PDA

View Full Version : Am I the only one...



OffspringHead
10-17-2008, 09:26 AM
That thinks Barack Obama would be a terrible president. According to polls, i'm not =(

OffspringHead
10-17-2008, 09:27 AM
That thinks Barack Obama would be a terrible president. According to polls, i'm not. And I don't understand how anyone could see him as being remotely prepared or a good president.

randman21
10-17-2008, 09:36 AM
What would make John McCain a better President?

IamSam
10-17-2008, 09:42 AM
The presidency isn't one man. It's a group of people that place forth ideas that then get acted upon. Hence the cabinet and VP. You seriously think McCain is good as well or are you a Nader player?

hshduppsnt
10-17-2008, 11:10 AM
people mentioned Clinton's inexperience when he ran in 1992.

He's more prepared than you think...
it takes a good team around you to pull together the kind of campaign he's got going, Biden is a wise choice for a VP and his cabinet will likely be along the same lines of thinking.

So, I respectfully disagree with you and say that he will be fine.

Endymion
10-17-2008, 11:28 AM
nader's not the only third party candidate :(

jacknife737
10-17-2008, 11:44 AM
The presidency isn't one man. It's a group of people that place forth ideas that then get acted upon. Hence the cabinet and VP. You seriously think McCain is good as well or are you a Nader player?

Exactly, it's always puzzled me that some people seem to think that the Presidency works as just-one man sitting in the oval office. And even aside from the cabinet, he's got a small-army of advisers who are either from top US universities or from former administrations.

Moose
10-17-2008, 05:01 PM
...have you ever looked into his advisors?...some resigned due to becoming under fire for being corrupt, and others and foreign policy nightmares...look into it...

...obama may have poor judgment of character...if you look at his past decisions at least.

Static_Martyr
10-17-2008, 05:26 PM
As far as I'm concerned, he could get in there for 8 years and do jack shit and he'd still be a better Prez than Bush Jr.....

jacknife737
10-17-2008, 05:52 PM
...have you ever looked into his advisors?...some resigned due to becoming under fire for being corrupt, and others and foreign policy nightmares...look into it...

Indeed i have (although the number is so numerous i haven't had the time to look at all of them), but, and i think he has/had some extremely intelligent people advising him; take Samantha Power, Jason Furman, James Galbraith, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Perry, Madeleine Albright. All of those people are all top experts in their field.

wheelchairman
10-18-2008, 05:06 AM
Zbigniew Bzerzinski is fantastic.

HeadAroundU
10-18-2008, 07:12 AM
That thinks Barack Obama would be a terrible president. According to polls, i'm not =(

That thinks Barack Obama would be a terrible president. According to polls, i'm not. And I don't understand how anyone could see him as being remotely prepared or a good president.
I don't understand how anyone could be prepared to make such a thread or judge who'd be a good president if you can't use the edit button.

OffspringHead
10-18-2008, 07:23 AM
The presidency isn't one man. It's a group of people that place forth ideas that then get acted upon. Hence the cabinet and VP. You seriously think McCain is good as well or are you a Nader player?
I agree with you 100%. I think America should be a little more concerned about who is in our Congress rather than Presidency. But you also can't just ignore the presidency either that's why I brought this up.

And I don't like McCain either. Or Nader. They all suck to me. But I think McCain would know what he's doing a little more than Obama.

OffspringHead
10-18-2008, 07:24 AM
I don't understand how anyone could be prepared to make such a thread or judge who'd be a good president if you can't use the edit button.

Lmfao. I just saw that myself and idk how that happened cause I'm pretty sure I did hit edit O.o

Jesus
10-18-2008, 07:42 AM
Well with people like Rubin, Goolsbee and Brzezinski (luckily Samantha Power had to resign) he has crap people around him. People like Galbraith junior don't really even out, if he has any actual influence compared to Rubin or Goolsbee. So yeah he'll be terrible, probably more terrible then the Clinton administration. But compared to a McCain or Bush (or god forbid a Ron Paul presidency) it'll be awesome.

Moose
10-18-2008, 07:21 PM
obama wants to change the fundamental ideas of america...i think that's quite clear.

he wants to take america from being a democracy with capitalism to a socialist country with even more limited rights than we have right now.

so not only may he be a bad president, he may be a destructive one...

...think about it, the dems have the house, the senate, the supreme court, and the presidency...they can do whatever they want, good or bad...and in obama's scenerio, in the long run, bad...very bad.

...it would be nice if people cared about the constitution and tried to be constitutionalists and make sure this country is free and safe without having a big government.


bush's administration has been borderline fascist with some of it's actions and legislation...and obama's would be socialist...but with that much power, it wont be hard to totally change america... convince people they need to be dependent on the government, easier for government to take control of the people and the ideas. make all illegal immigrants legal, more votes. start class warfare...have people hate the wealthy and the rich...it doesnt seem that hard to do.


"about 230 years ago a prof named alexander tyler had a thing or two to say about democracies. this was at a time when the thirteen orginial colonies were still under british control. since the us didnt exist then tyler was hardly writing about our own govt. instead he was writing about the fall of the athenian republic 2000 years earlier. little did prof tyler realize how his words would apply to the us more then 200 years later.

prof tylers observations are quite sobering.

a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of govt. it can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. from that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benfits from the public treasruy , with the result that a democracy always collpases over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. the average age of the worlds greatest civilization has been 200 years. these nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from great courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependcy back into bondage."

wheelchairman
10-18-2008, 07:24 PM
What kind of fictional world do you live in?

Saying Obama is a socialist is about as plausible as calling Bush a nazi or fascist.

jacknife737
10-18-2008, 07:40 PM
Obama's platform is just slightly to the left of center; he'd be unelectable in the current US political climate if he was anything else. I'd call him a "moderate" but i really hate using that term in politics; i really cannot fathom how people can call him a socialist/communist, ect. Some of the conservative talkingheads are acting like he's Trotskey incarnate, it's insane.

SK8rocka
10-21-2008, 11:39 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


OBAMAH!!!!!!!!!!

IamSam
10-22-2008, 07:19 AM
On the political spectrum of the world, the United States is pretty well centered with dems being slightly left and repubs being slightly right of center. Communists would be way left of center and Nazis would be way right of center.

