Im not! Apparently all you need is a drivers license to get picked.

REGISTER TO VOTE AND VOTE OFTEN. STOP BEING DUMB.

Can't say I'm big on either Obama or Romney. If I'll be forced to vote, I'll add one up for Obama, but while mumbling under my breath and frowning vehemently.

Fuck voting. All politicians are bought and sold.

I'm sure you're helping remedy that by sitting at home and posting online.

It's situational. Voting in the presidential election for a major party is a waste and voting for a third party is symbolic only at this stage. However, decent people do run in and can sometimes be elected to meaningful posts in state and local elections. Perhaps not congressional seats or governorships, but there is a lot of difference that can be made by putting someone sensible or even progressive in positions that let them affect such unimportant things as whether or not people go hungry and what kind of education kiddos get.

Categorically declaring voting sacrosanct or worthless are both irrational positions. You have to take stock and determine where the effort of voting has the potential to pay off and where it doesn't. When it is not worth the trouble, there are other things you can do, so not voting is not, in itself, proof of political non-participation. At this stage, elections are no where near being the most critical task for almost any progressive cause (though there are a few).

Does anyone think Romney still has a chance at winning after all this Bain/tax returns controversy?

Yes. Because voting for some cocksucker in a suit makes such a difference.

You're so fucking edgy, man.

BTBAM have always been so consistent with their style. I'm really digging Telos!

It makes enough of a difference. Like Frog said, better than what you're doing.

And you'll better the outcome by voting for two candidates that are largely interchangeable?

I still don't know where this idea comes from, that Obama and Romney are the same person. Romney's openly a Mormon, and has said that his faith makes a big impact on his decisions. The same can definitely not be said of Obama. Obama wants to extend tax cuts for the middle class, Romney prefers the rich. Obama favors gay marriage, Romney would rather gays didn't exist.

Sure there are plenty of issues they effectively agree upon, and I'm not happy about a good number of those things, but that there are some rather significant differences between the two candidates makes the "same boss different tie" argument one of pure ignorance.

Explain to me how voting for a puppet is a good thing. Damn, some of you people are fucking idiots.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Get pegged in a room, supper chunks.

I don't know what's more frustrating, that political discussions are always this stupid, or that I can't contribute anything better.

America would be cool if more people voted Libertarian.

politics are gay

Yeah, everyone vote for what makes America look like such a fucking fruitcake to everyone else in the world.

Well developed opinion, sir. Your argument is solid and constructive.

How's that? Libertarianism is nothing more than an extremely literal interpretation of the Constitution. Small government and a major focus on civil liberties. The only thing I don't agree with is their nearly universal anti-war stance.

There are two distinct forms one as stated thus for smaller government and a confederation of smaller states and municipalities, and the leftist libertarianism which is slightly more controversial that focuses mainly on communes with shared property. And what is so bad about being universally "anti-war"?

Romney has changed pace on more issues than anyone I can imagine, but never once have I heard him explicitly say he is only for the rich. In his campaign platform he desires extending the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, and aside from the obvious religious differences can you point out anything else thats at least a little more pertinent than wedge issues like gay marriage? I don't buy your straw man that he would prefer gays "not exist", obviously being a Mormon has a hint of hypocrisy being polygamous against the "Traditional" concept of one man and one woman- but its a stretch to say he wishes all gays into nihility. You haven't named any other issues such as the economy, civil liberties, national defense, and international relations in which the two are as mentioned very similar in their ideological stances.

Extremely literal interpretations of a document written several hundred years ago for application to the modern world? Sounds perfectly logical to me.

Only socialism is real.

Because there are times when war is necessary, not that it's good. But there are those who say no to it no matter what, and who are hellbent on finding alternative routes and methods to solving diplomatic problems. So what do we do when we're facing someone who only wishes harm on us? There is no alternative method. No amount of talking/negotiating would ever be enough to defuse the hostility shown by some of our adversaries. I'm all for peace, but sometimes it's just not an option.



Just because it's an old document, doesn't mean it doesn't have a completely relevant standing in todays world. Times have changed, good ideas haven't.

THE CONSTITUTION IS SACRED! DON'T YOU DARE!

Yeah, because the 2nd amendment is still very logical and apt to the modern world. Yeah right.

And Libertarianism is not one of those good ideas. It's just a bunch of greedy people bitching about how the government takes some of their money to use on public services.

Did I ever say the Constitution was sacred? No. There are some things I disagree with, and the second amendment is not one of them.



Where are you getting your information?

