Pages:
Author

Topic: Obama or Romney ? - page 16. (Read 21126 times)

member
Activity: 99
Merit: 10
October 13, 2012, 11:54:33 PM
#93
Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Ron Paul is an idiot.

lol

Romney is a war monger and another big government guy.  Things won't change much with him.

M

War monger? LOL that is cute ....  It can't get any worst then Obama so I suspect Romney just has to show up to do better.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
October 13, 2012, 11:53:02 PM
#92
Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Ron Paul is an idiot.

lol

Romney is a war monger and another big government guy.  Things won't change much with him.

M
member
Activity: 99
Merit: 10
October 13, 2012, 11:51:44 PM
#91
Romney is going to win as he should. Obama is a joke and a commie and Grandpa Paul is an idiot.
sr. member
Activity: 454
Merit: 250
Technology and Women. Amazing.
October 13, 2012, 09:49:06 PM
#90
In 2008, Obama ran on a campaign largely centered around the idea of "hope and change" and that these things were possible with current political structuring. Today most of us realize this is an utter and blatant contrived farse; the smile of a politician, wrapped in succulent lie tainted bacon. And I like my bacon, don't go tainting it!
Ahem, I digress. More recently in September 2012 during the Democratic National Convention, Obama states to the public that "The change is you!"... and as mind-blowing as this is, it's only a half truth. For hope to be viable and plausible, you must first believe in it, and fewer people are, as the days of bitter monetary oppression continue to pass. I was taught long ago that change, no matters its form, comes from within. The vast majority of people are not "from within", quite the contrary, for the most part we are unenlightened sheep who remain docile just as our oppressors would wish us to be. We have no ability to change the system from within because there is no political will to do so. People are much happier just living their lives and not rocking the proverbial boat.
If change is to occur, it must happen on the level of social-elitists who think themselves better than their fellow man just because of some relatively worthless fancy green ink printed on equally fancy paper. Problem is, the rich have 1 priority above all else, and that is to remain rich. Not easy to "rock the boat" with that crowd, but if we are to free ourselves from financial tyranny, I feel this is an absolutely necessary step along the way. Convince the rich that they will no longer be rich if they put so much faith in a dying currency. Not all voices are equal in this country, far from it. The more money you have, the more power you have, the more power you have, the more influence you have, etc etc etc... Do not believe a word that any politician would choose to have seeded in your ear, for behind that word is some unknown clandestine agenda which will likely come back and haunt you from your early grave for having listened. Voting one way or the other is another way of saying "I'm okay with being told half-truths and empty promises by corrupt entities over whom I have zero control." Politics are a rigged game, the house wins either way, be they Republicrat or Democans. There is but one way and one way only to beat a rigged game; don't play it. Don't vote. Watch as the powers that be realize how utterly fucked they are when only 1% of the population goes out to vote.

Don't fuck with my bacon.
sr. member
Activity: 283
Merit: 250
August 28, 2012, 11:40:54 PM
#89
I looked into Gary Johnson, and a lot of his stances are interesting to me, but being proud of privatizing prisons and the 0% capital gains part of the fair tax policy are a no-go for me. I'm tempted to vote for him in protest, but I'll probably just write in 'unowned candidate'.
sr. member
Activity: 457
Merit: 250
Look for the bear necessities!!
August 28, 2012, 09:57:29 PM
#88
I don't like either of them but Obama is lightyears better.  That said, Jill Stein or Ron Paul would be much better than either.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 28, 2012, 09:41:11 PM
#87
Perhaps this will help you find Good and Evil without asking God:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
August 28, 2012, 08:48:23 PM
#86
Governments that distribute ANYTHING are inherently bad.  The ideal government is one that protects the rights of the people, nothing more.  Anything else leads to self serving career politicians.
i dont think i understand what you talk about. so the country is law, judge, police and thats it? zero infrastructure?
if thats what you mean, id rather pass on it. i dont really want to live in the wilderness.

Why did the US government make the highway system?  I'll give you a clue, it wasn't for the citizens.

