? "76 year old prophet"? You sound like a preacher.

[El Muerto]

The entire world works 40 hours per week, so do you think that everybody's just randomly voting in their elections? LOL

[Todd]

Barack Obama.

This.


Every one of the assholes running for the Republican nomination scare the shit out of me in one way or another and I don't want any of them near the White House, even if it's to clean the fucking toilets there.

[Benjamin]

Obama for the sake of not having one of these GOP candidates get in there. Though in my perfect world someone else would run for the Democrats. But at the very least I seem to agree with Obama about a lot of things; he just has to start getting some results.

And Travz I'm curious are you voting for Ron Paul even if he doesn't win the nomination?

[Derek The Infamous]

I'm not really satisfied with what Barack Obama did during his presidency. I feel he caved in too much to trying to be bi-partisan and it ruined his presidency. He should've came in swinging and stayed that way. It was obvious during the first month that the GOP was more focused on a 2012 win then helping him out, and he should've seen that. How he thought he could've worked with them is beyond me, and I wish he would've figured out that back in 2009 instead of 2011 as he did.

That aside, I'd vote for Obama a thousand times over before allowing Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann or any of these Right Wing nutjobs into office. Like Todd, they scare the fuck out of me.

[Benjamin]

On a personal NOTE this will be my first election I get to vote in :D.

[Pidgeon]

I'm not really satisfied with what Barack Obama did during his presidency. I feel he caved in too much to trying to be bi-partisan and it ruined his presidency. He should've came in swinging and stayed that way. It was obvious during the first month that the GOP was more focused on a 2012 win then helping him out, and he should've seen that. How he thought he could've worked with them is beyond me, and I wish he would've figured out that back in 2009 instead of 2011 as he did.

That aside, I'd vote for Obama a thousand times over before allowing Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann or any of these Right Wing nutjobs into office. Like Todd, they scare the fuck out of me.

I totally agree with you, except I don't I could vote for Obama again just because he can't get anything done. When I jumped on his bandwagon in 08' I thought he would be able to put his fist down and actually fix somethings. But as you said he's too worried about being bi-partisan. I mean I've done a lot research and I agree with his policies the most but he so ineffective

[Todd]

On a personal vote this will be my first election I get to vote in :D.

Awesome! Voting in your first election is kinda fun, it gives you the feeling that you're able to make a difference and be part of democracy.

My first election was the 2004 presidential race, voting for John Kerry. Unfortunately that didn't work out so well :(


I totally agree with you, except I don't I could vote for Obama again just because he can't get anything done. When I jumped on his bandwagon in 08' I thought he would be able to put his fist down and actually fix somethings. But as you said he's too worried about being bi-partisan. I mean I've done a lot research and I agree with his policies the most but he so ineffective

I haven't been 100% pleased with Obama either, but just the thought of one of those republicans in office makes me sick to my stomach. I have to do whatever I can to stop that from happening.

[Benjamin]

It is an interesting question: Do you vote for someone's policies or for someone that gets something done? To me the answer is obvious (the former) but maybe Pidgeon can convince me otherwise. Although, I'm not sure Ron Paul in particular would get a whole lot done. Remember that Republicans disagree with him on a lot of things.

[Dean]

Last year was my first election. I voted Liberal Democrat. It didn't go as planned.

[Pidgeon]

It is an interesting question: Do you vote for someone's policies or for someone that gets something done? To me the answer is obvious (the former) but maybe Pidgeon can convince me otherwise. Although, I'm not sure Ron Paul in particular would get a whole lot done. Remember that Republicans disagree with him on a lot of things.

I guess I feel like some policy is better than no policy. And maybe Ron Paul isn't the guy to get things done but then again I thought obama was and here we are

[travz21]

And you're calling other people brainwashed? "76 year old prophet"? You sound like a preacher.

Haters gonna hate. Read about him for the next day and then come back here and see if you can trash talk.


The entire world works 40 hours per week, so do you think that everybody's just randomly voting in their elections? LOL

Basically. They come home from work, turn on the news, take in whatever the biased news gives them, and then they vote. The public basically just gets hundreds of regurgitated opinions and has to decide from there. A lot of people vote based on if they just like the guy personally or not. I bet 75% of voters can't name more than half of their candidate's major policies.



And to everyone who still considers Obama presidential material, what is it you like about him? I actually think he's gotten quite a lot done, contrary to what a lot of people say. You have Obamacare, continued fighting in old wars, new unconstitutional wars, the renewal of the Patriot Act, bailouts and more bailouts, continued tax cuts, the Job Creation Act, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Those are just the ones off the top of my head.

What more do you want him to do? What would you rather have him do instead of the things he's done? I think a lot of the things he's done outside of foreign policy have been with good intentions, but have had directly opposite effects in our economy. As for the wars, they are destroying our country. We have no money, are printing more money out of thin air to pay for it, and the people of America are hurt by it because inflation devalues all that we've rightly earned. Not to mention all the enemies we're gong to have in the future after we leave those countries. Why do you think 9/11 happened? Because we'd been over in the Middle East for 30 years bombing them for no good reason. Instead of using our military for national defense, Obama is continuing to police the world and nation build. Is that what you want? Even if we had enough money to fund everything, is that what you want the US to be doing?

What do you think of the TSA? Do you think it's been helpful? Are you ok with more and more security that violate your rights at airports?

The Patriot Act? Do you want the government to be able to search anything about you without a warrant?


Again, a lot of these things have been done with good intentions (hopefully), but they lead to a world where we literally have no more freedoms or privacy.



And Travz I'm curious are you voting for Ron Paul even if he doesn't win the nomination?

Would you vote for someone else even if you thought they would dig our country into a deeper hole? I hope you wouldn't compromise on your own values like that. Like if you want another Democrat in there, vote for a Democrat who represents your values the best. Everyone should vote for who they think is best, whether they are the two main nominations or not. The fact that there are only 2 main options that they give us is laughable. We're talking about someone running our nation for the next 4 years, and there's only 2 choices? Doesn't make sense. We had more options than that for high school presidential races.

[El Muerto]

Not to mention all the enemies we're gong to have in the future after we leave those countries. Why do you think 9/11 happened? Because we'd been over in the Middle East for 30 years bombing them for no good reason. Instead of using our military for national defense, Obama is continuing to police the world and nation build.

We're talking about someone running our nation for the next 4 years, and there's only 2 choices? Doesn't make sense. We had more options than that for high school presidential races.

These are the points I completely agree with.

[Benjamin]

I second El Muerto. I can fully agree with what he quoted you of saying.

[Vriska]

Haters gonna hate. Read about him for the next day and then come back here and see if you can trash talk.


You know, you'd get a lot farther if you acknowledged that yeah, we have actually read about Ron Paul. The points that you laid out are well and good, but not the points you left out. His views on Education reform are extreme and ridiculous. Why not take baby steps and get rid of the crap like No Child Left Behind instead of destroying the entire system, which has spots that are working. I'm sorry, but the free market is not a magic bullet that solves all problems. It solves many problems, but not all of them. Of schools in California ranked by the number of students that default on their student debts, the for-profit schools dominate the worst of the worst. Their education is worthless. Education is a common good that benefits all: even if you're not educated, you are benefiting from the people in your society who are. Making some bogus voucher from public money and using it to put some kid in a private religious/anti-science school is both unfair to people who prefer public schools that are already underfunded and a misuse of tax dollars from taxpayers who want nothing to do with that private school. And, as soon as you let the anti-education crowd get a grip on education, we lose the common good that comes from it, and our jobs will disappear overseas and we'll lose technological leadership.

His economic views also smell of a sort of extreme, ridiculous change. I want an example of them working in real life.

And his views on abortion are beyond stupid -as in catholic church stupid. It makes me angry how little informed he is. He's willing to throw away people's freedoms on a flimsy philosophical whim that a friggin ZYGOTE is a human life. Preposterous. I understand concerns for fetuses, because they're developed enough to have a primitive brain and may be able to process pain. But a zygote? Blastocyst? Does he even know the difference between the three of them? Does he ever wonder why pregnancy last nine months rather then 5 minutes?
He's also woefully misinformed on Global Warming, falling victim to the twisting of statistics by the oil companies. He's clearly science illiterate, and that's not proper for a country on the leading edge of scientific advancement.

His immigration views are also out of whack. He promises a lot of border strengthening but no promise to streamline the legal immigrant process so that foreigners have more incentive to come legally. Either welcome people so they're on record and on the tax process, or be stubborn about your racism and deal with more tax-draining illegal immigrants who come because they don't have another option. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also, he avoids the idea of doing the effective thing and punishing employers of illegals.
Also, he's anti-birthright citizenship. That's punishing people for crimes somebody else committed.

This is the thing: I don't want a candidate that talks ideology and nothing of reality. I want a candidate who acknowledges that all ideologies have faults and that there will be exceptions to their use of ideologies for places where the ideology doesn't work. I am so tired of politicians blathering about buzzwords. The only reasons I voted for Obama last time was because he wasn't blathering about conservative, fear mongering, buzzwords. Some of Ron Paul's stuff I agree with: like being anti- National ID card and a lot of what you said, but he's hindered by his pandering to the wackaloon conservative base.

tl;dr: I hate purists. Ron Paul sounds like a free-market, economic freedom (but anti- personal freedom and anti-facts) purist.

[Dean]

I voted for the third party and they aren't so hot now. The grass ain't always greener.

As a matter of principle though, yes.

[travz21]

His views on Education reform are extreme and ridiculous. Why not take baby steps and get rid of the crap like No Child Left Behind instead of destroying the entire system, which has spots that are working. I'm sorry, but the free market is not a magic bullet that solves all problems. It solves many problems, but not all of them. Of schools in California ranked by the number of students that default on their student debts, the for-profit schools dominate the worst of the worst. Their education is worthless. Education is a common good that benefits all: even if you're not educated, you are benefiting from the people in your society who are. Making some bogus voucher from public money and using it to put some kid in a private religious/anti-science school is both unfair to people who prefer public schools that are already underfunded and a misuse of tax dollars from taxpayers who want nothing to do with that private school. And, as soon as you let the anti-education crowd get a grip on education, we lose the common good that comes from it, and our jobs will disappear overseas and we'll lose technological leadership.

I'm confused with what you're saying. What do you think Ron Paul wants to do with education? Get rid of it? Turn it into anti-science/ultra religion? Where are you getting this info? Nothing Ron Paul does will reflect his personal beliefs, because a libertarian puts his beliefs aside for everyone's civil rights. How do you think we had education before 1980 when the DOE was put into effect?

He wants to get government out of the schooling system is all. He doesn't want to destroy education. He doesn't want the government taking taxes from people to pay for other kids, telling kids how and what they should be learning, and basically owning the children until they are 18. Having the government control what our children are learning is ridiculous. It should be the job of the school and teachers to determine how they are going to teach the kids. If the school doesn't keep up with other competing schools, they'll go out of business. So all schools have incentive to keep efficiency and learning at an all-time high. If they don't, parents won't send their kids there and the school won't have the money to run. The way it is now, the schools don't have any incentive to be efficient since they get paid no matter what. Incentive is what drives the free market. It keeps prices low and quality high. It works in every aspect of business. Hospitals, schools, construction, community centers, etc. When the government gets involved with all these regulations, loopholes, and bailouts, it distorts the market and effects both the business and consumer negatively. The FDA is a good example of this.




His economic views also smell of a sort of extreme, ridiculous change. I want an example of them working in real life.

It's Austrian Economics. Watch or read about it. It's really insightful stuff. And why do you need an example to know if it works? There's never an example of something working before it actually happens. There's examples everywhere showing that corporatism doesn't work, so we know we shouldn't keep doing what we're doing.

While not a completely free market, a good example is the computer hardware/software industry. There are very little regulations. There's numerous competitors who keep having to outperform each other in fear of losing demand, so the technology keeps advancing, which makes prices drop. Remember when shitty computers in 1995 were like $1,800? This is the concept of a free market. The corporations are fighting for the consumer. Again, all businesses would work like that in a free market. Banks, schools, hospitals, police/security, construction, cable companies, etc.

Lasik eye surgery is a wonderful example in discussions of both free markets and the healthcare debate. Since its inception, the quality has skyrocketed while the cost has declined. If all healthcare was like that, the prices would be a tiny percentage of what it is today. Instead, there's no competition and the government intervenes. Our prices go up, quality goes down, and the insurance companies rape us.

Think about everyday life. To a large extent, especially in the developed world, you have a "free market" of human association and behavior. You decide who to befriend, what to cook for breakfast, where to hang out, where to work, when to piss, how you get your chores done, and much more, all without the government. If we know freedom works in one field of human interaction, we can reasonably consider it to work for any other.

From my personal experience, how about the Grateful Dead parking lot scene? While I am always amazed at how "anti-free market" these individuals are, they operate in a nearly 100% free market. Vendors selling everything from burritos, to chicken salads, to drugs, shirts, clothing, back rubs, tickets, rides to other shows; everything is open for sale, all the prices are mutually agreed upon, no violence is used (besides the bad apples that occur regardless), and there is very little police/protection service (other than to bust for drugs), so people cooperate and interact peacefully on their own. The FDA doesn't need to stand over these unregulated burrito and BBQ stands to make sure the food is cooked. The individuals make sure the food is cooked because they want people to buy it. The system operates almost without any flaws and it is, in my eyes, the last free market one can actual go to and experience.

Remember, a free market in its true stance is theoretical. Nothing will ever become "it". However, the degree to which "it" is, is possible and can be seen.


And his views on abortion are beyond stupid -as in catholic church stupid. It makes me angry how little informed he is. He's willing to throw away people's freedoms on a flimsy philosophical whim that a friggin ZYGOTE is a human life. Preposterous. I understand concerns for fetuses, because they're developed enough to have a primitive brain and may be able to process pain. But a zygote? Blastocyst? Does he even know the difference between the three of them? Does he ever wonder why pregnancy last nine months rather then 5 minutes?

You do know that Ron Paul is an obstetrician/gynecologist, right? He's delivered over 4,000 babies.

I think abortion will forever have good points for either side of the argument. Again, he's a libertarian and believes that everyone has civil rights. He sees abortion as taking away the rights of the baby. He also makes the argument that if you are in a car accident and kill a pregnant woman, you're not just charged with killing the woman. If our law is like that, shouldn't our abortion policy reflect that as well? I mean, in some states you can still get an abortion at 24 weeks. That's pretty fucked up no matter what side of the argument you're on.


He's also woefully misinformed on Global Warming, falling victim to the twisting of statistics by the oil companies. He's clearly science illiterate, and that's not proper for a country on the leading edge of scientific advancement.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

Being skeptical of Global Warming is hardly something to hold against someone.

He's not against science. Again, he's a doctor. He also endorses the internet 100% and embraces technology.


His immigration views are also out of whack. He promises a lot of border strengthening but no promise to streamline the legal immigrant process so that foreigners have more incentive to come legally. Either welcome people so they're on record and on the tax process, or be stubborn about your racism and deal with more tax-draining illegal immigrants who come because they don't have another option. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also, he avoids the idea of doing the effective thing and punishing employers of illegals.
Also, he's anti-birthright citizenship. That's punishing people for crimes somebody else committed.

His immigration views are spot on. First and foremost, he wants to get rid of all the incentives that illegal immigrants have for coming over here. Welfare, free education, jobs, and birthright citizenship. He also wants to stop the war on drugs and legalize them. Not because he likes them, but because it should be an individual's choice on what we do with our bodies. It's a civil right that's been taken away from us. Drug use would also go down if it were legalized, the cartels would diminish, deaths from violence would decrease to virtually 0, and drug users wouldn't be going to jail anymore for victimless "crimes" and ruining their lives.

Once you address those, there's no incentive to come here illegally and the border won't need really any patrol or security.

Also, he's not racist lol. And how is repealing birthright citizenship punishing anyone? He's against deportation.

Here's some words about what he thinks about immigration:

“My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous." - http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Paul/Immigration.php

Hey, look at that. If we were in a free market and had a thriving economy, there would be more jobs than we know what to do with and illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem.


This is the thing: I don't want a candidate that talks ideology and nothing of reality.

Good. Then you'll love Ron Paul. He uses history as knowledge and has a vast understanding of economics and foreign policy. Reality, baby! A lot of what he proposes used to be done in the past when our country actually worked the way our founding fathers intended it to. No income tax, competing banks instead of the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, no Department of Education and many other bureaucracies, no drug wars, actually following the constitution, and most importantly, giving everyone all of their civil liberties and freedoms, which is what this country should be revolved around. The government shall do nothing that infringes upon our rights as individuals.

[Vriska]

I'm confused with what you're saying. What do you think Ron Paul wants to do with education? Get rid of it? Turn it into anti-science/ultra religion? Where are you getting this info? Nothing Ron Paul does will reflect his personal beliefs, because a libertarian puts his beliefs aside for everyone's civil rights. How do you think we had education before 1980 when the DOE was put into effect?

He wants to get government out of the schooling system is all. He doesn't want to destroy education. He doesn't want the government taking taxes from people to pay for other kids, telling kids how and what they should be learning, and basically owning the children until they are 18. Having the government control what our children are learning is ridiculous. It should be the job of the school and teachers to determine how they are going to teach the kids. If the school doesn't keep up with other competing schools, they'll go out of business. So all schools have incentive to keep efficiency and learning at an all-time high. If they don't, parents won't send their kids there and the school won't have the money to run. The way it is now, the schools don't have any incentive to be efficient since they get paid no matter what. Incentive is what drives the free market. It keeps prices low and quality high. It works in every aspect of business. Hospitals, schools, construction, community centers, etc. When the government gets involved with all these regulations, loopholes, and bailouts, it distorts the market and effects both the business and consumer negatively. The FDA is a good example of this.

