Which Presidential Candidate Do You Plan to Vote for?

[zoner]

I personally love 'em!

i personally hate it because i had to do this all my life and it really never goes anywhere.... but i always get all wrapped up in it

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sinuous sausage]

i personally hate it because i had to do this all my life and it really never goes anywhere.... but i always get all wrapped up in it

Maybe it does go somewhere, but it has been passing you by? I've learned a lot in the religion thread as well as this one. Sharpens one's argument, might even change one's mind. The secret is not to flip out when someone posts something that you think to be utter bullhonky--you're dead once you become emotionally charged. Don't be wary of having your convictions challenged and know what they are and why you have them!

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

http://on.wsj.com/HqoaXG

Omg! I totally forgot about that nonsense!

Yep, the president has the power to detain citizens indefinitely and even execute them without a trial by simply saying 'terroristz!'.

Try and get me to insure someone for a preventative health care practice that could involve... *NOOKIE*!?

 

[sinuous sausage]

Omg! I totally forgot about that nonsense!

Yep, the president has the power to detain citizens indefinitely and even execute them without a trial by simply saying 'terroristz!'.

Try and get me to insure someone for a preventative health care practice that could involve... *NOOKIE*!?

It has nuthin to do with NOOKIE. I could start a religion right meow that conscientiously objects to colonoscopies. Simply by being alive, Obamacare coerces me to partake in a financial transaction to provide a service I have the constitutional right to abstain from providing. Enough silly examples, where could this go? Abortions? Physician-assisted suicides? I mean, if you don't see it, I guess you don't see it.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

It has nuthin to do with NOOKIE. I could start a religion right meow that conscientiously objects to colonoscopies. Simply by being alive, Obamacare coerces me to partake in a financial transaction to provide a service I have the constitutional right to abstain from providing. Enough silly examples, where could this go? Abortions? Physician-assisted suicides? I mean, if you don't see it, I guess you don't see it.

I patently see it it's just a bad rebuttal. I also had the first amendment rights to oppose the Iraq War yet my tax dollars went to subsidizing a brutal war that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. Should I have first amendment rights to defund the government because I don't like it? Obviously not.

Just because one party is butt-hurt that another party has access to a health care procedure they don't like isn't a valid enough reason for the person in need of the service not to receive it. Last time I checked O-Care doesn't deny people the right to refuse a treatment they disagree with either.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I patently see it it's just a bad rebuttal. I also had the first amendment rights to oppose the Iraq War yet my tax dollars went to subsidizing a brutal war that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. Should I have first amendment rights to defund the government because I don't like it? Obviously not.

Just because one party is butt-hurt that another party has access to a health care procedure they don't like isn't a valid enough reason for the person in need of the service to receive it. Last time I checked O-Care doesn't deny people the right to refuse a treatment they disagree with either.

Ah. Welcome to the tax/penalty debate borne out this summer.

I have an income tax because I work. I pay property tax because I own property. I pay a gas tax because I buy gas. This is fundamentally different...an "alive tax"? And it's not even a tax that religious institutions are exempted from--you a fan of collusion between church and state? Has nothing to do with Sandra Fluke's saggy vagina, everything to do with this country's basic principles.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

Ah. Welcome to the tax/penalty debate borne out this summer.

I have an income tax because I work. I pay property tax because I own property. I pay a gas tax because I buy gas. This is fundamentally different...an "alive tax"? And it's not even a tax that religious institutions are exempted from--you a fan of collusion between church and state? Has nothing to do with Sandra Fluke's saggy vagina, everything to do with this country's basic principles.

I pay all of the aforementioned taxes too (I even work!).

If you're worried about Sandra Fluke trampling allover religious institutions and the Seperation of Chruch and State as being one of the biggest impediments to historical legal protections afforded in this country over the plethora of other legal deterioration that have been happening over the past decade or so which actually have immeasurable and irreversible impacts on people's lives, your priorities are pretty goofy.

Also, according to my sources the church itself isn't mandated to provide contraceptives, only non-profits affiliated with them but keep on crusading for what 'really counts'.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I pay all of the aforementioned taxes too (I even work!).

If you're worried about Sandra Fluke trampling allover religious institutions and the Seperation of Chruch and State as being one of the biggest impediments to historical legal protections afforded in this country over the plethora of other legal deterioration that have been happening over the past decade or so which actually have immeasurable and irreversible impacts on people's lives, your priorities are pretty goofy.