Just FYI.

wheelchairman
10-22-2008, 08:02 AM
On the political spectrum of the world, the United States is pretty well centered with dems being slightly left and repubs being slightly right of center. Communists would be way left of center and Nazis would be way right of center.

Just FYI.

Most of Europe views America as far right. So there's already a problem with the wording of your first sentence...

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2008, 08:03 AM
obama wants to change the fundamental ideas of america...i think that's quite clear.

he wants to take america from being a democracy with capitalism to a socialist country with even more limited rights than we have right now.

LOL. First of all, taxes are inherently socialist. The entire point of taxation is redistribution of wealth. Obama seems to think that the benefits of such should go to the people, rather than the military industrial complex. I have yet to see how McCain plans to continue funding the Iraq war, as taxation is also the governments only means of raising funds. Other than selling the entire country to China, of course, which seems to be the GOP's idea. How American is that?


...it would be nice if people cared about the constitution and tried to be constitutionalists and make sure this country is free and safe without having a big government.

The government grew ridiculously under the Bush administration. Also, Palin has gone on record saying that the government should legislate personal things like gay marriage, abortion, etc., rather than leaving it to the states. The purpose of goverment should be to protect the rights of the people who don't want to do something that the majority of people want to do, not to condemn behavior and force everyone to toe a (usually religious) line. How is that in line with the ideology of small government?

It would appear that you are advocating for an entirely new form of government, which I would counter with the fact that this is pretty much irrelevant. However flawed our current system and our current candidates, this is the system we've got and the one we're dealing with. You are free to fantasize all you like, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the Obama v. McCain debate.

Rag Doll
10-22-2008, 08:28 AM
...think about it, the dems have the house, the senate, the supreme court, and the presidency...


Just to let you know, the Supreme Court is, at the moment, EXTREMELY right wing. And they're doing terrible terrible things when it comes to the rights of the people. They only way they would become left wing is if a whole bunch of them die while Obama is in office (if he gets into office)....they definitely won't resign, because they don't want to be replaced by someone that doesn't share their viewpoints.

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2008, 09:01 AM
WORD. Yeah, didn't see that part when I first read it. The Supreme Court is incredibly conservative, and if McCain is elected and he has to appoint a new justice, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. And by the way, the ruling for Roe had nothing to really do with abortion--what it established is the idea that there is a right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights. Overturn Roe and there is no right to privacy.

IamSam
10-22-2008, 10:01 AM
Most of Europe views America as far right. So there's already a problem with the wording of your first sentence...

That wouldn't happen to be because of our current president...you don't suppose?

Jesus
10-22-2008, 10:16 AM
That wouldn't happen to be because of our current president...you don't suppose?
No. Clinton was also regarded as right wing. From a standard European perspective the parties aren't all that different compared to the ones we have in proportional systems. If Obama would be running in Belgium. He'd probably be running for the Christian Democrats/Conservatives. Kucinich Social Democrats/Socialists. Bush would the extreme right/libertarian.

wheelchairman
10-22-2008, 10:33 AM
That wouldn't happen to be because of our current president...you don't suppose?

The left-wing opposition in Europe generally are proponents of comprehensive health care and higher educational facilities for everyone. In Denmark the right-wing doesn't even touch the fundaments of national health care and other government spending.

Our large right wing oppositions are to the left of the American left. (obviously smaller right wing parties can vary which is why I didn't mention them.)

IamSam
10-22-2008, 11:52 AM
Thank you for explaining that.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 12:08 PM
obama wants to change the fundamental ideas of america...i think that's quite clear.

he wants to take america from being a democracy with capitalism to a socialist country with even more limited rights than we have right now.

so not only may he be a bad president, he may be a destructive one...



Parts of Socialism isn't too bad if you think about it. Socialism is only bad when it's full blown. The only thing I can agree with Obama with is that he wants to give the middle class a tax break. That can/is seen as socialist. It's not very destructive to give the people (the middle class) who significantly help this country run a little bit of a break. It's not destructive at all. And like I said, this is one of the only things I can agree with Obama for.


Just to let you know, the Supreme Court is, at the moment, EXTREMELY right wing. And they're doing terrible terrible things when it comes to the rights of the people. They only way they would become left wing is if a whole bunch of them die while Obama is in office (if he gets into office)....they definitely won't resign, because they don't want to be replaced by someone that doesn't share their viewpoints.
And the Supreme Court staying where they are is something that we would want if Obama won. We can't have a majority of Democrats in the three branches. It'll be too much power.

But I'm really not sure what side you took on that post =/ I thought I would address it anyway.


WORD. Yeah, didn't see that part when I first read it. The Supreme Court is incredibly conservative, and if McCain is elected and he has to appoint a new justice, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned. And by the way, the ruling for Roe had nothing to really do with abortion--what it established is the idea that there is a right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights. Overturn Roe and there is no right to privacy.
Why would Roe v. Wade be overturned with McCain if it hasn't with Bush already? And this abortion thing is so old now. Gawd.

IamSam
10-22-2008, 12:25 PM
Why would Roe v. Wade be overturned with McCain if it hasn't with Bush already? And this abortion thing is so old now. Gawd.

Can you not read? She said why: McCain gets to appoint a new justice and that would make the court extremely conservative. Therefore Roe v. Wade would more likely be repealed.

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2008, 12:25 PM
Why would Roe v. Wade be overturned with McCain if it hasn't with Bush already? And this abortion thing is so old now. Gawd.

Because Bush didn't get to nominate enough justices to break the 5-4 deadlock that would overturn it, that's why. McCain would have that opportunity.

LOL, sorry, didn't realize that the right for people to have control over what happens to their own bodies is, like, sooo yesterday's news. I hope you won't complain if your right to privacy vanishes, by the way. Roe isn't just an abortion issue -- it's the right to privacy, and maybe if I keep repeating that someone will understand that. Besides, having a last-ditch option if your preferred method of birth control fails will keep you from having to enter fatherhood earlier than you bargained for, so it's not just a women's issue either.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 12:31 PM
Because Bush didn't get to nominate enough justices to break the 5-4 deadlock that would overturn it, that's why. McCain would have that opportunity.
Thank you for clarifying that.



