I didn't get a sticker -- Didn't get one for the primary either. Maybe that's related to my early voting this time (voted last Tuesday) but all I got out of the deal was an early voting election receipt.

I voted too! I voted so hard.

*quality

Awarding gourmetemu with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by kronosposeidon.

I voted a little over a week ago, they didn't give me jack... those cheap bastards.

They don't give stickers to us, but I did say "hi" to the elderly women running my ward and precinct.

>> ^Stingray:
They don't give stickers to us, but I did say "hi" to the elderly women running my ward and precinct.


That's just one of the reasons I vote Absentee, the old women always look mean and threatening, like I'm going to vote for the wrong candidate and they're going to come at me with swift retribution with walkers and canes.

>> ^BillOreilly:
>> ^Stingray:
They don't give stickers to us, but I did say "hi" to the elderly women running my ward and precinct.

That's just one of the reasons I vote Absentee, the old women always look mean and threatening, like I'm going to vote for the wrong candidate and they're going to come at me with swift retribution with walkers and canes.



I'm fairly certain that sentence contradicts its self. Although the place I voted did have a slight pee smell, but I live in the city so where doesn't it smell like pee.

It was a great day! I voted in my fringe 3% bracket by voting Barr. Let's hope he wins!

I voted for the first time (never really cared before this election) and have a sticker over my heart to prove it.

>> ^BillOreilly:
That's just one of the reasons I vote Absentee, the old women always look mean and threatening, like I'm going to vote for the wrong candidate and they're going to come at me with swift retribution with walkers and canes.


That's because you probably did vote for the wrong candidate...

Voted. Though I found it annoying that there was a list of 30 names that I had to say "yes" or "no" to for staying a supreme court judge.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I was going to make an all-day open thread for election day - and this will do nicely! *sticky.

Stickying this post at the top of Sift Talk - sticky requested by dag.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

MSNBC has their live coverage going for the international or TVless.

Maybe the MSNBC result widget dealie could be included here somewhere...

I think the second g in Google just got done voting. I'm going to do talk with him and ask which way I should vote.

I voted. I'm with blakfist, I'm sick of the mass media only presenting two presidential candidates when there are so many more qualified individuals who actually live in reality.

Waited an hour and a half in line. Voted. Got my sticker. Glad I did.

I voted early, pretty early. before my trip to Finland. Just in case I'd die in a plane crash, or something like that =) Love being an optimistic!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The long lines are criminal. And I agree with Rachel Maddow that it is a kind of poll tax on people who can't take time off work or are unable to stand in line for hours.

In many developed nations these kinds of lines are not an issue. Here in Australia voting is mandatory - so 98% of the eligible population vote, and I've never had to stand in a line. At all.

I too voted!! But not in this election.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

fivethirtyeight had this to say about what we'll know when the polls close at 7PM Eastern time:


Andrew Gelman of Columbia University has taken a recent set of our simulations to look at what may happen conditional on the outcomes of the first states to close their polls at 6 and 7 PM. The bottom line? If those states go roughly as expected (meaning, say, an Obama win in Virginia and a close race in Indiana), we can conclude with almost literal 100 percent certainty that Obama will win the election


(emphasis mine)

You're sure it's *mandatory* Dag? That sounds a bit off.

Anyway if I stay up the Beeb is going to run exhaustive coverage.

>> ^Stingray:
They don't give stickers to us, but I did say "hi" to the elderly women running my ward and precinct.

>> ^BillOreilly:
That's just one of the reasons I vote Absentee, the old women always look mean and threatening, like I'm going to vote for the wrong candidate and they're going to come at me with swift retribution with walkers and canes.


If you vote for the right candidate they come at you with hugs and pies.

I went to vote about 8:30 a.m. There were only three ahead of me. Four different districts shared the same recreation center at a playground. Lines were short for the other three districts, too.

A mom, holding her little boy, was trying to convince her son that voting was exciting. He just wanted to get out there.

As for a sticker, etc. . . . I've collected enough crap over my 44 years of pack-rat-dom. There's only so much house to store it all.

Yes, Australia has compulsory voting. I think all countries should have it. Should be considered part of your civic duty.

>> ^Deano:
You're sure it's mandatory Dag? That sounds a bit off.

I was to vote by Ohio's absentee ballot. I screwed up and didn't read the rules correctly. So when the race comes down to counting Ohio's absentee ballots, you can all thank me for being dumb, cause I sent it in anyways. TAKE THAT DEMOCRACY.

no seriously. I did...

No line at all here.. it moved very quickly.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Yes, Australia has compulsory voting. I think all countries should have it. Should be considered part of your civic duty.


Another jury duty won't be the answer. Besides, you shouldn't force people to vote who would otherwise be too stupid to do it.