I'll just cite Ron Paul directly then


“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.

Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.

Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.

The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”


Education is not an entity that squanders money (unless you're counting overpaid administration when there's underpaid teachers, then that is a problem that should be solved by reforming the bureaucracy rather than destroying the whole system). It is an investment. Paired with Income Tax, the government has an incentive for its citizens to prosper and be educated, by receiving more taxes from them. It takes around 2 years for the government to make a return on investment on someone like me. And I get a nice, high paying job when I'm done with it all. I like the win-win situation here. Given, it has problems like the catastrophic No Child Left Behind Act. But that problem's solution is to repeal or reform it, not to throw out the entire system. Iterating over the problems on the existing system is a much faster solution track then to start over every time there's a snag.

But notice what he says about our education system. He calls it "indoctrination." The solution to that is to place more emphasis on argumentative logic and rhetoric (both are already taught in High School), and perhaps add mandatory psychology (which was elective where I was from). Those three combined are a crash course on critical thinking. As long as topics like those are in the curriculum, the kids are indoctrination proof. The government couldn't even twist those courses, as it needs to teach it truthfully to the future scientists that create fancy weapons, and the engineers who will pay a nice income tax.

But that's not really what right wingers say when they mean "indoctrination." Ron Paul is pandering to the right, and the right HATES science, HATES biology, and HATES "Big Pharma." What education is really getting in the way of is religious indoctrination. Real indoctrination that parents wish for: Where they never even allow their children to learn what evolution even IS. Education, by contrast, showcases as many ideas at once as possible, exposing kids to many different ideas and viewpoints. An educated kid would argue against evolution by learning about it from both sides. But educated creationists don't actually exist; I've never seen a single creationist that actually understands the theory of evolution. They've learned of it entirely by other creationists who tell them lies, and they can only parrot their arguments as they've never looked at it themselves. If you've seen a creationist that really, truly understands evolution, PLEASE SHOW HIM TO ME!*

it is clear by his reference to "psychotropic drugs" and indoctrination that he is addressing the anti-science crowd with this stuff. They are the people who mistrust education. It is they who have trying to claw their way into forcing lies like creationism into schools. They are the people taking their kids out of school and homeschool them so they have complete control over their indoctrination. They are the vast majority of homeschoolers. And these are the kinds of people that will be empowered by deregulating the education system.

And this is a perfect example of where free-market ideas fall apart. Education should be run by experts in their fields, not local no-nothings who have nothing but misconceptions about what they indoctrinate kids with. The quality of education will wither if its power is taken from the experts. The south will become a nation of indoctrinated zombies.

Like I said before, the free market is a great idea for many fields. It is terrible for others. That hinges on the fact that the free market delivers what people want, not what people need. What the people want is to be indoctrinated. What they need is to be led by experts. It's a small price to pay in terms of freedom compared to the freedom proper education opens up. You give a little to get a lot. That's what I mean about not being a purist. A purist using a greedy algorithm would be fuming over losing their "freedoms" to be properly educated, and not consider the freedom of opportunity they get in the long run, and the freedoms they get in not living in a country that indoctrinates them.




* They would not be using buzzwords like "irreducible complexity," references to tornadoes in junkyards, mousetraps, a crocodile giving birth to a duck, grandmothers who are apes, the laws of thermodynamics, attacking theory of albiogenesis or the big bang and think they're related to evolution, etc.










It's Austrian Economics. Watch or read about it. It's really insightful stuff. And why do you need an example to know if it works? There's never an example of something working before it actually happens. There's examples everywhere showing that corporatism doesn't work, so we know we shouldn't keep doing what we're doing.

While not a completely free market, a good example is the computer hardware/software industry. There are very little regulations. There's numerous competitors who keep having to outperform each other in fear of losing demand, so the technology keeps advancing, which makes prices drop. Remember when shitty computers in 1995 were like $1,800? This is the concept of a free market. The corporations are fighting for the consumer. Again, all businesses would work like that in a free market. Banks, schools, hospitals, police/security, construction, cable companies, etc.

Lasik eye surgery is a wonderful example in discussions of both free markets and the healthcare debate. Since its inception, the quality has skyrocketed while the cost has declined. If all healthcare was like that, the prices would be a tiny percentage of what it is today. Instead, there's no competition and the government intervenes. Our prices go up, quality goes down, and the insurance companies rape us.

Think about everyday life. To a large extent, especially in the developed world, you have a "free market" of human association and behavior. You decide who to befriend, what to cook for breakfast, where to hang out, where to work, when to piss, how you get your chores done, and much more, all without the government. If we know freedom works in one field of human interaction, we can reasonably consider it to work for any other.

From my personal experience, how about the Grateful Dead parking lot scene? While I am always amazed at how "anti-free market" these individuals are, they operate in a nearly 100% free market. Vendors selling everything from burritos, to chicken salads, to drugs, shirts, clothing, back rubs, tickets, rides to other shows; everything is open for sale, all the prices are mutually agreed upon, no violence is used (besides the bad apples that occur regardless), and there is very little police/protection service (other than to bust for drugs), so people cooperate and interact peacefully on their own. The FDA doesn't need to stand over these unregulated burrito and BBQ stands to make sure the food is cooked. The individuals make sure the food is cooked because they want people to buy it. The system operates almost without any flaws and it is, in my eyes, the last free market one can actual go to and experience.

Remember, a free market in its true stance is theoretical. Nothing will ever become "it". However, the degree to which "it" is, is possible and can be seen.



Unless said burrito maker can make a ton of $$$ by cutting corners by jeapordizing the health of his consumers, like how McDonalds saves resources by making their coffee unnecessarily piping hot that direct contact with the fluid can cause a third degree burn and send someone who made a simple spill be rushed to the hospital. Or how Taco Bell never seems to care about giving food poisoning and diarrhea to tons of people. The fact is that often the market won't regulate itself until someone dies from it. And even then, without government intervention or our trusty lawyers, they might not regulate at all.

You're also not considering the scaling problem. For a small town, communism is a PERFECT system. It's practically how our small hunter-gatherer ancestor comunnities lived for thousands of years. That means it should work for an entire nation of millions and millions of people, right? Nope! Same is true for software. It's why Google and other businesses have beta testing periods that slowly increase the number of people on the system. They wanna see where the weaknesses in their system is when they scale up. Systems break down in ways you don't foresee them coming. That's another reason why I don't like idealogical purists: they see it works in the small scale but don't consider the large scale.

So basically, that grateful dead concert isn't gonna cut it for the entire USA. You just can't assume your system can scale up x10,000 to apply to 300,000,000 people in the same way a concert applies to 10,000.





You do know that Ron Paul is an obstetrician/gynecologist, right? He's delivered over 4,000 babies.

I think abortion will forever have good points for either side of the argument. Again, he's a libertarian and believes that everyone has civil rights. He sees abortion as taking away the rights of the baby. He also makes the argument that if you are in a car accident and kill a pregnant woman, you're not just charged with killing the woman. If our law is like that, shouldn't our abortion policy reflect that as well? I mean, in some states you can still get an abortion at 24 weeks. That's pretty fucked up no matter what side of the argument you're on.



http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

Being skeptical of Global Warming is hardly something to hold against someone.

He's not against science. Again, he's a doctor. He also endorses the internet 100% and embraces technology.



This only goes to show how far he has betrayed his own area of expertise to pander to the right wing base. Sickening. He's a politician just like any other. Maybe if he gets elected he can thumb his nose at the conservatives and stick to libertarianism. But that sounds like a far off bet.


The only, ONLY, case for the belief that human life starts at contraception is a supernatural one. I am all about religious freedom, in that people should not be told what religious beliefs to have by the govt. Therefore, until the pregnancy is at a point where the fetus is developing a sentient brain that feels pain, abortion is a choice. Period. (Pun intended).



His immigration views are spot on. First and foremost, he wants to get rid of all the incentives that illegal immigrants have for coming over here. Welfare, free education, jobs, and birthright citizenship. He also wants to stop the war on drugs and legalize them. Not because he likes them, but because it should be an individual's choice on what we do with our bodies. It's a civil right that's been taken away from us. Drug use would also go down if it were legalized, the cartels would diminish, deaths from violence would decrease to virtually 0, and drug users wouldn't be going to jail anymore for victimless "crimes" and ruining their lives.

Once you address those, there's no incentive to come here illegally and the border won't need really any patrol or security.

Also, he's not racist lol. And how is repealing birthright citizenship punishing anyone? He's against deportation.

Here's some words about what he thinks about immigration:

“My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous." - http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Paul/Immigration.php

Hey, look at that. If we were in a free market and had a thriving economy, there would be more jobs than we know what to do with and illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem.


Oh I want the war on drugs done and gone. That is a waste of time. So is spending a zillion taxpayer dollars building useless fences. You should see the episode of Bullshit by my favorite libertarians, Penn and Teller. They rip the whole border thing apart.

yes, I'm getting terse. I've put too much time into this. I could have written like 5 pages on the wiki.
[/QUOTE]

[Timothy]

You know, you'd get a lot farther if you acknowledged that yeah, we have actually read about Ron Paul.

Bingo.

I have nothing personal against you, travz, but I really wish you'd stop insinuating that people don't know what they're talking about. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're ill informed. Most of what I know about the fundamentals of economics, for instance, was taught to me by a conservative professor who spent 50% of his time ranting about liberals, so I'm not opposed to having my views challenged. The fact that I'm a liberal atheist who grew up in the Bible Belt should be evidence enough that I can think for myself. But I shouldn't even have to say that.

Yeah, my last post was pretty smartass-y (smartasses gonna smartass?), but I'm wary of any dogmatic adherence to ideology. I literally can't think of anything you've posted in one of your screeds that I haven't heard a million times before from other libertarians (condescension included). That's why I made that little dig: the parallels between libertarians extolling the virtues of the Church of Paul and the Christians trying to spread His word on Sunday mornings is fucking uncanny.

[Dean]

Bingo.

I have nothing personal against you, travz, but I really wish you'd stop insinuating that people don't know what they're talking about. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're ill informed. Most of what I know about the fundamentals of economics, for instance, was taught to me by a conservative professor who spent 50% of his time ranting about liberals, so I'm not opposed to having my views challenged. The fact that I'm a liberal atheist who grew up in the Bible Belt should be evidence enough that I can think for myself. But I shouldn't even have to say that.

Yeah, my last post was pretty smartass-y (smartasses gonna smartass?), but I'm wary of any dogmatic adherence to ideology. I literally can't think of anything you've posted in one of your screeds that I haven't heard a million times before from other libertarians (condescension included). That's why I made that little dig: the parallels between libertarians extolling the virtues of the Church of Paul and the Christians trying to spread His word on Sunday mornings is fucking uncanny.
You study econ?

[Timothy]

You study econ?

Nah, I only took one class for my general education requirement, but I'm still kind of interested in the subject. Enough to stay informed, at least.


EDIT: I just realized that I admitted to learning something in school. MAYBE THAT PROFESSOR ONLY WANTED ME TO THINK HE WAS CONSERVATIVE?!?!?!

[Benjamin]

Letting local/state governments to completely control schools is a bad idea. If that happens you'll get schools in Texas saying evolution is a lie, for instance.

[.Amanda.]

If I could vote for none of them, that would be ideal. They ALL scare me. They're politicians. Politicians are scary fucking people.

Oh wait. I just won't vote.

True.

[Dean]

Nah, I only took one class for my general education requirement, but I'm still kind of interested in the subject. Enough to stay informed, at least.
For a moment there I was impressed. :P

[Timothy]

For a moment there I was impressed. :P

I could write a treatise on the pros and cons of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff if it'll win back some of that respect.

[Dean]

First of all it's van Smoot and secondly that was last season on How I Met Your Mother.

[ThaHandyman]

assholes running for the Republican nomination .

You need a hug bro, nullus.



And his views on abortion are beyond stupid -as in catholic church stupid. It makes me angry how little informed he is. He's willing to throw away people's freedoms on a flimsy philosophical whim that a friggin ZYGOTE is a human life. Preposterous. I understand concerns for fetuses, because they're developed enough to have a primitive brain and may be able to process pain. But a zygote? Blastocyst? Does he even know the difference between the three of them? Does he ever wonder why pregnancy last nine months rather then 5 minutes?
He's also woefully misinformed on Global Warming, falling victim to the twisting of statistics by the oil companies. He's clearly science illiterate, and that's not proper for a country on the leading edge of scientific advancement.

So when does it become a baby? Zygote? Morula? Blastocyst? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? Theres no gray area, its a person. It has a future.


(smartasses gonna smartass?)

I see what you did there.


You study econ?

I'm taking micro right now, yes. And what Mr. Paul has to say, as a logical person, I know is much better for us than any socialized economy. Not that I'm going to pretend to be any kind of genius, its my first business class.


Letting local/state governments to completely control schools is a bad idea. If that happens you'll get schools in Texas saying evolution is a lie, for instance.

Oh gosh and that would be terrible, kids knowing we're created from a God and didn't evolve from mutated monkeys.


Back to the main topic, Rick Perry FTW, Texas is full of all kinds of win. Though If Paul won the nomination I'd have no problem voting for him, he seems like the guy who might be crazy enough to get something done. But then again he is the guy that said to protect the border with 'machine guns and barbwire' lololol.

[Dean]

So when does it become a baby? Zygote? Morula? Blastocyst? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? Theres no gray area, its a person. It has a future.
You did just quote a whole explanation, y'know.


Oh gosh and that would be terrible, kids knowing we're created from a God and didn't evolve from mutated monkeys.
Seriously?

[Vriska]

You need a hug bro, nullus.



So when does it become a baby? Zygote? Morula? Blastocyst? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? Theres no gray area, its a person. It has a future.



I see what you did there.



I'm taking micro right now, yes. And what Mr. Paul has to say, as a logical person, I know is much better for us than any socialized economy. Not that I'm going to pretend to be any kind of genius, its my first business class.



Oh gosh and that would be terrible, kids knowing we're created from a God and didn't evolve from mutated monkeys.


Back to the main topic, Rick Perry FTW, Texas is full of all kinds of win. Though If Paul won the nomination I'd have no problem voting for him, he seems like the guy who might be crazy enough to get something done. But then again he is the guy that said to protect the border with 'machine guns and barbwire' lololol.



AS. I. JUST. SAID. In the post Handyman quoted me (thanks for NOT reading what I spent an hour and a half writing), a life's significance is determined by the level of its brain development.

A zygote cannot feel pain. It cannot feel love. It has no friends. It doesn't know what a friend is. It cannot think at all. It doesn't get hungry or thirsty. It has no dreams, and it has no suffering. It has to brain, and therefore cannot process any of these thoughts at all. A zygote is functionally the same as a tumor: a ball of cells that keep multiplying, but a tumor is a living thing too. An ant has more brainpower than a zygote. So does a mosquito.
A zygote is not a person, it only has the potential to be a person. You have the potential to be a criminal, because you can probably curl your first and have enough strength to punch someone. Does this mean I should arrest you now for battery, or should I wait and see if you actually realize that potential?

A adult woman, by contrast, IS a living thing. She can feel pain, and she does have friends. The suggestion that a non-sentient entity is more important than a fully grown woman, much less an ant or a tumor, is preposterous.

Furthermore, if you let nature run its course, only a few fertilized zygotes ever live long enough to see birth. Many are washed out by the mother's next period (does that make all women mass murderers?). A lot of the time a malfunction happens and the potential child aborts itself.

Like I said, the ONLY case for arguing a zygote is life is though supernatural argument, because a zygote does not have any physical world components to be a sentient thing. Therefore, it is not the business of the govt to ban it. I know for a fact that it's not a living being and I know for a fact that there are no such things as a supernatural anything, but if you have a different religious opinion than me, we would merely argue over it until we're blue in the face.

[Vriska]

*I can't delete posts T_T*

If I could vote for none of them, that would be ideal. They ALL scare me. They're politicians. Politicians are scary fucking people.

Oh wait. I just won't vote.

True.

You should at least choose between sticking a needle in your eye and sticking a log in your eye, at least. Consider a non-vote to be equal to voting for who you dislike the most.

[ThaHandyman]

Well my argument isn't necessarily supernatural, I'm really asking when does it become a baby? You said life's significance is determined by brain activity, when is their enough brain activity for you to consider it human? If you can pinpoint a time of said activity, why is it not human before, and human after?

I really wish we could argue in person because I think we'd be a lot more friendly! But let me counter this argument,


An ant has more brainpower than a zygote. So does a mosquito.

I have a lot more brain activity than a younger child, is that child any less of a person than me? Am I any less of a person than the person making above a 2.8 GPA? I've also heard pro-choice arguments on development. I'm taller and more muscular people than a lot of people I know, but does this make me more human? Are the beasts that play for the Oklahoma State Cowboy (#5 holllller!) football team that are generally taller and way bigger than me make them more human than me?

[Benjamin]

Oh gosh and that would be terrible, kids knowing we're created from a God and didn't evolve from mutated monkeys.


What you just implied is an insult to the first amendment guaranteeing the separation of church and state.

[ThaHandyman]

What you just implied is an insult to the first amendment guaranteeing the separation of church and state.

Travs was talking about the policies of Paul, and how he was separating government and school, therefore schools would be independent from government, and could do what the community felt necessary, this is how I took it anyway, and I could be wrong.

Besides that creation is just as valid a theory as evolution, I mean really.