LOL, sorry, didn't realize that the right for people to have control over what happens to their own bodies is, like, sooo yesterday's news. I hope you won't complain if your right to privacy vanishes, by the way. Roe isn't just an abortion issue -- it's the right to privacy, and maybe if I keep repeating that someone will understand that. Besides, having a last-ditch option if your preferred method of birth control fails will keep you from having to enter fatherhood earlier than you bargained for, so it's not just a women's issue either.
Look. I'm for abortion, personal privacy, gay marriage etc. I just think there are more important things going on in the country that should be focused on rather than a little girl who is foolish enough to not use a condom. And don't give me the "what if they were raped or the condom broke" because that doesn't happen nearly as often as people who get "caught up int he moment" and have sex without a condom and get themselves pregnant. I'm completely for abortion I just think that's not something at the most importance right now. If a little girl can stop our trillions of dollars of debt by getting an abortion, then it'll be more of an importance.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 12:32 PM
Can you not read? She said why: McCain gets to appoint a new justice and that would make the court extremely conservative. Therefore Roe v. Wade would more likely be repealed.
And all I asked was why Bush didn't do it. I didn't know he didn't have enough supporters in the Supreme Court.

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2008, 01:15 PM
Look. I'm for abortion, personal privacy, gay marriage etc. I just think there are more important things going on in the country that should be focused on rather than a little girl who is foolish enough to not use a condom. And don't give me the "what if they were raped or the condom broke" because that doesn't happen nearly as often as people who get "caught up int he moment" and have sex without a condom and get themselves pregnant. I'm completely for abortion I just think that's not something at the most importance right now. If a little girl can stop our trillions of dollars of debt by getting an abortion, then it'll be more of an importance.

Why the majority of people who seek abortion do so is completely irrelevant. So you're saying that it would be okay that just because someone is foolish enough not to wear a condom, that abortion could become completely illegal. (I note that you place the blame on the woman, and none whatsoever on the many guys out there who refuse to wear them because "it feels better without it"). And then the small minority of women knocked up by rapists or by accident are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The idea that the minority doesn't matter is the exact reason why the government sucks right now, so it's incredibly short-sighted if not ignorant of you to say "don't tell me what if they were raped."

You want economic reasoning? Here it is. More unwanted pregnancies carried to term means more future wards of the state, meaning already completely strapped state budgets will become even more strapped, leaving less funding available to fix anything else, such as, oh, let's say police salaries, or education. Letting someone pay $400 of their own money to terminate is a better economic policy than spending $40,000 of taxpayer money, nevermind the simple human right of being able to control what happens to your own body. Or we could just deepen our economic crisis in the name of someone's religion by creating more drains on public funding. Your choice.

ALSO. It is illegal for anyone to have sex with "little girls." But I know what you meant, and to that I say fuck your dismissive misogyny.

Static_Martyr
10-22-2008, 01:40 PM
And don't give me the "what if they were raped or the condom broke" because that doesn't happen nearly as often as people who get "caught up int he moment" and have sex without a condom and get themselves pregnant.

So are you saying that the carelessness of the majority outweighs and/or completely negates the genuine concerns of the minority? Do you mean to imply that, because it is "less common," it is somehow less valid?

I'm with 1565 on this one; pardon me if that crosses me as a bit arrogant/ignorant.

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2008, 01:52 PM
I'm with 1565 on this one; pardon me if that crosses me as a bit arrogant/ignorant.

LOL, yes, agreeing with me is either or both of those things?

Static_Martyr
10-22-2008, 02:11 PM
^Hah! No, no, no....I was referring to the passage I quoted. Sorry if I miscommunicated; in retrospect, my post wasn't as clear or mellow as it sounded as I was typing it 0_0

I've just had this same debate with a million anti-abortionists in the past....and it always irritates me how easy it is for people to just write off the minority. It's much harder to do so if you know someone personally who is involved in that kind of situation; it makes you realize that, even though they are the minority, they still count and they still have to deal with the mistakes that other people (i.e. a rapist or molester) made, and it's cruel and horrible in my opinion to just write them off like that.

Although I try to give people the BOD; perhaps that's not what OffspringHead was implying?

EMehl6
10-22-2008, 03:23 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and throw my two cents into this one haha:

Personally, I am against abortion. But, I don't think the government has the right to regulate and/or dictate what others do to their own bodies. In other words, I don't think the government should have the authority to declare it illegal. BUT, I also don't think that tax dollars should go towards helping others receive an abortion. The way I see it, if you want to get an abortion, go ahead. Who am I, or the government, to tell you what you can and can't do to your own body. But I shouldn't have to help you pay for it. That's all on you.

bighead384
10-22-2008, 04:33 PM
I don't like abortion simply because the fetus is a living thing. I don't know whether I think the government should be allowed to tell people what to do with a fetus, but I personally don't like abortion.

Sunny
10-22-2008, 04:43 PM
i don't think there are many people who "like" abortion.

Desperado
10-22-2008, 04:45 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and throw my two cents into this one haha:

Personally, I am against abortion. But, I don't think the government has the right to regulate and/or dictate what others do to their own bodies. In other words, I don't think the government should have the authority to declare it illegal. BUT, I also don't think that tax dollars should go towards helping others receive an abortion. The way I see it, if you want to get an abortion, go ahead. Who am I, or the government, to tell you what you can and can't do to your own body. But I shouldn't have to help you pay for it. That's all on you.

But the problem is it's not just you're own body you're dealing with; it's the baby's as well. People say that the right to abortion is the right to their own body, but what about the fetuses body?

bighead384
10-22-2008, 05:00 PM
i don't think there are many people who "like" abortion.

Allow me to clarify. When I said I don't "like" abortion, I meant that I personally think it's morally wrong. Do you understand now? If you don't, just let me know and I will explain this further.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 06:20 PM
Why the majority of people who seek abortion do so is completely irrelevant. So you're saying that it would be okay that just because someone is foolish enough not to wear a condom, that abortion could become completely illegal. (I note that you place the blame on the woman, and none whatsoever on the many guys out there who refuse to wear them because "it feels better without it"). And then the small minority of women knocked up by rapists or by accident are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The idea that the minority doesn't matter is the exact reason why the government sucks right now, so it's incredibly short-sighted if not ignorant of you to say "don't tell me what if they were raped."

You want economic reasoning? Here it is. More unwanted pregnancies carried to term means more future wards of the state, meaning already completely strapped state budgets will become even more strapped, leaving less funding available to fix anything else, such as, oh, let's say police salaries, or education. Letting someone pay $400 of their own money to terminate is a better economic policy than spending $40,000 of taxpayer money, nevermind the simple human right of being able to control what happens to your own body. Or we could just deepen our economic crisis in the name of someone's religion by creating more drains on public funding. Your choice.