^The jury's still out on that.

Obama's first action in office: A constitutional amendment that protects the right to arm bears, giving them a fighting chance against an angry and dejected Sarah Palin.

I would imagine compulsary voting would lead to a lot of people just voting for the first name they see, there is nothing that insures that voters are informed.

As for lines, when I was in and out in 15 minutes but I got there at 6:30a and a huge line grew quickly behind me (like streching down the street), but I live on the edge of West Hollywood and prop 8 is driving a bunch of votes.

I voted for Nader, an independent for senator and a democrat for representative.

You're all going to have to speak louder. I can't hear any of you over the MASSIVE COUNTRYWIDE LANDSLIDE.

you should be proud of voting this country into slavery. it takes a special kind of person to give up their freedom, not through violence, but through voluntary cooperation.


I would have been able to free a thousand more slaves if I could only have convinced them that they were slaves.
-Harriet Tubman, Underground Railroad Conductor (1820-1913)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Compulsory voting actually works pretty well here in Australia. Sure there is the "donkey vote" which means people write in "Darth Vader" or whatever, but the percentage is small.

Many people take the "how to vote" cards that are handed out by the various party volunteers at the polling places. So if you are a Green - you get an example ballot of what you should tick if you want to follow the party line.

Same thing happens in the US from what I've heard. There are always a couple of thousand votes going to "Bugs Bunny" and such. I wonder why those people even bother voting in the first place.

I also hope people realized that putting "Darth Vader" on any ballot in the US counted as a vote for Dick Cheney's ticket in the last 2 elections.

Wow looks like Obama won Ohio. Isn't that pretty much it? He only needs one swing state, right?

It's over! He's up to 200 and California, Colorado and Washington have 73, all going for Obama.

I'm liking where things are heading with the results in so far.

And no, I haven't voted, because I'm an Australian

And on the issue of compulsory voting, I friggen love it. It makes people pay a bit more attention to the issues (well, at least around an election), it stops people making last minute excuses to not vote, and it avoids the huge amounts of money that's spent in the states on 'Get out and Vote' drives, because there's no need.

Compulsory voting is good. Longest I've spent at the polling booths (in line et al)... about 15mins I'd say.

Hello from the "real" Virginia - Portsmouth & Norfolk for Obama, Suffolk half and half, VA Beach in all kinds of messed-up-ed-ness.

I nearly slapped someone who said he didn't "feel like voting" today - I put him to shame with talk of people in other countries who are literally dying to cast a ballot. Meh.

compulsory "anything" is never a good thing. if you think you can force someone to vote, what is stopping you from forcing someone to work in the fields, or sit in the back of the bus?

What kind of idiot would vote for Darth Vader?

As you might have guessed, I'm firmly in the Luke Skywalker camp.

Well, since Hussein Obama will be president, I will now change my avatar to something more fitting what this nation will become.

Your new avatar is missing the islamic part tho...

Maybe they'll shut this site down when the fairness doctrine is reinstated...

IMO the US won back some of its greatness tonight!

$5 on Obama starting his acceptance speech with "WHERE DA WHITE WOMEN AT?!"

Also...

THANKS AMERICA!

CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!

I instantly feel an awful lot better about the USA with your new President Elect.

And man, Obama can deliver a stirring speech.

Bravo, Bravo. And I'm giving this a *happy

Adding post to channels (Happy) - requested by spoco2.

Did you hear that?

Sounded like the rest of the free-thinking world breathing a huge sigh of relief.

spoco2,

You have a really short-sighted vision of the future. I gather that you live outside the US, and are currently displeased with America's role as a imperial police force, invading other countries as it sees fit? Obama is going to increase the size of the US government. While his foreign policy will not be as aggressive as McCain's would have--what do you think will happen when a president down the road takes the helm with an even larger budget, and even more executive powers? The road to the wars and oppression of Bush were paved by the good intentions of his predecessors. You may have just won the battle, but you most certainly just lost the war--both figuratively and literally.

In exchange for a more timid foreign policy today, you will most certainly experience a larger, more powerful, reckless, and brutal America down the road.

First of all, congratulations, America! That's not just a sigh of relief we just had, it's a breath of fresh air, too. Thank you. Thank you very much, I really mean it.

^ But imstellar28, what are your alternatives? Seems what you're getting at is a call to bring the country down (even further) in order for its future presidents to not be able to fuck everything up as effectively as Bush did?
And pardon me, but merely stating that "increasing the "size" of the government" is the root of all evil sounds rather dumbed-down, does it not? I'm sure I don't need to tell you it's not all that simple.

P.S. Also, I'm quite sure I'm not the fist to ask - what happens to the Election08 channel now?

