The electoral college was originally designed to limit the power of the people in electing presidents and give the South enough power to get them on board. The system is still in place mainly because no party wants to try to change it. From my perspective, it's partly because of the general ill will towards change, partly because trying to change it would mean alienating the states that gain power from the system, and partly because the system as is benefits some key interests and the political party structure, and makes the way politicians campaign simpler.
I always get half a chubby when Bob gets all “internet tough guy” in his American Bob videos. I'd love to see him talk to someone in a condescending tone while clapping his hands before saying “TOUGH SHIT” without getting his ass kicked afterwards.
Bob, nobody is intimidated when you get all snarky in your videos. You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are. If you weren't so busy trying to prove yourself a man, you would find out that your followers will give you the respect you expect from them in return, if you just stop trying to puff out your nonexistent chest.
I always get half a chubby when Bob gets all “internet tough guy” in his American Bob videos. I'd love to see him talk to someone in a condescending tone while clapping his hands before saying “TOUGH SHIT” without getting his ass kicked afterwards.
Bob, nobody is intimidated when you get all snarky in your videos. You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are. If you weren't so busy trying to prove yourself a man, you would find out that your followers will give you the respect you expect from them in return, if you just stop trying to puff out your nonexistent chest.
“I would like to talk to liberals. But while I'm at it, I will play my pre-recorded, tired, baseless attacks on this vague, blurry 'right wing' caricature over and over and over again.”
Bob, I generally *like* people saying things I don't think. It's how I challenge my beliefs and conventional understanding. What is so ball-blisteringly infuriating about your snarky, HATEFUL discussion of socio-political issues is that, well, you never really DISCUSS socio-political issues.
You just take a few jabs, make some points here and there, and everything you say demands a slew of links to back up what the hell you're talking about. In every single damn political video you make!
What do you mean by 'separation of Church and state'?
What FUC–*pants and tries to restrain self* what nerve DO YOU–*takes breath* Where, sir, do you get the notion that 'right wingers' are all racist? What evidence do you have to support this? Oh but of course, not ALL of them are racist, you might say. Or maybe only a few. Or maybe TWELVE or something, like the very, very, very, very, very small amount of evidence would suggest.
But if I accuse you of lying, you can–with some intellectual honesty–say that I am strawmanning you, because you didn't say * explicitly* that all, or most, or a few, or any portion of the Tea Party/GOP/'right wing' are racist. You just hinted at it.
See? That's the joy of you being so vague and non-descript with your pissy attacks; it's hard to argue against something who isn't really MAKING an argument in the first place.
This is why I request that you be more specific, and talk about the issues rather than just issues about the issues.
Now I *would* say hey, we can debate this stuff elsewhere all the time, and that it's unreasonable to expect you to get off track and waste time laying foundation to every single accusation you cast.
Buuuuuut, looking at all your web videos as a whole, I might begin to think you're doing this on purpose (whether you're aware of it or not).
Like, take a listen to the “Supreme Responsibility” episode of TGO. Here he is, talking about that sick, evil person who murdered dozens of people in that Oslo massacre.
“Brevic is your basic, far right, militant douchebag.”
I am sorry Chipman, but I hope you realize that by saying “right”, you're referring to 'conservative', right?
RIGHT?
You're declaring a psychopathic killer to be a 'your basic' (read: typical, normal, usual) instance of an ideology that close to half the population of America subscribes to.
Holy God. Flame bate much, Bob? Really? Seriously?
You then go on to actually describing some of the more specific things about him, like how 'he's big into guns'. See now, whether intentional or not, you're comparing him to hunters, gun collectors, and the like.
This–in addition to the 'far right' comment from three seconds prior–is and remains, by my calculation, the most ugly, ignorant, uninformed and mean-spirited thing you have ever said.
A guy who enjoys guns to shoot deer and clay pigeons and a guy who enjoys guns to kill children are “both big into guns” the same way a chariot racer and a dominatrix are “both big into whips“.
With regards to the video, I think it was a bit overly snarky and angry. I like Bob anger at times, but this just kind of hit a level of vitriol I found uncomfortable, but that's just me. Also, while I think that not voting for Obama because you are disappointed in him is stupid, as someone who was most disappointed in his lack of balls when fighting Republicans and his incredible balls in expanding the Bush anti-civil liberties initiatives and shadow wars (Anonymous who was sick of people holding up the drone strikes, I find this practice really objectionable because of the violations of international law and what it means regarding the way that war is practiced, and the way that it is becoming truly endless. I care about those kids getting shot in the same way that i care about civilians in Syria getting shot, but my real concern is that we're the ones doing it, and what it means for the future in terms of terrorism and war as a whole), I think that being disappointed is reasonable, and I think Congressman Barney Frank better outlined how to address this issue:
(paraphrasing) We need to keep talking about issues that are important to us [liberals], but we essentially need to learn how to vote and complain at the same time.
Also, one more point in the anti-Romney side: while changing positions is reasonable, the level to which Romney has flipped on issues with no explanation or denial of the fact that he flipped, combined with the myriad misleading statements, misrepresentations, and flat out lies about Obama, himself, his party, and the state of the country should be incentive enough to vote against him.
Yes. That's about all I have to say. The racism accusation is done. It has run its course a million times over.
I don't… argh I'm already going back to talking about Bob's video. Because… does anybody see what he did in that video? What he does in ALL of his videos? He is so, so good at muddying up his own opinions; at making everything so lukewarm and fuzzy that there's no way to respond to it without 'strawmanning' him.
It's so damn well done, I must say. There ought to be a martial arts movie with a fighting style based on this. A skilled master of the Chipman arts is able to not *be anywhere*. In order to defeat your opponent, you have to *hit* him. But in order for you to hit him, he has to *be* somewhere.
But a master of the Chipman is able to not be anywhere. He is nowhere, therefore, you cannot hit him. YET, he is able to hit you. He can attack and jab you, but you cannot counterattack, for you can't hit him.
It's a POWERFUL recipe of bullshit that I think could really be a force in the political scene.
A decent number of third parties are taking advantage of members of the dominant party running unopposed. Here in Texas, at least, it seems like a great number of judicial races especially are between libertarians and republicans – yet another reason not to vote straight party ticket, since libertarians are almost certainly preferable on the bench compared to republicans from a liberal's point of view.
Anywhoozle, I voted Gary Johnson because, while I lean liberal, any president who claims the right to assassinate myself and my family without trial or judicial overview needs to do better on civil liberties to win my vote.
Well, even if you get rid of the electoral college (always a good idea), there are still lots of problems with simple First-Past-the-Post voting. I'd recommend a quick watch of CGPGrey's videos on it on Youtube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo). The voting system itself needs to be re-imagined.
@Andrew
I mostly lean Green on my political views and one of the ways I see them becoming a legitimate choice is if we who want third parties to succeed (including Libertarians and Constitutionalists and all that) need to get behind some kind of measure to introduce the Alternate vote. Third parties will never have significant power in any First-Past-the-Post system, especially one that's not parliamentary. Once that happens, at the very least, people can vote third party without worrying about the spoiler effect.
“I think the difference between “Liberals are dejected at Obama for not doing what he said” and “Liberals are terrified of all the awful things Romney says he's gonna do (even though he probably won't)” is mentioned in the video. Symbolism matters.“
It's not simply symbolism: remember that originally, Bush the younger did not gave a shit about tax-cuts and only included them in his platform to placate big donors, as some of them at the early stage of the 2000 primaries started to display an interest in the more openly plutocrat friendly Steve Forbes.
Once he cheated his way in the White House, he could have said, “you know what? I told some bullshit during the primary in order to keep my donor tames, but now I'm not going to screw the long term economic prospects of my country by sabotagnig the federal government revenues”. Insted, he impement the “Bush tax-cuts”, which were originally nothing more than a rhetorical trick meant to secure his victory in the primaries.
The American system works in such a way that elected officials do placate their primary voters. The awful shit romney said in the primaries? He will implement them. Even assuming that deep down in his blood-pump he does not believe in the shit he said to secure the republican nomination, and even assuming that he, in fact, loath the people he had to placate during the republican primaries, these will be the people he will try to please first and foremost should he win the election.
And whenit come to the now epenly pro-rape wing of the GOP, one just has to watch the numerous attempts to defund planned-parenthood and the attempts to redefine the lagal definition of what constitute a rape to realize that people like Akin are not merely a “symbolic” problem.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, and I certainly didn't vote for McCain in that election. I voted third-party because I didn't trust the two main ones, and I wasn't one of the millions of blind followers of the Obama campaign in the years following up to 2008.
Did I throw away my vote? Yes, but I didn't care. I was proud of my decision in knowing the fact that I didn't stupidly vote for the four years of inevitable disappointment that would come.
The only important thing in that booth was voting for the other stuff (representatives, laws, etc.), but the presidency was telegraphed ahead of time.
That's a spot from just 2 weeks ago. It's unequivocal that he's for abortion only in cases such as rape, incest and maternal danger.
That means he's against _free_ abortion which is what people mean when they say abortion.
Furthermore, that platform can only become a reality if roe v. wade is revised.
And here's a quote from mittromney.com on appointing judges:
“ As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. “
In other words, if he appoints new judges, they will be ones that will fall in line with the current conservative judges. Right?
I mean, it can't really be read any other way, can it?
Either way, if overturning roe v. wade is part of romneys platform on abortion, and if he gets to appoint a new judge, the judge he appoints is going to be a judge who would have voted the other way on roe v. wade. I mean, this isn't some ridiculous assumption, is it?
So then it comes down to when such a composition of judges would get to vote on a relevant case. I'm not an american, I don't know what kind of circumstances would have to arise, but wouldn't it just be a matter of some conservative state mandating that abortions only be done in the cases Mr. Mittens mentions in his platform, some person suing the state legislature for voting into law something unconstitutional, and that would be it, yeah?
Either way, the 'relevant case' argument seems like it's pretty weak ?
> You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are.
Do you realize how seriously fucked up it is to use “bullied boy” (i.e. “having been the target of physical and emotional abuse as a youngster”) as part of an insult?
In your opinion is Bob, or anyone else here voicing their opinion in the safety of the Internet “due for a wedgie”? Do you call landmine victims “tardy little stumpies” when they somehow manage to annoy you? Just curious.
…did… did Bob just encourage the “treat your political part like your sports team” mentality?
Bob… I seriously wanted to keep things nice, but go fuck yourself. Seriously… just do it. This is the WORST advice you can give anyone on voting. It's that mentality that is why we are in the polarized mess we are in today.
Sorry, Bob… but I am voting for the man I choose and what he brings to the table… but I can't imagine him being worse then what we have….. not that you would understand that… being a “team player” and all that.
No Cyrus, I'm pretty sure a lot of people if not everyone has been bullied in their childhood.
I was making fun of Bob for still not getting over what happened to him as a child like a grown man would.
In one of his past videos (can't remember which) Bob says he joined a gym to offset the large amount of sitting on his ass time. I would recommend he work out until he sweats or very tired, so he would get a good nights rest. He would have less stress and possibly come off as a more reasonable guy (like in some of his Big Picture episodes) and less like an elitist pseudo tough guy jackass.
Look at how the rest of the world feels about your election.
To us it just seems like America is like a big ass 16th century country trying to control us all. For example in sweden 90% aprox would be voting Democratic. That means most “Right wingers” here would be voting for your so called “left” That's how skewed your country is.
No Cyrus, I'm pretty sure a lot of people if not everyone has been bullied in their childhood.
I was making fun of Bob for still not getting over what happened to him as a child like a grown man would.
In one of his past videos (can't remember which) Bob says he joined a gym to offset the large amount of sitting on his ass time. I would recommend he work out until he sweats or very tired, so he would get a good nights rest. He would have less stress and possibly come off as a more reasonable guy (like in some of his Big Picture episodes) and less like an elitist pseudo tough guy jackass.
This is probably off-topic, but it jumped out at me at the comments section and I want to call out those 2 people for their disrespect, namely “billy” and “Anonymous 1:44 am”. I'm referring to those people who expressed surprise that Bob mentioned “prayers” at the beginning of this entry, for those keeping track.
How fucking insensitive are you assholes?! Do you even know how bad this storm is? Just because someone is very critical of religion doesn't mean he doesn't mean he can't say “Thoughts and prayers with the people experiencing whatever disaster is occurring at that given time”!
Hell, George Carlin wasn't exactly subtle in his critiques of religion, but he still thought Jesus Christ was a cool guy. Jesus was even the first person listed when he mentioned “People who told us to live in harmony and try to love one another” (his words).
Bob could've just as easily ignored the situation and not said anything about the people experiencing the hurricane, but you probably would've leaped on him for that, too.
Instead, you're expressing surprise that he's actually being considerate and extending that kind of emotional support to those going through that shit? Way to be the bigger men, guys. It's making me all the more hopeful for humanity going forward.
Sorry, haters, but Bob is right on all counts here.
Obama's been a pretty good president. Not great, but pretty good. He could be truly great in a second term when he no longer has to worry about re-election, but in the meantime, he's accomplished good things that I support.
In the meantime, the Republican Party, as an organization, has demonstrated that it should never, ever be given any power. I see that a lot of conservative or moderate commenters here want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but honestly, the whole party should be regarded with apprehension and disgust. The reason is pretty straightforward: the entire agenda of the party is to increase the advantage of the powerful over the powerless. This is true when they try to cut unemployment benefits, when they try to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain, when they try to take away women's civil rights and deny civil rights to gay soldiers and gay couples, when they try create a tax system that lets multimillionaires pay 13% and forces me to pay 25% while calling me a “slacker” and a “dependent”, and it's true when they engage in massive campaigns of voter suppression in response to nonexistent problems of voter fraud. In fact, a whole secondary reason for finding Republicans kind of disgusting has to do with their base's inability to be honest in its quest to reach its goals: Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (bullshit), Trickle Down Economics (bullshit), The Death Penalty Deters Crime (bullshit), Abortion is About Saving Fetuses (bullshit, it's about controlling women or you'd be pro-contraception), America is a Christian Nation (massive, massive bullshit), The Welfare State is the biggest source of waste and fraud, Racism is over, Women aren't oppressed or discriminated against but laws that ensure that are bad, Global Warming is a conspiracy, Christianity is under attack, blah blah blah lies.
I know the vitriol is unattractive, but I can't help it. They're just gross.
Mitt Romney's election would give them power. They can't use it wisely. Bush's administration proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no reason to believe that a man of no personal convictions other than the idea that his taxes should be low would keep those people under control.
The Democratic party is pretty lame. They're not brave, they're sometimes corrupt, and they don't always do a good job. But they are the only party, of the two choices we have, that is *trying* to do a good job. So there's really no choice at all, and that's the real tragedy.
Well.. I got a question after having read a lot of these comments.
That Detroit thing, and stuff that has gone to shit the last few years in the US.
Is it Obamas fault for not fixing things quick enough
Is it the after effects of Bush's reign?
Or is it a mix of both?
If the answer is the third one.. then it's still not a really good reason to vote for Romney is it? I mean.. he does represent the same politics that Bush does, and if it is in part the after effect of Bush's politics having been dominate for eight years, electing some-one whom thinks like him probably wont help.
Allow me to provide a translation of Tickles thinking:
“Getting over what happened like a grown man would.” = Never talking about it such lying by omission about how abuse received as a child color one's view of the world.
*** ”For example in sweden 90% aprox would be voting Democratic. That means most “Right wingers” here would be voting for your so called “left” That's how skewed your country is.“
Do not overestimate how “civilized” us Europeans are compared to the US: the USA is, thanks to its reliance of the first-past-the-post ballot, screwed by its two-party system, which means that instead of dwelling on the fringes, the far-right has taken control of one of the main parties through entriism: if such a system was as prevalent in Europe, the local conservatives would have become the lackeys of the far-right as well.
In fact, you don't have to look further than Britain: the elites of the british conservative party know how much their country's economy depends on Europe, yet, they reliably peddle europhobic bullshit because the first-past-the-post parliamentary elections means they need the votes of chauvinistic morons if they want to have a shot at winning.
@Sofie: Both Romney AND Obama will continue Bush's atrocious policies. Just look at Obama's current record (kill list, drone strikes, troop surges in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Libya, continuing war on drugs, indefinite detention, bloated bailouts to corrupt businesses, ect).
@Nixou: Maybe we have it all wrong and being bullied is just one of these healthy experiences Calvin's parents always refered to as “character building”…
There's no equivalency at all between Bush's policy of starting wars with countries that posed no immediate danger to the United States (and which, incidentally, served as a check on the military ambitions of Iran) while killing thousands and thousands of civilians and Obama's drone strike policy. As upsetting as the strikes are, they cause much less collateral damage, put US citizens at less risk, and do not carry with them a massive responsibility for Nation Building with all the attendant problems of occupying foreign countries. Don't make that mistake.
Detroit's been dying since the 1970s. It rose and fell with the US Auto industry, and that was fatally undercut by Japan and the oil crisis way back when.
Presidents don't have much of an effect on the economy. Bush doesn't deserve much blame for what happened, and Obama doesn't deserve blame for not having reversed everything in four years. It was an economic bubble that burst, same as has been happening in every boom and bust cycle for centuries. Those come into being when speculators are able to mislead the public into over-investing in the wrong things, and once the truth comes out that their investments were never worth anything, the market collapses, the few who manipulated the bubble end up richer than ever, and the rest end up poorer. That's beyond any president, that's institutional corruption, and everyone in a position of power does it.