ALSO. It is illegal for anyone to have sex with "little girls." But I know what you meant, and to that I say fuck your dismissive misogyny.
Are you fucking retarded? I said I was FOR abortion. I just think it's not as important at this point in time. Stop acting like I'm some horrible fucking person cause i'm "against abortion" when i clearly stated that I was all for it. I think abortion should be 100% legal. I just don't think it's as important in this election as any other elections in the past.

I don't think the carelessness mistakes of teenagers should have a huge role in this election for the simple fact that the entire country is going to suffer from this economic crisis, we are in a war that a majority of the country doesn't agree with, our healthcare is shit, the unemployment rate is high and the list continues. Abortion isn't as important to the country as a whole as those topics are. Just because I think those topics are more important at this point in time in our country doesn't mean I am against it.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 06:23 PM
And don't give me the "what if they were raped or the condom broke" because that doesn't happen nearly as often as people who get "caught up int he moment" and have sex without a condom and get themselves pregnant.

So are you saying that the carelessness of the majority outweighs and/or completely negates the genuine concerns of the minority? Do you mean to imply that, because it is "less common," it is somehow less valid?

I'm with 1565 on this one; pardon me if that crosses me as a bit arrogant/ignorant.
It's not arrogant or ignorant. If I didn't say that you know damn well most of the people who argue this topic bring up the victims of rape. And it doesn't matter whether or not they're a minority because like I said in my post above this one, I'M 100% FOR ABORTION.

IamSam
10-22-2008, 06:28 PM
Are you fucking retarded? I said I was FOR abortion. I just think it's not as important at this point in time. Stop acting like I'm some horrible fucking person cause i'm "against abortion" when i clearly stated that I was all for it. I think abortion should be 100% legal. I just don't think it's as important in this election as any other elections in the past.


She never said that you weren't against abortion, dip shit. She's treating you like a 'horrible fucking person' because you are being sexist and arguing a stupid point.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 06:33 PM
She never said that you weren't against abortion, dip shit. She's treating you like a 'horrible fucking person' because you are being sexist and arguing a stupid point.
So it's being sexist because I argued one gender? Ok then.

The men are just as fucking retarded because they ruined their fucking life for a few minutes of a little extra pleasure. Abortion should be an option because people are fucking stupid and deserve second, third and sometimes fourth chances. But it's not important and nobody should base their opinion on a potential president just because of their view on abortion.


So you're saying that it would be okay that just because someone is foolish enough not to wear a condom, that abortion could become completely illegal
And I believe that pretty much implies I'm against abortion If I'm not mistaken.

IamSam
10-22-2008, 06:44 PM
So it's being sexist because I argued one gender? Ok then.

The men are just as fucking retarded because they ruined their fucking life for a few minutes of a little extra pleasure. Abortion should be an option because people are fucking stupid and deserve second, third and sometimes fourth chances. But it's not important and nobody should base their opinion on a potential president just because of their view on abortion.


And I believe that pretty much implies I'm against abortion If I'm not mistaken.

No. She read you as saying (somewhat inferring) that you would be for it being illegal if someone got knocked up while not using a condom. Hence you somewhat asking you about it with the modifying statement 'so you're saying.'

I'm glad you decided to place the other sex into this now. Before you were sounding like a complete pigheaded male.

OffspringHead
10-22-2008, 06:48 PM
No. She read you as saying (somewhat inferring) that you would be for it being illegal if someone got knocked up while not using a condom. Hence you somewhat asking you about it with the modifying statement 'so you're saying.'

And her inferring that i wanted it to be illegal when I said I was for abortion is what fired me up.

Llamas
10-22-2008, 09:07 PM
Most of Europe views America as far right. So there's already a problem with the wording of your first sentence...

He was talking about in a world-wide sense, though. Europe is far more left than the US, yes. But much of Africa and South America, for instance, are much more right than we are. Globally speaking, we tend to fall in the middle. Compared to Europe, we are very, very conservative..

Little_Miss_1565
10-23-2008, 06:32 AM
The way I see it, if you want to get an abortion, go ahead. Who am I, or the government, to tell you what you can and can't do to your own body. But I shouldn't have to help you pay for it. That's all on you.

No one says taxpayers should subsidize abortion.


i don't think there are many people who "like" abortion.

Very yes. The few friends I've had who have had to terminate went through hell before going through with it. Two had been raped; another did a stupid thing.


But the problem is it's not just you're own body you're dealing with; it's the baby's as well. People say that the right to abortion is the right to their own body, but what about the fetuses body?

No. This is why abortion is not legal in most states after the first trimester -- it's not a fetus but an embryo. During the first trimester it is basically a conflagration of cells in the general shape of what could eventually grow to be a baby. It can't live outside the womb.


Are you fucking retarded? I said I was FOR abortion. I just think it's not as important at this point in time. Stop acting like I'm some horrible fucking person cause i'm "against abortion" when i clearly stated that I was all for it. I think abortion should be 100% legal. I just don't think it's as important in this election as any other elections in the past.

Then why are you being so dismissive? And you're a "horrible fucking person" because you clearly have a serious problem with women judging by the language you use.


I don't think the carelessness mistakes of teenagers should have a huge role in this election for the simple fact that the entire country is going to suffer from this economic crisis, we are in a war that a majority of the country doesn't agree with, our healthcare is shit, the unemployment rate is high and the list continues. Abortion isn't as important to the country as a whole as those topics are. Just because I think those topics are more important at this point in time in our country doesn't mean I am against it.

Again, we're not just talking about the careless mistakes of teenagers, it's also a matter of making sure that just because people are running scared because the economy is fucked (and you're talking to someone who actually lost her fucking job this summer because of it) we don't give up the sorts of rights that make America an awesome place to live. Besides, having a Republican president isn't as good for the economy as you might think. (http://yaforobama.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2246335%3ABlogPost%3A8502)


It's not arrogant or ignorant. If I didn't say that you know damn well most of the people who argue this topic bring up the victims of rape. And it doesn't matter whether or not they're a minority because like I said in my post above this one, I'M 100% FOR ABORTION.

Why does it sound like people who bring up rape survivors when it comes to any discussion of abortion pisses you off? Do you have a problem with rape victims? WTF?