Anyway, again - thank you US citizens - most of all for NOT electing McCain/Palin.

I voted for Obama in Nebraska. Though overall, Obama only got 41% of the vote here. It's actually common to meet a young-earth creationist even among the university students here, and that's very very strongly correlated with political affiliation since they tend to prioritize government interference with abortion and gay people (and the economic policy is just along for the ride or absorbed as a byproduct of associating with the party that chose those wedge issues)

I voted - for the first time ever, despite growing up in NH and nearly flunking out of HS because of working an a campaign.

Edd,

I never said it was "the root of all evil". Where you got that, we'll never know. You are upset with America because of its foreign policy, I presume. More government means a larger budget--and that includes military budgets. More power, more ability to abuse it. Bush could not have done what he has done in the last 8 years if the government was not the size it is today. A large part of that was due to the policies of FDR--enacted some 70 years prior. By electing Obama, you can be rest assured the government will be even larger in the future. If you think America is bad today--just wait a few decades. I know its hard to have vision that far because thats almost half your lifetime, but history doesn't reduce itself to your lifespan.

On the bright side, you have a few decades to figure out an answer to the question "Why didn't you do anything, grandpa" when your children's children come to you crying.

Imstellar,

You hit the nail on the head. FDR's policies to save Americans by giving them social security and jobs was in fact an evil scheme to create the imperialistic power that is the US today.

Not only that FDR also helped create the UN and enact the Geneva Conventions, that to this day continues to strangle the growth of Americans every single day.

Bush? He ain't got nothing on FDR.

---

I mean seriously WTF.

Bush got elected on a platform of small government and humble foreign policy. He did exactly the opposite. The only people he kept his promises to were the social conservatives (by OFBCI and trying to stop stem cell research and comprehensive sex ed).

*politics is not only about value judgments, it's about logically translating value judgments into policies and actions

Adding post to channels (Politics) - requested by jwray.

Farhad2000,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such is the fate of most governmental action. When FDR created social security, do you think he envisioned it costing the US $1.5 trillion a year 70 years later (as it does today)? No, because politicians and voters don't project the consequences of their policy 70 years in the future, they project them to the next election which is 2 to 4 years away.

Did I mention Jesus was a communist?

Barack Obama can harness this to get the religious right behind some european-style economic reforms.

>> ^jwray:
Bush got elected on a platform of small government and humble foreign policy. He did exactly the opposite. The only people he kept his promises to were the social conservatives (by OFBCI and trying to stop stem cell research and comprehensive sex ed).


George Bush in 2007 spent less in every budget category than Bill Clinton in 1997, when adjusted for inflation. Federal Budgets are public information available for every fiscal year, please look into information yourself before repeating things you hear on tv.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^jwray:
Bush got elected on a platform of small government and humble foreign policy. He did exactly the opposite. The only people he kept his promises to were the social conservatives (by OFBCI and trying to stop stem cell research and comprehensive sex ed).

George Bush in 2007 spent less in every budget category than Bill Clinton in 1997, when adjusted for inflation.


I call BS on that, especially the defense category. Produce the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_federal_spending(4).png

>> ^jwray:
politics is not only about value judgments, it's about logically translating value judgments into policies and actions


This is a definition of politics as applied to a democracy or "majority rule". This is not true when applied to a republic or "rule of law". In the latter, human rights dictate policy not value judgments. Value judgments lead to slavery and oppression. Perhaps if you were born a different color and in a different century you would have realized this.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^jwray:
politics is not only about value judgments, it's about logically translating value judgments into policies and actions

This is a definition of politics as applied to a democracy or "majority rule". This is not true when applied to a republic or "rule of law". In the latter, human rights dictate policy not value judgments.


Opinions on human rights are based on a combination of aesthetics and logic. There is no distinct other category to choose the reasons from.

aesthetics is just another word for value judgements.

^jwray
BS on that, especially the defense category.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Look it up yourself, you aren't going to believe any numbers I post anyways.

^jwray:
^imstellar28
Opinions on human rights are based on a combination of aesthetics and logic. There is no distinct other category to choose the reasons from.
aesthetics is just another word for value judgements.

So thats what the root of the problem looks like. You don't believe in unalienable human rights. If thats true, you can make no legitimate argument against someone pressing a cold barrel against your temple.

A PUPPY! They figgin got a PUPPY!

Imstellar,

Social Security is not a perfect system nothing is but it manages to keep close to 40% of the American population out of poverty. It's the foundation of the American way of life, successive measures to privatize the system has failed and has been the debate of every presidential candidate from Ford to Bush.

What exactly do you advocate in its place? A neoliberalist approach with completely free markets and no government?

Those conditions existed before the Great Depression. That's why FDR had to introduce the social net for those hit by economic difficulties.

Furthermore your figure of 1.75 trillion is wrong, its around 600 billion forecasted for 2008.

The problem of cost exceeding revenues is based around the baby boomer generation retiring.

It always seems to me that you live in a bubble of Austrian economics and it's so pointless arguing with a zealot of Austrian economics.

>> ^imstellar28:
^jwray:
^imstellar28
Opinions on human rights are based on a combination of aesthetics and logic. There is no distinct other category to choose the reasons from.
aesthetics is just another word for value judgements.
So thats what the root of the problem looks like. You don't believe in unalienable human rights. If thats true, you can make no legitimate argument against someone pressing a cold barrel against your temple.


No, you misunderstand. I believe certain actions are wrong. However rights should not be stated as naive generalities, and rights cannot be completely derived with only reason and observation. Whatever else you draw upon to augment this decision of which actions are better than others is, by definition, aesthetic in nature. Morality is a partially aesthetic sense that one would die for.

How many anarcho-capitalists does it take to change a light bulb?

None, because the Invisible Hand will do it for them.

(Just posting this to see if imstellar28's ever-eager invisible hand will downvote this comment.)

So one starts with axioms such as reciprocity (i.e. the golden rule), which seem to promote the survival of societies (and prosperity, though it is tricky to define prosperity, and even trickier to define it without an inherent value judgment). Perhaps with knowledge of the effects of such principles one opines that such principles are good to follow, though one cannot prove from facts about what is that one ought to follow such principles.

One cannot derive an "ought" from what "is", but what "is" should inform the derivation of the "ought".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wow, I feel like I've been holding my breath for the past 12 months or so. I can finally exhale. Congratulations America.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

*unsticky

Unstickying this post from the top of Sift Talk - unsticky requested by dag.

While I am extremely proud, hopefull and pleased with the outcome last night, I have to admit i'm more than a little envious of those who did get to cast their vote in this historic election... Congrats everyone... Now Mr. President please oh please don't let us down!...

>> ^kronosposeidon:
How many anarcho-capitalists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because the Invisible Hand will do it for them.
(Just posting this to see if imstellar28's ever-eager invisible hand will downvote this comment.)


1. i'm not advocating anarchy
2. i'm not advocating anarcho-capitalism
3. anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with the invisible hand.

i wish i could downvote your comment 3 times.

I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.

If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f*ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.

>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.


I know man, it makes you angry. But its Atheisift, they don't like to think things through very well.

>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.


You are an angry, bitter man who likes to spend a whole lot of time arguing on the internet. Most of us have better things to do.

No matter what your political leaning, anyone can go and find all sorts of references and links to back up 'their' point of view. These references and links may just be others with the same view spouting non backed up drivel, but unless those you're arguing with have heaps of time to go off and look up the counter arguments you can pretend that you win the argument.

The issues are this:
The USA's last President
* Was more repressive to people's freedoms, and more narrow in its ideas of what the country should accept as its basis (read, the Bible... *shudder*)
* Invaded a country on COMPLETELY FALSE pretenses and has spent untold billions (or is it trillions now?) on fighting a war that should never have been started.... what was it about again? Oh, to get those responsible for 9/11... No.. .wait, we'll change that, to get Weapons of Mass Destruction... NO, WAIT, We'll change that, to bring freedom to Iraq... well, we'll get that Saddam guy... who we kinda put in power in the first place.
* Continued to fuck up education to a huge degree, pumping money in with no real plan on how it should actually be used, at least no GOOD plan
* Spent huge amounts of money on Abstinence only sex education. Yeah, that works a treat...
* Ruled by fear of 'terror'
* Continued to favour big business and the already rich in their financial policies with the insane logic that if you give them enough tax breaks and incentives then they might throw some crumbs to the less well off
* Continued the idea that spend, spend, spend is the way out of anything, when really it just gets people more in debt... which leads to...
* Has plunged the world into economic freefall (not entirely on its own, but... pretty much)

The republican's ticket for this election
* Offered EXACTLY THE F*CKING SAME

Your NEW PRESIDENT
* Offered the idea that perhaps people need to work a bit harder to get out of things
* Thinks that perhaps the government should actually DO things and not sit back and let the private sector fuck up everything and make basic services more expensive for everyone.
* Thinks that maybe the rich are doing pretty damn well for themselves and don't NEED any more tax cuts, and could actually quite friggen easily handle paying a little more tax so that those that are actually struggling to pay their rent or mortgage can have enough to do so. (while working full bloody weeks, don't go the whole 'well, they're lazy, why should they get more money' absolute bullshit)
* Is Black... shows that maybe the majority of the world has actually stopped paying attention to race and those that still think it's an issue should grow the f*ck up
* Can actually form coherent sentences

Don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who voted for Obama or supports the decision did so out of blind starry eyed optimism and no logical thought.

