Politics, Society etc.

Nailec · Jun 02, 2009, 04:06 PM

both topics should be discussed more here.

no racism, sexism, antisemitism please.

thanks

Nailec · Jun 02, 2009, 04:11 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/

its not certain, that the murdere was some fundie, but its very supposable.

this is some nice food for the terrorist-discourse and a nice example of hypocrisy.

someone who is absolutely pro life kills someone who is against...

Variable · Jun 03, 2009, 02:08 AM

Who gives a shit about abortion? I'm so sick of the fucking topic. The dude killed another dude because he thought he was defending innocent children as directed by god. But no one will touch the " god makes people bat shit crazy " topic. No one will touch the " it is not ok to force your religious of moral beliefs onto others who do not agree topic " Instead we all just rally around a politician who wants to force the same beliefs as we do on people and call it good. Fuck that.

In more interesting news, what the Governator did to the California state primary process. Now that is news. It is very revolutionary and is a start to fixing our fucked up electoral process.

tarkil · Jun 03, 2009, 05:00 AM

What did he do ?

I'm sure I could google that, but just to have a quick overview first....

Variable · Jun 03, 2009, 01:20 PM

long story short. Instead of having politicians from the same party run against each other in the primaries he made it so that anyone who wants to run , runs against everyone else and those with the two highest popular votes run in the election. Even if they are both democrats or both republicans or independents or whatever. Also you don't have to be part of a political party to vote for a candidate in the primaries. If I'm not a Democrat, but I want to vote for a Democrat to run for Governor of Cali, its all good.

This was intended to give a voice to independents again. America is most defiantly not a republic anymore because the people do not choose their elected officials anymore. A small few ( super delegates or whatever they are called in different parties ) pick who wins primaries regardless of what the popular vote of their party says ( Hillary Clinton had more of the popular vote than Barrack Obama did in the last democratic primary ) Then they put two guys that they choose against each other and tell the public that they must vote for one of the two or else they are "wasting their vote". Well, this shuts them up. And allows independents to help choose higher quality politicians in the primary process to vote for instead of just the retards that are still willing to follow either party. At least for California state primaries anyways. I think this will eventually reach the US presidential elections. But seeing as how most Americans are completely apathetic towards their government and politics, it might take a while.

Nailec · Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

devlin · Jun 04, 2009, 07:54 PM

Quote from: Variable on Jun 03, 2009, 01:20 PM
long story short. Instead of having politicians from the same party run against each other in the primaries he made it so that anyone who wants to run , runs against everyone else and those with the two highest popular votes run in the election. Even if they are both democrats or both republicans or independents or whatever. Also you don't have to be part of a political party to vote for a candidate in the primaries. If I'm not a Democrat, but I want to vote for a Democrat to run for Governor of Cali, its all good.

This was intended to give a voice to independents again. America is most defiantly not a republic anymore because the people do not choose their elected officials anymore. A small few ( super delegates or whatever they are called in different parties ) pick who wins primaries regardless of what the popular vote of their party says ( Hillary Clinton had more of the popular vote than Barrack Obama did in the last democratic primary ) Then they put two guys that they choose against each other and tell the public that they must vote for one of the two or else they are "wasting their vote". Well, this shuts them up. And allows independents to help choose higher quality politicians in the primary process to vote for instead of just the retards that are still willing to follow either party. At least for California state primaries anyways. I think this will eventually reach the US presidential elections. But seeing as how most Americans are completely apathetic towards their government and politics, it might take a while.

i hadn't heard of this. i agree that this is a good idea. back when the presidential elections were going on you and i went back and forth over the "wasting your vote" topic. and i do think that with the current system voting outside the main two is a waste, but also agree that this system is a better way for people to vote for who they think are the best canidate and have an actual chance of that person winning.

Variable · Jun 05, 2009, 12:07 AM

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

lol. What a fucking brown nosing pussy. If Bush did something like that everyone would be mocking his intelligence left and right. But Obama is soooo intelligent that there is no way anyone will question what he says. Its like he is cowering down to the world to try and make friends on a playground. There is a very big difference between being a pussy, and being humble. Obama is a pussy. And actually in no way at all do I buy that he is humble.

Variable · Jun 05, 2009, 12:14 AM

Quote from: devlin on Jun 04, 2009, 07:54 PM
Quote from: Variable on Jun 03, 2009, 01:20 PM
long story short. Instead of having politicians from the same party run against each other in the primaries he made it so that anyone who wants to run , runs against everyone else and those with the two highest popular votes run in the election. Even if they are both democrats or both republicans or independents or whatever. Also you don't have to be part of a political party to vote for a candidate in the primaries. If I'm not a Democrat, but I want to vote for a Democrat to run for Governor of Cali, its all good.

This was intended to give a voice to independents again. America is most defiantly not a republic anymore because the people do not choose their elected officials anymore. A small few ( super delegates or whatever they are called in different parties ) pick who wins primaries regardless of what the popular vote of their party says ( Hillary Clinton had more of the popular vote than Barrack Obama did in the last democratic primary ) Then they put two guys that they choose against each other and tell the public that they must vote for one of the two or else they are "wasting their vote". Well, this shuts them up. And allows independents to help choose higher quality politicians in the primary process to vote for instead of just the retards that are still willing to follow either party. At least for California state primaries anyways. I think this will eventually reach the US presidential elections. But seeing as how most Americans are completely apathetic towards their government and politics, it might take a while.

i hadn't heard of this. i agree that this is a good idea. back when the presidential elections were going on you and i went back and forth over the "wasting your vote" topic. and i do think that with the current system voting outside the main two is a waste, but also agree that this system is a better way for people to vote for who they think are the best canidate and have an actual chance of that person winning.

My whole point that you never seem to have understood was that there is no longer two parties. No such thing as the Democrats and Republicans anymore. No such thing as the right and the left. They are all one big party. They have all merged into one. And the whole electoral process is just one big charade to distract you from the real issues, and distract you from realizing that they are all saying the exact same shit. If you didn't like McCain, you should not have like Obama. Because their message was 100% exact in fundamentals, they just worded it differently. So if you don't like one, you shouldn't like the other. So go find someone you do like, and vote for them. Quit supporting an unbelievably corrupt system that relies on voters ignorance and vote for someone real. Who gives a shit what the odds are of them winning? Either way the same exact person is going to get elected. And if you still don't think Obama and McCain were not the same politically, you need to open your fucking eyes and do some more research. We are NOT pulling out of Iraq any time soon, taxes ROSE on ALL Americans, We ARE preparing to invade yet another country, We are INCREASING troops in Afghanistan, the economy is STILL in shambles, we are STILL making stupid spending bills with no results, and the office of the president is still lying to you every chance they get. And believe me, non of that will change with Obama being in office for more time. You got duped

devlin · Jun 05, 2009, 11:11 AM

i fully understood what you were saying. but they are still presented and refered to as "the republican" and "democratic" parties. and i didn't get duped. i didn't vote. because i didn't feel strongly enough about either of the two canidates that had a chance of winning.

Variable · Jun 05, 2009, 01:11 PM

touche

But yeah. I think that we should be taking steps to return America to a republic. The people really don't have a voice at all anymore. I think what they did in cali is a great place to start.

nonesuch · Jun 06, 2009, 06:45 PM

the enslavement is nearly complete, these glimmers of hope are only plastic fruit in bowls of burning styrofoam. Towards an end of choice we are guided and thank you is the only utterance clear enough to be heard and understood.

SAVE US! we cry as we tear our last shirts and cake our faces with ash

(hands lifted, palms skyward)

Jerry_Curls · Jun 06, 2009, 09:47 PM

Quote from: Variable on Jun 05, 2009, 12:07 AM
Quote from: Nailec on Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

lol. What a fucking brown nosing pussy. If Bush did something like that everyone would be mocking his intelligence left and right. But Obama is soooo intelligent that there is no way anyone will question what he says. Its like he is cowering down to the world to try and make friends on a playground. There is a very big difference between being a pussy, and being humble. Obama is a pussy. And actually in no way at all do I buy that he is humble.

There is this article that has a quote form Obama saying that being the president is more difficult than he thought and sometimes he feels like quitting. Please do.

nonesuch · Jun 07, 2009, 12:45 AM

obama is a dark priest of pre isis worship

god monsterism

Variable · Jun 10, 2009, 06:49 AM

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Jun 06, 2009, 09:47 PM
Quote from: Variable on Jun 05, 2009, 12:07 AM
Quote from: Nailec on Jun 04, 2009, 05:44 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3665171/a-statement-or-an-aspiration.thtml

lol. What a fucking brown nosing pussy. If Bush did something like that everyone would be mocking his intelligence left and right. But Obama is soooo intelligent that there is no way anyone will question what he says. Its like he is cowering down to the world to try and make friends on a playground. There is a very big difference between being a pussy, and being humble. Obama is a pussy. And actually in no way at all do I buy that he is humble.

There is this article that has a quote form Obama saying that being the president is more difficult than he thought and sometimes he feels like quitting. Please do.

can you post a link to this?

Jerry_Curls · Jun 27, 2009, 08:55 AM

What do you guys think of cap-n-trade passing the house?

I for one am very upset. More taxes that will go straight to goldman-sachs. They will just continue draining us and draining us. Isn't it lovely how Michael Jackson's death has overshadowed this important piece of news?

Variable · Jun 27, 2009, 09:20 AM

I think the whole fucking thing is ridiculous. This is the obvious result of 1. the government being run like a private company and 2. Super environmentalist trying to control peoples lives in order to get what they want.

I'm never for raising taxes on the American public. Say what you will, but taxing the energy companies WILL raise energy cost. I am 100% certain of this ( didn't Obama swear up and down not to raise taxes on the middle and lower class? ).

This is pretty much a way to let the government profit from pollution. They are trying to make the guise that its about the environment. But obviously if they are making money off of something, they wont try to truly stop it. Not to mention that if all a company has to do is buy more ......pollution points?.....from other companies in order to make a product, they will, and they will charge it to YOU. Then on the flip side, their sister company will not pollute as much, but will make a "green" product ( total marketing scam btw ) and sell it at a completely inflated price. But people will pay for it because they got scammed into believing it actually makes a difference ( it clearly does not, idiots ) so in the end EVERYONE GETS MORE MONEY.....well everyone in the top 1% anyways. The rest of us actually end up with less. BUT OBAMA, HILLARY ( as if its the job of the sec of state to give a fuck about this) and McCAIN ALL SUPPORTED THE BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! exactly, weird how that works isnt it. That the most popular leaders in the country all supported something that got them more money, them less, and they got applause for it.......people are insanely stupid.

And the true reason that environmentalist support this bill isnt because they think it will subsidize pollution. Its because they know that if the gas and electric bill is higher, you will use it less. So its up to them to decide how comfortable you get to be in your home. This should outrage people. Its not progressive whatsoever

I am all for doing better for the environment. A lot better actually. But lets actually do something real. I'm not going to get into all the ways this could happen. But just FYI, Im for REAL action and change when it comes to being environmentally friendly. Not this miniscule, made for profit bull shit that everyone is sold on.

