ESR - User: randomness666

<< Comment #1 @ 10:21 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo

just shit your pants now. don't expect america to elect a proper president.

<< Comment #28 @ 14:54 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #1

I think the only way we'd ever get a president capable of doing the job right would to make there be less political incentives and more of a paycheck.

We could get a highly educated, highly capable person to actually run for office if the job paid exceptionally well since most of these people are working in the private sector for enormous paychecks. If all the US is willing to pay is $200,000/yr, the only people who are going to run for this position are those either more interested in the political power gained, or have ulterior motives or special interests in mind.

Someone with a PhD in Economics/Business and Sociology background from an Ivy League school, or even great international business experience isn't going to get out of the private sector to do a job at the fraction of the paycheck to do a "public service". There's got to be some other incentive... which is why is despise politicians. You know they aren't running for president because their heart and love for their country is 10x that of an ordinary man or woman.

While I wouldn't say someone like Ben Bernanke would make an awesome president, I would definitely say Bernanke is probably more qualified to lead a capitalist society rather than a person who has been a politician or public speecher by trade their entire lives.

<< Comment #40 @ 16:08 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #28

well, we need our president and the majority of congress to be responsible, ethically legitimate(meaning not someone who's philosophy is driven by a 'god told us so' kind of rationality) and not fascist, opportunist, corporatist fuckbags.

Edited by Lo at 14:52 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #41 @ 16:33 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #40

Well, the way I look at it, most people who are well-educated and talented put that to use to make the most of their lives. This typically means they go for the best paying jobs and work hard at it.

It's the way capitalism works, imo, that makes proper reward for hard work possible. By having the presidential job pay so measely, the only thing that guarantees is compensation in other ways or no hard work at all...

<< Comment #42 @ 16:36 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #41

i don't think harder work=more pay. also, i think, GENERALLY, the higher paying the job, the less necessary it is for society.(in usa)

<< Comment #45 @ 16:50 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #42

I couldn't disagree more. But we will have to agree to disagree here.

I think there are situations where people do get too much paid for very little effort (recording artists and a lot of popular musicians come to mind). But there are many people who get paid appropriately for their work.

Ideally the system would work. Ideally, socialism would work as well. But we do not live in an ideal world where people feel moral obligations to do the responsible and "right" thing. I do think that, for the most part, if you put a reward in front of someone, and apply the proper rules to the game, they will work harder than those others, who if you just give them the reward and ask them politely to do it, would work.

<< Comment #60 @ 18:01 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Pushpabon - Reply to #45

Government run coercive socialism can't be justified on an individual level.

<< Comment #64 @ 18:22 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #60

can't be justified on any rational level.

<< Comment #66 @ 18:31 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #60

Lots of very lazy people out there who would rather the government tell them what to do and pay and do everything in their lives.

In America, those people usually live off welfare and have 3 kids... and STILL take Taxi Cabs everywhere....

<< Comment #47 @ 17:00 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Naghokez - Reply to #28

Obama graduated from Harvard.

<< Comment #53 @ 17:19 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #47

With a degree in law... which isn't what I had in mind.

7%

<< Comment #81 @ 19:24 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

xoji - Reply to #47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5R6kVry4_c

<< Comment #55 @ 17:26 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #28

That will never happen. The legal age for presidency is 35 afaik, but more realistically it's around 45+. The amount of time, contacts, promotion, money u need to even be recognized in a country as big as USA, is unthinkable. It doesn't matter if the salary is 200,000, 20, or 20,000,000, any real candidate must sit in the highest ranks of the food chain already.

<< Comment #57 @ 17:35 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #55

I believe that grassroot movements are still possible. Ron Paul had a nationwide support base and he's pretty much independent and almost unheard of before this year's election season.

I figure an already reasonably wealthy person, with some strong network connections, could make a pretty decent run. Romney paid nearly for all of his campaign single-handedly. And hiring a team of good PR reps isn't so hard.

I expect someone coming from a background as a powerful and talented CEO of a large company would have a good working knowledge of public relations to begin with. Knowing how to expedite TV advertising and newslettering campaigns as well as scheduling rallies shouldn't be too bad for someone coming from the business world.

<< Comment #61 @ 18:06 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #57

Highly unlikely if you're running against the two goljat parties, but I was just making the point that president's salary doesn't matter as a motivational factor - no middle-aged already rich dude will get into that fight just to get slightly richer, it is the position itself that they're after. Besides, does being the leader of free world need anything with it? In that point you have made it in life, you're the man.

<< Comment #65 @ 18:29 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #61

But that was my point. That by creating more financial incentive to be president so you would be competitive on salary versus being a CEO of GE or whatever, or actually even far more lucrative than that, you'd be inviting more actual experienced leaders to run for the position rather than from that same pool of politicians.

I think Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are examples of what I'm talking about. But they are the more dopey ones who are more about social change than actually the money. If say, the job paid $50million/yr, I'd bet there'd be 50 Ron Pauls and Ralph Nader types, independently wealthy people looking to get more rich.

Especially if they really believe they can do a good job at it.

Right now presidential candidates all come from the same pool of hopeless Washington DC politicians. They all have special interests and partisan beliefs, and sometimes a little crazy and mostly inexperienced. It used to be that military leaders had a great chance at becoming president because it's a strong point for their leadership skills. But these days, it's all about who has the better campaign and the better speeches...

<< Comment #73 @ 18:51 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #65

I get your point, I just find it very very hard to believe that you actually believe in what you're saying :)

Intelligent economist putting their money/time/work for presidency race? You get better odds in the roulette table.

<< Comment #74 @ 18:59 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #73

If the money is there, I don't see why not?

<< Comment #78 @ 19:19 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #74

Because they aren't nutjobs?

<< Comment #82 @ 19:33 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #78

Well I think you'd get better than the failed lawyers and totally inexperienced people you get currently. If you paid enough I'd imagine at least some of the best people would put themselves forward, some people are driven by challenges but it requires equal reward (money).

UK politicians are currently either, ageing bigot conservatives who nobody cares about, uneducated racists or failed lawyers/accountants (They couldn't get an actual job as one basically). None of them seem to have any experience with big organisations making them a success or anything of the sort.

Surely the best people to run a country are the ones who are proven to be capable of organising big corporations and making them hugely successful (especially global ones).

Edited by svalur at 19:35 UTC, 12 September 2008

3%

<< Comment #87 @ 20:30 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #82

By some people you mean nutjobs.

Again, any economist going to U.S. presidency race out of nowhere for the money almost regardless of the pay is a fruitcake. It's the same reason they won't invest in lottery or engineer graduates' basement inventions: they're not idiots.

I think you're pretty stupid if you compare running for U.S. president to running for Parliament of England, the odds and the setting is nothing alike.

<< Comment #89 @ 20:59 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #87

I wasn't making a direct comparison but there is a similar situation all the same, it's just more complex in the USA (More due to the states system).