She never said that you weren't against abortion, dip shit. She's treating you like a 'horrible fucking person' because you are being sexist and arguing a stupid point.

Wow, you totally took the words out of my mouth and I tip my hat to you sir.


And her inferring that i wanted it to be illegal when I said I was for abortion is what fired me up.

I went back and read your posts, wondering how I could have read that you might be against it if you're actually for it, and I realized that it's because you are writing arguments from a dismissive, misogynistic, small-minded viewpoint. You may be for abortion, but you sound like you hate women. And you don't seem to be arguing against any of the points I made to that effect that I also made in my last reply, do you?

Jesus
10-23-2008, 06:42 AM
I think abortion should be 100% legal. I just don't think it's as important in this election as any other elections in the past.

Fighting crime is always important. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508


for the simple fact that the entire country is going to suffer from this economic crisis, we are in a war that a majority of the country doesn't agree with, our healthcare is shit, the unemployment rate is high and the list continues. Abortion isn't as important to the country as a whole as those topics are.
Yeah but if you want to do something about all of that voting for McCain wouldn't make any sense at all. So I don't really understand where you're going with all of this.

He was talking about in a world-wide sense, though. Europe is far more left than the US, yes. But much of Africa and South America, for instance, are much more right than we are. Globally speaking, we tend to fall in the middle. Compared to Europe, we are very, very conservative..
I'd say South America is for the most part on the left of the US (Correa, Vazquez, Chavez, Lula, Morales, Bachelet, Kirchner etc.). It used to be on the right, because their government would get overthrown if they moved a bit to the left. But we're past that for the most part. Don't think you can classify most of Africa in terms or left and right. They are somewhere between screwed and totally fucked.

OffspringHead
10-23-2008, 09:15 AM
Then why are you being so dismissive? And you're a "horrible fucking person" because you clearly have a serious problem with women judging by the language you use.
I have no problem with women. And I'm getting called a sexist because it has to (most of the time) be a mutual agreement to have sex meaning the women. Abortions are mainly focused on which gender? Women. I argued the woman point of view because the woman is the actual person who gets the abortion. So most of the time who is the abortion focused on? The women. It's the mans fault just as much as the woman but i argued the female perspective. It doesn't make me a fucking sexist. And it doesn't make me sexist because of the foolish mistakes these people make. People deserve 2nd chances and that is why I am for abortion.


Besides, having a Republican president isn't as good for the economy as you might think. (http://yaforobama.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2246335%3ABlogPost%3A8502)



Yeah but if you want to do something about all of that voting for McCain wouldn't make any sense at all. So I don't really understand where you're going with all of this.
It was my mistake that I didn't make it clear that I dislike McCain as much as I dislike Obama.



Again, we're not just talking about the careless mistakes of teenagers, it's also a matter of making sure that just because people are running scared because the economy is fucked (and you're talking to someone who actually lost her fucking job this summer because of it) we don't give up the sorts of rights that make America an awesome place to live.
I'm sorry that you lost your job due to the economy. That just means this is an important election to you. You learned first hand how our shit economy is effecting the country. So I would think that you could agree that it's quite possible that an average american isn't as concerned about the right for abortion as much as the are concerned about whether or not they have a home, car, job, and/or a bank account. Or maybe they're worried about their credit, how much harder it's going to be to pay bills, taxes, rent, mortgages, etc.

The idea of losing Roe v. Wade is a sad thing because it IS in fact taking away american rights. And that is fairly important. But not as important as this crisis. And you should obviously realize that if you lost your job from it.



Why does it sound like people who bring up rape survivors when it comes to any discussion of abortion pisses you off? Do you have a problem with rape victims? WTF?
It pisses me off because it's the same arguement that everyone always brings up. And people argue with me about me saying that when I already said I'm for abortion. My point was that a MAJORITY of the people who get an abortion make a careless mistake.



I went back and read your posts, wondering how I could have read that you might be against it if you're actually for it, and I realized that it's because you are writing arguments from a dismissive, misogynistic, small-minded viewpoint. You may be for abortion, but you sound like you hate women. And you don't seem to be arguing against any of the points I made to that effect that I also made in my last reply, do you?
Listen. I'm not against women at all and i certainly don't hate them. Sex doesn't mean a thing to me. Whether you have a vagina or a penis or both, you're a human being and you're equal. If it were men that got pregnant, I would have said the SAME EXACT THING about abortion.
And i definately argued your points from your last post by saying you wasted your time typing that post because you implied that I was against abortion by telling me all the bad things that happen if abortion is illegal. I know all that shit because I am FOR ABORTION.

Little_Miss_1565
10-23-2008, 09:43 AM
I'm sorry that you lost your job due to the economy. That just means this is an important election to you. You learned first hand how our shit economy is effecting the country. So I would think that you could agree that it's quite possible that an average american isn't as concerned about the right for abortion as much as the are concerned about whether or not they have a home, car, job, and/or a bank account. Or maybe they're worried about their credit, how much harder it's going to be to pay bills, taxes, rent, mortgages, etc.

The idea of losing Roe v. Wade is a sad thing because it IS in fact taking away american rights. And that is fairly important. But not as important as this crisis. And you should obviously realize that if you lost your job from it.

I am actually more concerned over the loss of the right to choose than I am the economy. I've been getting by doing odd jobs for the last four months and I'm sure I will continue to do so. I actually just got a new job so yay for me. But basically, some things are more important than being poor for right now. The economy will swing back up, especially under a democratic White House. Lost rights don't come back.


It pisses me off because it's the same arguement that everyone always brings up. And people argue with me about me saying that when I already said I'm for abortion. My point was that a MAJORITY of the people who get an abortion make a careless mistake.

And again, it doesn't. matter. at. all. why the majority of people get abortions. Since you're pro-choice you would know that it's a right that needs to be protected for the minority of people for whom it wasn't under their control. People bring it up all the time because it's kind of seriously fucking important. Unwanted pregnancies are a male issue too, and really, rape is as well. Consent may be a woman's issue, but it takes two to (horizontally) tango. Arguing anything from only one side, and belligerently so, doesn't make it sound like you see both sides of the issue even if you do.


Listen. I'm not against women at all and i certainly don't hate them. Sex doesn't mean a thing to me. Whether you have a vagina or a penis or both, you're a human being and you're equal. If it were men that got pregnant, I would have said the SAME EXACT THING about abortion.

