Yes, I just chose that thread title to get attention. We haven't had a good political thread in a while. Thought it was time I started one.
The GOP has severely pissed me off. Bush was bad enough, but he was just one man. The Republican congress gave him everything he wanted, though, so I couldn't support them any more. I had some hope the Democrats might fix things, but they got control of Congress and STILL give Bush everything he wants. Then I thought, maybe Obama will be different. But the FISA debacle proved that wrong. I still hope he beats McCain, but I don't have much hope for what he does after that.
So I've come to a decision. My primary political goal as of this date is to escape the two-party system. Unless someone really catches my attention, I will no longer be voting for Democrat or Republican candidates. I am presently planning on officially joining the Libertarian party, and I will likely vote for their candidates where available. Failing that, I will vote Green, Constitution, any independent, or even write-in. But I will not vote for a GOP or Dem candidate any more.
I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil. Neither side represents me, and I'm done with them. I encourage any American voter here to make the same decision. If you want to vote "none of the above", this is the only effective way to do it.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Unfortunately, this kind of apathy is the reason why voter turnout in Canada has been quite low. Truthfully, I had not voted in the last several elections, provincial of federal, on the basis that none of the political parties seem to cater to what I believe are priorities needed where I live.
Partisan politics is alive and well. On both sides of the border. And as you can see, either everyone else loses or gets pissed off with politics in general that they don't bother to vote.
As for this particular contest? I don't want McCain, and Obama hasn't convinced me that he deserves to be president. So here I sit with a harumph and a shrug and retreat to my hole here in the Great White North.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Aye, I'm feeling you mate. Totally agree on everything you said, especially about the two-party system. It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it, because in all honesty the world isn't black and white, there has to be some gray in there too.
For instance: I'm not cool on abortion, but gay marriage seems perfectly fine to me. I wouldn't belong anywhere.
Problem with the two-party system is that the GOP and the Dem's have all the money. It's almost impossible to set up another party with good funding for advertising and etc. (on that note, both Dem's and GOP seem to get a lot of funding from the big oil companies as well...).
I heard Bloomberg was making a new party though, just some hope to throw in.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I'm a libertarian, but not a Libertarian. I mean, I believe in small government and personal choice, but not necessarily the specific issues and platforms of the official Libertarian Party.
As for politics, mehhh. I don't believe anything changes on the whole. King or President, Democrat or Republican, it's all the same - people on the top ass-raping the people on the bottom. And could it be any different? Not unless we were other than - better than - human. Power corrupts, after all.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I here now quote General Thade....
"KILL THEM......ALL!"
Seriously, I am a conservative myself but am PO'd at what has occurred in this last administration. But I like The Obamination even less. People have the mistaken belief that he will bring 'change' without really asking whether or not those changes will be good for America. ANYTHING that furthers government influence, and increases addiction to welfare will not be beneficial. It is also pointless to try to rationalize with an ideology that is hell-bent on the destruction of your way of life. That being the case I see no option but the lesser of two evils. And that royally 'pulls vacuum'.
I have said for several years now that I think there will be a second American Civil War and the way things are progressing and the way the American people become more and more polarized it seems to be a real possibility.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
See? A conservative who doesn't seem to like government influence. Obviously not a Republican ideal
I'm irritated whenever someone claims any president will bring 'change.' They seem to forget the real power for change resides in the legislative branch. Sure, the president has some de facto power to influence the rest of the government (and Bush proved to me he can fuck with the rules a lot and nobody will do anything) but real lasting change of fundamental problems would really need a major law, or even a Constitutional amendment.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't have any problems with the Democratic Party, I just wish they had a backbone. They had a chance to challenge Bush's authority and really change our country's situation, but all they did was fall like reeds in the wind. They're also failed to do anything about The Iraq War and our over dependence on oil. And what ever happened to Osama bin Laden. It's amazing how they've forgotten about a man responsible for the death on 3000+ people. And today, I heard Al-Qeada are pretty much retaking Afghanistan. Damn it gets frustrating.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The problem with voting for minor parties is that, pragmatically speaking, they're not going to win. I have no reservations about predicting that Bob Barr will not be the next president of the US. Now, if doesn't matter to you who wins, then that's fine. Vote for anyone you feel like, and the eventual outcome won't make any difference to you. But, as I see it, there's a major substantive difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. If McCain becomes president, the country will almost certainly continue the way it has for the past 7.5 years. Some of the current problems could become all but irreversible, especially given the imminent open seats on the Supreme Court.
Personally, I find Obama's vote on the FISA Amendments Act absolutely despicable. But it's a single issue. I'm still going to vote for him because, if I don't, and enough people do the same, McCain wins. And then we all lose.
Idealism is great and all, but there are times when the cost of sticking to it is likely to be far too great.
"It is also pointless to try to rationalize with an ideology that is hell-bent on the destruction of your way of life."
You do realize that this country doesn't get targeted by Middle Eastern terrorists because we eat McDonald's and listen to rock-and-roll, right? And they don't hate our "freedom" (what's left of it, anyway). They attack us because we've been coming over and fucking around with their part of the world for the past ninety years.
I mean, by now, it's probably escalated to the point where even leaving them alone wouldn't fix things. But their reasoning was never "Hey, those westerners act differently than we do. This cannot stand!" It was more like "Hey, those westerners keep overthrowing our governments and taking away our land and resources. Let's go fuck them up."
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Islam is still a religion that says: "You are a follower of Islam or you are an infidel" And the result of the latter is not pleasant.
The strict adherents to Islamic doctrine will not be appeased till the entire planet is ran by Islamic governments and those that are Jews and Christians are no longer.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:The problem with voting for minor parties is that, pragmatically speaking, they're not going to win. I have no reservations about predicting that Bob Barr will not be the next president of the US. Now, if doesn't matter to you who wins, then that's fine. Vote for anyone you feel like, and the eventual outcome won't make any difference to you. But, as I see it, there's a major substantive difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. If McCain becomes president, the country will almost certainly continue the way it has for the past 7.5 years. Some of the current problems could become all but irreversible, especially given the imminent open seats on the Supreme Court.
While true, it's also important to note that the President is not supposed to run the country single-handedly. It's not just the Presidential election I'm talking about, it's almost the entirety of Congress that needs to be replaced. We need a Congress that will stand up to the President when he's wrong, no matter what parties are involved. If you still feel the need to vote for Obama, you can still consider voting third party or independent for other offices.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: Islam is still a religion that says: "You are a follower of Islam or you are an infidel" And the result of the latter is not pleasant.
The strict adherents to Islamic doctrine will not be appeased till the entire planet is ran by Islamic governments and those that are Jews and Christians are no longer.
But isn't that the main idea of all religions? They all claim to be the only true way.
Posted by Ahkileez (Member # 734) on :
Actually, most religions are content to leave others alone if they aren't believers. They don't usually take up a combative stance toward them.
Believing one's religion is the only true way, doesn't require you to view a non-believer as the enemy. If that were so, we'd be at eachother's throats every minute of every day - but we're not.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Yeah, only Islam hates other religions and wants to blow them up. *cough* Belfast *cough* Crusades *cough* Inquisition *cough* Puritans *cough* Sorry, bit of a sore throat today...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Please take it outside. Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Yes, please keep the religious debates out of this thread. I'd hate to have to lock Omega's lovely political thread.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yeah, come on, people. You know that threads around here must address one topic and one topic only.
"If you still feel the need to vote for Obama, you can still consider voting third party or independent for other offices."
Except, it's the same problem. You say you don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. But, when it's a foregone conclusion that one of those two "evils" is going to win, then not voting for the lesser one just paves the way for the greater one to take over. In all branches and at all levels of government.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It's not always a foregone conclusion, though. Libertarians and Greens already hold dozens or hundreds of offices across the country. Their recent court victories have granted them ballot access in new states, further increasing their recognition. And under any circumstances, it's only of concern whether the greater evil wins when there's a significant difference between the two. In cases where candidates don't represent their constituency and don't live up to their campaign promises, there's frequently not.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
"When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for ... um, evil."
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I say let's all vote for a write-in: Satan.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It's not always a foregone conclusion, though."
Almost always, though. If you happen to be voting in a race where a minor party candidate is actually capable of winning, then I say go for it. But typically, that's not going to be the case. Or anywhere close to the case.
"And under any circumstances, it's only of concern whether the greater evil wins when there's a significant difference between the two. In cases where candidates don't represent their constituency and don't live up to their campaign promises, there's frequently not."
See, that's why I didn't vote in the 2000 presidential election. Been regretting that one for a while.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: Islam is still a religion that says: "You are a follower of Islam or you are an infidel" And the result of the latter is not pleasant.
The strict adherents to Islamic doctrine will not be appeased till the entire planet is ran by Islamic governments and those that are Jews and Christians are no longer.
As he's already acknowledged, Wiz is a conservative. It just would have been a nice change to meet one who didn't spout this drivel.
"Infidel" means "non-believer." So, yes, someone who doesn't believe in Allah is a non-believer. The term however dervies from old French and was probably applied first to Saracens during the Crusades - Muslims, in other words.
Now, Islam is actually quite a tolerant religion. It is, as ever, the extremists who get the attention. Christianity also had its extremists, still does, but a lot of that is in our past (The Crusades,against Islamic presence in the Holy Land but also against the Albigensian Heresy and many, many others; the Inquisition; witch-burning; hundreds of years of Colonial missionary activities; and lots more).