Also, according to my sources the church itself isn't mandated to provide contraceptives, only non-profits affiliated with them but keep on crusading for what 'really counts'.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

People who repeatedly post a statue face-palming, because they're drowning in certitude, doesn't make them more right. Although it does make them look a lot dumber.

 

[notbobtrustme]

It has nuthin to do with NOOKIE. I could start a religion right meow that conscientiously objects to colonoscopies.

That creates a race to the bottom. Christian Scientists, I believe, eschew all medical intervention. Should those same beliefs be hoisted upon all potential employees of a business who's owners are Christian Scientists, even if the employees aren't?

What's stopping all businesses from adopting a Christian Scientist approach and thus no longer have to pay any medical insurance whatsoever because it conflicts with their religion?

 

[sinuous sausage]

That creates a race to the bottom. Christian Scientists, I believe, eschew all medical intervention. Should those same beliefs be hoisted upon all potential employees of a business who's owners are Christian Scientists, even if the employees aren't?

What's stopping all businesses from adopting a Christian Scientist approach and thus no longer have to pay any medical insurance whatsoever because it conflicts with their religion?

Exactly!

I'm of the persuasion that employers should not have to legally provide insurance to their employees. It's the same concept. The gov't decrees that an employer must provide "health insurance," but who's to say the health insurance plan has to actually provide any services? Maybe it's a box of Band-Aids every year. So the gov't then has to issue another directive specifying what must be in this insurance package. Obamacare's assault seems novel because it mandates contraception, which is clearly prohibited by Catholic doctrine. But it could be any medical procedure, provided someone objects to it on conscientious grounds. I think hitherto these religious institutions were exempted; now, however, they have to demurely surrender their religious conscience to the bureaucratic morass of an increasingly unaffordable and ideological central state. There becomes no way to exist without running counter to one's conscientious convictions--previously one's life could be construed (with much hardship) to avoid this dilemma. I think that fact alone is ridiculous, but this "existential tax" or penalty is beyond the pale.

And, seriously, where does it end? France publicly funds abortions. I'm sure there is some progressive society somewhere that funds suicides. Even if I believe abortion or physician-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, I would shudder to think that I would be forcing someone to contribute to it against their will, especially if there were no option out. That's just naked totalitarianism.

 

[MissionalMed]

exactly!

I'm of the persuasion that employers should not have to legally provide insurance to their employees. It's the same concept. The gov't decrees that an employer must provide "health insurance," but who's to say the health insurance plan has to actually provide any services? Maybe it's a box of band-aids every year. So the gov't then has to issue another directive specifying what must be in this insurance package. Obamacare's assault seems novel because it mandates contraception, which is clearly prohibited by catholic doctrine. But it could be any medical procedure, provided someone objects to it on conscientious grounds. I think hitherto these religious institutions were exempted; now, however, they have to demurely surrender their religious conscience to the bureaucratic morass of an increasingly unaffordable and ideological central state. There becomes no way to exist without running counter to one's conscientious convictions--previously one's life could be construed (with much hardship) to avoid this dilemma. I think that fact alone is ridiculous, but this "existential tax" or penalty is beyond the pale.

And, seriously, where does it end? France publicly funds abortions. I'm sure there is some progressive society somewhere that funds suicides. Even if i believe abortion or physician-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, i would shudder to think that i would be forcing someone to contribute to it against their will, especially if there were no option out. That's just naked totalitarianism.

+1

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

And, seriously, where does it end? France publicly funds abortions. I'm sure there is some progressive society somewhere that funds suicides. Even if I believe abortion or physician-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, I would shudder to think that I would be forcing someone to contribute to it against their will, especially if there were no option out. That's just naked totalitarianism.

Do you share the same sentiment with my tax dollars going to fund drone strikes or capital punishment? I still gladly pay my taxes as the price for society, even though I shudder at some of the things it helps to pay for, yet these other people should get special consideration because they dislike some of the medical procedures?

You have a funny definition of totalitarianism.

 

[kayak30]

I went from a big republican supporter (yes, dating back to voting Bush and reading his book too) to a democrat. Much of my family is still very Republican (*insert sarcasm* and no they don't recycle or drive a hybrid like me, in fact they say they won't recycle unless the gov pays them- true story).