You hadn't referred to women as women until this point -- instead, you said "little girls." Doesn't exactly imply equality. I think if you spent more time wording your posts like this one you just wrote, people would get your point more clearly. When you say things like "stupid careless little girls having to get abortions," it doesn't exactly make you sound pro-choice.

Slim Pickens The Bomb Rider
10-23-2008, 11:10 AM
That thinks Barack Obama would be a terrible president. According to polls, i'm not. And I don't understand how anyone could see him as being remotely prepared or a good president.

Are you fucking kidding me??? So you think McCain is better? Please...Is it because he's black? McCain is too old, what if he dies, then Palin will be president. Then what? That would be really fucked up. Can you believe it........ :confused:

bighead384
10-23-2008, 11:14 AM
Am I the only one...Ahhhhhhh

RAPE ME!

Little_Miss_1565
10-23-2008, 11:25 AM
Are you fucking kidding me??? So you think McCain is better? Please...Is it because he's black? McCain is too old, what if he dies, then Palin will be president. Then what? That would be really fucked up. Can you believe it........ :confused:

Please read the rest of the thread. He clarified his points.

EMehl6
10-23-2008, 12:34 PM
But the problem is it's not just you're own body you're dealing with; it's the baby's as well. People say that the right to abortion is the right to their own body, but what about the fetuses body?

Like I said, I personally don't agree with it, but I don't think the government should have the authority to step into your personal life. They are involved in way too much shit as it is, but that's an entirely different story. Let me reiterate, I am personally against it, but not politically, if that makes sense. The way I see it, if you choose to have an abortion, that's between you, your conscience, and God. I see it as morally wrong, along with many others, but still, the government has no place in the decision.

Moose
10-23-2008, 06:14 PM
the right to have an abortion should be legal because of the terrible consequences that would come along with making it illegal.

-underground abortions (unsafe)
-corrupt doctors
-consequences for getting an abortion (do you imprison these people)
-babies left on "door steps"
-increase babies in foster homes and the such
-parents who have a subconscious hate for their kids ("you ruined my life")
-broken up families

...etc etc.


there are a number of things...basically people will get abortions anyway, either through their own methods, or illegal ones...and if not...they may take extreme measures to get rid of a newborn child.

the alternative of making abortions illegal is much worse, than to keeping it legal.

no one is saying you have to get an abortion. it is just an option that should be left between the mother, the father, family and whomever, and God if they believe in such.

...there is a separation between church and state, so this should not be a religious issue, but a personal issue.

abortion should be legal...im all for limiting abortions, through education, and other options...and partial abortions (over 6 months) unless health is in question, doesnt really seem like a pleasent idea...i guess you should be able to make your mind up before 6 months...also...people who are pro-choice arent pro-abortion...they just realize the circumstances (i hope).


EDIT:

Yes abortion I feel is morally wrong and I wouldnt want my mate to get an abortion if i knocked her up...but I would leave it up to her. I'm not going to hold it against someone if they do get an abortion. Everyone's situation is different. In the end, keeping the government out of everything, and treading on rights, is always better than the other way around.

wheelchairman
10-24-2008, 04:10 AM
He was talking about in a world-wide sense, though. Europe is far more left than the US, yes. But much of Africa and South America, for instance, are much more right than we are. Globally speaking, we tend to fall in the middle. Compared to Europe, we are very, very conservative..

If we are going to argue this line, then I would continue with that much of Asia is communist (and they're like billions of people!!!!) China, Vietnam, Laos, and Mongolia. Not to mention India and it's strong communist movement and the party that is in power is also left wing.

And Africa is an interesting point. I wouldn't think that you could classify corrupt dictatorships and war torn lands in any meaningful left/right category. Interesting point, many African countries claimed to be socialist up until the 1990's, then they quietly removed all references to socialism.

I don't know about South America, but they certainly are having a left wing surge in many of their countries. Ortega in Nicaraugua, Brazil and Lula, Chavez and Venezuela, Kirchner in Argentina, that guy from Bolivia who's name escapes me.

And back to the topic. I just sat a second and realized how glad I am that I don't have a womb. The fact that there is legislation over what should be the sovereignty of the human body is creepy. I really really would not want what rights my body has to be decided by American voters.

OffspringHead
10-24-2008, 09:28 AM
I am actually more concerned over the loss of the right to choose than I am the economy. I've been getting by doing odd jobs for the last four months and I'm sure I will continue to do so. I actually just got a new job so yay for me. But basically, some things are more important than being poor for right now. The economy will swing back up, especially under a democratic White House. Lost rights don't come back.
It's surprising that you're more worried about personal rights than the financial crisis. You don't see that too much. But that's cool. I just think things such as gay marriage and abortion (which I am for) aren't a main focus of mine or many others in this election. But they're a main focus for you and many others in this election and that's cool too.




And again, it doesn't. matter. at. all. why the majority of people get abortions. Since you're pro-choice you would know that it's a right that needs to be protected for the minority of people for whom it wasn't under their control. People bring it up all the time because it's kind of seriously fucking important. Unwanted pregnancies are a male issue too, and really, rape is as well. Consent may be a woman's issue, but it takes two to (horizontally) tango. Arguing anything from only one side, and belligerently so, doesn't make it sound like you see both sides of the issue even if you do.

I guess I did sound a little sexist. But I didn't mean to sound like that. I did argue the female side but I know that it affects the males too but not nearly as much as a woman. She has the baby, nurses the baby, carries the baby etc. And if it's rape, the woman actually has to go through with the process of forced sex. The man doesn't experience as much as the girl does including all of the above (if she has the baby) or she has to go through with the actual abortion which can be painful and very emotional. You learn about these things all the time from friends, school, family etc. So when i said "stupid little girls" it was because they should know the risks and consequences before doing something foolish because THOSE little girls have to go through with the abortion or child birth and the emotional consequences. And it's also proven woman are smarter than men =p



You hadn't referred to women as women until this point -- instead, you said "little girls." Doesn't exactly imply equality. I think if you spent more time wording your posts like this one you just wrote, people would get your point more clearly. When you say things like "stupid careless little girls having to get abortions," it doesn't exactly make you sound pro-choice.

I'' be sure to read everything over from now on and try not to sound offensive when I don't actually mean to be,

T-6005
10-24-2008, 10:27 AM
Come on, guys. Kiss and make up, you dirty idealists.

