US Presidential Elections 2008 (1 Viewer)

[Corey]

those stormfront monsters scare the brown out of me.

 

[broken arm]

I am Libertarian Socialist.

of the anarchist kind that shouldn't be into voting?

 

[flashback]

those stormfront monsters scare the brown out of me.

they're only in Stormfront because they are frightened pussies who need someone else to make their mind up for them.

of the anarchist kind that shouldn't be into voting?

Hmmm? Ha ha. Em. I'm not really a proper Anarchist. Parts of Anarchism make sense to me, ie the idea that peace can be maintained without a gang of lads driving about in blue suits forcing people to obey a set of rules written down somewhere.
That most cops are redundant, and people will innately behave responsibly, via social conformity, if they have less police intervention in their existence.

That continued police interference in your day to day living can decrese people's feeling of responsibility for their own actions, and can even cause people to behave irresponsibly.
These are Anarchistic / Libertarian ideas, that someone like Ron Paul seems to agree with.

Basically I think Anarchy lives the far end of Libertarianism, and there is a crossing over of ideas in some way between the systems, but Libertarians know that Anarchy is sort of a dirty word which (wrongly) implies a lack of order or chaos for some people. Anarchy means the oposite of that to me.

 

[jane]

He is also completely libertarian. He believes that the government does not own the people it governs, either in body (ie via the draft) or financially (ie income tax). That people have the right to decide what is best for them, themselves, and as long as this doesn't impinge on any other persons right to exist as they see fit this is ok.

Unless you're a woman, of course.

He's anti-choice for women.

Pro-choice for gun owners.

I think I could be wrong because I don't know where I read this, but isn't he also pretty nasty about immigration?

 

[pete]

Parts of Anarchism make sense to me, ie the idea that peace can be maintained without a gang of lads driving about in blue suits forcing people to obey a set of rules written down somewhere.
That most cops are redundant, and people will innately behave responsibly, via social conformity, if they have less police intervention in their existence.

Like, say... Somalia?

 

[flashback]

Unless you're a woman, of course.

He's anti-choice for women.

Pro-choice for gun owners.

I think I could be wrong because I don't know where I read this, but isn't he also pretty nasty about immigration?

Right. He is not into abortion.
But neither is Janer.

Prosecution rests.


He is also nasty about immigrants. And likes guns. So, yeah, I disagree with him about all that stuff.

There are still some things I think he gets right though.

Like, say... Somalia?

So there are lots of places I am sure there is extreme chaos, and this might be solved by sending in boys in tanks. Might be.
It could also be solved in other ways I would imagine, without tanks.
Like finding out where the money is coming from to continue fighting.
Its easy to pick examples of either, total chaos with policing or without. Newark, NJ for instance. Its a war zone out there. Not Somalia, but I'm not going there. Iraq. Biggest army in the world desperately fighting for order, lke in Vietnam.

What happened when they left Vietnam?
Everything magically went away.

But, that doesn't mean that humans dont default back into some ordered state if left to their own devices. I think they do. If you look at say Copenhagen, or Oslo, or lots of Denmark actually, or... I mean, I lived on Sherkin Island for 4 months where there are no cops at all, and there was no problem.
The police keep a really really low profile around Scandinavia, I barely noticed them out there, and people behaved very well.
Seriously, there are a lot of places where you have next to no police presence, and people live perfectly well.

Then you have people saying that this is cart before the horse logic, that these people are just well behaved people, and dont need policing.
I dont buy it. Social conformity, being thought poorly of by your peers, is a very powerful thing. If its normal to behave in a civilized way, thats the way almost everyone behaves.

 

[shower another shower]

Who's the 'third-party-candidate' this time around, once the primaries are over?

 

[ITalkShite]

Who's the 'third-party-candidate' this time around, once the primaries are over?

Ralph Perot! He's got my vote!

 

[shower another shower]

Ralph Perot! He's got my vote!

Thought he was dead? There's a tasty burrito named after him at Burrito Express in Pasadena.
Green Party? Peace and Freedom? Al Quaida Party?
Change!

 

[pete]

change will definitely be the big winner in '08

 

[shower another shower]

Mind you, if there were an Al Qaida Party, it's be the same as the Demorepublicans. Eminem say so.

 

[shower another shower]

change will definitely be the big winner in '08

Jesus, its gonna be great, won't it be! For the whole world, like.

 

[Gambra]

change will definitely be the big winner in '08

Someone's been watching John Stewart as well.

 

[pete]

Someone's been watching John Stewart as well.

no, just the proper news. if that's the depth of The Daily Show's analysis / the quality of his material these days then he better pray the writers go back to work pretty fucking quicksmart.

 

[pete]

other potential big winners this year:

1. women in denial about being women
2. black men in denial about being black men
3. grey haired white men

 

[Gambra]

no, just the proper news. if that's the depth of The Daily Show's analysis / the quality of his material these days then he better pray the writers go back to work pretty fucking quicksmart.

Nah, twas just the first news piece on last nights episode. His main line now is how he *really* doesn't want to be there.

 

[aoboa]

Why are people so pro-Obama?
He's not a million miles away from Clinton, pretty seriously funded by big business etc.

 

[snakybus]

Why are people so pro-Obama?
He's not a million miles away from Clinton, pretty seriously funded by big business etc.

Sadly, I think a great deal of people are guided by image. He's charismatic, and his speaking voice and body language is exceptional. He's macho, almost Muhammed Ali-esque in his delivery. In comparison to Edwards, for example, Obama has a knack for making nothing sound substantive, whereas Edwards just continues to look like a cardboard cutout with a haircut. Clinton has gravitas, but that of a schoolteacher: banging on about hard work and stuff like that.

Personally, having read up on her I would be anti-Clinton, but not for likeability reasons (I'm appalled, actually, at the way she has been treated in the media--no other candidate has been treated in this way.) As for Obama, he's an unknown quantity as far as I can tell, though I may be wrong. He definitely gives off the air of someone who gets things done, however true or false that may be. And I think that's the reason he has been backed so heavily. He has only been a senator for a couple of years, so my feeling is that he's a "good bet", i.e., it's not for his politics.

 

[the strange guy]

I put 20 euro for Clinton to win.
She's such a dead cert I may as well go spend my winnings now.
I'd like Obama to win if only because his name sounds like an asian trying to say BLACK OSAMA.

 

[billygannon]

Sadly, I think a great deal of people are guided by image. He's charismatic, and his speaking voice and body language is exceptional. He's macho, almost Muhammed Ali-esque in his delivery. In comparison to Edwards, for example, Obama has a knack for making nothing sound substantive, whereas Edwards just continues to look like a cardboard cutout with a haircut. Clinton has gravitas, but that of a schoolteacher: banging on about hard work and stuff like that.

Personally, having read up on her I would be anti-Clinton, but not for likeability reasons (I'm appalled, actually, at the way she has been treated in the media--no other candidate has been treated in this way.) As for Obama, he's an unknown quantity as far as I can tell, though I may be wrong. He definitely gives off the air of someone who gets things done, however true or false that may be. And I think that's the reason he has been backed so heavily. He has only been a senator for a couple of years, so my feeling is that he's a "good bet", i.e., it's not for his politics.

Honestly I think a large amount of what a US President is about is the image they portray.
They do make decisions, but it's not like they're an autocratic monarch or something like that.
I believe the person who is elected is an embodiment of general ideals.

Obama, simply because his image is far more striking than the rest of the candidates, represents change (even though he's far from the most radical candidate).