Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[gmanyo]

real talk

[goDel]

Obama still has it...

 

[syd syside]

Obama still has it...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSPtk6qJXQo

 

Yeah he still has it when he needs to get re-elected. Enjoy it while it lasts for the next 2-3 months.

[goDel]

Where did I say perfect? Or that there would be no police?

 

All I said initially is issues like gay marriage, animal cruelty, abortion, etc are a product of the current system because they are wedge cultural issues that only continue to exists based on a lack of education. They are symptoms of a larger systemic problem which deals with the two party system (progressive taxation, accountability of power, drug war, etc). The current system is practically serving to divide people, which is not good for society.

 

I got that. My point is simply this: you put too much blame on the system and too little on the people. Although blame is not the right word, because issues like you mention will always exist on some level (in any system). Better education wouldn't necessarily lead to the acceptance of gay marriage, for instance. To a certain extent people believe what they want to believe, regardless of their education. The point about the police was just there to illustrate a consequence of what I believe to be your reasoning.

 

The only thing a system can do is help creating change. The system is a tool, I guess. The people within it are responsible for using it properly. Sometimes the tool is too complex (think of your grandma using a computer) and things go wrong (and the tool seems to act like it has a mind of its own). Sometimes a person is corrupt and misuses a tool. But most of the time many different people want many different things out of the same tool. And that's when choices have to be made.

In a good (simple) democracy everyone would have some kind of influence on these changes and choices would be made reasonably fast. But when influence is unevenly distributed, or choices aren't being made (at all), the tool isn't necessarily the thing to blame.

 

You can blame the system and to a certain extent I can agree, but the people are just as much to blame, IMO. In a perfect democracy things still go wrong (because there is no perfect choice). Choices just tend to get made a little faster and are more congruent with what most people want.

[syd syside]

So your saying that someone with good intentions can compete against someone who is backed by special interests with the current two party system?

[goDel]

Yes, it can.

 

Can you tell me when the special interests tend to back Obama in the 2008 elections? I'm guessing, early in the elections special interests would back opposing runners at the same time. And when it became more clear which horse was faster, they'd be placing their bets accordingly.

 

Special interests tend to be more opportunistic/pragmatic than you might think. Power attracts special interests. Not the other way around. And even in this day, voters provide power. Believe it or not. (And again, the power voters provide is an entire discussion on its own.) Take an extreme example where no-one would vote, for instance. What would happen with the political powers? Unless the people in power would pull off the perfect crime and hide it (the moonlanding, anyone?), shit would fly in all kinds of directions, I guess.

 

Your earlier assumption seems to be, that if everyone would have the proper education, or the same information, people would have more similar beliefs and the divide would be smaller. I'd argue that things doesn't have to be that much different under those circumstances. Division is simply inherent to all societies.

[goDel]

For all you Chomsky fans out there, here's a quote from the link I posted earlier. Maybe you can view things a bit less cynical because of it:

 

TM: What sort of society do you envision as one that would not be based on exploitation or domination and how would we get there from here?

NC: I don't really understand the question. It's kind of interesting. I'm asked that question constantly in sort of privileged circles. I'm never asked it when I go to talk to poor people. Or say either here or abroad. They tell me what they're doing. Maybe they ask for a comment, but they don't ask how they do it. How you do it is very straightforward: you go out and do it. If you want a more free and democratic society, you go out and do it. Take just our own, or at least my own lifetime, maybe you're too young. Say the last 30-40 years there have been big changes in the country. The civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the sharp critique and breakdown of illegitimate authority in all sorts of domains which took place since the 60's, the environmental movements, the feminist movement, the solidarity movements in the 80's -- all of these things changed the society a lot. Well how did they do it? Well they just did it. People get together, they organize, they pressure, they try to learn, they try to help others to learn. That's the way things change. That's why we don't live under feudalism and slavery. That's why we have by comparative standards a very free society in the United States, with a lot of opportunities and options and very limited capacity on part of the state for force control. Well that's been gained by struggle.

People are now fighting to preserve workers rights and Social Security and medical support and some sort of health program and so on. People are now fighting to preserve these things. Well they were not there not long ago. They were achieved by plenty of popular struggle and there are no limits to this. There's no reason why corporate tyranny -- which is a fairly recent development, its institutional form is from the early part of this century -- there's no reason why that form of tyranny should not be dismantled just as other kinds of totalitarianism were dismantled. Fascism and Stalinism for example. And there are no particular limits to this.

