Vote Your Conscience...Please!
November 4th is upon us. Please vote. If you have any reasons to vote for your Presidential candidate tell us here. In the meantime my plea is that everyone vote your conscience, everyone.
I am struggling hard to know whom to vote for. I live in Indiana. My vote may finally count this time and I don't like anyone. Do I "waste my vote" by voting for Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate, or Ralph Nadar? Unless you're paying attention you probably didn't even know there are other choices. Does voting for these other candidates really send a message?
Damn political parties. They are almost always extremist. Damn party politics. The government cannot, and I mean cannot, keep spending my (our) money like it does. The local Libertarian candidate said it plainly today: "We cannot afford it." He made a great deal of sense to me. Again: "We cannot afford it."
Since the balance of power has been extremist in both dominating political parties our only hope may be to reign them in with another extremist party until the third party helps brings spending in check, and spending will not be brought into check when we vote for politicians who compete with other politicians to buy our votes with things like earmarks and special interest projects. Our district Congressman, Mark Souder, a pragmatist, said he doesn't like doing it but when the other Senators are taking away Indiana's tax money for their special projects, he needs to get in there and fight for Indiana. Go figure.
We are in a financial crisis, an energy crisis, a health-care crisis, an infrastructure crisis, and a crisis in Iraq. The way this election is being treated it's like my former professor Strauss would say: "They think rearranging chairs on the Titanic will help." It won't. Don't bet your ass on it. I have seen politicians come and go. They always make promises, and most of them lie. That's the nature of the political beast. Neither Obama nor McCain can deliver what they have promised. Mark my words. They cannot do it. Even if they try, when Congress doesn't go fully along with what they hope to achieve they will blame Congress. That's what will happen. Again, mark my words. That has always been the excuse for most any President who doesn't deliver on his promises. So on the campaign trail they can promise us the sky! Just don't say what President Bush (Senior) said. He said, "No new taxes" and then later signed a bill with additional taxes. His hand got caught in the cookie jar.
Is it truly a wasted vote to vote for a candidate who has little or no hope to win an election? Well, not if enough people vote their conscience. Is it possible to get people to vote their consciences? I don't know. But that's my plea. Don't vote for what the political parties throw out on the table, as if those are your only two choices. Of course you may want to. But vote your conscience. Our biggest problem is spending. We are spending money like there's no tommorrow. If we continue to do this there will be no tommorrow. Send them all a message loud and clear.
I am struggling hard to know whom to vote for. I live in Indiana. My vote may finally count this time and I don't like anyone. Do I "waste my vote" by voting for Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate, or Ralph Nadar? Unless you're paying attention you probably didn't even know there are other choices. Does voting for these other candidates really send a message?
Damn political parties. They are almost always extremist. Damn party politics. The government cannot, and I mean cannot, keep spending my (our) money like it does. The local Libertarian candidate said it plainly today: "We cannot afford it." He made a great deal of sense to me. Again: "We cannot afford it."
Since the balance of power has been extremist in both dominating political parties our only hope may be to reign them in with another extremist party until the third party helps brings spending in check, and spending will not be brought into check when we vote for politicians who compete with other politicians to buy our votes with things like earmarks and special interest projects. Our district Congressman, Mark Souder, a pragmatist, said he doesn't like doing it but when the other Senators are taking away Indiana's tax money for their special projects, he needs to get in there and fight for Indiana. Go figure.
We are in a financial crisis, an energy crisis, a health-care crisis, an infrastructure crisis, and a crisis in Iraq. The way this election is being treated it's like my former professor Strauss would say: "They think rearranging chairs on the Titanic will help." It won't. Don't bet your ass on it. I have seen politicians come and go. They always make promises, and most of them lie. That's the nature of the political beast. Neither Obama nor McCain can deliver what they have promised. Mark my words. They cannot do it. Even if they try, when Congress doesn't go fully along with what they hope to achieve they will blame Congress. That's what will happen. Again, mark my words. That has always been the excuse for most any President who doesn't deliver on his promises. So on the campaign trail they can promise us the sky! Just don't say what President Bush (Senior) said. He said, "No new taxes" and then later signed a bill with additional taxes. His hand got caught in the cookie jar.
Is it truly a wasted vote to vote for a candidate who has little or no hope to win an election? Well, not if enough people vote their conscience. Is it possible to get people to vote their consciences? I don't know. But that's my plea. Don't vote for what the political parties throw out on the table, as if those are your only two choices. Of course you may want to. But vote your conscience. Our biggest problem is spending. We are spending money like there's no tommorrow. If we continue to do this there will be no tommorrow. Send them all a message loud and clear.
85 comments:
Pardon the expression, but...
AMEN!
It reminds me of something I once heard from a libertarian candidate long ago, who said, "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, don't be surprised if you get evil."
In an election like this one, when the polls show 40 something percent of people voting for McCain, and 50 something percent voting for Obama, and with our "first-past-the-post" election system, there is no question at all about whether voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. It is mathematically certain that a vote for a third party in the 2008 U.S. presidential election is throwing your vote away. There is no way around this.
My view is that Obama may well not be able to deliver on his promises, but what he is attempting to do is at least in line with what I think needs to be done. He seems a careful, thoughtful individual with a good understanding and appreciation for hte Constitution and civil rights -- far preferable for the contempt for these things the Republicans have generally shown lately -- and if it comes time to appoint Supreme Court justices, which it likely will, I would much rather have Obama doing the appointing that McCain, , or (shudder) Sarah Palin. McCain appointments would almost certainly be along the lines of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, and solidify an extremely conservative Supreme Court majority that would very likely be in effect for decades, This alone is enough reason to vote for Obama.
That you can be undecided at this late date reduces my respect for you. HOW can you still be undecided at this point? Are you a moron? Have you been paying attention? What the hell is wrong with you?
One of the best explanations of the political system I've ever read is in this three part series from Eliezer Yudkowsky. I highly, highly, highly recommend it. I can't stress enough how important I think it is to read that.
stevec said:
It is mathematically certain that a vote for a third party in the 2008 U.S. presidential election is throwing your vote away. There is no way around this.
It is only a "mathematical certainty" if the only thing that you value is the outcome of this individual election. If, however, you happen to value other things such as, for example, having viable third-party candidates in future elections, then you're not throwing your vote away.
I'm also in the same boat as John on this in that I'm torn between voting Obama and voting third-party - even though I consider Obama the best candidate at this point (with absolutely no consideration for some absurd notion of "electability"), the value of voting for a third-party, and the benefits that can bring in the future, may outweigh that for me. I'm also somewhat concerned with having a Democratic president with a Democratic congress, because from what I've seen, having that particular check in place seems to have a positive effect on reducing excessive spending by the government.
Being undecided doesn't make you a "moron" - it means that this is a difficult decision of great import that requires thought, and thinking about it isn't something to be mocked.
I voted for Ron Paul during the primaries but I ended up giving in and voting for Obama the other day during early voting. I am so disgusted by Mccain and especially Palin that I decided to bite the bullet and try to make sure they wouldn't get into office. I honestly wish Ron Paul would have ran as a libertarian though because I would have voted for him.
John,
I've found that the "company you keep" method helps me vote my conscience.
To wit:
In 1996, I stood in line to vote, having favored Clinton in '92, but now not so sure, in light of the sex scandals, Travelgate, Vince Foster and everything else. I was also tired of listening to so many people bitch and moan about Clinton. At that point, I must clarify, I was still 6 years away from backing off Christianity and reclaiming my atheist soul. So I was more open to the pleas of the right-wing. I felt about Dole pretty much the way I feel about McCain right now: He's not a BAD guy; he's basically a decent sort. I pondered whether it might be good just to have a new person in there.
But then I got a look at the actual list of Republican ELECTORS in my locale, and I saw some familiar names. They were EXTREME right-wingers that, in 1986 (before becoming a Christian) I had voted against, finding them quite repulsive. I asked myself, am I conservative enough, am I Christian enough, have I changed that radically in 9 years, to vote for Dole, knowing that these slugs are going to be behind the scenes, pulling the strings?
The answer was a resounding no, which means my liberal roots were buried, but not all that deep.
And though I've become increasingly liberal over the last four years, to the point of voting for Obama in the primaries, I can still look at someone like McCain with compassion. He's hard to dislike; he's kind of floundering in this campaign because he wants the job but on the other hand is having a lot of trouble putting on the neocon mask. I think he looks at Palin and thinks What the hell did I do? So on the basis of his basic character and personality, he's not evil incarnate. BUT, put him in the White House and we will never be rid of Rove/Cheney/Addington/Weyrich and the other scumbags. It's a lot like getting rid of cancer. You can remove the tumor, but you have to also administer chemo or radiation to keep the smaller cells from creeping in afterward.
Get them ALL out. That's job number one. Keeping them out? That will be Obama's job. And that of the company HE keeps.
