>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
also, the Electoral College is a power check against the people. The electoral college is not required to vote with the peoples choice. Should the people choose a 3rd party candidate, the electoral college, as part of the establishment, would side with the establishment.
while we enjoy many things here in the states, democracy is not one of them.

You're 100% right. Now what are you doing about it?
>> ^renatojj:
>> ^gorillaman:
"I refuse to opt-in to mob rule. I do not give you permission to run my life."
Voting is apathy. If you want to be politically active get a weapon and use it.
Best answer ever.

No, it's a retarded answer. It's the answer of someone with the mentality of a 13 year old boy. But at least it's got the right motivation, if entirely the wrong methodology.
Personally, I think this is something Australia got right. You want to be a citizen? Fucking vote.
Once again, if you're not voting, what are you doing to fix the issues that cause you to not vote.


i guess that depends on what you call "participation"
i spent 2 yrs as an attorney with the fed gov, afterwhich i worked public interest law with disability, domestic violence victims, and then incarcerated juveniles (prison reform). Then I switched out of law to study the spine and neurology and have spent the last 12 yrs getting better at getting people out of pain, and teaching it.
now the question isn't what am i doing about things, the question is whether punching a button on a ballot machine is actual participation or just a way to make people feel like they are participating, when in fact, they couldn't be more apathetic or out of touch with reality.

Here's why your vote matters.

You represent various groups. The more that group votes, the more politicians in parties, the parties themselves, or new parties gravitate to those groups and their views.

If you're a truly moderate, open minded person, if you don't vote, and the crazies do, guess who the candidates gravitate towards? The crazies.

With that said, I don't encourage people to vote. If you're too apathetic or stupid to understand this, I don't want political leaders trying to earn your vote.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^chingalera:
>> ^alien_concept:
Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.

Duty?! Oh man dude, get your head outta those apps and gaming platforms and please~read some books!!

Hahahahaha. No, I just don't give a fuck. They're redundant. They have been redundant for hundreds of years. They cost us money, they make us money. The only thing that pisses me off is that she doesn't call control of her armies and overthrow the government, but that's a dream that will never happen. Sigh, fuck them all.


Can we still be all maddy-man at them though?? Pleeease!? They have FUCKING horrible taste, after all~
What in all FUCK is up with that giant slip-cover she be wearin' anyhow?? She cant button it because it has drapery hangers all over it!!

>> ^chingalera:

>> ^alien_concept:
Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.

Duty?! Oh man dude, get your head outta those apps and gaming platforms and please~read some books!!


Hahahahaha. No, I just don't give a fuck. They're redundant. They have been redundant for hundreds of years. They cost us money, they make us money. The only thing that pisses me off is that she doesn't call control of her armies and overthrow the government, but that's a dream that will never happen. Sigh, fuck them all.

>> ^alien_concept:

Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.


Duty?! Oh man dude, get your head outta those apps and gaming platforms and please~read some books!!

Eh, I am apathetic when it comes to monarchy, they didn't ask to be born into the duty.

I've never had pot, or any other illegal drug for that matter. I have never smoked or chewed tobacco, and I actually didn't drink alcohol until I turned 21, and only very rarely since then.

I don't really have any interest in it. I *hate* cigarette smoke, so the primary method of consumption (smoking) is repellant to me. With regards to alcohol, a light buzz is a somewhat good sensation for me but I strongly dislike the feeling of being drunk. I don't mean being hung over, I mean that when I am drunk I can tell that my brain isn't operating at peak efficiency and it just bothers me. That minor positive feeling I get with having 1-2 drinks honestly doesn't justify the cost of alcohol vs other beverages, and that is before the risk of drinking too much and the discomfort of being drunk.

I don't mean to push any of that on anyone -- I know and am friends with a lot of people who like getting drunk, quite a few that like to smoke, and some that smoke pot. I just mention it to present my perspective.

The thing that bothers me about most discussion about pot is that you only hear from the two opposite extremes. You've got your narc ATF-types that tell you that pot is highly addictive, it takes otherwise productive people and makes they lazy and apathetic, it is a surefire gateway to stronger drugs, it ruins lives, etc. etc. Then you've got the High Times-types that tell you that it cures every affliction known to mankind, it has no negative effects whatsoever, and that we might as well grind it up and put it in the water supply or something.

Having had no direct personal experience with it, my best guess is that pot impairs your judgement and mental faculties to a degree roughly equivalent to alcohol, possibly less so. Smoking it probably has negative health consequences roughly similar to smoking tobacco, but probably a little bit less bad -- for one thing, there are probably many more people who smoke a pack or two of cigarettes per day than people who smoke an equivalent number of joints. Less inhaled smoke probably means less detriment to health. In terms of addictiveness, it appears to me that pot is far less addictive than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Combine all that stuff together, and I don't understand why alcohol and tobacco are legal while pot isn't. Prohibition was a disaster, and the war on drugs (particularly pot) seems to be a failure to learn from that. That being said, if a high school student brings alcohol or tobacco to school and gets caught with them, they will probably be confiscated and given some punishment. Contrary to what Rogan says, I have heard of undercover/sting operations to bust underage drinking, particularly in order to punish adults to distribute alcohol to minors. All that is fine with me, probably a good thing.

In this clip, I didn't think that Dr. Drew's statements were all that extreme towards the ATF extreme side -- at least, not really any more than Rogan's were towards the High Times side. Still, upvote for presenting his viewpoint honestly and directly. I think that we need more discussion about this, with the likely result being that we get some real information that lands somewhere in the middle.

If I wasn't so apathetic I might actual register so I can vote no. But I don't give a fuck because they'll just keep trying until they get the answer they want anyway.

