As some of you might have heard, the United States is in the midst of an election. While the official voting day is November 4th, it is possible to vote early in 30 states and many are recommending that voters take advantage of the fact that you can vote right now in many states. The advantages of voting early is that you can accommodate your work or school schedule and allow yourself some leeway on November 4th in the event that something makes it impossible to get to the polls.
In addition - and perhaps most importantly - you can allow yourself time to dispute any attempts to prevent you from voting. In some states, efforts have been made to disqualify college students from voting due to dorm addresses, etc. Before your hit the polls, be sure to know your rights and make sure your vote is counted. Remember that provisional ballots - which may be offered - can be thrown out, so make sure you get a proper ballot.
You can find out if you're eligible for an early vote by visiting this page.
|
Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?
Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Seriously.
housewrecker (October 28, 2008)
It doesn't hurt to bring a piece of mail that has your name and verifies your mailing address. In the 2004 election they almost didn't let me vote because my drivers license address was different from my mailing address(where I was registered). I had a piece of mail in my car that resolved the difference.
thestatewillwitheraway (October 28, 2008)
So I just bought my first gun. A Springfield M1911A1 (used, from a friend). It's pretty awesome. 26+ Replies
breakout (October 28, 2008)
don't shoot your M19
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
M16?
dev (October 28, 2008)
Never really felt the need to own a gun, hence, no gun. Plus I got two kids, the last thing I need is a fucking gun in my house. Up here in Winnipeg I've got enough hockey sticks by the front door to spear to death any intruders.
PaC (October 29, 2008)
Remember that song "This is Winnipeg not L.A." By that Winnipeg band?
ElVaquero (October 29, 2008)
God, I need to move to Canada.
Sarah_Palin (October 28, 2008)
I own several guns, like all real Americans should!
edgelife (October 28, 2008)
winwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinw inwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwinwin winwin
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
i don't know what the gun laws are in florida, but when i turn 21 and move back up to michigan, first thing i'm gonna do is get a concealed carry permit. guns are punk as fuck, the gov't can't be relied on to protect us, and we've got to have the means to protect ourselves from the gov't when representative democracy is such a joke. you'd think the democrats would realize this and the republicans would be the ones trying to disarm us, it's kindof backwards. but that's our 2 party system for ya. anyway, the 2nd amendment alone is nowhere near enough reason to vote the rest of your constitutional rights away with a vote for mccain.
el_matt (October 28, 2008)
In Florida, teachers can take guns with them to school, as long as they leave them in the car.
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
but what about the students!?
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
same with texas.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
people complain about the 2 party system, and it has its flaws... i think all other candidates should AT LEAST get equal news time and a chance to participate in debates.
ToddRundgren (October 28, 2008)
Its because we have a single member district-simple plurality system which inherently favors large parties, which creates a 2 party system to cover a broad range of the electorate. America's citizens overall (though it often doesn't seem like it) have a similar consensus, thus small 3rd parties that rely heavily on ideological niches are only fringe parties on either the left or the right. If you want really good representation you should favor a proportional representation system, however the problem with this is it leads to immobilization. So take a look at US politics today and then factor in a PR system...then we will really see stagnation. Italy is a good example of this problem as was the 4th Republic of France. I prefer the SMD-SP but with a parliamentary system, like England's. So the reason 3rd parties don't work is because the electora show rest of commentIts because we have a single member district-simple plurality system which inherently favors large parties, which creates a 2 party system to cover a broad range of the electorate. America's citizens overall (though it often doesn't seem like it) have a similar consensus, thus small 3rd parties that rely heavily on ideological niches are only fringe parties on either the left or the right. If you want really good representation you should favor a proportional representation system, however the problem with this is it leads to immobilization. So take a look at US politics today and then factor in a PR system...then we will really see stagnation. Italy is a good example of this problem as was the 4th Republic of France. I prefer the SMD-SP but with a parliamentary system, like England's. So the reason 3rd parties don't work is because the electoral system doesn't allow them too. The faster people get this through their heads and keep thinking its some sort of conspiracy the better.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
welcome to the libertarian party. the sensible americans who realized the republicans are full of shit on civil liberties regarding your personal life, and that democrats are full of shit on civil liberties regarding your financial and public life. who says you can't vote for freedom in every aspect of your life. why do you have to divide them into two categories, one party who wants you to have missionary style sex with your wife 2 times in your entire life, drink alcohol, watch football and go to a weird imperialist death cult christian church, and likes to put record spending for faith based initiatives on the credit card, and another party who wants to make sure you can't smoke in public, are funding lots of strange scientific experiments that may or may not ever result in anything worth using, and make sure that your children are educated in the absol show rest of commentwelcome to the libertarian party. the sensible americans who realized the republicans are full of shit on civil liberties regarding your personal life, and that democrats are full of shit on civil liberties regarding your financial and public life. who says you can't vote for freedom in every aspect of your life. why do you have to divide them into two categories, one party who wants you to have missionary style sex with your wife 2 times in your entire life, drink alcohol, watch football and go to a weird imperialist death cult christian church, and likes to put record spending for faith based initiatives on the credit card, and another party who wants to make sure you can't smoke in public, are funding lots of strange scientific experiments that may or may not ever result in anything worth using, and make sure that your children are educated in the absolutely worst system, while bad behavior in the business world is rewarded with handouts and punishments aimed at any sortof innovation or desireable activity. can't we just vote to have the government keep us safe from an attack, keep the mail going and leave us the living fuck alone? how many people need to go to jail for smoking weed or eating trans fats... how many pounds of food do we have to subsidize farmers to literally trash so that it doesn't affect the "market value" of other food items before we realize that the government is run by guys who own car dealerships and not omniscient planning masterminds.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
here's the thing. when the government leaves us the fuck alone, then we get into a financial mess that we're in now.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
wrong. what about our current mess has anything to do with government being left alone? nothing. the problem was based on GSE's... do a little research into what GSE stands for... what the G in GSE stands for... not to mention our entire monetary policy and interest rates are set by a central planner, making anything in our market not free. essentially, libertarians believe in regulation, the type of regulation that would have stopped th ecurrent problems. rather than regulating by "planning" the economy, the libertarians would regulate by enforcing laws and putting people in jail for committing crimes. the first thing a libertarian ruled country would do, is stop allowing bankers to participate in "fractional reserve lending" aka counterfeiting or spending money that they do not have in reserve. this is fraud, and should result in jail. instead show rest of commentwrong. what about our current mess has anything to do with government being left alone? nothing. the problem was based on GSE's... do a little research into what GSE stands for... what the G in GSE stands for... not to mention our entire monetary policy and interest rates are set by a central planner, making anything in our market not free. essentially, libertarians believe in regulation, the type of regulation that would have stopped th ecurrent problems. rather than regulating by "planning" the economy, the libertarians would regulate by enforcing laws and putting people in jail for committing crimes. the first thing a libertarian ruled country would do, is stop allowing bankers to participate in "fractional reserve lending" aka counterfeiting or spending money that they do not have in reserve. this is fraud, and should result in jail. instead of jailing people for fraud, we institutionalize it in the fractional reserve lending system and in the federal reserve system. a libertarian administration would have jailed Greenspan, shut down the GSE's, gotten rid of all of the criminal banking cartels that are using the same dollar 5 and 10 times over in the derivatives market, and would have forced interest rates to be set by the value of real resources in the economy, not by the plotting and scheming of a cartel group who not only controls the value of the dollar, but also issues all the credit into the market for profit. period. regulation is good, when it is crime-and-punishment style regulation. regulation is BAD when it is central planning of who gets to use what. that opens the system for being gamed by predators.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
and sorry for the tone implied when i said "wrong." it is understandable how someone might believe that we have an unregulated market based on the rhetoric used by guys like barack obama... but have you ever tried to open a small business? your 100,000$ away from startup just on regulatory costs in almost any major type of small business. not to mention you have to get that 100 grand from a bank, who profits from issuing you that money more when you are unable to pay it back. who is it that is loaning you the money? the federal reserve lender banks, who own stock in the very corporation which controls the value of the money itself... so if they want to steal your money, they simply loan you too much, then change the value of the money sot hat you can't afford the terms of the loan, then they steal your company. its been going on for 100 years now.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
I actually run my own business. Luckily, I didn't have to take out a loan.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
see, this is a bad line of reasoning to even discuss this down, because there is something fundamentally wrong with the banking system right now. the problem is, the banks can loan you a 9 dollars for every 1 dollar that they actually have. THEN, they can get together in their cartel, and change the value of the dollars they gave you.... the more money they print, the more buying power they have, and the less buying power you have. i support regulating the banks, the government does not. who regulates the federal reserve? who even calls for regulating them? why is it that they can increase the money supply by however much they want at will, and loan it, on interest, to any government in the world that they want? every time they increase the money supply by cutting rates, the money you currently have devalues.... why do you t show rest of commentsee, this is a bad line of reasoning to even discuss this down, because there is something fundamentally wrong with the banking system right now. the problem is, the banks can loan you a 9 dollars for every 1 dollar that they actually have. THEN, they can get together in their cartel, and change the value of the dollars they gave you.... the more money they print, the more buying power they have, and the less buying power you have. i support regulating the banks, the government does not. who regulates the federal reserve? who even calls for regulating them? why is it that they can increase the money supply by however much they want at will, and loan it, on interest, to any government in the world that they want? every time they increase the money supply by cutting rates, the money you currently have devalues.... why do you think food and fuel prices are suddenly so volatile? banks SHOULD be regulated, by laws that regulate every other business. when you take 1$ on deposit, and loan out 10$ instead, you should be jailed for fraud, and counterfeiting.... instead, we consider that "fractional reserve lending"... which literally means lending out money you do not have, for profit, so if everyone comes back in to request their money all at once, the government has to bail out every single bank, effectively transferring all of your wealth to the banking industry... its ok that they reimbursed your account with the money you lost, but what will you do with that money? it is made worthless by the amount of money that has to be added to the system to actually give you your money back.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
maybe I am confused by what that party stands for then. to me, that seems like a completely regulated economy. i've always thought of libertarians as deregulators.
