Questions for American Atheists

[Mister Agenda]

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

I know there's a certain logic that says vote for Mitt Romney, because no one else can possibly carry the state of SC. But you know what? I like Gary Johnson for president and I don't like Mitt Romney, so I'm going to vote for the guy I like even though he can't win. If I liked Barack Obama for president, I would vote for him, even though he can't possibly carry SC. That's how I roll.

I consider not voting to be a vote for the staus quo. The only thing the major parties will recognize as a threat is if other parties get votes away from them, they're only worried about people staying home if they think they're people who would have voted for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does it now? Democrats just don't do war, I'm sure.... Our "first line of diplomacy" with Iraq occurred decades ago, not any point in Bush Jr's admin, so I'm not sure why that's relevant at all (and I think you might want to take a look at just how much collusion there was between parties in that first line of diplomacy bit that you feel is so important).

The god part is worrying, but to be fair, that is't exactly a market dominated by republicans until recently. Every politician has to show up at a church and kiss a baby, it's part of the script. Politicians pander, this doesn't surprise me in the least. If blathering on about god this or god that is going to get them the nomination, well hell, why wouldn't they? Besides, here you are talking about the lesser of two evils right? Lets say a politician whose position on any given issue aligns with your own decides that he stands a better chance to get into office and do some good if he plays born again....shouldn't he do that? It's either that or let the asshat whom you hate (who doesn't, btw, in this scenario, play born again) run away with the election.

Just how much do you think my life (or that of my children) has been altered by our changing political scene? My family is now (and has always been) land rich and money poor. Short of the abolition of private property neither party's ideology stands to change much in my way of life. The issues that matter to me (ergo my children..at least for now, until they are old enough to decide differently) don't even register as a blip on any candidates radar, and my main problem with our political scene is one that is impossible to argue against. So, you might like to imagine that I'm fucking up my children's future by refusing to collude with these motherfuckers but to me...collusion and complacency are all that is required to truly fuck it up.

You seem to think that a democratic candidate would do a better job of this or that but I fail to see why. What you have been promised and what has been delivered are entirely different things, are they not? Do your candidates live up to their own campaigns? Is it so difficult to understand why I would refuse to make a choice between a candidate I disagree with in almost every particular and a candidate which has been disappointing in almost every particular? Again, a choice between two brands of shit isn't a choice at all.

(and to Agenda re the whole -other parties getting votes away from them- has it ever occurred to you that the people who actually run these parties don't really give a shit? Not about you or the way you vote or who gets into office, because the people who run our system of government aren't up for fucking election, only their PR dept is.)

To make a long story short..political candidates, to me, seem alot like stock cars. They're all one model of chevy, or ford, or toyota, and the only major difference between any of them are the labels painted on the fucking body. Bonus, some stickers are on more than one stock car in any given race (way to hedge your bets fellas..bravo).

[Whateverist]

This whole conversation smacks of so many I had before W was elected the first time. In addition to the crazy religious people we have those with their heads so far up their ass that they can't think straight. We probably have the government we deserve.

Politics doesn't figure much into my day to day either. I just think we owe it to the rest of the world to tether our dog. If neo-con repubs decide to go adventuring again I don't want to have contributed to giving them the opportunity. Sure there is a big overlap in sponsorship between the two parties and they have lots in common. But I see enough difference to think it reckless not to squelch the crazier one.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Absolutely. What logic leads you to think otherwise?

It's called 'realpolitik' look it up.

I guess we may need to agree to differ. You continue thinking as you do.I'll continue being right.

[5thHorseman]

Obama. He hasn't done much, but maybe he'll do something next term. Better someone who doesn't do much than a repeat of Bush Jr.

He hasn't done much because the Republicans set out to stop everything he wanted to do, and they have said as much too.

The Democrats, Harry Reid inparticular made a major fuck up when they didn't, at the start of the term, make it so the majority only had to be 51/49 in the Senate. In the Democrats deluded wisdom(which continues 4yrs later), they honestly though the corporation and middle-class hating Republicans would come across to the centre of the political spectrum. WRONG. Even if the had 59 senators they cannot pass stuff the Republicans do not wish to pass.

[Autumnlicious]

That's fine, you pick em.

Gave up after two hours on and off. I know there is stupid in the transcripts that CSPAN records, but everytime I try to get something from them, my eyes glaze over.

Therefore, I concede the point to you.

[Cato]

Obama. He hasn't done much, but maybe he'll do something next term. Better someone who doesn't do much than a repeat of Bush Jr.

He hasn't done much because the Republicans set out to stop everything he wanted to do, and they have said as much too.

The Democrats, Harry Reid inparticular made a major fuck up when they didn't, at the start of the term, make it so the majority only had to be 51/49 in the Senate. In the Democrats deluded wisdom(which continues 4yrs later), they honestly though the corporation and middle-class hating Republicans would come across to the centre of the political spectrum. WRONG. Even if the had 59 senators they cannot pass stuff the Republicans do not wish to pass.

Your refer to the senate rules regarding bringing a bill to cluture and what is known as the 60 vote super-majority. You also suggest that Harry Reid could have changed this, he couldn't have; nor would he. The methods required to change senate rules are subjected to the same filibuster as normal legislative business. Besides, neither side wants a change to this rule. I'll go so far as to claim that we have been spared ridiculous legislation because of this rule.

