i wanted to put Q3 as an option but if i did i know who would win :P

McCain because he'd rig it.

can you still add it?

last time i did that for a joke i had ppl crying at me :P

Obama would still win, the deceased can't run.

AHAHAHAH

i would prefer nader to win. you might want to rephrase the question, because there are 6 candidates, afaik.

I would vote him too, but then we might as well include Q3...

who said i would vote for him?

noone, I just made the assumption, because if you want him to win you would vote for him here, where you have note reason for a strategical vote.

well, thx to a debate with naghokez and some commentary by chomsky, i've come to realize that, for me, the best option, at the voting booth, would be to vote against john mccain, which means voting for obama. i still want nader to win, even though it's not possible.

well, i think the lesser of two evils strategy is more important for swing states.

if i really had my way, ron paul would be the next president.(if there were a much wider field of candidates, then there'd probably be someone else, who's much more appropriate for usa, right now.)

So you've come to terms with duverger's law.

this is the first time i've seen this, but it certainly encapsulates the american voting system well.

watch what u say, as ignicunt would paint u into a corner, equate u with nut jobs but offer no criticism of his policies, other than some vague comment like "he's too libertarian"

k

ron paul would be the best choice!

O RLY?

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/10/31/cho...-mckinney/

Do you vote at all?

I notice some kind of disenchantment with politics by amerkans around here. I think that's kind of irritating.

i wasn't going to vote, until i changed my mind. then i went to go register and was a day late. :[

Not voting is kind of stupid, no?

how so? it's not like we have a democracy, over here. every four years we are presented with a choice between two guys that don't represent our views and some times we don't get the one we want. it's very easy to get discouraged. i feel activism and civil disobedience are much more effective tools for democracy than just participating in presidential elections, in usa.

that much sounds like a democracy to me ;)

The part where more than 50% can vote for one guy an the other one wins is bad though.

that much sounds like a democracy to me ;)

if it were a democracy, then the people would choose the nominees, not the business parties.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but from my understanding the people choose the nominees through the primaries?

no. ron paul was clearly leading in gallup polls and in contributions, for the republican party, and he got completely shut out of the debates and some primaries.

The American people have absolutely no influence over the choice of presidential candidates AT ALL

Yes it does, indirectly though. You vote for representatives that in turn (hopefully) vote for a candidate that you would approve, along party lines, generally speaking.

And we, those that registered with either party, get to vote in the state primaries.

ideally yes, but realistically that can not work 100%. Also afaik everybody with enough people backing him can apply for presidency. Unlike here for example.

I'm not saying you have a great democrac or anything. but the aspects you named really are democratic. consensus being the term there.

And in the end you can't blame the system (completely) that most people only consider democrats and republicans.

ideally yes, but realistically that can not work 100%.

sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the way candidates are nominated is completely undemocratic.

I'm not saying you have a great democrac or anything. but the aspects you named really are democratic. consensus being the term there.

i know i've linked this several times, but this is the best explanation i've found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk

And in the end you can't blame the system (completely) that most people only consider democrats and republicans.

no, the system is entirely to blame. people do not receive accurate and unbiased information by the corporate media. things have been like this since edward bernays stepped into the public relations industry.

by system I meant the underlying political rules that were once set up.
Not what has developed out of it, and also what people let it become!
e.g. If noone watched fox news they cease to exist.

Yeah, I really feel for you guys. It's really fucked up and makes me cherish the way democray is executed over here.

Then again ... if you don't vote, maybe the cancer-guy wins. I would want to avoid that with all the powers given to me.

i'm pretty confident that obama will win california, even without my vote.

You can't be sure, can you?
That's the kind of thinking, that let's the wrong guy/party win.

no, i'm sure.

told you. :P

not that i was unsure about it either. :D

Vote for him anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

i can't. i missed the registration deadline.

makes me cherish the way democray is executed over here.

it does?
we can't even vote for the parties candidate. nor can we vote our president directly.

Yes, I also prefer that our system has not (yet) degraded to a county fair mud slinging contest, but it's not really democratic either.

Hey, at least we have more than 2 parties.

yes, which is definately a plus. But we never had a chancellor other than SPD or CDU.

And only one president who was independent but we don't get to vote them anyway.


/edit

and no, Scheel does not count ;)

Yeah, but if we could vote for each party's candidate, our elections would take more than a year, which would lead to never ending campaigning, which would lead to the point where the actual process of politics gets put on hold. which would suck.
i think we'd have to get rid of 3 or 4 parties for that. that would be kinda stupid, wouldn't it. ;D

why note put all the possible canditates up at once? One vote, more democratic.
Of course, it would not work because of strategies and such.

And actually what i meant was that we don't get to vote the president at all. Just the people who vote for someone when the time has come.