We understand things you know, we can think.

And for the record... I currently live in Australia, have lived in the UK for over a year, lived and worked in the States for a number of months, and do pay attention to world issues.

What makes you such an all knowing soothsayer anyway?

>> ^imstellar28:
you should be proud of voting this country into slavery. it takes a special kind of person to give up their freedom, not through violence, but through voluntary cooperation.

You don't get to open with an ignorant, immature statement like this and then ask why nobody respects your intellectual superiority. Why isn't anyone pointing out what's "wrong or ill-conceived" with your statements? Because all the people stupid enough to have that argument agree with you, that's why.

I will thank you for one thing, though. Next time someone suggests that I'm a troll, I'll send them a link to your comments.

This guy actually calls himself "Imstellar" and everyone is surprised when he turns out to be an arrogant hypocritical wanker.

You want to be taken seriously, and not as the rather pathetic bitter person most take you for now?.

Try being an adult when you reply to comments and just maybe after wards you won't have to throw yourself a pity party and play the victim.

^This guy actually calls himself "box" and everyone is surprised when he starts talking out of his vagina.

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.

You are an angry, bitter man who likes to spend a whole lot of time arguing on the internet. Most of us have better things to do.
No matter what your political leaning, anyone can go and find all sorts of references and links to back up 'their' point of view. These references and links may just be others with the same view spouting non backed up drivel, but unless those you're arguing with have heaps of time to go off and look up the counter arguments you can pretend that you win the argument.
The issues are this:
The USA's last President
Was more repressive to people's freedoms, and more narrow in its ideas of what the country should accept as its basis (read, the Bible... shudder )
Invaded a country on COMPLETELY FALSE pretenses and has spent untold billions (or is it trillions now?) on fighting a war that should never have been started.... what was it about again? Oh, to get those responsible for 9/11... No.. .wait, we'll change that, to get Weapons of Mass Destruction... NO, WAIT, We'll change that, to bring freedom to Iraq... well, we'll get that Saddam guy... who we kinda put in power in the first place.
Continued to fuck up education to a huge degree, pumping money in with no real plan on how it should actually be used, at least no GOOD plan
Spent huge amounts of money on Abstinence only sex education. Yeah, that works a treat...
Ruled by fear of 'terror'
Continued to favour big business and the already rich in their financial policies with the insane logic that if you give them enough tax breaks and incentives then they might throw some crumbs to the less well off
Continued the idea that spend, spend, spend is the way out of anything, when really it just gets people more in debt... which leads to...
Has plunged the world into economic freefall (not entirely on its own, but... pretty much)
The republican's ticket for this election
Offered EXACTLY THE F CKING SAME
Your NEW PRESIDENT
Offered the idea that perhaps people need to work a bit harder to get out of things
Thinks that perhaps the government should actually DO things and not sit back and let the private sector fuck up everything and make basic services more expensive for everyone.
Thinks that maybe the rich are doing pretty damn well for themselves and don't NEED any more tax cuts, and could actually quite friggen easily handle paying a little more tax so that those that are actually struggling to pay their rent or mortgage can have enough to do so. (while working full bloody weeks, don't go the whole 'well, they're lazy, why should they get more money' absolute bullshit)
Is Black... shows that maybe the majority of the world has actually stopped paying attention to race and those that still think it's an issue should grow the f ck up
Can actually form coherent sentences
Don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who voted for Obama or supports the decision did so out of blind starry eyed optimism and no logical thought.
We understand things you know, we can think.
And for the record... I currently live in Australia, have lived in the UK for over a year, lived and worked in the States for a number of months, and do pay attention to world issues.
What makes you such an all knowing soothsayer anyway?


Ah so you're proclaiming the merits of wealth redistribution and socialism, too, eh? Nice...I advise reading history books. When you start blaming the private sector, you have (here's my love to Cali reference) "issues" with understanding economics.

Okay, this has been pointed out before, but since none of you simpletons seem to get it..

THEY ARE GETTING A PUPPY

\o/

spoco2,

Your last post illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. We are having a discussion but the conversation is schizophrenic--it exists only as your words and the words you put in my mouth. You aren't even listening to what I'm saying. Why are you listing reasons why Bush was oppressive when I already admitted he was? Why are you listing reasons Obama will be less oppressive when I already admitted he would be?

