Yet. seriously with modern tech it wont ever happen, unless natural stuff cause it.
This isn't necessarily true. Small nuclear leaks happen frequently around the world. Most of them find their way into the water tables and cause brief amounts of panic/detriments to the public at large.
I'm all for nuclear energy, but let's be real: It is still incredibly dangerous and volatile. Not to mention, getting plutonium is an arduous task.
Yet. seriously with modern tech it wont ever happen, unless natural stuff cause it.
This isn't necessarily true. Small nuclear leaks happen frequently around the world. Most of them find their way into the water tables and cause brief amounts of panic/detriments to the public at large.
I'm all for nuclear energy, but let's be real: It is still incredibly dangerous and volatile. Not to mention, getting plutonium is an arduous task.
Its a hard task yes, but In a regulated , factory so to speak leaks dont happen. They only happen in unregulated places. Hardly ANY leaks happen in the Uk , excluding waste materials. More pollution and human harm will come from oil and coal etc..
@Pyrogram: Lol, coal. I have no idea why anyone wants to go back to coal.
Oil is still lucrative and a massive economic stimulator.
Yes, but more harm than good comes from it. We NEED to get an alternative resources and Obama is unwilling, hell, any pollution apart from green party will do nout.
@Pyrogram: Eh, not really true. Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party is a strong believer in global warming and the need for much more environmentally-friendly sources of energy.
You should watch the third party debates from this year. RT (Russia Today) was the only network willing to cover and film it.
@Pyrogram: Eh, not really true. Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party is a strong believer in global warming and the need for much more environmentally-friendly sources of energy.
You should watch the third party debates from this year. RT (Russia Today) was the only network willing to cover and film it.
I was talking British more than US sorry. The green party are like the only ones in Britain. I sometimes watch RT. More prooganda against the US so It gets boring sometimes.
1) The Government funds many scholarship programs, grants, financial aid, and even fund Public Universities and Technical Colleges.
None of those apply to me. I would start thinking about refraining from making blanket statements, and presuming that maybe something you'll point out that is funded by the government will somehow apply to me. I'll tell you right now: Nothing will. The only monetary relationship between myself and both the state legislature and federal government is the taxes I am forced to pay.
2) So creating over 5 millions jobs and reducing the rate the jobs were dropping initial isn't better the economy, we are beginning to create thousands of jobs each month.
Common misconception, and it was pointed out on CNN the real facts behind this after the first debate: The US lost about 4.3 million jobs as a direct result of the crash. Obama managed to create approximately 4.4 million jobs, which led to a net increase of around 200,000 or so (you'll have to look up the specifics yourself).
Besides, take a look here, please. You'll see that there is still a massive amount of unemployed Americans.
3) There are several bills that are passed each day that have a direct impact on your life whether they be tax reforms, healthcare mandates, incentives for small business, and etc. they all have an effect on your standard of living regardless if you would like to acknowledge it or not. As long as you're living and working in the United States the President and Congress will always have a impact on you, that's why its important to vote and make your voice heard.
This doesn't actually argue against my contention about the breaches to the constitution, and rather diverts the responsibility of fighting them over to me, which is logically fallacious and even somewhat bemusing. Under the NDDA, Mr. Obama can deign that American citizens on US continental soil can be detained without charges, warrants, or even due process. Once detained, you will remain so for the rest of your life without the possibility of anyone knowing who you are. Both liberals and conservatives across the board have condemned this, even Rachel Maddow on live television. Maybe you should look into what he is doing to the constitution instead of telling me that "I need to make my voice heard."
I work while attending 4 courses at a local community college (which doesn't take any funds from the federal government, in case you're wondering). I barely have enough time to read up on legislation passed by Congress, executive branch, etc. The only reason I'm able to even spend so much time here lately is because this is my mid-terms week, and I was able to get off work so I could relax and study for said mid-terms. So, between all of that, I have maybe two or three hours a week to actually use for my own desires, and that is spent reading and caring for my family, which I'm actually trying to do right now while typing out a response to this little charade.
I'd like to also add that I voted against Obama (went for Johnson) for many of those very reasons. Unfortunately, my aspirations of a real president not propped up by Super PACs, corporate interests, and elitist special-interest groups did not quite come to fruition. And, if this continues, I will happily leave this country and move to northern Sweden, where I have an older brother who left during the Bush years. Then, maybe you wont have to deal with people such as myself who object and actually point out the facts that would reflect poorly on your preferred candidate.
