Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:19 am
tyger wrote:so ... how does one voice an opinion, and at the same time shut the fuck up? ... please answer this question, but don't post anything.
Dubstepforum.com
worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
United States Presidential Election 2012
Page 14 of 49
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:22 am
simple, campaign, actually get involved further than bitching on facebook or forums, beat on some doors, go to actual public events where you can voice your opinion directly to the electorate.
talk is cheap, are you actually willing to sacrifice some of your time to get involved? write letters, make phone calls? attend say state conventions or get involved in the local level?
if not don't bitch about nothing changing, because you aren't willing to take the time or effort to affect any change.
talk is cheap, are you actually willing to sacrifice some of your time to get involved? write letters, make phone calls? attend say state conventions or get involved in the local level?
if not don't bitch about nothing changing, because you aren't willing to take the time or effort to affect any change.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:26 am
Genevieve wrote:
"what Marx and later writers have done is to lump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call 'free-market capitalism' on the one hand, and 'state capitalism' on the other."
Republicans are anti-free market. Regardless of what their mantra implies.
I like how I never meet ancaps irl. Only on the internet. To be totally honest, your ideology is right up there with fascism in terms of shittiness.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:02 pm
How many people, in the pre-WW2 Marxist revolution were murdered because they didn't want to give up their property to the 'collective'? Somewhere between the 2000 or 3000 right?
I'll take any ideology that has the non-aggression pricinple as its foundation over one that believes in bloodshed in the name of the revolution. "Violence is bad, unless it's used to get people to do what you think is best"
I'll take any ideology that has the non-aggression pricinple as its foundation over one that believes in bloodshed in the name of the revolution. "Violence is bad, unless it's used to get people to do what you think is best"
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:54 pm
How many people were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, under then name of the "democracy"?Genevieve wrote:How many people, in the pre-WW2 Marxist revolution were murdered because they didn't want to give up their property to the 'collective'? Somewhere between the 2000 or 3000 right?
I'll take any ideology that has the non-aggression pricinple as its foundation over one that believes in bloodshed in the name of the revolution. "Violence is bad, unless it's used to get people to do what you think is best"
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:09 pm
If I'm against violence, why would I be pro-war? And if I'm a voluntaryist, why would I be pro-democracy? Democracy is the tyranny of the masses against the biggest minority of them all, the individual.(Pada) wrote:How many people were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, under then name of the "democracy"?Genevieve wrote:How many people, in the pre-WW2 Marxist revolution were murdered because they didn't want to give up their property to the 'collective'? Somewhere between the 2000 or 3000 right?
I'll take any ideology that has the non-aggression pricinple as its foundation over one that believes in bloodshed in the name of the revolution. "Violence is bad, unless it's used to get people to do what you think is best"
But ask Obama that question, he's commited more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq than Bush did, while pretty much announcing his plans to invade Iran. Or Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic former speaker of the House who think that the death of half a million Iraqi children through the UN's sanctions was worth it?
Do you think that Republicans, who regulate the market and legislate morality, are libertarians? Or do you think that I believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats?
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:39 pm
Non violence sounds great and all, but in reality it's an empty ideal. In an imperfect world of humans with natural aggression and thirst for power, force and the threat of force are absolutely essential and inherent in our nature. Even Gandhi couldn't have gotten jack shit done for India without the massive threat of force of his followers. The civil rights movement as well wouldnt have accomplished anything without varying degrees of force.
I have no idea how you make that conclusion about obama and iran. The Obama administration has had to essentially try to put Israel on a leash so they don't start blasting Tehran into the atmosphere. The administration has on multiple occassions fought against even economic sanctions on Iran. Obama's policy towards Iran is anything but aggressive.
I have no idea how you make that conclusion about obama and iran. The Obama administration has had to essentially try to put Israel on a leash so they don't start blasting Tehran into the atmosphere. The administration has on multiple occassions fought against even economic sanctions on Iran. Obama's policy towards Iran is anything but aggressive.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:50 pm
"Violence is fine because people are violent"AllNightDayDream wrote:Non violence sounds great and all, but in reality it's an empty ideal. In an imperfect world of humans with natural aggression and thirst for power, force and the threat of force are absolutely essential and inherent in our nature. Even Gandhi couldn't have gotten jack shit done for India without the massive threat of force of his followers. The civil rights movement as well wouldnt have accomplished anything without varying degrees of force.