ToddRundgren (October 28, 2008)
Libertarians are deregulators. I don't know what libertarians think they are, but they are the ultimate laissez-faire conservatives. They are the isolationist wing of the Right. They are pretty much classical liberals to an extent. I'm not a fan of libertarians.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
this is simply untrue. libertarians support proper regulation of the banking industry, not improper manipulation of the banking industry. for an example of libertarian voting record on the very issue of the galss steagall act, look at ron paul's statement on the gramm act that overturned it. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr110899-glb.h tm he introduced this into the record to explain why he would be voting against senator gramms roll back of the glass steagall act... when he explained why he would be voting against this act, back in 1999, he also stated "Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enter show rest of commentthis is simply untrue. libertarians support proper regulation of the banking industry, not improper manipulation of the banking industry. for an example of libertarian voting record on the very issue of the galss steagall act, look at ron paul's statement on the gramm act that overturned it. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr110899-glb.h tm he introduced this into the record to explain why he would be voting against senator gramms roll back of the glass steagall act... when he explained why he would be voting against this act, back in 1999, he also stated "Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole." since ron paul is the only notable libertarian who gets to actually vote on issues over time, he is the gold standard for judging how a libertarian would have voted on an issue. in the case of the deregulation you are currently suggesting a libertarian would support, the gold standard, aka ron paul, did not support that particular deregulation, as he felt it was not proper. he also went on to predict what would be the actual problem, several years later. you have just offered up the most convincing argument FOR libertarianism :)
ToddRundgren (October 29, 2008)
Yes, but would not a true libertarian support deregulation? Libertarians support little to know state influence. The kind of libertarian you seem to be refer to is a "Left Libertarianism". As a true libertarian who is like I said pretty much a classical liberal in the lines of John Locke or Adam Smith, would favor unregulated completely free markets.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
no, youa re referring to a market anarchist. a libertarian believes that there is a proper role for regulation, and that the regulation is not a measuring of weights and measures, but is a prosecution of crimes, specifically crimes against the rights of others. ron paul's vote represents the Austrian Econ crowd in the Libertarian community, which is the most anti-corporate, fair play squad in the group. left libertarians are not at all similar to ron paul... people confuse left and right libertarians because their whole idea of left and right is based on american political crap from television. classical liberalism is somewhat of a form of libertarianism, but it is an older, less sophisticated version. you have basically hours of reading of Mises and Hayek before you can truly understand what the economic policy of a libertarian who believ show rest of commentno, youa re referring to a market anarchist. a libertarian believes that there is a proper role for regulation, and that the regulation is not a measuring of weights and measures, but is a prosecution of crimes, specifically crimes against the rights of others. ron paul's vote represents the Austrian Econ crowd in the Libertarian community, which is the most anti-corporate, fair play squad in the group. left libertarians are not at all similar to ron paul... people confuse left and right libertarians because their whole idea of left and right is based on american political crap from television. classical liberalism is somewhat of a form of libertarianism, but it is an older, less sophisticated version. you have basically hours of reading of Mises and Hayek before you can truly understand what the economic policy of a libertarian who believes in Austrian econ would be,but it is a radical change from anything we have seen, and shares no similarities to the trickle down keynesian economics of reagan.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
libertarians believe in a different type of regulation. ill give an example democrat regulation ideas are = pumping money into scientific fields that they like in the form of R and D, giving money to the poor, taken via taxation, manipulating the amount of goods and services in the farming industry to affect prices, done via subsidization republican regulation ideas are = give certain big companies who have a proven track record of success incentives and tax breaks and corporate hand outs and favorable laws that make them a de facto nationalized corporate fascist entity that doesn't have to obey the same rules as other companies libertarian regulation = forcing the federal reserve to lend the amount of money it actually has, instead of committing fraud, taking away corporate charters from companies who gain a profit, forcing them to compete show rest of commentlibertarians believe in a different type of regulation. ill give an example democrat regulation ideas are = pumping money into scientific fields that they like in the form of R and D, giving money to the poor, taken via taxation, manipulating the amount of goods and services in the farming industry to affect prices, done via subsidization republican regulation ideas are = give certain big companies who have a proven track record of success incentives and tax breaks and corporate hand outs and favorable laws that make them a de facto nationalized corporate fascist entity that doesn't have to obey the same rules as other companies libertarian regulation = forcing the federal reserve to lend the amount of money it actually has, instead of committing fraud, taking away corporate charters from companies who gain a profit, forcing them to compete with one another as small businesses rather than becoming some huge limited liability monster that isn't accountable for laws it violates. forcing companies who pollute to face their neighbors in class action lawsuits, causing the damages from running smoke stacks into the neighborhood to cause a company to go bankrupt, ending corporate cartels such as the military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, ending corrupt regulatory processes such as the FDA which do more work to actually STOP natural medicines than to actually cure people of diseases... the FDA is pretty much a subsidiary of pharma companies like Merck at this point who have no concern for curing people and only care to treat diseases they probably created at some point.... if the original law and order rules of the business world which go back much longer than our nation are brought to bear with what we face today, none of these corporations would be legal entities. they violate so many basic laws, whether its stealing property through eminent domain, harming people with harmful products which are protected from lawsuit by being approved by a regulatory body, or whatever.... its simply not as simple as to compare the republican "keynesian" economic views with the libertarian version of market economics... they are total opposites. democrats and republicans both believe in keynesian market ideals, which are being proven wrong right now by the stock market.... there are three views of economics, one, keynesian views, which believe that proper management of private enterprise creates for the best prosperity, which is mixed market, austrian economics, which believes that law and order protection is the only proper regulation, which means you cant have things like fiat currency, the federal reserve, etc, and the socialist views which are that to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability, which has been debunked time and time again.... the austrian econ views are the newest, and are being proven right, day-in-day out. watch Peter Schiff to see examples of this at work every day in the stock market.
AnarchyPants (October 28, 2008)
Nice one Sarah.
RRK (October 28, 2008)
If you need a gun to protect yourself, I feel sorry for you. I'm very confident in my ability to dispatch anyone with my Gerber, or without if necessary.
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
what's a gerber?
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
it's a knife company. and knives don't work very well in gun fights unless you're good at throwing them.
RRK (October 28, 2008)
How many gun fights does the average citizen find themselves in? Gun enthusiasts? In a situation that where my knife isn't adequate to protect me, I doubt that a fire arm could protect me either. Neither guns nor knives are bullet proof vests.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
that's absolutely true. i'm not debating that.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
you don't have to feel sorry for those who choose to protect themselves with a firearm. you're talking about a deadly weapon, too. i know how to use guns and am more comfortable with them than knives. i also feel that if i were placed in a situation which required action, i would be much better off with a gun than without. remember, some people are nuts and don't just want your money.
RRK (October 28, 2008)
I understand, but there are lots of situations in which a gun is inappropriate for mediating a dispute or ending aggression. I feel that although guns need not be used lethally, too often they are. I can use my knife lethally, but I can also incapacitate individual limbs as I see fit to end an attack. Some people believe that any attack warrants lethal action, but I prefer to demonstrate that I'm in control and that the other person has the option of walking away.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i'm the same way. i have yet to pull my gun on anybody and you'll never see me do it in an unarmed one on one. and yes, far too many have guns that shouldn't.
RRK (October 28, 2008)
I suppose I prefer knives and unarmed combat to guns, because I like the psychology involved in close quarters combat. At 5'8" and 125 lbs., people think that they can easily handle me. I relish the moment when realize they can't. Forcing someone into submission, 'escorting', and nerve stimulation are all just plain fun. I guess there's a sadist in me.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
that's ok. i like sadism. there's absolutely nothing wrong with that method of protection. i just happen to like guns and have probably seen too many movies :).
royalt (October 29, 2008)
Kershaw fo lyfe
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
owning guns to protect the other rights you are quickly losing is definately becoming more punk by the day.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
that's a nice gun. i have a bunch of handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.. i also stockpile ammo and have a concealed carry license. there's nothing wrong with protecting yourself. when the zombies come, we'll be ready.
atrus138 (October 28, 2008)
I've been thinking about getting a Remington 870.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
those are nice. i like the mossberg mariner or the FN line of tacticals. you should also check out the autos. they're crazy.
crackpotdemagogue (October 28, 2008)
oh my god. you people give me the fear. fuck guns! you idiots!
thestatewillwitheraway (October 28, 2008)
Wise words from someone who lives in the biggest nanny state in the world.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
word.
crackpotdemagogue (October 29, 2008)
your ignorance speaks for itself, as does the general dogma that exudes from your words.
thestatewillwitheraway (October 29, 2008)
Way to simplify complex issues there guy. No, the people in those countries don't have the right to bear arms to defend themselves. That's a right and a freedom unique to the United States of America. Then you go on to insult my intelligence - stop being so hostile. You're so open minded =) Guns are inanimate objects, it does not cause grief. But yeah, since you're from the UK, you know all about not blaming the individual, it's always someone/something else fault. Instead of just being the typical knee-jerk European socialist, look up what the absence of guns will do to a society, read about how Hitler disarmed the Jews, how the genocide in Rwanda was made possible because the common citizens didn't have the means to fight back. The history is rife with examples such as those. I'm just a regular guy. You associate guns with show rest of commentWay to simplify complex issues there guy. No, the people in those countries don't have the right to bear arms to defend themselves. That's a right and a freedom unique to the United States of America. Then you go on to insult my intelligence - stop being so hostile. You're so open minded =) Guns are inanimate objects, it does not cause grief. But yeah, since you're from the UK, you know all about not blaming the individual, it's always someone/something else fault. Instead of just being the typical knee-jerk European socialist, look up what the absence of guns will do to a society, read about how Hitler disarmed the Jews, how the genocide in Rwanda was made possible because the common citizens didn't have the means to fight back. The history is rife with examples such as those. I'm just a regular guy. You associate guns with terrible things, you associate it with gang-violence and what not - that's how you think in Europe. We don't, we associate it with freedom, with being able to defend yourself and your family - giving the individual power. That's what you don't get, sorry. You've been brainwashed, since birth that guns are something inherently evil, and I get that. We Americans get brainwashed too. I'm not an ignorant American Republican or something - like you probably think I am. I just think that the Second Amendment is something worth protecting, something that's so uniquely American that even if you're a Democrat or a Republican or something else it's worth making sure that it's not infringed and that it remains something that sets us apart from the rest of the world. Please continue getting your views of this country by watching Michael Moore documentaries.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
backed 100%.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
Easy does it on the ad hominem attacks bud. Law abiding citizens owning guns does not cause grief to anyone other than a whitetail deer here and there. I haven't even seen a gun outside of my home in years. It's not like people are running around shooting each other every day. You are buying into the media hype way too much if you think that guns cause a ton of grief in the USA. Alcohol causes more death and grief than guns ever will yet we sell that delicious stuff at every corner store and pub in town. Owning a firearm isn't about fear, it's about absolute empowerment of the average citizen. We have a Democracy right now which works great and does a decent job (not perfect, but decent) of ensuring freedom. This however is a human construct and there is no guarantee it will exist for ever. If Democracy fails, I can still go down into show rest of commentEasy does it on the ad hominem attacks bud. Law abiding citizens owning guns does not cause grief to anyone other than a whitetail deer here and there. I haven't even seen a gun outside of my home in years. It's not like people are running around shooting each other every day. You are buying into the media hype way too much if you think that guns cause a ton of grief in the USA. Alcohol causes more death and grief than guns ever will yet we sell that delicious stuff at every corner store and pub in town. Owning a firearm isn't about fear, it's about absolute empowerment of the average citizen. We have a Democracy right now which works great and does a decent job (not perfect, but decent) of ensuring freedom. This however is a human construct and there is no guarantee it will exist for ever. If Democracy fails, I can still go down into my basement and have 30 rounds of rock and roll ready to go at a moments notice. The day we live in a world where ordinary citizens can not arm themselves is the day we live in a world where our freedoms are ripe for the picking. Just because we are a long way off from that kind of tyranical rule doesn't mean that responsible citizens shouldn't bear the burden of responsible firearm ownership. I know memories are short, but it wasn't but 70 years ago that a facist ruler overran a complacent democracy and lead one of the most devastating wars in history. Are we so arrogant to think that we are so much more enlightened and different today that this could never happen? The world is not that much different in terms of human behavior and power dynamics than it was 1,000 years ago.
SierraNevada (October 28, 2008)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/27/boy.shoots.himself.ap/index.htm l
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
yeah. those are illegal. i am not a proponent for automatic machine guns. i don't want those on the street either.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
Eh, it doesn't make much of a difference. A legal semi-automatic civilian rifle is vastly more lethal than an automatic Uzi. I'd take a rifle over a machine pistol any day of the week in a gun fight.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
i agree completely. i was just making the point that i don't agree will fully automatic weapons. i would rather have a rifle any day as well.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
So his parents are idiots, what's your point?