[Minimalist]

Obama. He hasn't done much, but maybe he'll do something next term. Better someone who doesn't do much than a repeat of Bush Jr.

Hmm...Obama withdrew from Iraq and has a withdrawal plan for Afghanistan. Do you seriously think either of those things would have happened if McSame won?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-Wa.../id/421015

Sen. John McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said President Barack Obama deserves "scorn and disdain" for his decision to order a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end.

http://news.rediff.com/interview/2010/ju...t-plan.htm

he July 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is "unrealistic" and "harmful," Republican Senator John McCain [ Images ] said on Tuesday at General David Petraeus' confirmation hearing which was marked by bickering over the Afghan war policy. The Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed Petraeus' nomination by a voice vote. His nomination now goes to the full Senate for confirmation.

Let's see how many more wars this senile old fuck wanted to start.

http://thepage.time.com/2012/03/05/mccain-bomb-syria/

On the Senate floor Monday, Arizonan calls for the U.S. to launch airstrikes against Assad’s forces.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mc...nlJf1L26JO

McCain: Bomb Libya, enforce no-fly zone

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain..._0419.html

Speaking at Murrells Inlet VFW Hall in South Carolina, McCain was asked when he thought the US Military might "send an air mail message to Tehran."

"McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song," the Georgetown Times reports.

"'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,' he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann," the paper notes.

McCain then added, "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities.

It's one thing to whine about Obama being too slow to disengage but stop to think what the alternative was.

McCain is ready to bomb the shit out of any country without a credible air defense system......probably because when he tried to do that to a country with an air defense system they shot his ass out of the sky and stuck him in a box for years.

[Cato]

Obama. He hasn't done much, but maybe he'll do something next term. Better someone who doesn't do much than a repeat of Bush Jr.

Hmm...Obama withdrew from Iraq and has a withdrawal plan for Afghanistan. Do you seriously think either of those things would have happened if McSame won?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-Wa.../id/421015

Sen. John McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said President Barack Obama deserves "scorn and disdain" for his decision to order a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end.

http://news.rediff.com/interview/2010/ju...t-plan.htm

he July 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is "unrealistic" and "harmful," Republican Senator John McCain [ Images ] said on Tuesday at General David Petraeus' confirmation hearing which was marked by bickering over the Afghan war policy. The Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed Petraeus' nomination by a voice vote. His nomination now goes to the full Senate for confirmation.

Let's see how many more wars this senile old fuck wanted to start.

http://thepage.time.com/2012/03/05/mccain-bomb-syria/

On the Senate floor Monday, Arizonan calls for the U.S. to launch airstrikes against Assad’s forces.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mc...nlJf1L26JO

McCain: Bomb Libya, enforce no-fly zone

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain..._0419.html

Speaking at Murrells Inlet VFW Hall in South Carolina, McCain was asked when he thought the US Military might "send an air mail message to Tehran."

"McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song," the Georgetown Times reports.

"'Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,' he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann," the paper notes.

McCain then added, "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities.

It's one thing to whine about Obama being too slow to disengage but stop to think what the alternative was.

McCain is ready to bomb the shit out of any country without a credible air defense system......probably because when he tried to do that to a country with an air defense system they shot his ass out of the sky and stuck him in a box for years.

I thought the 'it's all Bush's fault' mentality was weak, yet you take it to an entire different level by invoking McCain. You love history, but apparently don't keep up with current events. Obama has been the President for over three years, McCain lost the election. Excusing Obama's inaction regarding ending the stupid military deployments in Iraq and Afgahanistan on what McCain 'would' have done is simply mindless pandering for the sake of political affiliation.

My brother is an Apache pilot. He has done three tours in Iraq and one in Korea; a year each. He now must deploy at the end of the year to Afghanistan for yet another year away from home, and for what? Your political messiah doesn't give a shit. The last boots off the ground in Afghanistan is scheduled for 2014; over five years after Obama took office. Bush's fault? Be damned. Once the decision was made it took far less time to extract all Americans from Vietnam. Do you suggest that we are somehow less capable today?

Widen your gaze padawan. Reality has the sinsiter ability to create events that don't fit nicely with your demarcations.

[jackman]

my guess is that forfeiting a campaign promise in light of learning more about the effects of moving too swiftly or unilaterally, is a show of intelligence. people who don't change, show me that they're not open to new information or feel like they already know it all. president is not dictator, he tries to rule by committee which isn't doing him any favors, because repubs block so much of his work. and they do it with a very upfront and outspoken agenda, starting with grover nordquist's pledge. how much sense does it make to sign a pledge from some guy upon entering elected office? you corner yourself from negotiations right off the bat.

the reason it seems to me, that min invoked mccain is that the complaint is how slow obama is traversing his list of promises, versus what would've gotten done if he didn't win. i agree with what he said and i have no way of knowing if it would've been right, but this is a discussion forum and for coversation's sake, based on just the links he posted, it makes sense. yes, you can't keep saying it's all bush's fault, unless it is. when we're put in a predicament like his administration put us in, you don't pop out in 3, 4 or maybe 8 years, with shiny new pearls but you chip away at it until it clears up. you need to tear shit up worse sometimes, to fix things. i think he is the best chance of keeping things on that path in november.

Your political messiah doesn't give a shit.

i wish i was privied to the info that you are, to be able to make a comment like that.