[Vriska]

Well my argument isn't necessarily supernatural, I'm really asking when does it become a baby? You said life's significance is determined by brain activity, when is their enough brain activity for you to consider it human? If you can pinpoint a time of said activity, why is it not human before, and human after?

I really wish we could argue in person because I think we'd be a lot more friendly! But let me counter this argument,



I have a lot more brain activity than a younger child, is that child any less of a person than me? Am I any less of a person than the person making above a 2.8 GPA? I've also heard pro-choice arguments on development. I'm taller and more muscular people than a lot of people I know, but does this make me less human? Are the beasts that play for the Oklahoma State Cowboy (#5 holllller!) football team that are generally taller and way bigger than me make them more human than me?

You're still missing my point: A zygote cannot feel pain or suffering. You can feel pain, the football players DEFINATELY can feel pain, and I can feel pain too. You, me, and the football players all understand friendship, too.

The unethical part of killing isn't the part about losing life (it happens to everyone eventually), it's the purposeful creation of suffering from that which is being killed, the great loss to the friends of person being killed, and because the entity in question does not want to die. A zygote cannot feel suffering, doesn't understand friendship or love, has has no desires like the desire to keep living, thus, it can be aborted with a clean conscience.

Once it reaches a certain threshold of understanding, it becomes unethical to kill a fetus. If a fetus is part of the living club, then it logically follows that everyone older than that is part of the living club too.



By the way, creationism is not a scientific theory. There has been not a single shred of evidence proposed that supports creationism over evolution. Creationism has had no testable hypotheses. Something CANNOT be called a theory if it doesn't even have any tested hypotheses!

[Dean]

Besides that creation is just as valid a theory as evolution, I mean really.
If you're talking about young earth creationism it isn't even close.

If you just mean that God initiated evolution millions of years ago, the two are compatible but it's still not exactly science. Evolution can be and has been observed. God and creation can't be. There is tangible evidence that evolution has happened. There isn't for creation. It's 100% hypothetical at best.

It'd fit into a class that's actually about religion and philosophy and stuff, but saying it should be taught as science is like saying Pythagoras should be taught in English Lit. Two completely different fields.

[ThaHandyman]

What is the 'threshold of understanding' though? How do you pinpoint this threshold?

[travz21]

But then again he is the guy that said to protect the border with 'machine guns and barbwire' lololol.

Where do people get these lies from? He's against anything like that.



Here's a question for everyone: Would you rather have no states, 50 states, or 5,000 states?

[Vriska]

What is the 'threshold of understanding' though? How do you pinpoint this threshold?

This is the tricky part.

There is one obvious part: we need a brain first.

The brain has different parts to it: the part that develops first, correct me if i'm wrong, is the "old brain" parts like the brain stem that moderates basic life functions that a person never has to think about: like telling the heart to pump blood, holding poop inside, and breathing (I bet you are breathing manually now, bwahaha). This isn't the part that makes desires, so we need to look at the other brain parts.

Other parts control the individual parts of your body, like squeezing your hand. That's not it either.

We need to wait for the part of the brain that makes desires. That, I am not sure we can pinpoint down exactly where yet. Or, at least I don't know. I typically hear people saying it is the spot where the second trimester turns into the third. 20-some odd weeks. Imo, it might be a continuum rather and a discrete thing.

However, thanks to the obvious brain requirement, zygotes obviously don't count.

[Benjamin]

Travs was talking about the policies of Paul, and how he was separating government and school, therefore schools would be independent from government, and could do what the community felt necessary, this is how I took it anyway, and I could be wrong.

Besides that creation is just as valid a theory as evolution, I mean really.

There's no logical reason as to why a kid in New York should be taught different material than a kid in Texas.

[Pidgeon]

just to throw my 2 cents in on the abortion thing, I think there are better ways to get rid of a baby. you can give it up for adaption for example. Though I'm exactly an expert to on the subject nor am I one to say what a woman can and can't do with her body, but it is my opinion that there are more human ways

[Benjamin]

just to throw my 2 cents in on the abortion thing, I think there are better ways to get rid of a baby. you can give it up for adaption for example. Though I'm exactly an expert to on the subject nor am I one to say what a woman can and can't do with her body, but it is my opinion that there are more human ways

I think your point is fair but there are reasons that justify abortion. For one it's asking a whole lot for someone to go through the 8 months of pregnancy for a baby they don't even want. Also, not all babies/kids find good families to take care of them when they're sent to a foster home. In general, starting your life as someone who is unwanted is never a good thing.

[Pidgeon]

I think your point is fair but there are reasons that justify abortion. For one it's asking a whole lot for someone to go through the 8 months of pregnancy for a baby they don't even want. Also, not all babies/kids find good families to take care of them when they're sent to a foster home. In general, starting your life as someone who is unwanted is never a good thing.

yes, but at the same time is actually gives the child a shot at life, a shot at something.I feel like its unfair to not even give it a chance because you were careless.

[Benjamin]

because you were careless.

That's what everyone says. Then it happens to you and all of the sudden your views on abortion change. I've heard a first hand story of this happening. If abortion bothers you so much then don't have one (or rather tell your girlfriend/wife/prostitute not to have one).

[Pidgeon]

That's what everyone says. Then it happens to you and all of the sudden your views on abortion change. I've heard a first hand story of this happening. If abortion bothers you so much then don't have one (or rather tell your girlfriend/wife/prostitute not to have one).

Thats fair I think

[Vriska]

yes, but at the same time is actually gives the child a shot at life, a shot at something.I feel like its unfair to not even give it a chance because you were careless.

I feel like, if I were to be consistent, I would have to get pregnant as many times as I can to give the most shots at life. ....and then put them in miserable lives in orphanages. Or, if I were a dude, I would give the most shots at life by having a different prostitute every night. I don't think giving shots at life is a logical thing to aim for. Also, pregnancy is scary and sometimes fatal. Actually, it used to be regularly fatal back before we had decent medicine. Don't forget the burden of the person who is already living before considering the person who doesn't exist yet.

I literally see no difference in using a condom and taking the morning after pill. And I think it's less ethical to wait until it becomes a person so they live a lesser life, than if they had tried again later and raised a child in a proper home. I don't believe in creating people willy nilly if you cannot love them and take care of them. The orphans we have today need a home. Use your creation powers responsibly.

[Pidgeon]

I feel like, if I were to be consistent, I would have to get pregnant as many times as I can to give the most shots at life. ....and then put them in miserable lives in orphanages. Or, if I were a dude, I would give the most shots at life by having a different prostitute every night. I don't think giving shots at life is a logical thing to aim for.

lol not really what I said. Maybe one night your birth control fails or the condom breaks. Its not fair for the one child to have to die because of it. Having as many kids as possible to give them as many shots at a good life isn't exactly what I said. You accidently get pregnant, its not fair to that child to be punished for it. But like I said I'm no place to say what anybody can and can't do with their life. You wanna do hard drugs, fine doesn't affect me, kinda the same with an abortion, you get one, doesn't affect me so in the end I guess I don't really care but I do feel its unfair

[Todd]

There's no logical reason as to why a kid in New York should be taught different material than a kid in Texas.

I agree - perhaps the legislators and voters in Texas will realize that there's a problem with their educational system when they fall dead last in education rankings and the resume of anyone who was educated in Texas goes directly into the shredder at HR departments around the world.



lol not really what I said. Maybe one night your birth control fails or the condom breaks. Its not fair for the one child to have to die because of it. Having as many kids as possible to give them as many shots at a good life isn't exactly what I said. You accidently get pregnant, its not fair to that child to be punished for it. But like I said I'm no place to say what anybody can and can't do with their life. You wanna do hard drugs, fine doesn't affect me, kinda the same with an abortion, you get one, doesn't affect me so in the end I guess I don't really care but I do feel its unfair

And it's not fair for the child to grow up in a home where he's not wanted, considered a mistake, and treated like shit by its parents because they weren't financially or emotionally ready for a child. Nor is it fair for it to be raised in the foster care system. Sure, if it gets adopted right at birth, it's probably OK, but not all children get adopted and move from foster home to foster home, have no stability in their life and never have anyone in their life serving as the role of parents.

[travz21]

It's cool that we're talking about abortion, the least important issue of these elections, when our economic and foreign policies are what's going to cause our nation to crumble.

[Pidgeon]

@Todd: I do agree with you that thats not fair either, I guess its just a matter of what you think is more or less fair. Does that make sense?

@travz: lol calm down dude, its just a conversation, its not like what we say here is going to change anything. And besides your always talking about the government taking away rights, abortion kinda falls under that subject, and for that reason it is a very important topic

[Benjamin]

And it's not fair for the child to grow up in a home where he's not wanted, considered a mistake, and treated like shit by its parents because they weren't financially or emotionally ready for a child. Nor is it fair for it to be raised in the foster care system. Sure, if it gets adopted right at birth, it's probably OK, but not all children get adopted and move from foster home to foster home, have no stability in their life and never have anyone in their life serving as the role of parents.

You forgot the end of the story: that unwanted kid has an unexpected baby who goes through the same thing his father did. The cycle repeats.


It's cool that we're talking about abortion, the least important issue of these elections, when our economic and foreign policies are what's going to cause our nation to crumble.

You've been on these forums long enough to know that we've all talked about those issues quite a bit.

[.Amanda.]

***This post was supposed to quote Kathy but I'm too tired to post correctly. Durrrrrrr.

I disagree.
(a) I don't have enough time to research all the issues. I do like what I've read of Ron Paul but I can't say I'm informed enough about all the other candidates to see if I like any of them better. I don't think it's a good idea to vote for a candidate when you don't know all the specifics. That's how Obama got into office in the first place (IMO of course, I can't say that's fact. It just seemed like a bandwagon thing from my viewpoint. You're allowed to disagree.)
(b) I wouldn't say that NOT voting counts as a vote for my least favorite candidate. Not voting counts as me not voting. It's not as if my not voting for someone will automatically trigger someone to vote for the candidate I dislike. It just won't do anything at all. That's kind of the whole point.

[sotrix]

Here's a question for everyone: Would you rather have no states, 50 states, or 5,000 states?

No states. That would at least get rid of the electoral college.

[Dean]

***This post was supposed to quote Kathy but I'm too tired to post correctly. Durrrrrrr.

I disagree.
(a) I don't have enough time to research all the issues. I do like what I've read of Ron Paul but I can't say I'm informed enough about all the other candidates to see if I like any of them better. I don't think it's a good idea to vote for a candidate when you don't know all the specifics. That's how Obama got into office in the first place (IMO of course, I can't say that's fact. It just seemed like a bandwagon thing from my viewpoint. You're allowed to disagree.)
(b) I wouldn't say that NOT voting counts as a vote for my least favorite candidate. Not voting counts as me not voting. It's not as if my not voting for someone will automatically trigger someone to vote for the candidate I dislike. It just won't do anything at all. That's kind of the whole point.
Because if you don't vote there's one less vote to counterbalance any votes for the candidate you dislike most. Dat logic.

[Vriska]

Because if you don't vote there's one less vote to counterbalance any votes for the candidate you dislike most. Dat logic.

Bingo. There's no such thing as a non-vote because not voting still affects the outcome. Refusing to act is an act in itself.

For example, California had a preposition to make marijuana legal. It was leading in the polls, but when it came time to tally the votes, the preposition didn't pass. Turns out the demographic that would have passed it didn't bother to show up to vote. So, even though most people actually want it, they didn't get it because they didn't bother to get off their butts.


It's also problematic because elected leaders depend on their constituents to get reelected. If people in the center didn't vote because all of the candidates are wackaloons, that makes it so that only the extreme ends and the crazy people make up the constituency. I think that will only make the candidates crazier and crazier, and thus more polarized, as time progresses.

[Dean]

I'd hazard a guess that most democratic countries probably do have enough apathetic non-voters, who complain that their votes don't make a difference, to make some kind of difference if they actually did vote.

Basically
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li9viytEnX1qzvsggo1_500.jpg

[Benjamin]

There are people all around the world that are risking their lives just so they have the power to vote. I think that's something for those who don't vote in the U.S. and other countries to think about.

[F-ck Casey]

fuck voting. a non-vote is a vote for yourself. those fighting around the world for the "right to vote" will soon realize that corruption and greed doesn't stop once you over throw a dictator, or you force out a tyrant. it's usually the best men that are the most easily corruptable.

[Benjamin]

fuck voting. a non-vote is a vote for yourself. those fighting around the world for the "right to vote" will soon realize that corruption and greed doesn't stop once you over throw a dictator, or you force out a tyrant. it's usually the best men that are the most easily corruptable.

You can't compare a dictatorship with a little corruption here and there.

[F-ck Casey]

A little corruption? How fucking blind are you?

[Benjamin]

I wasn't actually talking about current corruption. I was just trying to say that countries like Libya shouldn't stop what they're doing because of the fear of possible corruption.

[F-ck Casey]

Democracy is a dead horse, beaten one too many times. It doesn't even work for us, if you can even call what we have a democracy, what makes you think it's going to work for Libya? Did it work for Afghanistan? Iraq? They voted someone into office, and the corruption began almost immediately. Whichever country held elections not too long ago, I'm pretty sure it was the former, or maybe it was the latter. My point is...

Represent yourself, don't leave it up to someone else. Shit's changing, and we need new methods and models. A transparent government.

[travz21]

The United States Of Fascism

[F-ck Casey]

Isocracy.

[travz21]

That would be nice.

[F-ck Casey]

It's possible, but one group can't change it all. We're all the bottom 99%, but EVERYONE needs to wake up and realize it's going to stay that way until real change is presented and given a chance. Not the false hope and change that a certain someone promised.

Don't truss it.

[Dean]

This thread just went full retard.

[travz21]

This thread just went full retard.

Now it has.


Edit: I'm starting to like some things this guy says. He explains things really well. He had another article a few years back about society's altered perception of interracial crimes that was good, but that might be for another thread.

http://www.creators.com/conservative/walter-williams/the-financial-mess-in-the-us-and-europe.html

[Dean]

I guess in principle isocracy would still beat laissez faire libertarianism. DERP THE GOVERNMENT IS OPRESSING ME SO LETS ESSENTIALLY DELEGATE CONTROL TO OTHER LARGE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS CORPORATIONS AND RELIGIONS YEAH THEYRE TOTALLY MORE TRUSTWORTHY.

As for the whole "my middle class existence in the USA is just like Libya lol!" chestnut... hoo boy.

[travz21]

I guess in principle isocracy would still beat laissez faire libertarianism. DERP THE GOVERNMENT IS OPRESSING ME SO LETS ESSENTIALLY DELEGATE CONTROL TO OTHER LARGE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS CORPORATIONS AND RELIGIONS YEAH THEYRE TOTALLY MORE TRUSTWORTHY.

Have you ever seriously educated yourself on this stuff or do you just eat up what ignorant people feed you? Because a lot of what you say isn't remotely what you're trying to make it. Here's a head start. Corporations and religions? loll=ol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[Todd]

This thread just went full retard.

While I agree that this new world order conspiracy bullshit is ridiculous, you know better than to use that word.

[F-ck Casey]

Sometimes I think when Minus left, Dean decided to pick up the pieces of his troll wagon and start anew. Good fucking God.

[Derek The Infamous]

"A non-vote is a vote for yourself"? No offense, but do you actually believe in what you're saying or are you that ignorant? I'm sorry to offend you but you really don't understand the way the voting system works in this country if you believe that. By not voting you're not helping yourself, nor doing a vote for yourself. You're just letting the person you don't like have a free ride into office. Nor is anybody else who claims they're "not voting because all politicians are the same/their vote wont count". My view is this: if you are LEGALLY able to vote and don't vote, you really have no room to bitch about who the president is.

As an American citizen you have the complete power and right to research who is running, and vote for the "least evil" of the candidates. Even if you don't like anybody who is running, a non-vote is potentially allowing someone you really don't agree with politically get into office. You ask people if they want a "2nd Obama" term, well Casey...if you'd actually vote for Obama's competition, and get other non-voters to do so as well...perhaps he wouldn't be in office a second time. It's that simple. If you don't want someone in office, vote him out.

[F-ck Casey]

Oh, wise one, what do you do when they're all fucking evil and not worth my vote? Vote anyway because THIS IS AMERICA and I have the right so I should exercise it? I'm sorry, THAT'S complete bullshit. I don't agree with any of them, except for maybe Ron Paul but he's a fucking looney Christian whom I don't want running the country.

I'm sorry I don't agree with your views on voting. I will be sitting at home on Election Day. They're all evil, there is no lesser option.

[Derek The Infamous]

So you'll refrain from voting to potentially allow another Christian looney (Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry) to run the country? I'm not forcing you to vote, but I am saying that it's kind of assed backwards to complain about who the general public voted into office, when you yourself refused to do anything about it.

[Dean]

So you'll refrain from voting to potentially allow another Christian looney (Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry) to run the country? I'm not forcing you to vote, but I am saying that it's kind of assed backwards to complain about who the general public voted into office, when you yourself refused to do anything about it.
Probably because Obama won't legalise weed or something.

[travz21]

Or because he kills Middle Eastern babies with remote control rockets in unapproved, illegal wars. And kills US citizens without due process with said rockets. All while on the verge of creating the 2nd great depression. There's plenty of other reasons intelligent people wouldn't want Obama in there for another term.

[Dean]

Nope, I'm pretty sure I remember him actually saying that weed being legalised is his priority.

Here we go:

I don't give a fuck if this dude is a crazy Christian or whatever, if he legalizes pot, I'll vote for him. Yeah, I said it. Fuck what ya heard.

Give me my personal freedoms, then worry about the future of this nation :)

Well, all I know for sure is that Obama makes me want to shoot up some heroin and die, so maybe I'll finally get to do that legally under the Ron Paul administration.