88fingersOscar (October 29, 2008)
I have a chromed out one of those. its my absolute fav. I was raised around guns my whole life even before I was upping the punx. I hope to own just some crazy arsenal some day. Mostly cuz i like blowing stuff up.
Diver (October 28, 2008)
Voted yesterday.
GrapeApesOfWrath (October 28, 2008)
man, i thought this read: "vomiting tips and details". 2+ Replies
MilesQToast (October 28, 2008)
if you vomit in the voting booth your vote counts twice.
Sarah_Palin (October 28, 2008)
I could give you a couple of vomiting tips and details i learned back in my Miss Wasilla days
Sarah_Palin (October 28, 2008)
McCain '08! 2+ Replies
shrapnel (October 28, 2008)
McCain>Obama
AnarchyPants (October 28, 2008)
Pair of pants > both of them
hhrules (October 28, 2008)
Okay serious question. Does one vote really matter? Cause I don't think I want to vote for a Rep or Dem. 26+ Replies
dev (October 28, 2008)
If one million more of you asked this same question, what do you think the answer would be?
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
That doesn't really answer his question. He isn't saying what if 1 million people asked his question.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
it does answer his question because there are probably a million out there with the same attitude and that's enough to throw an election the other way. i don't really like either, but obama is a safer choice for me (although i don't like his ideas on gun control).
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
So based on what he alone decides today is going to affect whether those millions of people out there with his same attitude get out there and vote? No, it won't. I know what you're getting at, but a vote in iteslf rarely has much of an effect. Does 1 vote matter? It can, but usually it doesn't. Does 1 million people thinking that 1 vote doesn't matter matter? Yes. It is two different questions.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i agree. obvious misunderstanding. no harm, no foul?
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
Concur.
MilesQToast (October 28, 2008)
probably depends on your state.
hhrules (October 28, 2008)
Pa
Sarah_Palin (October 28, 2008)
Are you part of the real Pennsylvania or the fake anti-American one?
hhrules (October 28, 2008)
Don't believe a word of it ignore the fucked up things they say
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
yes it matters quite a but in PA please vote, and use the tips provided in this story. if you don't like either candidate, do some research on other some other possible candidates, they won't win but it will help their cause in the future. but in PA i'd recommend voting for Obama just to say fuck you to Palin in your own way. i'm thinking about voting libertarian or socialist so i have some more snarky things to say when i pass the stupid bitch with the "Obama is a Socialist, Are You?" sign on the corner of 5th avenue and 41 everyday. that lady don't like me too much already :)
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
it definitely matters
hhrules (October 28, 2008)
But I don't want to vote for a Democratic or a Republican.
el_matt (October 28, 2008)
At least if you vote, you can say that you tried to change things.
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
that doesn't matter really. there's a million reasons to vote but mostly independent parties need your vote in order to remain legitimate. no one will take them seriously if there's no vote for them.
hhrules (October 28, 2008)
I understand, but most people will say I wasted a vote cause none of the independent parties will ever win.
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
how is it a waste if you weren't going to vote in the first place? I would say, good work hhrules, way to vote for something you believe in.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
this.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
what difference does it make if your choice wins. this justification could be used to have only one candidate, because why have more than one candidate if voting for the losers is just a wasted vote. the whole point of representative republics are to allow everyone to vote for the candidates that are most like them. obviously if a great majority supports one guy more than the rest, he will win the election, but the other metrics in the election will affect the guy in powers choice of policies. obviously since the republican and democratic parties are the largest, each party is careful to please the other, butthe same is true of the greens to the democrats and the libertarians to the republicans. everyone knows that some of the bills passed by their respective parties are olive branches to the third parties, to get them to support them. the republicans are going show rest of commentwhat difference does it make if your choice wins. this justification could be used to have only one candidate, because why have more than one candidate if voting for the losers is just a wasted vote. the whole point of representative republics are to allow everyone to vote for the candidates that are most like them. obviously if a great majority supports one guy more than the rest, he will win the election, but the other metrics in the election will affect the guy in powers choice of policies. obviously since the republican and democratic parties are the largest, each party is careful to please the other, butthe same is true of the greens to the democrats and the libertarians to the republicans. everyone knows that some of the bills passed by their respective parties are olive branches to the third parties, to get them to support them. the republicans are going to lose this election because they offended the christians and libertarians... the democrats are going to win because they are pandering to enviromnetalists from the green party. all mccain had to do to win the election was vote NO on the bail out. it was a republican no brainer, but he didn't want to lose that fanny mae money, and so he will lose the election. good riddance.
deadelectromix (October 28, 2008)
Not if you live in Texas like me.
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
isn't texas a swing state now?
deadelectromix (October 28, 2008)
orly?
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
I know Texas is famously red but isn't there talk of it being a closer race than usual? With the way the primaries went and all the newspapers endorsing Obama it's probably worth it to vote. I don't know, maybe I'm totally wrong.
baseball (October 28, 2008)
McCain has a 12 point lead in Texas according to yesterday's polls.
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
yeah 'swing state' probably wasn't the correct term to use.
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
also, just looking at cnn's tracker it's like 57%/38%, which is less than states like Oklahoma, and just as 'red' as states like Michigan are 'blue', and I totally had to mail in my vote to Michigan because everyone was shitting themselves over it being a red state this year.
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
if not in michigan, where are you? if i moved to florida 3 weeks ago, can i still send a vote to michigan? this is my first election i don't know anything about the actual process.
nina_d (October 28, 2008)
I'm in Chicago and I haven't changed my address/I'm here for school. I just had someone fill out a request for an absentee ballot and it was mailed to me, you can pick them up too though.
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
TX is so red you'd think they'd be kicking eachother off their land for looking like indians.
UNTJosh (October 28, 2008)
Thats stupid. Texas is becoming more liberal. Dallas and Austin are both HIGHLY liberal cities. Houston has a large multicultural voting base that has a large number of hispanics and blacks at its core. Texas also has a large amount of colleges which generally are pretty liberal if you ignore A&M.
baseball (October 28, 2008)
No, it is not.
diplodocuscore (October 28, 2008)
yes and no. it mostly depends on the state you live in unfortunately, hopefully when leaders from our generation start taking the reins (if America is still here by then) we'll be throwing out the 2 party system and the electoral college. not sure i have much hope though, as the only people my age i know who are pursuing careers in gov't or leadership are the same people who want to get power and keep it, just liike the people keeping the whole fucked up system in place right now.
the_creeps (October 28, 2008)
only if they're tied and your vote is the deciding factor....
hhrules (October 28, 2008)
Lol what are the chances of that?
baseball (October 28, 2008)
About 1 in 10,000,000.
punk_sk (October 28, 2008)
i bet they put WY first on that. never has a single vote in wyoming changed the direction those 3 electoral college votes went. they could stamp it, engrave it in cause it ain't ever going to change
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
the trade off is your vote for senate matters way more.
Autosuggestion (October 28, 2008)
Obviously, you didn't see the Kevin Costner family film Swing Vote this summer.
LinoleumMagazine (October 28, 2008)
If you don't wanna vote Rep or Dem, then at least throw a vote to a third party. Then maybe one day we can have more than two parties getting media coverage and debate time.
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
If you don't want to vote for either candidate or party, but still want your vote to matter, then abstain. Regardless of the answer to whether it really does matter, you're non vote will be just as (in)significant as your vote would have been.
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
I always fuck up you're.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
yes. of course it does.
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
I really don't like the argument, "If you didn't vote, don't complain." First, if a vote is important, then it should be important in itself. Second, I don't see how complaining (or casting a vote as insurance for the right to complain) is relevant to the question of whether or not a vote is important. If you want to complain, then complain. I don't see how voting affects that.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
its pretty logical. i'll use an analogy.
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
Please explain the logic to me without using an analogy.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
you always have the right to complain. but everybody else has the right to ignore your complaints.
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
So you can or can't complain?
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
To explain it to me, please just break down the logic. Don't just state the conclusion. If it's simple, explain it. A conclusion isn't an explanation.
TrueBeliever (October 28, 2008)
If you choose not to support one of the main canidates or a third party, you should still vote on the propositions.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
since all 4 major 3rd party candidates do not endorse the US MIlitary being used for nation building or empire, when whoever is our next president attacks Iran, Packistan, Uganda, Darfur, Syria, Sudan, S Ossetia, Russia, China, or Venezuela, then you can say with full conscience that it is not your fault. that you did your civic duty to oppose our cowboy,insane foreign policy which is endorsed by both barack obama and john mccain.
dlangl4 (October 28, 2008)
He can say that anyway.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
You would be against intervention in Darfur? That's cold man...
vardcore (October 28, 2008)
Yes, yes it does. 500 of you voting could have won Florida for Gore... remember that little fiasco?
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
that was because so many african-americans were disenfranchised. it had nothing (or little) to do with laziness.
ToddRundgren (October 28, 2008)
It does, because a person can say "my single vote doesn't matter" which if everyone else voted it probably wouldn't matter, however when people think this it creates inaction because they believe enough people will be voting for them.
Archangel (October 28, 2008)
I honestly don't know what bothers me more about you: How fucking obvious your trolling is, or the fact that people still respond to it. Bravo again, I guess.
misterspike (October 28, 2008)
I live in Florida. Without going over the whole story of the '00 election and how approx 500 votes kept Gore from winning (and thus winning the election) ... I'd say YES IT DOES.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
Vote your conscience. The only reason we still have a corrupt two party system is because people have been hoodwinked into thinking they don't have a choice. This is a Democratic process, you can vote for whoever you want.
baseball (October 28, 2008)
I can't vote early here in MD, but it is on the ballot this year for possible use in the future. I'm sure that will pass. Luckily this year election day is the day after I get back from Fest and I already took the day off for recovery. I'll just hit up the booth in the middle of the day when there's no lines.
canaandrumzz (October 28, 2008)
I still think they should have polling places on college campuses for students who live in dorms and can't go home to vote. That would increase younger voter participation. It stinks to do absentee. In Va. you have to request a ballot have that mailed to you (that took about two weeks) then you have to fill out your ballot in front of a witness. The sad part is that so far it looks what I did was the easiest and safest way of voting since I'm at school and can't drive to my real polling place on election day. 3+ Replies
wolfshirt (October 28, 2008)
Same here. I've been so busy with school and coordinating my trip to the Fest, I didn't request an absentee ballot in time. I really wish I wold have re-registered in the county my school is in. It sucks because my home county, Cuyahoga in Ohio, is pretty much the Minas Tirith of elections.
Martholamew (October 28, 2008)
When I voted they had a booth set up in the party room of my apartment. Thought that was pretty cool. I'm Canadian though, so I suppose this is irrelevant to the topic.
Autosuggestion (October 28, 2008)
They do.
canaandrumzz (October 28, 2008)
Also, that purging story is kind of dumb. Why not just solve the problem when someone comes to vote instead of eliminating honest citizens beforehand. Seems like it would be easier to go through and eliminate obviously fraudulated (I doubt that is a word but it serves my purposes) I think we should do what they did in Afghanistan and Iraq and make people dip their fingers to show they already voted.
conebone69 (October 28, 2008)
Election Day facts: 10+ Replies
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
This talk of assassination is completely overblown. He's got a small army following him around that is larger then most 3rd world countries.
TrueBeliever (October 28, 2008)
Almost.
conebone69 (October 28, 2008)
Saw that yesterday...it won't be the last
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
did it not occur to anyone that barack obama was not located in tennessee? did noone check out the fact that these guys did not have anything set up to implement this plan, that it was literally just some emails back and forth?