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

apathy and ignorance.
a pretty potent mix.
not really surprising when you create a society of consumers.
where people equate success with their bank account and relate who they are with what they own.
a whole population of "happiness machines" who have been told since they were tiny how "special" and "unique" they are and how the pursuit of material goods is not only desirable but praise worthy.

that somehow the individual is more important than their neighbor or community.
so is it any wonder that apathy and ignorance are the outcome?
whether you believe this is by design or just a convergence of random events...
the end result is the same.

apathetic,self absorbed cunts.

Me? I don't even attempt to follow the rules of your pixie... And try to look at yourself before judging others, which appears to be something you excel in.
BTW, since I had 12 years of bible studies as an Israeli Jew, allow me to ask you this - do YOU follow the rules of god as written in the old testament? I'm pretty sure you don't... since you probably have at least 1-10 portraits of your god at home, you go to church which is filled with fake gods and saints (which is also forbidden).
Your god has no value to me, no more than a common pixie - when I was a kid, I believed that I get presents from pixies when I lose my teeth. Now I've grown up out of it... I think It's time for you to do the same... you'll find out that you can be a good person without the big brother in the sky to help you out.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So you're apathetic about the existence of God, but you also have formed a definite opinion on the probability of Gods existence, comparing Him to pixies. So I think it's more accurate to say you don't care because you don't believe. If you thought He was likely to exist I think you would care, don't you think? It's really a fallacy to compare God to pixies or teapots, because they explain precisely zero. The idea of God has explanatory power for our lives, and for the existence of the Universe.
So, what do you think happens to you when you die? You say you are generally moral, and I have no trouble believing that, but restraining yourself from killing people is not exactly the picture of morality. How well do you follow the ten commandments? Do you ever look at a woman with lust? Do you hate anyone? God calls us to a much higher standard than what you seem to be implicating.
>> ^G-bar:

So you're apathetic about the existence of God, but you also have formed a definite opinion on the probability of Gods existence, comparing Him to pixies. So I think it's more accurate to say you don't care because you don't believe. If you thought He was likely to exist I think you would care, don't you think? It's really a fallacy to compare God to pixies or teapots, because they explain precisely zero. The idea of God has explanatory power for our lives, and for the existence of the Universe.

So, what do you think happens to you when you die? You say you are generally moral, and I have no trouble believing that, but restraining yourself from killing people is not exactly the picture of morality. How well do you follow the ten commandments? Do you ever look at a woman with lust? Do you hate anyone? God calls us to a much higher standard than what you seem to be implicating.

>> ^G-bar:

Well that's a pretty apathetic bunch!
It's like all they care about is eating...

The best part was where it went into the kitchen

I guess on the one hand, I agree with part of his rant -- elections don't matter enough, and there's too much continuity in policy from President to President, from Congress to Congress.

On the other, I think it's largely spun in a self-serving way from a right-wing ideologue. His big complaint is that the parties are too similar, but then largely misidentifies this as somehow inherently a liberal confluence of policy, when the real issue is that we haven't had a liberal shift in America's policies since before I was born.

A lot of the problem, IMO, is that conservatives like to sell people on the idea of "divided government" and the whole idea that adding opportunities for the minority to stop things from happening (like the filibuster) are the essence of "limited" government.

They've been on a decades-long crusade to stop or sabotage the government from acting effectively on any topic, and now they're complaining that their success means they were right that the government is some unresponsive, ineffectual, cold-hearted leviathan that must be destroyed...even though they had a lot to do with it getting that way, and have worked tirelessly to keep it that way, regardless of whether people vote for them or not.

I don't really know how we're going to get out of this situation, but the solution has got to start with people getting fed up with this blame-shifting excuse coming from the right. Government is not some alien creature acting on its own whims, it's a human institution, populated with human beings, acting in accordance to laws that are voted into existence by people.

People who think "government" is the problem, are letting the actual people responsible for the problem off the hook, because they're too apathetic to figure out who's really to blame. And assholes like Judge Napolitano want to help encourage them to keep blaming "the government" by trying to make it seem like it's some all-encompassing conspiracy that no mere mortal could penetrate, rather than it being the direct result of decades of Republican malfeasance left unchecked by anyone, including Democrats.

And forgive the rant, especially if you're not normally into politics.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
http://videosift.com/video/Unprecedented-wisdom-coming-out-of-Fox
I dont do politics but this got to me a bit fired up. I know this is something you might be interested in and was curious what you and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0000CD">NetRunner thought.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^shuac:
Could we please have a generation of tweens that are not stupid, just one, is that to too much to ask for.
Well, I expect tweens to be kinda stupid but I've been kidding myself about the average Videosifter's ability to write correctly, which is, I believe, symptomatic of intelligence. Oh well.

I was curious to see if you ever made a mistake while writing English.
Took 30 seconds to find this gem.
>> ^shuac:
I'd just like to say that I have no opinion about this video. I am apathetic like you read about.



LOL! That's what I get for trying to use an idiom, a very new idiom, granted, but an idiom nonetheless. Some idioms only work when you say them aloud and this is one of them.

I'm going to come off as a bit nutty typing this all out but nutty is a label I'm ok with.

When people say "like you read about" they're being emphatic and pointed. For instance, I might say, "I'm fuckin' cold like you read about." People who've taken the time to write books and articles about tundra wasteland and life above the arctic circle typically don't spend that time on the page writing about how warm it is. When someone takes the time to read such a book or article, they walk away knowing something about chilly weather. It typically only works with extreme states: extreme cold, extreme heat, or in my case extreme apathy. So what I'm really saying with "like you read about" is an attempt to express solidarity with the writer of such books/articles.

Capice? I'm not surprised you may not have heard about it but all these sayings had to come from somewhere, no?

Without context, I admit, it reads kind of wrong. Oh well. I forgive you, Boise.