so how about this election

[Ryzin]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

You support an increase in taxes in a time of war. You are not a libertarian. You support an increase in taxes, period. You are NOT a libertarian, because raising taxes is NEVER the answer.

Also, you support a man who supported the continuation of the USA PATRIOT act. Let me repeat, you are NOT a libertarian. You support a man who does not care about the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment; you are NOT a libertarian.

Obama has made it clear that he respects not the sovereignty of other countries but the military power of ours. Neither he nor McCain will stop our attempts at being Team America: World Police.

Good thing I'm "decline to state" then, huh?

Raising taxes will increase the value of the dollar. That's a pretty solid answer.

[HalveBlue]

So what?

Libertarianism is untenable anyway. Hell, the whole movement has the seeds of its own destruction built into it. It's an essentially agreeable political theory, but no more viable than communism.

Libertarianism only works in imaginary worlds where everyone is born equal, social fortunes and misfortunes are never passed down to the next generation, and everyone has some sense of mutual respect. Take away any of those three stipulations and the ideal libertarian society quickly falls apart.

At it's most basic level, I find that most libertarians that I've met incessantly long to return to the days of the Founders. In their minds late 18th America was some sort of problem-free political utopia.

People need to really return to reality. The Founding Fathers presented their ideas over almost 250 years ago. Their political, cultural, economic, and social environment that the Founding Fathers lived in was so different from the world we live in today, one should always tread carefully when superimposing their opinions onto the modern world. While many of the principles the Fathers used to shape their political platforms are sound and logical, you can't forget that they used them in a world much different than ours.

For instance, when the founders first signed the Constitution the majority of the country was still reliant on an agrarian economy. The majority of the population lived in rural circumstances. Slavery was still legal, and some founders even practiced it. There was no internet, no phone, no tv, no radio, no car, no train. Information that takes literally a click of a button to obtain today took months to circulate back then. It was common medical practice to bleed people until they were regained their health. Women weren't allowed to participate in government.

I don't understand how libertarians can take ideas that were shaped in such an environment and apply them today, without accounting for the enormous changes that have occurred since.

Really, I have nothing against libertarians. I even agree with a lot of their points. It's just that libertarians fail to understand that the generalities of their ideology aren't always necessarily applicable to the specifics of today's world. The theory disintegrates in the face of cold, hard realities.

[kognition]

This makes for an interesting point, since the common understanding about the economy is that it is confidence driven..... maybe we will see an increase in consumer confidence by next summer. I would think that spring would still be in the shakedown period. I think more than the promise of tax cuts (MCCain) or $3,000 employer credits (Obama) for each new hiree next year, the majority of americans have to wake up January 1st and feel good about the new guy in office. I am sick of feeling cynical about our leaders. It would be nice to see some passion for the american people for once.

Originally Posted by Ryzin

Once Barak gets elected, I believe we will see a global shift towards optimism, and a rise in the value of the dollar.

[ronmcdon]

I thought the value of the dollar had been rising for the past few months as is (relative to the euro and english pound). oil prices now are half of what they were earlier this year, and pricing for commodities like corn are dropping fast.

I wonder what accounts for that?

[Walperstyle]

^nobody knows, and nobody will find out on the internets

[penco]

Im voting for the black guy.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

So what?

Libertarianism is untenable anyway. Hell, the whole movement has the seeds of its own destruction built into it. It's an essentially agreeable political theory, but no more viable than communism.

Libertarianism only works in imaginary worlds where everyone is born equal, social fortunes and misfortunes are never passed down to the next generation, and everyone has some sense of mutual respect. Take away any of those three stipulations and the ideal libertarian society quickly falls apart.

At it's most basic level, I find that most libertarians that I've met incessantly long to return to the days of the Founders. In their minds late 18th America was some sort of problem-free political utopia.

People need to really return to reality. The Founding Fathers presented their ideas over almost 250 years ago. Their political, cultural, economic, and social environment that the Founding Fathers lived in was so different from the world we live in today, one should always tread carefully when superimposing their opinions onto the modern world. While many of the principles the Fathers used to shape their political platforms are sound and logical, you can't forget that they used them in a world much different than ours.

For instance, when the founders first signed the Constitution the majority of the country was still reliant on an agrarian economy. The majority of the population lived in rural circumstances. Slavery was still legal, and some founders even practiced it. There was no internet, no phone, no tv, no radio, no car, no train. Information that takes literally a click of a button to obtain today took months to circulate back then. It was common medical practice to bleed people until they were regained their health. Women weren't allowed to participate in government.

I don't understand how libertarians can take ideas that were shaped in such an environment and apply them today, without accounting for the enormous changes that have occurred since.