Yeah, okay, but that's why my 19 year old self voted for him. I work a part time job, I don't really about healthcare or a war in Libya or whatever. Yes, I'm a selfish person. :P

But, still, that was among the many promises he made that he didn't live up to. Don't ask me the other ones, because that's the only one that matters to me. To not have an industry like medical marijuana be recognized as legal is just a shame. It's a $2 billion industry in California alone. Some people need this more than actual healthcare, my mother being one of them. It's not just a stupid little pipe-dream anymore that smokers drool about. It's a viable alternative medicine, even the National Cancer Institute has said so. Of course, then they removed it at the behest of the Obama administration.

But, uh, I guess I care about new jobs and shit. lol.

So much for all these noble intentions he's suddenly started blathering on about...

[Benjamin]

There is not one presidential candiate in this race that is evil nor is Obama evil. One of the biggest problems with America today is that that's how people act. And for the love of fucking God, every little bad thing that happens during Obama's term isn't necessarily his fault. And yes, that applies to all presidents including Bush.

[travz21]

Depends what you define evil as. Every president since pretty much the 1950s has been for killing innocent civilians in foreign countries to serve ulterior motives in unnecessary wars. And not even on accident.

I don't want a president that kills men, women, and children in other countries that isn't doing it in the interest of our nation defense, if there would ever be a case for that anyways. That seems about as evil as it gets. I'd post the pictures and videos here to maybe get it into peoples' heads the devastation we're causing to innocent people, but I'd guess most people don't like seeing blood and guts and screaming families when it's actually in real life.

Long story short, presidents like killing innocent people because it makes them money. How about we find a president that doesn't want to be in any wars unless it's for national defense.

[Benjamin]

In Obama's case I don't recall him doing anything like that. But if you want to show me an example of a time where Obama was directly involved in an intentional murder of an innocent civillian I'm all ears.

[travz21]

Libya ring a bell?


And this is just from yesterday: http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

He's not a foreigner, so I guess it doesn't count.

[Benjamin]

Although I disagree with the decision to kill (rather than arrest) Anwar al-Awlaki, I would hardly call doing so evil when neither me nor you know how dangerous he may have been to America.

And as for Libya that's NATO, not Obama. Innocent lives have been lost I'm sure but to solely blame it on Obama because you don't like him is ridiculous.

[Vriska]

We're better than a FUCKTON of countries still. Our roads are still drivable and we don't live in mud huts yet. We're still a first world country. We can still fall a loong long way. Maybe you guys have never actually been to a third world country yet, but y'all don't know how good you have it. Unfortunately, maybe you won't find out until you experience it firsthand. This defeatist attitude is beyond wrong.

Bad is not the same as equally bad. Every choice being evil doesn't make them all equally evil. Being corrupt is not the same as being more corrupt. That's a logical fallacy. I guess you non-voters actually don't care since you aren't even going to mitigate the damage at all. Non-voters are the biggest part of the problem. You guys are responsible for removing the voice of your demographic and putting the power in the hands of extremists that will never compromise. You gain NOTHING by refusing to participate in your own government. Change your government for the better and repair its mistakes whenever you can, but non-participation is not how to you do so.

[travz21]

http://steinbergfiles.com/?p=896
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44986


And it's not evil to kill someone without using our system of law? The death penalty is wrong even if you're convicted, much less using a drone on one of our own citizens without any evidence or due process. A US citizen! It's sickening that people don't understand what road this leads down.

There are no logical points that someone can use to defend Obama. He's a horrible human being and one of the worst presidents we've had. I can go on all day and night about this, but mostly everyone here doesn't care for reality. They like to live in this dream world where this corruption isn't taking place and avoid any intellectual contemplation at all.



Edit: And not voting is pretty bad. But if your candidate isn't in the only 2 parties, it's irrelevant if you vote. We're told who we have to vote for and anyone in other parties is virtually not even in the race. And now that there's virtually only one party, this ensures that this corruptible party just lives on and on and on unless the people can someone get in someone with different views than the status quo. You can't say just choose the lesser evil, because both republicans and democrats that follow the status quo will hammer our country into the ground.

[Dean]

As has already been said a few times, obviously nothing's going to change if you say it won't. I know it's easy to be cynical but if you find a candidate you actually like/dislike less than the others, you may as well vote for them. Worst case scenario is that you're stuck with the system you already seem to be settling for anyway, and at best something might actually happen.

From what I've seen I can barely stand the way you talk about Ron Paul, but in a lot of ways I'd rather see you stick to your guns and support him rather than admitting defeat already if you think he's the solution.

[ernieball003]

At the end of the day you're still voting for a politician.

[Derek The Infamous]

At the end of the day you're still voting for a politician. I can tell you right now that not all politicians are terrible people, although Washington does a good job to make it seem that way. Senator O'Pake from Pennsylvania (who sadly passed away this year) was one of the most honest, caring and truthful politicians to ever be a part of Washington. He truly fought for the working class, and always made time to cater to his constituents and get things done for the less fortunate. When he passed away this year, he left a huge void. That's why if people care about politics very strongly, and hate corruption, they should run for political office. Change doesn't happen without someone standing up to make a difference.

[Benjamin]

Amy Klobuchar or Al Franken from Minnesota should run for president <3.

[Dean]

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/arrested%20development_74cbe.jpg
Greatest president in history.

[D-rock]

Well, I argued with people over and over again last election that Obama wasn't qualified. I hate to say it but I was right. Last election I voted McCain but my views have drastically changed. Both Democrats and Republicans are evil. I havent decided quite yet but I wont take part in voting for a Democrat or Republican. Its useless.

[travz21]

XKfuS6gfxPY

[SuperDude526]

Or because he kills Middle Eastern babies with remote control rockets in unapproved, illegal wars. And kills US citizens without due process with said rockets. All while on the verge of creating the 2nd great depression. There's plenty of other reasons intelligent people wouldn't want Obama in there for another term.

Really? I thought his name was Bush?

[travz21]

Obama evolved from Bush's evilness into bigger and badder things.

[.Amanda.]

Because if you don't vote there's one less vote to counterbalance any votes for the candidate you dislike most. Dat logic.
(Totally forgot about this thread).

But I feel like a lot of people did exactly that when they voted for Obama because "McCain's about to die and Sarah Palin is scary as fuck" and then regretted voting for him. I'm not nearly educated enough about the candidates to take a side so why vote?

[Dean]

Educate yourself. I really doubt you're too busy for that.

That or just don't do anything ever because you might regret it.

[travz21]

That or just don't do anything ever because you might regret it.

This is why I never leave my basement.

[Dean]

Well then, there's the solution


I work at least 10 hours every week day and spend most of my weekends... not working, and I still stay informed. And I'm a fucking idiot. If I can do it anyone else can.

[SuperDude526]

Obama evolved from Bush's evilness into bigger and badder things.

I was confused about this post until I read that you don't leave your basement.

[travz21]

What is there to be confused about? Obama is Bush V2.0

[SuperDude526]

I'm sorry but out of that entire list of grievances, there's only one on a stretch you can rightfully accuse him of. And no, it's not the Great Depression one, he actually helped avert a depression on that scale.

[travz21]

There's actually 100% proof that he ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. There's also 100% proof that he ordered the bombings in Libya.

How do you think her averted a depression?

[SuperDude526]

That killing is the only part you got right. He didn't start the Iraq War or Afghan War, Bush did. He didn't start the recession, Bush did.

And I'm not gonna bother arguing the depression measure, because I already know what you're going to say. You're the sort who's determined to hate Obama no matter what because he hasn't gotten many bills through in his term. Look beyond the executive at the bigger picture, look at the bills he has passed rather than the ones he hasn't. The bailouts may be nothing more than a bad word now, but I know for a fact that his support for the Michigan automotive industry for example has done its part in bringing back my home state.

[travz21]

There's also 100% proof that he ordered the bombings in Libya.


He didn't start the Iraq War or Afghan War, Bush did. He didn't start the recession, Bush did

Ok. Even if you ignore Libya, continuing the wars of Bush isn't necessary. Why has he kept the wars going?

Obama has passed many things. I'm not hating on him just for the sake of hating on him. I'm hating on him because he has no idea what he's doing, or because he actually knows what he's doing and he's ruining our country and civil liberties on purpose. Either scenario isn't good.

And I would like to get into the depression measure, because I want you to know that the things that you think he's helped on have actually done the exact opposite. That's what Keynesian economics does.

[SuperDude526]

Who gets training to be president? Certainly not first-term presidents. That's partly why I really want him to get his second term.

Nothing wrong with Keynesian economics. There are plenty of problems with the Laffer curve however, and we've been seeing its effects quite vividly in practice the last decade or so.

[Dean]

Who gets training to be president? Certainly not first-term presidents. That's partly why I really want him to get his second term.

Nothing wrong with Keynesian economics. There are plenty of problems with the Laffer curve however, and we've been seeing its effects quite vividly in practice the last decade or so.
I'm glad you got banned from that other board if it means you posting here more often.

[SuperDude526]

Thanks. :D

[travz21]

Who gets training to be president? Certainly not first-term presidents. That's partly why I really want him to get his second term.

Nothing wrong with Keynesian economics. There are plenty of problems with the Laffer curve however, and we've been seeing its effects quite vividly in practice the last decade or so.

Actually laughed out loud from this.


Laffer himself does not claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun and, more recently, to John Maynard Keynes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Origin_of_the_term_.22Laffer_Curve.22


Keynesian economics says that if there's nothing going on, it's stimulating to the economy to have people dig holes and fill them back up. It says disasters are good for the economy because it gets people working. I hope you can see the faulty logic in there. A Keynesian would claim that 9/11 was stimulating to the economy. These are the people that are running our economy.

[Pidgeon]

I ddon't think we should lock ourselves into anyone economic system. We have to be able to flex and bend with times and needs. I feel like a mixed economy is what we need right now. And we have to force these company's to bring jobs back to America and we need to start exporting goods instead of just importing goods. You can't buy and not sell and expect a profit

[Todd]

I saw a Ron Paul 2012 banner hanging from a pedestrian overpass over the highway today. I lol'ed. It was hanging from the bridge paid for by taxes so people don't have to play human frogger to cross an 8 lane freeway - which was also built because of that evil socialist interstate highway program. And the sign was tied to the fence on the overpass, the fence placed there by the nanny state government to prevent the Paulies from losing their balance on the overpass and falling 20 feet in front of an 18 wheeler barreling down the highway at 65 miles an hour.

[travz21]

So taxpayers shouldn't use what they paid for?

A typical statist comment. If there were no taxes, nothing would be built or paid for. If there were no government, there would be nothing. If you abolish the Department of Education, there can't be education.

It's all or nothing for statists. There is no thinking between the lines. Either the government supplies it or it won't be supplied. It's not possible to be supplied.

Probably my favorite:

"If there isn't an income tax, how will the government pay for things?" Um, we would pay for them. We are already forced to pay for things we don't always want. It would be cheaper, it would be of better quality, and it would be how we actually want it instead of how we're told we should want it. We don't need the government to take our money and decide what we need. We don't need a middle man making those choices with our money. Are we not capable of acting like adults and making our own choices and taking responsibility for ourselves? Or are we going to keep relying on the government to pay for things that they steal from other people to supply for you?

But statists love socialism. They want other people to pay for things that they will never use and don't want to pay for. As long as you are supplied with what YOU want, who cares?


Your comment reminded me of this:

htX2usfqMEs

[SuperDude526]

Maybe I won't ever use it, but might not someone else? Is there really something wrong in providing for your fellow man/woman? After all, that's why society exists in the first place: I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

[Dean]

Obama isn't a fucking socialist.

Not wanting really small government doesn't make you a fucking socialist. Neither does not being against the income tax, and it doesn't make you some kind of totalitarian asshole and whatever else you're trying to imply.

Funnily enough this is the guy who has essentially said before that capitalism that isn't pure unfettered 100% laissez faire capitalism ISN'T capitalism.

You clearly aren't stupid and I dont have anything personal against you, but seriously, if you want more people to engage with you properly stop being so disingenuous and fallacious. I'm normally completely fine at discussing things civilly with people who don't agree with me, and I'm nearly at my wits end here.

[travz21]

Socializing things makes you a socialist. Taking from a certain group of people to pay for another group is socialism. Having an income tax means the government owns our income and decides what to do with it. This is socialism.

Wanting the government involved in public affairs makes you a statist.


Maybe I won't ever use it, but might not someone else? Is there really something wrong in providing for your fellow man/woman? After all, that's why society exists in the first place: I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to provide for other people. I'm fine with giving to charity and spending money for people I don't know when it's my choice to do so. I'm not fine with having that money stolen from me to provide for other people. And yeah, I know money is stolen from other people to provide for me. The point is people should have the choice to spend their money how they see fit. An income tax is dangerous. It literally means that the government owns our jobs and gets to decide what to do with what we earn. What if one day they decide to take 50%? 100%?

[Todd]

If you don't want government, may I suggest moving to Somalia? I hear boating in the Gulf of Aden is wonderful this time of year.

[Benjamin]

I'm not fine with having that money stolen from me to provide for other people.

Do you really mean that?

[Rebecca Black]

I'll be honest, Obama wasn't the best president America has had, but electing any of the Republican candidates will probably cause a lot more damage to more than just the economy. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann... you name it.
At least most of Obama's policies aren't extreme or unreasonable. However, he needs to be more agressive towards the Republicans. The recent defecit bill was a joke.

[Todd]

A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot with good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan. Because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast -- bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount that is contains because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and the breakdown of its contents.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer meets these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home to temporary misfortune.

It's noon time. Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification (those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark).

Joe is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. Joe's dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad, Joe gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives. After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

[Timothy]

Just remember: There isn't any problem that cannot be solved by 100% laissez-faire capitalism. And I mean pure capitalism -- no nuance, no shades of gray. Only dogmatic adherence to rigid ideology will suffice. Anything less is just a short train ride to Stalintown.

Keep that in mind, and you will save yourself a lot of time and energy.

[SuperDude526]

I'll be honest, Obama wasn't the best president America has had, but electing any of the Republican candidates will probably cause a lot more damage to more than just the economy. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann... you name it.
At least most of Obama's policies aren't extreme or unreasonable. However, he needs to be more agressive towards the Republicans. The recent defecit bill was a joke.

Actually, the deficit bill looks like a joke on the surface, but it's something of a blessing in disguise, and a big win for Democrats. In a month or so (I believe), the House and Senate will vote on a tax rate increase. There's a "bullet" in the August-edition bill that states that if Republicans in either Congressional house turn down the tax increase, they must allow a significant military budget cut, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[travz21]

The lack of knowledge is astounding. We deserve all of the bad things that are coming our way.

[Todd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

[travz21]

A Day In The Life Of Joe Democrat

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot with good, clean drinking water, and he thanks the Democratic party for it, because he's been lied to and told that those who promote the free market are opposed to government building infrastructure and regulating utilities. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are more expensive because some socialist fought to insure that every new drug had to go through an expensive government approval process that closed the door to innovative new ways to test drug safety. Joe thinks that it's thanks to Democrats that the drug works as advertised, because he's been manipulated into believing that in a free market, there are no laws against fraud and false advertising.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan. Because some socialist union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. Joe would get higher wages instead in a free market, but he doesn't know that. He thinks that there is no down-side to forcing employers to give more benefits. He prepares his morning breakfast -- bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is created in a factory farm and filled with hormones, because some socialist fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry that imposed enormous costs on small farms while subsidizing agribusiness.

Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo. He thinks that the reason his bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount that is contains because some socialist fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and the breakdown of its contents, and doesn't realize that in a free market, producers will respond to any demand by consumers, including comprehensive labeling of ingredients, that will give them more business.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. He thinks the air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging socialist fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air, because he's been told by the Democratic party his whole life that in a free market, it's legal to pollute your neighbors property and air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees, but of course it costs him in taxes, yet he doesn't realize it. You see, some socialist fought for affordable public transportation, not realizing that the money that it takes in way of taxes takes away every bit of opportunity that it gives.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because of enormous per worker productivity, which has long since been stagnant, because some socialist union members fought and killed "scabs" to abolish contract liberty, which has reduced the ability of people to increase productivity. Joe thinks that his employer meets these standards because of labor regulations, but it's actually because Joe's employer doesn't want his workers to go off and work for a different company. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check, even though he would prefer to forgo that insurance in exchange for a higher wage. He has no choice though because some socialist didn't think he should be able to choose what terms are included in an employment offer. Some socialist thought that four weeks paid vacation instead of a higher salary is in every one's best interest, so Joe has to lounge around for two extra weeks a year, instead of working hard and saving money like he wants to so he can start his new business.

It's noon time. Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some socialist wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. In reality, the FDIC gives even the most poorly run bank guaranteed business, since the risk of a bank run is transferred on to the general population. This lets the big banks act as irresponsibly as they want. Joe doesn't understand this, because he doesn't realize that government programs socialize costs, and lead to every one else paying for every individual's mistakes. Joe has to pay higher taxes because Fannie Mae lost $200 billion guaranteeing mortgages that never should have been issued. Some some stupid socialist decided that socializing the cost of a mortgage default would create a more humane economy, when all it did was allow exploitation of the general population on a grand scale.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is more expensive than it should be because some socialist fought to mandate that every car produced go through a government-designed safety verification managed by a wasteful bureaucracy before being allowed to be sold, even though car companies far exceed government safety standards in order to attract customers. He arrives at his boyhood home. It's a low income community that was created because the government, through the Farmers Home Administration, subsidized homes built in rural areas, by taxing the rest of the economy. Joe would have had a better home in the city, and live in a country with a better economy, if it weren't for government's attempt to plan the economy, but Joe doesn't understand this. He doesn't understand the costs of government subsidies.

