Questions for American Atheists

[Reforged]

A peoples freewill in a demoncracy is an illusion.
Probably should of clarified that, my bad.
My arguement wasn't that resistance is futile, it is that we live in a demoncracy where both options lead to the same destination.
The games rigged.

All the more reason to try. Some paths are much, much worse than others. If you could avoid a 100,000 Iranians being bombed or 50,000 unfortunate US military getting wasted on another unfunded adventure, wouldn't that be worth it? I can't tell you for sure that Romney wants that, but I can tell you for sure that Obama doesn't. Come on, choke down your distaste for the whole rotten system and vote for Obama. Just in case. The lives you might save thank you.

I can see your point but the second part proves mine.
Look at the two candidates. Romney, practically neo-nazi and Obama. A nice muslim/black, clean cut, all smiling and all dancing president with a rumored ex-cia background. A perfect candidate that appeals to two communities with ease and the rest with charisma.
I mean, the choice is obvious isn't it? Infact it has been in both elections because both times the opposition were about as moral and charismatic as clan members.
This isn't a choice. In ben & jerries you can get 50+ flavors, thats a choice. This? Its a coin toss and both sides have heads on.
I'm not saying we should stop working toward democracy, I'm saying this isn't democracy.

[Epimethean]

Ah. Another conspiracy theorist. Waiter? Check, please.

[Reforged]

You do realize that sci-fi is science and politics in a palatable package of speculative fiction, don't you? Some of the most profound theories and issues mankind faces have been best dealt with in the arena of science fiction. Read some Philip K. Dick, some Jerry Pournelle, and some Greg Bear. Add a little Larry Niven and, for the sake of newer thinkers, some William Gibson and China Mieville. Out of a nod for the past which seems so present, read Huxley and Wells, Orwell and even Rand's Anthem. Some of the best thinking on the human condition going happens in the medium of science fiction.

I agree with that but in my experience half of its like you describe and the other half is someone trying to write themselves a reality where its possible to live forever in cyber-space or robot form or whatever.
I acknowledge that some of it is legitamately inspired and deserving of contemplation and praise... I also acknowledge that some of it is the novelization of a mental masturbatery session involving big breasted women carrying laser guns and space magic.
Swings and roundabouts I guess.

---

Ah. Another conspiracy theorist. Waiter? Check, please.

Oh fair enough, would you like to list some other reasonable and available candidates we could vote for?

[Epimethean]

Raph, it is clear that you haven't read much good sci-fi. Doesn't mean you get it, so, go get it.

As to your question, the rhetoric is old. Others here have been pointing you at the silliness of CT thinking and that withdrawal syndrome which seems to come with it: THAT, my friend, does absolutely nothing, which seems to be the condition whose existence you are so often lamenting here.

[Reforged]

Raph, it is clear that you haven't read much good sci-fi. Doesn't mean you get it, so, go get it.

As to your question, the rhetoric is old. Others here have been pointing you at the silliness of CT thinking and that withdrawal syndrome which seems to come with it: THAT, my friend, does absolutely nothing, which seems to be the condition whose existence you are so often lamenting here.

Not really an answer to my question but ok. A choice should be as varied as life is, in this case it isn't. It never is. Its always one dickhead and one okish guy. Why?
You know, I don't have all of the answers. I know that but that doesn't make the questions any less valid.
Certainly doesn't give you the right to brand me as a conspiracy theorist when I've implied nothing more than that the elections are too one sided to seriously be considered a choice.

[Epimethean]

"I've implied nothing more than that the elections are too one sided to seriously be considered a choice."

Beg to differ. You went a bit further than merely to suggest that. Your bombast may be interfering with your points.

"Look at the two candidates. Romney, practically neo-nazi and Obama. A nice muslim/black, clean cut, all smiling and all dancing president with a rumored ex-cia background. A perfect candidate that appeals to two communities with ease and the rest with charisma.
I mean, the choice is obvious isn't it? Infact it has been in both elections because both times the opposition were about as moral and charismatic as clan members.
This isn't a choice. In ben & jerries you can get 50+ flavors, thats a choice. This? Its a coin toss and both sides have heads on."