I'm not an American, but I have been following this election closely, and if I was in a position to vote in your elections, I would definitely be voting for Omama/Biden.
The thought of another Republican Party government, after what they have done to America and the rest of the world over the last 8 years is an absolutely terrifying thing to contemplate. Especially with an unstable geriatric like McCain as President, and a fanatical religious fundamentalist know-nothing like Palin as Vice President.
If you value your civil liberties, an end to the war in Iraq, a reduction in taxes for 95% of the working population, and better regulation of the financial industry and large corporations, then the choice could not be clearer.
Vote for Obama/Biden and the democrats.
The Democratic party are not extremists, they are centrists.
All the talk that the McCain campaign has been spewing about Obama being a left wing socialist is absolute Bullsh*t. Don't fall for it. The republican Party has been hijacked by extremist right wing fanatics. They are dangerous for your country and for the rest of the world. Another 4 years of Republican rule would be a DISASTER for us all.
Sinclair Lewis once wrote, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross". You folks are awfully close to that now. Closer than you think.
Dingodave, you are absolutely right.
I do vote in the U.S. and have already done so. In the Presidential race, my overriding concern was the appointments to the Supreme Court and Federal circuit courts that might be made in the next four years. The Supreme Court has veered dangerously away from supporting civil rights with the appointments made during the Republican administration. These justices are often the last defense of individuals against government intrusion into their lives, and the current court has performed quite poorly. Likewise, the appointment of conservative judges at the Circuit level limits support for civil rights even more, since the Supreme Court only has time to take relatively few of the cases presented to it.
Obama would screw up as president. McCain would screw up as president. But neither can screw up for more than eight years. A conservative court system can supress civil rights for decades, at least.
Dingodave's remarks capture my sentiments exactly.
I'll third the commendation of DingoDave's comment.
About the ethics of voting for a third party candidate: of course, a much better system would be to scrap the Electoral College, and allow voting for more than one candidate: if the first choice doesn't win, then the vote goes to the second choice. That way people could vote for their greater of two (or more) goods candidate and for their lesser of two (or more) evils candidate with good conscience.
But that is not going to happen any time soon, and merely voting for a third party candidate does not have much leverage to change things: the Republicans cheered when people voted for Nadar, and I don't see that we're any closer to changing the system, and lots of people have died in the meanwhile. I too am idealistic, and Obama would not have been my first choice: but time flies, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and I would like my children to have a planet worth living in. At some point, pragmatism seems more likely to serve my ideals than idealism: thus, I will vote for Barack Obama.
Zilch wrote:
"of course, a much better system would be to... allow voting for more than one candidate: if the first choice doesn't win, then the vote goes to the second choice."
This is the system we have in Australia. We call it 'preferential voting'.
One innovation that has remained more or less unique to Australia has been preferential voting.
The essence of preferential voting is that voters number candidates on the ballot paper in a rank order of choice. You put the number 1 next to your first choice candidate, 2 next to your second choice, and so on. If your first choice candidate is not elected and no candidate receives half of the vote, your vote may be re-examined for its next preference. The point of the system is to elect the most preferred candidate, to choose the candidate that can build an absolute majority of support in the electorate rather than the
simple majority required for first past the post voting.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm
The minor parties are eliminated during the earlier rounds of elections because few people vote for them. This is the essence of democracy. Most elections come down to a race between the two major parties because the vast majority of people vote for those two major parties. It is not until the minor parties are eliminated that the votes get passed on to the major parties. This is a blessing as it allows people to vote for minor parties while still getting a say in the final round of elections. In countries such as the US where voters are not allowed to rank all the candidates, most minor party supporters end up voting for a major party so as not to waste their vote.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html
'Advantages of the Preferential System'
It ensures that only a candidate with the support of an absolute majority of the electorate can win, eliminating the possibility of minority winners. Put another way, the winning candidate is the "most preferred" or "least disliked" candidate.
It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.
It allows parties of like-minded philosophies or policies to "exchange preferences" in order to assist each other to win.
It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.
'Disadvantages of the Preferential System'
It is more complicated to administer and count.
It can produce a higher level of informal voting.
It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.
Voters are forced to express a preference for candidates they may not wish to support in any way. (The use of optional preferential voting, as used in New South Wales State elections, is a solution to this problem.)
http://australianpolitics.com/elections/features/preferential.shtml
It would be great if The United States could adopt a similar system. But as Zilch said, don't hold your breath.
Thanks for the info, DingoDave. I knew I'd heard that such a system was implemented somewhere, but I'd forgotten it was in Oz. Someday I will have to come and visit you antipodeans...
Thanks for your comments. I knew I’d open up a can of worms. That’s why I haven’t said much about politics before. The reason why I'm struggling is because at 54 years old I haven't seen much change from party to party with regard to some things that matter. America is now $10,544,395,023,900 dollars in debt (10.5 trillion!). Over half of my tax dollars go just to pay the interest on it (again, over half). Partly because of this I am barely making ends meet…barely. That’s why there is a donation button on the bottom right sidebar. I need your help.
I’m also cynical about the political process. One reason Obama is where he is today is because of Oprah's rousing endorsement of him in the primary race, although he certainly has conducted a great campaign and held his own. I think government is the problem, as Reagan said. It certainly is the problem today. Who is really naïve enough to believe Obama is our savior? He will take us into more debt, as will McCain. Check back when you’re 54 and then tell me what you think. We are spending the younger generation’s money away. And ever since Robert Bork’s failed nomination to the Supreme Court, Republicans have nominated practically no-name judges, some of whom did not judge as expected because of this. I think atheism is on the rise and as such it’s the wave of the future. There will be setbacks, but it’s coming. I won’t expect a Supreme Court ruling to save me.
On the problem of energy T-Bone Pickens is absolutely correct. We need to put everything into wind technology. Ethanol might help Indiana farmers but food prices are going up because corn is going to make fuel. Our oil dependency must be ground to a halt.
And I hate the militant Muslims. I don’t care what they think of us. I say kill them. They are a thread to civilization. Yes, America is a bully to the rest of the world, and I hate that too. But sometimes we’re a force for good, even if we only act in our own best interests, which is probably another reason we’re hated. But then every nation acts on what’s in their best interest, so we’re no different than others on this. Therein lays another foreign policy problem. The rest of the world cannot trust America to be consistent. Our foreign policy changes with each election. The governmental leaders in Iraq who have risked their lives to be in government might be left high and dry in a few months, holding the bag. That’s what we do to other nations on the flip side. We invade them based on what our leaders think is in our best interest, and then we pull the rug out from under them later. We cannot be trusted to live up to our promises. That’s the flip side. Although, it won’t matter when we pull out of Iraq, which will probably degenerate into a civil war when we leave since democracy isn’t sanctioned in the Koran.
I am mostly against the principle of paternalism when making laws—who are we that the government must tell us what to do, children? The harm principle is the standard.
I’m against too much socialism in a government (I know having some is unavoidable) in favor of capitalism. I hate taxes. I hate the fact that taxes are legalized theft and I hate the idea of spreading the wealth—how do you think wealth is created in the first place? The government cannot create wealth; it can only distribute it, and it does so inefficiently, since it needs to hire a myriad of social workers to spread it around. Only wealth can create wealth. Heavily tax the wealthy and there goes the money to create more wealth. Let them keep more of it and they will not put it under theirs beds. It will be put into investments and banks from which small businesses can get their loans. (Granted there should be laws that keep them from taking it overseas, and from the kinds of things that caused the recent bailout, and so on).
At some point you just become tired of voting pragmatically. You must vote your conscience. I’m not saying I have the answers. I am a skeptic. I’m just as skeptical in the political realm as I am with metaphysical claims. Skepticism is a virtue. All I’m asking for is a little more skepticism applied to our political debates and this particular election.
John Loftus,
I have been reading this blog and admiring your views and writing for a few months but after reading the comment you just wrote I can admire you no longer. You write:
"And I hate the militant Muslims. I don’t care what they think of us. I say kill them. They are a thread (sic) to civilization. Yes, America is a bully to the rest of the world, and I hate that too. But sometimes we’re a force for good, even if we only act in our own best interests, which is probably another reason we’re hated. But then every nation acts on what’s in their best interest, so we’re no different than others on this."
Within the context of current American foreign policy this must mean that you support the invasion and occupation of Iraq and probably favor bombing Iran. You either assume that every Iraqi and Iranian that we kill in these operations is a "militant Muslim" deserving killing (i.e. you think all Muslims deserve killing) or you think some killing of innocents is acceptable "collateral damage."
Either view is racist American exceptionalism which I find morally repugnant. I am a fan of yours no longer. In some important ways you are still the ignorant fundamentalist red-neck you admit you once were.
Dave Barrett said... Within the context of current American foreign policy this must mean that you support the invasion and occupation of Iraq and probably favor bombing Iran.
Nope. No wonder you were a fan of mine. You merely agreed with me. That doesn't show me you can think.