Joe is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. Joe's dad lives on Social Security, that pays significantly less than what he would receive if he had been free to invest on his own, because some socialist made sure he couldn't make his own investment decisions, and believed that government debt was the best investment.

[SuperDude526]

Oh dear...

I'm just gonna pick one, the Social Security bit: can he not do both? It is possible to buy government bonds and put into the system.

You're so scared of socialism it's worrisome.

[.Amanda.]

Educate yourself. I really doubt you're too busy for that.

That or just don't do anything ever because you might regret it.

Uh... Well then. I feel like this post was fueled primarily by something unrelated to the topic so I'm only going to formally address the first part.

It's not so much that I'm "too busy" as it is that it's not something I consistently think about. "Research 2012 candidates" isn't very high up on my to-do list. I'm more concerned with work, school and getting all of my ducks in a row to graduate on time.
And, to be entirely honest, I'm not particularly concerned with who does or does not win. In my eyes, presidential elections are a lot like the Philadelphia Eagles' football season. It starts off promising with a lot of talk of change and improvement but in the end, when it's all said and done, it's the same, horrible bullshit ultimately ending in a fiery inferno of failure and a bunch of really pissed off people bitching about how awful everything is going.

[Dean]

Uh... Well then. I feel like this post was fueled primarily by something unrelated to the topic so I'm only going to formally address the first part.

It's not so much that I'm "too busy" as it is that it's not something I consistently think about. "Research 2012 candidates" isn't very high up on my to-do list. I'm more concerned with work, school and getting all of my ducks in a row to graduate on time.
And, to be entirely honest, I'm not particularly concerned with who does or does not win. In my eyes, presidential elections are a lot like the Philadielphia Eagles' football season. It starts off promising with a lot of talk of change and improvement but in the end, when it's all said and done, it's the same, horrible bullshit ultimately ending in a fiery inferno of failure and a bunch of really pissed off people bitching about how awful everything is going.
What part of this hasn't already been addressed? I'm not explaining it a third time. If you don't want to vote, don't vote.

To say nothing of how you seem to think that every other thing I ever say is some kind of passive aggressive stab at you for some reason. Please grow up.

[travz21]

I'm just gonna pick one, the Social Security bit: can he not do both? It is possible to buy government bonds and put into the system.

What do you mean "can"? He's forced to pay into Social Security. He wants to have all that money to save or spend as he sees fit. And he can invest on his own, but the majority of his investing money went into Social Security. And when he actually gets paid back out, it's only worth a portion of what it was when he paid in thanks to inflation. And what happens if he dies at 65 instead of 80? What happens if the bankrupt system of SS finally stops being able to pay people? The amount of risk and lack of return is worrisome for a "security". Let people risk their own money for their retirement.

Bring up more points you wish to talk about. You're the only one here who is capable of debating.

[Dean]

I don't think people here have a problem with debating so much as suffering fools.

All credit to Super Dude, I'm thinking sainthood is in order for him after this thread.

[SuperDude526]

What do you mean "can"? He's forced to pay into Social Security. He wants to have all that money to save or spend as he sees fit. And he can invest on his own, but the majority of his investing money went into Social Security. And when he actually gets paid back out, it's only worth a portion of what it was when he paid in thanks to inflation. And what happens if he dies at 65 instead of 80? What happens if the bankrupt system of SS finally stops being able to pay people? The amount of risk and lack of return is worrisome for a "security". Let people risk their own money for their retirement.

Bring up more points you wish to talk about. You're the only one here who is capable of debating.

I'm not sure where you'd get that idea; in fact I feel I'm the least capable of those here.

[travz21]

This is Art Laffer. A big shot economist who in 2006 didn't have a clue that the economy was in trouble. And that's Peter Schiff. An Austrian-school investor who in 2006 knew very well that the economy was going to tank. Because he understands economics. I put this up here because time has proven Art Laffer to be a clueless clown rather than an economist and I think that anything he likes is likely to be poison for the economy. So when he came out saying he thought Cain's plan was great, I felt totally vindicated.

LfascZSTU4o

[Vriska]

If the free-market provided everything, nobody would have cried and protested and yelled at the government to regulate it in the first place.

I don't have time to address everything, but I'll just single out the product labeling: why didn't the free market provide this in the late 1800's? Why did "The Jungle" have to exist in the first place? Why did it take an uprising of liberals* to make the government create the FDA before labeling existed? Because in social Darwinism you don't have to be the fast, you only have to be faster than everybody else.

*(at that time, progressives were conservative because laissez-faire was the new thing in town, instead of how it is today)

[travz21]

I'll get to that later today. Have to run off now. In the meantime, here's an interesting find my friend made.

When the US income tax was first introduced in 1913, it was 1% for people making less than $453,292, which is $10,372,832 in today's dollars (using gov't inflation numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). It was 2% for people who made up to $1,133,230, which is $25,932,080 in today's dollars. Today, the middle class pays up to 35%. It is taken for granted that the state owns our labor and gives a portion of it back to us.

Obama even refers to tax increases as "spending cuts in the tax code". This is why I'm against Herman Cain's 9% federal sales tax: It will grow over time. In New Hampshire, state motto Live Free or Die, there is no sales tax, and implementing a 9% federal sales tax might even lead to secession.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[Apop]

In terms of government regulation, it's important but not always necessary. Standards for health and well-being must be set to preserve the safety of the people (that is government's role, after all), however, I am against the over-extended nature of some limits and bureaucracy today. For instance, it took well over two dozen permits and re-inspections for my family and I to put a pool in the backyard of my home. As if taxes and such were not enough in the whole process, the hundreds of dollars spent on inspectors and the ridiculousness of some of the standards is, quite frankly, outrageous. I realize certain regulations like this vary from state to state, and I can only speak for New Jersey, but some things just get out of hand.

As for Social Security and IRAs, it must first be stated that in 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed, there was no plan to keep it fully functioning for over 70 years. Primarily, it was to serve as a way for those who suffered during the great depression and couldn't focus on saving, since the goal was to survive, to have a backbone and some form of income. While throughout the early 20th century, families did live closer to one another with, often times, three generations living under one roof, it was important to have financial stability. Presently, with the implementation of suburbs and retirement communities, the elderly more often than not move out from their children. The realization now has to be that it is damn near impossible to live comfortably and healthily with an income purely from Social Security checks at 67. Investing for retirement needs to be put on the individual, the government should slowly, but surely, dissolve the bankrupting system. However, with so many people dependent on unemployment and various welfare systems that go hand-and-hand with Social Security, doing such a task will be troublesome for the politicians since they will very well lose votes.

Either way you look at it, the 2012 Presidential Race will more than likely go to Obama with such a lack of strong candidates coming from the Republican Party. Ron Paul seems to be the only one running with a platform that could defeat Obama's agenda, however, many of his policies are thought to be too extreme to get any serious media coverage which means low polls. One person whom, I believe, could have certainly stirred things up is Chris Christie since he is very straight-forward and easy to relate to. He could have easily run on the "average, working-class drinking buddy" appearance that helped Bush win two terms. Unfortunately, with his decision not to run, it seems Obama has pretty clear chance for re-election.

[travz21]

If the free-market provided everything, nobody would have cried and protested and yelled at the government to regulate it in the first place.

I don't have time to address everything, but I'll just single out the product labeling: why didn't the free market provide this in the late 1800's? Why did "The Jungle" have to exist in the first place? Why did it take an uprising of liberals* to make the government create the FDA before labeling existed? Because in social Darwinism you don't have to be the fast, you only have to be faster than everybody else.

*(at that time, progressives were conservative because laissez-faire was the new thing in town, instead of how it is today)

It's a myth that people protested and yelled at the government to regulate the free market. We've never had a free market. At our founding, governments managed the seas and the movement of goods (e.g.). The railroads were heavily subsidized with land grants. The banking system was never free in this country (only relatively more free than it is today).

And those clamoring for regulation were those who wanted protection from upstart competitors.

As leftist-liberal Gabriel Kolko showed, the meat packing safety laws, and other laws, were agitated for by the largest meat packing corporations, as a way of making it harder for their smaller competitors to compete.

As far as food labeling, years before the first laws requiring the labeling of pet food, there were already companies labeling their pet food, which revealed their ingredients. I don't know for sure, but I bet it was those same pet food manufacturers who agitated for federally mandated, industry-wide, pet food labeling.

So in short, the subjects of the regulation were the biggest advocates for regulation, in order to burden smaller competitors disproportionately. Oh, and "The Jungle", it should be remembered, was a work of fiction, albeit one that greatly influenced government policy.

[Benjamin]

I'll get to that later today. Have to run off now. In the meantime, here's an interesting find my friend made.

When the US income tax was first introduced in 1913, it was 1% for people making less than $453,292, which is $10,372,832 in today's dollars (using gov't inflation numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). It was 2% for people who made up to $1,133,230, which is $25,932,080 in today's dollars. Today, the middle class pays up to 35%. It is taken for granted that the state owns our labor and gives a portion of it back to us.

Obama even refers to tax increases as "spending cuts in the tax code". This is why I'm against Herman Cain's 9% federal sales tax: It will grow over time. In New Hampshire, state motto Live Free or Die, there is no sales tax, and implementing a 9% federal sales tax might even lead to secession.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Obama (and most democrats) wants to cut taxes for the middle class though. It does not make sense why they should pay 35% when the biggest chunk of wealth is controlled by the rich. And I agree also think the 999 plan is bad bad bad.

Wait, just kidding. ALL ABOARD THE #CAINTRAIN.

[SuperDude526]

If it's a myth, then what's with all the history books confirming it? Unless history is a lie invented by our Nazi Commie government to keep us down, in which case we're all fucked.

[ThaHandyman]

I'll get to that later today. Have to run off now. In the meantime, here's an interesting find my friend made.

When the US income tax was first introduced in 1913, it was 1% for people making less than $453,292, which is $10,372,832 in today's dollars (using gov't inflation numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). It was 2% for people who made up to $1,133,230, which is $25,932,080 in today's dollars. Today, the middle class pays up to 35%. It is taken for granted that the state owns our labor and gives a portion of it back to us.

Obama even refers to tax increases as "spending cuts in the tax code". This is why I'm against Herman Cain's 9% federal sales tax: It will grow over time. In New Hampshire, state motto Live Free or Die, there is no sales tax, and implementing a 9% federal sales tax might even lead to secession.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

I think the 999 plan would help close the loopholes we have in our tax system right now. The one that lets illegal immigrants make money without paying income tax. The one that lets people unwilling to get a job live off of unemployment. I'm not well read on the rest of Cains policies, but I like this idea a lot.

[travz21]

If it's a myth, then what's with all the history books confirming it? Unless history is a lie invented by our Nazi Commie government to keep us down, in which case we're all fucked.

All? I've never read about it.

And will these be the history books that claim 9/11 was the result of the US being too wealthy and free?


I think the 999 plan would help close the loopholes we have in our tax system right now. The one that lets illegal immigrants make money without paying income tax. The one that lets people unwilling to get a job live off of unemployment. I'm not well read on the rest of Cains policies, but I like this idea a lot.

Let me get this straight. So you want to take care of immigration policies by using tax policies? That still won't solve the problem of illegal immigrants coming here. Nor will it solve any loopholes. And it adds the extra problem of another tax that people have to pay. Another tax that is almost guaranteed to keep getting raised, just like the income tax did.

If we want to solve immigration problems, we have to look at the reasons immigrants are coming here illegally in the first place. Free education for their children, free healthcare, citizenship for their yet-to-be-born child, and employment. We won't need a fence to create a safe and secure border. We just need to stop providing those incentives for illegal immigrants as well as end the drug war.

And to look at the bigger picture which you're alluding to, lack of taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem. Even if we were taxed 100% it wouldn't be enough to get us out of debt for like 10 years. Massive and uncontrolled spending is our only problem.



Edit: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/15/texas-man-told-to-return-fema-aid-money/

Gotta love big government. Inefficient and untrustworthy. Wouldn't it be nice if everything were done at the state level? The federal government shouldn't be getting in our affairs.


Edit Edit: How does this sound? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/14/rep-jesse-jackson-calls-on-government-to-hire-all-unemployed-americans-for/

[SuperDude526]

http://www.foxnews.com/

Oh dear.

[travz21]

I don't get the beef with Fox News. All main stream media is biased and horrible these days. I don't find Fox to be any worse than the rest.

Anyways, if you stopped when you saw Fox News, you're lucky. Your head would more than likely explode when reading that nonsense of a jobs plan. These are the kinds of economic minds we have in our government. Pretty goddamn scary.

[SuperDude526]

Say what you want about all mainstream media being biased (and yes, bias exists everywhere, such is human nature), but at least CNN has never misplaced an entire freaking country. With FOX it's not so much bias I'm worried about (although don't worry, there's plenty of that) so much as the fact they just plain get things wrong or even make shit up.

[Pidgeon]

well I can tell you that after tonight's debate I will not be voting republican

[travz21]

Why?


Edit:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/314346_10150361931759872_367822059871_7881649_1377 233144_n.jpg

[ThaHandyman]

Why?

Because some people can't think independently and would rather rely on a bureaucracy and government to take care of their income.

Sry Travz i knew I said I'd reply to something in another thread but that was awhile and I forgot what it was even about.

I did however watch the majority of the GOP debate, and came to the following conclusion. Perry fell off. End of story there. Bachman sounds like a cheerleader more than a politician. Not being sexist, she just keeps promoting herself as president and knocking Obama instead of focusing on issues at hand. That speaker dude had great social views, but wasn't very confident or aggressive. Newt, well he's boring.

That leaves Paul, Cain, and Romney. It seemed to me that Romney won the debate, really, he countered everything perfectly. Paul wasn't really attacked, as John Stewart has pointed out before. Cain sounds very to the point, and as I've said before, I like his tax plan. The other two are great, but this dude isn't a pussy when it comes to talking politically correct. I like all three of these guys, I'll finish the last 30 min. of the debate today.

I hope it doesn't have to be said that I like these three better than Obama on any day.

[ernieball003]

I hope it doesn't have to be said that I like these three better than Obama on any day.They'll never be able to out-campaign Obama.

That'll look good on a resume, even if it did take a few extra years. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123800-503544/obama-announces-end-of-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/)

[travz21]

Remember how Obama said he'd bring the troops home as soon as he got in the White House? Nothing he campaigns on can be taken seriously. He's all hot air. Always has been. It's so lol that he's campaigning on the same things basically. Like we should believe him this time after he's lied to us?

zn134-KLL7Y

Obama is also trying to get $1 billion for his campaign.

Dude is a joke and will cause the fall of our nation. Likewise with Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and every other status quo puppet.


Edit: Here's a very good read. http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/corporatism-is-not-capitalism-7-things-about-the-monolithic-predator-corporations-that-dominate-our-economy-that-every-american-should-know

[SuperDude526]

Remember how Obama said he'd bring the troops home as soon as he got in the White House? Nothing he campaigns on can be taken seriously. He's all hot air. Always has been. It's so lol that he's campaigning on the same things basically. Like we should believe him this time after he's lied to us?

zn134-KLL7Y

Obama is also trying to get $1 billion for his campaign.

Dude is a joke and will cause the fall of our nation. Likewise with Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and every other status quo puppet.


Edit: Here's a very good read. http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/corporatism-is-not-capitalism-7-things-about-the-monolithic-predator-corporations-that-dominate-our-economy-that-every-american-should-know

You disapprove when he doesn't bring the troops home, you disapprove when he does bring the troops home. I assure you I'm not an Obama fanboy, but it seems to me some are just determined to dislike him no matter what.

[travz21]

He hasn't brought the troops home.

[Derek The Infamous]

He hasn't brought the troops home.
So if he does keep his promise that he just declared to the media, and ends the Iraq war and brings the troops home before January of 2012, are you going to give him credit then?

[travz21]

I'll give him credit for this promise if he actually follows through on it. There's just so many horrible things that he's done for this to make a difference in how people should perceive him. There's been talk that Iraq is actually telling us to leave, not that we're willingly pulling out. But if we are pulling out willingly, even if solely for the fact that we're broke and we can't afford it, I will applaud Obama for making his first wise move in a long time. Now if we could just close up shop everywhere else around the world and get everyone home.

What's more than likely going to happen is he'll just send those or new troops into Iran. This is the same president who won the Nobel Peace Prize and ordered bombings the very same day. To expect anything other than policing the world from him would be unwise.

[Mark]

I'll give him credit for this promise if he actually follows through on it. There's just so many horrible things that he's done for this to make a difference in how people should perceive him. There's been talk that Iraq is actually telling us to leave, not that we're willingly pulling out. But if we are pulling out willingly, even if solely for the fact that we're broke and we can't afford it, I will applaud Obama for making his first wise move in a long time. Now if we could just close up shop everywhere else around the world and get everyone home.

What's more than likely going to happen is he'll just send those or new troops into Iran. This is the same president who won the Nobel Peace Prize and ordered bombings the very same day. To expect anything other than policing the world from him would be unwise.

If I have you correctly pegged as a Republican, which by the anti-Obama remarks and Fox News links seems to be the case, I don't feel you have any leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing a President for war mongering, bombings and world policing, considering Obama's predecessor was a Republican well-versed in those activities.

Regardless of President, from either side of the aisle, there will always be a level of "world policing" from the United States. How they choose to impose their influence is another matter however (i.e. going through NATO or saying "fuck you we're doing it anyways").