You're focussed on the leader part of it (which was the point made) whereas I thought of it as the whole thing.

I'd agree you wouldn't want an economist being the leader, and I doubt they would want to be, but there are lots of people who would in positions more suited to being a leader with lots of experience at organising.

<< Comment #93 @ 21:42 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #89

Actually I would want an economist as a leader or in any decision-making position, that would be the ideal degree.

<< Comment #95 @ 22:35 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #93

Decision making, yeah. Leader, I'd sooner see someone who can organise/make decisions (Like a MD type of person).

<< Comment #195 @ 17:13 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stunt.us - Reply to #1

Do our votes actually count for anything? BUSH ?

<< Comment #196 @ 17:22 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #195

idk

<< Comment #2 @ 10:26 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt

McCain's VP choice is the biggest joke ever.

10%

<< Comment #3 @ 10:32 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #2

the field of remaining candidates is a bigger joke, ffs.

7%

<< Comment #4 @ 10:35 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #3

What do you mean?

<< Comment #48 @ 17:00 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #4

Probably Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, etc.

<< Comment #50 @ 17:04 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #48

i mean obama/mccain specifically. the fact that these clowns get any attention at all in the corporate media is astounding.

<< Comment #68 @ 18:40 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #50

It's our 2-party system failing us. =(

<< Comment #72 @ 18:50 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #68

1 party republic*

<< Comment #92 @ 21:25 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #50

Obama has already achieved what no other black guy has, just for that he's a hell of a capable person. On the other hand McCain is pretty much the generic republican-production white upper class drone, nothing new whatsoever.

<< Comment #97 @ 23:13 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #92

the color of his skin won't change the fact that his voting record/policies do not agree with the general public. christ.

<< Comment #103 @ 10:20 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #97

and that makes him a clown?

<< Comment #104 @ 10:52 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #103

yes, his pandering to corporations makes him a fucking clown.

<< Comment #105 @ 11:18 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #104

how exactly do you think one gathers 100 mil dollars for a nation wide campaign?

<< Comment #107 @ 12:26 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #105

are you seriously defending this fuckface?

<< Comment #111 @ 13:13 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #107

are you seriously calling somone clown and a fuckface because his voting record/policies do not agree with the general public?

<< Comment #113 @ 13:23 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #111

yes, voting for increased funding of the war should earn him a nice "CUNT!" tattoo across his forehead.

<< Comment #114 @ 13:25 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #113

last time I checked he voted against the war in Iraq

<< Comment #115 @ 13:30 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #114

how could he have voted on that issue if he wasn't in the senate unit 2005?

<< Comment #117 @ 14:09 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #115

Obama votes:

'Yes' on Iraq funding cutoff
The bill would have cut off funding for the Iraq deployment by June 30, 2008.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276453/

<< Comment #118 @ 14:14 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #117

voted yes on iraq and afghanistan war funding 6/26/08

<< Comment #122 @ 14:34 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #118

source?

<< Comment #126 @ 14:51 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #122

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

check out his outstanding number of no-votes.

<< Comment #128 @ 15:00 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #126

There are several conflicting votes going on there, but you must know the senate/congress etc they do have to vote for proposed budgets. If the proposed budget for a war was reduced or within limits of his party etc then a Yes vote makes sense. Does not mean he is voting FOR the war in Iraq.

The major point is: Obama was opposed the war in Iraq from the get go, unlike Hilary which was his main selling point in the democratic campaign.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech

<< Comment #130 @ 15:25 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #128

yeh, the important thing is:

"You can start a war any time you want to, but you can't end it when you like."

<< Comment #132 @ 16:13 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #130

exactly

<< Comment #131 @ 15:57 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #128

i said that he voted to fund the iraq war and that's what he did. i'd rather have him vote no for that bill than have myself, my children, family etc have to pay this ridiculous deficit that congress has dumped on this and the next generation of the american population.

"Obama was opposed the war in Iraq from the get go.."

actions>words

Edited by Lo at 15:59 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #133 @ 16:20 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #131

I see I will have to simplify this for you. In a senat/congress, or any other parliametary body... they have to vote this thing they call 'the budget'. You see 'the budget' means what we spend money on and for any decision to be able to make an impact on such thing as the budget it has to have mass support. In U.S. case it's either democratic or republican majority of votes or both.

Now, if say, democrats support the cut of budget for war in Iraq, then they'll propose a 165 bil dollar budget instead of say 300 bil of the republicans. If a democratic senator raises his hand to support this decision ( so 300 bil. doesn't go trough) does this mean he voted to fund the war in Iraq? Or that he is in fact FOR the war in Iraq?

Or would you rather he stood up in congres took his dick in his hand and banged it on the table yelling " I AS NOT SUPOPRT WAR NIN IRAQ CAUZ TEH WAR IWS BAD?!" Exactly.

Edited by tourist at 16:21 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #134 @ 16:25 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #133

i would rather him do some justice for the people he allegedly represents and vote no on all military spending propositions.

take your false dichotomy somewhere else, please.

Edited by Lo at 16:26 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #135 @ 16:32 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #134

And let the republican vote go trough? (meaning more funding for Iraq)

You have a superficial view of things like all teenagers do. Read what Becks wrote above. You can't just cook some shit up and then say "oh ok, I had enough we'll be going now" Things don't work that way.

Obama was opposed the war in Iraq before it began and he's opposed to it now. Doesn't mean he can simply cut all budget to military and make them return on a whim. He doesn't have that kind of power, yet. Btw, he 'allegedly' represents the people of America, those soldiers are Americans too.

<< Comment #136 @ 16:36 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #135

all of congress should vote no on deficit spending propositions and anyone who votes yes is not worthy of being an elected representative in usa. btw, the soldiers simply do not belong ANYWHERE overseas.

Edited by Lo at 16:38 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #137 @ 16:42 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #136

all of congress should vote no on deficit spending propositions and anyone who does is simply not worthy of being an elected representative in usa

should, would? what fairytale world do you live in? newsflash: your country is ran by warmongering imbeciles, that's why I know all this shit, whereas normally I wouldn't know fuck all about your political situation.

to get anything moving in a climate like that you have to go with the majority sometimes, which often times means picking lesser of two evils. what good do you think Obama voting against any military budget would do?

<< Comment #138 @ 16:44 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #137

do you actually have something to say about ethics?

<< Comment #139 @ 16:44 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #138

?

<< Comment #140 @ 16:45 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #139

the quote is about ethics. do you disagree with my ethical position or no?

<< Comment #141 @ 16:48 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #140

oh I agree full heartedly. you do realise, that not everyone in congress is a decent, peace loving human being?

<< Comment #142 @ 16:49 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #141

no shit sherlock

<< Comment #143 @ 16:49 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #142

then why do you write inane nonsense like: all of congress should vote no on deficit spending propositions and anyone who does is simply not worthy of being an elected representative in usa?