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

EMehl6
10-24-2008, 11:50 AM
No one says taxpayers should subsidize abortion.

I know no one came out and said it, but it's been said before in other discussions I've had on this subject, so I wanted to throw that out there.

nieh
10-24-2008, 12:38 PM
It's surprising that you're more worried about personal rights than the financial crisis. You don't see that too much. But that's cool. I just think things such as gay marriage and abortion (which I am for) are a main focus of mine or many others in this election. But they're a main focus for you and many others in this election and that's cool too.

If rights are taken away by a Supreme Court majority it will be a long, long time before the situation is reversed and the ruling can be overturned. If McCain were to be elected and had the opportunity to appoint a conservative judge, the effects would last much longer than McCain's (or, god forbid, Palin's) term as president, whereas the economic crisis is more of a short-term thing that will probably be fixed well before the next election.

wheelchairman
10-24-2008, 04:49 PM
On the subject of subsidizing abortion. I would like to bring up the idealistic utopia of Denmark. In the danish abortion debate all it deals with is who should pay. The Danish citizen has a right to free abortion until the 4th week.Then it's up to debate. You can pay for it or hope the state will not. In Denmark this is as far as personal morals interfere with the debate or not.

I find this aspect of the debate surprisingly comfortable. Personally I support free state subsidies until much later. But the fact that the debate is about who pays, and not about whether or not it exists at all is... well just refreshing.

OffspringHead
10-24-2008, 09:01 PM
If rights are taken away by a Supreme Court majority it will be a long, long time before the situation is reversed and the ruling can be overturned. If McCain were to be elected and had the opportunity to appoint a conservative judge, the effects would last much longer than McCain's (or, god forbid, Palin's) term as president, whereas the economic crisis is more of a short-term thing that will probably be fixed well before the next election.

You're not right but you're not wrong. If some president was pro-choice and people focused on that more than his plans on the financial crisis, he could be elected and have no solid plan to work on the crisis making it a long-term effect. And on the other hand, he could have a plan and be pro-choice and your theory would be a reality.

For example, a few months ago I would have focused more on their views on rights such as abortion. Oil prices would also be a big factor I'd look at too. But things are always changing. Next month for all we know the dollar could be worth 5 British pounds. And finance wouldn't be as much of a problem as it is now. But if our leader doesn't know what the hell he's doing, then this financial disaster could get worse and worse.

The Stocks are still going down. Which effects the WORLD. Not just America. You can tell by taking a quick glance at the gas prices as you drive by a gas station. This is a huge issue which should really be taken into consideration. But not to get me wrong, Civil Liberties are up there on importance as well.

metalmania
10-25-2008, 02:04 PM
no governments no limits no flags just humanity but i see that u all left to idea of punk! so go your way with your the politic cross.You can worship your post icons maybe they can save you all haha!not to be a puppet ;)

OffspringHead
10-27-2008, 09:10 AM
no governments no limits no flags just humanity but i see that u all left to idea of punk!

The idea of punk is a joke. "Just humanity" is something that can never be achieved. It's against human nature along with Communism and Anarchy. They're all dumb ideas. With the exception of some characteristics of Communism.

EMehl6
10-27-2008, 09:15 AM
On the subject of subsidizing abortion. I would like to bring up the idealistic utopia of Denmark. In the danish abortion debate all it deals with is who should pay. The Danish citizen has a right to free abortion until the 4th week.Then it's up to debate. You can pay for it or hope the state will not. In Denmark this is as far as personal morals interfere with the debate or not.

I find this aspect of the debate surprisingly comfortable. Personally I support free state subsidies until much later. But the fact that the debate is about who pays, and not about whether or not it exists at all is... well just refreshing.

So you think that abortions should be subsidized by the government? Why?

Little_Miss_1565
10-27-2008, 01:08 PM
You're not right but you're not wrong. If some president was pro-choice and people focused on that more than his plans on the financial crisis, he could be elected and have no solid plan to work on the crisis making it a long-term effect. And on the other hand, he could have a plan and be pro-choice and your theory would be a reality.

This is completely ridiculous because no one is going to be elected president without a solid plan of action on things like the economy, foreign policy, etc., whether or not a lot of people agree with it. But they would hae some kind of working theory on how to deal with it. People do not run successfully for president on only a pro-choice policy. I have no idea where thsi is coming from, as he is totally right. McCain in office would be able to nominate a conservative justice that would overturn Roe and that right would be gone baby gone for decades and decades and decades. Even the Great Depression only lasted for one decade.

IamSam
10-27-2008, 01:10 PM
This is completely ridiculous because no one is going to be elected president without a solid plan of action on things like the economy, foreign policy, etc., whether or not a lot of people agree with it. But they would hae some kind of working theory on how to deal with it. People do not run successfully for president on only a pro-choice policy. I have no idea where thsi is coming from, as he is totally right. McCain in office would be able to nominate a conservative justice that would overturn Roe and that right would be gone baby gone for decades and decades and decades. Even the Great Depression only lasted for one decade.

I agree with you, but at the same time I do know people that are voting McCain just because of the abortion issue. Stupid if you ask me.

Little_Miss_1565
10-27-2008, 01:10 PM
I agree with you, but at the same time I do know people that are voting McCain just because of the abortion issue. Stupid if you ask me.

Perhaps, but that's also the main reason I find myself completely unable to vote for him.

Vera
10-27-2008, 11:44 PM
I agree with you, but at the same time I do know people that are voting McCain just because of the abortion issue. Stupid if you ask me.

Meanwhile I know a pro-choice lady who is voting McCain because she doesnt believe in ´´single issue voting´´.

Huh.

Mind you, she said this back in like May, maybe with Palin stuff and all this ridiculousity shes changed her mind.

metalmania
10-28-2008, 10:28 AM
The idea of punk is a joke. "Just humanity" is something that can never be achieved. It's against human nature along with Communism and Anarchy. They're all dumb ideas. With the exception of some characteristics of Communism.
hehe american and capitalist economists were talking like you before crisis :D hm u said that its bullshit but dude if communism's economic ideas re bullshit why is world talking about it stiil and did you hear the "das capital"?this book 2. after holy bible in west countries hehe ;) anyway punk cant live in communism cause punk never likes communism and punk is sound of anarchism ; prudhon(father of anarchism) praises the invidualism but communism (scientific socialism world view) praises the society!so they re different things ok? and prudon couldnt help to marx for his works . punk lives out of communist view .so they say viva anarko .ok dude? can you see?:D maybe u have to read the
"vileness of philosophy" by marx or anachist writer prudon's "philosophy of vileness" so u cant understand them when u'd read

wheelchairman
10-29-2008, 06:54 AM
So you think that abortions should be subsidized by the government? Why?