Quote
while i have no problem with people being spiritual, every religion that claims some absolute truths is intolerant by design.

There are absolute truths.

Quote
i dont do "good" and "evil". everybody acts and judges from his own perspective and thinks he is the good guy. ethics are made by man and contain no inherit truth. which one we choose is not a decision between good and evil but a choice about the society we would like to live in. take abortion for example. most people argue about when life "officially begins" and stuff like that. to me that doesnt matter at all. i prefer pro-choice, because women are living, conscient and acting people and their rights have an immediate effect on the society i live in, while the existence or nonexistence of rights for a fetus has no consequence at all. there is no right and wrong in that decision. just actions and consequences that i deem desirable or undesirable.

and yes i know that a worldview like that is pure evil to any (likely religious) person with eternally codified moral rules.

There is right, and there is wrong.  In betweens lead to the gray society we are in today.

M
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
August 28, 2012, 11:39:47 AM
#85
I'm either voting third party (probably green) or for obama again (even though it kills me a little inside).

Romney can eat a Dick.
I'm also looking at the greens. The dems are way to conservative for my likes.
hero member
Activity: 991
Merit: 1011
August 28, 2012, 11:17:50 AM
#84
So... you're comparing governments that almost always have epic fail policies with companies that rarely do?  Great argument.

sorry, but i live in a country with pretty good roads & public transport, rockstable electricity, water quality above that of most bottled water brands, close to 100% dsl avaibility, health insurrance, low crime rate and mostly free education.
there is still lots of problems and fuckups i can blame the government for. but all in all i cant call our government an epic fail and i am sure companies wouldnt have done better. in fact, i can see it in the usa that they dont.

Quote
Google's motto was "don't be evil" until they went public.  Then they did just that.

Companies can be good.  It's corporations that tend to be like governments.  Again, you're comparing something with has the possibility, perhaps even a tendency to be good (a company) with something that is almost always bad (a government).

you just claim its like that. i disagree.

Quote
Governments that distribute ANYTHING are inherently bad.  The ideal government is one that protects the rights of the people, nothing more.  Anything else leads to self serving career politicians.

i dont think i understand what you talk about. so the country is law, judge, police and thats it? zero infrastructure?
if thats what you mean, id rather pass on it. i dont really want to live in the wilderness.

Quote
I was referring to organized religion.  Most as corrupt and inept as most governments and corporations are.

I'm talking about godliness, not religious zeal.  The various wars fought over religion have nothing to do with religion, it's the intolerance of other people's beliefs that causes it.

while i have no problem with people being spiritual, every religion that claims some absolute truths is intolerant by design.

Quote
There is no right answer outside of inherently good individuals.  

Corporations aren't inherently evil, it's the people that run them, and the greedy "give me something for nothing" shareholders.  
Governments aren't inherently evil, it's the career politicians that lie through their teeth and sell themselves to the highest bidders.
Unions were created to protect employees from "evil" employers.  Now we have self serving unions that cause more problems than the solution they are supposed to provide.  It's not the union itself, however, it's the greedy self serving individuals in it.
Guns aren't bad, it's the individual that pulls the trigger.
Organized religion isn't inherently bad, it's the individuals who seek to put themselves between people and god.

Only animalistic "carnal" man is evil.  Only once man (generalistic term, not sexist) realizes his true nature will things change.  

i dont do "good" and "evil". everybody acts and judges from his own perspective and thinks he is the good guy. ethics are made by man and contain no inherit truth. which one we choose is not a decision between good and evil but a choice about the society we would like to live in. take abortion for example. most people argue about when life "officially begins" and stuff like that. to me that doesnt matter at all. i prefer pro-choice, because women are living, conscient and acting people and their rights have an immediate effect on the society i live in, while the existence or nonexistence of rights for a fetus has no consequence at all. there is no right and wrong in that decision. just actions and consequences that i deem desirable or undesirable.

and yes i know that a worldview like that is pure evil to any (likely religious) person with eternally codified moral rules.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
August 28, 2012, 03:00:09 AM
#83
Anarchy has many different meanings. I define it as a society without states, which neither AnCap (voluntary association with a state) nor Bitcoin (miners) meet.
AnCap is not "voluntary association with a state" because no single entity or hierarchical chain of entities has a socially-accepted, regional monopoly on drawing and enforcing the rules regulating the acceptable uses of force. If your association with the entity is voluntary, it has no regional monopoly on the acceptable use of force, so it's not a state.