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
location is all your worried about? i guarantee the hijackers on 911 weren't from new york. skinheads are fucking tools. what do you care if someone wants to scoop their dumbasses up and put them in a doggie bag? i understand your point about the wiretapping because i don't like it either, but with all the racist bullshit still out there, we should be taking every step possible to avoid a racially charged assassination. i'm not trying to be a dick, but...
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
funded by rich group who can actually train you to fly a plane and give you plane tickets and weapons? oh, not check.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
fucking please. that's all you've got? my point wasn't even about them flying planes. i'm not funded by a rich group yet i can go get a pilot's license and lord knows i have plenty of weapons.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
you compared a terrorist group that attacked the most powerful nation in the world successfully, who had millions of dollars worth of budget funded by saudia arabian groups and bin ladins terror network to two redneck juggalo inbred guys from tennessee who shot out a church window and sent each other racist emails, never successfully harming anything, probably not even having funds in their bank account to put up a legal defense, none the less put together an attack on the president of the united states.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
what's your point? you know absolutely nothing about them. you've never met them. you don't know if anyone is backing them. i'm paranoid about everyone and for all you know these guys could be a small branch of a much larger operation. i get your point, but in these times everyone like those two "juggalo inbred guys" are a threat. they made their beds by taking the first action and shooting out the window. our laws say that threats on a presidential candidate plus beginning action is enough for arrest and detainment. i didn't make it up, but i certainly agree with it.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
put em in jail for shooting out a church window. fine. even give them a charge for threatening to kill someone, fine. but do not go all over the media saying that authorities "foiled an attempt" there was no attempt made, that is misleading, and intended to bring hype. ideas you have in your head should not affect your punishment in a court of law, and in this case they probably wont when it goes to trial. you should be judged by your actions. threatening someone publicly is one thing, exchanging emails is another. what happens if you are an avid player of roleplaying games about intrigue or modern spy stuff and you get into a fistfight, they search your emails under the patriot act and see what looks like some sort of plot on someone that is actually an email exchange rpg game of some sort. then you're in gitmo. you need to show rest of commentput em in jail for shooting out a church window. fine. even give them a charge for threatening to kill someone, fine. but do not go all over the media saying that authorities "foiled an attempt" there was no attempt made, that is misleading, and intended to bring hype. ideas you have in your head should not affect your punishment in a court of law, and in this case they probably wont when it goes to trial. you should be judged by your actions. threatening someone publicly is one thing, exchanging emails is another. what happens if you are an avid player of roleplaying games about intrigue or modern spy stuff and you get into a fistfight, they search your emails under the patriot act and see what looks like some sort of plot on someone that is actually an email exchange rpg game of some sort. then you're in gitmo. you need to have to have the means to commit something for them to claim that you are plotting to do it. realistically the average poor southerner cannot even afford the 1000$ in plane tickets it takes to go to a political event.... the candidates were in nashville like 3 weeks ago, c'mon, this is just not serious.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i'm a poor southerner and we have credit cards, too. other than that, i am only told what the media tells me. and by media, i mean every news station besides fox news. i understand your point to an extent, but i simply can't agree with the rpg analogy. it's a little too weak.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
yeah, but you get the jist of my point. i only use the rpg analogy because there were some cases where a guy was in a sex chat room for roleplaying a sortof jailbait themed sex chat, which was only allowed to be visited by adults according to the TOS, where the guys were getting entrapped by literally having an adult sex chat that roleplayed a pedophilic kindof deal, and when they decided to meet on the phone, the lady on the phone had a cigarette voice and was clearly 50, and when the meet up happened, it was cops, and the guy was literally shamed on tv and put in jail for what he literally did not believe, nor could be expected to believe, was a young child. it sounds crazy, but this kind of stuff can happen nowadays, were in confusing times with the internet and all. the example doesn't reverse translate as well when the issue is violent crime, but you show rest of commentyeah, but you get the jist of my point. i only use the rpg analogy because there were some cases where a guy was in a sex chat room for roleplaying a sortof jailbait themed sex chat, which was only allowed to be visited by adults according to the TOS, where the guys were getting entrapped by literally having an adult sex chat that roleplayed a pedophilic kindof deal, and when they decided to meet on the phone, the lady on the phone had a cigarette voice and was clearly 50, and when the meet up happened, it was cops, and the guy was literally shamed on tv and put in jail for what he literally did not believe, nor could be expected to believe, was a young child. it sounds crazy, but this kind of stuff can happen nowadays, were in confusing times with the internet and all. the example doesn't reverse translate as well when the issue is violent crime, but you know what i mean... it could be as simple as you making a couple off color comments about mccain on a forums, and next thing you know they foiled an "attempt", when really you were making some statements online as a joke. its a bad slippery slope.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
if that were the case, thousands of u.s. citizens would be imprisoned just like those skinheads. i have made off color comments about mccain online. i never said i would bring the man violence because joking or not, i'm smarted than that. it's a matter of how stupid people are. we are living in weird internet times. all the more reason not to do things online that could get you into trouble. why would someone be so stupid as to simulate pedophilia online? that's just asking for trouble. quick scenario: my sister is murdered. i go all punisher trying to find the fuckers who did it. someone is talking shit online saying that they murdered my sister. i go and rip them apart. i have no idea that they were joking, yet i feel that i'm in the correct stance of blaming them for what they said on the internet. now, would you say that i'm out of line or that the person show rest of commentif that were the case, thousands of u.s. citizens would be imprisoned just like those skinheads. i have made off color comments about mccain online. i never said i would bring the man violence because joking or not, i'm smarted than that. it's a matter of how stupid people are. we are living in weird internet times. all the more reason not to do things online that could get you into trouble. why would someone be so stupid as to simulate pedophilia online? that's just asking for trouble. quick scenario: my sister is murdered. i go all punisher trying to find the fuckers who did it. someone is talking shit online saying that they murdered my sister. i go and rip them apart. i have no idea that they were joking, yet i feel that i'm in the correct stance of blaming them for what they said on the internet. now, would you say that i'm out of line or that the person who made said comments shouldn't have been such a fucking moron? i know it's a little off point, but people are held accountable for what they say even if they haven't "done" anything. the whole thing about the pedophilia case is that the guy is probably a pedophile and has committed acts in the past. i'm totally cool with cops interrogating the fucker because there are a lot of hurting families out there with unsolved cases. everything is fucked up these days, i agree. but, it can't be justified to me that people can say whatever they want without turning heads. i don't want to go back to a mccarthy era anymore than any other sane person. i don't know, i'm just glad i'm not the type of person who makes comments about bringing political candidates harm in an open forum on the internet. -nic p.s. i don't think they should have put him on t.v. for that, though.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
the guy was most definately not a pedophile, he was clearly a victim in that case. he was entrapped, and was set free when it went to trial. just becuase tyranny CAN happen to everyone, doesn't mean that it will. if it happened to everyone all at once, it would be very easy to beat... then you could easily expose it. it tends to come in waves, increments as the state gains more power to imprison on less and less significant charges. remember that poem from the holocaust where as the state came to seize more groups, there was no coalition at the end to protect everyone. I'm not saying that we are going to have a round up any time remotely soon, but if you don't stand up and say we have to have some really clear, careful rules for what government is allowed to do, then you are creating a machine for someone like ...idk... how long are we from an America where P show rest of commentthe guy was most definately not a pedophile, he was clearly a victim in that case. he was entrapped, and was set free when it went to trial. just becuase tyranny CAN happen to everyone, doesn't mean that it will. if it happened to everyone all at once, it would be very easy to beat... then you could easily expose it. it tends to come in waves, increments as the state gains more power to imprison on less and less significant charges. remember that poem from the holocaust where as the state came to seize more groups, there was no coalition at the end to protect everyone. I'm not saying that we are going to have a round up any time remotely soon, but if you don't stand up and say we have to have some really clear, careful rules for what government is allowed to do, then you are creating a machine for someone like ...idk... how long are we from an America where Paris Hilton could run for president and decide that some random group of people get on her nerves and that they should be forced to commit suicide... you may think it sounds crazy, but remember that our government type is the descendent of the Roman Empire,and so far we are following all the same trends... Caligula to me represents what happened when their paris hiltons started ruling... each president chips away at the founding principles of watching out to make sure government doesn't do crazy stuff, where do we draw the line? im telling you now, there are bills in play that make it criminal to make even a joke about beating some politician up on the internet... make it a terrorist act. this stuff is going to pass if we don't start saying no, you can't do that. you have to treat all violent crimes and threats of violent crimes by the same fair play rules and constitutional protections as you always did.
miniblindbandit (October 28, 2008)
decapitate 14 and shoot 88 black people
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
there is a burdon of proof on the state to show that there was an actual capability to do this ethnic cleansing.
