|
 Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
 
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 31,213
Loc: California, US 
Last seen: 6 days, 10 hours
|
 Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote?  [Re: zappaisgod]
#16277651 - 05/24/12 09:52 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government
We did that 3 1/2 years ago, Saul. How do you like that idea now?
While the recovery is slow, the damage that is being repaired happened over 3.5 years ago.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16277669 - 05/24/12 09:57 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yes. Most of it happened around 70 years ago.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 31,213
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 days, 10 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
#16278563 - 05/24/12 01:25 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Yes. Most of it happened around 70 years ago.
Correct; if you consider the rise of the middle class "damage".
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
yoimjohn
Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 1,287
Loc: terra nova
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
#16279065 - 05/24/12 03:42 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
werDehT said:
Quote:
yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government
No they won't
Way to think outside the box though. I like it
thank you
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
yoimjohn said:
vote for someone who will do the most damage to the U.S. = people waking up and doing something about this government
We did that 3 1/2 years ago, Saul. How do you like that idea now?
new idea on the spot
half the army that supports ron paul and not obama as there commander should only accept ron paul and not obama, and only listen to ron paul. just saying. theyre suppose to be against enemies foreign and domestic right?
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: fireworks_god]
#16281746 - 05/25/12 12:42 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Look at the libertarian votes, look at the Paul phenomena, shits changing in politics, and there's plenty of people who are starting to educate themeselves a tiny bit before voting. The reason the two party system with all its detrimental effects is still with us is because of people making stupid "lesser of two evil" decisions supported by talk like you've been making.
I think the reason why it's still so dominant in the United States is because it actually works. No one would ever expect politics to be anything but a shift of power around the lowest common denominator, and the two-party system clearly functions well considering that.
to answer johnm214 question, if I can find someone to vote for outside of the two party system, then I will, otherwise, if they all look like crooks, then I won't. To tell you honestly John, I've voted many times. I should have specified that I meant I rarely vote for one of the two parties. It's sad because I have tons of family and friends that believe in a two party system, and almost ALWAYS vote for one of the two.
Another inconsistency with your opinion John, having 800 parties doesn't mean shit if no one has yet been nominated. You may find several people you like as candidates running for nominated president, if they are nominated so fucking what. Also, out of 100 nominees/whatever, what if I disagreed with all of them? What if I wanted a president that was going to get rid of every jail and prison in the United States? What president will do that? Is it so ignorant not to vote, when you don't believe in the entire system? Should I then move to another country with an even worst system? Because I don't want to vote?
And what of presidents who have won, become president, then completely change everything they said, and falsify that everything they said was ever true. Like Obama. For example Gary Johnson looks like a great candidate. Yet he believes in child labor laws. So if I decide not to vote for him it makes me ignorant? You claim I know nothing about the candidates? You are spewing off about which candidate to vote for, nominations aren't even finished. Can you name everyone shooting for a nomination? Which you haven't proven, where is your proof you are more educated then me? Or is it just that being a smart ass makes people less un educated and ignorant? What have you clarified?
I'm here willing to discuss politics, and take a chance of voting. But should I say I know everything, and for sure will and won't vote? Is this how citizens are supposed to feel? That to avoid war we have the option to vote? Which is better then a country where a dictator stays in power at times over 50 years? You can't tell how well a person will act as president until they are in power and are a president. So from that perspective, what should I do? I would have voted for Clinton twice, the second time around, I was a few years too young to vote at that time. Would I have voted for GB twice? No, Obama twice? No. Did I vote for Obama? Yes. Does that make me regret things? Yes. I am very willing to vote. But what proof do I have? A governor or senators track record over one state is supposed to show how he will preside over the basically the leading economy of the world?
Let's argue with this after the nominations. Or would you like to discuss more over how we can try and change that as well? Is everything within our power? Or is my life within my power? My life is clearly within my power, and that is the best I can act on. Does that mean I won't have an opinion? Hell no I definitely have an opinion. And honestly I'm trying to be fair by saying a president can make better choices. Because what I really think, is that the president aside from war and taxes and bail outs and laws, barely makes choices. The people who make choices are all of you fucks. Why not blame society? Society created the democratic system in the first place.