The rising financial inequality in this country is the symptom and the legacy of these bubbles. The only thing a president (or a party) could do about this is to promote a progressive tax rate to partly alleviate the worst of this inequality, which, of course, the GOP is firmly opposed to.
The monster deficit is a long-term problem, and THAT is partly Bush's responsibility. He cut taxes on everyone (mostly on the rich), and spent money furiously on utterly wasteful enterprises like the Iraq War. Obama's been running up the tab even more, on bailouts that further rewarded the same investment firms that built up and popped that bubble without any real accountability. At the very least, though, his policies MAY end up giving SOMETHING back through better access to healthcare, but the GOP will do everything (and has successfully done a lot) to make that fail, just so they can then use that against him. And even if the GOP fails to stop it, it will still bankrupt the country. Regardless of whether or not we get anything back for it, the money's spent, it won't ever come back, and they're going to spend more.
Both parties are ruining the economy, neither party is going after any of those responsible for the current situation (because the rich own Congress and fund presidents) or doing anything to prevent it from happening again (the bailouts only made it MORE likely this will happen again). The only real difference is whether we'll have a shitty half-assed (but still extremely expensive) health care program, or if we'll just save that money for future wars. That's America's real choice in seven days. Pick your poison.
But I do follow American politics regardless, both by reading enternet articles and well.. simply watch the news as they do send US politics here in Denmark, for a reason.
What-ever happens over there, what-ever you elect, it will in the long term effect me also, because you are that big a super-power, my country is a flie in comparison, a little dot, a spec of dust. The Economic bobble may originated at your place, but it is most certainly affecting my place to, and I as a person has felt the effects on my life, personal and working (I work with disabled people so yeah.. they are much worse of now then they were fice years ago, and each year they are still worse off.) very rapidly, these last eight years.
Well.. as your countries left thing is my exstreme right wing. And I am a left thing ene within my own countries standards.. i am a social-liberalist, and yes that's a thing, it should be obvious what I am crossing my fingers for here.
You may call your health-care half-assed, but well, it's still brand new and people hasn't really been demanding to be allowed it yet, people havn't yet stood up for it and demanded they should have it because the concept is still foreign. But if you can get to a point where some politician suggest taking it away again and the people go. “What, no? this is our right, you can't do that!” .. then we might be getting some-where, because then the over-all view among the people has shifted.
Politics in the ideal world should be about the people, and about what is best for the people. But only few politics runs for the people more than they just run for themselves, and that's what makes it rotten, that's not just a US problem that's a universal problem as power positions does attract ass-holes whom needs compensation to get their self-esteem feeded.
Out of Romeny and Obama.. I think it's a bit obvious seeing whom is thinking most about the actual people.
But boy howdie, wouldn't it be nice if politicians could start arguing with clear facts instead of big ideals? then we would might be getting some-where!
Nothing that doesn't faints in the comparison to Bush's actions in Iraque, the even earlier actions in Vietman and oh well.. just continous assaults on oil countries that is nothing new at all but some-thing that has gone on ever since after second world war.
If you have to pick between two evils.. not voting for the lesser evil is still voting for the bigger evil that won. Because the vote you didn't cast is the vote that didn't go against him.
Also.. if you don't vote you don't have a right to complain really, then you pushed away your responsibility for the future of the country.
How-ever, if you do vote, you earned to right to yell. “GOD DAMMIT I GOT YOU INTO THAT OFFICE! NOW DO STUFF!” for the next four years.
@Sofie: The lesser of two evils is still evil. If there is a better alternative, then you go for THAT, or you continue to endure stagnation and/or regression.
You know, after listening to Bob's ridiculous tirade I am no more inclined to vote than I was before. Which is not at all. I'm on Team: Fuck Everybody And/Or Everything That Has To Do With Politics.
Reps, Dems, Indies, libs, cons? The only descision that I'd approve regarding all of them would be about how fast they could all get loaded into a rocket and shot straight into the fucking sun!
As far as I am concerned, if you're interested in politics in any way then YOU! are what's wrong with America. Why not just live your fucking lives and leave everyone else alone? And that's all politics is. Imposing(or seeking to) your ideas/opinions/beliefs on others because you think some how you just know better.
FUCK THAT! I could really not care less which of these two collosal assholes wins the white house but listening to Bob's rant gave me at least one pleasurable thing to look forward to in the event of a Romney victory: It'll be fun just to see Bob's head swell up with rage and nearly burst. I'd pay to see that.
Heh. You know, the Ancient Greeks used to literally have people like you dragged to town meeting with paint stripes on them so people would make fun of their counterproductive apathy.
Politics is people working together for the common good. We can't “leave each other alone” because society doesn't work that way. Somebody has to make rules and codes of conduct, somebody has to enforce them, etc etc. You can't escape just because it's hard.
I know it's really painful for you to be around other people who have opinions they want to convince you of, but the fact is that you have a responsibility, as a member of a society, to have a damn opinion, to listen to other people, and to try to influence society for what you see as the best. Anything less than that is just cowardly, boring nihilism.
Aristotle said “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.” I guess you think you're a God, but you sound like a beast to me.
I'd say it'd be better if you didn't vote, but the reality is, the best thing is if you vote a straight Democratic ticket. The Republican party basically sounds exactly like you, decrying cooperation in their quest to enrich the wealthy, and they need to go down.
@Aiddon “Theism has nothing to do with prayer” Are you retarded? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prayer Prayer is the act of beseeching supernatural or metaphysical sources for help. People who don't believe in the supernatural, yet still say shit like “my prayers are with them” are just trying to congratulate themselves for not actually doing anything.
again, prayer does not have to be done by a theist. Theism just means “belief in a creator deity”; you can be religious and be an atheist at the same time (again, Buddhism due to a lack of a creator). But then again, since you started a comment by engaging in a personal attack it's obvious that is beyond your mind's ability to comprehend. Toodles.
Oh, I know your story. I'm a regular commenter at the Agony Booth. 🙂
There actually is something that Europe can do to help out the US, and by extension, themselves. Right your own economies. Fix healthcare over there and keep it financially viable, and you'll make it more attractive to skeptics over here. You wanna help keep America's deficit down?
Get the US military off of your continent, and replace it with an effective joint-European military that doesn't need the US to co-ordinate it and lead it whenever it's deployed anywhere. That'll help keep US military spending down, and hopefully make it harder for war hawks to sell the public on the idea of more costly expeditions that do nothing but benefit those corporation that fund them in exchange for no-bid contracts in the next war.
American social liberals (either Dems or third party like myself) frequently look to Europe as an example of what we'd like the US to be more like, but if your economies are even more insolvent than ours and you're having an even harder time dealing with immigration, it makes the idea of a more socially liberal America seem unfeasible to us (and even more undesirable to conservatives).
I do agree with you that once healthcare is established, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of (even prominent Republicans don't dare speak about rolling back Social Security), but that's not a good thing unless universal health care can be made affordable. And given the incredibly-expensive and not-very-popular half-measure they've passed, and the lack of any substantial benefits appearing thus far, it's already shaping up to be a money sink. To be honest, I don't even know where those trillions went.
Even if Romney wins and the GOP somehow takes the Senate, the most they could do is kill future funding, probably not until the 2014 budget at the earliest. Meaning that everything that had been spent thus far is gone, somewhere, and we'll never see it again. The biggest drains on the deficit are Social Security and Medicare, but you can't touch that or you'll lose the senior vote (aka Florida). And you can't raise taxes because the voters will throw you out in the midterms for that.
Say, how's Greece looking? You have a better view, dontcha?
Or inclusion. Even if you don't believe in a god, it still can be a nice thing to speak of prayers in case someone else does. Not everyone's a pedantic hardass.
@Andrew: Greece is actually one of the reasons I have mostly resigned myself to vote on social issues alone. If I'm going to live in an economy that is through-and-through built on astronomical debt, both in the public and private sector, we might as well progress as a species a little, before all the untennable make-belief cash is thrown out for the next paradigm.
That is to say, yes, universal health care is an ungodly money-pit. Everywhere. Just get used to the idea, if you want the positive social changes that come with it. Consider limiting pharmaceutical patents if you want to optimize things a little.
Bob, still waiting for you to defend the kill list, drone strikes, war on drugs, indefinite detention, and other failed Bush era policies that Obama continued. How many innocents have to suffer and die for you to get the “progress” you desire.
@Annonymous who started with “Sorry haters, but Bob is right on all counts here”
“I see that a lot of conservative or moderate commenters here want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but honestly, the whole party should be regarded with apprehension and disgust.”
Which commenters are these?
“The reason is pretty straightforward: the entire agenda of the party is to increase the advantage of the powerful over the powerless.”