Don't know about CA, but here in MN, you can register at November 4th too.

our registration deadline was oct 20. :[

Yay, what county?! Ramsey here, even though I never lived there :D

Are you voting for Dean Barkley? Sorry I dropped Swedish btw.

I hadn't even heard of Barkley, I am not very locally involved in Minnesota, I just vote for whatever my grandmother and relatives there recommend usually, they've got good taste, and live there.

"i wasn't going to vote, until i changed my mind. then i went to go register and was a day late. :[ "

it's better that way.

y

it's okay.

You shouldn't vote. Voting means you consent to being governed. HF!

not really.

I'm voting for Nader. It's not as much a vote for McCain as a vote for McCain would be. This is mostly because I'm more idealistic than practical. I would feel irresponsible voting for someone who is going to escalate war in Afghanistan and leaves all options on the table with Iran. My state is safe.
If people support third party candidates without voting for them how do they ever gain any ground to be considered viable.
Democrats aren't ever going to give us IRV, open debates or proportional representation so a third party vote is the only way to improve the status of democracy.

Although in a swing state that means you'd not be maximizing your opposition against the republicans who have lately shown even less towards liberty and the constitution. For them I'm neutral, either way it doesn't matter much.

I'm also voting Dean Barkley (I) for Senate here in Minnesota but he can actually win.

nice.

...leaves all options on the table with Iran.

Unless you intend to wipe out the entire Iranian populace, or somehow, inexplicably, completely cut them off from the rest of the world why is this a negative?

Leaving all options on the table means not ruling out such insanity as using preemptive war or nuclear weapons against them. That is what "all options" means.

The logic behind this is enhanced bargaining power or something, never mind that threatening countries and invading their neighbors is a damned good reason for them to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

Heh you’ve totally blindsided me :~) never heard that analysis of the Obama position before… you seriously believe the US (Obama) is capable of, or willing to launch either a preemptive war or nuclear strike against Iran? It also means there’s no pre-requisite to negotiation, no hurdles for Iran to jump through. As has been shown in Northern Ireland, North Korea and more recently Syria – negotiation & incentives can work. Isolation doesn’t appear to.

Give me Obama’s all option & open diplomacy over “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.

Obama's position is better in that he will negotiate. But it's still too much Bush style saber rattling, pro-Israeli stance and lying going on. His speech to AIPAC and betrayal on telecom immunity sealed the loss of my vote for him. The same sort of lying that Iraq harbored Al-Qaeda and had WMD's. Seeing that Iran doesn't threaten us it would be wise to take preemptive war off the table, but in every interview he refuses to rule out those possibilities.

Do you not agree it'd be easily misrepresented as politically naïve for Obama to do that, potentially massively damaging? Ignoring whether they are / have been a threat – do you think Obama acting in the hypothetical and completely ruling out ever launching a preemptive strike is wise?

You’re also muddling issues. I don’t consider Obama the ideal candidate either, but that doesn’t mean he’s not right on Iran.

“Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama and Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama and Biden believe that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.”

hope you don't mind if i jump into the discussion.

Do you not agree it'd be easily misrepresented as politically naïve for Obama to do that, potentially massively damaging?

well, it would be extremely damaging to the iranians and working class americans, but very profitable for the military industrial complex and a small portion of the banking industry.

Ignoring whether they are / have been a threat – do you think Obama acting in the hypothetical and completely ruling out ever launching a preemptive strike is wise?

it is wise and it is the responsible thing to do. iran isn't a threat and there's a lot of evidence to show that, unless we keep terrorizing them with threats of a preemptive strike. at the moment, they have a much better case for initiating a preemptive strike against the united states, than vice versa.

You’re also muddling issues. I don’t consider Obama the ideal candidate either, but that doesn’t mean he’s not right on Iran.

he's absolutely wrong and is being politically irresponsible.

Do you not agree it'd be easily misrepresented as politically naïve for Obama to do that, potentially massively damaging?

well, it would be extremely damaging to the iranians and working class americans, but very profitable for the military industrial complex and a small portion of the banking industry.

One can't emphasis enough the difference between not ruling out, and actually launching, rhetoric and action. Going by your flag you're from the US, surely you've seen the various McCain attack ads selectively quoting Obama on Iran already? Given that ammunition, they'd destroy him.

Principles and ideals are fantastic - but so's reality.

And his tough talk for the bunch of militarist Jews, Aipac, who have no right to as much influence in our gov as they command, just indicate willingness for more bad foreign policy in the region. We give more foreign aid to Israel than the continent of Africa. It in turn is used to kill and displace Palestinian civilians and to criticize Israel on this or anything else is practically considered antisemitic..

