I don't rly think Obama is as bad as Yogi thinks, but I think its worse to vote for Obama purely because you don't want Romney. If you honestly don't think either party deserves your vote then you should mess your paper. Tick every box. That or find an independent. Its dumb to complain about your lack of choice and then endorse the 2 party system with a vote to the lesser evil. Oh, and don't write off idealism as naive. We want to make our reality a better place instead of giving up on it.

Zomney explains why some republican voters have apparently signed away their brains.

Oh, and Whedon, now you're like a big shot movie dude and everything can we get some more Firefly/Serenity please?

I am sure this happens on both sides... a lot of people actually believe in the two party system enough to get their hands dirty.

But, I would be more suspicious of billionaires who can easily buy support, fraud and media influence to continue gauging the american citizenry. Not many progressive or left wing billionaires out there, not to say that democrats are left wing or progressive.... And if your company is making a billion in profit... chances are you/they are doing something undemocratic, unamerican and unethical like outsourcing labor or polluting/damaging ecosystems.

>> ^WaterDweller:

I'd like to see their birth certificates. I bet they were born in Kenya, and thus aren't eligible to be president of the United States.


The two party system was an inside job!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Simpsons, Kang, aliens, election, democracy' to 'Simpsons, Kang, aliens, election, democracy, two party system, perot' - edited by calvados

Emphasis mine. I disagree to an extant. Good journalists know you can strive for objectivity. You are right that ultimately anyone paying attention can figure your slant eventually, but the longer it takes the more respect you earn. It makes people notice all the more when you are clearly choosing words and editing material to moderate rather than polarize your newscast. When good communicators do it well, often it's the middle ground that becomes accepted by a plurality. Reconciling seemingly antagonistic viewpoints helps us to see the third way.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^lantern53:
The media on the left doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.
the media on the right doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.

sorry, reality isn't quite so binary.
yet another false equivalence argument. Everyone is biased, you can't not be. Science and the history of our government have shown time and time again that there is no one "way" of getting to the truth. This idea that liberalism is correct vs conservatism is correct is a bullshit way of framing things, and the smart people know it. It's just another charade to keep you distracted.
yet another failure of the two party system. compromise is perceived as weakness

>> ^lantern53:

The media on the left doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.
the media on the right doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.


sorry, reality isn't quite so binary.

yet another false equivalence argument. Everyone is biased, you can't not be. Science and the history of our government have shown time and time again that there is no one "way" of getting to the truth. This idea that liberalism is correct vs conservatism is correct is a bullshit way of framing things, and the smart people know it. It's just another charade to keep you distracted.

yet another failure of the two party system. compromise is perceived as weakness

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.


Are you arguing that the government should issue you an itemized bill for all the services you used? because that would be a logistical nightmare and would cost even more taxpayer dollars.

Taxes aren't perfect, they never will be, unless you want to strictly regulate who gets paid what and introduce some sort of tracking system for who uses what gov't service. Besides, a lot of these services benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. As a non-business owning citizen, I may not require an interstate system and a well maintained set of roads to ship my products on. But it benefits me all the same. I get to use it for recreation and traveling, and I use it to travel to my job.

Quite frankly, I did answer your question, but now it seems you're changing your question.

Strictly speaking, I would agree that every citizen should be taxed, even the poor who would normally be exempt, Every little bit helps, but I think what happens is that the government looks at the cost of what it takes to enforce that 47 percent to pay their tax vs what they actually give in return because they're so poor and it probably just isn't cost effective. That's my guess anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the poor aren't jumping up and down and saying "nyah nyah, I don't have to pay taxes and you do" They have other problems...like the fact that they're poor.

It's another situation where the solution is worse than the problem. One argument I hear from my conservative friends is that they want drug testing for welfare recipients. Sounds great right? all things being equal It's an argument that I might even support. But the reality is, drug tests aren't cheap. They cost a fuckton of money. Compare that to the money actually lost and in the end, it just costs us even more money just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see! our money isn't going to make people high. Oh wait, why are my taxes higher?

Closing corporate loopholes is one of the few things I've heard both the left and right agree upon. Problem is, it won't happen because behind each and every one of those loopholes is a business who benefits from it and some of those businesses lean left, and some of those businesses lean right and NEITHER want their particular loopholes closed. That's why you'll always see people say they're for it, but are never specific on which ones.

Gov't isn't perfect, but if you've got a problem with it. vote. or else leave, or just STFU

We treat the office of the president as if one person can solve our problems..they can't. The two party system is a failure and only divides our country.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

>> ^dag:

Thomas Jefferson said when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
I don't think the US government is afraid of its people - I wish they were.
I think there's more to the dysfunction in American government than the balance of fear.


"Government" is not a person. Our government is comprised of individuals, every one of them a human being (with the exception of two androids and four pod people). I think they DO fear us, which is why they're so prone to pandering. Worse, though, is that WE are our government. By and large, WE put these people there.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is the two-party system, an unfortunate inevitability of the First Past the Post voting system.
One thing the FPtP video doesn't really mention is what happens once the parties have established their dominance - indoctrination. We're encouraged to side with Republicans or Democrats, and once we've done that, over time we're inclined to start buying into the entire party platform. You can't be anti-abortion and pro-gay-rights. We immediately jump to the defense of any party tenet attacked by our "misguided" opposition. Minor differences of opinion become sacred cows. Perhaps this is a natural herd mentality, a defense mechanism against marginalization, or avoidance of peer conflict.
Whatever the causes, the outcome is gridlock and resentment. Nothing gets done because compromise is weakness. Candidates are only able to rise to power by adhering to the party line.
So I begin my post suggesting that government is individuals, and end by suggesting that individuals cede their power to the parties.
The system is broken. Checks and balances only function when sufficient individual agency is involved.