Islamic extremism has gained its prominence in reaction to the incursion of foreign mores in the Information Age, as well as resentment of Western interference in their affairs.
So, what this boils down to is, you have two polarised groups of socio-religious conservatives both saying "if you're not with us, you're aganist us," with the rest us a silent majority.
Meanwhile, to get back to the original political point of this thread, it seems to me that the big problem is there's very little to separate the two main parties. What decides who you vote for is the other stuff - in the US, it's the perceived connection between the Republicans and the Religious Right, or that between the Democrats and a Welfare State; in the UK, it's the connection between the Conservatives and the aristocracy, or between Labour and the Unions. Putting all that aside, the policies of either party vary very little.
In the UK we have the same problem as Omega. Labour just aren't doing it for me anymore. But I know that the Conservatives will be even worse. We do at least have a third party with some clout, the Liberal Democrats, but many refuse to see them as a viable option. The usual "they'll never get enough votes overall, so why should I waste my vote on them?" opinion pervades.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
We get the same situations here. Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats. The NDP has yet to get a majority to win the prime minister spot. Hell, we haven't ever even had an NDP premier out this side of the country...
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Now, Islam is actually quite a tolerant religion. It is, as ever, the extremists who get the attention.
Lee, who typically ends up in power or holds the most sway in the Islamic nations?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...who typically ends up in power or holds the most sway in the Islamic nations?"
Well, that depends upon the country. Yeah, in some place like Iran or (formerly) Afghanistan, it was the religious extremists. But, then again, both of those were our fault.
Surely you're not going to suggest that, say, the king of Jordan, or the dictator of Pakistan, or the king of Saudi Arabia is a religious extremist?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Or the government of Qatar? I have a friend who lives there. Women can vote and drive and everything, and nobody stabs the numerous white Christians in the streets. (Yes, I'm trying to inject a note of humor here...)
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
And lets not forget that an extremist Islamic government in the UAE would never let something like Dubai exist...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I say let's all vote for a write-in: Satan.
Just vote for me. Just remember: W.W.J.D. What Would Jason Do.
That's sure to make society in general much better for everyone.
I'd brainwa....er...reform terrorists with 24/7 Trek indoctrination untill they only jihad on Cardassians.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I'm tired of democracy, I want a totalitarian dictatorship.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Shhhh, Bush will hear you.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Regarding tolerance: Most people forget that Islamic doctrine (it could even be in the Qu'ran, though I'm not certain about that) specifies that forced conversions aren't really conversions, and it wasn't a requirement for people following other faiths to convert once they were conquered/annexed by the Arabs. They were merely required to pay an additional tax. (Which, by contemporary standards, is remarkable.)
Naturally, the ideal was rarely adhered to in actual practice. Either in the short term (violent repression of certain groups) or the long term (inevitable religious assimilation). But that's simply human nature; it's been the same in every part of the world.
Or to put it another way: until the 20th century, politics and religion were simply two sides of the same coin. You never had one without the other.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I still can't get over comparing 2008-Omega to 2000-Omega. Crazy.
I'm with Lee on our politics here. Some of Brown's recent actions, like his insistence on wanting to hold people for 42-days, I just can't agree with. But Cameron is just...urgh. I have no idea what to do.
I agree with Tim overall though. You can either vote for someone you disagree with 40% of the time, or someone you disagree with 90% of the time. Or you can vote for someone you agree with 90% of the time who will almost certainly not win. Do you want to gamble on not letting the 40% guy in?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Good question- is it better to nobly throw your vote away and make a statement or vote the lesser evil and hope for the best?
That's how I felt last election- hated Kerry in general but despised Bush on everything.
As to Islam and the whole "infidel" thing, it's funny from a histrical perspective- the radical Ialamic nuts are acting like Christians of a few hundred years back. A temporal window into intolerance and hate.
Christians mellowed out overall, maybe Islam will too...just in time for someome other elief to go all nutty.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
I have a general belief that religion skrews up everything when it comes to politics. Founding fathers specifically stated freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Drives me crazy how all the news networks pine over whether or not Obama's a Muslim... Because ALL Muslims are terrorists obviously.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'd probably already be moving to Scotland - in preparation for the Conservatives winning the next General Election, which will certainly lead to a successful referedum by the SNP to declare independence. But at present the figures don't add up as to whether an independent Scotland would be able to maintain its current levels of social spending. Plus we just spent £30K re-doing our house, and the way prices are dropping this is not the time to sell.
Incidentally Labour just lost a really safe seat in a by-election in Scotland, with the SNP overturning a 13,000 majority. That's the 3rd Labour by-election defeat in 9 weeks. Those Tory fucks are going to get in again, I just know it. And I see a lot of younger people who don't remember how awful it was last time putting their faith in the Conservatives. They honestly think that they will abandon ID cards, 42-day internment etc. "because they're libertarians." They need to get real - no government ever willingly gives up its powers or ways fo controlling people. And once they're in - it's (Tory) business as usual: cutting health care, school spending, etc., all paid for by tax cuts which benefit only the richest. It'll be a dsiaster, and I don't know how far they'll go - they were genuinely shocked when they lost in 1997, regarding themselves as the "natural party of government" (translation: we deserve to rule because we're best at it (translation: we deserve to rule because we're better than you)), Christ knows what they'll do to avoid having another shock like that again. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Make up your own sci-fi based special intrest group with hundreds of (fake) members in your local voting area and demand unreasonable concessions for your group's vote. Garbage men having to wear communicator badges with each truck getting a name and NCC number would be a good start.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
What exactly are the SNP's plans once they declare independence and stop getting subsidised by the rest of the country, anyway?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
To call Mel GIBSON! (sic)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He'd be like a Scottish Sean Connery!
Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
I am still in shock.
Ommeylad, every considered compulsory voting?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I just hope that if the SNP get's it's way, it means we'll be able the have our country run by non-Scots for a change. Seriously, Parliament is full of the buggers, we should be the one's campaigning for independence from Scotland.
Oh and Lee, I am THIS close to voting Tory next election. Not because I thought they were oh so much fun the last time round or anything - Maggie bless her iron heart nearly pushed us to the brink of civil war - but I've never seen or heard of a government this blatantly incompetent or so obviously corrupt as this one. My usual response is to vote Lib-Dem as always (though I know they'll never win) but next time round, I'm more concerned about the likes of the BNP getting more support than I'm comfortable with than letting the Eaton boys back in.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Gasp. Daryus.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...but I've never seen or heard of a government this blatantly incompetent or so obviously corrupt as this one."
I assume you mean "a British government". Because, if not, I could point out that we've got you beat over here right now, just for one example.
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"...but I've never seen or heard of a government this blatantly incompetent or so obviously corrupt as this one."
I assume you mean "a British government". Because, if not, I could point out that we've got you beat over here right now, just for one example.
Given recent history I'd have to agree with you on that one. But right at this moment, and particularly in the area of press relations, the current British government is just unfathomably bad. For example, this week our chancellor has managed to bugger the housing market even more by refusing to rule out a previously unthinkable 'holiday' on stamp duty (People are now refusing to buy and sell property on the tiny chance they can save several thousand pounds, which reinforces the current problems in the British market that too few transactions are being carried out). The amount of dithering and indecision by our government is unbelievable. I find it ironic that the one of the things I most disliked about Blair - his slick media image and iron control of the press - is now the thing I miss most about him. How the hell has Brown managed to screw things up so badly? It's not like he's come up with any truly awful policies and yet he's managing to bore his way into an early grave.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Daryus!
Comedial over here came up with a great McCain gag the other day - that the best candidate the Republicans could come up with is an old guy who everybody thought was much worse than Bush even 8 years ago. . .
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hmmm.... Screwing up the housing market versus chucking brown people in prison without charge indefinitely and approving horrific tortures upon them such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding... I still think we have you beat Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
Greetings all. Good to be back
Mr Butler does have a point.
I am just seeing some very intersting parrellels between Obama and our new PM, Kevin Rudd.
Rudd was literally swept to power on the promise of commitment, change, protecting the working class (etc).
Very good at public speaking, has a number of languages under his belt and all that. He's also in his mid forties.
Its been some time since the election and I almost miss the conservatives. Reason: Rudd spends more time on airplanes and coming up withgrand vision schemes than he seems to spend on dealing with grass roots social and commercial problems.
So far, I'm not impressed by the current Australian Labour Govt.
I have a nagging feeling that Barack may also raise hopes too high. I don't think he will be another Kennedy (or for that matter Clinton).
I hope I am wrong, and certainly anything is better than another 8 years of the GOP, but I would urge people to not expect change too fast or in too great a form if Obama wins, simply because only once he is in the hot seat will we see what he can actually do, rather than how good he is at public speaking. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Meh. Politicians are all the same, really. They couldn't afford not to be; they're in power by the grace of the rich - all that media coverage needs money, and it's rather easy for a bunch of rich people to dirty a man's reputation if they don't think he's a very good president. It sounds either paranoid or perfectly reasonable depending on your bias...