Really, I have nothing against libertarians. I even agree with a lot of their points. It's just that libertarians fail to understand that the generalities of their ideology aren't always necessarily applicable to the specifics of today's world. The theory disintegrates in the face of cold, hard realities.

Great post.

I understand that libertarians are almost hopelessly idealistic, because I am hopelessly idealistic. I also understand that libertarianism requires usage of an "antiquated" system of thought, but that system of thought is just as easily applied to today's world as to the past.

In the past, we had good people, we had bad people. We had those willing to get involved and willing to read as much as possible to be an active participant of government, and we had those who couldn't have cared less. Those haven't changed, except perhaps in overall proportions.

The Founders looked ahead and didn't set up specifics, i.e. "arms" rather than "muskets, cannons, and bayonets."

I do have a question, though. Did you read the Constitution before posting? So many people who claim the Constitution is, in the words of Dubya, "just a goddamn piece of paper" (not claiming that's your view, just wanted to interject a little of W's insight) haven't read it all the way through recently. I look at certain parts of the Constitution or skim the whole thing literally every day of the week as I write these posts on this board and on others.

It is easily adaptable to modern times. I'd go further into detail but want to check the other threads before I go to class, so I'll post examples tonight or tomorrow.

Hell, my revered Constitution really set up a merchantilist rather than wholly capitalist country.

[Matej]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

It is easily adaptable to modern times. I'd go further into detail but want to check the other threads before I go to class, so I'll post examples tonight or tomorrow.

Hell, my revered Constitution really set up a merchantilist rather than wholly capitalist country.

While I agree with you, it seems that today the Constitution has about as many interpretations as the Bible, too many groups take it too literally and interpret it in a way that suits them.

[exitspeed]

AskMen.com - Barack Obama Top 49 2008

[Phlip]

Somebody got some s'plaining to do about something that was mailed out around VA:


Yes, it is kind of small, but what it says is:

For Immediate Release: 10/24/2008

Due to larger than expected voter turnout in this years electorial process. An emergency session of the General Assembly has adopted the following emergency regulations to ease the load on electorial precincts and ensure a fair electorial process.

All Republican party supporters and independent voters supporting Republican candidates shall vote on November 4th as prescribed by law.

All Democratic party supporters and independent voters supporting Democratic candidates shall vote on November 5th as adopted by the emergency regulation of the Virginia General Assembly.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause but felt this was the only way to ensure fairness to complete the electorial process.

What is sad is that some people will overlook the shitty punctuation and sentence structure, and repeated use of the non-word "electorial" and find themselves screwed out of their vote.

(waits for someone to come and make an excuse for it)

[exitspeed]

^
Photoshop.

Is that really real? Fucked up. But a republican party would never do such a thing.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

^
Photoshop.

Is that really real? Fucked up. But a republican party would never do such a thing.

"Real" would be "somewhat," as it did not come from the Commonwealth, but from some crazed-ass supporters with a computer, ill will and too much time on their hands. If precedents hold true, though, Mclame is culpable for the actions of his "supporters" and cannot be elected for this very reason.
You mean pointing the finger at Democrats for voter fraud, which happens to NOT be voter fraud, while they themselves have a history of voter suppression?
No, not the Republican party, they've never done anything to anyone.

[ESmorz]

What's ELECTORIAL?

[racepar1]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

You mean pointing the finger at Democrats for voter fraud, which happens to NOT be voter fraud, while they themselves have a history of voter suppression?
No, not the Republican party, they've never done anything to anyone.

Republicans are perfect! What, you didn't know that?

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

You mean pointing the finger at Democrats for voter fraud, which happens to NOT be voter fraud, while they themselves have a history of voter suppression?
No, not the Republican party, they've never done anything to anyone.

Accordingly to the many threads here on zilvia...no they haven't.

This is really sad, but I've been on the fence about who I'm voting for for the last few weeks. And the numerous threads from "you know who" have actually persuaded me the exact opposite way they were intended to.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

Accordingly to the many threads here on zilvia...no they haven't.

This is really sad, but I've been on the fence about who I'm voting for for the last few weeks. And the numerous threads from "you know who" have actually persuaded me the exact opposite way they were intended to.

I have said it time and again, throwing rocks and hiding your hands... Do all you can to make the other guy's problems LOOK bigger than your own, at least until those who wouldn't form their opinions have already done what you want them to do.
"Barack Hussein Obama"
"Palling with terrorists"
"Voter fraud"
"He'll raise your taxes"
"SOCIALIST!!!"

