anyone else disillusioned w/ politics
- Thread starter confidential
- Start date
everything is up to others
mainly because you are a worthless cunt
think about it
now go wallow in your delusions of grandeur some more...tell us what pixar movie you will cry 2 next
mainly because you are a worthless cunt
think about it
now go wallow in your delusions of grandeur some more...tell us what pixar movie you will cry 2 next
Last edited:
I watched the Zeitgeist movie. Good watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0u8cTCYLSw
At the 42 minute mark, they talk about why our economy is failing, the system is flawed due to greed and lust over money. After about 40 minutes, they go into the solution, of a resource based economy.
Even though they say people would volunteer to work, I don't see it. Someone would have more than others. A bigger home, more access to the resources. At about the 2 hour mark, they compare this solution to Markism, or Socialism, with everyone being equal. Someone isn't going to do a hard job if they are not compensated for it. Once someone gets more than others, the class warefare begins, and money is back in the system. This movie is imagining a world without money. Show me where that is happening right now, besides some hut in Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0u8cTCYLSw
At the 42 minute mark, they talk about why our economy is failing, the system is flawed due to greed and lust over money. After about 40 minutes, they go into the solution, of a resource based economy.
Even though they say people would volunteer to work, I don't see it. Someone would have more than others. A bigger home, more access to the resources. At about the 2 hour mark, they compare this solution to Markism, or Socialism, with everyone being equal. Someone isn't going to do a hard job if they are not compensated for it. Once someone gets more than others, the class warefare begins, and money is back in the system. This movie is imagining a world without money. Show me where that is happening right now, besides some hut in Africa.
Last edited:
look at the healtcare plan, it took what like 6+ years and still people are bitching and moaning.
The guy has had the most opposition than any president previously. He has a whole news network and a whole political party set to destroy everything he does, he can literally save a litter of puppies from a burning building, and half the country would still talk shit to him. People still dont believe him to be American and think of him as muslim invader taking away everything they have.
Getting a motion such as getting money out of politics, approved, ESPECIALLY when probably the majority of the politicians earn their second homes/ vacation homes / job security and so on from exactly that, is not going to be anything near possible for the current government.
What you need is to first elect the right people in your states, then you have a chance to pass such legislation. Until then, there are bigger and more reasonable battles to be fought.
ps: Im not an Obama support or hater, im a believer of facts. He has had probably the worst government and time to handle in the new age. Coming out of the mistakes from the bush administration. I believe he has done as best as he could, he is not perfect, he has made some choices i do not like. But i believe 100% he was a better choices than romney.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The guy has had the most opposition than any president previously. He has a whole news network and a whole political party set to destroy everything he does, he can literally save a litter of puppies from a burning building, and half the country would still talk shit to him. People still dont believe him to be American and think of him as muslim invader taking away everything they have.
Getting a motion such as getting money out of politics, approved, ESPECIALLY when probably the majority of the politicians earn their second homes/ vacation homes / job security and so on from exactly that, is not going to be anything near possible for the current government.
What you need is to first elect the right people in your states, then you have a chance to pass such legislation. Until then, there are bigger and more reasonable battles to be fought.
ps: Im not an Obama support or hater, im a believer of facts. He has had probably the worst government and time to handle in the new age. Coming out of the mistakes from the bush administration. I believe he has done as best as he could, he is not perfect, he has made some choices i do not like. But i believe 100% he was a better choices than romney.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 2 party system is the result of a series of elections, each for single individuals. If you can only vote for 1 person at a time, you end up with "whoever is most popular" and "2nd most popular" everything else is a wasted vote (rare exceptions possible that disappear by the next elections).
Problem is that the system is now filled with shitty people who are not interested in fixing it. And any idea I can come up with that might fix it would take more money and organisation than creating a party/bribing congress, specifically to push reform.
crazy stupid ideas below:
The only way I can think of that could bypass it (except revolution) would be in citizens themselves organize their own pseudo-government with pseudo-elections filled with candidates in an election configuration that doesn't suck, (like the dutch 150 seats divided across parties depending on vote %) then they surrender their official votes to an organisation that tallies their pseudo-votes and and uses the official votes to elect people in the actual government proportional to the results of the psudo-election. Problem is that i don't think you can give your vote to another person like that in america, so people would have to vote depending on what the pseudo government told them to vote. The advantage of this over going for reform in 1 go is that this can grow each election cycle.
Maybe in a country where people really want to vote, but lost faith in the official system
Or maybe if we start promoting candidates that will vote on absolutely nothing except reform, like a none of the above vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Problem is that the system is now filled with shitty people who are not interested in fixing it. And any idea I can come up with that might fix it would take more money and organisation than creating a party/bribing congress, specifically to push reform.
crazy stupid ideas below:
The only way I can think of that could bypass it (except revolution) would be in citizens themselves organize their own pseudo-government with pseudo-elections filled with candidates in an election configuration that doesn't suck, (like the dutch 150 seats divided across parties depending on vote %) then they surrender their official votes to an organisation that tallies their pseudo-votes and and uses the official votes to elect people in the actual government proportional to the results of the psudo-election. Problem is that i don't think you can give your vote to another person like that in america, so people would have to vote depending on what the pseudo government told them to vote. The advantage of this over going for reform in 1 go is that this can grow each election cycle.
