lulz

10/5/2008 8:06:52 PM

MYSTERIOUS DONATIONS FROM __________*

10/5/2008 9:16:20 PM

I move through the stages of grief pretty quickly. I am already onto acce[ting the fact that the election is over. So we might as well take stock of the good things that will come from an Obama presidency.

1) First Black President - This really is a huge and good thing. It is one more piece of evidence that race is becoming less and less of an issue. It may also go a long way to improving America's image abroad.

2) USA flexing soft-power muscle again - I think this would have been the case under a McCain admin too (despite his rhetoric), but this could def be a good thing. Look at the progress we've made with N. Korea now that we have started negotiations with them again. I just hope that Obama knows realizes that there are times for talking and times for action--for example, I hope he follows his campaign promise to consider military action when it comes to facing a potentially nuclear Iran.

3) USA will start taking climate change seriously - again, this is something that would have taken place under McCain as well, but it's something we really need to do and something I welcome.

4) Financing $texas bailout will keep Obama's ill-considered social engineering projects reigned in - I guess every cloud really does have its silver lining.

All-in-all, I don't think the world will come crashing down upon us. I know Obama has built up his base's hopes, but I am expecting his admin to resemble his political career--heavy on good speeches but thin on accomplishments. And considering the "goals" Obama has layed out, I think that's the best we can hope for.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 9:38 PM. Reason : ``]

10/5/2008 9:37:03 PM

Yeah, because improving the quality of our existence is so awful.

Remind me again why we spend like 10 times the amount on defense as any other country on Earth? You want to talk about wasteful spending...

10/5/2008 10:16:01 PM

The American sense of life is rife with a sense of entitlement, victimhood, passing responsibility to some third party, anti-ambition, anti-intellectualism, and envy.

Both parties embody these negative traits IMO. I still don't know who I'm going to vote for.

10/5/2008 10:37:55 PM

Quote :

" The American sense of life humanity is rife with a sense of entitlement, victimhood, passing responsibility to some third party, anti-ambition, anti-intellectualism, and envy."

T,FTFY

10/5/2008 10:44:58 PM

Quote :

" 1) First Black President - This really is a huge and good thing. It is one more piece of evidence that race is becoming less and less of an issue. It may also go a long way to improving America's image abroad."

The fact that the first "black" president is half white shows how much of an issue race really is.

10/5/2008 10:46:10 PM

Quote :

"The American sense of life is rife with a sense of entitlement, victimhood, passing responsibility to some third party, anti-ambition, anti-intellectualism, and envy."

^^ The average 6-pack Joe that Palin appeals to has taken this to the extreme. Granted a lot of the "dis-advantaged" minorities win the award for label.



[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM. Reason : j]

10/5/2008 10:51:20 PM

^^ I disagree.

I also think socks'' failed to mention the psychological impact Obama could have on the black community. I really DO think it'll make it harder for certain segments of that population to play on "white guilt" and will give other segments the role model needed to be able to truly form their own expectations of themselves. There have been several studies that show that expectations affect student performance, and Obama being president would affect the expectations ALL Americans have for blacks.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 10:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 10:56:10 PM

If anything it will assure them that being at least half white is their only shot at equality.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : k]

10/5/2008 11:08:10 PM

^ Obama LOOKS full black, which is all that matters. Being half white wouldn't stop him from getting called a nigger or treated like one, which is how blacks see it.

Racism is purely about skin color, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with your particular composition or background, it's just skin color, which is why it's so infuriating.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 11:27:56 PM

I might vote for Obama because disorganized, weak socialism seems less dangerous than highly organized theocracy that's growing in strength.

10/5/2008 11:31:20 PM

maybe it's just me, but i've always found the claim of the religious right's grip on republicans to be overblown.

I'd be more concerned with the tacit dismissal of the middle class, and the directionless foreign policy that seeks to alienate the US in an increasingly globalized economy and culture.

10/5/2008 11:33:46 PM

I don't get the socialism argument.

Don't you people realize that if we improve the health, income, and prosperity of everyone else in America that you will also benefit greatly as a result?