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Hmmm.... Screwing up the housing market versus chucking brown people in prison without charge indefinitely and approving horrific tortures upon them such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding... I still think we have you beat
Oh, I definitely agree, although Brown is trying his hardest to catch up with our 42-day detention rules. Was just picking up on your use of the word 'incompetent' as the current bunch of idiots in charge of this country couldn't find their arsehole even if they were allowed to use both hands. I expect our politicians to be slightly doddery and not great at their jobs, but do they have to shove it in our face the whole time and remove any last facade that they are capable of governing the country? I'm firmly with Winston Churchill on this one - Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the other ones that have been tried. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hey, Daryus! Good to see you.
I can see the arguments for compulsory voting. The problem is that under our system, I think you'd have to pass an amendment to implement it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Hmmm.... Screwing up the housing market versus chucking brown people in prison without charge indefinitely and approving horrific tortures upon them such as sleep deprivation and waterboarding... I still think we have you beat"
Not really "versus", though, is it? We've got both.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"...but I've never seen or heard of a government this blatantly incompetent or so obviously corrupt as this one."
I assume you mean "a British government". Because, if not, I could point out that we've got you beat over here right now, just for one example.
Yes, you assume correctly. I should have been more explicit on that point. There have of course been worse governments, just not here...at least not for quite a while...well, not since that duck egg was appointed chancellor by George III...
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
TSN: *sigh* Good point..but depressing.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
If you want to see what the Conservatives do when they're in power, watch how Boris Johnson acts as mayor of London. Since being elected he's become nothing more than a puppet to an unelected cabal of Tory grandees, and has delegated responsibility to a bunch of spin doctors and asset-stripping entrepreneurs. They've cut provisions for low-cost public transport for those one social security, and removed the anti-racism message from an anti-racism music festival. Their pledges to streamline building application planning approvals has resulted in all manner of big-money corporate schemes getting the go-ahead regardles of local opposition - markets replaced with skyscrapers, school playing fields sold off for development, social housing requirements dropped from other developments.
I will never vote for them, ever. But it's looking inevitable they'll get in. We're fucked.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"Your guilty consciences force you to vote Democratic, but secretly you yearn for a cold-hearted Republican who’ll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king! You need me, Springfield!"
Mmm Böbb.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I will never vote for them, ever. But it's looking inevitable they'll get in. We're fucked.
The grass is always greener. Hopefully it'll make Labour wake up and be a bit more consistent next time they get in.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess you'll just have to hope they're nothing like our Democrats, then.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Once again they're wrongfooted by having it revealed what they really think, despite Cameron's best efforts. Yup, it's official, the Tories don't need to do anything to help the most deprived areas of the country because if the people living there were sensible they'd move. But, since they don't, they're obviously lazy or stupid or criminal so deserve everything they (don't) get.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You know, for all of Liverpools faults, they have two things going for them. They won't buy the Sun, and they'd never, ever vote Conservative.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: If you want to see what the Conservatives do when they're in power, watch how Boris Johnson acts as mayor of London. Since being elected he's become nothing more than a puppet to an unelected cabal of Tory grandees, and has delegated responsibility to a bunch of spin doctors and asset-stripping entrepreneurs. They've cut provisions for low-cost public transport for those one social security, and removed the anti-racism message from an anti-racism music festival. Their pledges to streamline building application planning approvals has resulted in all manner of big-money corporate schemes getting the go-ahead regardles of local opposition - markets replaced with skyscrapers, school playing fields sold off for development, social housing requirements dropped from other developments.
I will never vote for them, ever. But it's looking inevitable they'll get in. We're fucked.
I think so. But then I thought that when we voted Labour in...not that I was wrong, either way it's not good but there seams to be a lack of alternatives. Though I have been a long time LibDem voter, I honestly think that if by some miracle they ever did get into office that it'd be like the proverbial puppy that finally caught the equally proverbial bus; they'd be so shocked they wouldn't know what do with it.
Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Hey, Daryus! Good to see you.
I can see the arguments for compulsory voting. The problem is that under our system, I think you'd have to pass an amendment to implement it.
Yes, you would have to. We would here as well, if it was not law. It would probably even come to the level of a referendum.
I think it works, anyway.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There's something ironic about having to hold a vote to fix the fact that people won't vote.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I hear in Australia that you get a fine if you don't vote. You also get a fine if you put Jedi as your religion.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What if you write in "Fuck Jesus" as your religion instead? I'm guessing "BIIIG fine" is what you'd get.
Where the hell do they get off even asking that question anyway? Wouldn't that lead to discrimination against non-christians (or whatever the ruling party's preference is)?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
It was part of a census and it was not observed a true religion but as a prank by the government.
Ah. I thought it was in your voter registration or something. It occurs to me that fining people taking the census is a great way to deter participation in the census.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, unless you also fine them for not responding.
Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
Yes, you do get a fine in Australia if you don't vote.
I don't think you get a fine if you put Jedi on the census.
Posted by Sarvek (Member # 910) on :
I may not vote at all this year. Both canidates suck. I am not happy with McCain and his new running mate. If they end up running this country we are all fucked and they will probably legalize teenage pregnency, look at his running mate and her daughter- go figure. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Not taking a stand - generation "Y-Me?". If mccain wins, y'all know who to blame. :.)
The theory of lesser evils works. In an election system where the only people able to be serious candidates has to be rich as fuck to compete, they'll all be more or less dirty, because the richest usually are, so you go for the lesser bad.
Shit, in sweden we don't have close to the same "cults of personality" in our parties as in the US, we vote for the party itself. The candidates for prime minister do travel around the country and do a lot of shit, but not in the seven-digit budget area. We got stuck with a conservative party puke last time, simply because the liberal democrats have declined in quality and political will just like their american, english, german and french counterparts (or simply because the global right-wing has gotten so much steam during these past 7 years). I have hopes that the global tide will turn in about 3-4 years, time enough for even our country to get someone worthwhile into office again.
But for fuck's sake vote, just because you can. I do it, with all the disillusioned cynicism of the time I live in, but also because the alternative of giving it up is damn weak. No matter how cliché that may sound, it is a cliché for a fucking reason.
[ September 01, 2008, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Also, not voting because it's tiring and tedious to stand in line to the booths is one thing (too bad but understandable...if you're over 75), but skipping because that's what the cool, alternativey guys in school/work/tabernacle do and one wants to sound as smart and rebel as them when asked about it, that's distilled, casked douchebag material. Neat, no ice, best enjoyed with smoked meats, a strong cheese or a dvd-box of "Dirty Sanchez".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Screw that- I'm voting like twelve times for Obama. The republicans and their churchy psycho evangelicals can fuck themselves, repent, be born again and fuck themselves all over again.
Even if half of what Obama says is bullshit, he'll be a better president than McCain and his cronies.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:I may not vote at all this year. Both canidates suck. I am not happy with McCain and his new running mate. If they end up running this country we are all fucked
Then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE! That's the point of this thread, you have options! Bob Barr is running over 6% in national polls, 11% in some states, and that's with the media and major parties doing everything they can to get him ignored and disqualified. Nader's not doing badly either, and if you don't like them, there's Chuck Baldwin for the Constitution Party and Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party. All of them are on enough state ballots that they can mathematically win, and if that doesn't matter to you, there are probably countless local parties and independents to vote for. If your teen pregnancy comment was serious, I suspect you might like the Constitution party. But look at them all!
If you can't support one of the major candidates, you can still vote! Do it!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE! That's the point of this thread, you have options!"
Not real ones, of course, but it can be fun to pretend. (Wait, I think we've covered this...)
"I may not vote at all this year. Both canidates suck. I am not happy with McCain and his new running mate. If they end up running this country we are all fucked and they will probably legalize teenage pregnency, look at his running mate and her daughter- go figure."
Please tell me this is just some sort of bizarre trolling that I don't understand?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Tim, they may not win this year, but if you say "we can't do something NOW so why bother?", well, you'll never get anywhere. No, I don't expect Bob Barr to win. But I'll vote for him anyway, because the more votes he gets this time, the more trouble the powers that be will have keeping him out of the public eye.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Voting to change the system is like trying to take off your underwear while still wearing your pants--doesn't work.
Long live neotribalist rational anarchism.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Eh, the main problem with third-party parties in the United States is that they see themselves as protest votes. The Libertarians, for instance, could easily get local seats left and right throughout most the 'heartland' area, but never really try for them.
Likewise, the Greens could carry seats on the West Coast if they pushed.
But the parties really only push when they're upset at their 'main' party, and then only to wound that party in some way. That's why there's really no desire to vote for them.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I choose to exercise my option to succeed from the Union.
Well....IIRC, Texas still has it in it's state constitution that it can choose to remove itself from the United States. Heck, I figure give it about 25 years and the whole southwestern states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California will become the country of "Northern Mexico".
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Screw that- I'm voting like twelve times for Obama. The republicans and their churchy psycho evangelicals can fuck themselves, repent, be born again and fuck themselves all over again.
Even if half of what Obama says is bullshit, he'll be a better president than McCain and his cronies.
Hell, Georgie Boy has lowered the standards for being President so much, that I'm sure I could be a better President even if all I did was take blow in the Oval Office all day.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Ah, liberal tolerance and acceptance... Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:Eh, the main problem with third-party parties in the United States is that they see themselves as protest votes. The Libertarians, for instance, could easily get local seats left and right throughout most the 'heartland' area, but never really try for them.
That's not true. Both those parties hold hundreds of local seats across the country.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
Not nearly as many as they could get, to be sure, and not enough to be an influence apart from their 'host' parties. A Green candidate, for instance, is still a Democrat in voting blocks. And a Libertarian is still a Republican in much the same way.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, if you think there need to be more Libertarian/Green/whatever local candidates and that they have a chance of winning, you could always run. I might.