The key difference between AnCap and other systems is that entities don't have socially-accepted regional monopolies on the accepted use of force. One of the ways people commonly try to refute AnCap systems is to show that they would inevitably soon result in such monopolies and thus AnCap is unstable. If such an argument were accepted, that would refute AnCap as a political system.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 27, 2012, 10:49:45 PM
#82
thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?
AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.

I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people.
Anarchy has many different meanings. I define it as a society without states, which neither AnCap (voluntary association with a state) nor Bitcoin (miners) meet.

That's an interesting view of AnCap, and it goes to the very definition of the word "State." On Dictionary.com, the pertinent definition is "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. " Which, of course, AnCap decidedly does not meet. Even if you allow that the customers of each individual defense agency are "politically unified", they don't occupy a definite territory.
sr. member
Activity: 291
Merit: 250
BTCRadio Owner
August 27, 2012, 10:36:40 PM
#81
Both puppets...
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
August 27, 2012, 10:32:39 PM
#80
thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?
AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.

I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people.
Anarchy has many different meanings. I define it as a society without states, which neither AnCap (voluntary association with a state) nor Bitcoin (miners) meet.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 27, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
#79
thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?
AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.

I think you may need to review your textbook. Anarchy means no rulers. That's all. No kings, no Presidents, no Prime Ministers or Parliament. Just people.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
August 27, 2012, 09:29:51 PM
#78
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
August 27, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
#77
thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?
AnCap is not anarchy. Bitcoin is not anarchy. If there is a power distribution, it isn't true anarchy. Only true anarchy avoids the problem with unfairness. Any other system is inherently unfair, but the degree it is such varies.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
August 27, 2012, 09:20:22 PM
#76
thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

What form of power distribution is more even than anarchy?
420
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
August 27, 2012, 09:16:35 PM
#75

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.



so whats that solution? four branches of government, more speration of powers?
hero member
Activity: 991
Merit: 1011
August 27, 2012, 09:14:23 PM
#74
Not quite.  There is no detriment to government to being wasteful.  In fact, their solution is usually to throw more money at it!  It's really easy to spend someone else's money.

Where as in the private industry, if you are wasteful, you go out of business. 

you might have noticed, companies go out of business all the time. you have to put those in the equation too. you cant just look at all the successful companies and compare them to that superwasteful government.

Quote
What utopian society do you live it?  The vast majority of government is not for the greater good of all.

i agree. but companies arent even intended to be. so how can you improve something you dont even see as a goal?

Quote
Until government is run by selfless individuals who are indeed there for the good of the people, nothing will change.  If you look around you, society is full of selfish busy body control freaks.  Today's government, including the alphabet acronym agencies, are full of such individuals, which is why we have the problems we have today.  Greed and corruption exist everywhere, it just makes itself more evident in large corporations like governments.

thats a natural phenomenom in pretty much all forms of government. when people struggle for power those that will do anything for power will eventually prevail over those that only seek power to achieve something different. but anarchy, with or without a touch of capitalism, is not the solution. imho its far better to find a form of government that distributes power more evenly, making both corruption and power for its own sake less attractive.

Quote
The underlying cause of it all is a lack of morals.  Morals come from godliness.  Godliness tends to come from religion, but isn't required.  We have a lack of morals today, and it shows.

as an agnostic i might feel insulted. fortunately i consider truly religions people to be either too uneducated or too estranged form reality to properly judge their actions and statements, so i dont hold them accountable.
Pages:
Jump to: