Leave a comment

(The comment has been removed)

bernmarx June 16 2010, 16:45:51 UTC
I think not leaving a war zone that we created without properly cleaning up is the right thing to do.

I probably wouldn't handle it the same was that Obama has, but it's what he said he was going to do.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 17:22:32 UTC
How, exactly, do you 'clean up' a war zone?

Reply

lafinjack June 16 2010, 16:41:16 UTC
And let me tell you, I am completely overjoyed by that. Could. Not. Be. Happier.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 16:43:50 UTC
Excuse me, I honestly can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.

Reply

lafinjack June 16 2010, 16:54:00 UTC
Dripping.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 17:23:31 UTC
Well, I'm just curious as to why anyone would vote for someone who's going to intensify an imperialist war effort.

Reply

lafinjack June 16 2010, 17:27:02 UTC
Because the other guy wanted that imperialist war effort along with the other imperialist war effort, which is now at least slowly winding down. Also, imperialist war efforts are not the only measure of a candidate.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 17:28:50 UTC
Why vote for either? They're clearly both the wrong choice.

Reply

yes_justice June 16 2010, 17:30:05 UTC
Because while you don't have any power whatsoever if you don't vote, if you do, you can nudge the empire a bit.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 17:32:23 UTC
If someone came up to you and offered you two bowlfuls of faeces, would you get out your spoon and weigh the pros and cons of each or just say "no thanks"?

Reply

lafinjack June 16 2010, 17:40:15 UTC
I'm going to have to eat feces anyway, might as well pick the bowl with less nuts in it.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 17:42:27 UTC
I'm not sure I understand this defeatist attitude that seems to assume that there are no better choices.

Reply

bernmarx June 16 2010, 17:53:34 UTC
In a presidential election, in the US, in the current era, the only serious choices are:

-- The Republican
-- The Democrat
-- Move somewhere else

Voting for someone other than the two candidates marginally increases the likelihood that, at some point in the future, there will be more than two viable candidates, but in 2008, one of {McCain|Obama} was going to win.

Reply

mis_verduras June 16 2010, 17:57:18 UTC
It's gonna stay that way for ever if everyone figures "Oh, well, there's nothing we can do".

Reply

bernmarx June 16 2010, 18:04:57 UTC
I agree. I voted for Obama because, of the candidates on the ballot (including the third party ones), he was the one I felt most aligned with, not because I didn't want McCain to win.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up