Everyone that believes in a world without equality, who says a person can be as rich as they want, or as poor as they want. This control issue that a person who owns a business and does all the work because someone else is expendable, does it make sense? Sure, the person owning the business does more work. As long as he can keep it. Now a person who asks for a loan, then blows it, files for bankruptcy, asks for another loan from a different banks, asks for collateral from a friend, borrows and lends and loans and swaps and covers. Is this responsible? This country has become so obsessed with lending, that even the owner now barely is responsible. If I work my ass off as an employee my whole life, then go get a job making 40 grand a year, take the money, then invest in a business, and don't ask for a bank loan. That is responsible.
No honor among thieves. No class war can prove who is and isn't a thief. Being educated isn't just barking at the first thing you see you don't like, it's about using patience. Now for patience, you have to avoid straw men. Straw men is like saying "imachavel, why do you believe rich peoples money should be distributed, do you not feel greedy enough?"
Based on an opinion I had saying the 1% of the richest people should distribute money more evenly, and not have it taken from them, as that is theft. When I said that, I in no way classified that I believe in welfare, taxes, taking money from people. I meant more that they could make wiser investments in smaller businesses, for returns with interest, etc. etc. etc. or do things more responsibly, not get bail outs. But by me saying that, I get straw manned into arguing that I support greedy welfare lovers who never truly search for a job. Does that make sense?
If I believed in ignorance I would say "I don't care who wins in a vote, you can all go fuck yourselves!" Which I never admitted once. Sometimes I don't. Where does this leave me btw? I want to own a small business, I need to register a fictitious business name, then when I start getting pay checks again, deposit them into a business account under that name. I will have earned the money at work, but can show good credit. Now why does a president need to be voted for, for me to feel that I have the right to not get screwed out of a loan, or robbed with a gun.
If a president gets voted in, and I didn't vote against him, does that mean I should get robbed at gun point by some jack ass who loaded it and wants to swing it towards me to prove I'm a scared git or some bullshit? Really, I want to make complaints about people as human beings, since I'm a human being. When Bill Clinton cheated on his wife with Lewinsky, the whole world was in disbelief. Should I have said "hey, if you don't like him, you should have voted for someone else"? Is it ok to point out that someone is wrong? Obama is clearly wrong to be such an ass hole, if I would have voted for Hillary Clinton, I don't feel she would have done much better.
So there are other candidates besides the two party system, but we haven't even gone through nominations yet, so what good is it to point the blame finger at this point naming all the people who are and aren't ignorant? We don't even know who we will be allowed to vote for yet. And honestly a half dozen nominees over two nominees isn't always much better.
--------------------
 I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
 I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#16281757 - 05/25/12 12:45 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
imachavel said:
If I vote, it won't be Romney, it won't be Obama. If it doesn't turn out to be a guy from New Mexico who apparently left the state with a Surplus, then I don't know who it will be.
That's all there is to it, it's that or I don't vote. Don't call it ignorance, I don't want to vote for someone that is a crook. Between two fascist mother fuckers, I don't want to vote
So don't vote. As a country we'll be better off if people like you don't.
 oh no as a country, we really value luvdemshrooms vote, and are awaiting his vote to better our country, as much as he has bettered the shroomery. If his vote is worth half a damn as much as his opinion around here, we will be much better off as a country, if valuable people like him vote. Agreed? 
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
#16281784 - 05/25/12 12:57 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
I've never really understood why people think that a third-party would spur much change in how things work in national politics.
It would stop all the people bitching about "choosing between two fascists" as imachevel said previously, and many like him say reguarly. It would also prevent a binary false choice being presented to the voters where a popular solution is ignored for political reasons.
The loosing party(s) would have the option of exploiting that choice and incorporating into their platform to gain support. No longer could the democrats and republicans select two people both succeptible to the same criticism and thus unwilling to make a major issue out of the matter. For example, campaign finance prohibitions are quite popular but often difficult for a politician, like Obama, to raise when he knows he'll be challenged on his past conduct.
More cynically, it would make it more difficult for the partys to (intentionally or not) negotiate themselves to avoid enacting popular change. No longer would it be as easy to find two false choices on gay marriage, for example, one person against it and one person against it but with sympathetic quips. The third party candidate can easily expose the hypocrasy and adopt a real alternative.