<< Comment #144 @ 16:51 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #143

if it's nonsense, then why do you agree? i'm not ever going to tolerate tyranny or any kind of moderate tyranny, like you propose i do. fuck that.

Edited by Lo at 16:53 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #145 @ 16:54 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #144

I agree on the idea. The same way I agree on the idea that no weapons should exist in the world, EVER. But what connection does a statement like that have with the REAL world?

<< Comment #146 @ 16:59 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #145

tangents.

<< Comment #147 @ 17:00 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #146

and I wasted all those letters on a discussion with you.

<< Comment #149 @ 17:05 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #147

we hardly had a discussion. basically, i keep reiterating that obama is a horrible candidate and you keep trying to paint me out to be some naive idealist, which i'm not. idk how i'm supposed to answer your question but no matter how i do it won't have any influence on the actual discussion.

<< Comment #153 @ 17:26 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #149

naive idealist, which i'm not.

all of congress should vote no on deficit spending propositions and anyone who does is simply not worthy of being an elected representative in usa?

<< Comment #154 @ 17:27 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #153

that's not idealism. it's not idealist to say that most of these congressmen are completely out of line. you just proved my point.

Edited by Lo at 17:31 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #155 @ 17:32 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #154

yes we should all cover up and be little teen rebels in our imaginary ideals fairy world.

<< Comment #156 @ 17:34 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #155

keep 'em coming obamafan666

<< Comment #158 @ 17:40 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #156

oh yes, I'm a big obama fan, from a small east european country that has nothing at all to do with U.S. By all logic I shound't know or care one bit about your country.

why do I then? Maybe, just maybe because inert halfwits like yourself let Bush win TWICE and by the looks of it you'll let him with for the third time and screw the world over for good. But hey, don't let that stop you from being a freeminded rebel who has a firm stance and ideals

while you chew on a faschist boot.

<< Comment #160 @ 17:49 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #158

"why do I then?

you might care but you don't know wtf you're talking about. you're just here arguing for intellectual masturbation.

"Maybe, just maybe because inert halfwits like yourself let Bush win TWICE and by the looks of it you'll let him with for the third time and screw the world over for good."

i wasn't old enough to vote for either election. this is kind of a ridiculous statement, tbh. the 'inert halfwits' that you speak of used your 'lesser of two evils' strategy that you proposed. there are more than 2 candidates to vote for, but most americans are pretty narrow-minded, like yourself, and wouldn't realize that.

"But hey, don't let that stop you from being a freeminded rebel who has a firm stance and ideals"

i try to stick to my principles, yeah, but that doesn't make me imagine the world to be how i want it to be.

<< Comment #161 @ 18:10 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #160

"you might care but you don't know wtf you're talking about. "

enlighten me.

<< Comment #162 @ 18:20 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #161

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1611609#pid1611609

that and you actually take him seriously when he says, "i was against this war from the beginning." also, you think being black is an achievement. you think the lesser of two evils strategy actually is necessary, but you don't know that this is how every election has been decided since the founding and that is why the lower classes(meaning 99% of the american public) have lost control of their financial future. you don't recognize that voting this way is retarded and can be avoided.

Edited by Lo at 18:26 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #163 @ 18:25 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #162

I've seen better arguments presented by my litte cousin and he's 8. GJ

<< Comment #164 @ 18:27 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #163

i've seen more substance in esr posts before, surprisingly.

<< Comment #165 @ 18:39 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #163

shit even ScarletJohansonsFather and Jonesy contribute more to discussions/arguments.

<< Comment #167 @ 19:59 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #163

It's scary, too... People like him actually get their vote counted. =/

<< Comment #170 @ 20:32 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #167

what kind of people am i?

<< Comment #171 @ 21:17 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #170

Remember the smelly kid in kindergarten who ate paste? He'd keep doing it because people were laughing, but he didn't know that they weren't laughing with him, they were laughing at him. You're that paste kid.

<< Comment #172 @ 21:28 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #171

some vivid memories, you have.

<< Comment #175 @ 09:49 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

voodoochopstiks - Reply to #171

paste kid :D

<< Comment #180 @ 20:55 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Naghokez - Reply to #138

If by voting no to every budget you end up getting a bigger budget because the Republicans' budget goes through, don't you think it's best to vote for the lesser evil which is a smaller budget?

<< Comment #183 @ 23:33 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #180

it's better but it's not best. not even close to best. he's done very little(or nothing at all) to make things better. there are third party candidates who are more deserving of votes and media attention.

<< Comment #14 @ 13:14 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

cumrag - Reply to #2

i'd still hit it though

<< Comment #86 @ 20:25 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

GreenBastard - Reply to #14

VPilf

<< Comment #5 @ 11:53 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash]

why bring up race, racest?

[/troll]

I read about Palins first TV Interview in which she stated, that she'd maybe go to war with russia, if Georgia becomes a NATO partner, and get's attacked by them.
She also stated that you can see Russia from an island in Alaska. The question was about her political and diplomatic experience with them.

Oh yeah ... and Saddam did 9/11.

GG.

Edited by Magnus Magnusson at 11:54 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #6 @ 11:56 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #5

Let's not forget that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is. Which is pretty bad.

<< Comment #7 @ 12:10 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #6

it's really hard for europeans to grasp the overwhelming stupidity that's going on in this country, isn't it.
Now i know that any american will jump on this, 'cause i'm european and know shit all about their domestic politics, but this is so obvious, it physically hurts my balls.
From my POV the republican party is a bunch of neo-conservative, ultra-right, religious fanatics. (Palin: "The war in Iraq is a god given duty.")
You just need to look at those vampires. The talk, walk and act like they're from some kind of republican-breed factory where Laura Bush lays Nixons eggs.

HOW THE FUCK CAN ONE VOTE FOR THEM?

I know we have a shitload of cunt politicians over here, but geez ... this is bad.

9%

<< Comment #9 @ 12:22 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

randomness666 - Reply to #7

aye, the worst part IS that they are fanatic christians. and as U.S is quite christianized crapland and mccain gets to be president, americans do anything if president just says: "god gave me this and this lets nuke / invade this and this country"

and i really think there is a possibility for samekind religious police as muslims have in their country, which is extremely terrifying.

Edited by danskie at 12:24 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #23 @ 14:14 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #9

It only appears as fanatical, but this is traditional Christian beliefs. Of course it looks fanatical, especially when you consider that traditional Christian orthodoxy believes the Earth is only 20,000 years old or less, that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is completely false, and that humans used to live hundreds of years back in the Biblical years.

It does sound "fanatical" to me or you because we're educated in science, but these beliefs have been quite common dogma to humanity for the past 2,000 years and only until recently have they started be questioned by people like you or me.

<< Comment #27 @ 14:34 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

randomness666 - Reply to #23

religions have always been questioned by people who can think logically. even 2000 years back.