Personally, the whole thing is great television. It is more than entertaining to see McCain ruin what little is apparently left of his name attempting to shame Obama enough to make people not vote for him.
Quite frankly, I am waiting on him to stop hinting at it and speak directly to the ills of the black community, which have been driven by things being the way they are in the US since the beginning and greatly helped by his "hero" Ronald Wilson Reagan, as a reason not to vote for Barack.
"Look at the black community; crime and single parents, complacency, laziness and poor outlook. They can't get themselves out of ghettos and you want one of those [redacted]s to run the country?"
I mean, McCain is old, he has nothing left to lose... Hell, he could even bring in Michael Richards to give the speech, screaming "HE CAN TALK, HE CAN TALK, HE CAN TALK!!!" and then finishing his diatribe that ruined HIS career.

Hell, it appears that McCaint has made a life of shitting on those who got him to where he is, whether they be wives or people who saved his fucking life:
http://www.alternet.org/election08/1...e/?page=entire

Bush and Dick have kept an oddly low profile. I guess that they're more than occupied, in that they LIED to the country into a war, then STOLE taxpayer's money to first pay for the war, then positioned it so their homies could profit from the taxpayers' woes as well. The best thing they could do to help McShame would be to support Obama, because who would want to side with the individuals who history will likely view as the least popular Pres/Vice EVER?

I will be glad next Tuesday evening when this filthy fucking mess is over.

*EDIT*
http://www.411mania.com/politics/col...cans-Upset.htm
This just keeps getting better.
Charlie Crist, a republican, extends the early voting hours, a move that helps Obama. Looks like the entire GOP is jumping off of the McFailin bandwagon, and in quite entertaining fashion at that.

[40daws]

How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party : Rolling Stone

The failure of the administration of George W. Bush — and the accompanying crisis of the Republican Party — has caused a political meltdown of historic proportions. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Bush enjoyed the greatest popularity ever recorded for a modern American president. Republicans on Capitol Hill, under the iron rule of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, fattened their coffers through a fearsome operation overseen by corporate lobbyists and GOP henchmen that functioned more like an empire than an old-fashioned political machine. "Republican hegemony," the prominent conservative commentator Fred Barnes rejoiced in 2004, "is now expected to last for years, maybe decades."
Now, only four years later, Bush is leaving office with the longest sustained period of public disapproval ever recorded. No president, at least in modern times — and certainly no two-term president — has risen so high only to fall so low. Indeed, Bush's standings in the polls describe one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the American presidency — second only, perhaps, to that of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign from office
And in Congress, the indictment and downfall of DeLay and a host of associated scandals involving, among others, the Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, have badly damaged the party's image. The supremacy of the GOP, once envisioned by party operatives as a "permanent majority," may be gone for a very long time to come.

[Paul2x]

Originally Posted by penco

Im voting for the black guy.

Technically he's not black ..lol

"'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein
is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first
Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein
Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's
birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).

Just thought i'd share. =)

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by Paul2x

Technically he's not black ..lol

"'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein
is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first
Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein
Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's
birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).

Just thought i'd share. =)

[40daws]

Originally Posted by Paul2x

Technically he's not black ..lol

"'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein
is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first
Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein
Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's
birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).

Just thought i'd share. =)

Uhh--Most of America disagrees...

Who is Black? One Nation's Definition by F. James Davis


F. James Davis is a retired professor of sociology at Illinois State University. He is the author of numerous books, including Who is Black? One Nation's Definition (1991), from which this excerpt was taken.

Reprinted with permission of Penn State University Press
The One-Drop Rule Defined

To be considered black in the United States not even half of one's ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.
Let us not he confused by terminology. At present the usual statement of the one-drop rule is in terms of "black blood" or black ancestry, while not so long ago it referred to "Negro blood" or ancestry. The term "black" rapidly replaced "Negro" in general usage in the United States as the black power movement peaked at the end of the 1960s, but the black and Negro populations are the same. The term "black" is used in this book for persons with any black African lineage, not just for unmixed members of populations from sub-Saharan Africa. The term "Negro," which is used in certain historical contexts, means the same thing. Terms such as "African black," "unmixed Negro," and "all black" are used here to refer to unmixed blacks descended from African populations.

We must also pay attention to the terms "mulatto" and "colored." The term "mulatto" was originally used to mean the offspring of a "pure African Negro" and a "pure white." Although the root meaning of mulatto, in Spanish, is "hybrid," "mulatto" came to include the children of unions between whites and so-called "mixed Negroes." For example, Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass, with slave mothers and white fathers, were referred to as mulattoes. To whatever extent their mothers were part white, these men were more than half white. Douglass was evidently part Indian as well, and he looked it. Washington had reddish hair and gray eyes. At the time of the American Revolution, many of the founding fathers had some very light slaves, including some who appeared to be white. The term "colored" seemed for a time to refer only to mulattoes, especially lighter ones, but later it became a euphemism for darker Negroes, even including unmixed blacks. With widespread racial mixture, "Negro" came to mean any slave or descendant of a slave, no matter how much mixed. Eventually in the United States, the terms mulatto, colored, Negro, black, and African American all came to mean people with any known black African ancestry. Mulattoes are racially mixed, to whatever degree, while the terms black, Negro, African American, and colored include both mulattoes and unmixed blacks. As we shall see, these terms have quite different meanings in other countries.