To me it seems you're changing your argument to suit your affiliated party's agenda, much like how many Republican talking heads gave no credit to Obama for the US' role in Libya's liberation (a NATO-led operation, btw), instead choosing to shift the conversation to thanking the British and French for their involvement.

I'd also like to see some credible proof of this "Iraq is telling us to leave" claim, from a reputable news source. If those exist outside of Fox News, in your world.

[travz21]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Or just a libertarian to make things not as confusing for now. Republicans and Democrats are almost identical. And there is no such thing as a reputable news source with regards to politics. Every outlet in the main stream media is untrustworthy. Not that I care to defend them, but Fox News is just as bad as the rest.

I'm consistent with my arguments, but I could see where someone would think otherwise if they thought I were a Republican. I've trashed Republicans just as much as I've trashed Obama and pretty much everyone in the federal government.

Obama deserves no credit for Libya. He went to war without congressional approval and it was unconstitutional. It led to many innocent lives being lost without a clear idea of what would happen even if the war "succeeded", whatever that would entail. What he's done his entire term has been despicable. But at the same time, he's not a whole lot worse than many of the presidents before him. He was dealt a shitty starting hand, but he has no idea how to handle economic issues or foreign policy, the only 2 issues that matter right now, so inevitably it will lead to our downfall if he gets elected for a second term. Letting the Federal Reserve run rampant while having 700 military bases around the world and policing everyone is a guaranteed way to meet hyperinflation. It's only a matter of time if the status quo keeps winning the presidency.


Here's a link I just searched for on the Iraq situation. I've read multiple things from multiple sources, so nobody really knows wtf is going on really. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/iraq-withdrawal-us-troops_n_1012661.html

[Derek The Infamous]

As much as you've already called the current stock of GOP presidential hopefuls "status-quo" (which I commend you for), I hope you realize we'd be no different in regards to Iraq if McCain had made it into office. He's gone on public record this week criticizing Obama for the troop withdrawal saying we should've stayed there past this year. So besides having literally the most idiotic VP we've had in decades (Palin), he would've probably kept us there until after 2013.

[travz21]

Yes, I realize this. I did say that Republicans = Democrats. McCain scares me more than Obama somehow. To think that those were our two choices is solid proof how corrupt our bipartisan system is. The only people who can make a difference now are the pseudo-republicans/democrats who are really Libertarians. Ron Paul is running as Republican only so he can get into debates and actually get a fair look at votes. He ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian party back when a lot of this mess was just getting started, and he was campaigning on the exact same things. 99% of the nation didn't have those views and were oblivious to the damages that would occur in the next 23 years. Even after having predicted the policing of the world, the terrorist attacks like 9/11 that would follow, the housing bubble, the extreme devaluation of the dollar, the consequential downfall of the economy, and having all the knowledge to fix it all, AND switching to the Republican party, he's still not the "frontrunner" at the moment.

It's not that his views are extreme or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's just that we've been ignoring the facts for so long and now the solutions might seem extreme compared to the corrupt system we've come to learn and love just because the corrupt government has taught us this way our whole lives.

People living in a pitch black room their whole lives would think it's extreme to turn on the light, even when it's clearly the way to go.

[Derek The Infamous]

While I admire your strong passion for Ron Paul, and understand why you support him (being an anarchist), do you not understand how shit brick insane some of his policies are? He's literally looking to completely overhaul our country, and take it back about 100-200 years. Even if he were to get elected, I couldn't imagine ANY person in the house/senate passing some of his ideas. After all, Obama was pretty much cock-blocked every step of the way by the Republicans. Here's a few examples of Ron Paul craziniess:


The Gold Standard

Ron Paul wants to end all paper money and revert to a monetary system based on gold, which would make our nation the only government in the world to use the Gold Standard. Why stop there congressman, why not just go all the way back to the barter system like Europe during the dark ages?

Opposed to the UN

Ron Paul wants to end our membership in the UN. Ron Paul supported “H.R. 1146 [which] would end our membership in the United Nations.” The world hates us enough as it is, and now he wants to further isolate our nation. How does he plan to accomplish this? By once again manipulating the American people with fear. President Bush tricked us into entering a war in Iraq, claiming it would prevent future attacks like 9/11. We all know that there was no link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks; and now Ron Paul is borrowing Bush’s strategy. He’s linking the cause of the Iraq war to the UN: “The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it… Under no circumstances should the US. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.” The UN got us into the Iraq war? Actually, we attacked before the UN even had a chance to decide whether or not we should have gone in.

Theocracy

Ron Paul believes that neither the federal government nor the state government should prohibit prayer in public schools. Does this mean I can paste pictures of Vishnu all along school walls? Should teachers now allow statues of the Buddha outside the school? I wonder how long it takes until Jesus is our new national mascot.

No More Income Tax

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS and the income tax. Sounds great right? Well, so does free ice cream and new cars for everyone, but that doesn’t mean they’re realistic ideas. The US. government needs money, and if you abolish the income tax, they’re going to take it by other means. Only instead of taking fair amounts from people based on how much they make, the government is going to increase the sales tax. In case you weren’t following, this means Ron Paul’s plans will benefit the rich. Please don’t shoot yourselves in the foot, don’t vote for a man who only wants to help the rich. He just wants to greaten the divide between the poor and the rich, which is already overwhelming. By the way, he also wants to eliminate the departments of education, energy, homeland security, and emergency management. We’re struggling to bring order to our chaotic nation as it is, don’t hinder our efforts by destroying the government. Ron Paul is either an unrealistic crazy idealist or another corrupted politician. Either way, I’m not voting for him, no matter how much his internet supporters spam his name.

Source: http://newsflavor.com/opinions/five-reasons-why-ron-paul-is-insane/

Do you legitimately think these ideas are GOOD ideas?

[Timothy]

I know I've criticized some of Ron Paul's fiscal views, but I actually think a ticket with Paul and Kucinich or Paul and Nader would be pretty rad. In either scenario, each candidate would help balance out some of the more extreme views of the other.

[travz21]

Before I even start up this debate again, I want to apologize for some of the ways I've conducted myself previously. I don't think I'm better than anyone else who disagrees with me. I don't try to talk down to people or make fun of their political beliefs, but I'm not the best debater, so when things get heated I tend to let that side of me show through instead of continuing to post strong rebuttals. I like everyone here and don't enjoy when things get out of hand like that. I'll do my best to keep this professional, and I hope everyone else will try too.

First, we need to understand that this article is misinterpreting a couple of these issues. Second, we need to ask ourselves why any of these would actually be insane.

The Gold Standard

This does not mean that we're trading gold instead of paper money literally. It just means that our paper money is backed by an equal amount of gold. The US actually had the gold standard until 1971, when President Nixon decided to end it because we didn't have enough money for the Vietnam War. So what happened is that the Federal Reserve simply printed more money than we had in gold. Since we weren't and aren't backed by gold and there were no more restrictions, it was like a giant credit card where we could just keep on printing more money to fund whatever we wanted. As soon as the government had that power, why would it ever willingly relinquish it? It allows them to do whatever they want without regard to our financial well-being. This leads to inflation, which reduces the value of our dollar. The more paper money printed compared to our actual value (gold), the less our paper money is actually worth.

What the gold standard does is it prevents runaway spending that we can't afford. It creates a government that is responsible and accountable for its spending. The funding of wars or bailing out of corporations wouldn't be possible unless we had the money to do it.

Zimbabwe was the latest victim of hyperinflation due to their military spending. Germany in 1921, Hungary in 1945, even the Roman Empire fell because of inflation.

Now we have to ask ourselves, is the gold standard actually insane, or is it better than what we have now?


Opposed to the UN

I like that this author actually knows that the government manipulates us with fear to further its agenda, but I don't know how he came to any of the conclusions he presented in this paragraph. I guess I'll just address some things.

"The world hates us enough as it is, and now he wants to further isolate our nation." Further isolate? We haven't been isolating ourselves, so "further" would imply that we have been isolating. What Ron Paul doesn't want to do is isolate ourselves. He's a strong proponent of trading with nations and talking with them, but he doesn't want to keep occupying their soil with soldiers or other political forces.

I actually can't make it through the rest of the fallacies from this author, so I'll just supply you with an article Ron wrote about this exact subject. It might need some discussion later but I'll move on for now: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html


Theocracy

First, Ron doesn't want the government involved in schooling at all. This would apply to religious content, as well as everything else. What this doesn't mean is that there wouldn't be any enforcement. There would still be rules.

Should the government be telling us what we can and can't do while being educated? Shouldn't that be left to the parents who are sending their children to these schools? Shouldn't that then be left to the schools to decide what would be a good environment for those kids based on what those parents decide?

Should the government control what we are learning in school? Should the schools be hiring the smartest and best teachers, or should they be hiring someone who can simply fill the job of what the government wants our kids to be taught? When a school is forced to teach a certain way, it stifles learning. And the counterargument would be that schools could then teach them about any kinds of wacky things. Yes, they could. But if we were had a education system where it weren't paid for by tax dollars and it was paid for by admissions, the schools would be forced to listen to the parents. And that's what schooling is; a way for the parent to help their child grow up and learn if homeschooling isn't an option. It shouldn't be left in the hands of the government. The schools should represent what our parents want for their child.


No More Income Tax

Sigh. There's so many ludicrous statements in here. I was hoping this would be easier to run through than what it's going to be.

"Sounds great right? Well, so does free ice cream and new cars for everyone, but that doesn’t mean they’re realistic ideas." We didn't have an income tax until 1913, so it actually is based in reality.

"The US. government needs money, and if you abolish the income tax, they’re going to take it by other means." They're going to take it, indeed. That's what the government does. It takes our money against our will. It's odd that the author uses those words without realizing it or caring how the government treats our income. He makes it sound like the government is the mafia. If we don't pay, they're going to make us pay one way or the other.

"only instead of taking fair amounts from people based on how much they make, the government is going to increase the sales tax." What exactly is a fair amount to take from someone? And letting the government decide what a fair amount is, when they are the ones who want our money, seems a little crazy. Right? And why is taxing someone based on their income better than taxing someone based on what they spend? It's not. Having an income tax means the government owns your income, and they get to choose the amount they let you keep. That money is gone before it even gets in your pocket. A sales tax would let you keep what you earn and do whatever you want with it. You can invest it, spend it, or just save it for a later time when you have enough money to make a better purchase. The only time you would be taxed is when you buy something. This gives you infinitely more freedom with your money than an income tax.

"In case you weren’t following, this means Ron Paul’s plans will benefit the rich." I was following, but your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence. It would actually benefit everyone, since everyone would have more freedom with their earnings. If you think a rich person should be paying more taxes than a poor person, well, they would be, because they're going to be spending more. And if by the off chance they don't spend more, why should they have to pay more taxes just because they're making more money? Shouldn't rich people also have the freedom to invest and save their money without being forced to pay an income tax?

"He just wants to greaten the divide between the poor and the rich, which is already overwhelming." I wish the author would have gave more reasons for this, because this is a pretty bad fallacy that was probably overlooked by a lot of readers. I hope that's evident from the info I've just given.

"By the way, he also wants to eliminate the departments of education, energy, homeland security, and emergency management. We’re struggling to bring order to our chaotic nation as it is, don’t hinder our efforts by destroying the government." The government doesn't further our advancement in any areas of life. People do. Scientists and specialists do. We don't need the government overseeing these areas for us to advance in them. In fact, these areas of concern from the author would be much more productive without the government regulating the hell out of them and holding them back. And we're actually trying to bring more order to an already overbearing nation. There is nothing chaotic about it.

"Ron Paul is either an unrealistic crazy idealist or another corrupted politician." That's exactly what the corrupted politicians and government wants you to think.

And I'm sorry for not having the source, but I know I heard that, without an income tax, we'd have the same budget as like 30 or 40 years ago. So we'd just have to scale back on government a bit and other forms of tax wouldn't even increase. I'll go searching for that info now.


Edit: There's nothing like writing a 1,400 word report when you don't have to lol.

Edit: Don't know if it counts as a source for people who aren't convinced yet (ronpaul.com lol), but here's a good article on the income tax: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/

[Derek The Infamous]

The argument concerning that the Income Tax didn't start until 1913 is historically inaccurate. See here under "History > United States": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

Sure Wikipedia isn't always the best source, but this is an extremely well researched article. Furthermore, as that article will show, we are hardly the first country to attempt to do this. Income tax has been around for almost 200 years. Also, they taxed incomes of less than 20,000 in today's money. It wasn't just a rich people tax then. Please give me evidence of this country being better off economically before the first ever income tax was established, and I will give credit to Ron's proposal.

[Timothy]

Before I even start up this debate again, I want to apologize for some of the ways I've conducted myself previously. I don't think I'm better than anyone else who disagrees with me. I don't try to talk down to people or make fun of their political beliefs, but I'm not the best debater, so when things get heated I tend to let that side of me show through instead of continuing to post strong rebuttals. I like everyone here and don't enjoy when things get out of hand like that. I'll do my best to keep this professional, and I hope everyone else will try too.

Does this mean I can't be a smartass anymore? :P

Seriously though, from what I gather I think we can agree on what some of the underlying problems are in this country, but we only seem to differ when it comes to the solutions.


The argument concerning that the Income Tax didn't start until 1913 is historically inaccurate. See here under "History > United States": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

Sure Wikipedia isn't always the best source, but this is an extremely well researched article. Furthermore, as that article will show, we are hardly the first country to attempt to do this. Income tax has been around for almost 200 years. Also, they taxed incomes of less than 20,000 in today's money. It wasn't just a rich people tax then. Please give me evidence of this country being better off economically before the first ever income tax was established, and I will give credit to Ron's proposal.

To be fair, Ron Paul isn't suggesting that we just get rid of the income tax and call it a day. He also wants to eliminate entitlement programs and cut defense spending, which are our two biggest expenses. If you take those expenditures out of the equation, we wouldn't need an income tax. Now whether or not you think cutting either is a good idea is a different question entirely. Personally, I think entitlement programs have merit, but they need to be managed more efficiently. I think Paul hits the nail on the head with regards to defense spending, though.

[travz21]

That's when it became permanent. And the percentages are very noteworthy back then compared to now. It was less than 4%.

And if you want me to get really simplistic, taxes never help the economy. All taxes do is drain the economy of money that would otherwise be used by the citizens who earned it. Having the least amount of taxes while still being able to have the government do what the people want it to do will be the best for the economy. If people want government to keep spending more than we have and eventually end up like a hyperinflation nation, then we definitely need to keep taxing as much as possible to fund this. But if we want a healthy economy, we need to tax the bear minimum so the economy has more money to work with. What that minimum will be will depend on the people.

[SuperDude526]

Actually we have been isolating ourselves internationally, in the same way that Israel's national security policies have for them as of late (not to say that I think that's fair, at least in Israel's case, but there you go).

[travz21]

Herman Cain spent over $100,000 of donor's money buying copies of his OWN book (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052111/Herman-Cain-spent-100-000-donor-money-buying-copies-HIS-OWN-book.html)

[Dr. Octogonapus]

This election is shaping up to be one that I honestly don't even want to vote in. The only GOP candidate that doesn't appear to be completely insane (or at least just plain stupid) is Mitt Romney, and I really can't stand him either. Obama's been incredibly hit-or-miss up to this point, part of me thinks it'd be best to just vote for him again and try to see things through for a full 8-year term, but then again...I dunno. Essentially, I don't see any of the candidates being able to get this country on the right track anytime soon. I'll still vote in 2012, but I'll probably just skip over the presidential candidates this time around.

[Derek The Infamous]

I'm voting for Obama. I'm not 100% happy with his performance as president, and I really wish he would've shown the backbone that he's showing now a LOT earlier but I'll be damned if I will sit 4 years under Romney, Herman Cain or miss batshit crazy Bachmann. No thank you.

[Dean]

Herman Cain sounds like the name of some old guy from Mad Men

[Benjamin]

I'll vote Obama for the same reason as Derek, but I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Romney got elected. Part of me thinks he's a liberal deep down.

[Vriska]

As it stands in October 2011, I will most likely, grudgingly, and with great annoyance, be voting for Obama again.

PS: The "prayer in schools" debate is not about what the students want to do during lunch or quietly before a test. It's specifically about teacher-led prayer and faculty promoting one religion over the others. Anyone who says otherwise is misleading you into think them dirty liberals don't want no religion for anyone. They actually don't want teachers ramming religion down people's throats. There's a difference between being religious prohibitive, religious neutral, and religious promotive. There's three stances, not two. The government needs to be neutral.

And no, it shouldn't be up to the schools to decide that. It's their job to uphold the first amendment, not pander to pious assholes because parents want to brainwash everybody else's kids.

[jedibeaner]

Voting for Obama again.

[ernieball003]

If I actually register I'll just go with some third party guy that has no chance.

[Derek The Infamous]

If I actually register I'll just go with some third party guy that has no chance. Put Derek Oswald as a write in. I'll win via a landslide, be discovered to be only 25, and then I'll have a political scandal. :awesome:

[ernieball003]

Put Derek Oswald as a write in. I'll win via a landslide, be discovered to be only 25, and then I'll have a political scandal. :awesome:It's a plan.