Sure, sure. Let's take a look. I mean, it's sooooo stupid to come out with 'Obama's a communist' or 'anti-colonialist', even though those are things that lots of people approve of and adore. We shouldn't even CONSIDER arguing about whether or not Obama is a communist, because it's so stupid that it doesn't even warrant discussion. Let's all wail on that 2016 movie without even watching it. http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=42948&p=717304
But just straight calling people racist, sexist and hating the poor and powerless, that's fine. THAT is actually worth talking about. Sure, fine, whatever. Let's talk about it.
****
“This is true when they try to cut unemployment benefits,”
Unemployment benefits to who? Specific, much?
****
“…when they try to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain…”
Collective bargaining = going on strike and still getting paid. That's a load of shit. We live in a free market where nobody can force you to work or force you to buy their product. But as Big Gay Al said it best: freedom is a two-way street. YOU can't force someone else to hire you or keep you employed. If you don't like the way your boss is treating you, you go get a different job. If there's no better job to get, then tough luck, it's not your boss's fault. I'm sure he wishes he didn't have such whiny and entitled workers.
Now, private workers can strike all they want. If a bunch of private, non-government individuals want to start a union and constantly protest for higher wages, that's fine (just like how it's fine for a company to NOT HIRE them if that company so chooses). But public employees, like public teachers? The taxpayer pays them. That means that we are their bosses. And if you, as a taxpayer, didn't like it when the teachers in Chicago put children out of school for a week over dumb, trivial crap (I mean people are NOT dropping like flies in coal mines any more, Jesus Christ people), you have a right to slap those people into shape and get them to stop wasting your money.
****
“…when they try to take away women's civil rights…”
Oh yippity yoo. This one. This one alllllways comes. I love how, despite the Republicans being so anti-woman, that so many women are comfortable voting for them and, you know, BEING Republican politicians. Moving on, I ask you, what, exactly, are 'they' trying to do that will take away women's rights?
No, no I do absolutely know exactly what you're going to say already, but I want you to say it; I want you to personally experience how retarded the tired arguments sound coming out of your own mouth. I mean fingers.
“…and deny civil rights to gay soldiers and gay couples…”
Gay people? Okay, this might be a long one, but…
Pro traditional marriage =/= anti gay people.
Now that's not to say that NO anti-gay marriage proponents are also homophobic. There are a number of them, for sure, but they're the absurd, freak minority. The Democrats had a former KKK leader in Congress until the year two-thousand-and-bloody-ten, but the DNC isn't called racist just because of that.
Look, I know it's a tough issue, and it's one that I'm not totally decided on myself, but marriage is *not* a right. It's an arbitrary societal institution. That's NOT NOT NOT to say that it isn't a good idea. I think, as an idea, it sounds just fine. But it's not a 'right'. It's not the same as having to stand in different lines and sit in the back of the bus.
And even if marriage WERE a right, well, it's still not as simple and clear-cut as you may think (or wish it was). Let me explain.
Marriage, in most Western society right now, is this: A union between one man and one woman.
By comparison, a flight of stairs, right now, is this: A series of horizontal-sloping steps, angled in a manner as to allow travel along a vertical plane.
See? Those are the current definitions of those two things. Now, two men aren't being rendered unable to marry because they're gay; their gayness is rendering them unable to marry. Because, by definition, two people of the same sex CAN'T get married.
By the same logic, a person in a wheelchair is not being 'discriminated' against for not being able to go up a flight of stairs. Hatred of disabled folk is not why that guy can't get up those stairs. It's the simple fact that HE can't go on the stairs, not the stairs can't accept him.
But, but, but, but, but, but, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, marriage is–as I said–a societal institution, and it can take on different meanings if society chooses it to be so. Therefore, if we decide to change the defintion of marriage, to: “A union between two people, period”
Then that would be totally fine! If the same sex marriage movement could just run on THIS platform, rather than the false-premise of it being a civil rights issue, I would be much more onto the idea.
But really, after all that, I think you can see why JUST not support gay marriage doesn't automatically make you homophobic. Marriage has been something intended for heterosexual couples throughout human history. Even ancient Rome–which was VERY approving of homosexuality–still saw marriage as between a man and a woman. So really, the gay community is asking society to do them a favor. The gay community is asking that society change itself to accommodate them. Again, it may be a good idea, but it's still not something that someone is a jerk for just because they feel changing marriage would devalue it to them.
****
Gay SOLDIERS, on the other hand, I see more validity in. Not much, but a little. I don't see why sexuality should be hidden in the military. I do, however, agree with what Rick Santorum (who I'm sure you all just looooove) was talking about when he said 'sex doesn't have ANY place in the military, straight or gay'. Makes sense to me. A guy being gay can be distracting and a waste of time in the military. I get it.
Republicans and everybody else who supports the idea behind don't ask don't tell are NOT homophobic just because of that. They just–at very, very worst–subscribe to a policy (intended to PROTECT gay soldiers, mind you; read the whole “don't ask” part) that backfires in some respects. I mean, wouldn't an ACTUALLY homophobe want gays out of the military period? Why are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and damn near every Repub inbetween so okay and cool about it?
“…when they try create a tax system that lets multimillionaires pay 13% and forces me to pay 25%…”
You didn't watch the debates, did you?
Did you know Romney has a less conservative tax plan that just about every Republican who ran against him in the primary? Newt and Herman Cain both supported a flat tax. That way everybody pays the same rate. Now that is progressive equality if you ask me.
Most conservatives would like a flat tax. Though Romney isn't giving them that, even if they'd prefer it.
But still, did you watch the debates?
****
“…while calling me a “slacker” and a “dependent”…”
Do you take in government money or support? If so, how would you do if that support was taken away? If that would be DEVASTATING, then you're dependent on government. If you also are not trying–or wish you could try–to become INdependent, then you are a slacker.
If you are neither of these things, then great! Conservatives are not talking about you when they talk about dependent slackers.
The GOP's motto right now is to get people less dependent on government. They're not saying “you're dependent so you suck”, they're saying “you're dependent and we want to help you”.
****
“…and it's true when they engage in massive campaigns of voter suppression in response to nonexistent problems of voter fraud…”
Voter fraud is voter suppression. If one guy votes twice, that cancels out one guy who voted for the other candidate.
Also, what 'massive campaigns of voter suppression' are you talking about here? Voter ID laws? Laws that require you to prove who you are in order to be able to vote? Who is this going to suppress? People without faces?
And yes, again, I know exactly what you're going to say. And again, I want you to say it. Go on ahead, dude. *grabs oxygen supply in the event I choke on laughter*
****
“In fact, a whole secondary reason for finding Republicans kind of disgusting has to do with their base's inability to be honest in its quest to reach its goals…”
Ooh, this should be good.
****
“Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (bullshit)” Solid evidence and intelligence pointed to WMDs existing. Damn near every major country agreed that they existed. Ever thought that maybe–realizing they were coming to snoop around–Saddam got rid of them or something?
Even then, why isn't it a good idea to act upon solid evidence and smoke out the possibility of evil people having dangerous weapons?
****
“Trickle Down Economics (bullshit)” Actually, they are, because that's not what it's called
Yeah 'trickle down' was actually the term made up by people who didn't like Reagan's “Supply Side Economics”.
But call it what you like, please, for the love of God tell me what's wrong with this logic:
“The more money people have, the more people spend money”
Because that's a concept conservative economic policy is all about. Please give me one damn reason this is false.
****
“The Death Penalty Deters Crime (bullshit)”
A criminal wouldn't consider changing his future actions based on the possibility of death? How can you prove this?
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
In summary (from the comments):
If you're voting for Obama, you suck.
If you're voting for Romney, you suck.
If you're voting for Johnson, you (may make a statement but) will not win.
If you're voting for the lesser of two evils you're a pansy.
If you're voting against a party than for a party you're doing the best you can.
LikeLike
@Anonymous above
You forgot: “If you're posting as Anonymous, you shouldn't be taken seriously.”
LikeLike
@The Mason
The electoral college was originally designed to limit the power of the people in electing presidents and give the South enough power to get them on board. The system is still in place mainly because no party wants to try to change it. From my perspective, it's partly because of the general ill will towards change, partly because trying to change it would mean alienating the states that gain power from the system, and partly because the system as is benefits some key interests and the political party structure, and makes the way politicians campaign simpler.
LikeLike
I always get half a chubby when Bob gets all “internet tough guy” in his American Bob videos. I'd love to see him talk to someone in a condescending tone while clapping his hands before saying “TOUGH SHIT” without getting his ass kicked afterwards.
Bob, nobody is intimidated when you get all snarky in your videos. You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are. If you weren't so busy trying to prove yourself a man, you would find out that your followers will give you the respect you expect from them in return, if you just stop trying to puff out your nonexistent chest.
LikeLike
I always get half a chubby when Bob gets all “internet tough guy” in his American Bob videos. I'd love to see him talk to someone in a condescending tone while clapping his hands before saying “TOUGH SHIT” without getting his ass kicked afterwards.