I don't understand when people who are republicans or democrats say we need a new direction because of Obama? To me Obama is a perfect Republican. Bush was God awful. Why do you guys consider Dempublicans leftist when they are apart of the same foul corrupt/conservative system that you tout as being the best, #1, 'merica fuck ya!!?

Obama is way better than Bush whilst simultaneously enforcing most of Bushes policies. It's hilarious that republicans dislike him. I keep hearing, "this is the most important election". THAT IS BULLSHIT. We haven't had an important election in a long time because the system has been bought and sold a long time ago. Even though I'm not a huge fan of Obama - the two party system or most skewed mainstream beliefs - he is way better than McCain would have been. He is way better than Romney on just about everything and yet Obama still pretty much sucks - he has to suck. He is apart of a ridiculous system that is controlled by a bunch of shitty corporations.

Until everyone in this dumbass country begins reading up on political theory or at least watches Democracy Now! ... we're all doomed.

Is anyone really surprised? In a two party system that one person wouldn't try to seize control?

It is. And like any other change that requires political pressure, we'll just have to apply political pressure. England is moving towards it. Many cities already do it. If the NDP ever form a government in Canada it could easily come about. Then the voting American public might look around and notice that they're not getting the same quality of democracy that other countries are, and demand their voice. The US will probably be the last modern democracy to change because of how closely they identify with a two-party system, but the wheels are already in motion. It might be another ten election cycles, who knows.>> ^ghark:

Yepyep, and I watched that vid quite a while ago, it was very informative. The issue comes around in a circle though, because it's the parties that could make a difference to the two party system, but it's not in their interests to. It's interesting to watch what's happening in Greece at the moment, the people have definitely spoken up there, but I'm very curious to see whether it will make a difference.

>> ^messenger:

It is the lesser of two evils, when you only have two choices of who screws you. The problem is why there's only two parties.
http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-P
ost-Voting-Explained>> ^ghark:
And yet many people still support a political party because they think it's the lesser of two evils. Wake up.



Yepyep, and I watched that vid quite a while ago, it was very informative. The issue comes around in a circle though, because it's the parties that could make a difference to the two party system, but it's not in their interests to. It's interesting to watch what's happening in Greece at the moment, the people have definitely spoken up there, but I'm very curious to see whether it will make a difference.

It's not my list, (though it tends to be accurate) But that's exactly why I'm calling for more active moderation on this site. I'm sick of the logical fallacies. When it goes unchecked, you get people who fed up and fire back. So it cuts both ways. It stops QM from making his ad homs and it stops people from making ad homs against him. Win win.

I'm also sick of EVERY GODDAMNED THING being turned into a left v right shitfest. I consider myself to be a left leaning centrist and I think both parties are full of shit (sure I think one party is more full of shit than the other, but that's not really the point) but I think the founding fathers were right to not like parties and this two party system is killing this country.

Quite frankly though, if someone makes some quality posts, you don't earn the right to make some ad homs and otherwise make some shitty posts. if someone ad homs you, you don't get to ad hom them. It's not a tit for tat system.
>> ^Payback:

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.
However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.
Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

There's no point in getting into it, because it's tiresome, long-winded and probably futile. But sometimes when I see people wanking on about how shit Obama and the state of affairs in the US is, I want to bellow from the rooftops, "YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT BAD??????" I despair danny, half the time I don't know what to think. I'm thinking about retreating back into my bubble...

Having said that, I'm so glad you're up for using your vote this time, too. This is what needs to be pushed forward now, people using their votes to bolster the other parties, bring them into the spotlight so that people at least consider other options. The Labour/Cons/Dems need some competition, they need to be put in a position where they have to TRY HARDER! We simply cannot survive with the choices we've got now. Well we can, but I'd rather fucking not!
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
WOW...still regret that I voted for him, but he's a knowledgeable guy.

Hey mate, don't worry about it, you did the right thing, something had to keep the republicans out. I urge you to do it again.

No I didn't. You don't choose the lesser of two evils, you make the system work and produce better results. Obama is a war criminal.

I agree, so I guess a non-vote would have been in order, considering your two-party system. However, I like to look at the silver linings and in my opinion, your vote ensured that things didn't get as bad as they probably would have had McCain/Palin gotten in to power. And, all leaders are war criminals, or just criminals...

I've never voted in my life, because I refuse to pick the best of a bad bunch... but I will be using my vote next election tactically, because until other parties have a chance in hell, we're all doomed.


One day we're gonna find out we're long lost twins or something @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/alien_concept" title="member since February 14th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#00ffa2">alien_concept..

I've not voted either, ever. I detest the system, i think the voting system and potentially democracy is flawed or limited and we'll end up in a species-rut because of it, working against each other until we run out of resources and die.

But i know i can't sit here complaining about the rich fucking manor-born tories stealing our country from under us if i didn't help to keep them out. I know me and everyone like me is responsible for them getting in.

I should have at least spoiled my paper or been more active in my protest if i wanted to protest the system in that way.

I was hoping the riots were the start of something. Change has to come from the youth and i suppose soon i won't be in that category anymore!