miniblindbandit (October 28, 2008)
"Agents seized a rifle, a sawn-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested and said the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more. The pair, who detailed the plot in interviews following their arrest, also told investigators that on the day of the aborted robbery they had shot at a glass window at Beech Grove Church of Christ, a congregation of about 60 black members in Brownsville, Tennessee." 60 black members. more than half the number they wanted to kill. They had already stolen firearms from their family members and were trying to rob a gun store to steal more. sounds pretty determined to me. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_america s/us_elections/arti show rest of comment"Agents seized a rifle, a sawn-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested and said the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more. The pair, who detailed the plot in interviews following their arrest, also told investigators that on the day of the aborted robbery they had shot at a glass window at Beech Grove Church of Christ, a congregation of about 60 black members in Brownsville, Tennessee." 60 black members. more than half the number they wanted to kill. They had already stolen firearms from their family members and were trying to rob a gun store to steal more. sounds pretty determined to me. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_america s/us_elections/article5029959.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
"preparing"... the only crime they committed was shooting out a church window.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
laws are different for political higher-ups. that's a fact.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
they shouldn't be. if your policies as president put you at so much risk that you need jack booted thugs running across the whole country and locking people up for having sick fantasies, then you are not a good statesman.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i didn't say it was right, but you're debating factual law. it's not a relevant argument.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
not when they violate the 4th to do it. those laws won't last a few more years, the american people do not buy that patriot act crap anymore ever since the bailout.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
when the people get some balls and rise up i'll believe it. most of the nation is a bunch of willing participants these days.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
its pretty much a foregone conclusion....the left wing anti war pro civil liberties protesters are nice to have, but you don't win until the right wing joins in the protest movement. this year will be remembered, much like in the early 70's with regards to the vietnam stuff, as that exact turning point.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
please dont interpret that as me liking michael savage, because that guy is a fried brain moron, i was just commenting on how the right wing grass roots groups are now starting to attend the same events that the left wing protest groups are... the left wing democrat congressmen and the right wing republican congressmen are the ones who lined up against bush/pelosi/mccain/obama's bail out bill in congress.... it was the marcy kapturs and dennis kucinich's lining up with the jim bunning types to oppose that bill. where the far left and far right in america realize they agree, is where change really occurs... because the emotional protest style of the left with the masculine rhetoric of the right is a really tough coalition to stop when they both agree on something.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i don't interpret it that way. that guy is an asshat. and i totally agree about the coming of times. it's just that right now people aren't as pissed as they should be and it's only going to take one more little thing. i just hope obama doesn't push it over the edge. maybe bush will fuck up one more royal time.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
it can only be during obama's term that it happens... because any offense which bush commits will be viewed as "almost over" so who cares. there are certain people who simply are not willing to speak out against stuff yet because they genuinely believe that obama will win and everything will be fixed. this is almost scientifically impossible when you consider the composition of the senate and congress and the fact that the donors in these corporations got both obama and mccain to support the bail out despite the fact that 97% of americans polled opposed it. they could only get them to do it by both of them aggreeing too... bc it was too politically convenient for someone to just outright oppose it and insta=win the election. unless obama has a road-to-damascus moment, and then refuses to follow the orders of his handlers, kicks guys like brzezinski out of his cabinet, and st show rest of commentit can only be during obama's term that it happens... because any offense which bush commits will be viewed as "almost over" so who cares. there are certain people who simply are not willing to speak out against stuff yet because they genuinely believe that obama will win and everything will be fixed. this is almost scientifically impossible when you consider the composition of the senate and congress and the fact that the donors in these corporations got both obama and mccain to support the bail out despite the fact that 97% of americans polled opposed it. they could only get them to do it by both of them aggreeing too... bc it was too politically convenient for someone to just outright oppose it and insta=win the election. unless obama has a road-to-damascus moment, and then refuses to follow the orders of his handlers, kicks guys like brzezinski out of his cabinet, and starts radically changing his views, it is not realistic. something is going to come up, and the system is going to crack too far and were going to be in 1960 again. all it takes is one foreign policy problem getting too tense, or a few more people defaulting on their mortgages... right now if the government doesn't stop spending DRAMATICALLY, the banking system is going to eat it. were already in a deflationary spiral that won't stop no matter how much money the fed prints, and there is going to be a day where they print so much that china starts shipping our dollars back, when that happens, we are looking at hyperinflation. the math shows that this is gonna happen inside of the next 4 year term. so either obama can start regulating the fed and annoy his banker handlers, or he will become the herbert hoover or jimmy carter of the new millenium.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
yeah. the bailout pretty much destroyed my hope for this countries government ever doing the right thing. it's sickening to think that help wasn't given to those who can't pay their mortgage rates. so, we socialized the banking system and now it's fucked. this whole situation is making me very tense. i have a strong feeling that there will be a civil war type situation and that's a scary fucking thing. but yeah, whoever wins is going to have a shitstorm of problems to deal with.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
kindof reminds me of the 1960s more than the civil war... the civil war was able to develop into a regional conflict, which makes it a more sensible war, because of the actual relationship between climate and profitability under a new 59% tariff on imports. protectionism came at a near total financial crash for south carolina, so they had no choice but bail out of the union to avoid the tariff. when lincoln attacked them, the other agriculture based states looked at what he did as a violent means to enforce a tariff, and they bailed almost over geographic lines.
punk_sk (October 28, 2008)
maybe we could borrow the pope mobile first
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
show one example in American history where a political candidate was actually assassinated by someone representing a fringe group, and not by someone representing a more powerful government agency, or foreign interest.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
"show one example in American history where a political candidate was actually assassinated by someone representing a fringe group, and not by someone representing a more powerful government agency"
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
the CIA definitely had a role in the Kennedy assassination
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
John Wilkes booth (southerner)associated with the larger government agency refferred to as the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, which was an entire nation, and definately larger than a fringe group, organizationally speaking. Charles Guiteau... have you ever looked at the political positions of Garfield and how that might have affected the business of the robber barons? Leon Czolgosz's era of anarchism was not like anarchism of today, it had a network of people who supported it, and was far more than a lone weirdo deal. be careful with the term "conspiracy theory", that term is itself a form of jingoism, saying that if you ever disagree with a governments investigation of its own self, despite the preponderance of evidence that disagrees done by impartial independant groups. ultimately, you have to wonder why it is that EVERY american assassination fits th show rest of commentJohn Wilkes booth (southerner)associated with the larger government agency refferred to as the CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, which was an entire nation, and definately larger than a fringe group, organizationally speaking. Charles Guiteau... have you ever looked at the political positions of Garfield and how that might have affected the business of the robber barons? Leon Czolgosz's era of anarchism was not like anarchism of today, it had a network of people who supported it, and was far more than a lone weirdo deal. be careful with the term "conspiracy theory", that term is itself a form of jingoism, saying that if you ever disagree with a governments investigation of its own self, despite the preponderance of evidence that disagrees done by impartial independant groups. ultimately, you have to wonder why it is that EVERY american assassination fits the same profile of a lone sexual predator weirdo doing it for little to no reason, and having no help from anyone who might benefit from the deal.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
czolgosz was never a member of the anarchist party. he was only a proponent.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
he was publicly known as travelling from town to town soliciting funds for violent revolutionary acts. that is fundraising. that is not lone weirdo stuff.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i could go around raising money for the communist party. they may think i'm nuts and don't want anything to do with me. that makes me a lone weirdo.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
but when you successfully get the money, then use it to cause a political action that goes down in history, then you are no longer a lone weirdo.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i guess. i can give money to any group i want. it doesn't mean i'm a part of the group. but, i understand that people would link me to that group. resolution!
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
truth. the media narrative always being the same is what makes it sketchy to me... its pretty transparent.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
yes it is. i knew there was common ground :)
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
Ok, no we're fucking splitting hairs; your initial post read "where a political candidate was actually assassinated by someone representing a fringe group, and not by someone representing a more powerful government agency" implying that said individual was acting directly under a "more powerful government agency" Booth = a lone individual, who happened to be a member of the former Confederate states of America, he still wasn't getting directions from any higher ups, he was a lone asshole. It's the same thing as claiming that an American pedophile who was arrested in Thailand for molesting kids was an agent of the US; he's still just a creepy guy who happens to belong to a political entity. Czologosz= still a lone individual, without any actual evidence to say otherwise. You're drawing your own conclusion about his motives based on selective circumstantial eviden show rest of commentOk, no we're fucking splitting hairs; your initial post read "where a political candidate was actually assassinated by someone representing a fringe group, and not by someone representing a more powerful government agency" implying that said individual was acting directly under a "more powerful government agency" Booth = a lone individual, who happened to be a member of the former Confederate states of America, he still wasn't getting directions from any higher ups, he was a lone asshole. It's the same thing as claiming that an American pedophile who was arrested in Thailand for molesting kids was an agent of the US; he's still just a creepy guy who happens to belong to a political entity. Czologosz= still a lone individual, without any actual evidence to say otherwise. You're drawing your own conclusion about his motives based on selective circumstantial evidence, but none of it actually proves he was being directed by a conspiracy of robber barrons Czolgosz - if he was getting help from a network of other anarchists, it was still a fringe group (ie, the opposite of your original post's claim). Listen guy, you can believe whatever you want. I call it historical coincidence. It really doesn't surprise me that the type of person who wants to assassinate a president as some weird loner, it's not like a perfectly rational individual would do such a thing.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
In retrospect, i'm sorry that this post came off as snarky as it did, it was not my intention.
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
it's not like a perfectly rational individual would do such a thing
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
what do you consider guiteau, czolgosz, and booth other than lone weirdos?
Hubitcherkokov (October 28, 2008)
Just wanted to say thanks for the interesting posts.
acris (October 28, 2008)
and fact: the SS has already busted their ass catching this shit before it happens
ThisKidsAlright (October 28, 2008)
Can anyone reccommend me some good Decemberists songs? I'm taking a girl I like to see them and I dont know shit about them. Any ballads/love songs would be appreciated, as I'm trying really hard to score. 2+ Replies
FoolsGold (October 28, 2008)
Suggestion: run. Far away.
AnotherBoringStory (October 28, 2008)
The Decemberists kick ass. Check out "The Mariner's Revenge Song." It's not a love song, but it involves people getting eaten by whales, so that's pretty cool.
SlowStupidHungry (October 28, 2008)
Needs more Southpark Republicans telling me that voting is for sheep. 2+ Replies
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
Hi, my name is Will and I'm a corporate Democrat!
Guy_Incognito (October 30, 2008)
I've never heard anyone say that voting is for sheep...ever.
miniblindbandit (October 28, 2008)
apparently if you're a democrat in Virginia you have to vote on the 5th...
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
the other voting tip. before you go wander off to polls like a lemming casting your vote based on the "issues" presented to you by CNN and FOX NEWS, please review the actual voting records of the Democratic and Republican candidates at VOTESMART.ORG then, after you realize that those candidates believe in very little of what matters to you unless you work as a CEO at Goldman Sachs, then investigate the other candidates which are on enough ballots to win the electoral college. These candidates are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Cynthia_mckinney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu ck_Baldwi show rest of commentthe other voting tip. before you go wander off to polls like a lemming casting your vote based on the "issues" presented to you by CNN and FOX NEWS, please review the actual voting records of the Democratic and Republican candidates at VOTESMART.ORG then, after you realize that those candidates believe in very little of what matters to you unless you work as a CEO at Goldman Sachs, then investigate the other candidates which are on enough ballots to win the electoral college. These candidates are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Cynthia_mckinney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu ck_Baldwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader since Barack Obama is more or less guaranteed the presidency, and has identical views to John McCain on whether or not the United States should be an empire, which third party candidate gets the most votes will show the opposition party in future elections what views they need to coopt in order to gain votes. generally speaking, the "green" stuff you see in the democratic party of today is a direct lift from the platform of the party by the same name. there is a certain amount of votes for the Libertarian party that would result in the decriminalization of marijuana, etc. do not buy the hype on the "wasted vote " theory. make an informed choice, based on the candidate whose views are closest to your own. this is not a lottery, you do not win anything if your choice actually becomes president. 6+ Replies
SlowStupidHungry (October 28, 2008)
"and has identical views to John McCain on whether or not the United States should be an empire"
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
libertarians do not believe in the personhood of the corporation. they do not believe in corporate welfare and corporate handouts, and none of their candidates ever receive money from corporations.
SlowStupidHungry (October 28, 2008)
Uh, Bob Barr is a conservative libertarian.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
"I don't understand how fat nerds who live with their moms and have no money could be libertarians. I never got the motivation." that line has no place in an intelligent discussion. it is a logical fallacy. you do the rest of your discussion an injustice for even placing it there. half of the libertarian movement is homosexual groups that want to be left alone, some of it are homeschoolers, and a large amount of it are people who are offended by the war on drugs. bob barr did not impeach clinton for blowjobs, he introduced the impeachment papers MONTHS before the monika lewinsky scandal. he introduced it for obstruction of justice for blocking view of some of his sketchy campaign donors. in that case you are buying into a media spin, no offense, but it is just not consistent with what actually happened. Libertarians don't believe in show rest of comment"I don't understand how fat nerds who live with their moms and have no money could be libertarians. I never got the motivation." that line has no place in an intelligent discussion. it is a logical fallacy. you do the rest of your discussion an injustice for even placing it there. half of the libertarian movement is homosexual groups that want to be left alone, some of it are homeschoolers, and a large amount of it are people who are offended by the war on drugs. bob barr did not impeach clinton for blowjobs, he introduced the impeachment papers MONTHS before the monika lewinsky scandal. he introduced it for obstruction of justice for blocking view of some of his sketchy campaign donors. in that case you are buying into a media spin, no offense, but it is just not consistent with what actually happened. Libertarians don't believe in letting the government let corporations run wild. libertarians believe in a completely different type of legislation. rather than having a government pick and choose who it wants to win in the business world, libertarians favor having a system of laws that actually jail thieves who commit business practices which are fraudulent. they also do not believe in giving out corporate charters to businesses which are running for-profit. libertarians also believe in allowing the community to put together a class action lawsuit and sue a company for polluting their air, this is currently not possible in our system today. please research the history of the corporation in order to understand libertarian views, corporations are not private entities, they are government-chartered. you are confusing libertarian economics(aka austrian economics)for keynesian market planning views(which republicans call "free market", which isn't "Free market" at all) the government has a proper role in regulating the economy in libertaran views... the proper role is jailing people for fraud, etc. currently, our Federal Reserve would be committing fraud in a libertarian system, by counterfeiting money and allowing banks to lend money on fractional reserve. its really a lot more complicated than people make the differences out to be.