Bob, nobody is intimidated when you get all snarky in your videos. You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are. If you weren't so busy trying to prove yourself a man, you would find out that your followers will give you the respect you expect from them in return, if you just stop trying to puff out your nonexistent chest.
LikeLike
lol “prayers”
LikeLike
“I would like to talk to liberals. But while I'm at it, I will play my pre-recorded, tired, baseless attacks on this vague, blurry 'right wing' caricature over and over and over again.”
Bob, I generally *like* people saying things I don't think. It's how I challenge my beliefs and conventional understanding. What is so ball-blisteringly infuriating about your snarky, HATEFUL discussion of socio-political issues is that, well, you never really DISCUSS socio-political issues.
You just take a few jabs, make some points here and there, and everything you say demands a slew of links to back up what the hell you're talking about. In every single damn political video you make!
What do you mean by 'separation of Church and state'?
What FUC–*pants and tries to restrain self* what nerve DO YOU–*takes breath* Where, sir, do you get the notion that 'right wingers' are all racist? What evidence do you have to support this? Oh but of course, not ALL of them are racist, you might say. Or maybe only a few. Or maybe TWELVE or something, like the very, very, very, very, very small amount of evidence would suggest.
But if I accuse you of lying, you can–with some intellectual honesty–say that I am strawmanning you, because you didn't say * explicitly* that all, or most, or a few, or any portion of the Tea Party/GOP/'right wing' are racist. You just hinted at it.
See? That's the joy of you being so vague and non-descript with your pissy attacks; it's hard to argue against something who isn't really MAKING an argument in the first place.
This is why I request that you be more specific, and talk about the issues rather than just issues about the issues.
Now I *would* say hey, we can debate this stuff elsewhere all the time, and that it's unreasonable to expect you to get off track and waste time laying foundation to every single accusation you cast.
Buuuuuut, looking at all your web videos as a whole, I might begin to think you're doing this on purpose (whether you're aware of it or not).
Like, take a listen to the “Supreme Responsibility” episode of TGO. Here he is, talking about that sick, evil person who murdered dozens of people in that Oslo massacre.
“Brevic is your basic, far right, militant douchebag.”
I am sorry Chipman, but I hope you realize that by saying “right”, you're referring to 'conservative', right?
RIGHT?
You're declaring a psychopathic killer to be a 'your basic' (read: typical, normal, usual) instance of an ideology that close to half the population of America subscribes to.
Holy God. Flame bate much, Bob? Really? Seriously?
You then go on to actually describing some of the more specific things about him, like how 'he's big into guns'. See now, whether intentional or not, you're comparing him to hunters, gun collectors, and the like.
This–in addition to the 'far right' comment from three seconds prior–is and remains, by my calculation, the most ugly, ignorant, uninformed and mean-spirited thing you have ever said.
A guy who enjoys guns to shoot deer and clay pigeons and a guy who enjoys guns to kill children are “both big into guns” the same way a chariot racer and a dominatrix are “both big into whips“.
LikeLike
With regards to the video, I think it was a bit overly snarky and angry. I like Bob anger at times, but this just kind of hit a level of vitriol I found uncomfortable, but that's just me. Also, while I think that not voting for Obama because you are disappointed in him is stupid, as someone who was most disappointed in his lack of balls when fighting Republicans and his incredible balls in expanding the Bush anti-civil liberties initiatives and shadow wars (Anonymous who was sick of people holding up the drone strikes, I find this practice really objectionable because of the violations of international law and what it means regarding the way that war is practiced, and the way that it is becoming truly endless. I care about those kids getting shot in the same way that i care about civilians in Syria getting shot, but my real concern is that we're the ones doing it, and what it means for the future in terms of terrorism and war as a whole), I think that being disappointed is reasonable, and I think Congressman Barney Frank better outlined how to address this issue:
(paraphrasing) We need to keep talking about issues that are important to us [liberals], but we essentially need to learn how to vote and complain at the same time.
Also, one more point in the anti-Romney side: while changing positions is reasonable, the level to which Romney has flipped on issues with no explanation or denial of the fact that he flipped, combined with the myriad misleading statements, misrepresentations, and flat out lies about Obama, himself, his party, and the state of the country should be incentive enough to vote against him.
LikeLike
@ James
Jesus fucking Christ, go get some psychiatric help already.
LikeLike
@billy LOL right? The thought of Bob actually praying tickles me hot pink.
LikeLike
@Adam Meyers
Just a quick response to all your posts here.
Yes. That's about all I have to say. The racism accusation is done. It has run its course a million times over.
I don't… argh I'm already going back to talking about Bob's video. Because… does anybody see what he did in that video? What he does in ALL of his videos? He is so, so good at muddying up his own opinions; at making everything so lukewarm and fuzzy that there's no way to respond to it without 'strawmanning' him.
It's so damn well done, I must say. There ought to be a martial arts movie with a fighting style based on this. A skilled master of the Chipman arts is able to not *be anywhere*. In order to defeat your opponent, you have to *hit* him. But in order for you to hit him, he has to *be* somewhere.
But a master of the Chipman is able to not be anywhere. He is nowhere, therefore, you cannot hit him. YET, he is able to hit you. He can attack and jab you, but you cannot counterattack, for you can't hit him.
It's a POWERFUL recipe of bullshit that I think could really be a force in the political scene.
LikeLike
@Pat
A decent number of third parties are taking advantage of members of the dominant party running unopposed. Here in Texas, at least, it seems like a great number of judicial races especially are between libertarians and republicans – yet another reason not to vote straight party ticket, since libertarians are almost certainly preferable on the bench compared to republicans from a liberal's point of view.
Anywhoozle, I voted Gary Johnson because, while I lean liberal, any president who claims the right to assassinate myself and my family without trial or judicial overview needs to do better on civil liberties to win my vote.
LikeLike
@The Mason
Well, even if you get rid of the electoral college (always a good idea), there are still lots of problems with simple First-Past-the-Post voting. I'd recommend a quick watch of CGPGrey's videos on it on Youtube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo). The voting system itself needs to be re-imagined.
@Andrew
I mostly lean Green on my political views and one of the ways I see them becoming a legitimate choice is if we who want third parties to succeed (including Libertarians and Constitutionalists and all that) need to get behind some kind of measure to introduce the Alternate vote. Third parties will never have significant power in any First-Past-the-Post system, especially one that's not parliamentary. Once that happens, at the very least, people can vote third party without worrying about the spoiler effect.
LikeLike
“I think the difference between “Liberals are dejected at Obama for not doing what he said” and “Liberals are terrified of all the awful things Romney says he's gonna do (even though he probably won't)” is mentioned in the video. Symbolism matters.“
It's not simply symbolism: remember that originally, Bush the younger did not gave a shit about tax-cuts and only included them in his platform to placate big donors, as some of them at the early stage of the 2000 primaries started to display an interest in the more openly plutocrat friendly Steve Forbes.
Once he cheated his way in the White House, he could have said, “you know what? I told some bullshit during the primary in order to keep my donor tames, but now I'm not going to screw the long term economic prospects of my country by sabotagnig the federal government revenues”. Insted, he impement the “Bush tax-cuts”, which were originally nothing more than a rhetorical trick meant to secure his victory in the primaries.
The American system works in such a way that elected officials do placate their primary voters. The awful shit romney said in the primaries? He will implement them. Even assuming that deep down in his blood-pump he does not believe in the shit he said to secure the republican nomination, and even assuming that he, in fact, loath the people he had to placate during the republican primaries, these will be the people he will try to please first and foremost should he win the election.
And whenit come to the now epenly pro-rape wing of the GOP, one just has to watch the numerous attempts to defund planned-parenthood and the attempts to redefine the lagal definition of what constitute a rape to realize that people like Akin are not merely a “symbolic” problem.
LikeLike
@Nixou.
Pro-rape? You're ridiculous. Another delusional liberal for the fetus pile.
@MovieBob.
Guess what? Romney/Ryan are going to win this Election. There is NOTHING you can do about it. NOTHING.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LikeLike
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, and I certainly didn't vote for McCain in that election. I voted third-party because I didn't trust the two main ones, and I wasn't one of the millions of blind followers of the Obama campaign in the years following up to 2008.
Did I throw away my vote? Yes, but I didn't care. I was proud of my decision in knowing the fact that I didn't stupidly vote for the four years of inevitable disappointment that would come.
The only important thing in that booth was voting for the other stuff (representatives, laws, etc.), but the presidency was telegraphed ahead of time.
LikeLike
@ Narf
First…Are you sure Romney isn't against abortion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jXQL9WLKXMo
That's a spot from just 2 weeks ago. It's unequivocal that he's for abortion only in cases such as rape, incest and maternal danger.
That means he's against _free_ abortion which is what people mean when they say abortion.