10/5/2008 11:33:47 PM

Quote :

"Obama LOOKS full black"

Not really, no. But I can't argue with your other points.

10/5/2008 11:34:54 PM

^^ I can't see how it's possible to NOT drift socialist as our population grows, and industry becomes more mechanized. Not if you want to maintain a high standard of living, at least.

What may work for a small country won't necessarily work for a large one.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 11:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 11:35:35 PM

^ Wait, are you saying the robots are going to take our jobs?

http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm

10/5/2008 11:41:48 PM

Quote :

"Don't you people realize that if we improve the health, income, and prosperity of everyone else in America that you will also benefit greatly as a result?"

The best way to improve health, income, and prosperity is through more freedom, not less of it as is found in socialism.

10/5/2008 11:44:34 PM

I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

10/5/2008 11:49:34 PM

no, there would be more freedom overall. Just less freedom to control people with your money.

10/5/2008 11:50:06 PM

The best part of all of this is that the "first black president" won't even be black. but, whatever. enjoy the assraping of America.

10/5/2008 11:52:48 PM

Quote :

" ^ Wait, are you saying the robots are going to take our jobs? http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm "

Well damn, that's almost exactly what I was thinking.

I think the transition will be slow enough (over the span of 2 years or so) where it won't be as scary as he implies, but more or less that's what I think will happen, in the time frame it will happen.

I worked at Best Buy too, and I easily saw how a robot could be made to do my job (and most people's in the store). In fact, we already have to technology to replace a good portion of retail employees, it's just mindlessly expensive to implement.

As an aside, Apple is supposedly looking at having robots do most of their manufacturing, instead of 3rd world peasants. Just another sign the costs are coming down: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/903009584931

Quote :

"I don't think you understand what you're talking about. "

either that or she's using a fairly bizarre definition of socialism.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 11:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 11:54:44 PM

Quote :

"no, there would be more freedom overall. Just less freedom to control people with your money."

As opposed to the government controlling people with my money? How is that any better?

10/5/2008 11:56:40 PM

it's ok if the government does it, though. cause the government knows better than you

10/6/2008 12:04:08 AM

the government won't be controlling anybody because they have no desire to profit off of your money. They will just do what needs to be done instead.

10/6/2008 12:04:37 AM

^theoretically of course. In the real world, it's not quite that straightforward.

But, Biden's mother-in-law died, which is sadly advantageous for Obama/Biden, because it kind of deflates Palin's recent run in the media. It's almost as if God wants Obama to win

10/6/2008 12:06:02 AM

ahahahahahaha. you really believe that, don't you?

you know what the government wants? POWER.

10/6/2008 12:06:20 AM

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Because if the government has proven anything to us over the years, it's that we can trust it... An institution with no real incentive to be efficient is not going to act in the most efficient way.

Honestly, wethebest, are you that willing to throw your life away to an institution that cares only about the power and influence of the people in power?


note that I'm not on aaronburro's side here... in fact I'll probably end up voting obama simply because if the government is going to force donations from me, I'd rather they go to the poor than to the rich.


[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

10/6/2008 12:07:28 AM

Quote :

"The best part of all of this is that the "first black president" won't even be black."

He is by the established American definition. That's what really matters. After all, race is mostly social construction.

Quote :

"Well damn, that's almost exactly what I was thinking."

You can't beat a dude named Marshall Brain who started HowStuffWorks and writes about the coming robotic revolution. He went to State, too. Currently lives in Cary.

10/6/2008 12:11:11 AM

Quote :

"Biden's mother-in-law died"

Aww. That's never news you want to hear. My condolences to the family. [no sarcasm]

Kind of odd that so much bad shit is happening to the families of both sides in the run up to the election... but maybe it's just never been publicized quite as much before. Very disappointing that the media is so eager to swarm over issues that are not really related to the campaigns, and even more disappointing that the American public eats it up.

10/6/2008 12:15:46 AM

Quote :

"Honestly, wethebest, are you that willing to throw your life away to an institution that cares only about the power and influence of the people in power?"