Aha, and the clouds parted :O)

I agree it would be very damaging to Obama to state Iran is not a grave threat to the US. Not just because the Republicans would tear him apart for being "weak on security." But it would also be too much of a challenge to the status quo for a major candidate. Most voters believe it as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons with the intent of giving them to terrorist organizations and blowing up Israel and/or us. To say otherwise almost gets you accused of having your facts wrong.

So a hard-line stance against Iran really seems to be the only electable position.

not being american i was unsure tbh... being female didnt help either ;) i will add a "someone else" option

just say, "who is the lesser of two evils?" or something. btw, you're so sexist. :P

added 2 more options and yes i am lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo

Nader goes full retard.

there was nothing racist about that statement, imo. that's just the corporate media being the corporate media.

It's still a retarded thing to say.

he's got a good point, so i don't see how it's retarded.

You really are a nader fan aren't you?

not really. if there was anyone that i'm fanboyish about, it's ron paul.

How can you support someone that doesn't believe in evolution?

i think most of the candidates don't. the fact that he has a real understanding of conservatism puts him ahead of many of the candidates, imo. if it took so long for us to elect a nonwhite president, then it's going to take a long time for us to elect another atheist president. i'm not going to use the nirvana fallacy to decide whether or not a candidate is worthy of my support. despite ron paul's retarded beliefs, his constitutionalist values would keep him from violating the establishment clause.

you have to consider what he really said. if not you are like "fox news" ;)

Yes, the term uncle tom might be somewhat over the line. But he also gives obama the choice! Which includes to become uncle sam ! (or is that racist too?)

If he had said he can choose to be a slave to corporations or to be independent.

After all, I think it's this simple:
Only a person looking for racist remarks and seeing obama as a black person see this a racist remark.

Well it's a term that pretty much just used for black people in the states. Even if it wasn't meant to be racist it's a really stupid thing to say.

yea, it says that in the dictionary, but i and many others refer to people like bush as uncle toms. i've never seen it as a racial thing.

I do not know enough about US politics to have an opinion.

then it's easy.

If you know you don't know enough you are already smarter than Palin who runs with McCain. Therefore Obama is more likely to be your choice.

sombra is a option?

He's not even on the radar

Ooooooooooh, snap!

but he can still see us through the walls

There are more then 2 candidates... stupid american politics 350 mil people and only 2 parties...

that would be covered by the option "Someone Else"

A plurality voting system will, over time, always lead to to a (de facto) two party system.

There are more than 2 parties btw, they are just not represented in elected offices.

Im hope that will win Obama...

but... for mother Russia =)

how are those capitalist reforms going?

awesome :D

HAHAHAHA

one day

realistically that should be a Chinese flag

no kidding

World in Conflict concept art? :D

HAHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAhaAHAHA

Ohoh, brother..
http://cristal1.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/zmeu...mment-1791

http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

nice !

trust the maedonians and albanians to be the only country to go for mccain....

Here's the answer.

Obama! because he wants to end the war (right?)

no.

he doesn't want it to continue either.

he talks about troop withdrawal, but has never said that he wants the occupation to end.

i dont know much else about him :<.
other than he has a plan to save the economy. i dont know if it'll work though

He understands the new way forward for America!

lol, his plan will just increase inflation and the national deficit. dunno how that's supposed to help the economy. nevertheless, it's much better to have special interest groups, domestic corporations etc, that run the democratic party back in control than having the military industrial complex run the shit.

the problem with the US elections is that you have 2 coices, basically. and the outside world views it as two emperors fighting for the top spot. so you are led down the road to pick one lesser evil. in sweden we have a lot of parties getting high votes and beeing able to put a fight up. over here opinions is more of a matter than how many kids you have or how much you weigh.

but the media chose to play the moronic card for some reason, and thats like the only source us outsiders have. and listening to random people on esr (no offence) isnt a good idea either since you guys are obviously baised. like everyone else for that matter. i wish someone could just present some stone cold hard facts about this shit. but from what i know i'll go with obamaz in this one.

who's being biased and about what?

let's face it, this is a fight between democrats and republicans. nothing else -really- matters. most of the users on esr are too stupid/young/childish to be objective on the matter. i guess that would include you. seeing what you post you seem anti both rep and dem and seem to be rooting for some third party loser (who you didnt even vote for). again, no offence but thats how it looks in my eyes.

1st of all, I'm sure you have access to Youtube. Ron Paul is on there aplenty, and he's not a loser, he's just a bit too radical for the average American citizen.

Secondly, I don't consider it Democrats vs Republicans as much as I see it as 4 more years that are the same as the last 8 (McCain voting 95% agreement with Bush) or those of us that think that maybe America is not necessarily moving in the right direction, and want to be able to honestly view ourselves with justifiable pride, rather than stupid blind pride (which is what anyone is being if they're happy with the current state of USA).

so youre picking the lesser of two evils?