Maybe in a country where people really want to vote, but lost faith in the official system
Or maybe if we start promoting candidates that will vote on absolutely nothing except reform, like a none of the above vote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A) he's the only president ever to negotiate with terrorists;
Regardless of whether other presidents have done it, it's still a good idea to keep this policy in place. Here, legally speaking, it doesn't look like Obama violated the policy because 1) the Afghan Taliban are not formally a terrorist organization, and 2) most of our negotiations were with Qatar. But it's still questionable whether the administration should be trumpeting its willingness to negotiate under these terms so loudly.
B) He did so illegally and without following proper channels;
I don't think there's any serious dispute that Obama violated the letter and spirit of the law requiring 30 days notice before releasing the prisoners from GITMO. The administration's defense is that the law is unconstitutional. But if they really thought that, they shouldn't have signed the law when it passed Congress. This doesn't really matter because it's unlikely any court will ever rule on this issue (they'll call it a political question) but it's still not great to have the President of the United States flatly ignoring U.S. laws.
C) he values the life of a "traitor" so much that he handed back five avowed terrorists who will then kill as many Americans as they can now that they are free;
I think you're mischaracterizing the argument. It's one thing to say that we should do what we can to get Bergdahl back. As you stated whether or not he's a deserter, he's still an American soldier, and his guilt or innocence should be determined here, by us, not by the Taliban. But even if Bergdahl was the perfect soldier, there would still, I think, be a real question of whether giving up these particular Taliban commanders was the best way to secure his release. It's not ridiculous to think that the security concerns they present -- concerns the president himself acknowledged yesterday -- make this a bad call. Many people inside the administration apparently said as much during the lead up to the decision.
There's also the optics of the situation. The White House made the decision to trumpet Bergdahl as a hero in a Rose Garden ceremony and talk about how bravely he served. But the fact of the matter is that many people who served with Bergdahl think he was neither brave nor a hero. And many of those soldiers are also upset because the effort to rescue Bergdahl led to the deaths of at least five other soldiers. It's a little galling to see the President celebrate Bergdahl while ignoring the sacrifices of all those other soldiers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regardless of whether other presidents have done it, it's still a good idea to keep this policy in place. Here, legally speaking, it doesn't look like Obama violated the policy because 1) the Afghan Taliban are not formally a terrorist organization, and 2) most of our negotiations were with Qatar. But it's still questionable whether the administration should be trumpeting its willingness to negotiate under these terms so loudly.
B) He did so illegally and without following proper channels;
I don't think there's any serious dispute that Obama violated the letter and spirit of the law requiring 30 days notice before releasing the prisoners from GITMO. The administration's defense is that the law is unconstitutional. But if they really thought that, they shouldn't have signed the law when it passed Congress. This doesn't really matter because it's unlikely any court will ever rule on this issue (they'll call it a political question) but it's still not great to have the President of the United States flatly ignoring U.S. laws.
C) he values the life of a "traitor" so much that he handed back five avowed terrorists who will then kill as many Americans as they can now that they are free;
I think you're mischaracterizing the argument. It's one thing to say that we should do what we can to get Bergdahl back. As you stated whether or not he's a deserter, he's still an American soldier, and his guilt or innocence should be determined here, by us, not by the Taliban. But even if Bergdahl was the perfect soldier, there would still, I think, be a real question of whether giving up these particular Taliban commanders was the best way to secure his release. It's not ridiculous to think that the security concerns they present -- concerns the president himself acknowledged yesterday -- make this a bad call. Many people inside the administration apparently said as much during the lead up to the decision.
There's also the optics of the situation. The White House made the decision to trumpet Bergdahl as a hero in a Rose Garden ceremony and talk about how bravely he served. But the fact of the matter is that many people who served with Bergdahl think he was neither brave nor a hero. And many of those soldiers are also upset because the effort to rescue Bergdahl led to the deaths of at least five other soldiers. It's a little galling to see the President celebrate Bergdahl while ignoring the sacrifices of all those other soldiers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SOUNDS LIKE VANSTER HAS A GF
holy shit that Tony Abbott guy is a retard....
glad to see them obtain George Bush Jr's long lost cousin.
Don't worry, salvation is on its way. In the form of hope and change next election
If history is any indicator an aborigine will be elected next time:
and he will give you all new things to make u feel pitiful about.
It always strikes me as a bit odd when people do that.
When people compare American 'black guys' with Australian 'black guys' (this includes the American 'black guys' and Australian 'black guys' doing the comparing, as well).
It's actually an incredibly racist thing to do, the only real parallel being skin colour. Far more accurate comparison is our 'black guys' and your 'red guys'.. both of which are "first nations" people and whose problems/struggles/challenges are far more closely matched.
..but yes, Tony Abbott is a retard. People still voted for him. Didn't even get the fraud allegations that Dubya did. Hopefully it's not a mistake people will make twice.
Was intended to be more humorous than historically accurate I'm afraid.
I apologize if I failed at both in your mind.
And of course there is a difference.....I'd much rather vote for an aborigine or a cannibal from the Korowai tribes of New Guinea.
Both would be far more advanced, sophisticated, and articulate than the majority of blacks here in America.
lemon likes to save his bandwidth and effort for matching faces to any pending dick pics he might find posted on the internet.
what