Imoutgoodbye Posted October 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 That's what they want you to think' date=' dude...[/quote'] What you're looking for is often referred to as the dominant hegemony, except in this case, it's dominant not through culture, but through the use of pre-packaged symbolism to create essentialism via saturated imagery from a minority class position. AKA The 1% using money to control media and make people stupider than they already are through fear mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Pali, No argument is pointless. This one is to you probably because you've run out of things to defend your stance with. It happens. The always voting democrat part was for Valek, not you. I should have reiterated that, sorry And I'm not here to persuade your vote. You just simply believe Romney doesn't have a chance. Thing is, he just might. Obama has done nothing he has promised and if you believe voting for him again simply because you don't believe Romney has a chance, perhaps it's best you do bow out. That logic just seems so ridiculous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister E Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 So what % of Americans don't even bother voting? Can't say I blame them, the two party system is a complete joke. What a circus the "running" of the USA is. Don't worry though, in another 20-30 years the once mighty USA will be nothing but the rubble of a once great nation. edit: ps Canada is not that far from being a 51st state and suffering a similar fate. I give us 40-60 years at the rate we are going since we are strongly tied to the US economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Dear Jibber: I voted for Bush. Twice. P.S. I have never voted straight party ticket in my life because I'm aware of what the section titled "Non Partisan Section" means and have been for the last 11 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 No argument is pointless. This one is to you probably because you've run out of things to defend your stance with. It happens. The argument I was referring to was the one regarding the link inscribed tossed earlier. Yes, that argument got pointless very, very fast. If someone wants to view me not wanting to continue it as me conceding or something, frankly, that someone is an idiot. So how about you cut the patronizing crap when you clearly don't even know what I was talking about? Edit: this was unnecessarily rude and combative - apologies for that. Not feeling the best today. And I'm not here to persuade your vote. You just simply believe Romney doesn't have a chance. No, I don't believe Gary Johnson has a chance - Romney certainly does. And your post continues to argue against voting for Obama, not in favor of voting for Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 OOOOOHHH!!!! **** SON! It just got real up in here! You gonna take that from him Jibber?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I've Killed for Less Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 So what % of Americans don't even bother voting? Can't say I blame them, the two party system is a complete joke. What a circus the "running" of the USA is. Don't worry though, in another 20-30 years the once mighty USA will be nothing but the rubble of a once great nation. edit: ps Canada is not that far from being a 51st state and suffering a similar fate. I give us 40-60 years at the rate we are going since we are strongly tied to the US economy. Finally someone who gets it. I'd say its more like 5-10 years though. Maybe even less. And honestly, I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 The argument I was referring to was the one regarding the link inscribed tossed earlier. Yes, that argument got pointless very, very fast. If someone wants to view me not wanting to continue it as me conceding or something, frankly, that someone is an idiot. So how about you cut the patronizing crap when you clearly don't even know what I was talking about? Edit: this was unnecessarily rude and combative - apologies for that. Not feeling the best today. No, I don't believe Gary Johnson has a chance - Romney certainly does. And your post continues to argue against voting for Obama, not in favor of voting for Romney. Unfortunately this is one of the reasons I rarely bother to get into any discussion about politics, especially here. It degrades to mindless flaming. Whatever. Have fun with this guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I don't vote a particular party just because I dub myself a member of that party. That's just.. dumb. I understand the reasoning behind this statement; however, I can't say I agree with it. I consider myself liberal, vote for Democratic candidates, and support the Democratic party. The reason for this is because of social issues that I find inherently compelling (mainly because they affect my own quality of life). No Republican candidate (or at least not one who would remain the Republican candidate for very long) can feasibly offer the solution that I'm looking for in that regard; therefore, I am confined to two choices: Democrat or third-party. The problem with voting for third-party candidates is that because of the nature of our electoral system, they don't have an ice cube's chance in hell at winning an election for higher office. As a result -- and this is purely opinion -- a vote for a third-party candidate counts as much as abstaining from voting in the first place. Which leaves me with voting for Democratic candidates, primarily (no pun intended) because the party as a whole takes a supportive view of the issues that I find important. That said, I do not feel particularly compelled to do otherwise in this presidential election, because I think Mitt Romney is an ignorant, bigoted nutjob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 It degrades to mindless flaming. Not always, but it came pretty close this time. Again, apologies for my part in it to all (inscribed particularly) - it's not been the best week for me, and I've been higher-strung than usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted October 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Not always' date=' but it came pretty close this time. Again, apologies for my part in it to all (inscribed particularly) - it's not been the best week for me, and I've been higher-strung than usual.[/quote'] I'd even go so far as not usually anymore. I enjoy and find growth in these debates. I honestly wish more people would participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 Anyone here lives in California? http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-paul-otellini-california,18147.