SlowStupidHungry (October 29, 2008)
Read your response below this one, too...
SlowStupidHungry (October 28, 2008)
EDIT: And yeah I've been getting "corporations" mixed up with "big business"... But you should understand my point. There is nothing to gain by stripping away taxes and counting on the good will of those with money to take care of everyone. Especially with a president in power who is rooted in fundamentalist christian law.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
george bush is not a christian. read leo strauss, that is the guy who influenced all of bush's advisors, he straight-up calls for you to pretend to believe in a one-god religion if you are running for top office, as it makes it easier to manipulate religious grass roots organizations.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
"
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
libertarians are anti-corporation, you moron
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
of course they are not identical on a vote-for-vote basis. however.... mccain and obama both voted YES on the 700 billion dollar bailout mccain and obama both voted YES on the patriot act mccain and obama both voted YES on allowing immunity for telecoms who wiretapped their own customers for the bush administration mccain and obama both voted YES on funding the costly and immoral occupation of Iraq mccain and obama both support using preemptive military strikes to affect what type of weaponry iran is allowed to produce both support intervening in Georgia against the russians so, whatever this percentage you are pulling from, i have no idea what the other 60% of obama's places where he disagrees with Bush. honestly, if you don't disagree with bush 100% of the time, it seems like you shouldn't be quali show rest of commentof course they are not identical on a vote-for-vote basis. however.... mccain and obama both voted YES on the 700 billion dollar bailout mccain and obama both voted YES on the patriot act mccain and obama both voted YES on allowing immunity for telecoms who wiretapped their own customers for the bush administration mccain and obama both voted YES on funding the costly and immoral occupation of Iraq mccain and obama both support using preemptive military strikes to affect what type of weaponry iran is allowed to produce both support intervening in Georgia against the russians so, whatever this percentage you are pulling from, i have no idea what the other 60% of obama's places where he disagrees with Bush. honestly, if you don't disagree with bush 100% of the time, it seems like you shouldn't be qualified to be president. was this places where he didn't vote because he was out campaigning? or was it a first draft of a bill where obama didn't get the pork for his district that he wanted, so they had to restructure the bill as an ammendment, and bring it back again with more pork. the bottom line is, obama is a pro-war candidate, mccain is a pro-war candidate. obama is a civil liberties destroying monster, just like mccain. he supports wiretapping, reading your mail, and has already started intimidating media that doesn't get along with him. this idea that he is different is pure TV nonsense. hes an imperialist, even guys like howard zinn will tell ya that.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
you don't agree with stopping russia from destroying a helpless nation like georgia? you know, there was another prominent instance like that in history involving a helpless nation....
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
research who really started the conflict, and why... if georgia was so helpless, why did it attack a russian base which was in s ossetia legally due to a treaty signed by georgia, s ossetia and russia, where they would share in peacekeeping duties for a few years until the conflict was resolved... then condoleeza goes in and tells the georgian guys that if they wanna hit russia, it'll be all good, well talk the american people into it after russia responds by attacking back... next thing you know, georgia attacks russian peacekeepers who were rightfully defending per the treaty both parties signed, then they occupy s ossetia. when russia strikes back, foxnews starts churning and says that russia randomly attacked georgia. so, as that case proves, we can't use the old "hitler was bad" justification as a blank check to be policeman of t show rest of commentresearch who really started the conflict, and why... if georgia was so helpless, why did it attack a russian base which was in s ossetia legally due to a treaty signed by georgia, s ossetia and russia, where they would share in peacekeeping duties for a few years until the conflict was resolved... then condoleeza goes in and tells the georgian guys that if they wanna hit russia, it'll be all good, well talk the american people into it after russia responds by attacking back... next thing you know, georgia attacks russian peacekeepers who were rightfully defending per the treaty both parties signed, then they occupy s ossetia. when russia strikes back, foxnews starts churning and says that russia randomly attacked georgia. so, as that case proves, we can't use the old "hitler was bad" justification as a blank check to be policeman of the world. putting a whole lot more guns in an area held by people who do not speak the language, does not a crisis resolution make.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
you don't think georgia was right to try to gain full independence? well, i guess it's all about personal beliefs. how do you feel about the gaza strip?
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
georgia has full independance... what they were trying to do, is prevent s ossetia from gaining independence.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
that's not true.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
no, the part you are confusing, is by identifying s ossetia as part of georgia. it is not. that is a disputed territory, not between russia and georgia, but between s ossetia and georgia. russia was allowed to put bases on s ossetia because the treaty between the 2 countries needed a neutral peacekeeper, which russia was serving in that role.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
it doesn't look at all fishy to you that ossetia wanted its independence from georgia and then strikes a treaty with russia to allow military presence? come on. i thought you were into conspiracy.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
what are you talking about "conspiracy"?
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
they weren't fully independent. it's a tossup providence and georgia wanted it back. the conspiracy thing was a joke. i was saying that ossetia had that plan all along. i mean, israel does all sorts of fucked up shit. you don't hear any candidate denouncing them.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
lots of candidates have condemned the foreign policy of israel
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
so we should just let russia invade and kill millions of innocent people? sorry, i'm not the stand-by-and-do-nothing type.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
russia did not kill millions of people.
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
i wouldn't be so sure of that. i think they were testing the water. russia is very sneaky. and i didn't mean that they killed millions, i was indicating that it could happen.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
yes, russia is definately testing the waters, but can you blame them? putting Georgia in NATO would literally be putting a massive alliance that they are not in on their border. its a huge national security risk for them, and not one at all for us. they're in a rock and hard place position, and Sakashvili really screwed us by putting them in it... because it exposed that we are stretched too thin to do anything... basically by us snubbing georgia and not supporting them we showed the world that we are officially stretched too thin.... its a bad risk. we are in the jimmy carter foreign policy that, after vietnam and with our new middle eastern adventures, our military was worn down. reagan took advantage of it by busying the military industrial complex with stockpiling weapons for future conflicts... it is probably time for a strategy like that, where rather than show rest of commentyes, russia is definately testing the waters, but can you blame them? putting Georgia in NATO would literally be putting a massive alliance that they are not in on their border. its a huge national security risk for them, and not one at all for us. they're in a rock and hard place position, and Sakashvili really screwed us by putting them in it... because it exposed that we are stretched too thin to do anything... basically by us snubbing georgia and not supporting them we showed the world that we are officially stretched too thin.... its a bad risk. we are in the jimmy carter foreign policy that, after vietnam and with our new middle eastern adventures, our military was worn down. reagan took advantage of it by busying the military industrial complex with stockpiling weapons for future conflicts... it is probably time for a strategy like that, where rather than show our military might by attacking people, we show it by spending a ton on creative weaponry and not using it... and maybe having some press releases about fake weapons that dont exist.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
i think we need a giant dome over the u.s. at this point. i have always been for helping other nations and i think that should continue. however, there are many other nations that need help much more than georgia. and no, i can't blame russia. i would do the same thing in their position. i'm worried about me, though. i don't want "red dawn" to come true. and yes, military readiness is far superior to example by military action.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
yeah, reviewing the history of the past quarter century, it is pretty clear that of all the things you can blame REagan for(most of which, IMO, was because he had Bush and the Trilateral Commission type guys in his cabinet, who were his political enemies, and he was shot...........) the one thing which reagan did which was ingenius, was to tie up the military industrial complex with fun space weapon defensive tasks, so they wouldn't need to go to war. it was ingenius. The cold war and the arms race did more to stop war than anything in recent memory. while we do not need those types of alliances anymore, would it really be that bad if we drew down our foreign bases and focused on having a well defended border and the capability to defend ourselves from threats that actually endanger our own soil? the military makes horrible police. you need a military who is show rest of commentyeah, reviewing the history of the past quarter century, it is pretty clear that of all the things you can blame REagan for(most of which, IMO, was because he had Bush and the Trilateral Commission type guys in his cabinet, who were his political enemies, and he was shot...........) the one thing which reagan did which was ingenius, was to tie up the military industrial complex with fun space weapon defensive tasks, so they wouldn't need to go to war. it was ingenius. The cold war and the arms race did more to stop war than anything in recent memory. while we do not need those types of alliances anymore, would it really be that bad if we drew down our foreign bases and focused on having a well defended border and the capability to defend ourselves from threats that actually endanger our own soil? the military makes horrible police. you need a military who is trained to eradicate another military and then come home. anything else is a moral gray area because you have to train them to be these killers, then you send them to go give out food, some of them get the wiring all wrong and wind up doing a little bit of both, which turns into a war. that is what will happen in darfur, like it happened in somalia.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
"then condoleeza goes in and tells the georgian guys that if they wanna hit russia, it'll be all good, well talk the american people into it after russia responds by attacking back..."
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
now you have admitted that sakashvili started the war.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
"now you have admitted that sakashvili started the war."
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
i agree there is no real international law, i am a libertarian, so the only international law to me is self defense.
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
Georgia attacked first
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
and greedo shot first. what's your point?
fallingupwards84 (October 29, 2008)
that Georgia is not the innocent victim you claim it to be.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
oh, i'm well aware. i'm just scared shitless of what russia probably has in store for the world. i guess i'm a little biased because putin is insane and there's no telling what that dude will do.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
I'm pretty confident that he won't do anything. most of his tough talk is just the normal stuff that you do to show your teeth so other nations won't blast you. hes authoritarian, and he sucks, but hes not crazy, hes a gangster, yes, but who in big tim politics ISNT a gangster... people forget that you can't reach the top tier of politics without ties to extreme groups... extreme groups drive politics, and violent groups protect candidates they like. thats something you must realize about when a candidate fires a guy from his staff because of his association to a fringe group, he is not doing that just to show that he is not associated with that group, he is doing that to let the opponent know that he DOES have followers in fringe groups, so don't think you can pick up his daughter and scare her or something to get him to quit the race... he has f show rest of commentI'm pretty confident that he won't do anything. most of his tough talk is just the normal stuff that you do to show your teeth so other nations won't blast you. hes authoritarian, and he sucks, but hes not crazy, hes a gangster, yes, but who in big tim politics ISNT a gangster... people forget that you can't reach the top tier of politics without ties to extreme groups... extreme groups drive politics, and violent groups protect candidates they like. thats something you must realize about when a candidate fires a guy from his staff because of his association to a fringe group, he is not doing that just to show that he is not associated with that group, he is doing that to let the opponent know that he DOES have followers in fringe groups, so don't think you can pick up his daughter and scare her or something to get him to quit the race... he has fringe group supporters who have his back. its a two way street... why do you think the bill ayers stuff is connected to obama without that much disassociation... mccain doesn't need the help because he is obviously supported by the military... why do you think ron paul kept braggin about his support from the military in every rally... there is a certain degree of force that is required for credibility in big time government. its pretty normal, nothing you wanna let slide, but nothing to get paranoid about.