Anyway, I changed my all republican vote to democrats...and yes, I'm voting OBAMA! I have seen the damage my old party has done (environmental damage, social damage, and so much more). I have seen what the republican party has done in the neighboring state that is just shocking. So yay for Obama! :thumb up: I should add no party is perfect, its just the lesser of the two evils in my opinion...

 

[lofgrenb]

I went from a big republican supporter (yes, dating back to voting Bush and reading his book too) to a democrat. Much of my family is still very Republican (and no they don't recycle or drive a hybrid like me, in fact they say they won't recycle unless the gov pays them- true story).

Anyway, I changed my all republican vote to democrats...and yes, I'm voting OBAMA! I have seen the damage my old party has done (environmental damage, social damage, and so much more). I have seen what the republican party has done in the neighboring state that is just shocking. So yay for Obama! :thumb up: I should add no party is perfect, its just the lesser of the two evils in my opinion...

Party has nothing to do with personal choices... Recycle... Hybrid? Really? I may not vote this time. Both sides are corrupt.

 

[kayak30]

Party has nothing to do with personal choices... Recycle... Hybrid? Really? I may not vote this time. Both sides are corrupt.

Hey, I'm just having some fun posting here (orgo study break). The party seems to be intertwined in my personal choice...I pretty much made myself a check list and it fell on that side, good times.

Some action is better than no action in my opinion. Rock the vote peeps

 

[sinuous sausage]

side note: check out the comments section for any healthcare article put out by a progressive rag. You won't get far before you happen upon some pinko demonizing the stuffing out of doctors, basically inferring they're opportunistic leeches who need to be ratcheted down a few notches.

I hate it!

Bending a human being to your will? What could be more totalitarian? Your tax/drone strike spiel is a false equivalency, but I'll revisit the topic soon. Gotta eat some wings!

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

Interesting article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/

How many more intolerable pairs will you flounder between before deciding that the complexity of America's national political situation would benefit seriously from a more multifaceted landscape?

Thank you.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

side note: check out the comments section for any healthcare article put out by a progressive rag. You won't get far before you happen upon some pinko demonizing the stuffing out of doctors, basically inferring they're opportunistic leeches who need to be ratcheted down a few notches.

I hate it!

Bending a human being to your will? What could be more totalitarian? Your tax/drone strike spiel is a false equivalency, but I'll revisit the topic soon. Gotta eat some wings!

You: HOW COULD YOU FORCE SOMEONE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT GOES AGAINST THEIR MORAL FIBERS!? >:[

Me: Capital punishment goes very strongly against my moral fibers (especially because according to Northwest U's innocence project at least 16 innocent people have been killed), yet I am forced to pay for it through my taxes because it is the law and those taxes still fund other aspects of society. It is akin to someone else providing capital for something they don't like to ensure that other benefits, a person's health, can be maintained.

Your response: YOU CAN'T EQUATE FUNDING SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR WILL LIKE THAT! >:[

Again, you keep throwing out the world 'totalitarian' as if some cheap appeal to emotion is going to make you sound more reasoned. If you drink a bunch of 'liberty' kool-aid where demagogic jingoism trumps reasoning and counter-argument then I suppose you'd make excellent points. But that's not the perspective I, nor most other people for that matter, come from.

If forcing people to do things 'against their will' is totalitarianism you must loathe drug trafficking laws which prohibit crack dealers from selling drugs to school children or laws that require things like people attain a license before practicing medicine. By my calculations though, you prefer to use 'totalitarianism' to say it is forcing people to do things against their will when it goes against your Bolshevik-esque Republican standards. Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[sinuous sausage]

You: HOW COULD YOU FORCE SOMEONE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT GOES AGAINST THEIR MORAL FIBERS!? >:[

Me: Capital punishment goes very strongly against my moral fibers (especially because according to Northwest U's innocence project at least 16 innocent people have been killed), yet I am forced to pay for it through my taxes because it is the law and those taxes still fund other aspects of society. It is akin to someone else providing capital for something they don't like to ensure that other benefits, a person's health, can be maintained.

Your response: YOU CAN'T EQUATE FUNDING SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR WILL LIKE THAT! >:[

Again, you keep throwing out the world 'totalitarian' as if some cheap appeal to emotion is going to make you sound more reasoned. If you drink a bunch of 'liberty' kool-aid where demagogic jingoism trumps reasoning and counter-argument then I suppose you'd make excellent points. But that's not the perspective I, nor most other people for that matter, come from.