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 I stumbled across this guy's channel on Youtube, and quite like his stuff. This video in particular made me think of this thread and the comments about Romney hating women. I had a longer response written out regarding some other recent posts, but I figure it's just beating a dead horse at this point. People will use any justification or rationale to vote for their boy, regardless of what atrocities he continues to commit. These are much, much bigger issues than whether or not one candidate wants tax the rich 35% and one wants to tax them 40%. Who's wasting their vote again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demiterracotta Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Jar Jar Binks 2012!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 So did anyone else catch the Free & Equal debates tonight? http://freeandequal.org/ Larry King did a great job, and all of the debaters actually answered their questions! I don't know if the recording has been posted yet, but for those that missed it, it's well worth a watch. There will be a second debate next week between two of the candidates, which you can vote for now. It's looking like it will end up being Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein, i.e. Libertarian vs Green. It'd be hilarious to see Obama actually vote against either of them, considering he can't even manage to look good against Romney. I also think it's funny that every third party candidate wants to repeal the NDAA, a majority of Americans want to repeal the NDAA, yet the issue isn't even discussed in the Obamney debates. I'd love to hear an Obama supporter offer a valid argument in favor of the NDAA, since they are voting in favor of it (despite what Pali says ). I'd love to hear any rational argument in favor of Obama for that matter (which I have yet to hear), but let's start with the NDAA. It just shows the need to include third party candidates in the debates, in order to highlight the issues that the major parties agree on and offer no alternative on. Also, I sent in my absentee ballot today. Wooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Yep, I watched them, and I don't know how I feel about the candidates, but they certainly are all heaps better than what the two parties can provide. The exposure certainly doesn't hurt, but personally, I'm a write-in for Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Yep, I watched them, and I don't know how I feel about the candidates, but they certainly are all heaps better than what the two parties can provide. The exposure certainly doesn't hurt, but personally, I'm a write-in for Ron Paul. What issue puts you off from Johnson? Ron Paul is great, but now that he is formally retired, libertarians need a new voice, and Johnson has charisma that Paul lacked. Plus he is kind of a badass. It'd be nice to be able to say "my country's leader could beat up your country's leader". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demiterracotta Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 I watched those debates as well. Was going to write in Ron Paul or Optimus Prime. Now I'm leaning towards Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 (despite what Pali says ) Nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 What issue puts you off from Johnson? Ron Paul is great' date=' but now that he is formally retired, libertarians need a new voice, and Johnson has charisma that Paul lacked. Plus he is kind of a badass. It'd be nice to be able to say "my country's leader could beat up your country's leader".[/quote'] Anybody that runs his campaign into the red raises a major, subsequent red flag for me. I simply don't trust his integrity and judgment over Ron Paul's, and that alone means Paul gets my vote. I don't know Johnson well, but from what I read, he is an issues man, as opposed to an ideals man, and therefore he has made some troubling, yet fashionable decisions (esp. in foreign policy--Krony anyone?). Classical liberalism is not an issue, and you can't just apply it as you please. Johnson is probably the best out of the bunch in the debate (not probably, but certainly!), but he is about 50 notches down from Paul in my book. Oh, and he didn't want Ron Paul to run so he could tap his supporters? That is a major red flag there as well. His campaign on the dailypaul.com has also done a lot to really turn me off to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Ron Paul is racist and out of touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindflayer Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Rand Paul 2020! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Anybody that runs his campaign into the red raises a major, subsequent red flag for me. I simply don't trust his integrity and judgment over Ron Paul's, and that alone means Paul gets my vote. I don't know Johnson well, but from what I read, he is an issues man, as opposed to an ideals man, and therefore he has made some troubling, yet fashionable decisions (esp. in foreign policy--Krony anyone?). Classical liberalism is not an issue, and you can't just apply it as you please. Johnson is probably the best out of the bunch in the debate (not probably, but certainly!), but he is about 50 notches down from Paul in my book. Oh, and he didn't want Ron Paul to run so he could tap his supporters? That is a major red flag there as well. His campaign on the dailypaul.com has also done a lot to really turn me off to him. He has said before that if Ron Paul ended up with the Republican nomination, he wouldn't of run at all. Now he is just trying unite libertarians under one banner, so to speak. I can understand the argument for whether or not Johnson is the best voice of libertarianism, but after his record in New Mexico and listening to his debates/interviews, I find him to be a pretty good guy as far as politicians go. I read a great article discussing whether the Libertarian Party is the best vessel for promoting libertarianism, versus promoting it from within the Republican party (the Democratic party typically has nothing to offer in the way of libertarianism). It definitely makes a logical case for voting Romney (I'm pretty sure he's going to win regardless), but I'm sticking with Johnson this go around. It's worth reading: http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/15/gary-johnsons-libertarian-candidacy/ That site is a blog for a group of libertarian law professors. If you hadn't heard of it before, it's well worth following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I found this interesting guys: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.