listofdemands (October 30, 2008)
let's hope putin doesn't do anything.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
ok you're never going to find a candidate that believes 100% in what you do. vote by vote i know you understand this, but i'll explain. if you run a business, you most likely need to pay your bills and employees. most business need to borrow money to do these things. if the bank has no money, they can't borrow money, and they can't pay their employees. my fiancee was laid off two weeks ago. this has hit home. the bailout bill gives banks money to lend to business to pay their employees. its a temporary solution, but i don't think we need to hit rock bottom just to prove a point. obama has also since voted for major changes on the patriot act people make mistakes, i'd rather have somebody who can admit that and make changes then a bull-headed asshole in charge. obama at least ha show rest of commentok you're never going to find a candidate that believes 100% in what you do. vote by vote i know you understand this, but i'll explain. if you run a business, you most likely need to pay your bills and employees. most business need to borrow money to do these things. if the bank has no money, they can't borrow money, and they can't pay their employees. my fiancee was laid off two weeks ago. this has hit home. the bailout bill gives banks money to lend to business to pay their employees. its a temporary solution, but i don't think we need to hit rock bottom just to prove a point. obama has also since voted for major changes on the patriot act people make mistakes, i'd rather have somebody who can admit that and make changes then a bull-headed asshole in charge. obama at least has a plan to leave iraq. he admits his mistake and wants to fix things. i've never heard obama speak of preemptive strikes. in fact, the republican's biggest criticism for him is that he wants to talk things out with iIran
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
backed.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
obama talks regularly how a nuclear weapon in the hands of iran would be blah blah blah we must do "Whatever it takes" the main meltdown in this scene is when the debate question in the primary of whether we would take the nuclear option off the table with dealing with iran developing a nuclear programme, which obama said we cannot take any option off the table... to which mike gravel told everyone that that is a code word for a preemptive nuclear strike, which it is... gravel then gave the famous "who do you want to nuke" line http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTO5x0rlJJo there are countless examples of obama approving of the bush doctrine, including his going on bill oreilly and saying that the "surge worked".... he is all bush when it comes to war, he just prefers that show rest of commentobama talks regularly how a nuclear weapon in the hands of iran would be blah blah blah we must do "Whatever it takes" the main meltdown in this scene is when the debate question in the primary of whether we would take the nuclear option off the table with dealing with iran developing a nuclear programme, which obama said we cannot take any option off the table... to which mike gravel told everyone that that is a code word for a preemptive nuclear strike, which it is... gravel then gave the famous "who do you want to nuke" line http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTO5x0rlJJo there are countless examples of obama approving of the bush doctrine, including his going on bill oreilly and saying that the "surge worked".... he is all bush when it comes to war, he just prefers that we take the iraq war, and place it in pakistan, a more powerful nuclear weapons having ally.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
btw, i never said that you shouldn't vote for obama if you honestly listen to everything he says, review his voting record, including the votes that are similar with george bush, and don't mind and would like to elect him. that is an informed choice. but you have to admit that a good portion of the people voting for obama just simply believes he is anti-war and will end iraq immediately, and do not understand the sophisticated underpinnings of the choices of advisors he has taken on, such as brezenski, the guy who thought funding the taliban to fight the soviets in afghanistan was a good idea. i think that the majority of americans probably believe that obama is going to be far more radical shift from george bush's doctrine than he really is, and are going to be badly disappointed if they don't educate themselves first. if you like obama's brand of ch show rest of commentbtw, i never said that you shouldn't vote for obama if you honestly listen to everything he says, review his voting record, including the votes that are similar with george bush, and don't mind and would like to elect him. that is an informed choice. but you have to admit that a good portion of the people voting for obama just simply believes he is anti-war and will end iraq immediately, and do not understand the sophisticated underpinnings of the choices of advisors he has taken on, such as brezenski, the guy who thought funding the taliban to fight the soviets in afghanistan was a good idea. i think that the majority of americans probably believe that obama is going to be far more radical shift from george bush's doctrine than he really is, and are going to be badly disappointed if they don't educate themselves first. if you like obama's brand of change, which is a change of management style of the US economy, and a change of rhetorhical style when it comes to being policemen of the world, then feel free. i can see the argument there that he would be better than bush. he is a better talker, comes across more eloquent, and some nations might interact better with us. maybe the administration he chooses will abuse power in a different way than bush, and in a way that harms people less, maybe thats the case... but most people are unaware that we could have change, not on a level of what style of management we are doing of the world economy and war and peace, but on what level of power we are giving to a small handful of people to decide things for us. vote for what you like, my point is that you need to actually know all the choices, before you make your decision.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
i could get into a long-winded essay about how Obama and McCain differ on the issues, but frankly, i don't really care at the moment. "mccain and obama both voted YES on funding the costly and immoral occupation of Iraq" This is a really stupid point. Without a resolution to reduce troop levels, you simply cannot just "stop sending money". As long as the troops are there they need supplies, they need fuel, they need ammunition. Plus it would be electoral suicide to do otherwise. "mccain and obama both support using preemptive military strikes to affect what type of weaponry iran is allowed to produce" First off, that is a total miss-representation of Obama's position. He favors aggressive diplomacy and negotiation without pre-conditions to try and defuse the situation. Just because he refuses to dismiss the issue of military strikes show rest of commenti could get into a long-winded essay about how Obama and McCain differ on the issues, but frankly, i don't really care at the moment. "mccain and obama both voted YES on funding the costly and immoral occupation of Iraq" This is a really stupid point. Without a resolution to reduce troop levels, you simply cannot just "stop sending money". As long as the troops are there they need supplies, they need fuel, they need ammunition. Plus it would be electoral suicide to do otherwise. "mccain and obama both support using preemptive military strikes to affect what type of weaponry iran is allowed to produce" First off, that is a total miss-representation of Obama's position. He favors aggressive diplomacy and negotiation without pre-conditions to try and defuse the situation. Just because he refuses to dismiss the issue of military strikes does not necessarily mean he is in favor of them. McCain on the other hand..... "both support intervening in Georgia against the russians" Again, another total mis-representation of Obama's position. Argues that aggressive diplomacy and other measures were needed to prevent the conflict from escalating. You're making it sound as if he wants to send in the 10th Airborne Division to beat off the Russian invaders, it's not his position at all.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
"This is a really stupid point. Without a resolution to reduce troop levels, you simply cannot just "stop sending money". As long as the troops are there they need supplies, they need fuel, they need ammunition. Plus it would be electoral suicide to do otherwise." this is incredibly untrue. all of the budget appropriations for the military are done a fiscal year in advance. if you do not fund the next years occupation fiscal requirements for the effort in iraq, then the current years budget will be spent to bring the troops home. that is simply not how appropriations work. you do not have to appropriate troop levels in congress, congress simply determines who we are at war with and who we are not at war with. the congress successfully defunded the conflict with the contras in the 80s when reagan was in office, this was an example of congress using the power of t show rest of comment"This is a really stupid point. Without a resolution to reduce troop levels, you simply cannot just "stop sending money". As long as the troops are there they need supplies, they need fuel, they need ammunition. Plus it would be electoral suicide to do otherwise." this is incredibly untrue. all of the budget appropriations for the military are done a fiscal year in advance. if you do not fund the next years occupation fiscal requirements for the effort in iraq, then the current years budget will be spent to bring the troops home. that is simply not how appropriations work. you do not have to appropriate troop levels in congress, congress simply determines who we are at war with and who we are not at war with. the congress successfully defunded the conflict with the contras in the 80s when reagan was in office, this was an example of congress using the power of the purse to end a conflict it did not like. it was done simply by removing the funding. that belief that troops would actually remain in a warzone without pay and without weaponry if congress failed to appropriate the funds for the troops is democrat pro-war kool aide. i dare the president to try and suggest to a general that his pay will be drying up at the end of the fiscal year, but that hes not allowed to appropriate moneys to bring himself and his boys home.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
you simply do not understand what aggressive diplomacy means. if you participate in aggressive diplomacy, you have to back that up by showing force. obama has to even far more than bush does. clinton did the same thing, he went into several countries dropping cluster bombs... his death toll rivals that of bush. why do we need to use "aggressive diplomacy" packed with threats of "nuclear first strikes" to deal with iran, a weak third world country with no nuclear programme whose neighbor and enemy has a far superior military and 200 nuclear weapons. why do we need to use war hawk george bush language against russia about a conflict involving one of their neighbors and a legitimate national security concern for them that has literally nothing to do with the united states. this is imperialism. if all obama plans on doing is bluffing and not using force show rest of commentyou simply do not understand what aggressive diplomacy means. if you participate in aggressive diplomacy, you have to back that up by showing force. obama has to even far more than bush does. clinton did the same thing, he went into several countries dropping cluster bombs... his death toll rivals that of bush. why do we need to use "aggressive diplomacy" packed with threats of "nuclear first strikes" to deal with iran, a weak third world country with no nuclear programme whose neighbor and enemy has a far superior military and 200 nuclear weapons. why do we need to use war hawk george bush language against russia about a conflict involving one of their neighbors and a legitimate national security concern for them that has literally nothing to do with the united states. this is imperialism. if all obama plans on doing is bluffing and not using force and having "aggressive negotiations" then one of these guys is going to test him with something, and well be at war, with no troops. he has even said things that seem to indicate he would support a draft. i mean, if you're right, and hes so charming he can create world peace just by threatening to nuke everyone and not following through, then 8 years from now i will apologize for my misconception. however, if a few months from now we are still in iraq, a pure occupation with absolutely no end-game goal, and we are embroiled in some kind of occupation in a new nation, such as syria, darfur, georgia, iran, etc, then you will see that obama is the same as bush is the same as clinton.... they allb elieve the US is a proper policeman of the world. there are millions dead in kosovo, somalia, iraq, panama, and many other nations who would love to have their lives back before we stepped in and "saved them" and "gave them freedom"
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
You see the problem with this discussion is that you appear to be an isolationist (you are a libertarian after all?) and i am a Liberal internationalism thus all we are going to do is go around and around in pointless debate. So alas, i feel as if we're going to have to agree to disagree.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
*Liberal Internationalist* not Liberal internationalism
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
liberal interventionist.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
wrong, i am a non-interventionist. there is a MASSIVE difference.
sugarfull (October 28, 2008)
what's the difference? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm actually pretty curious.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. 2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism isolati onists are typically non interventionist, however non interventionists are not necessarily isolationist. i am not isolationist, i think the nation should trade with everyone and talk with everyone, just not give out war guarantees and run around threatening m show rest of comment"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. 2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism isolati onists are typically non interventionist, however non interventionists are not necessarily isolationist. i am not isolationist, i think the nation should trade with everyone and talk with everyone, just not give out war guarantees and run around threatening military action over stuff that isn't a defensive response.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
isolationists believe in a non interventionist foreign policy combined with a protectionist anti trade policy... non interventionists simply believe in a defense only military foreign policy, it does not mean that you favor protectionism, and therefor is not by any means isolationism.
Splendidtune (October 28, 2008)
You are an idiot. Barack was against the war in Iraq from the start, and is against war in Iran.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2” “2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).” “2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.” “4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, show rest of comment“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2” “2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).” “2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.” “4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107” “4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 ” “7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 .” “9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.” “10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 .” “11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. .” “12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. ” “5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 .” “5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 .” “6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 .” “6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 .” “6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 ” “6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 ” “6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183.” “6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 . 9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 ” “9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 .” “11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 .” “12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 ” “Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 ...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”
conebone69 (October 28, 2008)
Fuck Nader...