....So you didn't watch the video I linked for you...

i watched 2 mins then i had to go home from work D:

listen fuckface, i supported ron paul(R), dennis kucinich(D), mike gravel(D) and ralph nader(I). rofl, no offense? go fuck yourself with a red herring dildo.

rage aside..

let's face it, this is a fight between democrats and republicans.

it's a fight between which section of the elite class get to rule, for the next four years.

nothing else -really- matters. most of the users on esr are too stupid/young/childish to be objective on the matter. i guess that would include you.

sif, you're being objective, mature or unbiased, in any way.

seeing what you post you seem anti both rep and dem

yes, i have a serious problem with antidemocratic tyrants. am i out of line?

..seem to be rooting for some third party loser (who you didnt even vote for). again, no offence but thats how it looks in my eyes.

so what if i'm not going to vote for nader? he's still the best remaining candidate. the serious issue is keeping mccain out of office, though. if not voting for nader doesn't give me the right to speak about this, then you not being american doesn't give you those rights. obviously, this is fallacious. if you don't know wtf you're talking about, then don't say anything. there's no need to talk all kinds of shit, when you're wrong.

slow down soldier, i didnt mean any harm. all of the people you listed are fucked now, so being a follower of those is like saying im following .. uhh.. you to be president. it's just as likely to happen. and i think you missed the point of my post. if you're not able to talk about this in a grown up way you've shown that you can't take a step back and be objective. it's like self critisism, some can handle it and others cant. discussing whether some noname guy should be in office instead of those two is so pointless and totally besides reality. i can't see why you would even do that.

and the voting part, if i really rooted for a third party guy i'd most definately get my ass off my computer chair and go vote. i guess its too much to ask. thing is though, i'm not allowed to vote in the US elections. i never said anything about "not being allowed to say wtf you want". that's just your assumptions. you can say whatever you want. problem is though.. i might not think your views are trustworthy.

Although I agree that he should've gotten his ass up to vote, I think you yourself should take a look at the bigger picture.

I think he wants to support more of an idea than a muppet in the oval office.

i did get my ass up to register but i was a day late. christ, let it go.

VOTE OR DIE NIGGA!

link raged the fuck out of me, right now. fucking clown thinks he knows what an objective viewpoint of the election looks like, without knowing anything about the election.

ya, he's funny sometimes. i mean, look at the WoW thread.

good luck stating where i was wrong there

sad tbh.

what is? having a discussion?

err, being objective has nothing to do with this election. you can be objective about anything. thing is, if you're too narrowed in on one political idea you generally have issues with seeing the good parts about others. that goes for every country.

tell me where i'm being narrow. i'm not sorry for sounding pessimistic. i'm partially responsible for the policies of the state, so it is my duty to criticize its wrongdoings.

and supporting doing what? saying it on esr? thats a waste

all of the people you listed are fucked now, so being a follower of those is like saying im following .. uhh.. you to be president. it's just as likely to happen.

past tense, jackass.

and i think you missed the point of my post. if you're not able to talk about this in a grown up way you've shown that you can't take a step back and be objective. it's like self critisism, some can handle it and others cant.

you're not being objective, in any way, hypocrite.

discussing whether some noname guy should be in office instead of those two is so pointless and totally besides reality. i can't see why you would even do that.

1.nader is very well known.
2.i'm not advocating anyone vote for him.
3.calling him noname sounds pretty fucking subjective.
4.i'm merely saying he's the best choice and i've already said, in this thread, that he has no chance of winning.

and the voting part, if i really rooted for a third party guy i'd most definately get my ass off my computer chair and go vote.

i'm unable to vote and i wouldn't vote for him, anyway. keeping mccain out of office is a much bigger priority.

i guess its too much to ask. thing is though, i'm not allowed to vote in the US elections. i never said anything about "not being allowed to say wtf you want". that's just your assumptions.

you were clearly insinuating it and still are with the whole, "get my ass off my computer chair and go vote." someone buy this dickface some objective goggles or something.

you can say whatever you want. problem is though.. i might not think your views are trustworthy.

you've hardly even followed this election. who the fuck should take your opinion seriously if you're saying shit like this?

i think you got this on the wrong foot (or what is the expression? :D)

this has nothing to do with who i am or how objective i am about the subject, i was asking for someone to give ME objective views on who thinks what in this election, but after thinking about it i realized no one is most likely able to.

and i never asked for my opinions to be valid. i asked for an objective standpoint.

i guess this IS a cultural thing since vedic had the same problems understanding this is not about me :D

and by "noname" i mean people who dont really matter in this election as it is now.