One of the problems is that the two major parties have done a heck of a job of keeping other parties off the ballots. In Tennessee, it is effectively impossible for a third party to be identified as a party on the ballots; they'd have to have won 15% of the popular vote in the last gubernatorial election or something ridiculous like that. Those laws are being challenged, but until then everyone on a lot of ballots is either (R), (D), or (I), regardless of actual party affiliation. Makes it require much more effort to be an unformed party voter.
As for "host" parties, that's nothing unusual in any form of politics. If you had four parties, say, of approximately equal size, they'd gang up with each other on a lot of issues. But not all, otherwise there'd be no point in having a separate party to begin with.
The reason there's no desire to vote for third parties is because most people don't know about them. Over half of voters from all parties want Bob Barr and Ralph Nader included in the debates, but the major parties and media never mention them at all. Why else would that be except that they're scared? They did the same thing to Ron Paul. Any candidate that's outside their world, they shut out of the information flow, and nobody hears about how popular they are, what they stand for, or frequently even their existence.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I actually thought about a local position, due to some issues Colorado Springs is having, but seeing how nasty even the politics locally was, I decided against it. (I've got three daughters, and I just don't want to subject the family to that.)
I think the real problem with third parties is that most voters are pretty much conditioned to their own party and won't, no matter what happens, even consider looking down or across the aisle. How many voters do you know who say "I voted Democrat all my life, and won't stop now!"
To realy vote for a third party, you do have to pay some attention to the facts behind the politics, and most people will NEVER do that. But they'll will bitch endlessly about what they get because of it.
Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE! That's the point of this thread, you have options! Bob Barr is running over 6% in national polls, 11% in some states, and that's with the media and major parties doing everything they can to get him ignored and disqualified. Nader's not doing badly either, and if you don't like them, there's Chuck Baldwin for the Constitution Party and Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party. All of them are on enough state ballots that they can mathematically win, and if that doesn't matter to you, there are probably countless local parties and independents to vote for. If your teen pregnancy comment was serious, I suspect you might like the Constitution party. But look at them all!
If you can't support one of the major candidates, you can still vote! Do it!
Last time I voted for a third-party presidential candidate, Bush won his first term. I'm not doing it again soon, especially with a Republican incumbent in place, but in any case I'm pretty happy with Obama.
Have you studied how Britain went from a two-party to a three-party system? I haven't but that'll probably be helpful in understanding how to bring it about.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If it makes any difference to you, that argument very much depends on what state you're in. In the present system the electoral college marginalizes the voters for the losing candidate in each state. In many states, you may be in such a minority that your vote for your preferred Big Dumb Unaccountable Government candidate has no effect at all. In that case, you might consider voting for your preferred third party candidate anyway.
For example, take Alabama. McCain is virtually guaranteed to win Alabama. If you vote for Obama in Alabama, your vote has no effect, at all. If you vote for McKinney in Alabama, your vote helps the Green party have an easier time getting on the ballot next election cycle, which is a worthy and achievable goal.
The risk you're worried about is that your third party vote could swing the state's electoral votes away from your preferred BDUG candidate. There's no risk of that if you're effectively guaranteed to lose the state anyway, and the risk is small if you're guaranteed to win. It's really only substantial in states like Florida and Ohio that tend to decide elections.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, the UK didn't so much change from two-party to three-party, as go from two-party to two-different-party (and one of them was the same as before, anyway). Historically you had the Tories and the Whigs, which started off less as parties than tendencies, ways of thinking, leanings in policies, whatever. The Tories became the Conservatives, the Whigs became the Liberals. Then, over the course of the 20th century, the Liberal party began to decline in membership, influence and support while the newly-formed Labour party gained in those areas.
Come the 1970s, Labour had many internal problems (so what else is new?) which led to a split after they lost the General Election in 1979, with many of their senior figures leaving to form the Social Democrats, the SDP. That party was effectively stillborn when the Conservatives won their 1983 landslide, and they ended up having to form a coalition with the remnants of the Liberals, the Lib-Dem alliance (jokingly referred to at the time as the LSD party) with two joint leaders. Eventually they merged for real as the Liberal Democrats.
Electorally, for a long time they muddled along with about 20 MPs. This started to rise as John Major's bare majority of about 20 after the 1992 election was whittled down over time in lost by-elections. Then, come the 1997 Labour landslide they came out of it with about 60 MPs.
The problem is, they remain the third-choice party. I voted Lib Dem in 1997 because I lived in a safe Tory seat and they were the best chance to change (didn't work). In 2001 and 2005 I lived in safe Labour seats so voted for them. Compuinding the problem is the fact that Labour's move towards right-leaning policies has left the Lib Dems marginalised, shorn of the centrist policies that could once snare voters keen to move away from one of the main two parties, but not ready to move to the other main party. Added to that are the problems with their leaders - Paddy Ashdown became known as Paddy Pantsdown after he had an affair; Charles Kennedy was a boozer; Menzies "Ming the Merciless" Campbell was far too old; Nick "legover" Clegg is yet to make an impact apart from revealing how many sexual partners he'd had in a magazine interview. Secondary figures in the party are few and anonymous, or known for other things - Simon Davies had bizesual affairs; Lembit Opik ditched one fiancée (TV weathergirl Sian Lloyd) for another (a member of novelty pop act The Cheeky Girls - they've now split) to universal hilarity.
There are positives though. Vince Cable, deputy leader who stood in after Ming resigned, is an excellent parliamentarian who knows he's not the man to lead the party; I would have preferred Chris Huhne as leader but he lost out to Clegg because, although a long-time Lib Dem financial supporter, he was only elected to Parliament in 2005 so was viewed as inexperienced. . .
Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: If it makes any difference to you, that argument very much depends on what state you're in. In the present system the electoral college marginalizes the voters for the losing candidate in each state. In many states, you may be in such a minority that your vote for your preferred Big Dumb Unaccountable Government candidate has no effect at all. In that case, you might consider voting for your preferred third party candidate anyway.
That makes sense, but in this case I actually like Obama, so I haven't really taken the time to look at other candidates. I do often vote for 3rd party candidates in regional elections though.
Posted by Vanguard (Member # 1780) on :
I'm sure I'm going to hate asking this, Diane, but I really would like an answer - I've YET to recieve one that wasn't snark, and I really would like to get a straight answer from an Obama supporter.
With Iraq effectively taken off the table, what about Obama's policies are making you vote for him? (Please, no comments about Bush, 'change', 'hope', or 'hating being an American' or what I usually hear.) Please, I beg you, just a comment on his actual policies!
(And, to sweeten the deal, I won't even debate what you answer. I sincerely just want to know.)
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Dunno about other Obamanites, but I'm going to vote for Obama because I don't want McCain in. It isn't so much about Obama's politics as McCain's, in other words.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
^Pretty much the same reasoning why I'm voting for McCain over Obama.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...what about Obama's policies are making you vote for him?"
Well, just to name a handful of things : There's the fact that Obama wants rich people to pay more taxes and poor people to pay less, rather than McCain's reverse theory. There's the fact that Obama has more interest in alternative energy sources, while McCain seems to think extra oil drilling in protected areas will be good enough. And, on the same subject, Obama seems to recognize that McCain's "gas tax holiday" thing was the exact opposite of a good idea. There's the fact that Obama would most likely treat other countries with diplomacy rather than belligerence. There's the fact that, when Supreme Court vacancies almost certainly come up in the next few years, Obama is pretty unlikely to nominate anyone from the Scalia/Thomas/Alito school of judgery (while McCain would).
Do you need more? I'm sure I could find something else, if necessary.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Note: Representatives of the Obama campaign have informed the authors that the campaign is not committed to the full 12.4 hike in the payroll tax. An increase in the payroll tax is merely one of many different tax increases that are being considered for those making over $250,000. The Obama campaign implies that the tax increase on those earning over $250,000 may not be limited to earnings but also cover different types of income. Despite questioning, the campaign has not provided any more details.
Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.) has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to abroad.
Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.
How the Obama Tax Plan Compares to Other Countries
Senator Obama's new tax rate would give the United States one of the highest tax rates among developed countries. Currently only six of the top 30 industrial nations have a tax rate for all levels of government combined of over 55 percent. Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark. The top marginal rate would exceed 60 percent with the inclusion of state and local taxes, which means that only Hungary would exceed Senator Obama's new proposed top tax rate.
The costs in economic terms of such high taxes are real. For example, of the six countries with higher tax rates than 55 percent, the average unemployment rate is 7.35 percent (see chart). This figure includes Denmark, which appears to have a very low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. However, Denmark spends over 5 percent of its GDP on unemployment programs and benefits, thereby increasing its unemployment rate.[1]
A Return to the Bad Old Days
Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.
Many individuals will attempt to transfer their compensation from wages to capital gains, since capital gains would only be taxed at 25 percent, or less than half of the top rate on wages. This would put a great deal of pressure on a company to do anything it could to make its stock quickly increase in value. Other individuals would try to incorporate so they could pay business taxes instead of having to pay taxes on their wages. Again, these resources would be diverted away from more productive uses and slow the economy.
