Questions for Non-American Atheists

[goddamnit]

What country are you from? Now, pretend you live in the United States. Would you vote? If no, why not? If yes, who would you vote for and why?

[Tobie]

I'm from the UK, and I'd vote for Obama if I could. For one thing, he's a lot more charismatic than Mit Romney.

[aine60]

I'm Irish, I'd vote for Obama, the alternative is too scary to contemplate.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What country are you from? Now, pretend you live in the United States. Would you vote? If no, why not? If yes, who would you vote for and why?

Would I vote? No.

Why not? My perception is that the US political system is the most corrupt in the developed world.

Australia is only marginally better,possibly because we are a little less politically naive than Americans seem to be.

Here in Australia registering at age 18 and voting (turning up to have your name crossed off ) is mandatory; a $200 fine if you do not.

I stopped voting FOR any politician or party in 1975. These days I simply vote against the biggest shower(s) of venal incompetents fighting for the opportunity to fuck up my country.


000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

and I'd vote for Obama if I could. For one thing, he's a lot more charismatic than Mit Romney.

Charismatic? Yes. Also probably the most infective US president since Jimmy Carter. Forget personality, I'll settle for a competent slightly left of centre reformer--and pigs might fly.


George Carlin on the American dream:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Minimalist]

I'll settle for a competent slightly left of centre reformer--and pigs might fly.

But there isn't one running.

This




is the alternative.

[Gambit]

Irish. Ron Paul. His "policies" seem the most transparent. Is he still in the running? I've lost interest.

[Tiberius]

What country are you from? Now, pretend you live in the United States. Would you vote? If no, why not? If yes, who would you vote for and why?

I'm from the UK. I would write-in Ron Paul for the current election. Probably Rand Paul in the next one.

Why? When they talk, they talk sense. They are politicians who actually seem to give a crap about the constitution, rather than ignore it.

[Minimalist]

Kindly blow Rand Paul out your ass. We have enough trouble with out this douchebag....or his fucking father....making things worse than they already are.

crazy Rand Paul Fetal Personhood stalls flood insurance 27-Jun-12 12:33 pm
Rand Paul Fetal Personhood Amendment Stalls Flood Insurance Bill


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.

The bill, which would financially boost the National Flood Insurance Program on the cusp of hurricane season, had been expected to pass easily in the Senate. But since Paul on Monday offered an unrelated "fetal personhood" amendment, which would give legal protections to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to halt progress on the legislation.

"I'm told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment -- listen to this one -- wants to offer an amendment on when life begins," Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance. I can be condemned by outside sources; my friends can say, 'Let them have a vote on it.' There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We'll either do flood insurance with the amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won't do it. We'll have an extension."

Reid has allowed Republicans to attach unrelated amendments to other important bills in the past few months. Most notably, he let the Senate vote on a contraception-related amendment, proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), to a transportation bill. But Reid called Paul's measure "ridiculous" and "outlandish," and asked Republicans to deal with him on "their side of the aisle."

[goddamnit]

What country are you from? Now, pretend you live in the United States. Would you vote? If no, why not? If yes, who would you vote for and why?

I'm from the UK. I would write-in Ron Paul for the current election. Probably Rand Paul in the next one.

Why? When they talk, they talk sense. They are politicians who actually seem to give a crap about the constitution, rather than ignore it.

I love Ron Paul (especially on civil liberties), but I am really skeptical he talks sense by advocating Austrian economists. I am reminded of Henry Hazlitt, who argued minimum wage is a bad idea in Economics in One Lesson without even considering turnover rates.


Addendum:
Then there is the question of incorporation, which means your freedom of speech and basic rights could vanish if individual states want to do away with it. Ron Paul does not believe in incorporation.

---

Kindly blow Rand Paul out your ass. We have enough trouble with out this douchebag....or his fucking father....making things worse than they already are.

crazy Rand Paul Fetal Personhood stalls flood insurance 27-Jun-12 12:33 pm
Rand Paul Fetal Personhood Amendment Stalls Flood Insurance Bill


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.

The bill, which would financially boost the National Flood Insurance Program on the cusp of hurricane season, had been expected to pass easily in the Senate. But since Paul on Monday offered an unrelated "fetal personhood" amendment, which would give legal protections to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to halt progress on the legislation.

"I'm told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment -- listen to this one -- wants to offer an amendment on when life begins," Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance. I can be condemned by outside sources; my friends can say, 'Let them have a vote on it.' There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We'll either do flood insurance with the amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won't do it. We'll have an extension."

Reid has allowed Republicans to attach unrelated amendments to other important bills in the past few months. Most notably, he let the Senate vote on a contraception-related amendment, proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), to a transportation bill. But Reid called Paul's measure "ridiculous" and "outlandish," and asked Republicans to deal with him on "their side of the aisle."

Harry Reid is an asshole. He wants to ban prostitution in his state, Nevada. Rand Paul just proposed legislation to require a warrant for drones. As a liberal, I think Rand Paul and Rand Paul are blessings. I wouldn't want the whole Congress or Senate filled with them, but we are lucky those dissenting voices are in there.

[Cato]

Kindly blow Rand Paul out your ass. We have enough trouble with out this douchebag....or his fucking father....making things worse than they already are.

crazy Rand Paul Fetal Personhood stalls flood insurance 27-Jun-12 12:33 pm
Rand Paul Fetal Personhood Amendment Stalls Flood Insurance Bill


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.

The bill, which would financially boost the National Flood Insurance Program on the cusp of hurricane season, had been expected to pass easily in the Senate. But since Paul on Monday offered an unrelated "fetal personhood" amendment, which would give legal protections to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to halt progress on the legislation.

"I'm told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment -- listen to this one -- wants to offer an amendment on when life begins," Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance. I can be condemned by outside sources; my friends can say, 'Let them have a vote on it.' There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We'll either do flood insurance with the amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won't do it. We'll have an extension."

Reid has allowed Republicans to attach unrelated amendments to other important bills in the past few months. Most notably, he let the Senate vote on a contraception-related amendment, proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), to a transportation bill. But Reid called Paul's measure "ridiculous" and "outlandish," and asked Republicans to deal with him on "their side of the aisle."

In my short time here at AF you seem to be the go to person when it comes to history; this must be reserved for ancient history. You are fuck all nuts ingnorant when it comes to politics.

Are you familiar at all what 'filling the tree' means? Probably not. When you look it up, take notice of the frequency of use bit. The fact that the amendment was added as a 'filling the tree' measure means that the bill was not 'noncontroversial'.

The 'filling the tree' tactic has been used time and time again to stop serious discussion of legislation by both parties. It's bound up in the Senate rules and circumvents the filibuster. I find the practice deplorable no matter who uses it. In fact, we should demand that a constitutional amendment be enacted that requires all amendments to a proposed bill be germain to the topic of the bill. This will never happen of course because Democrats and Republicans consider 'filling the tree' a normal way of buying votes.