PS. i didnt get a notification about this post.. hmm.. weird..

listen, my views are not rare or unjustified. if you really want to understand what the political structure in the united states is like, without having to trust the words of randoms from esr, then you're going to have to put some time into it and its quite interesting. i'm always recommending people to check out noam chomsky on youtube. he is the most well informed, honest, independent commentator, on the subject, in my and many others' opinion.

ill check it out, thanks <3

Chomsky is definately a must when you want to analyse their system. But you should as always not limit research to one person, cause he is somewwat too radical to be considered completely independent, imo. (but then who really is independent these days?)

well, is, pretty much, like a walking encyclopedia. if you hear him speak, he often cites many sources, authors and professors, which will open you up to many others, like him.

yes, but in that case you mor or less follow one man's path. without looking too much for yourself.
Which I believe is something Chomsky himself wouldn't advice. But yeah either him or very dry objective texts which explain the technical side would be the way to start.

well, he'd advise you to check out the sources and people that he mentions.

and not look for yourself if you find any other interesting authors? i doubt that.

i wasn't saying that, in any way. :D

but I've been saying the same thing all along :(

Here's someone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCMxEAvDmcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFGllk8XtDA

only watched the first link, but indeed a good example at how you should a everything critically. For example the video in the link is utter idiocy.

i mean the author criticises that 500 - 1700 had no economic growth.

now remeber that is the time of monarchs, very few people who owned everything. Then came the revolution poorer people got a bigger share, which resulted in economic growth.

And then they want to take that as an argument for the type of capitalism where a few people get richer and richer and the hope is that the poorer get some share of it.

How retarded can you be?


Let alone that their argumenting and especially quoting style is high school level at best. e.g. regarding the term "economic growth" it's a number that doesn't care if people starve. Only dumb populistic shit heads who you civil disasters when talking about the definition of a technical term.

All an all a prime example why studying work of scientists as opposed to youtube retards is the way to go. thank you.

only watched the first link, but indeed a good example at how you should a everything critically. For example the video in the link is utter idiocy.

i mean the author criticises that 500 - 1700 had no economic growth.

now remeber that is the time of monarchs, very few people who owned everything. Then came the revolution poorer people got a bigger share, which resulted in economic growth.

And then they want to take that as an argument for the type of capitalism where a few people get richer and richer and the hope is that the poorer get some share of it.

I think they mis-use the word capitalism and use it to mean freemarkets. I think the point in this presenation was that even under capitalism by collaborating with poor, the rich create distributable wealth; as opposed to feodalism - slavery under royalty; as opposed to communism - slavery under the corrupt state. I guess labour unions could work under any of them, but due to increased productivity one's salary and living standard is still much higher in the first what it would be under the others. Do you have an opinion about Chomsky's position, as the fantastic financial advisor he seems to be, he could share with us?

Let alone that their argumenting and especially quoting style is high school level at best. e.g. regarding the term "econimoic growth" it's a number that doesn't care if people starve. Only dumb populistic shit heads who you civil disasters when talking about the definition of a technical term.

Oh boy would have I loved to see the mortality rates :) That would have been even more convincing.

I think they mis-use the word capitalism and use it to mean freemarkets.

all the more reason to ignore their crap if they can't get a simple term right...

I think the point in this presenation was that even under capitalism by collaborating with poor, the rich create distributable wealth;

really? I never heard that capitalism has to have rich people to function (except maybe as an incentive). I would rather say it needs people with medium income who have some money to invest wisely rather than waste it on a private jet plane.
Gates wasn't rich, Jobbs wasn't rich. Now, they are that is another matter. See, you have to realize that you don't need much money to start a company. 50.000€ is enough. And then you can get loans from banks and to them it doesn't matter if the money belongs to a rich guy or 100 middle class people.

Just imagine this, in Germany he richer have continually been getting richer but still unemployment (in the last 20 years) is higher than before. So i guess you're saying we should all donate more money to the rich so that we all are better of.

as opposed to communism - slavery under the corrupt state.

You will have to explain that one, seeing the hasn't ever been a communist state. pm demiurge for more on that.

really? I never heard that capitalism has to have rich people to function (except maybe as an incentive). I would rather say it needs people with medium income who have some money to invest wisely rather than waste it on a private jet plane.
Gates wasn't rich, Jobbs wasn't rich. Now, they are that is another matter. See, you have to realize that you don't need much money to start a company. 50.000€ is enough. And then you can get loans from banks and to them it doesn't matter if the money belongs to a rich guy or 100 middle class people.

Just imagine this, in Germany he richer have continually been getting richer but still unemployment (in the last 20 years) is higher than before. So i guess you're saying we should all donate more money to the rich so that we all are better of.

as opposed to communism - slavery under the corrupt state.

You will have to explain that one, seeing the hasn't ever been a communist state. pm demiurge for more on that.

You were the one talking about capitalism as if only actors in the market would've been the piss poor and the stinky rich. I commented an idea presented by you. You can take all glory for the proposition you made and answer the whole strawman you created.