High tax rates also encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas. There is ample evidence in the United States of individuals and businesses moving to states such as Florida or Delaware to take advantage of their tax-friendly laws. A higher federal tax rate would encourage individuals to move assets abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates in countries such as Canada, France, and Great Britain.
These high tax rates could also have a large impact on the labor force. Many workers could choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work. However, the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.
A Finite Source of Revenue
Perhaps a larger worry than the damage to the economy is the long-run budget problem of the United States. While Senator Obama raises taxes a great deal on upper income individuals, the overall tax plan increases the national deficit. As a result, the country will be even less prepared to pay for current and future Social Security and Medicare obligations. When money is needed to pay for those programs, it will be hard to tax the rich even more, given that the top rate will already be so high. Instead, in order to pay the government's spending and entitlement shortfalls, taxes would fall most heavily on middle-income Americans. After all, even successful taxpayers are not an infinite source of revenue.
Rea S. Hederman, Jr., is a Senior Policy Analyst and the Assistant Director, and Patrick Tyrrell is a Research Assistant, in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
END OF ARTICLE
OK, how is it fair that an individual is punished for being skilled or educated enough to earn a large income? What is the incentive to better yourself if you know that Sammy is going to take OVER HALF what you make and then distributing it to the welfare addicts like Sharon Jasper?
The real problem is that the U.S. Congress does not have a clue about how to run a country fiscally. Not only should a country make sure that its spending does not exceed its source of revenue, it should also plan a cushion to meet unforseen or projected needs. Most of America's basic infrastructure is over two centuries old and in need of replacement/upgrade. But instead of planning ahead to make these necessary changes, our glorious representatives have instead taken a 'band-aid' approach. When something breaks they just throw some money at the temporary problem and worry about the source later. They typically do not go to the underlying root of the problem and work out a true solution. I swear its like they are on a sinking ship and they decide to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.
Posted by Diane (Member # 53) on :
Well, they sure lowered taxes on the rich in the last eight years, and the rich got richer while the poor got poorer, with an ever-widening deficit. I don't like high taxes either, but lowering taxes merely widens the gap between the rich and poor if government structures aren't reformed first - and that is going to take a lot of collaboration from both Democrats and Republicans.
As for why I'm supporting Obama:
He makes incredibly clear and conscious observations and addresses the root of a problem instead of pandering to one side or another -- e.g. when he made the speech on race after the Rev. Wright debacle. And most recently in his convention speech, one of the things that stood out for me was when he said, "One of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism."
He's not divisive, and he tries to speak to the concerns of people who disagree with his issues. He doesn't demonize. He tries to resolve differences rather than fan the flames. As president, I think he has the potential of taking the political climate to a place where it's not so polarized along party lines.
Most government problems are not black and white with one "right" solution. The labels, like "taxation" or "immigration" are merely one symptom or facet of complex interrelated issues. Obama is someone who can see that and get to the bottom of things, rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom. Any candidate can say they'll take care of your problems, but clarity, consciousness, and a spirit of collaboration are not things you can fake.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I love how a century on, people still want programs from the feds, but refuse to be willing to pay for them.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Reminds of a documentary not to long ago about credit in America where this guy talks about a couple who came to his store and told him in effect how they would vote Republican because they didn't want be "forced" to pay for others which the owner of the store found funny considering they came to his business to buy body armor for their son in Iraq.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
There is NOTHING the government can give you that it has not first TAKEN AWAY from you.
I'm not really interested in arguing back and forth or convincing anyone else. You asked a question and I answered. I'm just going to say that "not divisive" does not mean never criticizing or never saying things that offend other people - that would be impossible. You can't control what people want to get offended by. "Not divisive" to me means that he does not take every opportunity to attack his oppenents, that he listens and addresses concerns of people, that he sees issues as complex grays rather than black and white. Yes, you will find occasional examples to the contrary, but then he is a presidential candidate, not the messiah.
P.S. I happened to think that Obama's "bitterness" quote was a keen observation.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Also what's wrong with standing up against a ban on gay marriage?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'd really like to see this thread stay on the topic of alternate parties, if at all possible. If you'd like to debate the relative merits or demerits of the major party candidates, I would appreciate a new thread for that discussion.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'M voting National Bocialist this year...!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D–Ill.) has unveiled his economic plan of raising taxes on the successful. His plan would boost the top marginal rate to well over 55 percent—before the inclusion of state and local taxes—resulting in many individuals seeing their marginal tax rate double. The consequences of this policy would be a return to the bad old days of tax avoidance, with taxpayers disguising personal income as business income or capital gains and the migration of capital from the United States to abroad
Firstly, that's an incredibly right-leaning article, secondly consider this: The Bush administration has eliminated 75% of the IRS' staff that prosecute and recover unpaid taxes from the most wealthy 1% of companies and indivuals. They were re-assigned to presue middle and lower-class people behind in their taxes. Over half of all owed taxes come from the most wealthy 10% and from large corporations- the same people most likely to donate to a political campaign.
Not only is this horribly (in fact criminally) wrong, it clearly shows how the "trickle-down" economics does not, and never has worked. This policy of self-policing corporations supposedly taking their huge profits and re-investing in the American infrastructure by creating new and better paying jobs is a bad joke when job outsourcing is at an all-time high- as the decade-high unemployment rate clearly shows.
As to McCain: He refers to his time a a P.O.W. as much as Bush does 9/11. It's a dodge on real issues that the repblicans cant debate on due to their poor record in, well, everything.
As much as I respect McCain's military service, he's not talking about the issues- or even anything that's happened IN MY FUCKING LIFETIME!
Seriously- being tortured does NOT make a person presidential material- particulraly when he's flipped on the issue of waterboarding to side with Bush and his cronies. If he wanted to be a "maverick" he should have stuck to his guns on the immorality of torture- even if it cost him the nomination.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Not only should a country make sure that its spending does not exceed its source of revenue..."
Like under Bush?
"...it should also plan a cushion to meet unforseen or projected needs."
Like under Clinton?
"Firstly, that's an incredibly right-leaning article..."
Well, it's from the Heritage Foundation. So, yeah.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Bush mentioning 9/11? Not as much as Giuliani. That cocksucker still mentioned 9/11 in RNC even as he was ripping Obama for being a community organizer.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Bush mentioned it from his safely-distant hidey-hole via video relay. Maybe he was avoiding all the "boos" his appearance would have caused- the republicans must surely be thanking God for yet another hurricane hitting New Orleans- thus providing a semi-plausable distraction to keep the President and Vice President away from their own party's convention. Maybe they'll blame that one on the city's "sinful" nature.
But yeah, Gulianni's a cock.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
My boss is right - I'm voting for Spongebob...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:Under this tax plan, the United States would join this group and have a higher top rate than such high-tax nations as Sweden and Denmark.
In other words, come dangerously close to progress! Healthcare and dental without you first having to get down on your knees in front of them and go to that happy-place in your mind? What kind of sick Stalinist shit is that? I just spilled mint julep all over my sock suspenders.
Just out of interest, which party or candidate outside the rep-dems has the biggest support right now? Who's on third, so to speak?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Hopefully still on-topic, but what were those protestors screaming about during McCain's speech? Before they were hurried out of sight, and McCain dismissed them with a pre-written offhand remark? Anyone know?
Mark
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ron Paul, I think. My understanding is that his name was put in for nomination, and the chairman ignored it, in complete contravention of the rules. But that's just what I was told, you might wish to find another source to confirm.
Regardless, I think McCain wins on the most important issue: whose kids are sexier.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Heh . . . padded headboard.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Kelly Bundy's larger, homelier sister? I suspect the headboard isn't all that's padded.
I don't think the election will have anything to do with the conventions, the debates or the press articles, I think it will be majorly decided by people's appreciation of McCain's and Obama's final voting posters, and I do think the majority of the population, the ones who vote from the "heart", simply wouldn't dare to live in a country without an aging WASP to lead them. It should follow the "Look at that face, he just HAS to be a great man, since he's come this far"-mentality.
Oh, and the fact that the other guy is a *"Niggarh!!". *(Michael Richards added for dramatic effect)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Homely? Comely, perhaps. Very Hayden Panawhatever.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Kelly Bundy's larger, homelier sister? I suspect the headboard isn't all that's padded.
I don't think the election will have anything to do with the conventions, the debates or the press articles, I think it will be majorly decided by people's appreciation of McCain's and Obama's final voting posters, and I do think the majority of the population, the ones who vote from the "heart", simply wouldn't dare to live in a country without an aging WASP to lead them. It should follow the "Look at that face, he just HAS to be a great man, since he's come this far"-mentality.
Oh, and the fact that the other guy is a *"Niggarh!!". *(Michael Richards added for dramatic effect)
And he doesn't wear enough flag lapel pins or masturbate to the US flag.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Very Hayden Panawhatever."
Is this some previously unknown sense of "very" which means "not at all"?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Wait, who's the chick again? I'm confused.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
That has to be a padded bra, I don't see nipples!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
We'll have to have a hands-on investigation.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Wait, who's the chick again? I'm confused."
John McCain's daughter. The one who recently said "No-one knows what war is like, other than my family. Period."
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well...like the late great Carlin said, garbage in...garbage out...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd like to ask McCain why he's pressed very hard for -and succedded in- getting all POW debriefings classified as "secret" so the freedom Of Information act does not apply to them? A Viet nam vet friend thinks it's bullshit to cover something embarassing McCain said on the official US military records- which are supposed to be available to all US citizens. Seems McCain was against the F.O.I.Act and has fought to get a lot of Nam-era stuff marked "secret".