[Benjamin]

Put Derek Oswald as a write in. I'll win via a landslide, be discovered to be only 25, and then I'll have a political scandal. :awesome:

And the hits on LPA will skyrocket. Ca-ching! :awesome:

[sotrix]

Should the government be telling us what we can and can't do while being educated? Shouldn't that be left to the parents who are sending their children to these schools? Shouldn't that then be left to the schools to decide what would be a good environment for those kids based on what those parents decide? Should the government control what we are learning in school? Should the schools be hiring the smartest and best teachers, or should they be hiring someone who can simply fill the job of what the government wants our kids to be taught? When a school is forced to teach a certain way, it stifles learning. And the counterargument would be that schools could then teach them about any kinds of wacky things. Yes, they could. But if we were had a education system where it weren't paid for by tax dollars and it was paid for by admissions, the schools would be forced to listen to the parents. And that's what schooling is; a way for the parent to help their child grow up and learn if homeschooling isn't an option. It shouldn't be left in the hands of the government. The schools should represent what our parents want for their child.
Yes, the government should be telling us what we can and can't do while being educated. No, it should not be up to the parents. No, schools cannot be left to decide what would be a good environment. Yes, the government should control what we are learning in school.

Ugh I just want to go off on everything in that quote. With a flame thrower.

[travz21]

The truth hurts.

[Vriska]

The truth hurts.

Delusion even more so.

[travz21]

I can give all the proof in the world and it doesn't matter here. I relate it to religious debates. Except those people actually have reasons for believing in religion since you can't prove a nonexistent thing doesn't exist. In political debates there are actually facts.

While we're talking about truth, here's the best Facebook group for intellectual economic/political talk and current events updates: https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-bet-Ludwig-von-Mises-can-get-more-fans-than-John-Maynard-Keynes/367822059871

There's no trolling or immature posters, so it's a good place for actual debates.


Edit: Here's a post from one of the mods


While other countries have lowered their corporate income tax rates in the past few decades, the US has kept its rate sky high. The corporate income tax is the most important tax in creating a country's wealth: If half the farmer's income is taken from him, he can't invest in a plow. The modern-day producers of almost all wealth are for-profit organizations, and the wealth they produce is greatly diminished by taxation. The US has the highest effective corporate income tax rate in the world: Even Europe has rates that are around half of America's. This is the reason why capital accumulation is doing so poorly in America. http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_62.pdf

[sotrix]

Here an article that chronicle what happens in a district when parents and the school are are left to their own devices.


Teachers and counselors in the district, as well as civil rights activists, say that ... the [Minnesota Family Council] have helped create a vitriolic climate in the wake of the teen suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin area that may have hampered the community's ability to effectively address what was, at root, a serious mental health crisis. Following the deaths and the publicity about bullying and anti-gay sentiments, the school district became inflamed with nasty infighting over whether promoting anti-bullying efforts was simply a cover for advancing the homosexual agenda in schools.

Tom Prichard, the head of the [Minnesota Family Council], told the Minnesota Independent in October that his group would continue to fight anti-bullying efforts in the Anoka-Hennepin schools, saying that the suicides were not the product of anti-gay bulling but rather "homosexual indoctrination." Prichard said students like Samantha died because they adopted an "unhealthy lifestyle," and that "homosexual activists" were manipulating the suicides to further advance their agenda in the school district.

As civil rights groups have pushed the Minnesota school district to do more to increase tolerance of LGBT students, conservative religious groups fought to keep them away from public schools.

The anti-gay climate in the schools in Bachmann's district has been so extreme that it has attracted the attention of the Justice Department and the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which are both investigating allegations of anti-gay bullying.

Source: Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/michele-bachmann-teen-suicide)

[travz21]

Ok, first of all, just because I want parents telling the schools how to educate their children doesn't mean that I think they should be able to ignore the law. For example, if parents want their kids to be molested by faculty during lunch, that won't happen. For a more relevant example, if the parents want gay children to be discriminated against at school, that won't happen. Our country still works under a system of laws.

Secondly, I don't see how that article is a result of parents and schools having complete control, because that's factually not the case since there is still a Department of Education.

[Dean]

There's no trolling or immature posters, so it's a good place for actual debates.
You stop the jabs at people calling them deluded and brainwashed and what have you and I'll stop making fun of your views/calling you out for it, and then maybe we can engage each other in a proper discussion at some point. Deal?

[travz21]

I've been trying to stop it for awhile now. I can't remember which thread I said I'd try to civilly debate from now on. Too many political threads to keep track of.

[Vriska]

You stop the jabs at people calling them deluded and brainwashed and what have you and I'll stop making fun of your views/calling you out for it, and then maybe we can engage each other in a proper discussion at some point. Deal?

Ditto.

[hybridsoldier1989]

I've never been a third party kinda guy, but I think I am going to vote for somebody besides the Repub or Dem next year. I have to do more research, but I am tired of the same old clowns. I'm not giving my vote to either party. Nobody can get shit done. I'm tired of partisan politics. Neither party will compromise. The two party system is flawed. Outdated. As fuck.

[SuperDude526]

I mean the only flaw with that plan is (and it is unfortunate because otherwise I'm totally with you) that that makes your vote essentially meaningless.

[travz21]

Voting for someone you don't believe in is a meaningless vote. This is one of the reasons we're in this bipartisan mess.

[Dean]

I mean the only flaw with that plan is (and it is unfortunate because otherwise I'm totally with you) that that makes your vote essentially meaningless.
I think it's only pointless because people think of it as pointless. If you want to vote for a third party you may as well, at worst it's about 10 minutes out of your day and at best it might actually achieve something. Be the change you want to see and all that.

[SuperDude526]

Yeah, but again, the bipartisan system is so deeply entrenched that the vote is basically wasted. Who was the last third party candidate to win a state/what year?

Edit: I should say does anyone know who it was and in what year?

[Todd]

Yeah, but again, the bipartisan system is so deeply entrenched that the vote is basically wasted. Who was the last third party candidate to win a state/what year?

Edit: I should say does anyone know who it was and in what year?

1968 - George Wallace. A bunch of racists in the south voted for him and he won a few states.

[travz21]

Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 running as Independent. At one point in June before the election he was leading the polls at 39%, versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton. I believe he's been the most successful third party candidate.

[SuperDude526]

But he didn't win even a single state. I hate to say it, but the only part third parties play in elections these days is stealing votes from one of the two main ones, like the Green Party did to the Democrats in 2000 and the Tea Party did to the Republicans in the midterm elections of 2010.

[Blackee Dammet]

But he didn't win even a single state. I hate to say it, but the only part third parties play in elections these days is stealing votes from one of the two main ones, like the Green Party did to the Democrats in 2000 and the Tea Party did to the Republicans in the midterm elections of 2010.

All the Tea Party is are extremist Republicans, though. It hurt "the establishment right", but at the end of the day they more or less were the same party. Just crazier.

[Timothy]

I doubt there will be some seismic shift in the direction the U.S. is heading if Romney wins the election instead of Obama. So, voting for a fringe candidate can't really hurt, as far as I'm concerned.

[travz21]

Romney will be the same as Obama. Cain might destroy everything. Everything he says sounds like it's from his puppet master and he has no idea what any of it means. Obama will slowly destroy everything because congress thankfully isn't letting him do it all at once.

But all of those are better than McCain would have been. I still can't believe that man one the GOP last election. He's an old man with no knowledge of anything but war, and his foreign policy is the worst of all time. He wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years lol. His economic understanding is like a 5th grader. And not to mention Palin as his running mate.


The way our government is setup right now, it can attract the most corrupt people in the world instead of people that want to help this nation and actually know what they're doing. This is the problem with the bipartisan system. When there's only 2 choices, the odds of picking someone destructive is much higher than if it were 10 or more. The corrupt wouldn't have a very easy time winning if there were more competition. They couldn't keep up the facade necessary to fool people when there are better candidates. But if there are only 2 parties, they don't need to do a whole lot to make people like them over the other.

[sotrix]

Vote Ron Paul 2012 because not all children should survive middle school. Let the free community - parents and schools - decide which kids have to off themselves.

Vote Ron Paul 2012 because the 2008 collapse was caused by too much regulation. Let the job creators at Goldman Sachs restore prosperity throughout America.

Vote GOP 2012 because fuck 'em, let the sick and poor die.

[travz21]

Haha. I don't think those are very educated statements. Seems pretty emotional instead.

[SuperDude526]

Actually I think they characterize the Tea Party and Republicans quite well.

Also Blackee that was kinda my point; they are basically the same party, just the fringe aspect of it. That's why all they really do to the political stage du jour is steal votes from their establishment equivalent.

[Todd]

Actually I think they characterize the Tea Party and Republicans quite well.

The slogan of the party should be "I got mine, so fuck you"

[Schen The Genius]

I vote for Derek.

No wait he runs this.

I vote for me, I'ma genius.

No wait screw that, I already live in a white house.

...

I'll vote for Raptor Jesus.

--RS

[travz21]

The war on poverty didn't work. Poverty increased, even though it was falling dramatically before Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" programs.

What reduces poverty on a grand scale? The free market does. What causes poverty? The government! This is because bureaucrats are paid and departments created to "help" the poor. They greedily grab up the money coming in, because the money is free (extracted by force from tax cattle).

Government Causes Poverty (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/2009-poverty-rate-increased-at-new-record)


Edit:

Who would build the roads without Government? (http://theruleoffreedom.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/roads/)


Edit edit: Private Citizens Perform $4 Million Road Repair Job For Free in 8 Days (http://www.economicsjunkie.com/private-citizens-perform-4-million-road-repair-job-for-free-in-8-days/)

[ernieball003]

And 999 becomes nein nein nein.

[Derek The Infamous]

The only GOP candidate, I'd even remotely support at this point is Jon Huntsman. And at about less than 10k in donations, I don't think he has a fighting chance. Of course amazingly, that idiot Herman Cain was the frontrunner only a month or two ago (before the allegations came out). Just goes to show you what's flawed in politics.

Sorry but at this point Obama has my vote. He may not be a perfect president, but I'll be damned if I vote for any of these sideshow attractions in the GOP front lines.

[Pidgeon]

well put Derek, the GOP race is just a circus act. It is a sideshow. its disgusting really, how the race to become president has turned into a reality show

[travz21]

http://targetfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ChartOn-PresidentialCandidates1.jpg

I find it reasonable that someone would vote for Obama over Gingrich, or even Romney, because they are all basically the same. But can you really endorse someone who:

Supports unlawful immoral wars?
Supports big pharma?
Supports private prisons?
Supports the military industrial complex?
Supports the war on terror?
Supports the killing of innocent civilians?
Supports the Patriot Act?
Supports bank bailouts?
Supports the death of our soldiers for private corporate interests?
Supports Monsanto?
Supports torture?
Supports corporatism?
Supports the war on drugs?
Supports the private Federal Reserve?
Supports the suspension of habeus corpus?
Supports Americans being stripped of rights?

Just to name a few.

Here's a list of donors. This is a little old:

http://www.moonbattery.com/biggest-obama-donors.jpg


For once, Goldman Sachs made a good investment. For less than $1,000,000 in campaign cash, it was handed over $20 billion of our money. Citigroup did better still: it has received over $45 billion of our money, for a paltry $700,000 bribe. No wonder it's in a position to pay out such generous bonuses, as is Goldman Sachs.

Of course, there's another price that has to be paid by bailout recipients. They have to allow the Obamunist media to pillory them as examples of the horrors of capitalism. In reality, they represent the opposite of capitalism, under which these corrupt outfits would mercifully die off in favor of more efficient companies.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/07/bailout_recipie.html

[Todd]

Ron Paul isn't going to be president. Not in 2012. Not in 2016. Not ever.

[travz21]

Why Regulations Rarely Fix Anything (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/regulations-fail/)

[Derek The Infamous]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/rick-perry-iowa-culture-wars_n_1133754.html

Could the GOP please produce a candidate that isn't a homophobic, racist, ignorant, god fearing, hypocritical dipshit? I don't care if you're a Christian, good for you...but keep your fucking prejudicial religious views out of the White House. This is America: Land of the free. Not the "land where anyone who's Christian is free, but seriously fuck everyone else.". Damn.

[Benjamin]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/rick-perry-iowa-culture-wars_n_1133754.html

Could the GOP please produce a candidate that isn't a homophobic, racist, ignorant, god fearing, hypocritical dipshit? I don't care if you're a Christian, good for you...but keep your fucking prejudicial religious views out of the White House. This is America: Land of the free. Not the "land where anyone who's Christian is free, but seriously fuck everyone else.". Damn.


I was going to post the same thing. What the fuck is happening to this country? It's 2011.

[Derek The Infamous]

These are my political views, and I'm just going to lay them out: I believe religion should never interfere with politics, and that this country's laws should not be determined based on religion but on what's ethically and morally right. I believe gays should serve openly in the military. I believe gays should have the right to marry. I believe Marijuana should be legalized and regulated as a means to boost the economy. I support a woman's right to choose. Am I a liberal? Maybe. But at least I'm not a prejudicial moron.

[Benjamin]

Also, I love how when we want to extend tax cuts for the middle class, Republicans need to find a way to pay for it. But when we cut taxes on the wealthy (where a disproportional amount of our revenue comes from), Republicans seem not to care about all of the lost revenue.

[travz21]

I know you guys are probably sick of Ron Paul talk from me, but he will get the federal government out of our personal lives. He will get the federal government out of marriages, out of religion, out of pro-choice/pro-life, out of drug prohibition. He will ultimately try to ween us off of the income tax entirely, and "pay for it" by decreasing government spending substantially, which nobody else even cares about. Nobody cares about any of these things in the GOP, nor does Obama, except Paul.

[Derek The Infamous]

You do realize that even if Paul somehow got elected, the house/senate would likely block everything he does right? It's what happened with Obama and I'm sure it even happened with Bush a little. Unless he signs executive orders out the ass and pretty much violates the constitution as it currently stands, I can't see the house/senate helping him if he got into office.

[Apop]

The amount of partisan actions by the two major parties is sickening and inefficient, to say the least. The goal of both houses of Congress, more-so Senate, is special / personal interests > greater good of the country. I think, while Presidential elections are extremely important, the problems faced with the country lay more within the legislative branch. Congressmen and women are more focused on winning and keeping a "safe" record of how they vote to ensure they stay in office because, unfortunately, people pay way too little time when deciding on state representatives, and instead just vote for the incumbent. It is very difficult for a President to get much done with the amount of partisan politics happening right now in DC, regardless of the party the President represents.

[travz21]

You do realize that even if Paul somehow got elected, the house/senate would likely block everything he does right? It's what happened with Obama and I'm sure it even happened with Bush a little. Unless he signs executive orders out the ass and pretty much violates the constitution as it currently stands, I can't see the house/senate helping him if he got into office.

So we should just vote for people who already don't care about us and violate the constitution?

You go from complaining about candidates not caring about basic civil liberties to, when presented with someone who does care about those things, totally disregarding your previous complaints. Make up your mind. What's the point of your complaints if it doesn't matter what view the candidate has on civil liberties since you think they can't get by an uncooperative congress? So why does it matter to you if a candidate pisses on people's civil rights?

[Benjamin]

I know you guys are probably sick of Ron Paul talk from me, but he will get the federal government out of our personal lives. He will get the federal government out of marriages, out of religion, out of pro-choice/pro-life, out of drug prohibition.
But the federal government should be involved with those things. Social issues should be consistent throughout the country. Where else in the world do you see a country allow something like the abortion in one region and prohibit it in another? It doesn't make sense.


He will ultimately try to ween us off of the income tax entirely, and "pay for it" by decreasing government spending substantially, which nobody else even cares about. Nobody cares about any of these things in the GOP, nor does Obama, except Paul.

I will never understand this idea. I get that he would try to make up for the lost revenue with sales taxes, but that screws over the people who never paid income taxes in the first place, such as college students.

[travz21]

But the federal government should be involved with those things. Social issues should be consistent throughout the country. Where else in the world do you see a country allow something like the abortion in one region and prohibit it in another? It doesn't make sense.

The more local the power, the better it is for the citizens. State power is more desirable than federal power, just like city power is more desirable than state power. If there's a bad law at the federal level, it affects everyone, and you can't escape it. If there's a bad law at the state or local level, it just affects those people, and they can move to another place. This disincentivizes the state or local power from making laws that displease their citizens, because if nobody wants to live there, the government won't get enough funding. Also, the more localized the power, the better it can spend the public's tax dollars to their liking. Having the most localized power possible is the best safeguard against a corrupt government.



I will never understand this idea. I get that he would try to make up for the lost revenue with sales taxes, but that screws over the people who never paid income taxes in the first place, such as college students.

He wouldn't try to replace it with sales taxes. He would replace the income tax with nothing. The income tax is ~45% of the federal government's budget. If we eliminated that, we would still have around the same federal budget as we had in the mid 1990's.

The problem with big government is that it makes the country poorer. The bigger it is, the more money it costs to run, which has to be taken out of the market (economy). Cutting the income tax would give an enormous amount of money back to the people. This would be a great start to increasing the health of our economy. And it's the only way.

[Pidgeon]

lmao I tried to come up with something but my thoughts are just too jumbled at the moment

[19nacho19]

I imagine I wake up and the world is happy, the people is smiling and laughing and when I turn on the TV I hear a man saying: "And the new president of the world is!... Mi Mi Mi Miiikeee shinodaaaa!". XD

[Pidgeon]

:awesome: everyboy here should write in mike shinoda on their ballots!!!

[Derek The Infamous]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/376094_214347555306614_134176153323755_478164_1053 994713_n.jpg

[travz21]

Saw this earlier today on 2+2. So funny. What's funnier is how horribly his ad is rated on youtube.

0PAJNntoRgA


8,422 likes, 356,620 dislikes

[Apop]

If we're going to get into Rick Perry jokes, this one is really funny, mainly because it seems like he would really say these ridiculous things during a debate:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs

[Derek The Infamous]

Save a pretzel for the gas jets!