[Whateverist]

Not really an answer to my question but ok. A choice should be as varied as life is, in this case it isn't. It never is. Its always one dickhead and one okish guy. Why?
You know, I don't have all of the answers. I know that but that doesn't make the questions any less valid.
Certainly doesn't give you the right to brand me as a conspiracy theorist when I've implied nothing more than that the elections are too one sided to seriously be considered a choice.

You make it far too easy for the folks that want to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of a few or sell weapons to win. It isn't about picking out a flavor of ice cream you like. People are dying and living conditions are getting worse. It isn't just about getting what you want. Chasing the pigs out of the trough and keeping the hawks from killing off the neighbor's chicks still needs doing.

[Reforged]

Not really an answer to my question but ok. A choice should be as varied as life is, in this case it isn't. It never is. Its always one dickhead and one okish guy. Why?
You know, I don't have all of the answers. I know that but that doesn't make the questions any less valid.
Certainly doesn't give you the right to brand me as a conspiracy theorist when I've implied nothing more than that the elections are too one sided to seriously be considered a choice.

You make it far too easy for the folks that want to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of a few or sell weapons to win. It isn't about picking out a flavor of ice cream you like. People are dying and living conditions are getting worse. It isn't just about getting what you want. Chasing the pigs out of the trough and keeping the hawks from killing off the neighbor's chicks still needs doing.

You get many options in almost every walk of life but when it comes to how your country is going to be governed what choice do you get? Two, maybe three candidates? To govern an entire country, thats your choice.
Really? That doesn't strike anyone as ridiculous?

Now take that choice and make it so its between a racist, rich white guy and a likable, charasmatic black guy.
Is the first one really an option for anyone with a sane thought in their head? No, of course not. Obama could be into beastiality/S&M and he'd *still* be the better choice.
Now take into account both candidates will make their decisions based on what their contributers request before anything else, breaking any election promises they made if it comes into conflict.

Is the choice your left with anything but an empty gesture?

---

"I've implied nothing more than that the elections are too one sided to seriously be considered a choice."

Beg to differ. You went a bit further than merely to suggest that. Your bombast may be interfering with your points.

"Look at the two candidates. Romney, practically neo-nazi and Obama. A nice muslim/black, clean cut, all smiling and all dancing president with a rumored ex-cia background. A perfect candidate that appeals to two communities with ease and the rest with charisma.
I mean, the choice is obvious isn't it? Infact it has been in both elections because both times the opposition were about as moral and charismatic as clan members.
This isn't a choice. In ben & jerries you can get 50+ flavors, thats a choice. This? Its a coin toss and both sides have heads on."

Which part of that is a conspiracy theory?
Who in their right mind would pick Romney? Or McCain? Theres not *that* many retards out there. You're left with one candidate, just one.
How easy would it be to open up elections to more candidates? Instead of choosing between two or three you'd choose between six. Thats a choice.
Then you're never left with having to choose based purely on who you thinks less of a dick. Odds are there would be at least one who actually has the interests of the country at heart instead of honoring the numerous deals and handshakes they made to get where they are.
Doesn't happen, why not?

[Faith No More]

I share your cynicism with the system, RD, however, just because the choice is between the lesser of two dicks that doesn't mean you shouldn't exercise that choice. Every election I become apathetic towards the process, but the voices in my brain keep chanting 'dubya, dubya, dubya.'

[Whateverist]

I share your cynicism with the system, RD, however, just because the choice is between the lesser of two dicks that doesn't mean you shouldn't exercise that choice. Every election I become apathetic towards the process, but the voices in my brain keep chanting 'dubya, dubya, dubya.'

Exactly. I too think the way our system has evolved has rendered it "one dollar, one vote" rather than "one man, one vote". The republicans really represent everything that puts the ugly in "ugly american".

We basically have a hostage situation. Republicans have a gun to the head of child welfare (amongst other vulnerable groups) and I fully believe they intend to shoot .. unless we keep them out of office. The democrats may not be the most awesome people we know but the republicans can and do out bad them every day of the week.