<< Comment #29 @ 15:09 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #27

Of course there are those who have always disagreed, but Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't around 2,000 years ago. Such an articulation of facts and events can be used to make a very strong case that the Bible is not fact. That was my point.

Darwin's Origin of Species is probably the strongest argument that the Bible is a work of fiction, and Charles' work has only started being pushed as legitimate scientific fact -- by not just the scientific community but by society as well -- in the last century.

Until those people who disagree actually have a methodology and legimate facts to back up their disagreement, it boils down to nothing but just an everyday opinion-based disagreement. When Darwin's objective view of the animal kingdom came along, those who disagreed with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam had nearly nothing at all to hang their hat on.

Edited by lolograde at 15:14 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #30 @ 15:11 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

randomness666 - Reply to #29

but there is also that argument that there is NOTHING that proves bible to be true. or anything that proves there is a god.

<< Comment #32 @ 15:24 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #30

Arguments like yours make no difference to anyone. You couldn't say, from sitting in your chair, that the world is round or flat and that by looking around your room, there is no proof either way. Yet we know it for a fact, starting with work originally done by Eratosthenes who proved with math and geometry that the Earth is round.

Just saying something is so or is not because it can't be proved or disproved carries little weight against dogma. There are ideas, like religion, that are accepted with no basis infact, but rather built on a foundation of parables and stories, that exist without any real debate against them... until people come along, not to just argue for the sake of arguing or because it doesn't fit their ideal view of themselves, but rather to show the world that the dogma isn't so and this is why and how.

Edited by lolograde at 15:34 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #33 @ 15:33 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #32

I think I'll leave it at this. I know we can run around in loops around this issue about how things shouldn't be believed until proven; which is why there is a difference between people raised to beleive things with NO evidence and those who don't believe until there IS evidence.

<< Comment #108 @ 12:29 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #29

"Darwin's Origin of Species is probably the strongest argument that the Bible is a work of fiction.."

wrong. the concept of burden of proof is the strongest argument against the bible.

Edited by Lo at 12:29 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #109 @ 12:58 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #108

So if you were put to the task of trying to disprove the Bible to someone, you'd simple ask, "prove the Bible is true"? That would be your argument?

Perhaps it would make sense if the person you were trying to disprove was the instigator of the situation, as it is with burden of proof in a legal sense, but if you're initiating the conversation, then the burden of proof lies with you.

<< Comment #110 @ 13:07 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #109

it only lies with those making the claim.

2%

<< Comment #123 @ 14:36 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #110

Exactly my point in my previous post... dunno why I didn't get + too =(

<< Comment #119 @ 14:15 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #109

I heard you eat babies for breakfast, play cs, admire liam and think bush is the best thing that ever happened to the US.

and this is true undtil you proove it wrong!

<< Comment #125 @ 14:46 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #119

you'll never know the truth, becks.

it's a mystery wrapped in a puzzle inside of an enigma.

<< Comment #127 @ 14:53 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #125

I'm intrigued, while in this case midly disgusted.

<< Comment #129 @ 15:19 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #127

you know you want to

<< Comment #186 @ 15:48 UTC, 15 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #29

It's not about god, it is about hypocrisy. There are Christians all around the world and especially in Europe. The difference is that they don't justify killing ppl in the name of Christianity, not nowadays at least. US is so backwards in some things.

<< Comment #43 @ 16:44 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tzz - Reply to #23

The point is here (and probably in other European countries as well) anybody who dared to say something like "god told me so", mentioned god in a political speech or supported creationism would be instantly considered crazy by the general population.

<< Comment #46 @ 16:54 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #43

The world is changing very fast and science is the new religion, it seems. If you look back at human history, believing in a God and his/her/it's rules, wasn't that unusual.

<< Comment #58 @ 17:37 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #46

You've pretty much just said the equivalent of "Blacks were slaves". We know in the past people were religious so it's a pretty meaningless statement when it was never brought into doubt...

I'm not personally convinced that in the past the majority of people were all that religious, I'd say things haven't changed that much and that a lot of people in the past "believed" in a/God (You know in the same way 90% of people claim they believe in God), went to church because that's what people did on a Sunday (and could only do, at least in the UK).

I also highly doubt all of these USA politicians are fanatical Christians too. As far as I can tell they all just say/claim to be because they know it could mean the difference between being elected and not being elected.

Science isn't the new religion either, they aren't comparable. Science isn't a set of beliefs or rules.

<< Comment #62 @ 18:12 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #58

My point was that people are choosing to believe less in what has traditionally been believed in exchange for what is turning and evolving into a new world view (which is reliance on scientific proof rather than traditional dogma extrapolated from Biblical text).

If you want to pose it, you could say that a person can either believe that the Bible is factual and literal or Darwin's Orign of Species is factual and literal. Two distinct and contrasting world views in two opposing books...

This conversation is just turning into a disagreement over semantics.

<< Comment #77 @ 19:12 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #62

I haven't seen anyone disagree with the comment about "fanatical" beliefs being more common in the past and how they are only viewed now as "fanatical" due to a more educated population. It seems quite obvious to me that as a population becomes more educated previous beliefs would seem "fanatical".

However I expect that even 200 years ago the current views of the Fanatical Christians would be viewed as Fanatical.

The Bible isn't comparable to Darwin's Origin of Species because the two have entirely different purposes. One is to guide people on how to live their lives, view the world and to teach about God, the other is just to propose and provide evidence for how the species originated (It does have bigger implications though).

You don't "believe" in evolution in the same you "believe" in religion.

If we assume that religion and science are comparable (in the way you meant) it still wouldn't be the new religion. People aren't scientific these days they just aren't religious, they don't use any of the principles science teaches they just don't believe in a God, pray or go to church.

Edited by svalur at 19:15 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #85 @ 19:54 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #77

Science doesn't give us rules to live our lives by, but it does give us explanation of things around us.

Religion gives us rules, but the origin of religion was meant to explain why things happened. Why did the northern lights happen? People from thousands of years ago saw it as an indication of God or whatever. Same with the tides, storms, lightning, etc. Even life itself.

My point was that if people are looking for explanations to why things happen (to themselves and to people around them), then that's how I could make an analogy between the Bible and the Origin of Species.

In terms of Christian fanaticism, if you take the Bible entirely literally, which a lot of denominations of Christianity do, then a lot of what you get would be considered "radical" thought.

<< Comment #90 @ 21:10 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #85

Religion gives us rules, but the origin of religion was meant to explain why things happened

Not Christianity though, or any of the other big religions. They do include explanations but they aren't the focus.

As for the explanations thing in general, I guess you're right people would look to science more but I don't feel people are looking for these explanations.

<< Comment #101 @ 09:35 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

randomness666 - Reply to #85

old religions like paganism was meant to guide people in their lives and have balanced life, and all their gods was powers of nature or feelings of human. but not in christianity. Christianity offers false hope and big pile of lies to make stupid ppl more comfortable.