[travz21]

‎"If you sell [drugs], we are going to kill you." - Newt Gingrich (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-UgoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ic8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2412%2C5027312&dq=newt+gingrich+death+penalty+marijuana&hl=en)

[ThaHandyman]

0PAJNntoRgA

Not a Rick Perry fan, but what a Man. A capitol M man. Liberals gonna hate on this all day, but I'm glad he could man up and speak his mind. Respect. Trying to take Christ out of America and people wonder why America is going down the crapper...

[Todd]

This isn't a Christian country. People trying to turn it into one is the reason this country is going in the crapper. This country was founded on religious freedom and the Constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state sponsored religion. Anyone who tries to establish Christianity as this country's official religion are un-American.

Fuck Christ and fuck people like Rick Perry who are trying to impose their religion on others.

By the way, someone should remind Rick Perry that children can pray in public schools all they want. They can pray to themselves, they can pray with their friends. There is just no school sponsored prayer in public schools, and that's how it should be. If you want your kid to pray to an invisible man in the sky all day in school, send them to a private school where they can get all the religious brainwashing they want. Don't pray in my public schools and I won't do any logical thinking in your church. Deal?

[Benjamin]

Freedom of Religion means that people can practice any religion they want and the separation of church and state means that religion has to stay out of government. Why the fuck is that not common knowledge? Also, I loved watching a well known Bishop in Texas disagreeing with Perry on this issue a few days ago on CNN.

[Derek The Infamous]

Freedom of Religion means that people can practice any religion they want and the separation of church and state means that religion has to stay out of government. Why the fuck is that not common knowledge?
Thank you. I'm not against Christianity in the slightest, but I do not believe people who do not wish to identify themselves as Christians should be forced to follow the ideals and laws of Christians. America is not a Christian country, and was never founded as such.

[travz21]

Kids should be able to privately pray in public schools. The government shouldn't be able to restrict our religious beliefs (our rights). They also shouldn't force kids to do anything religious against their will. If kids want to be religious in school, they can be. If they don't, they don't have to be. It all comes down to not infringing on a person's rights. Banning prayer or forcing prayer is violating those rights, and government shouldn't be in the business of doing that.

[SuperDude526]

If you want to pray to the Christian God, go to a Christian school. If you want to pray to the Jewish God, go to a Jewish school. Otherwise, go to a public school.

[Benjamin]

Kids should be able to privately pray in public schools.

They can. If a kid wants to pray to his God before taking a math test, no one will stop him.

[ThaHandyman]

What an incredibly closed minded and nearly communist post^

But that's more or less what I expect in the years to come. And while I disagree with Benjamin and Derek's post to a degree, I can respect their posts. As usual there's nothing to say to Todd's ignorance and lack of respect.

[Todd]

What an incredibly closed minded and nearly communist post^

But that's more or less what I expect in the years to come. And while I disagree with Benjamin and Derek's post to a degree, I can respect their posts. As usual there's nothing to say to Todd's ignorance and lack of respect.

My ignorance? Hey, I'm not the one advocating flushing what's left of the Bill of Rights down the toilet.

This entire argument is stupid because kids can pray in public schools. Rick Perry is wrong. If a student wants to pray to god before a big test, he can. If the star quarterback wants to pray before the big game, he can. He can drop down to one knee and Tebow for all I care. Of course when the quarterback on the opposing team also prays, which one is god going to help?

[Benjamin]

What an incredibly closed minded and nearly communist post^

But that's more or less what I expect in the years to come. And while I disagree with Benjamin and Derek's post to a degree, I can respect their posts. As usual there's nothing to say to Todd's ignorance and lack of respect.

1) I don't think you know what Communism is.
2) Are you seriously disagreeing with my definitions of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state?

[Todd]

And if you're so concerned about Christ being taken out of America and America being a Christian nation, I have a question. Do you think the numerous Jews in the congress and senate should be allowed to hold office? How about Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the two Muslim members of Congress? Or Pete Stark, the lone Atheist congressman? I'm not asking if you think they should be re-elected, I know your answer to that, I'm asking if you think they should be allowed to hold office, and be honest. I'm just curious to see what your true colors are.

[Derek The Infamous]

What an incredibly closed minded and nearly communist post^

But that's more or less what I expect in the years to come. And while I disagree with Benjamin and Derek's post to a degree, I can respect their posts. As usual there's nothing to say to Todd's ignorance and lack of respect.
Typical Christian. Someone advocates that we should follow the CONSTITUTION which are the FOUNDING LAWS/IDEALS/POLICIES of this country, and you throw around words you don't even know the true meaning of and accuse Todd of having a lack of respect. Funny, when you're the close-minded person who demands this country be a Christian nation, and feel that schools should force-feed prayer to children who are impressionable, and can't even make decisions for themselves at that age. You wish to brainwash children into following YOUR faith because you think it's right. How about letting kids grow up and follow what they want to believe instead of demanding this country runs on a religion that not everyone wants to follow?

Separation of church and state buddy. There since this country created the consitution. Todd's not the ignorant and close minded one, you are. It's Christians like you that made me denounce my faith and become agnostic years ago.

[Benjamin]

Typical Christian. Someone advocates that we should follow the CONSTITUTION which are the FOUNDING LAWS/IDEALS/POLICIES of this country, and you throw around words you don't even know the true meaning of and accuse Todd of having a lack of respect. Funny, when you're the close-minded person who demands this country be a Christian nation, and feel that schools should force-feed prayer to children who are impressionable, and can't even make decisions for themselves at that age. You wish to brainwash children into following YOUR faith because you think it's right. How about letting kids grow up and follow what they want to believe instead of demanding this country runs on a religion that not everyone wants to follow?

Separation of church and state buddy. There since this country created the consitution. Todd's not the ignorant and close minded one, you are. It's Christians like you that made me denounce my faith and become agnostic years ago.


Wow, this post is basically advocating Communism, Leninism, Marxism, AND Socialism. Just like Hitler :kappa:.

[travz21]

I'm more concerned with the separation of education and state.

[Derek The Infamous]

Actually you know what? I have more to say and I don't care of this creates a double post, or if ThaHandyman posts inbetween now and this post because it needs to be said.

Getting rid of Christianity/Religion in general wouldn't kill the world. Do you realize how much better this country would be if religion didn't exist? Think of all the murders, bombings and attacks that have occurred because someone claimed they were doing it in the name of God (not just Muslims that do it, but Christians too). Think about the crusades where thousands were killed because they didn't believe in Christ. Or the massive amount of racial/sexual (gay) prejudice that exists in this world because of religion, all because some person who followed a religion decided it was against what a "man in the sky" believes is morally just. Think about the civil/human rights that get violated daily because of religion. Think about all the people who cannot get married or live their lives the way THEY want to because some ignorant people (like ThaHandyman) don't know how to separate their religious beliefs from constitutional law and decide to create laws not based on what is right and what our constitution states, but instead based off of their own religious views and ideals.

The whole creation of modern day religion destroyed this world. Religion was meant to teach people to love others, and treat people the way they would prefer to treat others. To have acceptance. To not be ignorant, and judge, or show prejudice. Modern day religion features none of these traits. Modern day religion creates prejudice, and breeds hate, and judges those who do not follow said religion and accuses them of being ignorant, sinners, or going to hell.

That's not the way religion was meant to work. You can call me ignorant all you want TheHandyman, but you should be ashamed of yourself for being so prejudice and believing in denying people basic human rights.

[Pidgeon]

as a christian I can honestly say that us trying force our beliefs on others is dragging this country down the shitter. You have to progress. Evolve. That's something the Christians refuse to do (oh that's right they don't believe in evolution). If we would just let people live their lives there would be higher quality of life, less unrest, and there's even a shitload of money to. Oh and Handyman, Jesus had some pretty communist beliefs himself. Ever read the story of the bread and fish. Pretty fucking socialist, huh?

[Apop]

I completely agree with the separation of church and state and the establishment clause as it can be argued that the idea of religious freedom allowed the country to be born. However, where I start to feel offended is when religion, and typically here, Christianity, is being be-littled by, I'm assuming, atheists. I respect your right to believe in, or in your case, not have faith, but what I will never understand is why atheists always feel they are so much smarter and wise. Every atheist I have spoken to says one reason they denounced religion is because they don't believe in the way religion is used as a catalyst and reason for violence, which is fair. However, it also seems like, because they have no faith, atheists feel they can attack someone's beliefs, which is similar to what they are condemning. I respect the right of the people to not have a state-sponsored religion, however, don't attack and ridicule individuals wanting to practice what they have faith in because you think it's "brainwashing" or "fake." It seems the comments being made here are becoming less focused on the idea and more set on the individuals. For example, I'm a practiced Roman Catholic, and yes, I believe in evolution. What? How could this be? Well, I believe that God played a part in the evolution of species for the greater good of all. Religion and science can coexist peacefully. However, with the extremists and fundamentalists on both sides, this probably will not be seen in my lifetime.

[Derek The Infamous]

You assumed incorrectly as I am not an athiest. I am an agnostic, which means I am waiting for verifiable/scientific proof of a higher power before I chose to believe in such. I also am not belittling your religion either. I am stating how I believe Christians in general in this country, insist on forcing their beliefs on others, who may not chose to follow Christ but may decide to worship another deity (or none at all). And for the record, I do honestly feel that Christianity is brainwashing children, because you can't tell me that a child, forced to pray in school and say "under god" is really capable of making their own rational decisions as to whether or not god is real or fake. Again, this isn't a personal attack, and I am aware of how my last two posts can be construed as anti-Christianity, but I'm more against how religion is influencing the way we view human rights/create laws than the actual religion itself. I don't care who you choose to worship, as an American you are given that right (freedom of religion is in the constitution), but all laws should be done from a neutral standpoint and done in the way that benefits ALL constituents and not just who Christians feel the bible says we should protect.

Again, I'm not attacking Christianity or your right to worship, but you cannot deny that Christianity has a stranglehold on this country and is responsible for some human rights violations that are going on right now (homosexuals being prohibited the right to marry). I'd have no problem with religion, if people in power didn't use it to advance their own religious agendas. Plain and simple, the whole debate came from that Rick Perry ad, which in itself was extremely prejudice. There's no reason to keep gays from serving openly or getting married. Gay people aren't hurting you, so why hurt them? You want people to respect your religion more? Tell lawmakers to stop persecuting people based on their religious beliefs and allow equal human rights for all. It's politicians and people like the Westboro Baptist Church that are hurting Christianity...not normal everyday Christians that worship in the privacy of their own home.

[Ryo Hazuki]

You assumed incorrectly as I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, which means I am waiting for verifiable/scientific proof of a higher power before I chose to believe in such. I also am not belittling your religion either. I am stating how I believe Christians in general in this country, insist on forcing their beliefs on others, who may not chose to follow Christ but may decide to worship another deity (or none at all). And for the record, I do honestly feel that Christianity is brainwashing children, because you can't tell me that a child, forced to pray in school and say "under god" is really capable of making their own rational decisions as to whether or not god is real or fake. Again, this isn't a personal attack, and I am aware of how my last two posts can be construed as anti-Christianity, but I'm more against how religion is influencing the way we view human rights/create laws than the actual religion itself. I don't care who you choose to worship, as an American you are given that right (freedom of religion is in the constitution), but all laws should be done from a neutral standpoint and done in the way that benefits ALL constituents and not just who Christians feel the bible says we should protect.

Again, I'm not attacking Christianity or your right to worship, but you cannot deny that Christianity has a stranglehold on this country and is responsible for some human rights violations that are going on right now (homosexuals being prohibited the right to marry). I'd have no problem with religion, if people in power didn't use it to advance their own religious agendas. Plain and simple, the whole debate came from that Rick Perry ad, which in itself was extremely prejudice. There's no reason to keep gays from serving openly or getting married. Gay people aren't hurting you, so why hurt them? You want people to respect your religion more? Tell lawmakers to stop persecuting people based on their religious beliefs and allow equal human rights for all. It's politicians and people like the Westboro Baptist Church that are hurting Christianity...not normal everyday Christians that worship in the privacy of their own home.

"Atheist" is a stupid word, it's literal meaning is someone who does not believe in a god/diety. Now, unless you believe in all the gods that were ever made up in existence you are indeed an atheist. Do you believe in Thor or Odin? The Chinese gods? The Japanese catfish that was once used to explain earthquakes? No.

EVERYONE is an atheist in some way or another, even those who deny it and are religious, are atheists.

And why the hell do we even have a word to describe something someone does not believe in?

What's the word for people who don't believe in unicorns, or vampires or zombies? Aunicons? Avamipres,, and Azombi's?

No, the word is dumb. And it's a shame that we ever even invented it.

Then again, so is the word agnostic, I mean, it's pretty safe to not believe in something until there is evidence of it. I'm not going to believe in a new cure for something until I see that it's proven but that doesn't mean it doesn't already exist But why do you need a word for not knowing other than "
"Unsure"

and even "Unsure" may be going a bit far. How does it make any sense to say "I'm unsure that there is a God but I think there is one" or "I'm unsure that there is a god but I don't think there is one" for that matter?

The only way it makes sense is just to say "I am unsure" that's it.

So, which word is more dumb? Atheist has a definite meaning, whilst unfortunate I believe it betters suits me than the word agnostic.

I'm 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999 there is no god, based on there being absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But there is still a tiny, tiny, tiny percent that is unsure and thus would mean I'm agnostic. So what's the use of the word agnostic anyway if either way I'm going to be agnostic?

So, no offense Derek but I consider you an atheist, even if you don't consider yourself to be.
==========
And about attacking the religious.

I don't see ANYTHING wrong with attacking a belief that there is no evidence of when people are shoving it around as truth.

Ex. Tim: I believe in a flying horse that can shoot laser through it's eyes and can teleport without any negative impact whatsoever. Also if you don't believe in it, it will kill you in two days.

Me: Where is the proof? Here is my proof that contradicts what you say.

Tim: STOP ATTACKING MY BELIEFS!

now, you can see how insane that all is can't you?

Of course I'm going to demand proof and I'm going to scrutinize so-called proofs that aren't proof at all.

And I don't consider that rude at all. No, I indeed do not find it offensive to be skeptical and analytical of a religion that is increasingly trying to shape how I live my life, according to things I do not believe in. And frankly, I find it childish, those who complain about such.

And I don't care if people call me "Close-minded" but it doesn't really make any sense.

I am close minded, because I allow that there is a possibility that I may be wrong? Even if it is a very small one? Think of all the other possibilities that I AM open to, instead of just one that is taken on faith.

I'm going to quote Tim Minchin here now

"Science Adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"

from his beat poem - Storm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

---------

Sorry for the wall of text, and to those who are religious I support religious freedom 100% but it doesn't mean that I support allowing something not to be criticized just because it may offend someone. If that were the case, then I'd have to not support anything in fear of everything I do would offend someone.

[Benjamin]

The Bible clearly has Earth being only 6,000 whatever years, does it not? So, in theory, it doesn't make sense for any Christian to believe in evolution. However, in practice, there seems to be a pragmatic approach to the Bible which to me makes no logical sense. The way I see it, you either have to accept everything the Bible says or you can't believe in the God that the bible refers to. But that does not mean there isn't some kind of "God" that created the universe. But in that case it's hard to define what "God" is (which should be the real conversation). That's why people like Derek and me are agnostics.

With all that said, call me glad that people do in fact take this pragmatic approach. If they didn't, people like Rick Perry would be stoning homosexuals to death.

[Ryo Hazuki]

The Bible clearly has Earth being only 6,000 whatever years, does it not? So, in theory, it doesn't make sense for any Christian to believe in evolution. However, in practice, there seems to be a pragmatic approach to the Bible which to me makes no logical sense. The way I see it, you either have to accept everything the Bible says or you can't believe in the God that the bible refers to. But that does not mean there isn't some kind of "God" that created the universe. But in that case it's hard to define what "God" is (which should be the real conversation). That's why people like Derek and me are agnostics.

With all that said, call me glad that people do in fact take this pragmatic approach. If they didn't, people like Rick Perry would be stoning homosexuals to death.

I personally, don't think I can understand the point of labeling ones self agnostic in itself, I can see the point in agnostic atheism though. But whatever you wanna label yourself as your views are what really matter and I'm not trying to be a debby downer or anything, just saying I don't get it.. Maybe I'm slow. :lol:

[travz21]

In other news, Obama loves power and defecates on civil rights and the constitution. Change we can believe in!


Senator Levin told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin. “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

John Wood of Change.org writes that President Obama proposed a veto of Section 1032 of the NDAA, which does not pertain to the detention of American citizens. Rather, that section deals with the use of the US military in taking custody of suspected criminals.

Section 1031, which actually deals with the indefinite imprisonment of Americans, remains not only unopposed by the Obama administration, but the president has made sure that the law specifically includes Americans, urging Congress to redraft the legislation with increasingly confusing wording that makes the legalization detrimental to America.

President Obama could sign off on the legislation as early as this December 13 if he chooses not to exercise his veto power. The bill, which includes budgetary provisions for the US military, comes at a price-tag several billion dollars cheaper than the president had asked for of Congress.

Obama insists on indefinite detention of Americans (http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/)

[Derek The Infamous]

To me the difference between agnostics and atheists are as follows: I believe an atheist is someone who absolutely refuses to believe in the existence of any deity and treats the whole concept and idea of religion as a myth. An agnostic to me is someone who doesn't necessarily dispute the existence of a god or firmly state one doesn't exist, but instead has had yet to find any verifiable scientific proof of such a deity so they do not currently believe in such. I feel there's a significant difference there.