Whites in the United States need some help envisioning the American black experience with ancestral fractions. At the beginning of miscegenation between two populations presumed to be racially pure, quadroons appear in the second generation of continuing mixing with whites, and octoroons in the third. A quadroon is one-fourth African black and thus easily classed as black in the United States, yet three of this person's four grandparents are white. An octoroon has seven white great-grandparents out of eight and usually looks white or almost so. Most parents of black American children in recent decades have themselves been racially mixed, but often the fractions get complicated because the earlier details of the mixing were obscured generations ago. Like so many white Americans, black people are forced to speculate about some of the fractions-- one-eighth this, three-sixteenths that, and so on....

Uniqueness Of The One-Drop Rule

Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."

The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in other countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid ancestry with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize that "passing" is much more a social phenomenon than a biological one, reflecting the nation's unique definition of what makes a person black. The concept of "passing" rests on the one-drop rule and on folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on biological or historical fact.

The black experience with passing as white in the United States contrasts with the experience of other ethnic minorities that have features that are clearly non-caucasoid. The concept of passing applies only to blacks--consistent with the nation's unique definition of the group. A person who is one-fourth or less American Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so the minority ancestry need not be hidden. It is often suggested that the key reason for this is that the physical differences between these other groups and whites are less pronounced than the physical differences between African blacks and whites, and therefore are less threatening to whites. However, keep in mind that the one-drop rule and anxiety about passing originated during slavery and later received powerful reinforcement under the Jim Crow system.

For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation promotes assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and discrimination during two or more generations of racial mixing. As noted above, when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the help of close personal relationships in the dominant community, intermarriage, and ultimately full cultural and social assimilation. Young people tend to marry people they meet in the same informal social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid minorities other than blacks in the United States, this entire route to full assimilation is slow but possible.

For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also factors.

It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the definition of "Negro" (now black) spread and became the nation's social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.

The one-drop rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States by whites and blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken "judicial notice" of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for persons with both Indian and black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that this definition of blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group in a similar way. . . .

We must first distinguish racial traits from cultural traits, since they are so often confused with each other. As defined in physical anthropology and biology, races are categories of human beings based on average differences in physical traits that are transmitted by the genes not by blood. Culture is a shared pattern of behavior and beliefs that are learned and transmitted through social communication. An ethnic group is a group with a sense of cultural identity, such as Czech or Jewish Americans, but it may also be a racially distinctive group. A group that is racially distinctive in society may be an ethnic group as well, but not necessarily. Although racially mixed, most blacks in the United States are physically distinguishable from whites, but they are also an ethnic group because of the distinctive culture they have developed within the general American framework.

[98s14inaz]

Originally Posted by ESmorz

She's giving me an election

[ESmorz]

This book sums up most of my feelings toward this backwards ass country, and many other aspects of life.

(RedEvilRPS13 if you are reading this... here is something to read.)

[BustedS13]

america gives me a boner
i love where i live, my country rules
obama 08
let the good times roll

[HalveBlue]

That was a great article you posted 40daws.

Racial categorization systems have a tendency to implode when confronted with logic and analysis.

[BobMace]

Originally Posted by Paul2x

Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab

Obviously you've been reading those craptastic smear-mails from the lunatic fringe. But just use your eyes to reality-test a little:


The guy's black.

[Baka Sama]

Originally Posted by Paul2x

Technically he's not black ..lol

"'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein
is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first
Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein
Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's
birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).

Just thought i'd share. =)

Um, What is African Negro? Please explain.

[ESmorz]

[Baka Sama]

Ah, I see. I just assumed black Africans where considered "natives".

[ESmorz]

The kid on the right at the second table looks like mini Obama.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by Matej

While I agree with you, it seems that today the Constitution has about as many interpretations as the Bible, too many groups take it too literally and interpret it in a way that suits them.

I am a strict constructionist. What the founders wrote, including their non-Constitutional writings and the Articles, is what we should enforce. We do not "read into" the Constitution to adapt it to our times. We adapt our society to fit with the Constitution, not the other way around.

Because we have gun deaths does not mean we should ban guns. Because we have terrorist attacks does not mean we should infringe on the rights of everyone. Our society has grown larger and devolved because of lack of self-reliance and respect for the fellow man. This does not mean we should lose our rights! Why is it that when some bad person breaks the law, the first call is to deprive the good people, the honest people, from exercising their freedom?

However, SCOTUS gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution in 1803, leading us down a long path of developmentalist judges and cases.