Any kind of illegitimate authority that exists, whatever it may be, from interpersonal relations up to huge states and transnational corporations, every such form of authority has to demonstrate legitimacy. They have the burden of proof, and we should understand that usually, very often, almost always that burden can't be met. When it can't be met, it should simply be dismantled. And that's the way to move more towards a free and just democratic society. I don't think there's any sphere of life where these questions don't arise. There's different answers in different places and that depends on the circumstances, but the mechanisms are always the same. It's engagement, education, organizing, pressure, building new institutions. Those are the ways. In a country like ours they're much more available then in a place like Haiti or Columbia where you might get murdered for it. It won't happen here. But it's the same mechanism.

[SR4]

For all you Chomsky fans out there, here's a quote from the link I posted earlier. Maybe you can view things a bit less cynical because of it:

 

TM: What sort of society do you envision as one that would not be based on exploitation or domination and how would we get there from here?

NC: I don't really understand the question. It's kind of interesting. I'm asked that question constantly in sort of privileged circles. I'm never asked it when I go to talk to poor people. Or say either here or abroad. They tell me what they're doing. Maybe they ask for a comment, but they don't ask how they do it. How you do it is very straightforward: you go out and do it. If you want a more free and democratic society, you go out and do it. Take just our own, or at least my own lifetime, maybe you're too young. Say the last 30-40 years there have been big changes in the country. The civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the sharp critique and breakdown of illegitimate authority in all sorts of domains which took place since the 60's, the environmental movements, the feminist movement, the solidarity movements in the 80's -- all of these things changed the society a lot. Well how did they do it? Well they just did it. People get together, they organize, they pressure, they try to learn, they try to help others to learn. That's the way things change. That's why we don't live under feudalism and slavery. That's why we have by comparative standards a very free society in the United States, with a lot of opportunities and options and very limited capacity on part of the state for force control. Well that's been gained by struggle.

People are now fighting to preserve workers rights and Social Security and medical support and some sort of health program and so on. People are now fighting to preserve these things. Well they were not there not long ago. They were achieved by plenty of popular struggle and there are no limits to this. There's no reason why corporate tyranny -- which is a fairly recent development, its institutional form is from the early part of this century -- there's no reason why that form of tyranny should not be dismantled just as other kinds of totalitarianism were dismantled. Fascism and Stalinism for example. And there are no particular limits to this.

Any kind of illegitimate authority that exists, whatever it may be, from interpersonal relations up to huge states and transnational corporations, every such form of authority has to demonstrate legitimacy. They have the burden of proof, and we should understand that usually, very often, almost always that burden can't be met. When it can't be met, it should simply be dismantled. And that's the way to move more towards a free and just democratic society. I don't think there's any sphere of life where these questions don't arise. There's different answers in different places and that depends on the circumstances, but the mechanisms are always the same. It's engagement, education, organizing, pressure, building new institutions. Those are the ways. In a country like ours they're much more available then in a place like Haiti or Columbia where you might get murdered for it. It won't happen here. But it's the same mechanism.

 

That part is one of my favorite all-time quotes.

[BobDobalina]

The sad thing is that were one to even suggest that America or the American political system should be dismantled, one would probably fine oneself on a watch list.

 

I only read today that each party gets 50 million from Uncle Sam for their circle-jerks aka conventions. Makes one wonder what a 3rd party would have to do to get 50 million in "'free" gov't dollars to host dollars to host their own circle-jerk.

 

 

 

 

 

[Npoess]

My job depends on Obama winning... so...

 

 

President Obama is directly attacking rival Mitt Romney over the GOP White House hopeful’s view that tax credits for wind energy projects should be allowed to expire at the year’s end.

 

 

“[A]t a moment when homegrown energy is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers. Think about what that would mean for a community like Pueblo. The wind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state,” Obama plans to say Thursday in Pueblo, Colo., where the Danish wind turbine giant Vestas has a major manufacturing plant.

 

A recent study by Navigant Consulting found that extending the production tax credit will allow the industry to grow to 100,000 jobs in four years, while an expiration would kill 37,000 jobs within a year.