Dave Barrett said...You either assume that every Iraqi and Iranian that we kill in these operations is a "militant Muslim" deserving killing (i.e. you think all Muslims deserve killing) or you think some killing of innocents is cceptable "collateral damage."
Again nope. You apparently cannot be reasonable with someone who disagrees, and this is proof. I want no fans like you. The only reason you were a fan before is because we merely agreed before. Now that we disagree you show no awareness you can understand what I say now, so what reason do I have for believing you could understand and come to reasonable conclusions about what I said before? Again, we merely agreed before.
Cheers.
Chris Hallquist states his reasons for voting for a third party candidate.
John Loftus,
How could I possibly be reasonable about your view that all "militant Muslims should be killed." I don't want to be reasonable about such views. I had to infer what the implications in your mind were for that view and apparently I inferred incorrectly. I am suitable chastened. So tell us how you think America should go about killing militant Muslims if not by invading and bombing them?
Dave Barrett said...So tell us how you think America should go about killing militant Muslims if not by invading and bombing them?
Such a thing needs to be dissussed in some detail. I am not as extreme as I sounded. I'm a reasonable person. Convicted killers like them should be put to death, for instance, depending on the murder. Self-defense is always a good moral reason as well. But we're in Iraq and Afganistan now. That was the context for my remarks. While there we should hunt them down and imprison them. During a battle with them we should kill them. The problem the "Bush Doctrine" presents is not easily solvable in my opinion when it comes to these militant Muslims who would use WMD if they had the chance. Of course I'm not for anything like genocide, or the rounding up of Muslims or any such thing as that.
Thanks for calling me out on this so I could explain better. Glad you clarified what you meant.
I used to believe in voting for the lesser of the two evils, but that got us Bush. The reason third parties never succeed is because people are sold on voting for the lesser of two evils. My vote is very small and will contribute almost nothing to either of the major candidates, especially since I'm in Red state Oklahoma. I do not want to have either Obama, or McCain on my conscience. I'm going to vote for Bob Barr.
Jesse: no, voting for Nadar (and probably some creative programming) got us Bush. If you want to reform the system, write to your congressperson about abolishing the Electoral College- that would have got us Gore too.
I will vote for John McCain only to try to stop Obama from being elected. As a libertarian, I favor much of what Bob Barr says and I know him pretty well as he was a congressman from Georgia where I live. However, the vote will be wasted.
I don't want Obama mainly for selfish reasons. I want to keep as much of my money as possible. I am not in favor of redistribution of wealth. I know taxes are going way up regardless of who wins but I believe they will go up more under Obama. In addition, to have a democratically controlled congress coupled with a democrat president means that they can pretty much do what they want.
Also, I don't want to be like Europe. I don't want to ride a bicycle and live in a tiny house and pay over 60% of my income to the govt.
I get the feeling based on the conversation here that nobody actually read the articles I linked to. Voting for Nader may have "gotten us Bush," and if you're only concerned about the very next election and no long term issues, then sure, avoid voting for third parties because it might "get you Bush" again (figuratively of course). But if you're concerned about the long-term state of elections, then voting third-party has value even if it gets us bad presidents a few times.
Since nobody seemed to read it, I'll paraphrase one of the most relevant parts of the article I linked to. Can anyone tell me the difference between the following?
1. You should vote for the less evil of the top mainstream candidates, because your vote is unlikely to make a critical difference if you vote for a candidate that most people don't vote for.
2. You should stay home, because your vote is unlikely to make a critical difference.
It's hard to see who should accept argument #1 but refuse to accept argument #2.
former fundy: you say
Also, I don't want to be like Europe. I don't want to ride a bicycle and live in a tiny house and pay over 60% of my income to the govt.
Hey, I live in Europe, and it's not that bad. I do ride a bicycle, and I do live in an apartment, but I don't pay over 60% of my income to the government. Actually, since I don't earn more than about €10,000 a year, I don't pay any income tax at all. But I wouldn't trade my situation with you guys in America: we have decent public transportation here, real healthcare, no foreign wars, and practically no violent crime. I can walk through the local park at 3 AM without a second thought- can you do that? How much of your tax money is that worth?
Folks, what is that? There are but 2 options to choose from. What a democracy is this, where you have only two options? A or B? What if you disagree with both? Then you're screwed. Suppose you want to establish your own ideas in a political program - a third party - then what? Without a billion-heavy Apparatschik (=machine) you are nothing. A poor fellow has no chance to accomplish anything. In other democracies there is the party that carries you as a candidate. The party is able to build you up, make you public and give you the instruments you need for political propaganda events, TV spots, travelling and so on. But not so in America. Consider Mitt Romney, he spent 30 million $ of his private means. Not so in Europe --- the parties raise their candidates. Suppose their is someone who simply hasn't got $30,000,000 then what?
Folks don't be fooled - a two-option-democracy hardly deserves the description "democracy" in the first place at all. What a variety is that - A or B? Or still A? Or yet rather B?
Simply silly!!
Zilch said:
"Hey, I live in Europe, and it's not that bad. I do ride a bicycle, and I do live in an apartment, but I don't pay over 60% of my income to the government. Actually, since I don't earn more than about €10,000 a year, I don't pay any income tax at all. But I wouldn't trade my situation with you guys in America: we have decent public transportation here, real healthcare, no foreign wars, and practically no violent crime. I can walk through the local park at 3 AM without a second thought- can you do that? How much of your tax money is that worth?"
Well, I guess I am spoiled. I have 4 cars, two houses, and a lot of other things. I pay for my own healthcare which is the best in the world. I don't care to go to the park at 3am. But I can go at 8am and feel very safe. If I don't feel safe, I can carry my Glock with me.
Europe is okay (better than most of Asia and Africa) but as a spoiled American, I would not trade places with you.
I wouldn't trade with you, either, former fundy, if you only feel safe if you're packing heat. Do your children also carry weapons? And having four cars shows that you don't care much about the world your grandchildren are going to inherit.
The problem could be made moot if the US would adopt Instant Runoff Voting.
Zilch,
I can only drive one car at a time.
I actually do feel safe at the park near my home. Granted its not in the middle of a big city but I don't want to live in a big city. My point was that I can pack heat if I choose to. Something our founding fathers granted us in the Constitution.
I think there is the opportunity in USA unlike anywhere else in the world to make money and enjoy the fruits of your labor. Of course that may soon be changing with Obama. He seems to want to turn us into Europe.
Obama wants to turn the US into Europe? Another reason to vote for him.
Please listen, former fundy: I grew up in America, in California, and I love my country. I am still an American citizen, and I still admire much about Americans: their openness, their inventiveness, their willingness to try new things, and their not being afraid of looking foolish. The Austrians drive me up the wall sometimes, I must admit.
But look at the world we have today: oil is running out, the climate is changing, and Americans are the chief motor of it. The average standard of living here in Europe is comparable with America, better in many ways, but we Europeans use about half the natural resources you Americans use. That's still too much to be sustainable, but at least we are taking steps to reduce our burden on the world.
Now, Obama is not radical enough for my taste, but McCain & Co would just be a prolongation of the Lie: that we can go on blithely burning oil and making war like there's no tomorrow. I don't know about you, but I have children, and I hope to have grandchildren, who will have a chance to enjoy life. The Republican dream of increasing consumption and riches forever is not sustainable. That's why I'm voting for Obama: as the far lesser of two evils.
Zilch,
Yes I have children. I think they will not enjoy the same America that I have.
I am not in favor of socialism, so I cannot vote for Obama.
The US is headed for a European style socialism and I think that is bad.
John,
It is America's bullyboy tactics, along with it's seemingly unconditional support of Israel come Hell or high water, which has helped to fuel much of the violence of the militant Muslims against your citizens and mine.
When American foreign policies begin to take into consideration the autonomy and the self interests of the countries it chooses to interfere with, then you we might begin to see a reduction in the violence which has recently plagued the middle east and beyond.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is the only reason for the existence of militant Islam. Islam has always been a militant and expansionist ideology.
Like all Abrahamic religions, it seems incapable of tolerating it's rivals. In this regard it is no different than Christianity, which until very recently was just as militant and terroristic as fundamentalist Islam is now. Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty first century, but even so, when you scratch the surface of many Christians, especially the toxic, xenophobic variety of Christian fundamentalist who seems to be so numerous in America, what you find is not very different than what you are likely to find in either Iraq or Iran.
America does not need any more religious fanatics in the Whitehouse. This is one of the reasons why America cannot afford to vote for another Republican administration. The Republican Party and it's supporters are so infested with religious fanatics and arrogant blowhards, that I believe it presents more of a danger to your country and to the world, than all of the militant Muslims combined.
Your country's reckless and belicose foreign policies have been responsible for more deaths of your own citizens than were the perpetrators of the 9/11 outrage.