Banal242 (October 28, 2008)
Wooo! Swing state baby.
northdakotaKILLS (October 28, 2008)
north dakota is a swing state right now. if this state goes obama, that will be amazing
MilesQToast (October 28, 2008)
I just want matt damon and obama campaign workers to stop calling me every single day about voting early.
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
so when Obama invades Pakistan and starts a war with either Iran or Russia, can I blame you guys for not voting on principle and only voting for the lesser of two evils? 14+ Replies
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
we don't have the capacity to invade anyone right now. so i don't think you'll be blaming anyone.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
didn't stop "guns and butter" lyndon johnson from doing it, and doens't stop obama from talking about it.
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
when Barack says he's "bringing the troops home" from Iraq, what he really means is he will relocate the troops to another country, Afghanistan being the first victim.
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
and we all know what the "responsibly" in "end the war responsibly" means.... it means never... obama said he would bring the troops back if al qaeda formed a base in iraq... al qaeda formed a base in iraq the minute we started occupying it... its a chicken and egg scenario which allow shim to keep troops there forever.
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
I really can't tell if you're joking or not.
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
well lets see - he's already said he's willing to invade Pakistan
jacknife737 (October 28, 2008)
Well old chap, he said he'd strike at targets in Pakistan, which too me is a wee bit different from an "invasion", but i suppose that's an argument over semantics.
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
ok, he wants to attack a sovereign country which would ultimately kill at least a few hundred lives (probably more). that's punk!
miniblindbandit (October 28, 2008)
barrydonegan (October 28, 2008)
yes, that is how it works.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
the "lesser of two evils" thing is such a fucking cliche. get over it. do you really believe that barack obama is evil?
IamMclovin (October 28, 2008)
"both of these guys are running with the best intentions to help americans" Yeah, because politicans have been proving for a long time that they are truly looking out for all of us.
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
i didn't say "politicians"
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
i didn't literally mean "evil"... its an expression, you know that
the_other_scott (October 28, 2008)
what about their campaigns makes you not believe that?
fallingupwards84 (October 28, 2008)
of course... they don't really care about average Americans, they want power
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
how many times have you met with either of them? i'm not trying to be a dick, but you're making a generalization (mostly warranted) and i think that sometimes politicians do have good intentions.
jacknife737 (October 29, 2008)
I second this.
fallingupwards84 (October 29, 2008)
are you guys really that gullible? to believe that Obama and McCain really really mean it when they say they want average Americans to do better in the next four years, moreso than they just want power?
jacknife737 (October 29, 2008)
No, i just feel as if its absurd to make sweeping generalizations.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
sorry i'm not a total fucking cynic. i can be "punk" (whatever the fuck that means now) and still be a patriot. it's not like i'm some right wing nutjob, i just still have an inkling of faith left in people politician or not. that's just the way i am. so go be angry about everything political and i'll try to remain positive. i just want things to be fixed and, last i checked, democrats weren't the ones completely writing off their base. i would love for a third party to gain ground, but until they get their base to get their shit together it's not going to happen. there are far too many third parties for everyone to be happy. everyone wants good things to happen for their country, it's just that i would rather have obama than mccain. it's as simple as that. and about the power thing, if i were running for president, i'd be scared out of my mind about the middle and poo show rest of commentsorry i'm not a total fucking cynic. i can be "punk" (whatever the fuck that means now) and still be a patriot. it's not like i'm some right wing nutjob, i just still have an inkling of faith left in people politician or not. that's just the way i am. so go be angry about everything political and i'll try to remain positive. i just want things to be fixed and, last i checked, democrats weren't the ones completely writing off their base. i would love for a third party to gain ground, but until they get their base to get their shit together it's not going to happen. there are far too many third parties for everyone to be happy. everyone wants good things to happen for their country, it's just that i would rather have obama than mccain. it's as simple as that. and about the power thing, if i were running for president, i'd be scared out of my mind about the middle and poor classes rising up and kicking my ass out of power. so, i'd definitely aekm good on promises of a better tomorrow. -nic
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
*make
fallingupwards84 (October 29, 2008)
the poor and the middle classes in this country will never rise up... if they didn't during slavery and the Industrial Revolution, they're sure as hell not going to do it now
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
fine with me.
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
some do, but its not those two. generally if the decision that a politician makes reduces their power short term, but sounds like the right thing to do, then they are the type you are describing. cynthia mckinney speaking out against bush in 2002 sounds like that type of thing. ron paul's opposition to pretty much every shitty thing the government has done for 30 years despite being rediculed sounds like that type of thing. dennis kucinich impeachment proceedings for Bush sounds like that type of thing. look at the actions of thaddeus mccotter, brad sherman, marcey kaptur, speaking out hard against the bailout. look at mike gravel in the democratic debates playing the role of keeping the democratic party honest... look even at richard shelby and bernie sanders in the senate lately standing up against bush/pelosi/paulson theft of the entire economy... pretty much every show rest of commentsome do, but its not those two. generally if the decision that a politician makes reduces their power short term, but sounds like the right thing to do, then they are the type you are describing. cynthia mckinney speaking out against bush in 2002 sounds like that type of thing. ron paul's opposition to pretty much every shitty thing the government has done for 30 years despite being rediculed sounds like that type of thing. dennis kucinich impeachment proceedings for Bush sounds like that type of thing. look at the actions of thaddeus mccotter, brad sherman, marcey kaptur, speaking out hard against the bailout. look at mike gravel in the democratic debates playing the role of keeping the democratic party honest... look even at richard shelby and bernie sanders in the senate lately standing up against bush/pelosi/paulson theft of the entire economy... pretty much every congressman who voted against the bail out in either party took a serious hit to their campaign coffers the very next day, and their opponent became rich as shit. you can tell who is doing the right thing... just go look at opensecrets.org and see whats going on with their money... it'll be pretty obvious who the good guys are.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
well, i know who i wanted for the democratic nominee and unfortunately he didn't make the cut.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
I agree with you 100%. It's really a matter of your personal belief system, not who is evil and who isn't.
ToddRundgren (October 29, 2008)
You actually are completely right. Most politicians actually run with the best intentions and serve with the best intentions. Yes, there are highly corrupt politicians, but there are in every field, I mean look at Against Me! There is nothing wrong with working to serve the best interests and further your own career. That is why most people do what they do, they enjoy it, but they also want to better ones self as well. In fact several studies done have shown those elected into office, specifically the executive office have consistently shown they have tried to implement the policies they promised, but policy implementation is very very difficult thing to achieve as getting a bill passed we all know is very complicated due to competing interests. Most are there to do the best job they can do, and there is a handful there only for their own corrupt selfis show rest of commentYou actually are completely right. Most politicians actually run with the best intentions and serve with the best intentions. Yes, there are highly corrupt politicians, but there are in every field, I mean look at Against Me! There is nothing wrong with working to serve the best interests and further your own career. That is why most people do what they do, they enjoy it, but they also want to better ones self as well. In fact several studies done have shown those elected into office, specifically the executive office have consistently shown they have tried to implement the policies they promised, but policy implementation is very very difficult thing to achieve as getting a bill passed we all know is very complicated due to competing interests. Most are there to do the best job they can do, and there is a handful there only for their own corrupt selfish reasons. But if they really wanted money they would not be politicians they would go into other fields.
TROOF (October 28, 2008)
Dude just drink the Obama kool-aid already.
Guy_Incognito (October 29, 2008)
I don't really see that as a very likely scenario. The most likely "disaster" scenario is that Obama will raise taxes and spur on a new age of capital flight from this country and a continued decline of the economy and standard of living. It cracks me up when people think they can simply redistribute wealth without any consequences. We live in a highly mobile global society. Taxes are nothing more than a cost item on an income statement to a business that get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Corporations don't pay tax, it's as simple as that. There is absolutely no way around this. Higher restrictions and regulations on corporations will simply cause them to leave and setup shop elsewhere where these costs do not exist. It should be no suprise that a pile of middle class jobs have moved to China and Mexico in show rest of commentI don't really see that as a very likely scenario. The most likely "disaster" scenario is that Obama will raise taxes and spur on a new age of capital flight from this country and a continued decline of the economy and standard of living. It cracks me up when people think they can simply redistribute wealth without any consequences. We live in a highly mobile global society. Taxes are nothing more than a cost item on an income statement to a business that get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Corporations don't pay tax, it's as simple as that. There is absolutely no way around this. Higher restrictions and regulations on corporations will simply cause them to leave and setup shop elsewhere where these costs do not exist. It should be no suprise that a pile of middle class jobs have moved to China and Mexico in the past 10 years. We've literally drove the middle class out of the country with all of our well intentioned policies. You can't call me out on this one. I've literally been to an American plant one year and then went down to visit a Mexican plant the next year where all the work was being moved to. I've seen it from point A to point B. The unions and government regulations literally escorted all of that work right out of the country. These were good paying middle class jobs with full benefits like health care and retirement too. I'm not a McCain fan, but Obama is going to accelerate this so fast it will make your headspin. The only way to improve the lives of average people is to have a system that ENCOURAGES investment and development. I fail to see how higher taxes and regulations on the "Evil Rich Corporations and Fat Cats" is going to attract that kind of investment to this country. We've been working our asses off for the past 16 years to kill the system that feeds us and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Ireland has it all figured out. University Education is free and they have all but eliminated corporate taxes. So they have a highly motivated and educated workforce combined with a business friendly tax structure. Is it any suprise that they have a considerably higher GDPPP (Gross Domestic Product Per Person) than any of their neighbors like the UK, France, and Germany?
KatieBands (October 28, 2008)
If you're a college student, you can find an absentee voter ballot if you google the government site for your state. You have to already be registered at home, although. 2+ Replies
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
yeah, we'll get right on that. tool.
Splendidtune (October 28, 2008)
Joke?
Cyanotic (October 28, 2008)
Has anyone else noticed that the candidates, the people running their campaigns, and the news media itself are all using the word "fundamental" every five seconds? 2+ Replies
listofdemands (October 28, 2008)
thank you. a few words i never want to hear again...
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
actionable.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
and one more...
barrydonegan (October 29, 2008)
who the fuck lives and works on main stree tanyway.. most main streets seem to have government shit going on on them.
listofdemands (October 29, 2008)
and therein lies the rub. | Features
Previous
Exclusive StreamsNewest Reviews
Punknews.org TeamManaging EditorAdam WhiteNews EditorsKira WisniewskiBrittany Strummer Andrew Waterfield Katy Hardy Matthew Baldwin Armando Olivas John Flynn Video EditorChris MoranSocial Media EditorJustin AugustCopy EditorAmelia ClineReviews EditorJoe PeloneInterviews EditorRichard VerducciPublisherAubin PaulISSN 1710-5366© Copyright 1999-2012 Punknews.org Other Places to Go
Punknews.org Flickr Pool |
The Sidekicks
Useless ID
Gleam Garden
Shit Creek
Caseracer
Sonic Avenues
Burning Bridges
Authority Zero
Voodoo Glow Skulls
Primary
Machine Head / Suicide Silence / Darkest Hour
![Averkiou The New Imperative [7-inch]](http://static.punknews.org/covers/thumb/averkiou-the-new-imperative-ep.jpg)
Averkiou
Marc Strömberg
Shambles
The Mighty Mighty Bosstones
Tombs
Hidden Hospitals
Jaws
I just met a stoner that supports McCain...
I'm rather perplexed.