If forcing people to do things 'against their will' is totalitarianism you must loathe drug trafficking laws which prohibit crack dealers from selling drugs to school children or laws that require things like people attain a license before practicing medicine. By my calculations though, you prefer to use 'totalitarianism' to say it is forcing people to do things against their will when it goes against your Bolshevik-esque Republican standards. Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

I've been debating God and sh on these boards the last couple days and, tho I love the subject matter, I ain't currently in the mood to pistol-whip your argument into oblivion.

Here's some homework, tho:

Think real hard about the differences between paying taxes based on commercial activity and paying a penalty (not even a tax) for being alive. Then look up "false equivalency" and explain to me how the concept applies to your argument.

And Bolshevik? WTF? From a leftist?

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

You're wrong.

I've been debating God and sh on these boards the last couple days and, tho I love the subject matter, I ain't currently in the mood to pistol-whip your argument into oblivion.

Here's some homework, tho:

Think real hard about the differences between paying taxes based on commercial activity and paying a penalty (not even a tax) for being alive. Then look up "false equivalency" and explain to me how the concept applies to your argument.

And Bolshevik? WTF? From a leftist?

You can't pistol whip my argument into oblivion? That's too bad. I thought for sure that you would just post another face palm picture as if that would make you look smarter.

Impractical ideologues can come from any side of the spectrum. Your ridiculous and sophomoric arguments and ethical inconsistency (forcing people to pay money for things they morally object to is wrong, except for that) suggest you fit very nicely with this group. You may not have a lot in common 'ideologically' with Bolsheviks but when it comes to a measure certitude, moral relativism (bending people to your will is totalitarian! Except when it comes to putting criminals jail) and detachment from practicality for the sake of ideals you fit the bill quite nicely.

p.s. Chief Justice Roberts claimed O-Care requires payment of a tax.

 

[sinuous sausage]

You can't pistol whip my argument into oblivion? That's too bad. I thought for sure that you would just post another face palm picture as if that would make you look smarter.

Impractical ideologues can come from any side of the spectrum. Your ridiculous and sophomoric arguments and ethical inconsistency (forcing people to pay money for things they morally object to is wrong, except for that) suggest you fit very nicely with this group. You may not have a lot in common 'ideologically' with Bolsheviks but when it comes to a measure certitude, moral relativism (bending people to your will is totalitarian! Except when it comes to putting criminals jail) and detachment from practicality for the sake of ideals you fit the bill quite nicely.

p.s. Chief Justice Roberts claimed O-Care requires payment of a tax.

My goodness, man. Something tells me you're Johnny-on-the-spot with a logical fallacy if any living soul ever needs one.

Matter of fact, you're abetting my vision of an ideal society--I generally don't want people to subsidize things they vehemently disagree with, tho I'm sure we markedly differ on what that means for the tax rate

But past that, why Obamacare is different has to do with how this money is paid. I asked you to think about why taxes collected thru commercial action are different than payment made simply for being alive. Justice Roberts fundamentally warped the time-worn distinction between "tax" and "penalty" in his linguistic gymnastics to rule the bill constitutional, basically changing the definition ad hoc because, out of political expediency, Obamacare couldn't raise funds thru anything called a "tax." The bill would have been even more unpopular than it was at the time when it was nefariously passed (a whole other discussion).

Think of the "YOU HAVE TO BUY CAR INSURANCE" trope dished out by the bill's progressive lackeys during the debate. To drive on public roads you have to buy car insurance. Notice the "to drive" action preceding the purchase. One can choose not to drive. One cannot choose not to live. Similarly, one can choose not to work in corporate America, or buy gas, or cigarettes, etc. The Amish have a history here. That's why your tax/drone strike spiel is frivolous--you willingly partake in these actions everyday. It's also why I won't proceed to lambast your "putting criminals in jail" tosh. Do I think nominally "victim-free" crimes like drug use and prostitution should be decriminalized? Yes, I do. Do I think people should be able to participate in a wider scope of activities, both commercial and personal, without coughing up the dough to meet someone's arbitrarily "just" societal end or fund a special interest group? Indeed! I'd like to see less hindrance to people seeking reconciliation between their moral convictions and their liberty to live. Obamacare isn't just a hindrance, it's an impassability. There is logically no way to live with it unless you contribute to it.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

My goodness, man. Something tells me you're Johnny-on-the-spot with a logical fallacy if any living soul ever needs one.