You haven't addressed my claim that Obama will be making it easier for the next "Bush" down the road by expanding the scope of government just as other presidents have done before Bush, as evidenced by the historic record. Nobody has addressed this, because nobody can. You are staking your whole claim on Obama being the best candidate (which of the two may be valid in the short term) but you are forsaking his presidency's long term impact which is much more important. You don't make the best choices for today, and forsake your entire future--if you did you would quit your job and spend all your money tomorrow--so why do you think this is a good idea when selecting presidents? I have already stated that policy enacted by FDR during the great depression is now the largest portion of the US budget 70 years after he left office. Clearly, presidents can have a lasting impact on a country centuries after they leave office and decades after they are dead.

I won't have problems sleeping at night because I don't hide from new, contradictory information--I change my beliefs to accommodate them. But how can you resolve this new information with your current beliefs? The only way it seems is for you to deny it was ever mentioned--as those in this thread seems to be doing.

xxovercastxx,

100 years ago there was no income tax, now the income tax is 40%. If a slave is someone who is taxed 100% (receives no income) how do you describe someone whose taxes are steadily increasing towards 100% (currently 60% total)? The size of government is directly related to the amount of taxation. Obama wants larger government which necessitates larger taxes. These changes were not made with force--they were made by voluntarily voting in representatives. Now explain how my statement:

"you should be proud of voting this country into slavery. it takes a special kind of person to give up their freedom, not through violence, but through voluntary cooperation."

Was either ignorant or immature? What I said was an accurate description of 20th century history. You are free to argue against it, but it is a fact and I will defend it. Yes I am making scathing comments in no uncertain terms, but I am on topic and replying to what people say. Why shouldn't I be scathing to someone who gives up their freedom (and mine) voluntarily? The difference between my comments and yours, are that mine are well thought out (even if they are wrong, or you don't understand them). I am on topic, while you are merely flying random insults. What I said was valid regardless of your first-pass understanding or interpretation of it.

Well thought out... mature... on topic... definatly not hurlying random insults.

"I suggest you shut the f*ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies."

I find it difficult to apply any of those terms to this particular line... especially because it was based on you presuming you knew things you couldln't possibly know about anyone in here...

You make claims about what Obama's impact will be 70 years from now before he has even taken office... and your entitled... you might even be right... But it is not a 'fact'. Which is how you present it... I have no problem with your opinion... but when you tell anyone who disagrees with you that "they don't know shit" and then claim your being mature... and open minded... and just can't understand why people don't take you seriously...

You make assumptions like this... and then wonder why no one will refute or discuss things with you. What is the point?... you claim to be open minded... but your words on numerous posts suggest otherwise. You are the very thing you rail against...

And when people grow weary of what really isn't a discussion as people simply saying 'your wrong' and 'i'm right' you claim victory and take the 'high' ground...

I actually enjoyed your posts regarding the economy... i can't say that i agree with much of it... but lately you've taken a dramatically different turn... and yes.. i used the word bitter... because that is how it appears...

^I'm not a robot Januari. You should judge the package by its contents, not the person who delivers it. What I said was a valid statement supported by the preceding sentences. It was said in a less-than-ideal way because that is too-often the reality of political conversation. If you want the same message in a nicer way:

It is unwise to advocate the merits of collectivism, support larger government, condemn the action of capitalism, or establish a foreign policy if you have not yourself experienced foreign lands and cultures, the history of your people, or through your own volition experienced third world poverty. The people you condemn are people, who like yourself, are separate individuals from the individuals who form the governments and groups which form the common perception. The philosophies you cast allegiance to should be selected with great care, for their impact on the people of the world are enormous.

If you can read my earlier post again while somehow filtering the emotion, you will find the same principle as written above.

I can and did... i don't post without actually reading the comments i'm posting on...

To continue the 'package' analogy... your 100% correct... and if the guy carrying that package is swearing at me carrying a knife coming down the walk way... i don't even open the door.

And yes.. that makes an ENORMOUS difference... don't believe me?... try it!

This is a very receptive community i've found to ideas and discussion... it's when that emotion enters and the insults fly that points are lost and discussions become pointless arguments...

Take my advice or not... But you can either be someone who does not share the majority opinion and is respected, perhaps even listened to... or you can be QM or CaptainPlanet. When I started here you were prior, in my humble opinion.

Januari,
You make claims about what Obama's impact will be 70 years from now before he has even taken office... and your entitled... you might even be right... But it is not a 'fact'.

You are correct that my predictions of Obama's impact are not fact. However, my presentation of 20th century American history is. I am using historical record in combination with what Obama himself has claimed to advocate. If he holds true to his words, history indicates that he will have a similar impact to FDR--which as I stated, has been to increase the size of government. A larger and more powerful government is what enabled Bush to terrorize the world to the extent he did. Obama may not succeed in implementing the policy he intends, or he may go in an entirely different direction. My criticism was only based on the assumption that he will perform as he has promised.