The Bush/Cheney quasi-fascist cabal, along with the larger Republican Party political machine lied America into this disastrous Iraq war, which has sapped so much money and vitality out of the American economy and psyche.
You are currently spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq. Imagine what could have otherwise been done with that kind of money. The Republican Party and their corporate cronies have been robbing the American people blind for the last eight years, and it seems that nearly half of the American population can't wait to line up, bend over, and continue taking it up the arse for yet another four years.
Taxes aren't your enemy. Taxes if administered properly, flow back to the people in the form of social services and national infrastructure.
The systematic flow of money from the working and middle classes into the pockets of the mega-rich is what you should be feeling outraged about. Ripping off the American public is what the Republicans do best. The Republican Party and their corporate cronies have been systematically bleeding your country dry for the last 8 years in order to line their own pockets. They have just robbed the American people to the tune of 700 billion dollars with this scandelous Wallstreet bailout package.
Bush, Cheney, and your treasury secretary Paulson, have just pulled off one of the most brazen and barefaced swindles in living memory. The 700 billion dollars which Bush and Paulson claim is required to bail out the American economy didn't just vanish, it is now in the bank accounts of corrupt and greedy corporate executives and politicians. This bailout package is just Bush's way of saying Sayonara and fuck you to the American public. This is the Bush/Republican Party's parting gift to your people.
It makes me laugh when I here people say that the Bush/Cheney administration has failed. They haven't failed, they have achieved exactly what they set out to achieve, ie. the enrichment of themselves at the expense of the American people. They are laughing all the way to the bank, and have been for the last eight years.
Wake up and smell the coffee John. The Republican Party has been crying on your shoulder while their hand was in your pocket. You and the rest of the American people must put a stop to it NOW, before it is too late. You are already in for a world of hurt, so please don't volunteer for another four years of self-inflicted torture. Equally as important, don't inflict your finacial and political woes on the rest of the world. Vote these crooks and liars out of power while you still can. If you allow them another four years to finish consolidating their grip on power, you may discover that you can't get rid of them even if you wanted to.
Bush has effectively allocated himself dictatorial powers, by sneaking into place some very insidious legislation. He now has a brigade of battle hardened troops on the ground on American soil, who are answerable only to him. These powers would automatically be available to the next President. I shudder to think how an old war monger like John Mccain might use these newly established powers should he feel threatened in any way by his own people. Even more frightening, given her track record of spitefullness and vindictiveness, is how Sarah Palin might use these powers should she feel slighted or threatened for any reason.
For more information about these frightening developments, read 'Fascist America In Ten Easy Steps' by Naomi Wolf.
You can find it here.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5487
Vote for the lesser of two evils if that's the way you want to look at it. Vote Obama/Biden.
DingoDave: yes indeed.
Former fundy: while this is not perhaps the right forum for a debate about politics, I must say this: all modern democracies, which include the US and all of the EU countries, are a balance between "socialism" and "capitalism". Exactly where the balance is set differs from country to country, and there's no "correct" balance.
It's fairly obvious that the extremes are unpleasant: unbridled socialism, in the form of government control of all markets, leads to the disaster of the USSR: the State arrogates wealth to itself, and there's no incentive for anyone to make any innovations. I spent enough time in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Iron Curtain to convince myself of this.
At the other extreme, unbridled laissez-faire capitalism leads to exploitation of the working class. I have seen this, too, in Turkey for instance, where children were employed making rugs.
Both systems have led, and continue to lead, to environmental catastrophes, if not subject to control by concern about the future.
If we want to have a humane system of government, which ensures that people are not exploited, but also that they are rewarded for their labor and innovations, and environmental concerns are taken into account, we need a complex balance between Adam Smith's "invisible hand" markets and a socialist conscience. Imho, Europe is closer to that balance than the US is. But we all could use a great deal of improvement.
*sigh*. I feel like my comments aren't getting displayed or something. Did anyone read the articles I linked to? A large portion of the issues people are discussing here are covered in them.
DingoDave, your description of the guys in white hats versus guys in black hats paints too rosy of a picture for me. I’m sorry but I don't buy it. I’m just too skeptical to do so. I’ve lived too long to accept it. Bush had the support of Congress when he invaded Iraq, for instance, and it took both Democrats and Republicans to pass the $750 billion bailout bill. The Democrats are not interested in me any more than the Republicans. they are mainly concerned about furthering their own political careers. They want power. I think there is probably a dominant personality type among people who want to be in politics, just as there is in those who want to be policemen, power hungry people. The people we want in office are probably people who would never want to be in office in the first place. And I don’t believe for an instant that cowardly suicide bombers, or people who would use WMD on innocent people, are morally equivalent to what America does in its own so-called self-interest. We cannot do otherwise than to look out for what we perceive as our own self-interest. Every nation does this. It doesn’t justify it, but you cannot fault a nation just for dong it or you must fault them all. I do not support Israel come hell or high wire, and I sure don’t support the preaching of Jeremiah Wright that America’s chickens have come home to roost for the 9/11 destruction either. I furthermore don’t think there is the same danger with Christianity as with militant Islam, since there are significant differences between those religions in today’s world as I argued here(just scroll down).
All I’m asking for is the same skepticism with regard to your claims here as you have toward religious claims in general. It’s not that cut and dried.
Cheers.
Eric, I did skim the articles you linked to. Here in Austria, third (and fourth, and fifth) parties have real power, and I agree that this is a disadvantage of politics in America, where only two parties are considered seriously. But I don't know how that can be changed: people have been voting for third-party candidates for a long time in America, and what has it accomplished? They are still not taken seriously, except as possible vote-drains for either the Democrats or the Republicans. I don't have any suggestions, but my experience has been that the mere existence of third-party candidates has not changed a thing in American politics.
Has everyone seen the Saddleback Church interviews?
Saddleback Website
I think this video provided important insight into how Obama and McCain thinks and approaches problems.
I have some bad news folks.
Our long time commenter, a Christadelphian named Jason will not be voting since, as a member of this odd ball Christian sect, he is NOT allowed to vote! See: Hand book or Denominations in the United States, 8th edition “Christadelphian” doctrines.
Also, Jesus appeared to me last night in my bedroom and told me that he would give me a sign God does not exist and atheism is truth. This sign is that Obama will be elected President. Now watch this divine promise.
Other than this divine epiphany of Jesus in my room, I agree with dingodave.
Finally folks, Romans 13 tell us that our leaders are appointed by God.
Lol Harry! I am looking forward to your election as a prophet!
Eric D,
I read the articles you linked to, and I agree that they are excellent.
The principles outlined do indeed make a lot of sense, however they would be far more palatable within a preferential voting system, or as Evan described and linked to in his post, 'Instant Runoff Voting', which is essentially the same thing. If America can adopt such a system, you will stand a much better chance of achieving the principles and goals which are outlined in those articles.
Thanks for the links, I have saved them for future reference.
Former Fundy,
If you earn less than $250000 per year, your taxes will not increase under an Obama administration. If you earn less than $200000 per year you will qualify for a tax reduction. If you earn under $100000 per year you will be far better off under Obama's economic plan than you would under McCain's economic plan.
If you do earn more than $250000 per year, then you can bloodywell afford to pay an extra 3% on your marginal tax rate. That is, you'll only pay 3% more tax on the income you earn in excess of $250000. If you're concerned about your tax situation, then go to barakobama.com where his new tax proposals are outlined in great detail.
For a good summary of both candidate's tax proposals go to the 'Economists for Obama' website and check it out. You can find it here.
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-economic-policy.html
Incidentally more than 2 out of three professional economists favor Obama's economic plan over McCain's.
If you're not concerned with the fact that many millions of your fellow citizens do not have access to even rudimentary health care, or that the Republican Party has been systematically plundering the ordinary worker in order to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and large corporations, then you are one selfish son of a bitch. If on top of this you adhere to the Republican mantra of inexorable economic growth at any cost, then you are not only selfish, but shortsighted as well, and you really don't care about the welfare of your children or the long term welfare of the planet we all share.
America comprises something like 4% of the world's population, yet it is responsible for aproximately 25% of the world's energy consumption. If you think this is in any way sustainable, then you are severely deluded, and are in for a very rude shock. I'm sure you could survive quite comfortably with only 2 cars and one house, or would that leave you feeling unfulfilled and less than a 'real American'?
If you think for a moment that America can somehow pull itself out of the economic hole it has dug for itself, and restore your crumbling infrastructure without raising revenues through graduated taxation, then you cannot in all good conscience describe yourself as a true patriot, and it is people like you who give Americans a reputation for being greedy over-consumers throughout much of the rest of the world.
It is attitudes like yours which make it imperative that the Republican Party is not re-elected this time around.
Sorry if I sound overly harsh, but I'm afraid thems are the facts as I see them.
John,
I agree that things aren't as cut and dried as white hats vs black hats. However, when you look at the educational qualifications of all the candidates, as well as their history and background, the choice (for me at least) is clear.