America has always put Israel on a leash against anyone and regardless of what he claims to have fought against, his administration still cleared the sanctions on Iran. And in his state of the union adress, he himself said that 'no options are off the table'. Doesn't sound like a peace president to me.AllNightDayDream wrote:I have no idea how you make that conclusion about obama and iran. The Obama administration has had to essentially try to put Israel on a leash so they don't start blasting Tehran into the atmosphere. The administration has on multiple occassions fought against even economic sanctions on Iran. Obama's policy towards Iran is anything but aggressive.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 7:07 pm
It's a Particularly sticky situation, but Obama by no means has an itchy trigger finger like many others in congress.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 7:09 pm
Obviously, it's too close to the elections and he still needs the votes from his young anti-war fanbase from 2008.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 8:18 pm
yea it's not like we don't have over 40 bases surrounding iran, they're such a threat to the US, better preemptively attack to protect our country (or rather israel and oil interests in the middle east who fund both of these clowns campaigns)
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:34 pm
The main problem being that most news organizations still report Ron Paul behind gengrich and very very far behind santorum.deadly habit wrote:oh yeah and is pkay gonna pay that $1000 bet? cause paul has more delegates than gingrich and santorum
https://rt.com/usa/news/obama-democrati ... -even-035/ heh obama almost lost the dem primaries in some states
https://rt.com/usa/news/obama-trade-wyden-senator-117/ his own party is turning on him
https://rt.com/usa/news/israel-obama-iran-nuclear-131/ oh and israel just took back that promise to not attack iran before the elections
Best bet is to ignore Ron Paul sites as they blatantly make things up.... Also ignore right wing and left wing sights or at the very least average them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html
Paul may beat out gengrich but the few heavy hitter states left are winner take all
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 5:29 pm
http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/
he's already beat both of them with the actual count (even though NO delegate is actually bound even in winner take all states as per RNC rules)
he's already beat both of them with the actual count (even though NO delegate is actually bound even in winner take all states as per RNC rules)
and hmmmm awful lot of Paul supporters taking delegate seats...LETTER QUOTE from Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC:
“[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:45 pm
deadly habit wrote:http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/
he's already beat both of them with the actual count (even though NO delegate is actually bound even in winner take all states as per RNC rules)
and hmmmm awful lot of Paul supporters taking delegate seats...LETTER QUOTE from Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC:
“[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”
Not trying to be insulting but how old are you? I ask this in relation to your voting status in 2008. All of these same sites and same rhetoric was around. Your 'actual' versus projected will end up being very far off after the final tally is done.
Once they all close it will not look like what Paul fans are hoping.
Also the delegate seat thing is another reason I ask your voting status in 08. Even tho Paul had dropped out his supporters were gonna do a renegade take over of seats and blah blah blah blah and Ron Paul got like 16 seats out of 2100 delegates
So yeah it's a novel idea except that it's not some super secret that no one is aware of.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:59 pm
29pkay wrote:deadly habit wrote:http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/
he's already beat both of them with the actual count (even though NO delegate is actually bound even in winner take all states as per RNC rules)
and hmmmm awful lot of Paul supporters taking delegate seats...LETTER QUOTE from Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC:
“[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”
Not trying to be insulting but how old are you? I ask this in relation to your voting status in 2008. All of these same sites and same rhetoric was around. Your 'actual' versus projected will end up being very far off after the final tally is done.
Once they all close it will not look like what Paul fans are hoping.
Also the delegate seat thing is another reason I ask your voting status in 08. Even tho Paul had dropped out his supporters were gonna do a renegade take over of seats and blah blah blah blah and Ron Paul got like 16 seats out of 2100 delegates
So yeah it's a novel idea except that it's not some super secret that no one is aware of.
just bout as old as you, you have been following the state conventions right? you know the ones the media have been ignoring where romney won the straw poll but paul took the delegates?
this isn't 2008, in 2008 the whole thing lost momentum, people actually are taking up more than delegate seats this time around and are working on taking over entire local and state platforms
also there are a lot more disenfranchised people who wouldn't vote for an independent in 2008 who voted obama as the lesser of 2 evils, who won't do the same this time around.
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:25 pm
But he's not running as an independent. He's trying to acquire the republican nominee
Despite what he says I still think he's going to drop out in june
Despite what he says I still think he's going to drop out in june
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:12 pm
he's not going to drop out until the nominee is officially chosen though, i can tell you that
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 10:20 am
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:39 am
Re: United States Presidential Election 2012
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 2:27 pm
No and no. I'm sure I agree with you on a lot of what's wrong with Washington. But I can't fathom how you could possibly think that an unregulated free market is anything but ludicrous.Genevieve wrote:
Do you think that Republicans, who regulate the market and legislate morality, are libertarians? Or do you think that I believe there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats?
Are you kidding? Obama is as big, if not a bigger, war monger than Bush was.AllNightDayDream wrote:It's a Particularly sticky situation, but Obama by no means has an itchy trigger finger like many others in congress.