Even ignoring all these benefits, it would present one more competitive choice and encourage voters to educate themselves. It would also reduce the perception of races being allready won or silly notions of having to vote for the winning candidate (or a competitive candidate) to effect change.
Quote:
All it would mean is that a coalition government would have to be formed and the same types of compromises that are made within one of the two parties that exist now would be made then, too.
So what? Adding a third party would require a third point to be considered and incorporated and would benefit the public by government action more percisely reflecting popular wishes. In any case, one of the more overrated qualities in government is "getting things done", in my opinion. How much bullshit do you hear on a monthly basis in the US that is manifestly a bad idea? Reducing the ability of such crap to pass without solid support is fine.
Quote:
One of the primary reasons you see more than two parties in other countries, I think, is simply because they are smaller countries and an appropriate amount of efficiency can be maintained with more than two parties. I have reason to believe that the power dynamic in the States with more than two parties would simply be inefficient, which is exactly why it doesn't really happen ever.
I always thought it had more to do with the way votes and representation is alloted.
Many of those countries don't have winner take all elections for each legislative seat. Isn't this correct?
Quote:
No one expects that the pet interests of a smaller group of people aren't going to be blended together with those of other people, and the real problem with how things happen nationally isn't the dominance of only two parties, but rather the dominant inactivity of the country's citizens in ensuring that their interests are being represented
I agree, but that doesn't besmirch the benefits of a third party. It enlarges the acceptable scope of options for people who are incapable of educating themselves on the issue broadly before choosing to support a given position.
Quote:
Imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted every election cycle due to all the political advertising. They don't need to come to you to get your vote if you go to them. 
Agreed. That those ads seem to work is a great indicator of problems with the electorate, in my opinion. Especially given the content of the adds being worthless, what kind of thought process could possibly be going through someone's mind who bases a decision on those ads? Even if they are decided and the add simply drives them to vote, it still seems quite irresponsible.
now you almost seem to be contradicting that you believe in a two party system. First you say having a third party system is very very useful. Now you say it makes things difficult. Tell me, do you believe by someone voting they are doing their country a great service? Do you know a person who has a license with a house address can vote? A bum can use his brothers house address, if he lived there for a few months, go take a shower, then show up with an i.d. and voters card, and then vote. Does it help to see millions of ignorant voters?
People also need to make wise decisions day to day, not think with their wallets and throw into a ballot to try and better just their life, but to think of a country as a whole. People who spend their life bickering, and calling others ignorant, but never seeing things from a wide open perspective, truly waste this countries time, and are much much better off not voting with their waste of time fake opinion, claiming it will help everyone. If Hitler decides to take a bunch of Nazis under his wing, then tell them to go kill 10 millions Jews, does it really really really mean they have to? Does god not command them in a higher way then Hitler did?
I'm not a believer of god, I'm an athiest. But I believe that the power of god makes the highest decision, meaning that morally god makes the ultimate choice. Where do people get off always doing the wrong thing and claiming it's ok to fuck up their lives entirely then when they go vote it fixes everything. Voting should be done the way a persons life is lived, without ignorance. Shit, I can go vote anywhere, where a party system is used. At work even if we are voting for best manager of the month. If the manager of the month, was someone I voted for because he gave me the biggest pay check, but I went out with him, learned his morals, did drugs because I copied him, cheated on my wife because I copied him, then go vote to better my position financially, but make no better decisions in my life but to keep being a slack fucking loser, wanting to vote for the next president to help welfare because I believe in 'the poor', does that make sense?
You know in our country Obama has squandered away billions, and yet believe it or not, he has done tremendous things to help the poor in other countries, much more so then most presidents who've been elected in history. In most countries, he is a fucking hero. Shit, maybe he should get elected again. When this country blows up I'll need to go move to one of those countries he fixed. I don't see why not, it's my right to chance my citizenship, when I don't believe in what this country is doing for me anymore
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
#16282383 - 05/25/12 07:36 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
It would stop all the people bitching about "choosing between two fascists" as imachevel said previously, and many like him say reguarly. It would also prevent a binary false choice being presented to the voters where a popular solution is ignored for political reasons.