Suppose you are a hiring manager and have four young candidates to choose from to work in your business. The job involves managing a diverse group of people, having a basic knowledge of economics, politics, foreign relations, education, law, and government. You need someone who is a team-player, is decisive, and has a "get the job done" attitude. Looking at these four educational resumes*, without knowing their race or their gender, who would you give an interview to?
Obama:
Occidental College (Los Angeles) - 2 years studying Politics and Public Policy.
Columbia University (New York) - B.A. Political Science with a specialization in International Relations.
Harvard Law School - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude (top 5-10% of his graduating class)
Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review.
University lecturer in constitutional law.
Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and a B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899.
Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester - Business Administration.
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - General Studies.
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - Journalism.
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester.
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism.
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/09/educational-qua.html
I know who I'd rather have steering the ship of state.
For more information on John McCain, please read the following shocking article entitled
'Make-Believe Maverick: A closer look at the life and career of John McCain', which reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty.
You can find it here;
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
I also agree that Christianity in it's modern manifestation is far more benign than militant Islam.
But that is only because we in the West have broken the power of the ecclesiatical hierachy.
In other words, we simply don't allow them to persecute us or burn us at the stake any more.
DingoDave and the rest, I suppose I could have the luxury of voting my conscience if I didn't reside in the swing state of Indiana. If I didn't live here I would vote for the Libertarian party, just so people know which extremist party I think might help moderate all of the excessive spending going on.
As it stands I'll have to be a pragmatist after all and vote for the lesser of two evils. Don't ask who I'm voting for, but you can figure it out from my other blog.
dingodave wrote:
America comprises something like 4% of the world's population, yet it is responsible for aproximately 25% of the world's energy consumption. If you think this is in any way sustainable, then you are severely deluded, and are in for a very rude shock.
Oh, it's absolutely unsustainable. The rate of global oil extraction is probably at or near peak (or was just a few months ago, before the current financial crisis hit). There's a good chance that rate of global natural gas extraction will peak by 2020. There's also a good chance that the rate of global coal extraction will peak by around 2030 or so. Barring some kind of "and then a miracle occurs" technological breakthrough, that could put global peak energy production -- and consumption -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 2025-2030.
What is particularly unsustainable, I think, is the current global population level of 6.5 billion people.
I'm sure you could survive quite comfortably with only 2 cars and one house, or would that leave you feeling unfulfilled and less than a 'real American'?
Well said, although you shouldn't be TOO holier-than-thou about it. Australia doesn't lag all that far behind the U.S. in per capita energy consumption. As of 2001, the U.S. ranked 10th in the world, while Australia ranked 15th.
I am volunteering and voting for Obama because, above all else, he is the only viable option to oppose the bigots of the religious right.
AMEN Jason Long!
A major reason for an atheist to support Obama.
Even Jesus said he would vote for Obama (He told me this in my personal divine propheitc epiphany...Well, if Jesus can talk to Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith, than why not me?).
I have been helping my sister out w/ her volunteer work for the Obama campaign. The phone bank of which she is a part, making cold calls on behalf of Obama, doesn't just consist of Democrats. There are Republicans for Obama who think their party has lost its way and see Obama as a better choice than McCain.
That made a big impression on me. I don't believe Lieberman's appearance at the GOP convention had nearly the same impact.
John, can you explain to me why you accept argument #1 I posted, but not argument #2?
I like the Taliban. I liked McCain in 2000, Huckabee in 2008. I loathe Palin. I have never voted for a main party presidential candidate, but being in Virginia, tomorrow I will. I will not place a vote that is nearly certain to result in a "President Palin".
Why like Huck and not Palin? He's pretty much off the deep end, too. I just noticed he has a show on Fox, which I refuse to watch (Fox, not Huck) but happened to catch while flipping channels. It looks like the 700 Club won't go to the grave with Pat Robertson (God speed that day). Why like Huck? I just do, but this might help explain...
I tell people that a religion which begins with the presumption of ones own righteousness is anti-Christ, but most of what claims to be Christianity is of that stripe. I never saw Huck as proclaiming himself the "annointed" as Bush certainly had and Palin's surrogates do, an herself as well, maybe.
Why do I like the Taliban? Because I think Rule of Law is the founding principle of a free society. I think Communism and Theocracy are more inclined to develop into pluralistic market societies than are Autocracies. On that point, I'm directly opposed to the famous Kilpatrick doctrine.
Of course, Communism and Theocracy can have their Autocrats -- the 'annointed.' If the law supports such claims of entitlement, then what hope is there. But Law which restrains power -- that is the seed of a just and free and prosperous society. And I think the Taliban were headed there, if we'd have kept our hands off.
I would have voted for Bob Barr, despite the jeopardy of a President Palin, had he not voted in favor of an Amendment to restrict use of the Flag as a symbol of protest. He's no libertarian, in my view. Just an opportunist.
The United States of America is the greatest country in the world by far! The problem is, we are too nice! We are the only country in the world who will bomb the s&%t out of you and then rebuild your country and give it back to you. I disagreed with going to war with Irag, but once we did, we should have obliterated it instead of trying to please the weenie Europeans and radical leftist.
I can't understand why some of you who would have voted Libertarian are now voting for Obama! He is about as far from Libertarian as they come! He is for huge government and regulation and of course, he is for raising taxes. Plain and simple, he believes that the government can spend your money better than you! I must admitt, McCain isn't much better, and Bush has been atrocious! I wish a Libertarian could win the whitehouse! That's my dream.
P.S.
All of you non-Americans critizing America can kiss my American white A$$. Stay the hell out of America!
This election might actually help spread party politics to both a third and fourth party.
If the Republican Party completely crashes and burns a lot of disenfranchised Republicans could easily be lured into the Libertarian camp.
And if the liberal extremists no longer feel the need to vote Democrat just to keep Republicans out of the race, the Green Party may swell up in a hurry too.
Here's to a crushing defeat of MCCain/Palin.
Cheers!
Taxes Schmachshez. I like the Libertarian protest vote, but mostly because of Government intrusion into matters of conscience. But I like roads without potholes and bridges that stand up. I like fire protection and schools for my neighbor's kids.
Backward societies have low taxes. Free and prosperous socieites have taxes that are employed for public benefit. Sick societies have confiscatory taxes that are employed for hereditary privilege. The Republicans want to restore the hereditary privilege that America left behind. I like Obama's like about pain trickling upward... They shoot themselves in the foot by letting us little guys foot the bill for their wars and their avaricious neglect of the institutions and responsibilities which assure continued wealth.
As far as I'm concerned, Obama is ending the confiscatory taxes imposed upon us by the Republican plutocrats, who are going to have to pay their own way, and not get the rest of us to do it for them.
Richard wrote:
I can't understand why some of you who would have voted Libertarian are now voting for Obama!
One reason a person might have for not voting Libertarian is that, like John, he or she might think that the United States needs a sensible national energy policy. The energy policy of the Libertarian Party is basically not to have an energy policy.
Here's the Libertarian Party's 2008 plaform plank on energy, in toto:
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
Gary: that cluelessness alone is an excellent reason to not vote Libertarian.
This is a hot topic. A few of the reasons why I don't write much about politics is because, as you can see, I'm cynical that any particular election will change much of anything. The other reason is because I don't think there is as "correct" political affiliation to belong to for all atheists. So it divides us. Christians, for instance, vote both Democratic and Republican. Why should it be different for us, as you can see in this thread itself? A third reason is I have been so focused on reading about ways to debunk Christianity that I haven't taken the time to be up to snuff about these sorts of political things (due in part because I'm cynical anyway). I haven't even taken the time to read up on ways to defend atheism. My focus is a negative one, to debunk Christianity. I think that lasting change is intellectual change, and my goal is to focus on lasting change. It's my niche. I know what I'm doing, and I plan on doing it well, better and better, with every passing day. And it doesn't matter to me if skeptics don't appreciate my approach. I said in my book that some of them won't appreciate it. I don't write for them, although they can listen in on what I say and see what I think. I know the heartbeat of the evangelical mind well. I know what will reach them if anything can at all. You'll have to excuse any arrogance here, but it's true.
In any case, It's interesting to see the differnet opinions.
John - still wondering why you accept argument #1 but not argument #2. Why not be a pragmatist and spend your time doing something more useful than standing in line for an hour? Or, on the other hand, if you're going to spend hours in line to vote when there's only a very tiny chance your vote will matter either way, why not make it count and vote for who you actually want?
Did you read the articles I linked to? Did you even read my comments?
Eric, I did not yet read your links. I may before too long though. In any case when a person votes for a candidate who is not likley to win then 1) He is still fulfilling his obligations in a free society and therefore can complain at the elected choice (how can one complain if he doesn't vote); 2) It sends a message that must be heard. It shows trends from year to year about the voting patterns of people for these other parties to plan for the future; 3) He never knows whether in fact by some stroke of luck that contrary to the pundits his choice will win. I don't see any problem at all.