Furthermore, that platform can only become a reality if roe v. wade is revised.
And here's a quote from mittromney.com on appointing judges:
“
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
“
In other words, if he appoints new judges, they will be ones that will fall in line with the current conservative judges. Right?
I mean, it can't really be read any other way, can it?
Either way, if overturning roe v. wade is part of romneys platform on abortion, and if he gets to appoint a new judge, the judge he appoints is going to be a judge who would have voted the other way on roe v. wade. I mean, this isn't some ridiculous assumption, is it?
So then it comes down to when such a composition of judges would get to vote on a relevant case. I'm not an american, I don't know what kind of circumstances would have to arise, but wouldn't it just be a matter of some conservative state mandating that abortions only be done in the cases Mr. Mittens mentions in his platform, some person suing the state legislature for voting into law something unconstitutional, and that would be it, yeah?
Either way, the 'relevant case' argument seems like it's pretty weak ?
LikeLike
@Tess Tickles:
> You just come off as the spineless little bullied boy you really are.
Do you realize how seriously fucked up it is to use “bullied boy” (i.e. “having been the target of physical and emotional abuse as a youngster”) as part of an insult?
In your opinion is Bob, or anyone else here voicing their opinion in the safety of the Internet “due for a wedgie”? Do you call landmine victims “tardy little stumpies” when they somehow manage to annoy you? Just curious.
LikeLike
…did… did Bob just encourage the “treat your political part like your sports team” mentality?
Bob… I seriously wanted to keep things nice, but go fuck yourself. Seriously… just do it. This is the WORST advice you can give anyone on voting. It's that mentality that is why we are in the polarized mess we are in today.
Sorry, Bob… but I am voting for the man I choose and what he brings to the table… but I can't imagine him being worse then what we have….. not that you would understand that… being a “team player” and all that.
– Megabyte
PS: Seriously, Bob… go fuck yourself.
LikeLike
@Romney/Ryan '12
You're correct. He's going to win, and THEN they're going to blame it on the storm hitting the east coast.
Oh well, it'll give the pissheads a bottle to suck on.
LikeLike
No Cyrus, I'm pretty sure a lot of people if not everyone has been bullied in their childhood.
I was making fun of Bob for still not getting over what happened to him as a child like a grown man would.
In one of his past videos (can't remember which) Bob says he joined a gym to offset the large amount of sitting on his ass time. I would recommend he work out until he sweats or very tired, so he would get a good nights rest. He would have less stress and possibly come off as a more reasonable guy (like in some of his Big Picture episodes) and less like an elitist pseudo tough guy jackass.
LikeLike
Look at how the rest of the world feels about your election.
To us it just seems like America is like a big ass 16th century country trying to control us all.
For example in sweden 90% aprox would be voting Democratic. That means most “Right wingers” here would be voting for your so called “left” That's how skewed your country is.
LikeLike
No Cyrus, I'm pretty sure a lot of people if not everyone has been bullied in their childhood.
I was making fun of Bob for still not getting over what happened to him as a child like a grown man would.
In one of his past videos (can't remember which) Bob says he joined a gym to offset the large amount of sitting on his ass time. I would recommend he work out until he sweats or very tired, so he would get a good nights rest. He would have less stress and possibly come off as a more reasonable guy (like in some of his Big Picture episodes) and less like an elitist pseudo tough guy jackass.
LikeLike
This is probably off-topic, but it jumped out at me at the comments section and I want to call out those 2 people for their disrespect, namely “billy” and “Anonymous 1:44 am”. I'm referring to those people who expressed surprise that Bob mentioned “prayers” at the beginning of this entry, for those keeping track.
How fucking insensitive are you assholes?! Do you even know how bad this storm is? Just because someone is very critical of religion doesn't mean he doesn't mean he can't say “Thoughts and prayers with the people experiencing whatever disaster is occurring at that given time”!
Hell, George Carlin wasn't exactly subtle in his critiques of religion, but he still thought Jesus Christ was a cool guy. Jesus was even the first person listed when he mentioned “People who told us to live in harmony and try to love one another” (his words).
Bob could've just as easily ignored the situation and not said anything about the people experiencing the hurricane, but you probably would've leaped on him for that, too.
Instead, you're expressing surprise that he's actually being considerate and extending that kind of emotional support to those going through that shit? Way to be the bigger men, guys. It's making me all the more hopeful for humanity going forward.
LikeLike
Sorry, haters, but Bob is right on all counts here.
Obama's been a pretty good president. Not great, but pretty good. He could be truly great in a second term when he no longer has to worry about re-election, but in the meantime, he's accomplished good things that I support.
In the meantime, the Republican Party, as an organization, has demonstrated that it should never, ever be given any power. I see that a lot of conservative or moderate commenters here want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but honestly, the whole party should be regarded with apprehension and disgust. The reason is pretty straightforward: the entire agenda of the party is to increase the advantage of the powerful over the powerless. This is true when they try to cut unemployment benefits, when they try to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain, when they try to take away women's civil rights and deny civil rights to gay soldiers and gay couples, when they try create a tax system that lets multimillionaires pay 13% and forces me to pay 25% while calling me a “slacker” and a “dependent”, and it's true when they engage in massive campaigns of voter suppression in response to nonexistent problems of voter fraud. In fact, a whole secondary reason for finding Republicans kind of disgusting has to do with their base's inability to be honest in its quest to reach its goals: Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (bullshit), Trickle Down Economics (bullshit), The Death Penalty Deters Crime (bullshit), Abortion is About Saving Fetuses (bullshit, it's about controlling women or you'd be pro-contraception), America is a Christian Nation (massive, massive bullshit), The Welfare State is the biggest source of waste and fraud, Racism is over, Women aren't oppressed or discriminated against but laws that ensure that are bad, Global Warming is a conspiracy, Christianity is under attack, blah blah blah lies.
I know the vitriol is unattractive, but I can't help it. They're just gross.
Mitt Romney's election would give them power. They can't use it wisely. Bush's administration proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no reason to believe that a man of no personal convictions other than the idea that his taxes should be low would keep those people under control.
The Democratic party is pretty lame. They're not brave, they're sometimes corrupt, and they don't always do a good job. But they are the only party, of the two choices we have, that is *trying* to do a good job. So there's really no choice at all, and that's the real tragedy.
LikeLike
Well.. I got a question after having read a lot of these comments.
That Detroit thing, and stuff that has gone to shit the last few years in the US.
Is it Obamas fault for not fixing things quick enough
Is it the after effects of Bush's reign?
Or is it a mix of both?
If the answer is the third one.. then it's still not a really good reason to vote for Romney is it? I mean.. he does represent the same politics that Bush does, and if it is in part the after effect of Bush's politics having been dominate for eight years, electing some-one whom thinks like him probably wont help.
LikeLike
Allow me to provide a translation of Tickles thinking:
“Getting over what happened like a grown man would.” = Never talking about it such lying by omission about how abuse received as a child color one's view of the world.
***
”For example in sweden 90% aprox would be voting Democratic. That means most “Right wingers” here would be voting for your so called “left” That's how skewed your country is.“
Do not overestimate how “civilized” us Europeans are compared to the US: the USA is, thanks to its reliance of the first-past-the-post ballot, screwed by its two-party system, which means that instead of dwelling on the fringes, the far-right has taken control of one of the main parties through entriism: if such a system was as prevalent in Europe, the local conservatives would have become the lackeys of the far-right as well.
In fact, you don't have to look further than Britain: the elites of the british conservative party know how much their country's economy depends on Europe, yet, they reliably peddle europhobic bullshit because the first-past-the-post parliamentary elections means they need the votes of chauvinistic morons if they want to have a shot at winning.
LikeLike
@Sofie: Both Romney AND Obama will continue Bush's atrocious policies. Just look at Obama's current record (kill list, drone strikes, troop surges in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Libya, continuing war on drugs, indefinite detention, bloated bailouts to corrupt businesses, ect).
LikeLike
@Nixou: Maybe we have it all wrong and being bullied is just one of these healthy experiences Calvin's parents always refered to as “character building”…
LikeLike
There's no equivalency at all between Bush's policy of starting wars with countries that posed no immediate danger to the United States (and which, incidentally, served as a check on the military ambitions of Iran) while killing thousands and thousands of civilians and Obama's drone strike policy. As upsetting as the strikes are, they cause much less collateral damage, put US citizens at less risk, and do not carry with them a massive responsibility for Nation Building with all the attendant problems of occupying foreign countries. Don't make that mistake.
LikeLike
@Sofie
Detroit's been dying since the 1970s. It rose and fell with the US Auto industry, and that was fatally undercut by Japan and the oil crisis way back when.