For someone tha's constantly bringing up his captivity/torture, it's kinda an issue- as much as say, Kerry's service record was anyway.
Today it was announced taht Palin will not answer any questions from the media/press intill "they start showing her some respect" according to the GOP. I tink they're really afraid of her trying to answer any quetions about "troopergate" or her own use of earmarks- not when all her speaches go on about how she's never used them and how she's a "reformer".
Amazingly anough, the press seems to be going along with this nonsense: McCain cant answer these questions for hera s he barely knows her at all.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'd be all "Respect DEEZ NUTZ, bitch!!"
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well, she seems to be a Level VII super-christian (with bonusu booster-packsuru), calling the invasion of iraq "God's plan", and it seems she comes from a congregation that gets those wonderful, really important but sadly undecipherable transmissions from the lord into their tongues, so if I was the GOP and I had brought her aboard to flirt with former Hillary-voters and put Biden to shame, I'd be keen on keeping her trap shut too.
I so loved it when the "Daily Show"-reporters asked people regarding Palin's daughter keeping the baby, at the gop-con. "Hmm, what's that word...I want to say 'alternative', or 'she made a decision', but...no. Help me out here?" Samantha Bee 4real.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
CNN reports: Former GOP senator calls Palin a 'cocky wacko'
Former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee has words for Sarah Palin. (CNN) – Former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee was known for keeping a low-key profile on Capitol Hill, but the Republican -turned -Independent is making waves with his exceedingly blunt comments on newly-minted Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin:
She's a "cocky wacko," he told a Washington think tank earlier this week.
Chafee, the lone Senate Republican to vote against the Iraq war who endorsed Obama's White House bid earlier this year, told an audience at the New America Foundation in Washington Tuesday that Palin's selection has energized Obama backers.
"People were coming into my office, phone calls were flooding in, e-mails were coming in, 'I just sent money to Obama, I couldn't sleep last night' — from the left. To see this cocky wacko up there," he said.
He also described McCain's candidacy as "lackluster” and described the selection of Palin as a throwing "this firestorm, this tornado, into the whole presidential election."
Hi-Larious.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Of course, if they'd win, Palin would probably just be deposited into some desk drawer until they needed her for a baby photo-op or moose field dressing, she probably wouldn't be able to affect any of McCain's policies, or carry out independent political actions, would she? I don't know how actual oval office work takes form. I wonder if forced adult-baptism would be considered unconstitutional.
On another note, since McCain deep-down doesn't like Bush (He wouldn't, right? Since they where competitors in 2001?), does that mean McCain is also free of influence from the Cheney-singularity?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah right- all those campaign contributors and defense contractors will still be expecting their paybacks. Not to mention the Oil lobby, the far Right christians, (whom I think of as "evangenitals") and every Bush crony looking to move on up the ladder.
Alberto Gonzalez surely wants a job for keeping his yap shut under grilling....as would all the other cronies that are keepig secrets that would make the Republicans look bad come election time.
Leiberman will probably ask if he can remove his head from McCain's ass after the election's over (one way or another). Speaking of which, I'm sure the GOP asses that call Leiberman "a great man of morals that crosses party lines to speak his mind" will be calling Lincoln Chafee a traitor tomorrow.
I've been reading up on this "troopergate" fiasco- seems the Gov Palin is under investigation- but by the attorney general she's assigned and a comitte she's assigned....no conflict of intrest there, right? Of course, the person that's supposed to hold a state govonor accountable is the President- which he certainly wont do if it hurts his party.
If Biden had pulled such a shady thing, the GOP would be lapping it up 24/7 on Faux News.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Okay.. I just need a place to rant
I have this strong suspicion that the US will vote for McCain in November. I think Palin was the 'right' choice. An extreme conservative, a fundemental radical evangelical Christian, and a woman. Fox News will have an easy time to defend her, and they will force Obama to make stupid remarks (they've already done that) and replay those 1,000 times a day.
Obama is just to good to be true. And McCain/Palin is just to twisted and wickedly insane not to become President. The majority of Americans don't seem to give a shit about policy (or at least not about policy on a larger scale than their house), nor do they seem to care very much about considering carefully about choosing the most powerful president on the planet. I do hope Iran hurries up with those nukes, we may need some proper balance to stop the US from invading right, left and centre. And I'm almost serious about that last point.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
And Palin lives next to Russia, which means she's experienced when it comes to foreign policy. And speaking of Russia, I don't know what the cast of The View told Cindy McCain which caused her go on some weird rant about how Russia's the enemy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
CNN's got a nice video of Brabara walters grilling McCain on exactly who/what Palin is suposed to "reform" in Washington. Walters to Mccain: "You've been in the senate for 20 years- Who's she going to reform? You?"
Walters still can make world figures squirm and sputter. Nice.
CNN has some nice coverage of the various lies Mccain's ads are spewing this week- including a spanish radio ad saying Obama blocked attempts to reform immigration policy - it fails to mention that mccain and Obama both voted exactly the same on that issue in an attempt to break a fillibuster.
My greatest fear in this election is that so many people will say "Everyone with an ounce of sense has to vote for Obama and not more of the same shit." and so Obama's voter turnout will not be as high as it should be- giving McCain the presidentcy. Hey, we all thought Kerry would win by a landslide before the GOP spun everyone's attention to Swiftboat and away from the issues.
Also intresting is news that Bush has FINALLY greenlighted raids into Pakistan to go after Al Queida. Very convient timing there, considering NATO and US commanders in Afghanistan have been jointly begging such permission for over two years now.
Bush's administration denies any political considerations in the matter and jsut says "the time is right for it".
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I wonder if fate has dictated that the US "needs" another four-year stretch of this stuff, before feeling ready for change? It feels like another four years of these people showing their true colors could be thought of as needed, before the play enters act III.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
More like they need to be reminded.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Wait.. Even Karl Rove has come out against McCain's campaign ads now... The brain hurts. Are we going to look back upon Bush and his clique as progressive leaders in 4 years time?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If Rove thinks they're dirty....fuck, I dont know what to say. Who'd have thought McCain would be such a slimeball candidate?
On NPR today, they had (another!) special all on Palin's changing who women voters would vote for- should they vote for their gender, their party or...gasp! maybe even the issues!? I turned the fucking radio off after five or six (female) idiots called in to either compare Palin to Hillary Clinton as "a progressive" or to rant about how the media is somehow out to get palin an how she's just not getting a fair shot...
Holy crap- the sheer stupidity of some people is amazing. One women in ten called to say Palin's selection is an obvious ploy and pointed out how incredibly far right she really is.
CNN now reports how some in the GOP are going to block the "troopergate" investigation because " media is somehow out to get palin an how she's just not getting a fair shot, blah blah blah..." Seripusly, the FBI was investigating before anyone knew who she was- let them o their jobs.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Karl Rove works for the McCain campaign, and you know he has no desire to see Obama elected. Add the fact that he's probably the most calculating political mind around, and I think it's safe to say that he would never throw the "even Rove says McCain is lying" meme out there without having some sort of plan to use it to McCain's advantage.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: If Rove thinks they're dirty....fuck, I dont know what to say. Who'd have thought McCain would be such a slimeball candidate?
On NPR today, they had (another!) special all on Palin's changing who women voters would vote for- should they vote for their gender, their party or...gasp! maybe even the issues!? I turned the fucking radio off after five or six (female) idiots called in to either compare Palin to Hillary Clinton as "a progressive" or to rant about how the media is somehow out to get palin an how she's just not getting a fair shot...
Holy crap- the sheer stupidity of some people is amazing. One women in ten called to say Palin's selection is an obvious ploy and pointed out how incredibly far right she really is.
CNN now reports how some in the GOP are going to block the "troopergate" investigation because " media is somehow out to get palin an how she's just not getting a fair shot, blah blah blah..." Seripusly, the FBI was investigating before anyone knew who she was- let them o their jobs.
Yeah I like how nowadays politicians can choose to not have themselves investigated for wrong doing. Y'know cause there's no chance that they could abuse their power. Also I'm getting sick of this whole "women being energized by Palin" thing, with some talking about being "torn" because they don't want a continuation of the past eight years, but they need to support other women NO MATTER WHAT! Cause I guess they're like lemmings. Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Also I'm getting sick of this whole "women being energized by Palin" thing, with some talking about being "torn" because they don't want a continuation of the past eight years, but they need to support other women NO MATTER WHAT! Cause I guess they're like lemmings.
You could say that about any group, really, and about any issue. Democrats, Republicans, women, blacks, etc.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As to the "troppergate" thing, the GOP now says that neither Palin's husband or her aides will cooperate with subpeonas for their appearance in court to give statements. Um...it's a SUBPEONA- there is no voulntary aspect to it!
Maybe they try the 'ol subpeona-dodging power of Executive Privilege- they can all somwhow claim they're working for the Prisendent ...somwhow.
Someone needs to point out the Republican's total lack of respect for the justice system or this country's laws.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Oh, but then they'd have to point out the same for the Democrats, and we can't have that, now can we? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I cant recall when a democrat has refused subpeona. Maybe something under Clinton...I know of nothing recent.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
So, anyway.. tonight is the VP debate.
