categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

why, i do believe they might be a touch peeved

I do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church on… well… a lot of things, but I find this commercial absolutely fascinating:

Our Glorious President has never really placed a whole lot of emphasis on appeasing the religiosity types (at least, when it comes to Western religiosity types… if you happen to wear a cloth wrapped around your head or believe marrying prepubescent girls is a-ok, he is all about keeping you happy), but when the largest single sect of the largest single religion in the country all but says, "Screw this guy; find someone else," (in appropriately pious words, of course), well, that has got to grab your attention.

Incidentally, while I may not agree with the Roman Catholic Church on the specific details, those "values" they mention are exactly why I will be voting for Gary Johnson next month (Oh, thank God, the election is next month… I would like to think then this idiocy will stop, but I know better.); after all, why would I vote for someone who does not adequately represent me, or who would lead America in a direction I would rather it did not go?

(Found by way of of The Smallest Minority.)

16 comments to why, i do believe they might be a touch peeved

  • Tom

    I’ll be voting for Johnson, too, not only because I agree with him on many points, but also because I believe that the financial media complex discourages valuable, alternative voices in our public discussions. If the media doesn’t cover you, you don’t get attention. If you don’t get attention, you don’t get money. If you don’t get money, the media doesn’t cover you. If Johnson can move the needle just a bit, maybe that will give him traction for 2016.

  • Heather

    I’m ahead of you, already mailed in my ballot.

  • @ Tom: Unfortunately, third parties are pretty much contained and defined by the logical fallacies people outside those parties wrap them up in, and circular reasoning is only the start. But, yeah, just as the problem of if people do not vote for third parties, they will never win, and they will never win because people do not vote for them, so too do they have a media exposure problem.

    Guess it is just up to us :).

    @ Heather: Thought about voting early this year, but figured I might as well do the whole “election day” thing. Lord knows there will be enough screaming of fraud this year…

  • Glenn

    Well I am sure Obama appreciates your vote. Glad to see you sticking to your principles, regardless of the outcome.

  • @ Glenn: Excuse you, but where did I say I was voting for Obama? Oh, right, I did not.

    Go peddle your childish logical fallacies somewhere else and stop wasting my time.

  • I believe that the financial media complex discourages valuable, alternative voices in our public discussions. If the media doesn’t cover you, you don’t get attention. If you don’t get attention, you don’t get money. If you don’t get money, the media doesn’t cover you.

    Thus, Johnson’s deliberate exclusion from the early Republican nomination debates, ensuring that he would not be the Party’s candidate.

  • Glenn

    So, please point out where I said you were voting for Obama? I said Obama appreciates your vote.

    I’m sorry, but I really get frustrated with the stubborn clinging Ron Paul libertarians. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Logical Fallacy? Hardly. But at least, after Obama get’s re-elected, you’ll be able to congratulate yourself for standing up for the republic, as it’s burning to the ground. Perhaps you can even play a little violin.

  • @ Jake: Cute how that played out, was it not?

    @ Glenn: If I am not voting for Obama – a reality that you seem willing to postulate – then I am voting against Obama. And if I am voting against Obama, what rational reason would he have to “appreciate my vote”?

    Oh, right, no rational reason whatsoever, unless you are another one of those benighted morons who believes circular reasoning and false dichotomies constitute not only a convincing argument but also an outstanding reason to vote for a person who is only marginally less horrific than the current authoritarian in office.

    And lest you start whinging and moaning about my accurate use of the word “moron”, I need only point to your knee-jerk stereotyping and the fact that I consider Ron Paul to be a complete lunatic.

    So, yes, I bloody well am standing by my principles, which is a damned sight more than idiots who vote for people they think “can win”; idiots who are, in fact, responsible for the situation our country finds itself in today. How disgusting it is that you seem to believe that standing by one’s principles is a bad thing… I cannot even begin to understand that kind of warped position.

    As I said, run along.

  • Tom

    @ Jake:
    Jake wrote:

    Thus, Johnson’s deliberate exclusion from the early Republican nomination debates, ensuring that he would not be the Party’s candidate.

    You can add Buddy Roemer to that list as well.

  • Tom

    @ Glenn:
    In the 2008 election, about 60% of eligible voters voted, somewhat higher than normal because of the excitement Democrats had for Obama and the Republicans had for Palin. Now, with Obama being a disappointment and Romney being every Republican’s second choice, but both being popular with fundraisers and bundlers, turnout could be lower. If the turnout were close to 100%, I’d say a vote for a third party candidate could be a spoiler. But realistically, the choice is to vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all. I’d rather vote for almost anyone else than a handmaiden of deep pocket contributors.

  • Heather

    Given that the establishment parties have been deliberately excluding third party candidates, to the point of arresting them for being in public, I’m starting to think that anyone who votes for the two major parties is against the bill of rights.

  • @ Heather:
    Who got arrested? I missed that one.

  • Heather

    Green party candidates got arrested during the 10/16 debate.

  • @ Tom: Hell, even at 100% turnout, with the way the system is set up right now, I doubt a third-party vote will be a significant spoiler for some time now, and definitely not until a lot more people get pissed off at that system than are right now. Perot was the one time in recent history when voting third party made a damned bit of difference, and, unfortunately, that has scared everyone off the concept for the foreseeable future.

    @ Heather: Well, in the Green Party’s case, I can almost make an exception… I jest, I jest. That said, Lord knows the system is engineered to keep specifically the Republicans and Democrats in anything even approximating a position where they stand any chance at all of winning. One needs only observe how Gary Johnson, who had started trending rather well towards the beginning of the Republican candidacy race, was very carefully dropped from three of the five debates, and his campaign tanked after that; my understanding is he is no great fan of the big-l Libertarian Party, but it was the only way he could get any nomination, after that.

    As always, we get the government we deserve, and as long as we do not let that government know we are dissatisfied with its behavior (by, for example, voting for one of the Not Approved Candidates), it will just keep on going being what we deserve.

  • Volfram

    “Please show this video to a friend.”

    I know just the guy. Unfortunately, he already voted for Obama.

  • Well, show it to him anywise; it is never too late to learn the error of one’s ways, though I would be surprised if he took the learning experience well…



web analytics

View My Stats