But it makes more sense for the federal government to unilaterally decide for people in different locales, different circumstances, and different crime rates to decide how many and what firearms can be rationed and owned right? The state should have zero business rationing what guns an individual can own when purchased with his or her money, but sure give Big government the option to outlaw firearms and see what happens as in DC and Detroit with burgeoning crime rates.

Why not let them donate their money freely instead of magically assuming all rich people are evil people that step on the "little guy"? Do you know absolutely anything about what you are talking about?

Perhaps I should've been slightly clearer with your premise being "universally anti war", granted, there are times where if applicable conflict arises as a result of circumstances that are mitigated by acts of aggression. Is this not further example of the aggrandizing nature of the state, how many times in the last 50 years has the West had any palpable reason for attacking another state that had nothing to do with shadow wars, "nation building", or humanitarian aid that the state had to sacrifice its own citizens and waste billions out of necessity. For the sake of specificity assuming you are talking about US politics and not the affairs of Europe, when has any nation state threatened our massively oversized defense budget and strained forces with actual aggression? Do you trust the government that much to deduce what is a threat?, granted 911 and Pearl Harbor are good examples.

Except it's nothing to do with "evil" or anything like that. It's safer to just tax people than to assume they'll be willing to donate it. The rich can afford to lose a little of their money so that some people don't starve and everyone gets equal access to police, roads, medicine, etc.

Yes, I do believe I know what I'm talking about. It's called common sense and every first world country other than America supports it.


Anti-tank weapons for anyone who can afford them, then? How about those .50 anti-material rifles?

I think I see where you're coming from now.
I consider grounds for war absolutely necessary when, as you put it, a foreign state has shown actual aggression. Granted, I can't say there have been too many times in recent history (other than the obvious you already stated) that there has been any real threat shown towards the United States that has been so great as to declare war. In fact, I think those are the ONLY two times in recent history where declaring war was appropriate. As for past wars that have come about without any initial hostility shown towards the U.S. (Vietnam, The Gulf War), this is where I object. These were simply "policing" wars, so to speak; being fought in order to quell an uprising that the government didn't approve of for one reason or another. Even if the intentions were sincere (and Vietnam still remains controversial), they still had nothing to do with defending America from overt hostility, and thus were unnecessary. This is where the government has been overextending their reach, and overusing the war card.

Haha goddamn Veracs, that is an incredibly retarded stance. I don't even hate everything you saylike many here. But.... but.. Willing donations running all public services, are you fucking serious? And at what point would donations take over from taxation? Mid to high earners who are not rich by any stretch still pay taxes, but Id be damned if they'd donate as much as they get taxed, no one willingly would.

Retarded stance my ass. At what point do you make the leap of faith that concerned individuals cannot make sizable donations to help the "Downtrodden", I give credence to the fact that not everyone will be the bleeding heart "feed the hungry, clothe the poor type" and obviously donations on any level cannot top the level of theft by state. But when most of our tax dollars go to the federal leviathan in terms of National defense, and even less goes to human services as evidenced by the graft your not making a good case for current tax levels

Well I can certainly agree govt spending is poorly handled, that's about it.

Have some of the lowest taxes in decades

complain that they're too high

Except it's nothing to do with "evil" or anything like that. It's safer to just tax people than to assume they'll be willing to donate it. The rich can afford to lose a little of their money so that some people don't starve and everyone gets equal access to police, roads, medicine, etc.

Then make a decent case why our current tax levels in the US are not doing a sufficient enough job to perform the tasks as stated, when 60% of our taxes fleece all income levels and go to building drones and paying Raytheon and Blackwater contracts your not making a good case for the benevolent nanny state. As stated previously, obviously donations from charitable individuals cannot account for exorbitant taxation from the state, but current evidence does not support the nebulous assumption that even with higher tax rates which would make everyone suffer even more- that the funds extracted would go for anything else other than endless war.

I've seen different graphs state different things, either way all income brackets pay what they can with the rich obviously paying more as it is in the current system. I'm curious what more that they can do when what little of the taxes taken actually goes to human betterment, should we all be taxed more under the nebulous assumption that only then can the state perform its "necessary" duties to care for its denizens then?

The rich can afford to lose a little of their money .[/quote]

How do you think they're rich?

"A great deal of tax avoidance is not seen on the tax return itself. One of the first objectives of the tax avoider is to make sure their income is not theirs. They move it into a trust, off-shore, and therefore just publishing a tax return will not tell the whole story,"


Tax avoidance by the super-rich costs the British taxpayer £13bn a year
http://www.government-online.net/tax-sh ... editorial/