Nailec · Jun 27, 2009, 01:24 PM

hmhm we have been through this for several years now and i can only agree that you guys have to calculate with higher costs for energy.

but hat is the alternative? variable, what are your suggestions in order to "save the planet"? as long as the market is free, energy companies will seek to produce energy for the lowests costs (nuclear, carbon) making it impossible to stop global warming at all. some kind of regulation was necessary. the trading of those "pollution points" wont work on the long run, as they are pretty expensive.
actually thecompanies are now forced to establish renewable energy into their offering because in the long run, those energy forms will get cheaper (in germany "green" energy is actually almost the same price as regular energy)

what you can do now is to compare the offerings of your energy companies (i hope you are able to choose which company you get your energy from) and change your provider. if you have enough money: change to a provider with green energy.
this is the only thing you can do to keep the prices low. sometimes in the future, they will get lower by theirselves. actually this might not take as long as it did in germany, because the wind energy has developed pretty good in the last years, they are way more effective thant some years ago.

oh and: the government should actually use the money, they get from those "taxes" in order to push those green energy projects. i dont think the politics are able to keep the money for theirselves

and the bosses of the company probablly dont get more money at all, as the competition now gets harder for them. (they have to compete with green energy companies now).

Necrocetaceanbeastiality · Jun 27, 2009, 09:36 PM

Quote from: Jerry_Curls on Jun 27, 2009, 08:55 AM
What do you guys think of cap-n-trade passing the house?

I for one am very upset. More taxes that will go straight to goldman-sachs. They will just continue draining us and draining us. Isn't it lovely how Michael Jackson's death has overshadowed this important piece of news?

Wow, what a coincedence.

Variable · Jun 27, 2009, 10:53 PM

Quote from: Nailec on Jun 27, 2009, 01:24 PM
hmhm we have been through this for several years now and i can only agree that you guys have to calculate with higher costs for energy.

but hat is the alternative? variable, what are your suggestions in order to "save the planet"? as long as the market is free, energy companies will seek to produce energy for the lowests costs (nuclear, carbon) making it impossible to stop global warming at all. some kind of regulation was necessary. the trading of those "pollution points" wont work on the long run, as they are pretty expensive.
actually thecompanies are now forced to establish renewable energy into their offering because in the long run, those energy forms will get cheaper (in germany "green" energy is actually almost the same price as regular energy)

what you can do now is to compare the offerings of your energy companies (i hope you are able to choose which company you get your energy from) and change your provider. if you have enough money: change to a provider with green energy.
this is the only thing you can do to keep the prices low. sometimes in the future, they will get lower by theirselves. actually this might not take as long as it did in germany, because the wind energy has developed pretty good in the last years, they are way more effective thant some years ago.

oh and: the government should actually use the money, they get from those "taxes" in order to push those green energy projects. i dont think the politics are able to keep the money for theirselves

and the bosses of the company probablly dont get more money at all, as the competition now gets harder for them. (they have to compete with green energy companies now).

Well first of all, we in no way have a free market in the US or the EU. And to my knowledge, I can't choose who I get energy from where I live, nor was I able to in any other place I have lived. This will remain the same as long as the government chooses to regulate the market instead of allowing a free market ( they are profiting from their regulation, why would they give it up and allow the best product for the consumer?)

And yes, they get to "keep" they money. Do you have any idea how much debt the US Government has? Its because every time they rake in a dollar, they spend 1,000. Money doesn't get set aside for anything ( not even social security ) It all goes into one big pot that gets used to pay off the interest of our debt and then they spend more on whatever pet project they need to in order to get re-elected ( see pork barrel spending ) They will not set aside this money to help the environment, trust me.

And you hit the nail on the head when you said that it would cost too much to keep polluting. Thats the whole point. It will cost too much, so they will have to raise their prices on the public.

My solution? Well how to save the environment is a completely different conversation. But I can say this much, Government intervention will most likely not work at all. I find it interesting that anyone would jump on board with the idea that you can tax yourself out of global warming. They must be laughing pretty hard in Washington at all the people they tricked into believing this. A true free market buddy. Make a true even playing field for these "green" companies that want to come up. Make real competition. But there is way too much special interest between the politicians and energy companies to let this happen. Especially since the Government now owns auto companies that they need to succeed without any more competition than they already have.