I have a weird suspicion that everyone will have underestimated the blundering Sarah Palin. What if she tunes into her passionate super-hockeymom mode, and Biden gets his tone wrong...
Still, I'm hoping it will provide ample ammunition for Tina Fey. One nervous breakdown is all that's needed to seal this thing, but I don't suspect she's going to be the walkover that some are predicting.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I just want a fistfight.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Looks like a no-score draw to me. Palin didn't make any huge gaffes, but Biden wasn't above massaging the truth.
Anyone who watched out there in flareland? That's just what I got from the news this morning.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yeah, it was far less entertaining than I expected.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Stalemate, though at this point was it really that surprising?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
They both did pretty good. No major quotable answers, good or bad. It will likely be (or rather, it has probably already been) overshadowed by the upcoming bailout vote.
Talking about that.. is this one of the few times that the US Senate and House have been so prominently visible on the world stage? I can't really remember ever seeing live scenes from the House of Representatives airing on prime time on international news channels.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't know about un-quotable answers: I mean there was Biden's "Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere" and Palin's "White Flag of Surrender".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I saw it- Biden was damn good- though anything less would have drawn fire as expectations were so high. palin was far better than expected, though anything would beat the low expectations after her interview with Katie Couric..the one where she could name not a single newspaper she read or any Supreme Court case other than Roe vs. Wade that she disagreed with.
What was so disapointing for me was the total lack of moderator control: Palin answered only half of the questions and even went so far as to say "I may not answer the question the way you want to hear, but I'll talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record," which is like saying "I'll only answer what I want to". Whenever Palin did not have an answer she reverted to her stump speach on how McCain is a "maverick" and how they'll reform washington.
Mccain the "maverick" was a phrase his own campaign coined back in his failed 2000 run, not a moniker his peers ever use.
Biden also did well in not rising to Palin's baits- she was very aggressive (some commentators say condesending) to Biden bit he only attacked McCain's policies and statements- not Palin herself (which was a worry- that he'd be seen as "beating up the girl") or McCain.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
How can Palin, who is essentialy a moron, be condecending to Biden?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Oh, and as for "beating up the girl", you sure he wasn't afraid she'd just have him shot and mounted on her office wall in Alaska.
In a fight, my money would be on her - it would be like real life celebrity deathmatch. Hang on, I might just have a replacement for the electoral college...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: How can Palin, who is essentialy a moron, be condecending to Biden?
SHe just seemed to be snide when talking about his "years of experience"- particularly after she had made a joke about his age at a campaign speach earlier in the week. Of all the campaigns that should not be making "old" jokes, it's McCain's.
Obama is now up by 8 points- past the statistical margin of error.
The debate tonight resolved nothing much- more of the same from both candidates in general. Some good overall questions from the peanut gallery but nothing really hard-hitting, IMHO. Mccain ws caught flat-footed when asked who he'd have replace APaulson once he steps down?
Someone should have asked McCain why he's voted against increased funding for veterans benifits but managed to have his military debriefings/records (and all returning POW's from Viet Nam) classified under the Secrets Act so no one can view it- not even with a FOIA request. Military personell from no other war have that designation.
They could also have asked more specific questions- like "what will you do to keep jobs from being outsourced?" or "What role will the Vice President have in your administration?"
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I'm surprised no one in the entertainment industry has referred to McCain's desperate campaign suspension for Wall Street (in order to buy time) going "AWOL".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Am I the only one here that thinks McCain looks a lot like Casper? Or maybe really old Ritchie Ritch.
Amazing how polite he was after having Palin say Obama "pals around with terrorists".
A far more apt comparison would be that McCain pals around with lobbiests (as they make up all of his campaign advisors) or his fellows in "The Keating Five".
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Amazing how polite he was after having Palin say Obama "pals around with terrorists".
Well, apart from that little "that one" phrase. Your fellow Senator is sitting right there, and you call him "that one"? What?
So it seems the debates, up until now, don't really have a lot of impact on the polls. Both are doing reasonably well, neither of them are able to really catch eachother out. Unless something particularly nasty is dug up by McCain-Palin (they seem to be trying hard), it seems like Obama's lead will be very hard to break. OTOH, who even knows what happens anymore right now, let alone in 4 weeks time.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It wasn't just the "that one". He was dickish the whole time. I don't know where someone could get the idea that he was being "polite".
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yeah, McCain was being a total stain, especially when Obama wanted to follow-up on some comment he made and McCain said something to effect of, "Well if he gets to follow-up, then so can I." It's seems that now McCain and Palin are so desperate for a lead that they've gone into douche-bag mode. Just hope people will see past it.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
It seemed to me that neither candidate really answered the questions to the best of his ability, but McCain really sucked in that regard. I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember him answering a yes or no question with a statement that was pretty much rephrasing the question.
" Senator, could you please phrase your answer in the form of an answer?"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
McCain also refused to shake Obama's hand at the debate's conclusion- very dickish.
"Friends" of Gov. Palin appeared before Alaska's supreme Court today to ask it to dismiss the "troopergate" investigation because, and I shit you not, it "could hurt the election chances of a political party". Yeah, I cant imagine which one.
A lawyer arguing for the probe made a great point:
quote:"Never in the darkest days of the McCarthy hearings did a court ever say this investigation has to stop, you have to halt what you're doing right now," he said.
"What they're asking for here is not just stopping an investigation, but suppressing a report -- suppressing a report because it might be critical of the governor."
Holy crap: if you'd asked me about this even yesterday, I'd have told you it would get swept under the rug untill at least after the election.
Now it's up to the media to actually do their jobs and cover the story- Palin's got the kid gloves treatment so far and it's time they start asking tough questions- of her and McCain.
quote:"Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I just saw this on CNN. What's this, like McCain suddenly realizing what his campaign team has been spewing out?
When Obama becomes President, he will get a seriously hard time from these kinds of folks, as they apparently see him as a black socialist Arab... basically the top 3 things most hated by the darn-golly hot-dang Joe Sixpack mob.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Trouble is, he won't have them shot. He could, but he won't. I'd just be bad publicity.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well there's Guantanamo.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
See, here's the thing. When a lady says "[Obama]'s an Arab", and John McCain's response is "No...he's a decent family man", people should not act like he's finally said something right. Today's headlines really ought to read something like "McCain : Arabs indecent, hate families".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Noooo...then they'd be showing off their supposed "liberal Media Bias" that title scares them so much that they'll give the GOP a free ride not to answer questions or be held accountable for their pasts/remarks/actions/associates.
Which is, of course why the GOP decry such supposed bias in the first place.
Someone should be ballsy enough to say they're just biased towards the truth and disabuse the masses of the silly idea once and for all.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Whatever you say, I think McCain did pretty good on SNL. I can never quite get past his really awkward arm movements, but hey, he's makes a few good jokes.
What really puzzles me more about that clip is the ad in the beginning. I was expecting some kind of government ad on voting, but actually it is Starbucks using the elections to sell coffee. And as an outsider, that kind of close link between commercial ads and politics is a bit bizarre. Maybe they are actually concerned about voter turn-up, but its still just them trying to sell coffee, right..
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And I mean seriously, what is up with those arms.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I think it was from being tortured in Vietnam as a POW.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Is he so sure he'll lose, he's looking for a new sideline in comedy?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Couldn't find a better thread for this, so here goes.
When looking at the live Obama interview on the Daily Show last week, there are two things I notice.
1: Obama is a good speaker and a bad, bad "actor". When trying to pull off the same jokes (about daughter and disney channel for example) that he's already made in other interviews earlier in the week, it sounds rehearsed and awkward, which is great.
2: The impression I got in that interview was that of a positive, humble man who deep down is shy in the spotlight but has learned to work around it (his body language reactions to McCain's debate barbs also point to that, controlled shyness).
And that's why I think he's an obvious choice for a leader. He's not a member of the folksy, populist, wolf-smile "lying to your face" actor's club that Bush, Clinton and McCain belong to, Obama's not good enough of a poker-face liar for that. People should be more happy to have a man in the white house that is a bad actor but good legislator and leader. The majority of the people during elections seem to get swayed by the candidates that appeal to their values and seem the most charming, but in this case, I get more comforted by Obama's "flaws" than his merits.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Personally, I don't disagree that Obama is a good leader, and he's obviously very charismatic, but it's the policies that he stands for that I disagree with. If his platform was closer to the middle, I might have some problems with deciding who to vote for.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
A good leader takes people where they want to go. A GREAT leader takes people where they need to be.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I suppose all that remains to be said at this point is, now will all you Yanks just get out there and VOTE?!
If you don't, you don't have anything to complain about.
Expect long queues, so take a book, your personal music player of choice, Nintendo DS/Playstayshun Puny, whatever.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Kepp your hand on your purse at all times, beware of votestealers.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I voted! Took me about an hour and I got there 10 minutes after the polls opened.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I was at the polling place 10 minutes before opening. Was in, voted, got my complimentary "Amaircun Fulag" sticker and was out of the parking lot by a 7:15.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Voted about an hour ago. Took about 5 minutes. Almost made a Freudian slip and voted under the United Workers Party, but luckily I was able to change it in time Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:I suppose all that remains to be said at this point is, now will all you Yanks just get out there and VOTE?!
If you don't, you don't have anything to complain about.