I suppose that this is a great point. It made me curious to look up the voter participation rate by country, to do some comparison. What you're describing here actually seems to be much more of a significant road-block to voters getting more involved than I initially recognized. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences
The chart for turnout in lower house elections is really interesting. Look at all those European countries, where turnout is around 80%. Austria has a rate of 92% there! And then, scroll down, d-o-w-n down, to the United States, with a grand total of 48%. The difference is the proportional system, it really seems...
Quote:
So what? Adding a third party would require a third point to be considered and incorporated and would benefit the public by government action more percisely reflecting popular wishes.
I was originally getting to how factions and different movements still exist within the same party, which would be similar to having two distinct parties that have to share power, but I think you're right that this doesn't serve the greater interest as much as having multiple parties would.
Quote:
I always thought it had more to do with the way votes and representation is alloted.
I think both of these are factors, but I'm beginning to think that what you mention is more influential.
Quote:
Agreed. That those ads seem to work is a great indicator of problems with the electorate, in my opinion. Especially given the content of the adds being worthless, what kind of thought process could possibly be going through someone's mind who bases a decision on those ads? Even if they are decided and the add simply drives them to vote, it still seems quite irresponsible.
I think these ads work in the sense that they paint broad hues that enter into the average voter's subconscious and form a sort of emotional mood about who to vote for. Then there are the people who already would have decided for whatever reason they have...
--------------------
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
  
 
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16282476 - 05/25/12 08:22 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Yes. Most of it happened around 70 years ago.
Correct; if you consider the rise of the middle class "damage".
I consider soc sec damage. Huge damage.
--------------------
|
 Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
#16286794 - 05/26/12 07:33 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I never got asked if it was ok to rip it out of my check. They promised to give it to me when I retired and I see no reason to feel bad about taking it.
Had I gotten the money instead I'd be way the fuck ahead today. I know how to invest and save. Most suckers do not.
--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.
" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.
With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Icelander]
#16287259 - 05/26/12 10:48 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"'2013' could mean three things. First, since we will be in the second quarter of fiscal 2013 when he is sworn in, he could be looking for a budget surplus to end the year with a net deficit of zero. Second, he could mean getting spending to equal revenues by the end of fiscal 2013. Or Johnson could mean that the budget he submits at this time next year will be balanced, and hopefully will pass. Regardless of which, any are better than what we’ve had over the last decade.
Johnson’s budget proposal is the most fiscally conservative of any of the candidates. Ron Paul has proposed to cut $1 trillion in spending in year one, but that will leave us with a deficit of $300 billion or more. Only Gary Johnson is prepared to achieve the Tea Party dream of a balanced budget in his first year.
If nothing else you can be certain that Johnson will implement as much spending restraint as he is able as Chief Executive with or without Congress’s approval. And you can be certain that no new spending will get passed while he is president with less than 2/3rds support in both houses. After all, Johnson vetoed 32% of bills passed by the New Mexico legislature during his tenure (over 750 vetoes)—more than all of the other Governors combined during the same time period, earning him the nickname “Governor Veto.” If Republicans gain control of the Senate and return to their big spending ways as they are wont to do, President Johnson will keep them in check."
:http://www.ldjackson.net/obama-versus-gary-johnson-on-the-budget/
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: sonamdrukpa]
#16287276 - 05/26/12 10:53 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sonamdrukpa said:
I will, but only because it gives me an easy comeback against people who claim that people who don't vote shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on policy decisions. In general, I don't think it is an activity that is worth my time.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: johnm214]
#16287286 - 05/26/12 10:56 AM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
wildernessjunkie said:
Not going to vote.
Every politician is a puppet of large corporation and big banking.
what's this based on? Sounds awfully like some made up crap to console yourself. What "big banking" is ralph nader a puppet of? The socialist/communist leaning candidates? Many of them would destroy much if not all of the banking industry in the US.
It seems utterly impossible you have any rational reason to believe this.
Quote:
Further, the president cannot change policy without the house and Senate approval.
Same question, though this one is self-evidently false. There's a constantly expanding apparatus that the administration has control over, and those agencies promulgate a ton of administrative law that has real force of law (sometimes criminal law) behind it.
This is quite ignorant a statement.