John -
I think you missed my point. You said:
"As it stands I'll have to be a pragmatist after all and vote for the lesser of two evils."
I'm pointing out that you're accepting argument #1 but not argument #2 that I posted above, and asking how you justify that. It seems to me that if decide to vote for a main party candidate and call it "pragmatism," then to be consistently rational about it, you should instead remain home and "pragmatically" do something more useful than voting. Doing otherwise seems to just be voting your emotions, rather than voting rationally.
DingoDave said:
If you're not concerned with the fact that many millions of your fellow citizens do not have access to even rudimentary health care, or that the Republican Party has been systematically plundering the ordinary worker in order to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and large corporations, then you are one selfish son of a bitch.
Something does need to be done about health care but I don't think that socialized medicine is the answer.
I reject your second part. Giving tax breaks to corporations in the long run creates jobs. Raising the tax rate on corporations will cost jobs.
Yeah, maybe I am selfish. Do you like it when people take what is yours? I now have to work almost 6 months to pay my damn taxes. It decreases motivation when you know that you only are going to be able to keep 1/2 of whatever you earn.
If you are a loser and want the govt to provide everything for you, then fine. I am in favor of personal responsibility.
Eric, I've answered you. Are you someone who believes if I took the time to read those lnks that I would agree with them and you? Don't be so naive. I've explained why it's practical (or pragmatic) to vote for a third party candidate. It matters not to me if I can convince you otherwise.
John-
I really don't see an answer to my question here. You gave great reasons for voting third party - but said you're still going to vote "pragmatically." So again - you're accepting one argument and rejecting the other. What's the difference between them? If you're actually making your decision for rational reasons rather than rationalizing an emotional decision, then you should either accept both or reject both.
I don't particularly care if I convince you either, but I would think as someone who claims to be rational, and who spends quite a bit of time criticizing the irrationality and inconsistency of others, consistency would be important to you.
As a sidenote, I don't think it's naive to think that reading a convincing, rational argument can convince rational agents to change their mind. Perhaps you meant it was naive of me to assume you are attempting to be rational in this decision?
Eric, stop wasting my time. The fact that you are too stupid to see an answer isn't my problem. Don't be so stupid as to think because you don't accept my answer that I'm not being rational. And don't be so stupid to think that if I have much better things to do with my time that I cannot give a more detailed answer. You'll not goad me into wasting more time on this issue. You speak as a Christian (whether you are or not I don't know) who rejects pragmatism as an answer to the truth question. Reject it all you want but that's all any of us have.
Taxes are not theft!
http://wirkman.net/izens/index.php/izen/2006/12/19/taxation
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/why-taxation-is-not-theft.html
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/taxes.htm
Eric, as a guest here you are entitled to ask a question or make an argument once or twice, but you are not allowed to merely repeat the same argument three or four or five times. Doing so makes you a troll. No one is biting, okay, and I already answered you.
Your question is uninteresting, trivial, wrongheaded, misguided, and mute now that election day is about over.
I've read this blog for the past three years. Over the past few months I've found less use of it as it tends to focus on something which is of virtually no importance to me - atheism - while not paying as much attention to the much more important things that got me there - specifically, rationality. I've found sources such as Overcoming Bias or Richard Carrier far more useful in actually informing my decisions and discussions, even those discussions which focus on Christianity.
I've been considering it for a while, but this conversation has cemented my decision to no longer read this blog. When you can take the effort to type up an insult, but not the much more minimal effort to copy and paste the actual argument you supposedly made but I'm having trouble finding, then how is it possible to have a reasonable discussion?
It's ironic that you guessed I was Christian, as this conversation has strongly resembled those I used to have with Christians. "No I won't repeat my argument, you're just too stupid to see it" is something I didn't really expect out of you, John. It seems you too have your pockets of thought that you wall off from the rational part of your brain, as much as those you argue with.
Again, all it would have taken is for you to clarify your argument, and I would have stopped asking the same question. If there was a response somewhere above that I'm somehow missing, one copy and paste would have rectified that. Instead you decided that calling names and shutting me out would be a better response.
I'm beginning to wonder if the effect this blog had on me in the early parts of my deconversion was in fact a negative one, and if the emotional responses I now find myself working hard to overcome as I work to be more rational were prompted by reading posts and comments by people like you, John.
Eric, I do not care. I did not find you to be an honest discussion partner and that's my opinion. If I did AND if I had the time I would deal with your stupidity. Go talk with Carrier. Repeat your comments there. They are not serious questions. I only bother with serious questions. That's my opinion. Others can chime in if they want to but I don't have the time to spend with you.
Eric, I have seen a lot of trolls come and go but do us all this one big favor. Do you deny Jesus is Lord and do you renounce the God of the Bible?
It won't change a thing. Just curious.
What was dishonest about what I did, John? What is your opinion actually based on? If you could demonstrate that you actually made this argument you claim I'm "too stupid" to see (which would be a trivial exercise if you had made it), then I could understand your position. You haven't yet demonstrated it though. (Incidentally, this discussion has reminded me of the Goldfarb interview I watched the other day.)
As far as my beliefs, I've been an atheist for about 3 years now, a metaphysical naturalist for just over 2, a novice Bayesian for about a year, and a transhumanist for about the past six months. I consider the hypothesis that the Bible is true to be too improbable to even be worth considering. I care about as much about renouncing the God of the Bible as I do about renouncing the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Obama won! Woot!
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
I voted pro-life right down to the county surveyor.
John,
I understand what you mean. I voted third party (Chuck Baldwin). Everybody says "your wasting your vote," but how can a third party ever have a chance if we vote out of fear of "wasting our vote." As a fairly conservative Christian, I'm always hear other Christians say to vote republican, not because of the republican will support Christian values, but because the democrat is worse. This sickens me. It forces people to vote out of fear of the worst candidate, instead of supporting the good of the better candidate.
John, I haven't been around as long as you and I haven't seen as many elections. But I have learned on thing. The only voters that matter to the politicians are the one that can change their minds. They don't care about the voters who vote straight ticket every year. Democrats know that they will never sway a solid republicans. Republicans know that they will never sway a solid democrat. Neither democrats or republicans go after voters that will support their side no matter what. If you want your vote to matter, don't be the voter that can be counted on.
Third parties need to get a hearing. Why do we live in a democracy where six people will run for president and only two will get mentioned by the media?
I wonder if some of the third party atheists could get together with the third party Christians. Vox Day is a libertarian. I think it would say a lot if even a small number of atheists and Christians could get behind a third party candidate.
I'll second Zilch's sentiments.
Woo Hoo!
What a relief!
It doesn't look like the Democrats have achieved a filibuster-proof Senate, but it's still great news.
The Democrats are now in a very strong position to push through some desperately needed reforms and innovations.
Congratulations America. Australians are celebrating with you.
"I'll second Zilch's sentiments.
Woo Hoo!
What a relief!"
dungodave, I'm so glad you are relieved!
"It doesn't look like the Democrats have achieved a filibuster-proof Senate, but it's still great news.
The Democrats are now in a very strong position to push through some desperately needed reforms and innovations."
Yeah, Pelosi and the boys will be pushing some reforms and innovations through alright, maybe about as good as ole Jimmy Carter did.
"Congratulations America. Australians are celebrating with you."
Okay. I really am glad that you really care who our next President is going to be. I can't say as much about your countries politicians and I really could care less.
Why do you even care who our (Americans) next President is and who holds power in congress? I'm just curious about that?
As far as Obama, maybe you are intrigued by him as much as so many are in this country. I mean, he has accomplished an incredible feat! He has basically come out of nowhere, never held a real job, has never been in charge of anything or had experience that would distinctly qualify him to be president. I have to say that he is a master of saying a lot without really saying anything.
I can forsee some major problems down the road, I really hope that I'm wrong though.
I know that he'll have problems with many of the folks who voted for him, ( white elitist anti-Christian liberal types) on one side, and (black church pentecostal holiness types on the other!) One side is big on separation of church and state, the other very much not!
I really think that Obama is a non believer who is faking the funk (like most politicians do) to pander votes from that segment though. He really does seem to embrace "liberation theology" though, which is "socialist" to the core. I just hope he doesn't ruin America. I really can say that I'm a little frightened.
Richard- I won't presume to answer for DingoDave, but I can tell you, it's not just the Australians who are celebrating Obama's victory: here in Austria, everyone's smiling too. In fact, just about everyone in the world is happy.
You ask: "Why do you even care who our (Americans) next President is and who holds power in congress?"
It's fairly obvious why we care: America is still the most powerful nation on Earth, and has a great deal of influence, for good and ill, on all the rest of us. What America does (or doesn't do) about global warming, war, world trade, and so forth, have very real effects on Austria, Australia, and all points between. That's the main reason I'm still an American citizen, although I've been living in Europe for twenty-five years now: my vote is more important there than here.