Apple was funded by a multi-millionaire according to wikipedia. With 50.000e Jobs' another company, Pixar would've probably been able to animate 3 seconds of Toy Story.

Oh boy would have I loved to see the mortality rates :) That would have been even more convincing.

irrelevant to economic growth.

Shouldn't this be addressed to becks?

i'm responding to you, genius.

How did I refer to these things having a connection in any way?

you responded to this:

Let alone that their argumenting and especially quoting style is high school level at best. e.g. regarding the term "econimoic growth" it's a number that doesn't care if people starve. Only dumb populistic shit heads who you civil disasters when talking about the definition of a technical term.

with this:

Oh boy would have I loved to see the mortality rates :) That would have been even more convincing.

And? How did I refer to these things having a connection in any way?

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1631074#pid1631074

yeah, right at the start of the first video, the guy attributes a strawman to chomsky, which he did not do. he was merely making an analogous argument to show why the questioners argument was fallacious.

On economy he is just having cowardish stabs when he knows he doesn't have to bear any responsibility about his complaints. What are his views/solutions? It's funny how much he and Nader seems to be only concerned about the rich. As if in (unlikely imo) a case markets would crash in a domino-effect that would benefit the poor somehow, instead of making them even poorer because they might have no job to go to.

mind to find my that as a quote?

As if in (unlikely imo) a case markets would crash in a domino-effect that would benefit the poor somehow

?

oh you, either that Nader or Chumsky think a market crash would benefit the poor as you insinuate.
Or at least any reliable study were the higher taxing of the richest people of a country ever resulted in a market crash. As opposed to the well founded connection between extreme wealth of very few and the low standards of the masses.

I'm talking about the bail-out in this case. I don't believe in it because of pragmatic reasons, but he cites only rich people, when the impact is much wider.

Or at least any reliable study were the higher taxing of the richest people of a country ever resulted in a market crash.

Higher taxing doesn't help the poor either as the outcome seems to often be actually less revenue - because of less competition, inefficiency and poorer job markets. It's a matter of optimum, which usually seems favour less taxes.

As opposed to the well founded connection between extreme wealth of very few and the low standards of the masses.

Yet if you tax more, the rich will remain rich but sack the poor because they can't afford to keep them working, seize their investments. This results in more classisism and larger gap between the poor and the rich.

Higher taxing doesn't help the poor either as the outcome seems to often be actually less revenue - because of less competition, inefficiency and poorer job markets.

and here we go again. It's always only the "seems" and no it does not "seem" like that, it's a theory nothing more! But I'm asking again is that really so or are you just falling for the rich people's lobby?

Yet if you tax more, the rich will remain rich but sack the poor because they can't afford to keep them working, seize their investments.

again, why would that necessarily be so?
And I'm talking about rich people not companies per se. And we are talking a tax increase of lets say 10%. Where do you think the rich peolpe will take that money from:
a) the bank
b) buy less luxuries, one less vacation, etc
c) their cleaning woman, gardener, etc cause now they only have 0.9 million instead of 1 million
d) and actual investment in a company that earns them more money the better it runs.

So, please either find some scientific study, or start your own theories from the beginning and stop making assumptions.

http://www.insideronline.org/archives/2007/winter/chap1.pdf

What is the magic wand that government waves that is able to make people rich? If anything, it's the exact opposite - all things upper management of huge enterprises and likes who enjoy salary like that spend money on create jobs, and people who receive the money from those continue the process. Usually people who are smart enough to get there have better idea how to invest wealth rather than the government. In very few countries there are people who enjoy salaries like that. In USA income tax of those people is 35%.

Ms. Hagelin is vice president of Communications
and Marketing at The Heritage Foundation
and author of Home Invasion: Protecting
Your Family in a Culture That’s Gone Stark
Raving Mad.

go away, troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X3eE18dfmE

Since you mentioned not knowing much about him.

There should be an option, "Doesn't Matter."

truth

isn't "don't care" close enough?

But I'm American, so I can't put that one.

"Not American (don't care)", but if it was worded "Not American/Don't Care" I'd select it.

Don't care and doesn't matter are two different things..IMO doesn't matter means it really doesn't matter who wins, we will be in a shithole regardless. Although 'don't care' has the same effect, it doesn't necessarily imply 'doesn't matter'

whos the idiot who voted mccain?

Probably a NASCAR/NRA/redneck kinda guy.

No, most definitely.

Someone who makes a minimum of a quarter million dollars a year and loves war. obv.

Or a "patriotic" inbred \o/

"Muggles" and "ih". Flame them!