Presidents don't have much of an effect on the economy. Bush doesn't deserve much blame for what happened, and Obama doesn't deserve blame for not having reversed everything in four years. It was an economic bubble that burst, same as has been happening in every boom and bust cycle for centuries. Those come into being when speculators are able to mislead the public into over-investing in the wrong things, and once the truth comes out that their investments were never worth anything, the market collapses, the few who manipulated the bubble end up richer than ever, and the rest end up poorer. That's beyond any president, that's institutional corruption, and everyone in a position of power does it.
The rising financial inequality in this country is the symptom and the legacy of these bubbles. The only thing a president (or a party) could do about this is to promote a progressive tax rate to partly alleviate the worst of this inequality, which, of course, the GOP is firmly opposed to.
The monster deficit is a long-term problem, and THAT is partly Bush's responsibility. He cut taxes on everyone (mostly on the rich), and spent money furiously on utterly wasteful enterprises like the Iraq War. Obama's been running up the tab even more, on bailouts that further rewarded the same investment firms that built up and popped that bubble without any real accountability. At the very least, though, his policies MAY end up giving SOMETHING back through better access to healthcare, but the GOP will do everything (and has successfully done a lot) to make that fail, just so they can then use that against him. And even if the GOP fails to stop it, it will still bankrupt the country. Regardless of whether or not we get anything back for it, the money's spent, it won't ever come back, and they're going to spend more.
Both parties are ruining the economy, neither party is going after any of those responsible for the current situation (because the rich own Congress and fund presidents) or doing anything to prevent it from happening again (the bailouts only made it MORE likely this will happen again). The only real difference is whether we'll have a shitty half-assed (but still extremely expensive) health care program, or if we'll just save that money for future wars. That's America's real choice in seven days. Pick your poison.
LikeLike
@Andrew
Well.. since I life in Denmark not the US…
I'll just elect to stay here thank you very much.
But I do follow American politics regardless, both by reading enternet articles and well.. simply watch the news as they do send US politics here in Denmark, for a reason.
What-ever happens over there, what-ever you elect, it will in the long term effect me also, because you are that big a super-power, my country is a flie in comparison, a little dot, a spec of dust.
The Economic bobble may originated at your place, but it is most certainly affecting my place to, and I as a person has felt the effects on my life, personal and working (I work with disabled people so yeah.. they are much worse of now then they were fice years ago, and each year they are still worse off.) very rapidly, these last eight years.
Well.. as your countries left thing is my exstreme right wing. And I am a left thing ene within my own countries standards.. i am a social-liberalist, and yes that's a thing, it should be obvious what I am crossing my fingers for here.
You may call your health-care half-assed, but well, it's still brand new and people hasn't really been demanding to be allowed it yet, people havn't yet stood up for it and demanded they should have it because the concept is still foreign.
But if you can get to a point where some politician suggest taking it away again and the people go. “What, no? this is our right, you can't do that!” .. then we might be getting some-where, because then the over-all view among the people has shifted.
Politics in the ideal world should be about the people, and about what is best for the people. But only few politics runs for the people more than they just run for themselves, and that's what makes it rotten, that's not just a US problem that's a universal problem as power positions does attract ass-holes whom needs compensation to get their self-esteem feeded.
Out of Romeny and Obama.. I think it's a bit obvious seeing whom is thinking most about the actual people.
But boy howdie, wouldn't it be nice if politicians could start arguing with clear facts instead of big ideals? then we would might be getting some-where!
LikeLike
@Sofie: Nothing to say about Obama's atrocious record on military action and civil liberties?
LikeLike
@Anonymous
Nothing that doesn't faints in the comparison to Bush's actions in Iraque, the even earlier actions in Vietman and oh well.. just continous assaults on oil countries that is nothing new at all but some-thing that has gone on ever since after second world war.
If you have to pick between two evils.. not voting for the lesser evil is still voting for the bigger evil that won. Because the vote you didn't cast is the vote that didn't go against him.
Also.. if you don't vote you don't have a right to complain really, then you pushed away your responsibility for the future of the country.
How-ever, if you do vote, you earned to right to yell. “GOD DAMMIT I GOT YOU INTO THAT OFFICE! NOW DO STUFF!” for the next four years.
LikeLike
@Sofie: The lesser of two evils is still evil. If there is a better alternative, then you go for THAT, or you continue to endure stagnation and/or regression.
LikeLike
Define “better alternative”.
LikeLike
You know, after listening to Bob's ridiculous tirade I am no more inclined to vote than I was before. Which is not at all. I'm on Team: Fuck Everybody And/Or Everything That Has To Do With Politics.
Reps, Dems, Indies, libs, cons? The only descision that I'd approve regarding all of them would be about how fast they could all get loaded into a rocket and shot straight into the fucking sun!
As far as I am concerned, if you're interested in politics in any way then YOU! are what's wrong with America. Why not just live your fucking lives and leave everyone else alone? And that's all politics is. Imposing(or seeking to) your ideas/opinions/beliefs on others because you think some how you just know better.
FUCK THAT! I could really not care less which of these two collosal assholes wins the white house but listening to Bob's rant gave me at least one pleasurable thing to look forward to in the event of a Romney victory: It'll be fun just to see Bob's head swell up with rage and nearly burst. I'd pay to see that.
LikeLike
Bob said “thoughts and prayers to my fellow hurricane-weatherers”
What the hell is a self-proclaimed atheist doing praying for other people?
Seems to me that Bob is just being a pretentious, self-congratulatory gasbag.
LikeLike
you do realize that theism has nothing to do with prayer, right? Heck, Buddhism is an atheistic religion and that has prayers.
LikeLike
@ Paul
Heh. You know, the Ancient Greeks used to literally have people like you dragged to town meeting with paint stripes on them so people would make fun of their counterproductive apathy.
Politics is people working together for the common good. We can't “leave each other alone” because society doesn't work that way. Somebody has to make rules and codes of conduct, somebody has to enforce them, etc etc. You can't escape just because it's hard.
I know it's really painful for you to be around other people who have opinions they want to convince you of, but the fact is that you have a responsibility, as a member of a society, to have a damn opinion, to listen to other people, and to try to influence society for what you see as the best. Anything less than that is just cowardly, boring nihilism.
Aristotle said “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.” I guess you think you're a God, but you sound like a beast to me.
I'd say it'd be better if you didn't vote, but the reality is, the best thing is if you vote a straight Democratic ticket. The Republican party basically sounds exactly like you, decrying cooperation in their quest to enrich the wealthy, and they need to go down.
LikeLike
@Aiddon
“Theism has nothing to do with prayer”
Are you retarded?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prayer
Prayer is the act of beseeching supernatural or metaphysical sources for help.
People who don't believe in the supernatural, yet still say shit like “my prayers are with them” are just trying to congratulate themselves for not actually doing anything.
LikeLike
again, prayer does not have to be done by a theist. Theism just means “belief in a creator deity”; you can be religious and be an atheist at the same time (again, Buddhism due to a lack of a creator). But then again, since you started a comment by engaging in a personal attack it's obvious that is beyond your mind's ability to comprehend. Toodles.
LikeLike
@Sofie
Oh, I know your story. I'm a regular commenter at the Agony Booth. 🙂
There actually is something that Europe can do to help out the US, and by extension, themselves. Right your own economies. Fix healthcare over there and keep it financially viable, and you'll make it more attractive to skeptics over here. You wanna help keep America's deficit down?
Get the US military off of your continent, and replace it with an effective joint-European military that doesn't need the US to co-ordinate it and lead it whenever it's deployed anywhere. That'll help keep US military spending down, and hopefully make it harder for war hawks to sell the public on the idea of more costly expeditions that do nothing but benefit those corporation that fund them in exchange for no-bid contracts in the next war.
American social liberals (either Dems or third party like myself) frequently look to Europe as an example of what we'd like the US to be more like, but if your economies are even more insolvent than ours and you're having an even harder time dealing with immigration, it makes the idea of a more socially liberal America seem unfeasible to us (and even more undesirable to conservatives).
I do agree with you that once healthcare is established, it will be nearly impossible to get rid of (even prominent Republicans don't dare speak about rolling back Social Security), but that's not a good thing unless universal health care can be made affordable. And given the incredibly-expensive and not-very-popular half-measure they've passed, and the lack of any substantial benefits appearing thus far, it's already shaping up to be a money sink. To be honest, I don't even know where those trillions went.
Even if Romney wins and the GOP somehow takes the Senate, the most they could do is kill future funding, probably not until the 2014 budget at the earliest. Meaning that everything that had been spent thus far is gone, somewhere, and we'll never see it again. The biggest drains on the deficit are Social Security and Medicare, but you can't touch that or you'll lose the senior vote (aka Florida). And you can't raise taxes because the voters will throw you out in the midterms for that.
Say, how's Greece looking? You have a better view, dontcha?
LikeLike
@Aiddon
Again, what's the point of praying to an entity you don't believe in?