To suggest that things that will be done in the greatest good by Obama now may, somehow be turned towards evil in later years by those who do not have the people's best interests at heart could, quite frankly, just end up in a government that packs up, leaves, turns out the lights and doesn't look back.

Suggesting that the smallest possible government is the best thing is not at all necessarily true.
* A large public sector employing a lot of people means that those people are employed, are doing gainful work and that work is directly benefiting the country.
* Creating systems to help those in your country that need the help is a Good Thing, suggesting that people who are poor or sick or otherwise in need of assistance are in that position purely due to laziness is narrow minded. A good Social Security system is a cornerstone of a country that is good to live in.
* Systems and services run by government are not inherently bad or evil or poorly run, just as those handled by the private sector are not guaranteed to be expertly, efficiently and profitably run.

If there are checks and balances, if there are laws to stop abuse, if you the people elect persons into office that do not abuse power given to them, then a large government working for the people can be an excellent thing.

Trying to paint an Obama government in a bad light based on what a future bad president may do seems to be really grasping at straws.

spoco2,

I am fighting hard to remain civil in what has become a heated discussion. It is difficult to remain collected when people put words in your mouth.

I have never suggested these two things--in this thread, other threads, or at any point in my life:

"suggesting that people who are poor or sick or otherwise in need of
assistance are in that position purely due to laziness is narrow minded"

"Suggesting that the smallest possible government is the best thing"

It is honestly unfortunate to see people argue the perception of others, rather than the words of others. Many people can envision what a "capitalist" may be like without every hearing one speak, and it is easy to attribute statements and philosophies to such a person. The same goes for republicans, democrats, or any other stereotype. However, I am not a preconceived notion in your mind, I am a real person who is making real comments. That has been one of my greatest frustrations here.

^ Hmm, well, let's see

You said:

Obama is going to increase the size of the US government. While his foreign policy will not be as aggressive as McCain's would have--what do you think will happen when a president down the road takes the helm with an even larger budget, and even more executive powers? The road to the wars and oppression of Bush were paved by the good intentions of his...

Then you said:

More government means a larger budget--and that includes military budgets. More power, more ability to abuse it. Bush could not have done what he has done in the last 8 years if the government was not the size it is today. A large part of that was due to the policies of FDR--enacted some 70 years prior. By electing Obama, you can be rest assured the government will be even larger in the future.

So... you are definitely proposing that a large government is bad, therefore you think a smaller one is good?

You also make the odd assumption that just because you increase government spending that automatically defense spending will increase. Is it not remotely conceivable that you could... oh, I dunno... CHANGE the budget and give LESS to the military and MORE to other things? Dunno... just this wild idea I had that you don't have to keep the percentages the same as they've always been.

And I make the first of the two statements you quote because in almost all cases the people who keep making the arguments against a 'large' government are those that want them to stop spending money on those that are less fortunate. If you are not one of those, then I apologize.

However you haven't answered any of my points that did directly mention your assertion that by making a larger government now, spending more on things to help people now, you seem to be of the opinion that that will only be turned to evil later.

What do you suggest then? Twiddle thumbs, sit and wait for the next dumbass, military mad president to get elected and start this whole mess over again? Or perhaps try and make your country, and the world, a bit better while the reigns are in good hands?

^i want our country returned to a rule of law, where all humans are protected by certain unalienable rights, and minorities are not oppressed by the majority.

it don't care if the government's size or budget is 10x what it is now, or 10x less, as long as the above is true.

>> ^imstellar28:
^i want our country returned to a rule of law, where all humans are protected by certain unalienable rights, and minorities are not oppressed by the majority.
it don't care if the government's size or budget is 10x what it is now, or 10x less, as long as the above is true.


So, we can just ignore everything else you've said on the size of government then... riiiight.

Righto... conversation ended then.

The free market does not always produce everything in the most efficient manner, or provide the best bang for the buck. Cell phone companies don't even want to cooperate enough to get you decent coverage on other cell phone companies' turf.

imstellar28,

It's not big government that results in subversive use of power, its the politicians who possess that power and what stance they take, it's the people who claim that for America to be free it needs to spy on it's citizens, that it can rewrite laws and impose torture.

Its not a symptom of big government, its a symptom of misguided and failed leadership. The day America imposed torture, spying and elimination of heabus corpus was when the president was a fiscal social conservative who ran on a platform of reducing government, yet over the next several years created new agencies, increased military and defense spending, and subcontracted government agencies to private firms (Blackwater and AEGIS), and increased the national debt.