Ralph Nader

wonder who voted McCain

pro-q3dm6

solly :<

David Caruso

yeahhhhhhhhh

Can't believe that no one's mentioned Ron Paul.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1629521#pid1629521

The fuck? I even searched for "ron paul" on this page to make sure and got nothing.

Whatever. I stand corrected. >_>

Ron Paul FTW! 2012!

Amen!

And the Daily Fail has spoken. No need to pick up the paper since we have gotten today's xenophobic and racist rant.

nice - in russia we really did know that next president would be Dmitriy Medvedev in 2006... and Sergey Ivanov or Dmitriy MEdvedev in 2005... and that good... coz russia not for democracy now... some of clans can to destroy country if they will be on power... that line of vladimir putin must be go on... that not usa with their hypertrophic democracy shit

I completely agree giving any freedoms to Russians would be insane. What they really need is another tyrant asap.

/cynicism

everyone expects russia to democratize. but really, if you think about it, they dont have any kind of democratic history, so it would be rich to expect sudden transformation in less than a generation, eventually though, i think that as their people start bringing their grievances up to government they will become more involved, maybe?

.

M8, that's kind of his point.

Wow, reading that post you wonder if it's even in english and then BAM just like that he drops hypertrophic in there.

typical babelfish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk&feature=related

COOLLER BEST PRESIDENT EVER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lgQVMCcwM

chomsky's commentary in this video is from '96.

[+] for u :)

wheres the cooller image? :P


Nominee - Cooller
Party - Communist
Home state - MOTHER RUSSIA

cooller for president!

someone should tell cooller that he's got more votes than McCain.

Shouldn't the option be "American (don't care)"?

I'm glad there's an option to weed out the daft people

you mean the McCain option, right?

Sarah to the rescue!

I'm gonna write in Cooller

Ralph Nader

cooller for president!

wtf... stupid speach

preved medved

gde takuu pictu vzyal? v bolshem razmere?

its a shame or election system is so hostile to 3rd parties with winner take all electoral college rules. out of the candidates i've seen this election i would vote for barack obama anyways but i know with the way this system is setup there are so many 3rd parties that dont even get any sort of mention in the news.

in short the us is really the best place to look at for an example of how NOT to vote for your president/prime minister. hopefully that will change one day but not likely

First time I read some McCain's proposal about 20 points I thought it was a joke. But it wasn't. :/

right on

fucking yeah

Alright assholes. Now that the election is over, and Hussein won, maybe I can get online and rip you fuckers to shreds. This widescreen thing is nice. But we need a game... maybe like CTF with only one flag?

wtf is wrong with you?

Go Franken. Some Fox News heads will explode if he wins.

Thank you America!

YES WE CAN!

wtf is this? obama wins? majority of americans proven they are not retarded? i'm in shock.

relax it was only by a few million. theres still plenty of retards

Cooller would have won if he had practiced.

joe the plumber

Luckily, now that the election is over, Obama can stop behaving like Charles Palantine.

Fuck American websites. There's supposed to be free speech and free expression, but every other day I get banned from some American site. I cut up my arm with a razor blade to mark every occasion. A scar for each ban. Through all the years on this UK website, i've never been banned.

God Save The Queen.

Now that the election is over, maybe America can solve some of its problems. What happened is, through the Constitution, our founders forbid government from restricting freedom. The problem though, is they did not enact similar legislation for the private sector. Is private repression any better than public? The slaves didn't think so and neither do I.

The 1st amendment reads, 'Congress may not abridge the freedom of speech'; which means, Congress can bridge free-speech. This censorship solution is one example of how Congress can cure private sector plagues.

The private sector in no way lives by the standards of freedom Americans have been led to expect. Many voters enjoy exploiting this lack of freedom, as their ancestors once did publicly. This causes them to campaign against any laws, for the sake of 'conservatism', as they call it, when really, what they want is to continue exploitation (through authoritarian private sector institutions).

Certainly, to have true freedom, there must be no oppression, private or public.

At some point, the United States government lost its mind. We can find one of the most obvious examples in the case of alcohol laws. In this legal arena, the government forces store clerks to function as police detectives, actively practicing superficial prejudice, akin to racism, with no payment except avoidance of jail and rescindment of property. Innocent customers are subjected to this discrimination, and if found to be 'underage' by these pseudo-cops, are treated as criminals and are guilty until proven innocent.

The system is a failure in every way. Young people, who they are trying to stop from drinking, can still drink in any number of ways: A fake id (the easiest thing in the world to acquire), through an older friend, an accommodating family member, a random person, or any number of creative ways not mentioned. Worse yet, young people are not the parties committing alcohol-related crimes. Young people have their whole lives ahead of them, which means they have more to live for and more to lose through imprisonment.

Even though all of these things are true, people continue abiding by these ridiculous laws. The people are like slaves, afraid of what might happen were the laws to change, or if they stopped obeying the laws. In other words, they submit to this awful coercion, controlled by the fear of jail, deluded into believing the system is virtuous.