Answer: attention
LikeLike
@Anonymous
Or inclusion. Even if you don't believe in a god, it still can be a nice thing to speak of prayers in case someone else does. Not everyone's a pedantic hardass.
LikeLike
@Andrew: Greece is actually one of the reasons I have mostly resigned myself to vote on social issues alone. If I'm going to live in an economy that is through-and-through built on astronomical debt, both in the public and private sector, we might as well progress as a species a little, before all the untennable make-belief cash is thrown out for the next paradigm.
That is to say, yes, universal health care is an ungodly money-pit. Everywhere. Just get used to the idea, if you want the positive social changes that come with it. Consider limiting pharmaceutical patents if you want to optimize things a little.
LikeLike
Bob, still waiting for you to defend the kill list, drone strikes, war on drugs, indefinite detention, and other failed Bush era policies that Obama continued. How many innocents have to suffer and die for you to get the “progress” you desire.
LikeLike
@Annonymous who started with “Sorry haters, but Bob is right on all counts here”
“I see that a lot of conservative or moderate commenters here want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but honestly, the whole party should be regarded with apprehension and disgust.”
Which commenters are these?
“The reason is pretty straightforward: the entire agenda of the party is to increase the advantage of the powerful over the powerless.”
Sure, sure. Let's take a look. I mean, it's sooooo stupid to come out with 'Obama's a communist' or 'anti-colonialist', even though those are things that lots of people approve of and adore. We shouldn't even CONSIDER arguing about whether or not Obama is a communist, because it's so stupid that it doesn't even warrant discussion. Let's all wail on that 2016 movie without even watching it.
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=42948&p=717304
But just straight calling people racist, sexist and hating the poor and powerless, that's fine. THAT is actually worth talking about. Sure, fine, whatever. Let's talk about it.
****
“This is true when they try to cut unemployment benefits,”
Unemployment benefits to who? Specific, much?
****
“…when they try to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain…”
Collective bargaining = going on strike and still getting paid. That's a load of shit. We live in a free market where nobody can force you to work or force you to buy their product. But as Big Gay Al said it best: freedom is a two-way street. YOU can't force someone else to hire you or keep you employed. If you don't like the way your boss is treating you, you go get a different job. If there's no better job to get, then tough luck, it's not your boss's fault. I'm sure he wishes he didn't have such whiny and entitled workers.
Now, private workers can strike all they want. If a bunch of private, non-government individuals want to start a union and constantly protest for higher wages, that's fine (just like how it's fine for a company to NOT HIRE them if that company so chooses). But public employees, like public teachers? The taxpayer pays them. That means that we are their bosses. And if you, as a taxpayer, didn't like it when the teachers in Chicago put children out of school for a week over dumb, trivial crap (I mean people are NOT dropping like flies in coal mines any more, Jesus Christ people), you have a right to slap those people into shape and get them to stop wasting your money.
****
“…when they try to take away women's civil rights…”
Oh yippity yoo. This one. This one alllllways comes. I love how, despite the Republicans being so anti-woman, that so many women are comfortable voting for them and, you know, BEING Republican politicians. Moving on, I ask you, what, exactly, are 'they' trying to do that will take away women's rights?
No, no I do absolutely know exactly what you're going to say already, but I want you to say it; I want you to personally experience how retarded the tired arguments sound coming out of your own mouth. I mean fingers.
[continued…]
LikeLike
[…continued]
“…and deny civil rights to gay soldiers and gay couples…”
Gay people? Okay, this might be a long one, but…
Pro traditional marriage =/= anti gay people.
Now that's not to say that NO anti-gay marriage proponents are also homophobic. There are a number of them, for sure, but they're the absurd, freak minority. The Democrats had a former KKK leader in Congress until the year two-thousand-and-bloody-ten, but the DNC isn't called racist just because of that.
Look, I know it's a tough issue, and it's one that I'm not totally decided on myself, but marriage is *not* a right. It's an arbitrary societal institution. That's NOT NOT NOT to say that it isn't a good idea. I think, as an idea, it sounds just fine. But it's not a 'right'. It's not the same as having to stand in different lines and sit in the back of the bus.
And even if marriage WERE a right, well, it's still not as simple and clear-cut as you may think (or wish it was). Let me explain.
Marriage, in most Western society right now, is this: A union between one man and one woman.
By comparison, a flight of stairs, right now, is this: A series of horizontal-sloping steps, angled in a manner as to allow travel along a vertical plane.
See? Those are the current definitions of those two things. Now, two men aren't being rendered unable to marry because they're gay; their gayness is rendering them unable to marry. Because, by definition, two people of the same sex CAN'T get married.
By the same logic, a person in a wheelchair is not being 'discriminated' against for not being able to go up a flight of stairs. Hatred of disabled folk is not why that guy can't get up those stairs. It's the simple fact that HE can't go on the stairs, not the stairs can't accept him.
But, but, but, but, but, but, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, marriage is–as I said–a societal institution, and it can take on different meanings if society chooses it to be so. Therefore, if we decide to change the defintion of marriage, to:
“A union between two people, period”
Then that would be totally fine! If the same sex marriage movement could just run on THIS platform, rather than the false-premise of it being a civil rights issue, I would be much more onto the idea.
But really, after all that, I think you can see why JUST not support gay marriage doesn't automatically make you homophobic. Marriage has been something intended for heterosexual couples throughout human history. Even ancient Rome–which was VERY approving of homosexuality–still saw marriage as between a man and a woman. So really, the gay community is asking society to do them a favor. The gay community is asking that society change itself to accommodate them. Again, it may be a good idea, but it's still not something that someone is a jerk for just because they feel changing marriage would devalue it to them.
****
Gay SOLDIERS, on the other hand, I see more validity in. Not much, but a little. I don't see why sexuality should be hidden in the military. I do, however, agree with what Rick Santorum (who I'm sure you all just looooove) was talking about when he said 'sex doesn't have ANY place in the military, straight or gay'. Makes sense to me. A guy being gay can be distracting and a waste of time in the military. I get it.
Republicans and everybody else who supports the idea behind don't ask don't tell are NOT homophobic just because of that. They just–at very, very worst–subscribe to a policy (intended to PROTECT gay soldiers, mind you; read the whole “don't ask” part) that backfires in some respects. I mean, wouldn't an ACTUALLY homophobe want gays out of the military period? Why are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and damn near every Repub inbetween so okay and cool about it?
[continued…]
LikeLike
[…continued]
“…when they try create a tax system that lets multimillionaires pay 13% and forces me to pay 25%…”
You didn't watch the debates, did you?
Did you know Romney has a less conservative tax plan that just about every Republican who ran against him in the primary? Newt and Herman Cain both supported a flat tax. That way everybody pays the same rate. Now that is progressive equality if you ask me.
Most conservatives would like a flat tax. Though Romney isn't giving them that, even if they'd prefer it.
But still, did you watch the debates?
****
“…while calling me a “slacker” and a “dependent”…”
Do you take in government money or support? If so, how would you do if that support was taken away? If that would be DEVASTATING, then you're dependent on government. If you also are not trying–or wish you could try–to become INdependent, then you are a slacker.
If you are neither of these things, then great! Conservatives are not talking about you when they talk about dependent slackers.
The GOP's motto right now is to get people less dependent on government. They're not saying “you're dependent so you suck”, they're saying “you're dependent and we want to help you”.
****
“…and it's true when they engage in massive campaigns of voter suppression in response to nonexistent problems of voter fraud…”
Voter fraud is voter suppression. If one guy votes twice, that cancels out one guy who voted for the other candidate.
Also, what 'massive campaigns of voter suppression' are you talking about here? Voter ID laws? Laws that require you to prove who you are in order to be able to vote? Who is this going to suppress? People without faces?
And yes, again, I know exactly what you're going to say. And again, I want you to say it. Go on ahead, dude. *grabs oxygen supply in the event I choke on laughter*
****
“In fact, a whole secondary reason for finding Republicans kind of disgusting has to do with their base's inability to be honest in its quest to reach its goals…”
Ooh, this should be good.
****
“Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (bullshit)”
Solid evidence and intelligence pointed to WMDs existing. Damn near every major country agreed that they existed. Ever thought that maybe–realizing they were coming to snoop around–Saddam got rid of them or something?
Even then, why isn't it a good idea to act upon solid evidence and smoke out the possibility of evil people having dangerous weapons?
****
“Trickle Down Economics (bullshit)”
Actually, they are, because that's not what it's called
Yeah 'trickle down' was actually the term made up by people who didn't like Reagan's “Supply Side Economics”.
But call it what you like, please, for the love of God tell me what's wrong with this logic:
“The more money people have, the more people spend money”
Because that's a concept conservative economic policy is all about. Please give me one damn reason this is false.
****
“The Death Penalty Deters Crime (bullshit)”
A criminal wouldn't consider changing his future actions based on the possibility of death? How can you prove this?
[continued…]
LikeLike