Throw my whole life away? Paying a few taxes (or a lot if i made 250k which would be fine because hey, i make 250k) in the name of a healthy, well educated and taken care of society is hardly throwing my life away. The post office for example, is efficiently ran but takes a red because it doesn't exploit its customers or workers. That is the beauty of government ran things and some things just can't be allowed to include the greed and dirt of profit incentive.

10/6/2008 12:18:22 AM

Quote :

"Kind of odd that so much bad shit is happening to the families of both sides in the run up to the election... but maybe it's just never been publicized quite as much before."

It's possible, I saw a youtube clip of a Gore/Perot interview from 1993, and it was starkly different that what we see today. They were both getting somewhat detailed and technical about their arguments, rather than the vague, trite BS we've come to expect over the past 8 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZOXWNXOpjw

10/6/2008 12:20:58 AM

haha. well educated? You really think the government cares about education? They only care about being able to manipulate the minds of children in order to make more lemmings. That half of the American populace can't even find Iraq on the map ought to tell you how much our government cares about "education."

Quote :

"The post office for example, is efficiently ran but takes a red because it doesn't exploit its customers or workers."

AHAHAHAHA. Are you SERIOUS? The post office is about as inefficient as it gets, man. The entire fucking system could be replaced with machines and we'd save a shit ton of money. Trust me, man. If there is one thing that the government is, it aint efficient. Show me any other entity in the world that would willingly create two fucking IT departments at a 10,000 worker facility, with neither one in contact with the other. show me that. cause that's where I work, man.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 12:24:34 AM

So you're saying that exploitation must occur for profit to exist? Umm... no. Also, if something is ran efficiently, it is not going to "take a red". That's the opposite of being efficient. Besides, you claim that it doesn't exploit its workers? That POSTAL WORKERS have well-paid, fulfilling jobs? Pfft.


Also, in supporting government welfare programs, you are essentially sending the message that the government can do whatever they please with your money so long as it "helps" people (or that they claim to help people). Money governs many aspects of life. Throwing your money away implies throwing at least a significant portion of your life and freedom away.


What can the government do for society that a charity cannot, besides deny the freedom of the people donating to it?

10/6/2008 12:25:45 AM

no the education system is only ruined by rich parents.

10/6/2008 12:26:06 AM

^ how do you figure? cause they move their kids to schools where they can actually learn something?

10/6/2008 12:27:21 AM

The education system is ruined by bad teachers.

10/6/2008 12:28:20 AM

^ and you know why we have those bad teachers? cause the unions won't let us fire them. they also won't let us reward and promote teachers based on merit. gotta love that government solution, though.

10/6/2008 12:29:51 AM

Quote :

"no the education system is only ruined by rich parents."

Not by lack of teacher salary, providing very little economic incentive for intelligent and well-educated members of society to become teachers? Or by lack of incentive for children in poor urban communities to graduate high school?

The US public education system is just another example of a poorly-run government industry. Not that privatizing education would be at all viable given our current society, but it's still run terribly.

10/6/2008 12:30:30 AM

^^ wrong

NC doesn't have teachers unions (I realized the NCAE is union-esque but it doesn't have the powers of a real union), and our teachers are still crap. In fact, don't we have one of the worst edu. systems in the country (Family Guy even made fun of us)?

We have bad teachers because of low pay causing low standards.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 12:31:07 AM

if that is the case, then why don't we have merit-based promotions in NC? right, cause the NCAE would have a fit.

10/6/2008 12:32:25 AM

A charity can only do with how much generosity there is. If the top dogs all happen to be greedy then there would be no way for charity to get to most of the money.

Quote :

"So you're saying that exploitation must occur for profit to exist? Umm... no. Also, if something is ran efficiently, it is not going to "take a red". That's the opposite of being efficient. Besides, you claim that it doesn't exploit its workers?"

Exploitation doesn't have to occur for profit to exist but you better believe that if exploitation is a means of profit there will be exploitation. There is nothing to stop anything bad from happeneing besides the government. Without government 3 people would own everything and dump shit everywhere. guaranteed.

Quote :

"hat POSTAL WORKERS have well-paid, fulfilling jobs? Pfft. "

yes they do and they have job security and benefits. Sometimes making a profit means laying off half of your workers or not offering them insurance. Not a factor at the post office.