Matter of fact, you're abetting my vision of an ideal society--I generally don't want people to subsidize things they vehemently disagree with, tho I'm sure we markedly differ on what that means for the tax rate

As cute as that idea is, as is the idea of everyone being completely equal in every economic way via Marx, that is fundamentally impossible in pluralistic democracy where differences in region, culture, etc make unanimous consensus upon law and expenditure of community resources impossible. If you live somewhere and you pay taxes, odds are they are going to subsidize the enforcement of laws you dislike, even on moral grounds. To say a law should be renounced *simply* on that basis alone, especially when it doesn't violate constitutional mandate, is ridiculous.

But past that, why Obamacare is different has to do with how this money is paid. I asked you to think about why taxes collected thru commercial action are different than payment made simply for being alive. Justice Roberts fundamentally warped the time-worn distinction between "tax" and "penalty" in his linguistic gymnastics to rule the bill constitutional, basically changing the definition ad hoc because, out of political expediency, Obamacare couldn't raise funds thru anything called a "tax." The bill would have been even more unpopular than it was at the time when it was nefariously passed (a whole other discussion).

Having people pay their fair share in order to ensure that everyone has access to health care is what I support. However it is paid for, so long as it is economically feasible, isn't what concerns me (the rising costs that will come with all of this do concern me however but that's another topic for another day).

It is quite remarkable to me that anyone would consider that an individuals finances for their health care should perpetually be upon their own head, financial/medical ruin be damned. We wouldn't insist a citizen pay for the court proceedings when s/he is charged with a crime/being sued. We wouldn't insist that troops purchase their own gear when they head out. If you're arm is broken in 3 different places because you got mugged and you have no insurance? Go **** yourself.

Think of the "YOU HAVE TO BUY CAR INSURANCE" trope dished out by the bill's progressive lackeys during the debate. To drive on public roads you have to buy car insurance. Notice the "to drive" action preceding the purchase. One can choose not to drive. One cannot choose not to live. Similarly, one can choose not to work in corporate America, or buy gas, or cigarettes, etc. The Amish have a history here. That's why your tax/drone strike spiel is frivolous--you willingly partake in these actions everyday. It's also why I won't proceed to lambast your "putting criminals in jail" tosh. Do I think nominally "victim-free" crimes like drug use and prostitution should be decriminalized? Yes, I do. Do I think people should be able to participate in a wider scope of activities, both commercial and personal, without coughing up the dough to meet someone's arbitrarily "just" societal end or fund a special interest group? Indeed! I'd like to see less hindrance to people seeking reconciliation between their moral convictions and their liberty to live. Obamacare isn't just a hindrance, it's an impassability. There is logically no way to live with it unless you contribute to it.

One can absolutely choose not to live (see Tx. refusal). That aside, the idea is that there are a lot of people who seem to like the idea of living in a society where they can *choose to live* without forever being in financial ruin or at the least *choose to have their leg that was broken in three places after being hit by a car repaired and not be stuck with a 20k$ bill afterwards*.

As you mention in your own post, your ok with using another person's money to pave roads so that you can drive on them, tax payer subsidized, I also assume you enjoy the equal protections of a military, again, tax payer subsidized, but you do a magical 180 when it comes to O-Care. Maybe it is because you view your subsidized roads more important than another person's access to health care or maybe you just hate people who don't have health insurance because they didn't 'earn it'. But whatever reason it is, your post just comes across as hypocritical and a marvel of mental gymnastics where you insist that people shouldn't be forced to subsidize things they disagree with while at the same time insisting that I 'willingly' subsidize drone strikes, the death penalty, the Iraq war, creationist museums (if I lived in Kansas), etc.

At least you actually offered arguments this time, complete with premises and conclusions, opposed to just posting a picture.

 

[Palam]

I'd vote Johnson, but unlike what others have expressed (especially in a race this close) a vote for the third party is essentially running the risk of having the greater of two evils winning.

Besides the fact that Romney has lead an unscrupulous life in business, he's also the biggest flip-flopper in history. I'm going to assume that if he was elected he'd abandon his new found centrism and return back to good ol' social regression, trickle down, wealth-pandering conservative.