Edited by danskie at 09:40 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #63 @ 18:19 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #23

hmm, I'm really not sure how it really is, but I think one should consider, that Chrisitanity is still "pretty" big in Europe, but almost nobody really believes in something extreme such as Creationism.
And here in Germany churches (among other organisations) offer counsel women considering abortion, with both pro and con arguments. Not saying "you must never do it or you'll burn burn burn"

And historically speaking I think a lot of Christians came to the US because of their more untraditional beliefs.

Yes, I agree Christianity did lot's of bad things and I'd rather they went away for good, but you can't blame em for everything nor can you really say that some of those religious fanatics in the US are somehow traditional.
not if you don't wanna look at the "medieval traditions".

<< Comment #99 @ 06:37 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aquashark - Reply to #63

yeah.. "traditional Christian beliefs", LOL

those can be found in Eastern Europe (Orthodox Christianity), not in some evangelical tents in Colorado.

and even in Eastern Europe where religion is still going strong due to backwardness of older generations, if you mention god in your campaign you're instantly labelled by the media either as a loony or as being far-right ultra-nationalist.

<< Comment #193 @ 17:03 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dansen - Reply to #23

still is very wrong that the 'educated' people take advantage of the uneducated by telling them lies about their beliefs

<< Comment #11 @ 12:32 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #7

you're absolutely right.

<< Comment #15 @ 13:26 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #7

Idd, these two make Jorg Heider look like a peace loving hippie.

<< Comment #16 @ 13:27 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #7

Well, McCain is not ultra-right.

<< Comment #18 @ 13:50 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #16

how much beyond fascist is ultra-right, ffs?

6%

<< Comment #20 @ 14:11 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #18

What is "ultra-right"? Left-wing with flags?

<< Comment #21 @ 14:11 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Thorin - Reply to #18

All the same, Darth Vader is the only individual who could call McCain not ultra-right :D

12%

<< Comment #194 @ 17:04 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dansen - Reply to #18

you can be pretty pretty conservative without being a fascist

<< Comment #197 @ 17:22 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #194

mccain is no conservative.

<< Comment #19 @ 14:08 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #7

I think you'd have to live in the US to understand. There's lots middle and small sized towns where religion, especially Christianity, is the strong undercurrent of the community. Those most likely to vote in the upcoming election are those socially active and aware and that typically comes from the middle sized towns and their individual religious communities.

I'm not that type (I'm an agnostic), so I'm not saying this out of a bias but from my work I've definitely come to realize this... Palin's religious roots is actually probably a boon for McCain's campaign.

Darth_Vader is right, McCain is considered very moderate. He's made a lot of bipartisan moves over his political career.

<< Comment #37 @ 16:06 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #19

if your goal was to make it more understandable for me, you failed. ;)

Where i live people don't give a fuck what your religion is, if you do the job right. I give you an example.

There's lots middle and small sized towns where religion, especially Christianity, is the strong undercurrent of the community.

We have those, too. Mostly in bavaria. Maybe they're not as fucked up as your god-loving hilbillies, but they do exist. But those people DON'T elect our Head Of State on their own. Actually one of our biggest, actually THE biggest) parties is called CDU (Christlich-Demokratische Union - Christian-Democratic Union).

quick info

I don't know if i make this comprehendible enough, or if i'm able to get a point across 'cause my english is kinda limited.
When those guys talk about christianity and christian values, they don't babble about how god told them to do this or to invade this country. They're no creationists. They're (mostly) sane, enlightened and "normal" politicians.
The part with the "responsibility to god" is nowadays mostly expressed when secretarys get elected and take the official oath. Most of (or all of) the CDU members "swear to god", most others don't. 99% of the time, religion is not an issue. and you know what? the cdu doesn't care if someone doesn't swear to god, because we live in a secular state, not a theocratic country, four god's sake. ;D

What i see happening in america is: WE BELIEVE IN GOD, THOSE OF YOU WHO DO, TOO .. VOTE FOR US.
THOSE OF YOU, WHO DON'T: GTFO LIBERAL HIPPIE ABORTION JUNKIE COMMUNISTS.

Your political system is flawed and splits your society in two.

Phew!

P.S.: Hi becks. Keine Sorge, ich wähle die nicht. :P

<< Comment #44 @ 16:44 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #37

Alright, I understand where you're coming from. I suppose you have more progressive people in your country than here.

I'm not trying to defend this country or the way it works. I wish it worked in a different way, there are many things I would change about it.

I was simply trying to explain a bit better how it works over here. It is not that irrational if I could better explain why these people act the way they do. They are humans just like anyone else in the world, the only thing that makes their actions different from anyone else's is their beliefs which aren't so radical if you think about what would be considered traditional Christian beliefs worldwide.

<< Comment #112 @ 13:18 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #44

The point he was trying to make was that over here we have surpassed the 'god told me so' argument around 1821 while it still works flawlessly in the U.S. Also, how do you know what would be considered traditional christian believes worldwide?

<< Comment #121 @ 14:33 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #112

So you're saying that traditionally Christians don't believe the Bible? If you just read the Bible, take it literally, that's traditional Christian belief, afaik. Dunno why "traditional" Christian belief wouldn't believe the Bible...

How can you speak for all of Europe saying there's no Christians in Europe who take the Bible literally?

<< Comment #124 @ 14:37 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #121

I'm telling you this because I live in a 95% christian country and I never met anyone who believes the world was created in 7 days and that there were no dinosaurs.

Cahtolic country btw. You don't get much more traditional christian than that.

Edited by tourist at 14:38 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #148 @ 17:05 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #124

I've met one such person in my life. He also believed that Noah's arc was real and shit. We even have a state church and the belief in creationism and stupid shit like that is the lowest of any country. Christianity is not an excuse for stupidity imo.

<< Comment #152 @ 17:24 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #148

somehow these new christian churches seem to be more fanatical than the traditional Catholic church. I met some hardline biblethumpers in my time but none really believed all that shit literally.

Edited by tourist at 17:24 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #157 @ 17:40 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #152

Heh the Catholics up here are some of the biggest religious nutjobs. They even staged a mass boycott against a telephone company because an ad offended them.

<< Comment #159 @ 17:43 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #157

what was it about?

<< Comment #169 @ 20:24 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #159

It was a humorous look at Galileo talking about 3G and the internet. The papal court accused him of heresy and so on. Nothing really offensive.

<< Comment #173 @ 23:14 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #169

sounds like typical clerical crap. we get that a lot over here as well. however, even the most hardline jesus freaks don't try to sell that creation over evolution stuff. simply coz noone would buy it. somehow it works in the states tho.

Edited by tourist at 23:15 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #166 @ 19:01 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #121

A lot of the stuff these fanatics believe isn't strictly in the bible to be fair.