Did his policies fulfill the single objective he put forward? The elimination of terrorism? Or even the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

I understand Bush came into a difficult times and situations, but your claim that his actions were because of big government is a misreading of history, it gives no voice to the actions of Dick Cheney and David Addington (John Yoo) who together had the view that the actions of the President are infalliable and should not be criticized, that documents regarding policy are secret, that all communications should be monitored, that torture is okay and the other 750 signing statements articulated by them that bypass the democratic process of the US.

Watch Addington claim that the Vice president's office is not part of the executive branch.



David Addington on torture:



There is thousands of hours of testimony, documentary, news and papers and articles that outline the failure of leadership and subversion of America's legal stance by a small cadre of hawks in the Bush Administration.

It was not simply because it was BIG government. It was a implementation of a policy views held by those in power.


PS: Al qaeda may watch CSPAN.



===============

Your basic criticism is that a socialist state equals a imperialistic state based on government expansion over the last 70 years of American history.

Some socialistic states (to various degrees) in the world currently include: Japan, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and many others.

They are not imperialistic and have high social and economic indicators. Japan happens to be one of the largest self contained economies in the world. All the countries possess a system of subsidized health care provided by the state.

Are they invading nations? Taking out the rights of their citizens? Are they failures socially and economically because they have socialistic principles like universal healthcare? Welfare?

spoco2,

I associate larger government with more oppression for as long as larger government is associated with larger, compulsory, taxation. If the populace wants to donate 80% of their income to the government making it even larger than it is today, I have no problem with that. If the government is truly formed by a rule of law, and the elected officials are sworn to uphold the constitution, it is largely irrelevant what the size or scope of government is. Perhaps it is a subtle difference, but I don't think you should just end a conversation because there was a misunderstanding. Nothing about my philosophy forbids a large, socialistic government believe it or not--if you apply my axiom of freedom, how could it? If people are free to spend their money as they see fit, they are also free to create a large socialistic "system" complete with all the welfare trimmings they desire. All I am calling for is a return to a rule of law. It is only such a government which operates and sustains itself with force that I condemn.

Jwray,

That is not the topic being discussed here. I have been discussing the long term impacts of Obamas policy, not arguing for or against the free market.

Farhad2000,

You are quite right that Bush's confidants played a large role in his rapid increase in terrorizing. However, had the country been under a proper rule of law, none of those suggestions would have reached fruition--his actions would have been successfully blocked by congress, and he would have been arrested. The president is not above the law. The size and power of government, as well as the actions of previous presidents set the stage for his consolidation of power in the executive branch.

Your basic criticism is that a socialist state equals a imperialistic state based on government expansion over the last 70 years of American history.

Not equals, precedes. Also, it is not limited to socialism--just any system which results in large increases in the power of central government. I am not claiming that all socialist governments turn imperialistic, simply that imperialism is not possible without a strong central government. Traditional socialist governments necessarily have a strong central government. I don't believe you can argue otherwise, either from a historical or theoretical standpoint. My main criticism here has been that Obama is going to centralize power in the hands of the state, and anytime you centralize power you open the opportunity for imperialism.

Throughout history, this has been true for most major powers of the world, including the United States as evidenced by Bush's last two terms. He simply could not have done what he did without a strong central government. You use Japan as an example, but you neglect to mention Japan's period of imperial expansion between 1894-1910. This was only possible because of the Meiji Restoration where power was once again consolidated in the hands of an oligarchy. The country in this time period was decidedly collectivist, with a national draft issued in 1873.

Hey folks, coming in late to the conversation - not necro-posting, but instead having had the first chance to visit the Sift since the flight back from DC.

I won't add to the expected debate in the thread, but I was in DC on election night for a work conference. (Yes, the write-in ballot was already done - weeks ago.)

I left the last-night-of-the-conference-party at around 1 AM and on every street corner, down every dark lane, the sounds of cheers, car horns, bells and chants were ringing throughout the nation's capital. I was so amazed by the number of people walking the streets and cheering, laughing, that I got lost on the way back to my hotel. A couple pulled up in a car and asked how to get to the White House, which was clearly where many were going next. A girl ran by carrying red, white and blue balloons. All over, it seemed, people reveled in the hope of a new era, forgetting for a moment the hard road that still lay ahead.

I can only hope we do reach that ideal, together, with a mutual respect and understanding between both parties and a better understanding of focusing on issues that truly matter in government (such as its support of the people, its economy, its efficiency, and a little less of things like godliness or the institutional support of prejudice). A little bit of luck will help as well, what with the hype of our selection versus the monumental size of the challenges we face. Others may take much longer, like our false-choice two-party system (and the antagonistic "teams" in Dems and Repubs) or the obvious prejudices that still remain. But for today, it's nice to sit back and imagine that some of that can, perhaps, change for the better.

In short, wow.

>> ^Kevlar:
In short, wow.


Indeed... indeed