[Friendly Foil]

Bush!

[SR4]

god there is not much i would enjoy more than for oil to become a third tier energy source.

[awepittance]

you guys made a huge mistake by sleeping on that rehdog video

 

My job depends on Obama winning... so...

 

 

President Obama is directly attacking rival Mitt Romney over the GOP White House hopeful’s view that tax credits for wind energy projects should be allowed to expire at the year’s end.

 

 

“[A]t a moment when homegrown energy is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers. Think about what that would mean for a community like Pueblo. The wind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state,” Obama plans to say Thursday in Pueblo, Colo., where the Danish wind turbine giant Vestas has a major manufacturing plant.

 

A recent study by Navigant Consulting found that extending the production tax credit will allow the industry to grow to 100,000 jobs in four years, while an expiration would kill 37,000 jobs within a year.

 

doubtful, the green industry is too big for a shadow boxing talking point to actually reverse the trend. Mitt Romney can talk all about repealing abortion or green energy just like all republicans do, as soon as he gets into office he won't do either

[Beholdapalehorse]

Out with Barry.

[awepittance]

looks like infowars.com has temporarily stopped pandering to the republican establishment to get headlines on drudgereport,com

 

http://www.infowars.com/2012-us-elections-obamney-vs-rombama/

[th555]

*skips thread*

Why is "Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" a question?

 

edit:

http://www.isidewith.com/results/63596625

Is there any chance of marihuana legalization in the us? (Dutchman here haha)

[goDel]

you guys made a huge mistake by sleeping on that rehdog video

 

My job depends on Obama winning... so...

 

 

President Obama is directly attacking rival Mitt Romney over the GOP White House hopeful’s view that tax credits for wind energy projects should be allowed to expire at the year’s end.

 

 

“[A]t a moment when homegrown energy is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers. Think about what that would mean for a community like Pueblo. The wind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state,” Obama plans to say Thursday in Pueblo, Colo., where the Danish wind turbine giant Vestas has a major manufacturing plant.

 

A recent study by Navigant Consulting found that extending the production tax credit will allow the industry to grow to 100,000 jobs in four years, while an expiration would kill 37,000 jobs within a year.

 

doubtful, the green industry is too big for a shadow boxing talking point to actually reverse the trend. Mitt Romney can talk all about repealing abortion or green energy just like all republicans do, as soon as he gets into office he won't do either

 

Ow, awe, there comes a time where you can be 1% more positive wrt Obama, I'd hope.

 

Here, maybe Miss Cutter can help you overcome your angst against Obama:

[awepittance]

Is there any chance of marihuana legalization in the us? (Dutchman here haha)

 

considering that Obama has shut down more of the medical marijuana industry

(yes this is fact, ) than any previous president before him combined, probably not any time soon

[awepittance]

Here, maybe Miss Cutter can help you overcome your angst against Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5JBRE8MrpY

 

just seems like a selective argument of which sociopathic billionaires you'd rather have running the country, the ones that run wall st or the ones that run big industry like oil. Look at who is in Obama's cabinet, very similar level of corporate influence that was in Bush's cabinet and Romney's proposed team.

[SR4]

*skips thread*

Why is "Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" a question?

 

edit:

http://www.isidewith...esults/63596625

Is there any chance of marihuana legalization in the us? (Dutchman here haha)

 

jesus fuckng christ that was a question? I really want to have a loudspeaker on my back looping the following 24/7

 

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.^[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.^[5]

 

 

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.^[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.^[5]

 

 

 

until people just...fucking...get it.

[th555]

I understand that there's a lot of religious people that have a hard time believing god almighty isn't responsible for everything, but it's not like someone's going to abolish the theory of evolution or something. It just seems highly irrelevant to the elections.

[SR4]

I understand that there's a lot of religious people that have a hard time believing god almighty isn't responsible for everything, but it's not like someone's going to abolish the theory of evolution or something. It just seems highly irrelevant to the elections.

 

people's entire political platforms are based on that thinking. it is more relevant than an argument over multiple real issues confronting the world.

[th555]

Wouldn't it be better to ask "do you believe in god?" or "are you christian?" then? Or would that be too "shocking!"?

[gmanyo]

The weirdest part is that Obama and Romney are both evolutionists, but Ron Paul isn't.

[th555]

Why is that so weird?