Quote :

"That's the opposite of being efficient."

ya in capitalism efficiency. capitalism efficiency=how much money 1 dollar makes you. real efficiency is how much 1 dollar gets accomplished.

Quote :

"Throwing your money away implies throwing at least a significant portion of your life and freedom away."

You talk like all your money is being taken. keep perspective.

Actually federalizing schools would be a better solution. Teachers do need to be payed much more. Local governments can't handle it.

10/6/2008 12:39:00 AM

Quote :

"real efficiency is how much 1 dollar gets accomplished."

No need for dollars.

10/6/2008 12:40:27 AM

Even IF the Postal Service were an efficiently-run institution, that is just one out of a great many. If you'd put money on the idea that a government service will be well-run, then you should stay as far away from Vegas as possible.

The vast majority of government institutions are corrupt either through employee laziness (due to LACK OF INCENTIVE for efficiency... the government runs on taxpayer money which they are guaranteed to collect regardless of how well they perform, therefore by and large they will do the minimum possible amount of work that they can get away with), or through top-level officials being corrupt in the traditional sense (crack and whore parties, lobbyist "gifts", ect).

You act like the only place exploitation does not exist is within the government. I would argue that more exploitation and corruption exist within the US government than almost any other US corporation. If a normal corporation exploits its customers it is likely to lose business, especially if there is a lot of competition in that market. The government is not only guaranteed their "customers" (taxpayers), but they have no competition.

You seem to trust the government very deeply. What have they done to earn this trust? To me it seems irrational and sheepish.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

10/6/2008 12:47:22 AM

I know that kind of stuff goes on but we can make an effort to fix it and the good part about it is, the corruption only wastes the money, it never actually exploits the poor or general public the way corporations do. So even in a loss nobody really loses. As inefficient as the usps may be, stamps are still 42 cents and you can pretty much rely on the mail to be delivered at a cheap rate no matter what all while employing over a million people

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : and you wake up everyday knowing thats a given]

10/6/2008 12:51:24 AM

If my tax dollars are being wasted, I consider myself exploited. In this way, the taxpayers lose. But I cannot withdraw from paying taxes towards a certain program, even if I think that it is not the best way to spend my money. There does not exist a "no-lose" situation. The taxpayer is the one who loses.

If I do something like invest in the stock of a company, and they waste money, I consider myself exploited... however, they lose my business and I cease to be exploited by them. This encourages them to be efficient instead of wasteful. If they act efficiently, we both win. If they act wastefully, we both lose to a certain degree, but I can cut my losses.

Such encouragement does not exist within the government, short of the threat of being voted out of office (which comes down to far more issues than "are we wasting money", and most government employees are appointed/hired and not elected anyway). There is also the threat of armed citizen rebellion, but that is completely and totally unrealistic in modern society, and thus it is only a threat in theory.


Again, what has the government done to earn your trust? I am honestly wondering what they could have done for you to put so much faith in them.

10/6/2008 12:59:28 AM

Quote :

" If my tax dollars are being wasted, "

Your tax dollars will ALWAYS be wasted.

We could use tax dollars to find the cure for all human diseases, and someone's going to feel like it's a waste.

10/6/2008 1:01:24 AM

Quote :

"Your tax dollars will ALWAYS be wasted."

EXACTLY! This is EXACTLY my point! You've just stated why limited government power is such a good thing!

If government is guaranteed to be wasteful, then increasing government power is guaranteed to create more waste. Waste = bad. .:Expansion of government power = bad.

Quote :

"We could use tax dollars to find the cure for all human diseases, and someone's going to feel like it's a waste."

Or we could leave that sort of thing to private organizations... that way, if someone feels that it does not deserve their money, they are fully within their rights to opt-out. Granted, freedom-based technological progress may take somewhat longer than forced donation, but in the long run it saves resources through efficiency.