Not to mention that the bible they get their "traditional" beliefs is a translation of a translation (et cetera).

<< Comment #51 @ 17:06 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #37

Also, I think the media that comes out of the US paints things as being sensational. When in actuality, I doubt any sane person over here is saying that being an atheist makes you an automatic communist/liberal.

My parents, for example, are both atheists but fairly conservative (they voted for Rudy Giuliani), which I think my parents are fairly typical for their age.

<< Comment #150 @ 17:14 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #19

<< Comment #80 @ 19:23 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #7

And McCain is currently ahead in the polls. =/

<< Comment #36 @ 16:00 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Shrike - Reply to #6

Hers is probably shaved anyway

<< Comment #8 @ 12:21 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

cYmoZz - Reply to #5

funny (or sad) thing is that mccain gained quite some points in the polls after announcing palin as his running mate.

<< Comment #17 @ 13:48 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata - Reply to #8

milf powa

<< Comment #116 @ 14:00 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

voodoochopstiks - Reply to #17

VPILF

<< Comment #10 @ 12:32 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

xgo

"I'm gonna shit my pants if BUSH becomes a president in U.S"

Both candidates have already been incorporated so the outcome will be the same, no mater who becomes president. But ye McCain would be a big fuck up, cuz then there will be even more wars, invasions and the world will become even more fucked up :X

Remember US need a leader to invade china if they become to loud and independent and McCain is a wannabe war hero.

<< Comment #12 @ 12:36 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #10

the war hero shit gets on my nerves, too.

I was in nam. YAY!

I got shot. YAY!

I've been in prison in nam. YAY!

AM AMERKAN HEROOOOO!!! VOTE ME PREZ!

<< Comment #22 @ 14:13 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Thorin - Reply to #12

Apparently being bad at your job of being a hired killer is considered heroism in the states.

<< Comment #25 @ 14:16 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #22

And committing an adultery and divorcing your wife to marry a barbie doll being conservative.

<< Comment #49 @ 17:03 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Naghokez - Reply to #10

I hate it when ppl say it's going to be the same, whoever you vote for. No it's not.

<< Comment #13 @ 12:47 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

xoji

It's very surreal looking in from the outside. Sarah Palin's credentials are fucking hilariously bad. McCain is Bush mark II, he even has the incoherent rambling talk just like Bush. Like in this recent interview :

http://www.wcsh6.com/video/default.aspx?maven...=850878100

Ah well, Jon Stewart makes me laugh

http://www.theinformationparadox.com/2008/09/...cains.html

And Triumph the Insult Comic Dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eneq0jcMlTw

In other news :

Sarah Palin doll hits the high street
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/sep/10/sarahpalin.doll

2%

<< Comment #24 @ 14:15 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Thorin

People can throw around infinite arguments spun to oblivion about lack of experience for the democrats but Palin has a masters in journalism from a college in Iowa (and switched through 5 schools in 6 years) while McCain was apparently bottom 5 in his college class or year. Where I come from we call those people idiots.

<< Comment #26 @ 14:30 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #24

It's not even a masters. It's a B.S. which makes it even more pitiful.

<< Comment #31 @ 15:21 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aquashark

i saw this The Daily Show episode
first i laughed, then i got depressed..

i don't know what to say..
this world is upside down in every single aspect. it's a dictatorship of stupid people. the system is rigged for this foulplay: garbage in, garbage out! (RIP Carlin)

majority rule don't work in mental institutions / sometimes the smallest, softest voice carries the grand, biggest solutions..

Edited by Aquashark at 15:38 UTC, 12 September 2008

8%

<< Comment #34 @ 15:39 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #31

In the end, the only people laughing are going to be the cynics.

Life is a joke with no punchline, anyhow.

<< Comment #83 @ 19:47 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #31

The small town part was AMAZING.

<< Comment #35 @ 15:52 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oneroomdisco

I follow US politics, since Canadian politics are boring as hell.

The moment McCain is elected, and gives the speach, will be a moment from one of those doomsday movies. Where, the evil leader just got elected, and everyone has that feeling of (Oh shit, we're fucked)

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le3l8lm09Rc

It's obvious McCain doesn't give a shit about the economy, letalone have a PLAN to FIX it.

War? He'll bomb ANYONE, and he doesn't care if there's 100 wars.

Have you seen the shit Sarah Palin has been spewing out? Godawful interview with ABC News Charles Gibson where she can't even DIRECTLY answer a fucking question. He will ask her three goddamn times, and she'll say some stupid bullshit answer that doesn't even ANSWER the question.

Honestly, McCain shouldn't have a chance of getting elected, but he does. The more you think about it, the more you think about how he COULD be president, VERY soon.

Bush fucked you guys over for 8 years, you want another potential 8 years of that? I know you don't.

If McCain gets elected, I'm getting a loan from the bank, and buying a small apartment building in Toronto, or somewhere more northern in Ontario, Canada.

ALL AMERICANS WELCOME!!!

EDIT: Also, she's responsible for the natural Gas line from Alaska to the lower states.

Problem: IT'S ABOVE GROUND

Am I the only one who sees a problem with a MASSIVE gas line being above ground for someone to easily tamper with it?

Edited by Gillz at 15:53 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #39 @ 16:07 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

randomness666 - Reply to #35

aye, if mccain come president WW III is gonna happen in a year.

<< Comment #59 @ 17:52 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #35

Have you seen the shit Sarah Palin has been spewing out? Godawful interview with ABC News Charles Gibson where she can't even DIRECTLY answer a fucking question. He will ask her three goddamn times, and she'll say some stupid bullshit answer that doesn't even ANSWER the question

Welcome to British politics

2%

<< Comment #91 @ 21:22 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Kaloos - Reply to #59

I guess it's not british only :p
In France we call that 'langue de bois' :D

<< Comment #96 @ 22:37 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #91

It's universal really :D

Because if they said what they thought people would realise what useless idiots they are.

<< Comment #184 @ 13:33 UTC, 15 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

doYdY - Reply to #59

so true!

<< Comment #84 @ 19:48 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #35

On the plus side, it would bring more people to Canada.

<< Comment #38 @ 16:06 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom

im scared

<< Comment #52 @ 17:08 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

meh_

black race plz

<< Comment #54 @ 17:24 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair

Hm, hope for a massive turn-out of first time black voters?

<< Comment #56 @ 17:31 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lethe

Clinton was good. Bring the man back, give him something to screw in the white house, and the world will be a safer place for all of us.

4%

<< Comment #67 @ 18:39 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #56

Clinton was the luckiest president of all time. He just so happened to be around for the internet and computer boom of the mid-nineties. He lied under oath (shows what kind of morals he has) and got impeached. The only real contribution he made was to reform welfare so the "Welfare Queens" of California got put out on their asses.

Don't give him the credit, give the world credit for the technological boom for that golden age of the USA.

