Messages

Don't feel bad. I can't comment on your commentary because I couldn't the that far, being stopped by the Commandments themselves being so fucking inane.

fuck that

This is more of that "if you vote for a third party candidate, you're throwing your vote away" rhetoric.

In 2004, 25% of the Electorate consisted of independant or 'third party' voters. That's only eight percent less than the number of republicans. The things they stand for shouldn't just be swept under a rug just because they're slightly smaller slice of the pie than the other two minorities. As if the only reason to show support for a candidate is to get him elected -- so if he's not going to win, jump ship while there's still time. fuck that noise!

Now I'll agree that in this election, Obama will probably outshine whoever's gonna take up the accursed Third Party mantle. But you're implying that anyone who votes third party (or doesn't vote at all) is contributing to putting citizens in camps? Come on. Might as well compare Nader to Hitler while you're at it.

I agree with the sentiment that the 2-party system is fucked, and that 3rd-party candidates ought to be an option. Normally, I'm right there with you, rallying behind the 3rd-party underdog guy.

But this year there is too much at stake to keep ignoring the way the system actually works in favor of the way the system should work. IMHO/E-Prime/etc.

My ideals are noble.

My beliefs are true.

I cannot, must not, compromise. That would be turning my back on my ideals.

The system is fixed, rigged, corrupt.

POLITICIANS are all swine. They cannot have my vote. I will not support them.

Instead, I will support myself. And ignore the politicians.

I will squeal like a pig, but I won't support this broken system.

I will consistently vote my conscience, if I bother to show up at the polls at all.

Compromising on a candidate who will compromise with the enemy is compromising my beliefs.

When the enemy wins the election, I will ignore it.

And next week, I'll ignore the tap in my phone line. And the white van parked outside my apartment, and the satellite dish aimed at my living room.

And I'll write DOWN WITH D.C. on the wall of my cell at the camp.

That'll show 'em.

Well, I think it sucks.*















*the opinions expressed in this post may not be based on fact.

sure do.  Would be happy to e-mail or whatever.  I could also .pdf it, but I don't currently have a file host that will take .pdf's.   

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10369.0

I say we break the BIP down into core concepts and select an article that best represents each concept, then mirror that with using LOLLERCAUST materials, and publish a Yin-Yang version.

srsly, though, i live in Wyoming and that's why I'm voting for Obama. I can't wait to see the look on all these rural asstards' faces in November when they know they're about to have a Black president. Or on January 20th, when they actually have one.

Also, I can't wait to tell the Rush Limbaugh fanboys around here, "HEY WE'RE AT WAR! GOOD AMERICANS SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT DURING WARTIME!"

Modern politics engages in that sort of behavior all the time, across the spectrum. While the GOP claims it is for "small government," it also advocates the idea of America as a society that is culturally, religiously, and at times racially homogeneous. Like Fascism, it elevates the concept of The State to a mythical, almost Godlike importance, and questions not only the loyalty of dissenters but the very human value of anyone who dares to contradict their political dogma.

The Democrats do almost the same thing, but are more global-minded. They elevate other ideas to dangerous importance, but these go beyond the State and include the "Global Community." The sentiment may be essentially the same but I think the implications and consequences of such a worldview are, at this point in history, more beneficial since it tends to diffuse narrow-minded nationalism and emphasize equality among people regardless of origin or culture.

The practical point here, though, is that for the immediate future, the Democrats are in favor of expanding civil liberties, conducting foreign policy with a modicum of restraint and cooperation even with those who don't necessarily agree with us, and recognizing and dealing with domestic and foreign economic problems as they pertain to average people; and they have a vested interest in moving traditionally sidelined groups into political validity, which reinforces the structures of democratic government. I'm not a toe-the-line Democrat. I don't expect to be on the same page with this party forever (I'm not even 100% in agreement right now), but at this moment, this is the party best positioned to enact the kinds of policy I believe to be necessary for my own comfort and security.

The Green Party would probably do a pretty good job of most things too -- but the Green Party isn't an option when I see no indication that they have widespread support necessary to defeat the evil bastards who are practically drooling at the chance to send tanks through downtown San Francisco, and who happen to be in control of the GOP.