I like the idea of universal healthcare and I'm totally for tax increases. Taxes are at record lows. Romney wants to lower taxes, spend more on the military, and keep all the current money-draining loopholes open. How in the hell is he going to fix our economy? He can't. I guess we're supposed to be impressed that he has a rich history in business, saddle-bagging struggling companies and leaving them with the debt, but not sure how that'll help us.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I'd vote Johnson, but unlike what others have expressed (especially in a race this close) a vote for the third party is essentially running the risk of having the greater of two evils winning.

I don't understand why anyone would vote for a Libertarian. What's the appeal?

If I'd vote 3rd party, I'd vote for Jill Stein. However, I'm more than satisfied voting for Barack Obama.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I don't understand why anyone would vote for a Libertarian. What's the appeal?

If I'd vote 3rd party, I'd vote for Jill Stein. However, I'm more than satisfied voting for Barack Obama.

http://on.wsj.com/NWlWbm

 

[sinuous sausage]

As cute as that idea is, as is the idea of everyone being completely equal in every economic way via Marx, that is fundamentally impossible in pluralistic democracy where differences in region, culture, etc make unanimous consensus upon law and expenditure of community resources impossible. If you live somewhere and you pay taxes, odds are they are going to subsidize the enforcement of laws you dislike, even on moral grounds. To say a law should be renounced *simply* on that basis alone, especially when it doesn't violate constitutional mandate, is ridiculous.


Having people pay their fair share in order to ensure that everyone has access to health care is what I support. However it is paid for, so long as it is economically feasible, isn't what concerns me (the rising costs that will come with all of this do concern me however but that's another topic for another day).

It is quite remarkable to me that anyone would consider that an individuals finances for their health care should perpetually be upon their own head, financial/medical ruin be damned. We wouldn't insist a citizen pay for the court proceedings when s/he is charged with a crime/being sued. We wouldn't insist that troops purchase their own gear when they head out. If you're arm is broken in 3 different places because you got mugged and you have no insurance? Go **** yourself.




One can absolutely choose not to live (see Tx. refusal). That aside, the idea is that there are a lot of people who seem to like the idea of living in a society where they can *choose to live* without forever being in financial ruin or at the least *choose to have their leg that was broken in three places after being hit by a car repaired and not be stuck with a 20k$ bill afterwards*.

As you mention in your own post, your ok with using another person's money to pave roads so that you can drive on them, tax payer subsidized, I also assume you enjoy the equal protections of a military, again, tax payer subsidized, but you do a magical 180 when it comes to O-Care. Maybe it is because you view your subsidized roads more important than another person's access to health care or maybe you just hate people who don't have health insurance because they didn't 'earn it'. But whatever reason it is, your post just comes across as hypocritical and a marvel of mental gymnastics where you insist that people shouldn't be forced to subsidize things they disagree with while at the same time insisting that I 'willingly' subsidize drone strikes, the death penalty, the Iraq war, creationist museums (if I lived in Kansas), etc.

At least you actually offered arguments this time, complete with premises and conclusions, opposed to just posting a picture.

Feminist lib Camille Paglia and I are even seeing eye-to-eye on the Obamacare boondoggle.


The way liberals lay down flat to accept this massive, totalitarian takeover of the American medical system was shocking to me. Let’s remember how Bob Dylan broke out of folk music into the public sphere with his great song, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” which was about the fascist intrusion of Big Brother government. It was about the FBI and the CIA and the police — faceless bureaucracies — intruding into our private lives. What in the world has happened to the Democratic Party? Its passivity towards this awful takeover of our lives by a know-it-all government, as shown by the way Obama has governed by constantly going around Congress — appointing czars and one new layer of bureaucracy after another. And hardly a peep of protest from liberals. It’s like the movie of H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine” — Democrats have turned into the Eloi; they’re like sheep. They hear a signal, and it’s like pre-programmed spin in their heads — they just trot like sheep in one direction. I am voting Green in protest against the systemic corruption of my party.