Will the destruction of the Republican party fix these problems, which were mostly brought about by those who consist the Republican party? No. The people must fix the problems, as required by any true democracy. If 75% of the people want it to happen, it will happen. If the people are too scared to make it happen, you will see no results. Until the people truly play their democratic roles, we will all continue to suffer under government oppression.

Don't expect much from Obama. He'll be better than Bush, but that isn't saying much. Bush is a complete nightmare. He wants less government so he can commit more crime. His M.O. is to escape prosecution by claiming accident. Like 9/11... 'whoops, I slipped and 9/11 happened'. Of course, if they profit, you know it isn't a real accident. That sick son of a bitch doesn't just lie wholeheartedly and without difficulty, hesitation or restriction, he actually convinces himself to believe his own bullshit. Whatever he needs to believe, in the moment, he will believe completely, effectively perpetuating denial and delusion. Of course, the people take after their President; One business after another, over the past 8 years, has practiced every feudal coercion method known to man. Extortion, blackmail, exploitation... all legal when there is no government. Alberto Gonzales? 'Oh no, I can't remember the answer to your question, while i'm here on trial. I'm not a criminal, it's entirely accidental.'

Obama though, earned his place on my permanent shit-list by appointing Hillary Clinton to Sec. of State. His decision amounts to an inexcusable blunder we must all suffer through for the next 4 to 8 years. Obviously, he was acting for himself rather than for the people he is supposed to be serving. I mean, really... all a first-lady must do is ride cock and keep her mouth shut. And how exactly does being on the BoE of wal-mart qualify you for Sec. of State? Oh, that's right... it doesn't. She was only a Senator because her husband was a President. Kind of like Bush and his daddy. She only got votes in the primary because feminists are ridiculous, rednecks are racist and her husband was President. Luckily, the rest of the world is not so asinine and will ignore her and keep the damage to a minimum.

Oh yeah, and store clerks should refuse to function as police detectives, at least until they get payed tax-dollars as compensation. Leave parenting to parents. Why are 'kids' buying alcohol? Because their parents let them. Can't imagine why government doesn't want children drinking. If they're young enough, they can't drive anyway... certainly there will be no domestic violence. Does government have any valid argument, or is it purely a case of breaking Constitutional law?

You guys should really get rid of this politics thing. I'll go on and on.

Let's cut the facade people. Why not have store clerks wear police uniforms, and if they don't comply, we put them in jail?

On a slightly different subject, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was fictional - like the Bible. Drugs do not take away your self-control. There is no sound, non-discriminatory argument for outlawing drugs. Amendment 8 specifies there will be no cruel and unusual punishment. Almost everyone in jail for drugs should sue the government for breaking Constitutional law. Amendment 4 specifies there will be no unreasonable search and seizure. Is it reasonable to search for drugs? Is it reasonable to search for nuclear weapons? The United States government is liable for every crime it commits.

Quote of the day: The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' - Robert G. Ingersoll

I believe completely in private industry. Soon, I will gain an International Patent on oxygen. To breathe, you will all have to give me money.

Say hi to Sarah Palin. She has seen the Northern Lights more than all of you combined.

Fact is, punk is not a style, it is a form of protest. Why did hippies grow their hair long? To be opposite from the military, with their shaved heads. I was disappointed in our 'punk' Americans, over the past 8 years, who had a great chance for protest, but did what instead?

Anyone against protest is against freedom. Internet people are so screwed up. I deliberately annoy them, yet instead of putting me on /ignore, they bitch endlessly, like i'm their fucking slave or some horseshit. I get banned from all these ass-fuck websites, when a website ban is the dumbest thing imaginable. With web-email, like hotmail or yahoo, plus a proxy, these bans are as worthless as a 2-dollar martian whore.

I like esreality though. I can come here fully stocked with Israeli weaponry, and no Christian mother-fuckers fuck with me. What do you mofos prefer... a Tavor or an Israeli modified ak-47?

The simple solution to anti-semitism is for every Jew to acquire an assault rifle. Of course, Israel and Muslim nations have territorial integrity, if they ally against the common enemy known as Christian aggression. Jews and Muslims, do not let Christians trick you into killing each other.

Likewise, kids, do not let the world turn you into monsters. Stick to video games, which is what this website should return to being about.

fuck the jews.

COOLLER FOR PRESIDENT
BEST PLAYER EVER

You see, gaynal sex phreax, you could learn some fucking lessons. Queen Nicky decrees, you must all experience the following excellent production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN8W77tyfTE

Comcast... maybe soon they'll learn about N-wireless and repeaters, then I can get online and all you fools can die Mr. T style.

so.... who won?

not cooller.

thanks, scotland