Quote:
Any promise that any presidential candidate makes is an empty promise. The whole concept of checks and balances guarantees that anything that is not directly in the interests of the individual politician, will not pass.
No.
Quote:
The system is broken.
Gee, do you think that might be because some unmentioned people don't even know what the office they're voting for does?
Its no surprise that Presidents can get away with lieing to people during campaigns if they have such radically incorrect views on the nature of the office.
why can't you admit that what you are arguing against is 51% of the time mostly true?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 31,213
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 days, 10 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: zappaisgod]
#16292133 - 05/27/12 12:15 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage. Huge damage.
That's part of living in a civilized society. We don't force senior citizens who lost their job late in life and had to live off their savings to beg in the snow just because folks like you couldn't care less.
Perhaps you should consider moving to a country without social security. Oh wait, what country would that be?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Backwards2012
Stranger
Registered: 05/26/12
Posts: 44
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16292167 - 05/27/12 12:24 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage. Huge damage.
Social security recipients are people too, my friend.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16295155 - 05/28/12 12:26 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage. Huge damage.
That's part of living in a civilized society. We don't force senior citizens who lost their job late in life and had to live off their savings to beg in the snow just because folks like you couldn't care less.
What a crock of shit. At this point there is almost no one (who worked) who would not have much more retirement money if they didn't have a huge percentage of their wages confiscated. And since when is the government the only agency for charity? Had to live off their savings? Well isn't that what a retirement account is for? Quote:
Perhaps you should consider moving to a country without social security. Oh wait, what country would that be?
 I can assure you that none of my retirement planning relies on soc sec. Because it sucks.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Backwards2012]
#16295160 - 05/28/12 12:27 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Backwards2012 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage. Huge damage.
Social security recipients are people too, my friend.
No shit. The soc sec recipients toady would have been a lot better off if they never contributed a nickel.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#16295564 - 05/28/12 01:44 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I consider soc sec damage. Huge damage.
That's part of living in a civilized society. We don't force senior citizens who lost their job late in life and had to live off their savings to beg in the snow just because folks like you couldn't care less.
Perhaps you should consider moving to a country without social security. Oh wait, what country would that be?
You can be against social security but not against safety nets. You do realize that social security opponents would not have old people begging in the snow right? I hope you are just being dramatic and dont actually believe what you have said...
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 31,213
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 days, 10 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: DieCommie]
#16296744 - 05/28/12 05:49 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
You do realize that social security opponents would not have old people begging in the snow right? I hope you are just being dramatic and dont actually believe what you have said...
Oh really? Do tell.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 30,291
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: US presidential election 2012: will you vote? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#16297687 - 05/28/12 08:40 PM (10 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
anyone saws this episode of south park?:
Stan tries to save money by depositing it into the bank but it "disappears" moments after, when the bank-owner deliberatly removes the money from his account instead of depositing it. A recession then hits the nation and South Park. Randy explains to Stan that the economy is failing due to people spending their money on luxuries. Ironically, he continues his tirade while making himself a margarita in a Margaritaville-brand mixer, the noise of which drowns out his voice.
As a subplot, Stan spends most of the episode trying to return the aforementioned Margaritaville mixer. The trendy retailer Sur La Table will not accept the return because it was bought on a payment plan. He tries to find out to whom he can return it, each person saying the debt has been packaged and sold to someone else (much like real-life mortgage-backed securities). Eventually he goes all the way to the United States Treasury, where a group of associates "consult the charts" and tell him the mixer is worth $90 trillion
actually what he really says is:
Stan: I want to return this Margaritaville! My dad bought it on a payment plan set up by a finance company that got investors from Wall Street who combined it into securities sold to the banks who transferred it to you!
Treasurer: Oh, that makes sense.
Stan: GAH!
and the Jersey shore one had me rolling for 30 minutes as well. But anyway does this sound familiar? Any president to vote for who will try and change this horse shit? But until the nominees come forward, there is nothing we can do but guess. We know two people who will be nominated, Obama and Mitt Romney. But I'm not voting for either of those two fucks!
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Substrate 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Bridgetown Botanicals 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Strumpling
Vvellum
Zen Peddler
luvdemshrooms
ekomstop
usefulidiot
enotake2