Take a look at that world map I linked to. You might simply retort that only Americans should be allowed to decide who runs their country, and of course I would agree with you. But why do you suppose that McCain is so wildly unpopular in almost the entire world? Because he represents (rightly or wrongly) a continuation of what the Republicans have done in the last eight years: robbed the country blind to the vast enrichment of a few already very rich people, weakened human rights, ignored pending environmental catastrophe, and waged a senseless war that our grandchildren will still be paying for.
This is not to say that the Democrats have been much better, or that Obama will be able to right all these wrongs. But he's a step in the right direction.
Indiana went Democratic for the first time in 40 years. Glad to be a part of it!
I am so glad that the whole world is so pleased. I guess they are hoping that when Obama says lets spread the wealth around, he is including the entire world.
Maybe he should just cut the military down by about 75% and let Europe and other democracies defend themselves against possible agression. Lets pull completely out of the Middle East and just let those folks fight it out among themselves. If militant Islamists wind up controlling all the oil, oh well. We can all just ride bicycles. Thats about all we will be able to afford anyway.
Once the US is reduced to a weakened state as much of Europe, then we will see how happy the rest of the world really is.
Zilch said,
"robbed the country blind to the vast enrichment of a few already very rich people, weakened human rights, ignored pending environmental catastrophe, and waged a senseless war that our grandchildren will still be paying for."
What evidence do you have of any of that? I guess you get your facts from the radical left web sites or something? Maybe you should check out factcheck.org and other reliable sources instead of believing the HYPE machine.
It's kind of funny. Obama is already making excuses for why change (whatever he means by that) might take 1 year or one term or more to happen! Ha! Ha! I bet he and other liberals will be blaming Bush for everything bad that happens during his whole first term. The black caucus is already causing conflict with Obama for some of his supposed choices for cabinet positions. Oh boy, here we go, the fun is about to begin!
Richard- no, I didn't get my data from "radical left web sites", which bore me. I got it from the evening news. And I looked at factcheck.org, but after trying several search terms, couldn't come up with any info about my claims at all, pro or con. If you can point me to any information there about this stuff, I'd appreciate it.
Of course there's hype about what Obama will do. What do you expect? Politics is a circus, especially in America. And of course there are problems that Obama will not be able to solve, and of course there will be people who blame Bush for all of these problems. But what else is new? At least we have hope for change now. I hope at least part of that change will be in the Republican party too: back to real conservatives like Eisenhower, and away from neocons who talk about reducing government while causing the national debt to skyrocket. But that's probably just a pipedream...
Dear Richard (can I call you Dick?),
Given the obvious hostility and bitterness in what you wrote, I take it that you're not particularly happy with the election results.
Well guess what? I don't care what you think, and neither does the rest of the world.
I'm particularly intrigued by one of your statements though, because it makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could translate it into plain English.
You wrote: -"Okay. I really am glad that you really care who our next President is going to be. I can't say as much about your countries politicians and I really could care less."
What is that supposed to mean? If you "really could care less", then it means that you really do care. WTF?
From the other things you wrote, it appears that your political acumen is no better than your grasp of the English language.
Zilch pretty-well summed up what I and most of the rest of the world feel about this election, and why another Republican government, especially under a McCain/Palin leadership, would have been a disaster for everyone concerned.
You wrote; "He really does seem to embrace "liberation theology" though, which is "socialist" to the core. I just hope he doesn't ruin America."
It's too late Richard, America is already ruined. Take a look at the following.
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 06 Nov 2008 at 03:56:29 AM GMT is: $10,570,970,787,033
The estimated population of the United States is 305,042,080 so each citizen's share of this debt is $34,654.14.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.87 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
Guess who you have to thank for that? I'll give you a hint. His name is NOT Barak Obama.
America needs fixing, and if you believe that would have happened under a McCain/Palin administration, then think again.
The Republican party has systematically squandered your nation's wealth, as well as it's good will on the international stage. World leaders across the globe are congratulating the American people for voting in an Obama/Biden administration, and it's a shame that you cannot or will not admit that they may be correct to do so.
There is a lot of re-building to do in your country in the years ahead, and you can either choose to be a part of it, or you can continue to bury your head in the sand and sulk like a petulant 5 year old child for the next four years over the fact that the Rethuglican party has rightly lost the confidence of the American people. The choice is yours.
And another thing.
Because of the corruption and incompetence of your national leaders which precipitated this international financial crisis, our Australian treasury secretary has just announced some disturbing news for the future of our country.
"The Federal Treasurer has unveiled the Government's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and has dramatically revised down the size of Australia's surplus for the current financial year.
In the May budget, it predicted a 22 billion dollar surplus, but Wayne Swan says the global economic crisis is buffeting the Australian economy, and the estimated budget surplus has been revised to 5.4 billion. "The global financial crisis has smashed a 40-billion-dollar hole in the budget", Treasurer Wayne Swan told a news conference.
The impact is also expected to cut the 2009/10 budget surplus from an earlier forecast of 19.7 billion dollars to just 3.6 billion."
That's right, even in these troubled economic times, our national treasurer is still forecasting a modest budget surplus for the Australian economy.
I wouldn't want to swap with you.
Still, you can't trust those pesky 'socialists', who want fair, graduated taxation and responsible fiscal regulation can you?
Thank you Republican Party, and thank you Richard (who undoubtedly voted for them).
And then you have the temerity to ask me why I care who is elected as President, or who holds power in congress? Sheesh! Wake up and smell the coffee Richard.
On top of this, our Australian soldiers are still fighting and dying alongside yours in Iraq. This is yet another gift which just keeps on giving from the Bush/Cheney cabal.
DingoDave: what you said. One point- you question Richard:
If you "really could care less", then it means that you really do care. WTF?
This is an Americanism you perhaps aren't familiar with. "I could care less" actually means, in America at least, "I couldn't care less". How this inversion of expression came about, I don't know. But my theory is, that the presence of the double negative couldn't/less sounded wrong, and people just started saying could/less without thinking about the preservation of sense. But that's just my wild guess.
dungodave,
Wow! I must have hit a nerve based on your response to what I wrote? I’m sorry you feel this way about America and our democracy. See, in America, (the greatest country on earth!) we have a choice on who we vote for. At last count, President-elect Obama received 64,643,455 (53%) votes to McCain’s 56,903,815 (46%). If I voted for McCain, that’s my business, but I wouldn’t have been the only one who voted for him, okay? As I said in a previous post, voting for McCain would be like voting for the lesser of two evils, in the end you still get evil! I have been critical of the Republican party. You are absolutely right; they have gotten this country in one big mess! One of the big reasons why, is because they have become very much like the democrats and have embraced big government and wasteful spending. I know all the arguments for and against these positions, so don’t waste your time replying to me on this point. The government does have its purpose in a free society, such as protecting its nation against foreign powers and balancing the budget etc… but I think the government has gotten out of hand. This is evident in the housing crisis, and we are ALL RESPONSIBLE in creating that crisis. I could talk extensively on that topic, but for the sake of time, I’ll spare everyone by not doing that. The bailout (corporate welfare) was another horrendous mistake that many American's disagreed with, that McCain was in favor of along with the democrats. So, you are right, that Bush and the Republican Party has got some changing to do, and this change happens by going back to the principles that it has held to in the past. A few of these principles are less federal government intruding in our lives, less wasteful spending, (at this point, it could never be completely cut out!), individualism, and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. Equal rights, equal justice, and opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability, are a few more.
As far as the war in Iraq, the congress voted for it overwhelmingly, so you would have to blame everyone for that war. Unless of course, you believe that the congress was deliberately deceived by the intelligence community. As I stated in an earlier post, I disagreed with going to war with Iraq and it has been mishandled to the utmost.
I really hope that Obama can succeed in turning the country in the right direction, but from his views, at least the ones I know of, I can not see that happening.
It is going to be interesting at all the demands that many folks are already having of him. (He’s not even officially the president yet!) The moveon.org crowd and other special interest groups are giving him ultimatums! At the end of the day, we the people of America are responsible for it, it is we who really run the country! So this change has got to be done by us.
BTW, thanks for pointing out my incorrect American, and thanks Zilch for explaining that to dingodave. I am not very good at English or Math, that’s why I obtained a degree in criminal justice!
Opps, I didn't mean to write "Bush and the Republican Party" in my previous comment.
Hey Richard! No hard feelings I hope. I agree with just about everything you wrote in your last comment, except that I see McCain as the far worse of two less-than-ideal choices. It's too bad- earlier, McCain seemed to be a straight-talking conservative of the old school, a man of integrity, but he apparently sold out to the neocons. I guess we'll see to whom Obama has sold out, if anyone, over the next four years.