Someone posted a good analogy on /. the other day for that argument. Say there's only one restaurant in town, and the only two meals they offer are a rotten fish and a manure sandwich. If you refuse to eat either, do you still have the right to complain about being hungry?
Of course, the proper solution is to realize there are plenty of restaurants around, and it's just the one restaurant that wants you to think it's the only one.
VOTE THIRD PARTY!
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Of course, the proper solution is to realize there are plenty of restaurants around, and it's just the one restaurant that wants you to think it's the only one.
VOTE THIRD PARTY!
Would that be that Wee Scottish Restaurant?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Scottish wee has no place in contemporary politics.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
My only question now is: When the heck are we going to have to decent candidates run?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
My ex-wife sang it seems.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: My only question now is: When the heck are we going to have to decent candidates run?
Well, you can write me in to whatever ballot you'd like....I promise to do whatever will amuse me the most while keeping the deathtoll to a minimum. Hmmm.....maybe head of the FCC or EPA. Oh! NORAD- I'd be good at that: I could make a bunch of Stargate fan-films too. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega:
quote:I suppose all that remains to be said at this point is, now will all you Yanks just get out there and VOTE?!
If you don't, you don't have anything to complain about.
Someone posted a good analogy on /. the other day for that argument. Say there's only one restaurant in town, and the only two meals they offer are a rotten fish and a manure sandwich. If you refuse to eat either, do you still have the right to complain about being hungry?
Of course, the proper solution is to realize there are plenty of restaurants around, and it's just the one restaurant that wants you to think it's the only one.
VOTE THIRD PARTY!
You will note, I hope, that I didn't make any specifications as to whom one whould vote for.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
...oops.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well, you can write me in to whatever ballot you'd like....I promise to do whatever will amuse me the most while keeping the deathtoll to a minimum. Hmmm.....maybe head of the FCC or EPA. Oh! NORAD- I'd be good at that: I could make a bunch of Stargate fan-films too.
This from someone whose screen surname means: "(Hebrew אבדון Avaddon, Greek Apollyon, Latin Exterminans, meaning "A place of destruction", "The Destroyer", "Depths of Hell") in demonology, is chief of the demons of the seventh hierarchy. In the Revelation of St. John, Abaddon is the King of tormenting locusts and the angel of the bottomless pit. (KJV, Rev. 9:1-11)"
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
No, his screen name means "someone named Don who enjoys the music of Abba".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No, it's the greek thing but whenever anyone says "Abbaddon" they inevitibly pronounce the silent second "d" which makes the name sound like it's being said by mushmouth from the fat Albert show.
The closest direst translation is "The Destroyer"- from the greek god o' destrction, which the Church later tacked all that demonology stuff onto. That whole "Angel of The Bottomless Pit" gag is from a story wherein I'm supposed to "bind Satan for a thousand years" but that sonds like a real chore, so if anyone asks, I already did it, okay? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Abaddon = mythological demon dude.
Abbadon = Abba fan named Don
Abbaddon = um... A Don who has sub-par abdominal muscles? I don't even know. Learn to spell.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Spellin is fer folks yew want to impress. Yew is all kinfolk by now. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Oh no, ain't gonna fall for that old xylemology trick!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh yes you are- although I dont know what exactly xylemology means- you're falling for it weither you like it or not! I get half your stuff when you die and you get to live in a double-wide trailer with cousin Lurlene and her kids from many fathers from now on. She's a wiatress at the Waffle House so she'll like as not bring you home some food, so you'll be sittin' pretty as long as the beer supply holds out.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Xylem = trees? Yew is tree, da?
Wait a fuck, after I die I get to live in a trailer park with food workers? And beer? Is this some sort of inverse Grim Fandango knockoff, this timeline? And wait just a fuck, you get half my stuff when I die? So at some point we will be married? Why didn't I have/will get a prenup?
Man, I have to clear my schedule, all I had in the calendar was "buy ravioli" and "show your mom a good time", then basically just coasting until the year 2025 and the rise of the old gods (jesus, buddha and elvis, who will merge, and the weight of Jebudelvis creates a black hole thus eating the world and all our problems are over). But this changes everything!
Hope you can still get into your prom dress Jason, cuz this is gonna be AWESOME! *gangsign*
And how about that GOP? Man I hate it!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You wont hate the GOP in the future- all those NRA nuts are gonna come in real handy as fodder for that "rise of the Old Gods" thing- it'll give us time to get to the spaceships to take up safely away to....er... Well, we'll have thought of something by then, I'm sure. Also, I dont need to marry you to get all your stuff when you die- (sorry I led you on like that, I like you, but only as a friend, you understand, it's not you: it's me- I'm just not looking for for a relationship now: you're a great guy and I'm sure you'll make some lucky Flareite a happy man/woman/hermaphrodite someday soon, I hope you understand, we'll still be friends and all, really: I'll call you- you're special) I just need you to get injured, doped up at the hospital and sign Power Of Attorney over to me: I'm a notary and everything so it'll all be legal-like.
As to your "buy ravioli" plan, it's a mistake- that Chef Boyardee stuff is death, man- nothing with greasy bright orange sauce can possibly be healthy.
As to "showing my mom a good time", I'll leave you to your fantasies: I shudder uncontrollably at the thought that my parents once coupled to spawn myself. I mean, damn: just think of your parents getting frisky for a moment and you'll know true horror.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Doping me up, playing the schyster-card, insulting my shiny sauces...the nerve! Now I am like this grr Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
First you want to marry me, then you speak of "shiny sauces" and now you post an image representing yourself as a gerbil of some sort....
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
Poor hedgehog. They're so cute, prickly but cute.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sega sooo misrepresented that animal.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
We get about one or two news snippets per year here, about kids or people finding hedgehogs in a park or something and playing soccer with them while they're rolled up in defence, until they die. I've never been around to see it happen, but I'd like to, so I could facilitate communications in a meaningful way.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The obvious answer is to randomly infect the hedgehog population with rabies. People generally get the idea after a few of their darling little monsters die horribly for abusing animals.
Yes, it would mean the deaths of a select few hedgehogs but you know what thay say: "You cant make an omlette without giving a few hedgehogs rabies". Mom was sooo right about that.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Wait, are you so contagious that you can't even make an omelette without giving a few hedgehogs rabies? The virus has evolved, it's capable of spreading ironically! We need to notify the president elect. Get a hazmat-team of Sutherlands down there, NOW. -Agnes, sweetie, call the mayor and tell him I'll have to skip his daughter's OT III graduation. No buts, just do it! *pulls a smoke from the chest pocket* Damnit, this day started out so well.
(this post was a metaphor for GOP practices of some sort)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Now they have Sonic turning into a werewolf. A hedgehog that turns into were-wolf. Unfuckingbelievable.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Especially since "were" means "man". What he ought to be is a [insert old Germanic stem meaning "hedgehog"]wolf.
Edit : A quick Internet search suggests that perhaps "igilwolf" would be a reasonable term for a hedgehog/wolf creature.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...if a hedgehog was bitten by a werewolf (needed to pass said curse along if not a bloodline thing) woudn't that just kill them outright? I mean, a hedgehog would be like a McNugget by comparison.
You know, talking about GOP hedgehog werewolves is still] better than discussing the new Trek Enterprise.
Getting back in a (roundabout way) to the GOP, Bush has managed to pass several "midnight regulations" that will fuck anyone trying to take medical leave- basicly it gives employers discression as to weither they will pay accrued vacation time to someone needing medical leave (for hospital stays, having a baby, etc.) whereas it was a requirement prior. This fucks me directly, as I may need to take time off from work next year to (try to) fix my leg- now my employer still must legally give me the time off- they just dont have to let me use vacation time to cover my living expenses. I just will have to live off my millions saved from my generous salary. Or just go bankrupt- whichever.
Also, these "midnight regulations" affect the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act (which was already a gift to polluters) greatly easing government regulations in favor of big business.
After all, who needs clean air, adequate health care or preservation of endangered species?
Next up- pardons for all Bush's cronies!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Er...if a hedgehog was bitten by a werewolf (needed to pass said curse along if not a bloodline thing) woudn't that just kill them outright?"
I'm pretty sure there were supposed to be other methods of becoming werewolvized. Drinking water out of a werewolf's (or just wolf's?) footprint, for one. Or, I don't know, maybe the hedgehog had an open cut and got drooled upon by a werewolf?
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
Probably one of Dick Chaney's dark magic experiments.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
The Werehog.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Whole lotta bacon.
mmmmm....bacon.
As to Cheney, he's dropped off the radar completely- he's probably hoping history forgets him as throughly as the media seems to have.
Anyone catcg Bush's interview the other day? When asked what thing in his presidentcy he'd do over or what one thing went wrong, he said it was the "failure on the part of the inteligence community" that led to the invasion of Iraq.
LET THE REVISION OF HISTORY COMMENCE!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...maybe I should start a thread on all the Democrats I hate?
I refer miainly to asshats William Jefferson and, of course, Rod Blagojevich.
Nothing sours the elation of the first Democratic administration in eight looong years like Obama's new Attorney General having to prosecute two high profile Democrats as the first order of business.
..and make no mistake- if only half of what they're accused of is true, they should be deported to Antarctica in their underwear.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Y'know, the various press outlets keep referring to Blagojevich as "good looking" but he looks like some thug David Hasselhoff would slug on the old Knight Rider show.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We haven't had a good political thread in a while. Thought it was time I started one.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