That said, I'm not totally opposed to government sponsoring medical or technological process, since every level of society can directly benefit from such programs. Similar to (but not the same as) other "essential" government programs, such as the establishment of a defensive military, a police force, and a fire department.
(By "not totally opposed", I mean: If they're going to "donate" tax dollars anyway, one of the best possible options is to use it for the advancement of medicine and technology.)

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

10/6/2008 1:04:31 AM

^ You missed my point.

I was saying that gov. of any size, of any type will always be PERCEIVED as wasteful. But just because that perception exists, doesn't mean its reality.

A gov. too small would be ineffectual, and there is in fact a minimum size of gov. for a country as large as ours. It's all interconnected. Size of gov. is irrelevant if corruption can be eliminated, but managing corruption involves managing size. It's a delicate balance.

The solution though is not to throw the baby out with the bath water... how does that saying go? You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. Not trying to please anyone, or only trying to please 1 particular group is not the answer.

10/6/2008 1:10:29 AM

Quote :

"Not trying to please anyone, or only trying to please 1 particular group is not the answer."

This is why I am in favor of limiting government only to programs that "please" everyone, as much as can be done... In my opinion, a government program should not exist (or at least should not be funded by taxes), if it does not attempt to please all law-abiding members of society as equally as possible. It should also not exist if the private sector can provide the same service(s) in a more efficient manner. I also believe that if you are benefiting from a government program, then you should pay some taxes (even if it is an extremely small tax) towards that program. Mutual benefit should not involve only partial investment.

Such services include a defensive military, a judicial system, a police force for the prevention of crimes, and other emergency services such as the fire department.

In some ways, you could argue that health care fits into these categories (specifically, "emergency services")... and in some ways you would not be wrong. The issue here is that while the private sector does have the potential to provide health care for everyone, costs of medical care have been inflated by past government regulation or involvement... making it virtually impossible to move to a much cheaper and more efficient privatized system. Government involvement has forced additional government involvement (see two paragraphs down for more).

Welfare, on the other hand, is a completely immoral service for the government to perform, by these standards. Everyone is paying for something that only benefits a few. Such things should be left to charity organizations.

Again, though, this is what I would consider "ideal"... just like GoldenViper's "ideal", as far as I understand it, is a technocracy in which humanity has unlimited resources and shares everything (given our current knowledge of physics, this is of course impossible, since "free energy" does not exist... but we may discover it eventually).


The biggest problem with expansion of government power, in my opinion, is that once it has become prevalent in society, you cannot simply "deregulate" it out of power... government regulation breeds more government regulation, otherwise you end up with a failing system, as evidenced by the failures of the Bush administration. They did not fail because deregulation is fundamentally bad, they failed because deregulation and lack of enforcement cannot follow a history of regulation. ...That, and they didn't seem to have much of an economic policy besides "just let it go and it'll keep doing whatever it does" (in other words, they were being lazy and stupid). Such policies might work if the US economy were totally untouched by government, but it's not. Which, unfortunately, means that the only way for our government to shrink is basically for it to grow to the point of collapse.

At this point in our society, it may be best to just let government slowly inflate itself until it explodes (balloon analogy, not bombs)... a limited government system might be my ideal, but it is nearly impossible to maintain with the American system of government. Once you go down the path of increased power, there is basically no going back. It's really why I dislike "liberal" (pro-government) policies... they promote their own growth and prohibit their own removal... Like an inoperable tumor. Yeah, that sounds good in a soundbyte-format. "Liberal government policies are an inoperable tumor," you can feel free to quote me on that one.


So, given the need for society to look to the future in order to progress instead of looking to the past for blame, I'd say that our current government should continue its path of regulation, but at the bare minimum that is necessary to maintain already-regulated aspects. Our society and government fucked up through regulation in the past, so unfortunately we are forced to continue that regulation to prevent collapse. I don't trust that either party will do this, but given that the GOP is tending to be pro-government (a.k.a. liberal) both socially and economically, whereas the Dems tend to only be economically liberal (except on social issues like gun rights), I'll likely end up voting Obama. I want to vote Libertarian, but Barr comes off like a complete fraud, and I also can't shake the idea that a non-major-party vote would just be the same as enabling Palin to become president.

10/6/2008 2:04:51 AM