In any case, we all have to work together if we want to make the world a better place for our children, and I'm encouraged that you too have hope for our future.
cheers from grey Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
No hard feelings here my friend. I've been to Austria a few times. It's beautiful! I was stationed (Army) in Vilseck, Germany in Bavaria for three years back in the early 1990's. I had a good time in Germany. Great food and drink, and the people were very friendly. I once went to a bar where I was the only American. I ended up with a table of all kinds of drinks and some really good food to go with them! I made some very good friends there.
Cheers!
Dear Richard,
I'm glad to see you acknowlege that the Bush aministration is not without it's faults, and I actually agree with much of what you wrote in your last post.
I have nothing against Americans, or your democracy. I have visited your country on a couple of occasions and thoroughly enjoyed myself, although I did find that many of the people I spoke with were extremely ignorant about anything beyond their shores. I don't know whether it's because of a failing in your education system, or whether many Americans are just naturally incurious about the rest of the world. Perhaps it's a little of both.
What I do object to, is the way the Republican Party has been hijacked by the right-wing neocons. These people seem to revel in their ignorance and bigotry, and I'm afraid that for me at least, the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate was the last straw. I'm afraid that I can't respect anyone who would have voted for this ticket for purely ideological, or party-political reasons. If you think George Bush is an incompetent buffoon, then Palin as President would have been infinitely worse.
H.L. Mencken summed up my sentiments in his now famous quote;
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
The American people would have achieved this goal with the election of a McCain/Palin administration. Thank goodness that saner heads prevailed. What is most scary though, is that the Democrats only won but a few percentage points. Crikey!
Why is your country the greatest on Earth Richard? What are you basing that statement on? If by greatest, you mean in terms of raw military or economic power, then I would have to agree with you, but there is more to greatness than raw power. By many standards, America trails far behind many other developed nations.
For example;
-America achieves inferior health outcomes and life expectancies compared with many other developed nations despite spending more money on healthcare and covering fewer people;
-Has an education system that produces mediocre results and leaves millions of high school dropouts behind every year
-Holds only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, building up the economic, political, and military power of petroleum-exporting countries and spewing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any other nation
-Spends more on its military than the 14 next highest-spending countries combined, but finds itself bogged down in two wars still seeking an elusive security
-Supports its consumption and lifestyle by tapping into home equity, maxing out credit cards, and becoming the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from other countries.
-Has one of the lowest minimum wages among developed nations
-Has one of the lowest vacation entitlements compared to other developed nations
-Has one of the lowest maternity and paternaty leave entitlements compared to other developed nations
-Has some of the most intrusive and draconian laws in the free world regarding it's citizen's rights to privacy, and arrest without due process
-Currently has a brigade of battle hardened troops stationed on American soil, who are answerable only to the President, in violation of posse comitatus laws.
For more information on this development, please read the following article.
'Is Posse Comitatus Dead? US Troops on US Streets'
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/us_army_denies_unit_will_be
In what way are these 'great' outcomes for the American people?
Regarding the concept of 'American exceptionalism';
"Many view American exceptionalism as a product of veiled nationalistic chauvinism, or even jingoism. The term can also be used in a negative sense by critics of American policies to refer to a willful nationalistic ignorance of faults committed by the American government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
Are you sure you don't fall somewhere into this spectrum?
For an interesting take on the concept of 'American exceptionalism' Please read tthe following;
'America: Exceptional No More?'
http://www.alternet.org/rights/65577/
I do believe that congress was decieved into voting for the Iraq war.
"In a new book..., Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind wrote that the Bush administration committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to create a forged document showing a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda to create a false pretense for war.
“The White House had concocted a fake letter from the director of the Iraqi intelligence service to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” reporter Ron Suskind writes in his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism."
http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/246-cheney-likely-behind-forged-letter-linking-iraq-al-qaeda-ex-spy-says.html
Thank you Zilch for pointing out the reasoning behind the idiosyncratic way many Americans apparently express the term "couldn't care less".
It seems weird and twisted to my Australian ears, but it wouldn't be the first time that Americans have managed coin a phrase which says exactly the opposite of what they really mean to say. Doublespeak seems to be an American specialty.
What makes it more surprising to hear though, is that Richard claims to have a degree in criminal justice. It's surprising that 'English Expression' doesn't seem to be one of the subjects which are covered in such a course.
Dungodave,
I can not believe that I am still responding to your angry replies, but oh well, I guess I am a glutton for punishment.
You said:
"I have visited your country on a couple of occasions and thoroughly enjoyed myself, although I did find that many of the people I spoke with were extremely ignorant about anything beyond their shores. I don't know whether it's because of a failing in your education system, or whether many Americans are just naturally incurious about the rest of the world. Perhaps it's a little of both."
Even though you are stereotyping Americans, you are absolutely right in that our education system is a failure! One of the main reasons is because the federal government has utterly ruined the education system. The theory was, if we allot great amounts of money to poor schools, the students will have access to better equipment, facilities, and programs and they will be able to learn better. Wrong! It’s a failed theory. Also, the teacher’s union has so much power that they have forced teachers to be paid more, but not based on how well the teachers taught there students. Teachers have no incentives to be good teachers because they are paid the same no matter if they are good or not. Also, the most liberal members of congress voted down on school vouchers that would give poor kids the opportunity to go to private schools. In the end, home schooled kids usually do the best, but now, the government wants to get involved in that and ruin that too! I would refer you to John Stossels book, “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity” for more on this topic.
You said:
"What I do object to, is the way the Republican Party has been hijacked by the right-wing neocons. These people seem to revel in their ignorance and bigotry, and I'm afraid that for me at least, the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate was the last straw. I'm afraid that I can't respect anyone who would have voted for this ticket for purely ideological, or party-political reasons. If you think George Bush is an incompetent buffoon, then Palin as President would have been infinitely worse."
Okay, I can respect your view of Sarah Palin, but at least there is enough known about her because of her executive experience as a governor. I can’t say as much for Obama as a rookie senator. There just is not enough known about him to even no how he stands other than his far left wing stances based on the few votes he cast as a senator, him being a “community organizer, (Does that qualify him to be president?) and an associate of some really shady people, such as Rev. Wright, as well as admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and that anti-Israel Palestinian whose name escapes me, because ABC refused to air the video of him and Barack. I am really surprised that you (an atheist) could ignore people like this. (Obama’s Pastor for some 20 years). Oh, also Louis Farrakhan, his homeboy from Chicago!
You quoted:
H.L. Mencken summed up my sentiments in his now famous quote;
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Yes! Exactly! This fits Barack Obama to the tee! I agree with this quote and I do understand the problem, especially with the American media that influences so much.
You said:
"Why is your country the greatest on Earth Richard? What are you basing that statement on? If by greatest, you mean in terms of raw military or economic power, then I would have to agree with you, but there is more to greatness than raw power. By many standards, America trails far behind many other developed nations."
The USA has done more for the rest of the world then any other country. You know what dungodave? By you caring so much about who becomes our president is evidence that we are very important to the rest of the world, and yes, even to the land of kangaroos!
I know one thing, people are not leaving America, the land of the free, the home of the brave, they are dieing to get in!
You said:
"Has some of the most intrusive and draconian laws in the free world regarding it's citizen's rights to privacy, and arrest without due process."
Evidently you need to read our Constitution. It is all about protecting our rights.
You quoted:
"In a new book..., Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind wrote that the Bush administration committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to create a forged document showing a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda to create a false pretense for war.
“The White House had concocted a fake letter from the director of the Iraqi intelligence service to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” reporter Ron Suskind writes in his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism."
http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/246-cheney-likely-behind-forged-letter-linking-iraq-al-qaeda-ex-spy-says.html"
Yes, my suspicions were right, you do really on radical sites and hyped up info. As far as Suskind, well, there is money to be made in books that are anti-Bush, plain and simple. Oh, if there is so much evidence, why isn’t Bush being prosecuted? See dungodave, in America, we have something called the presumption of innocence, and Bush and his administration is innocent until proven guilty. If he is guilty, then by all means, I hope they fry his ass!
You said:
"Thank you Zilch for pointing out the reasoning behind the idiosyncratic way many Americans apparently express the term "couldn't care less".
It seems weird and twisted to my Australian ears, but it wouldn't be the first time that Americans have managed coin a phrase which says exactly the opposite of what they really mean to say. Doublespeak seems to be an American specialty."
As Ronald Reagan use to say, “there you go again”, stereotyping Americans.
You said:
"What makes it more surprising to hear though, is that Richard claims to have a degree in criminal justice. It's surprising that 'English Expression' doesn't seem to be one of the subjects which are covered in such a course."
Yes, I had to take English classes, but this blog isn’t an English paper that is going to be given a grade, so I really don’t give a rat’s ass if I use bad grammar or sentence structure or whatever. Also, I don’t just claim to have a degree, but I have one and with honors. I used the Montgomery GI BILL that I earned from the military in order to help me pay the tuition and for books while I worked full time to take care of a wife and two kids.
Post a Comment