Because health-care is socialized here. Abortions are already subsidized by the government (until the 4th week). It's the later term ones that should be as well. For example they can only first test for birth defects by the 6th week I think.

They should also re-subsidize dental benefits. Students here no longer go to the dentist due to the prohibitive costs of doing so.

NGNM85
11-17-2008, 09:40 PM
The idea of punk is a joke.

That might carry a little more weight if you weren't posting on a forum dedicated to a punk band. (Which is also clearly one of you're favorite bands.) That aside, theres' an important distinction to be made here. Anarchism may be "punk", but Punk is not necessarily Anarchist. Punk is a cultural movement that began as a reaction against disco/70's stadium rock. The core principles of punk are complementary to Anarchism, DIY ethic, a rejection of consumerism, the status quo, etc. "Anarchy in the UK" had nothing to do with Anarchism as an ideology, it was just a response to sociopolitical events in Great Britain in the early/mid-70's. There was no serious connection between Anarchism and punk until Crass in the 80's.



"Just humanity" is something that can never be achieved. It's against human nature along with Communism and Anarchy. They're all dumb ideas. With the exception of some characteristics of Communism.

Dumb ideas, you say? So, you've read Proudhon, Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, as well as modern writers like Daniel Guerin and Noam Chomsky? (Who taught at MIT for like 50 years.) Are you QUALIFIED to make that asessment? But I digress..
Yes, you're dismal view of human nature is considered by many to be general wisdom, enforced by the mouthpieces of orthodoxy; which in itself should give you reason to question it, because it's in the interests of the elites for you to believe this. I'm sure you wouldn't take a used car salesman at his word, because he has an agenda. Same thing. This idea of human nature doesn't stand up to a second of scrutiny. First of all, look at biology, is it at all likely that an organism would develop such an atavistic nature? It goes against the laws of evolution. Then you look at the social sciences, even in America, which has ridiculously high crime rates, comparatively, the percentage of violent crime relative to the size of our population is much lower than it's made out to be. Also, it's dramatically concentrated in the most destitute areas, which should be no surprise. Or look at history, society didn't begin with prosecutors and IRS agents and metermaids,etc., these are the product of thousands of years, so there had to be a primitive human civilization that thrived without massive concentrations of power. Lastly, you're premise is inherently illogical. You're saying that humans are too irresponsible and destructive to handle responsibility over they're own lives, so you plan to solve that by giving a small group of people control over everybody's life. The inherent fallacy should be painfully obvious.

HornyPope
11-18-2008, 02:56 PM
Or look at history, society didn't begin with prosecutors and IRS agents and metermaids,etc., these are the product of thousands of years, so there had to be a primitive human civilization that thrived without massive concentrations of power.

If these primitive human civilizations were thriving, then why did they evolve into what we are now?

NGNM85
11-18-2008, 07:35 PM
If these primitive human civilizations were thriving, then why did they evolve into what we are now?

You've got it reversed, it's BECAUSE those civilizations thrived that we're here now. If early humans had not been able to function they would have died off and we wouldn't be here. Thats' pretty much a given. Why did the first authoritarian structures come into existence? I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons. However, that's a long way from proof that they MUST exist, which was the contention I was aruing against. One does not necessarily follow from the other. The real issue is human nature, fundamentally.

HornyPope
11-18-2008, 10:33 PM
You've got it reversed, it's BECAUSE those civilizations thrived that we're here now. If early humans had not been able to function they would have died off and we wouldn't be here. Thats' pretty much a given. Why did the first authoritarian structures come into existence? I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons. However, that's a long way from proof that they MUST exist, which was the contention I was aruing against. One does not necessarily follow from the other. The real issue is human nature, fundamentally.

Are we straying away from our nature by adopting authoritarian institutions? We have evidence that societies become increasingly bureaucratized as they progress in history. Are we not following our biological path? If all societies are doing it, maybe it's how we were meant to be?

Hypno Toad
11-19-2008, 01:00 AM
The US presidential elections are not for voting in presidents, it is for voting in the lesser of 2 evils :)

So far, Obama has done some good stuff. Shut down Guantanamo bay, for one.

NGNM85
11-19-2008, 11:50 PM
Are we straying away from our nature by adopting authoritarian institutions? We have evidence that societies become increasingly bureaucratized as they progress in history. Are we not following our biological path? If all societies are doing it, maybe it's how we were meant to be?

You could very well make that argument, but you'd have to be able to back it up which is a hell of a lot harder. First, I want to make it clear I have nothing against organization, this is a common misunderstanding. No, humans are social animals, thats' fine and good, the issue is domination and control by minority elites. The core principle justifying that is that humans are ignorant savages who need to be controlled. Of course the people who make these arguments never seem to be able to explain how they are exempt from what they claim is "human nature." Beyond that huge fallacy, is there any reason to believe this? Biology, Anthropology, History, and basic logic seem to present a conflicting notion. Generally, these coercive institutions of power exist to maintain social inequalities. Now theres' only two ways to do this, you have the simpler totalitarian model like Stalin or Pinochet, where you just have a gun pointed at everybody's head so you don't really have to justify it. However in the more "democratic" societies, without having you're boot on everybody's throat, you need to find other ways to convince the masses to accept circumstances that are totally against they're interests. This is why western civilizations actually have the most intricate and developed propaganda systems. Thats' how stuff like this becomes "general wisdom." It's reinforced and filtered through the media and educational institutions, but if you look at it critically, it doesn't stand up. Like i was saying, if anybody tellks you something that is dramatically in they're self-interest, you need to question it.

NGNM85
11-19-2008, 11:53 PM
The US presidential elections are not for voting in presidents, it is for voting in the lesser of 2 evils :)

So far, Obama has done some good stuff. Shut down Guantanamo bay, for one.

I can't argue with that, we essentially have two wings of the business party, it's just up to us to choose the more humane of two bad options. I'm very glad Guantanamo Bay will be closing down, it's a blight on our national conscience.