 

[phunkeyfantom]

Like 4 years prior, I'll be voting Obama. He hasn't had the greatest presidency but I'm willing to give him a chance to prove what he can do. Romney is absolutely terrifying as a presidential prospect. He hasn't clearly stated his stance on anything. The collective answer given to anyone asking has basically been, we'll let you know after we win the election. Um no. I'd like to know now so that I can make an informed decision. He's also out of touch. How can you say that students should not take out loans but borrow $20 grand from their parents. The last time I checked, my parents weren't independently wealthy. Additionally, after watching the VP debate, was I the only one left absolutely gobsmacked by Paul Ryan's admission that he would NOT separate his personal religious values when making important decisions regarding the government?

How is this any different from those "evil Muslim" countries that run their countries based solely on sharia law? (No offense to any Muslims as I'm one myself. Just quoting things that I've often heard from others). I can't in good faith vote for Romney. He's a complete flip-flopper and he seems as though he'll say anything to anyone just to get a vote. I don't know which Mitt Romney I'll see on television or hear make a speech. He's like a chameleon, changing with his environment simply to ensure survival. I'll be looking forward to the next debate with baited breathe as I'm hoping that President Obama really brings the heat.

 

[Abider]

I still am not convinced of the reality of what we're seeing. The polemic language being propped up resembles a WWE smack down to me.

I'm finishing up a documentary about the wider involvement of the German regular infantry in the supposed isolated atrocities of the SS-carried out genocide of Jews, and perhaps more interestingly how the invovlemt of grandpa in it is an unsettling narrative to current german society. The striking thing to me is not that the hype around this election portends a national socialist agenda but just how expert the execution of mass propaganda has become. Such that people seem like idealogy robots who's switches have been flipped. There's a fascist racial undertone to much of the opposition to Obama that gets whitewashed clean by media process. And a concerted effort by the dem's to appear leftist only on issues that don't disrupt the American imperialist project or the dominant corporate interests.

So what then is to be made of all this binary vitriol.

Who benefits from such a scheme.

How do you all believe it. I get change is incremental and pleas of patience from my lefty friends and an religious effervescence of Ayn Randisms from people on the right that I know. The reality is creepier. Involving the psychodynamics of the unmentionable dark underbelly of centuries of American racial war and the usual jingoism to drive the interests military industrial complex. Each piece of the puzzle conveniently divided amongst the party lines so as to make either choice fairly irrelevant. And at least making the number of pockets to be lined for the right outcome a more predictable process.

So, a thread pages deep into this or that guy banter...and the only thing I wonder is how do you believe in it long enough to maintain an opinion. What convinces you? That such an endeavor isn't insane. I see so many *****s foaming at the mouth by this or that switch that I all I hope for is the persistence of some bohemian island to remain in existence long enough for me live out most of my days in. Where the topic of my conversations aren't programmed and brought to me Monsanto.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

I still am not convinced of the reality of what we're seeing. The polemic language being propped up resembles a WWE smack down to me.

I'm finishing up a documentary about the wider involvement of the German regular infantry in the supposed isolated atrocities of the SS-carried out genocide of Jews, and perhaps more interestingly how the invovlemt of grandpa in it is an unsettling narrative to current german society. The striking thing to me is not that the hype around this election portends a national socialist agenda but just how expert the execution of mass propaganda has become. Such that people seem like idealogy robots who's switches have been flipped. There's a fascist racial undertone to much of the opposition to Obama that gets whitewashed clean by media process. And a concerted effort by the dem's to appear leftist only on issues that don't disrupt the American imperialist project or the dominant corporate interests.

So what then is to be made of all this binary vitriol.

Who benefits from such a scheme.

How do you all believe it. I get change is incremental and pleas of patience from my lefty friends and an religious effervescence of Ayn Randisms from people on the right that I know. The reality is creepier. Involving the psychodynamics of the unmentionable dark underbelly of centuries of American racial war and the usual jingoism to drive the interests military industrial complex. Each piece of the puzzle conveniently divided amongst the party lines so as to make either choice fairly irrelevant. And at least making the number of pockets to be lined for the right outcome a more predictable process.

So, a thread pages deep into this or that guy banter...and the only thing I wonder is how do you believe in it long enough to maintain an opinion. What convinces you? That such an endeavor isn't insane. I see so many *****s foaming at the mouth by this or that switch that I all I hope for is the persistence of some bohemian island to remain in existence long enough for me live out most of my days in. Where the topic of my conversations aren't programmed and brought to me Monsanto.

Did you watch Century of the Self? If not I would recommend it.