<< Comment #69 @ 18:42 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lethe - Reply to #67

Well, Clinton could put a sentence together, and had IQ above 75. Also i dont think people hated US that much back in the days he was in charge. I choose him any day over this retarded cripple.

<< Comment #70 @ 18:44 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #69

Kosovo surely hated the fuck out of the US.

If I could pick any president to return, I'd probably pick JFK!

<< Comment #71 @ 18:49 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lethe - Reply to #70

Kosovo surely hated the fuck out of the US.

And now they are their idols. Still, when Kosovo hates you, who cares? But when the *world* hates you, that's not nice.

No JFK, we want someone who'll live at least 5 years in the function.

Know that joke with Obama?

*heaven*

*knock - knock*
- Who is it?
- Its me, Obama.
- What are you doing here?
- Well, i took a bullet, you know.
- A bullet? Damn. So, how was life down there?
- Well, cant complain.... i became a president.
- No shit? When?
- 20 minutes ago.

8%

<< Comment #75 @ 19:01 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #71

lol, nice

<< Comment #76 @ 19:03 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #70

i'd pick jimmy carter. :D

6%

<< Comment #187 @ 18:21 UTC, 15 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #76

XD Jimmy Carter -- ineptitude at its finest!

Edited by lolograde at 18:24 UTC, 15 September 2008

<< Comment #188 @ 18:56 UTC, 15 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #187

hey now. i was being serious. lol :P

<< Comment #79 @ 19:20 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #70

What you accused Clinton of benefiting from (time period) so did JFK.

From what I've read about what Clinton wanted to achieve and what he was able to/allowed to is quite different. I feel generally sorry for the guy as the Republicans pretty much ruined his period in charge more than any bad choices he made.

That's the problem with poor political systems like the USA/UK you always have the main party trying to "out do" the other so that they can gain power at the next election even if it means opposing good ideas.

Edited by svalur at 19:24 UTC, 12 September 2008

<< Comment #94 @ 21:44 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #67

"He lied under oath (shows what kind of morals he has) and got impeached"

I love this argument... Just what exactly do you think your beloved JFK would've said had he been caught fucking any of those countless women?

"Why yes your honor I was getting sucked by Marylin Monroe in the oval office while chatting my wife on the phone, but I'm admitting it boldly in this court cause that's just the kind of guy I am"

get real kid.

<< Comment #98 @ 03:35 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #94

I was joking about the JFK remark. Sorry I had to explain that.

Edited by lolograde at 03:35 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #102 @ 10:19 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #98

uh huh..

<< Comment #106 @ 11:21 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #102

okay...

<< Comment #88 @ 20:40 UTC, 12 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

fragmaster_

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

<< Comment #100 @ 09:26 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

8%

<< Comment #168 @ 20:09 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #100

That's a pretty good one. Rather happy that it has over 4 million views.

<< Comment #176 @ 10:10 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aquashark - Reply to #168

mostly euros prolly :D:D:D

<< Comment #179 @ 14:47 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #176

... =(

<< Comment #120 @ 14:32 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus

Voting Obama here. Definitely not voting McSame.

http://www.theinformationparadox.com/2008/09/...cains.html

Edited by focus at 14:37 UTC, 13 September 2008

<< Comment #151 @ 17:20 UTC, 13 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf

they will get what they deserve

<< Comment #174 @ 00:57 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mammon

since they have to choose between a crazy neocon and a clueless populist, the chances of proper president being elected are slimer than slim

<< Comment #178 @ 13:27 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #174

whoever decides not to push the button. guess who it is.

<< Comment #177 @ 12:30 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rockz

yo racist

<< Comment #181 @ 21:18 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By $\0/$ zrC

USA - Land of Opportunities

Were a idiot like GW bush can be voted for president!
Not only once. But twice...

"Shame on you if you fool me once, Shame on me if you fool me twice."

<< Comment #182 @ 22:16 UTC, 14 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ryan2015

Obama will b killed by an white supremist or cia

<< Comment #190 @ 04:55 UTC, 16 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

cumrag - Reply to #182

yep, question is when?

<< Comment #205 @ 18:43 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ryan2015 - Reply to #190

wouldnt take to long me thinks

<< Comment #185 @ 13:49 UTC, 15 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

doYdY

i have to agree with the whole mccain = bush thing, except that mccain is a worse choice than bush. this being due to his reliance on the use of religion, and military history to sway voters.

one thing that has shocked me the most though, is that bitch Palin who states they will go to war with Russia if it invades Georgia. I just dont know why they HAVE to get involved with another war, which they could quite easily not involve themselves with.

<< Comment #200 @ 17:31 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #185

I think I remember Bush claiming he had vision that made him turn away from drinking booze and being owner of football teams run for president instead.
Mccain is nothing compared to that.

<< Comment #189 @ 04:38 UTC, 16 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mbc

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics...ref=slogin

palin lololol

<< Comment #191 @ 16:07 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde '

Just to prove that this isn't limited to the shores of the USA...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/s...reationism

<< Comment #192 @ 16:08 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde '

And another...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/re...ution.html

<< Comment #198 @ 17:23 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #192

Did you read that one?

<< Comment #202 @ 18:02 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #198

I did, and I know it was about how they are reversing their stance on Origin of Species, but I thought it was relevant to some of the discussions above since it seems people believe the US is the only place that creationism still exists.

If COE is just now reversing their stance, wouldn't be unreasonable to assume their are other non-US churches out there who still push creationism.

<< Comment #203 @ 18:07 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #202

armenia is much more overwhelmed by creationism than usa.

<< Comment #215 @ 00:35 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #202

The COE never pushed creationism though (I went through COE education). This is just part of a change in strategy from the COE to appeal to the more modern times and try and get the people who believe in evolution and other scientific things to see the church as not conflicting with these things.

<< Comment #220 @ 02:54 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #202

The thing is there are creationists in every country. It's just that in the Western world that most of them are in the USA. Not to mention they have by far the best organization and lots of high level politicians on their side. That's why crap like Kitzmiller v. Dover happens.

<< Comment #222 @ 09:05 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #202

openly admitting a mistake and continuing to follow it are two different things.

Remember the catholic church needed a few hundred years until they finally admitted in in the 1990s(!) that Galileo might not have been a heretic.
Despite that they admitted centuries earlier that the heliocentric view of the world could be correct. And they actually taught it in catholic schools, as the correct view.

<< Comment #201 @ 17:48 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #192

HAHA COE are such pansies, most of them don't even really believe in God in the way most Christians would these days.

COE schools barely even bother to drill the religion stuff into you.

<< Comment #199 @ 17:28 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stunt.us

I love how these politicians are so religious but support wars and killing of people. Yeah, I'm sure you gods want that. They don't even follow the basic principles of any religion.......................

Organized religion = evil.

Basics principles of religions are good.

<< Comment #204 @ 18:10 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #199

Well, I dunno. I'm pretty agnostic about all religion, but I see the good a lot of churches do in small communities -- through volunteer work and donations/scholarships.