The GOP consistently campaigns on a Fascist platform -- lower/no taxes for business, the economic belief that freeing corporations to do whatever they want ultimately benefits the entire population, the belief that "freedom of speech" should include allowing wealthy companies to dictate government policy on just about every matter, the complete dissolution of social safety nets, a complete reliance on "private business" for all needs, doing away with government regulation (or "interference") in almost every industry. These are the ideas that the GOP campaigns on. They never accomplish any of this because they haven't been allowed to. But the party has gotten some of this done on a local level in some places (it's all pretty much failed horribly, of course) so it's obvious that they genuinely want to.

More recently, the GOP has also begun to espouse the belief that the federal military should be used for domestic police activities, that the people have only a severely limited right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and especially since 9/11 they seem to think that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and favor security over liberty.

The Dems aren't much better, obviously. But in my opinion they currently propose policies more directly beneficial to the People. They also have a habit of giving good reasons why their policies will work better, as opposed to invoking 9/11 and squawking a bunch of crap to scare people into obedience.  Also, their political support is made up of many people who could be easy to profile and persecute -- minorities, the 'fringe,' etc. In the interest of their own survival, the Dems would be loathe to institute the kind of far-reaching authoritarian policies that the GOP could get away with because of its nearly monolithic support base of idiotic hicks.

you have the play the hand you're dealt. there's plenty of room for campaigning on issues but popular elections don't really that way -- they're games of probability and strategery. personally, i believe in campaigning hard for the best 'perfect world' candidate you can find, in the hopes of growing support for him/her and forcing the mainstream candidates to espouse a few of the policy changes your preferred candidate would make. but when it comes to the general election, you have to be realistic, especially when you're dancing on the line between modest progress and outright fascism.

he stole the story from this board tho. it's in Apple Talk somewhere.

last night, he covered the story about the teacher in Florida who got fired for "Wizardry," too.

haha!

I'm safe from this rant! I post at two 'radical' forums!

It isn't that there is "more" Asberger's or AD(H)D, or depression; it's that where in the past people were expected to overcome such obstacles (albeit to the detriment of many), these days we just write a script and medicate these people into "normalcy." The problem with that, though, is that the "normalcy" these people become accustomed to is not actually very healthy. First of all, it's substance-dependence. Secondly, we are not fighting the root causes of these syndromes, because to face that beast would make EVERYBODY need some fucking Prozac. We don't want to admit that our addiction to convenience and instant gratification is making us sick, physically, mentally, and culturally. We don't want to put in the effort it requires to be well-rounded, well-educated, or well-spoken.

Our entire society is fast becoming a club for non-joiners. Where we once had to depend for our very survival on the people around us, we have disconnected from ourselves and each other, and addicted ourselves to a synthesized approximation of community that is manufactured not to replace the functions of the vital social bonds our civilization is build on, but to sell us on the idea that everything Humans have spent the past 50,000 years striving for is now, magically, available at a low introductory rate and can be delivered in six to eight weeks.

It is not TV specifically that has caused this, but TV has led the charge. It symbolizes the modern institution of the One-Way Society. The myth that there is a They out there, somewhere, looking out for Us; and that we no longer need each other because we have the TV and the blessings of the Modern Age.

I admire the attempts to rid the US of the broken two-party system. But you can't get that done by supporting a third party. The culture in US politics is such that every third party is immediately dismissed, even if they've won small elections for local government seats. Ultimately, while democracy should be about voting for your candidate, I don't think we really have that luxury in America. More gets done by pushing the lumbering, clumsy system we have in the general direction of your beliefs, although it's still a negligible amount of progress.

But I could be wrong. I do notice that the facts don't exactly fit the assumptions being made by people on all sides of every issue. For example, lots of people claim America's on the fast track to totalitarianism, like that's anything new. The entire USA was practically under Soviet-style Marshall Law during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was only the 16th president and he was actively imprisoning people (and probably worse) for printing the sorts of things that even Bush just ignores.

The general trend in the USA is toward a more progressive society. Even in the face of the "War on Terror," that is borne out by the fact that the Supreme Court keeps rebuking Bush and his fascist detention policies.

Back to the elections. The simple fact is, if you vote for Nader, you're going to help McCain win. That's just how it will go. And, the next President will appoint at least TWO Supreme Court justices. If it's McCain, SCOTUS will be tipped in the Right-Wing direction for at least a generation. Even if McCain himself doesn't want to do that, he will be forced to do it because of politics.