I think it's thesis can be boiled down to powerful interests continually blowing smoke up people's asses about how 'amazing' they are, how 'smart' they are, how 'amazing' their country and heritage is and how much they 'deserve'. That said, when you have a population with an inflated sense of self-worth it isn't to hard to make the leap to believing that complex economic and foreign issues can be boiled down to simplistic ideological banter and jingoism. The funny thing is that human nature, see self-serving bias, makes believing that bull**** 'thermodynamically favorable' so to speak.

 

[Abider]

Did you watch Century of the Self? If not I would recommend it.

I think it's thesis can be boiled down to powerful interests continually blowing smoke up people's asses about how 'amazing' they are, how 'smart' they are, how 'amazing' their country and heritage is and how much they 'deserve'. That said, when you have a population with an inflated sense of self-worth it isn't to hard to make the leap to believing that complex economic and foreign issues can be boiled down to simplistic ideological banter and jingoism. The funny thing is that human nature, see self-serving bias, makes believing that bull**** 'thermodynamically favorable' so to speak.

I like your use of thermodynamics and cultural psychology. That's a powerful conception.

I had seen that...I think. Either way it's just the right length for a Sunday bubble bath. So watching it on YouTube....thanks.

Your screen name reminds me of my favorite Walter Mosley detective character--Leonid McGill.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

Your screen name reminds me of my favorite Walter Mosley detective character--Leonid McGill.

Interesting, I'll look him up.

I actually picked my name because Dr. Rogozov was just a bad ass. He was the only surgeon on an Antartic expedition and his appendix ruptured. So he made history and was the first surgeon to perform an appendectomy on himself (depicted in my avatar).

 

[Abider]

Interesting, I'll look him up.

I actually picked my name because Dr. Rogozov was just a bad ass. He was the only surgeon on an Antartic expedition and his appendix ruptured. So he made history and was the first surgeon to perform an appendectomy on himself (depicted in my avatar).

That's awesome. Self-surgery. D@mn!

 

[RomanTaylor]

That's awesome. Self-surgery. D@mn!

Ppppfffff, it's been done

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

Ppppfffff, it's been done

Oh, you pulled out your own appendix and think you're hot ****? Back in my day, when I had appendicitis and had to operate on myself, I had to walk uphill in the snow to the operating table which was made of hey and the only anesthetic we had were leeches and the bible.

 

[RomanTaylor]

Oh, you pulled out your own appendix and think you're hot ****? Back in my day, when I had appendicitis and had to operate on myself, I had to walk uphill in the snow to the operating table which was made of hey and the only anesthetic we had were leeches and the bible.

Literally lawled at that, lol!

 

[SilverCat]

I watched the last two presidential debates, and I wasn't really impressed by either Romney or Obama.

Admittedly, I know little about Romney, and I'm not a big fan of Obama (our national debt is outrageous, our jobless rate is sky high, our economy is still not doing well, and Gitmo is still open). I was amazed by how little Romney actually said- he either agreed with what Obama was saying, or danced around questions with generic statements such as "I want to help small businesses," or my favorite, "we should bring peace to the world." A beauty pageant contestant could have answered as much.

 

[Gfliptastic]

So voting for Gary Johnson.

I can't believe that future physicians can support either candidate. You do know that this administration cut Medicare

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/09/24/gvl10924.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Obama AND the current (Republican) legislature let that happen.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He won't win, but I'd rather stab myself in both my eyes and straddle a red hot iron than vote for Obama or Romney.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

So voting for Gary Johnson....


I can't believe that future physicians can support either candidate. You do know that this administration cut Medicare.

Interesting.

Berate others for voting for candidates you find distasteful, citing complacency or proactivity in decreasing funding for Medicare, while espousing support for a candidate from a party that insists the very existence and funding of Medicare is state sponsored theft and thuggery.

Do explain.

 

[Gfliptastic]

Block granting funds per state and making cuts by decreasing the massive bureaucracy, make sense to me.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

Block granting funds per state and making cuts by decreasing the massive bureaucracy, make sense to me.

Yes... simply 'streamlining' the massive bureaucracy for a government program that consumes, at least, 10% of the nation's federal budget and saying 'block grant!' will save it while eschewing raising revenue through taxation because that's, well, evil.

You really think every politician this side of Reagen hasn't all ready nickeled and dimed Medicare for all they can get out of it without losing votes?