Only thing I don't agree with is that a lot of these churches are responsible for negative-type group-think (pastor tells church members who to vote for and why) and also a complete disregard for scientific developments (opposing stem-cell research, etc.).

EDIT: I doubt a really objective and free-thinking church exists that has all the benefits of pooling community resources for good/beneficial projects without the attached BS involved with traditional religions. But if it did exist, I'd be all for it even if I wasn't a believer/member/attendee.

Edited by lolograde at 18:14 UTC, 17 September 2008

<< Comment #207 @ 19:23 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard - Reply to #204

You should study the teachings of FSM:ism and spread the word on your local community.

http://www.venganza.org/

Sceptic?????????? Then watch this evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PW596ZlGk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Uo5DQTtzc&NR=1

<< Comment #208 @ 20:20 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #204

u could just join a commune or something.

<< Comment #211 @ 22:57 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #208

Never been to a church, but one of my coworkers talked me into watching the service this Sunday night! I'll report back with my findings xD

<< Comment #212 @ 23:03 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #211

you're going to hear a bunch of OT passages regurgitated over and over(the NT will probably only get some brief attention), watch a bunch of lunatics mumble while raising their hands toward the ceiling, maybe hear some people pseudo-speaking in tongue and you'll probably get pressured into accepting jesus christ and the holy spirit before the session is over.

<< Comment #213 @ 23:11 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stunt.us - Reply to #204

You don't believe in good morals? Being kind and helping fellow people? We can all follow that path. Yet, we all do not. Why do people need a religion for this.

If we follow all the basics of the religions and drop all the "god" shit what's the problem?

<< Comment #214 @ 00:27 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #213

The idea I was getting at was pooled resources. Do you think one person can go out and help someone build a house after a fire has destroyed it? No, not unless they are wealthy. But this is quite common for members of any socially active church group.

<< Comment #217 @ 01:30 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stunt.us - Reply to #214

People can't come together and help each other in communities without belonging to a church?

<< Comment #219 @ 02:53 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #217

They can, but my original post was about how churches aren't all bad. There's some benefits to the local community and to people who aren't even Christians.

<< Comment #223 @ 09:14 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #219

there are some but not as many volunteers as in American churches.

For example in my hometown I did the mandatory "civil service year" in driving handicapped people and delivering food. And for the handicapped people tour we actually had volunteers riding on the passenger seat.
Or we have volunteers collecting leftover food and other things from companies and distributing it to poor people.

Both with only loose ties to the church. And on the other hand the church doesn't do that much more!

So yeah, either way it's less than in bible-belt America, guess we Germans suck at helping random strangers. Better with friends and family.

<< Comment #227 @ 16:36 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #219

the thing is, most of these people in churches only do nice things because they fear going to hell, not because they are actually decent and compassionate people.

<< Comment #206 @ 19:03 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mammon - Reply to #199

basic object of religion is the devil, you need to be scared of him to believe

<< Comment #209 @ 21:25 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

koOma

the US is due for a decent president imo, Obama ftw

<< Comment #210 @ 21:43 UTC, 17 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #209

i guess the bar has been set so low that obama seems decent.

<< Comment #216 @ 00:39 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini - Reply to #210

Just out of interest, who else is running for President besides Obama and McCain?

We don't get any information on the other candidates here in the UK.

<< Comment #218 @ 01:54 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #216

idk all of the 3rd party candidates but i know ralph nader is still running and hes a much better candidate.

<< Comment #224 @ 09:17 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #218

it tragically reminds me of the simpsons episode where two aliens run for president, one for republicans and one for democrats. And even after they are found out they get elected, cause hey, can't vote for the third guy!

2%

<< Comment #225 @ 16:30 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #224

never saw that episode, but that's how things have become, here.

<< Comment #226 @ 16:32 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #225

was from 1998, roughly. Back from when I still watched the Simpsons :P

<< Comment #229 @ 17:08 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Naghokez - Reply to #225

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvfUJan6ACc&am...amp;fmt=18

11%

<< Comment #231 @ 19:03 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #229

n1 m8 :D

<< Comment #232 @ 21:40 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #229

Abortion for everyone!

<< Comment #233 @ 02:06 UTC, 19 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ignignokt - Reply to #232

boo!

<< Comment #221 @ 03:10 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolograde ' - Reply to #216

Ralph Nader is probably the only other person worth mentioning...

<< Comment #228 @ 16:48 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

koOma - Reply to #210

he's black, has to be a good candidate!

<< Comment #230 @ 19:00 UTC, 18 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo - Reply to #228

/facepalm

<< Comment #235 @ 14:12 UTC, 20 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

koOma - Reply to #230

I'm totally serial!

<< Comment #234 @ 20:44 UTC, 19 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

smari

McCain doesn't seem to know current spanish prime minister Zapatero:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=XvMihJTJ2sg

<< Comment #236 @ 13:45 UTC, 21 September 2008 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

timmah

What is bothering as well is McCain's age (72) and health. I mean the guy can barely lift his arm to wave... If he were to die during office, Sarah Palin would have to step up, and to be honest, that is an even scarier thought than McCain himself. I am not claiming to know much about any of the candidates, but she is the governor of Alaska... I only have to look at a map, put my finger on Alaska and my brain will automatically say "FUCK NO!". Not to mention the lack of major credentials. Yes, even Obama as presidential candidate doesn't have any major credentials, but at least he has a vision, something that I seem to miss entirely when I look at the Republicans.

The presidential election really saddens me. Despite Sarah Palin's recent bad publicity she is more popular than ever, just based on the fact that she gets more media coverage for all her screw-ups. Bad publicity is better than no publicity it seems.

Just looking at the past 8 years should give MAJOR INCENTIVE to vote the Democrats. I agree that things would not be the same under McCain as they were under Bush. But the Republicans would not be who they are if they didn't stand for something (same goes for the Democrats, duh). We're not gonna see the Republicans do a 180 degree turn if McCain were to be elected.

At least I hear that most of the Americans are cool guys. Everyone I know who has been there says they were pretty friendly and helpful as well, not matter what ethnicity or religion. Yeah, perhaps they didn't hang out in the rough neighbourhoods, but then again why would you do that as an exchange student or tourist...

To quote a movie: "You don't have to believe in the government to be a good American" . I guess it should read "to be a good person" but yeah, you get my point.

I hope for the sake of the American people and the sake of the entire planet that Obama is elected president.

Edited by timmah at 13:59 UTC, 21 September 2008

<< Comment #237 @ 08:45 UTC, 15 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dansen

more like u.s. presidential RACE,
eh danskie?

<< Comment #239 @ 12:18 UTC, 15 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #237

Oh I see what you did der.

<< Comment #238 @ 11:36 UTC, 15 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hnns

so uh, who won?

<< prev next >>
2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12