1) If none of that applies to you then that's fine, but there is other areas in your life very Government has influence.
2) Your right about the Job statistics, what I said wasn't entirely accurate, but I did a little digging on FactCheck.org and pulled up this information.
Obama claimed that “over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created.”
Obama’s figure is nearly half a million jobs short, according to current Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. But he’s including in his count a preliminary revision of jobs figures that BLS will not finalize until next year.
The current BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of businesses and government entities and count how many workers are on the payroll. Those figures show that the number of private-sector jobs grew by 4.63 million between February 2010 and August of this year.
But BLS often revises those figures. Each year, the agency looks over companies’ tax records in an effort to get a more accurate number, a process that takes several months. In late September, BLSreleased a preliminary estimate for its revised numbers, adding 453,000 private-sector jobs to its count for the time period between April 2011 and March 2012. BLS will release its final numbers in February.
The addition of the preliminary estimate brings the number of private-sectors jobs to more than 5 million.
3) I don't see how that diatribe was actually relevant, my main point was that Government is active in the lives of each and every one of us. And the fact that you voted and even acknowledged that you worked and paid taxes further supports my premise that the Government is present in all functions of society, whether its impacts are harmful or beneficial it is entirely subjective and debatable since many people come from all walks of life and have differing opinions on social and foreign policy. I do agree with your position on trying to looking at third-party candidates and checking out their platforms and ideologies. I think it would probably be in America's best interest to drop the Two-Party System because based off what I have seen over these last couple of years both the Democrats and Republicans are incompetent to a degree and would rather cause a fracas over simple ideologies and differences that could be pushed a side for a couple of minutes to contribute to the greater good.
Even LA Times dabbles (oh but don't worry. They're still all for it....by comparing it to known socialist country policies in Europe. I thought we where America, not Norway part 2.)
Renewable fuel sources? We're sitting underneath a gold mine of oil and yet foreign countries get first dibs at it while the states have to make do with "seaweed and algae."
Yeah. Like sea grass ever helped pay for my gas tank.
We need to invest in cleaner resources that can easily be reproduced here, not oil. We have to take into consideration the environment, and what I would have really loved to have seen under Barack Obama's candidacy is a Green Revolution.
Nuclear energy should be invested in, Its clean ( cleaner than oil ) and will produce more energy and has many other benefits, The UK has a load and no Chernobyl situation has happened yet.
Yet. seriously with modern tech it wont ever happen, unless natural stuff cause it.
Agree, we should definitely try to find some alternate source of renewable energy.
@WillPayton: That meme the other user posted might've been uncalled for, but it's not helping anyone if you try to insult him for it. If you don't like it, just ignore it and keep things civil mate.
I'm actually leaning a lot towards Nuclear and Natural Gas (and refined oil, if the Keystone opens up).
A legitimate one-hundred percent nuclear meltdown hasn't occurred (Japan and Chernobyl where leaks caused by faulty wiring and natural disasters.) The only danger is the waste generated, but there are people in the states working their butts off to try and recycle the waste so as not to create a danger to the public.
Plus the land used often holds habitats for animals that are generally threatened in other places (ex. gators). Deer too, but those furry screwballs are overrunning California like nuts.
Natural Gas has a much less atmosphere dissolve time (5 years instead of the usual 10). So it can really help clear up the air that people whine and moan is killing children (note: most of this comes from areas where pro-choice is a big yes.)
It can be refined further, shortening the dissolve time even more.
@WillPayton: That meme the other user posted might've been uncalled for, but it's not helping anyone if you try to insult him for it. If you don't like it, just ignore it and keep things civil mate.
Believe me I tried to make the comment as non-insulting as I could. But if someone posts something that's incredibly stupid and filled with blatant lies and misrepresentations... what else can I call it? If no one says anything then it just stays there unchallenged. And while I could take the time to debunk it point-for-point with facts, my experience here is that such posts are just ignored and the arguments dismissed... so I've sort of given up on trying to be reasonable with people.
I know you're trying to keep the peace and civility, and I appreciate that. But, I'm going to stand behind my comment, even if I have to be reprimanded for it.
Boy oh boy I am so excited Obama won.. I can't wait for four more years of drone strikes on countries we aren't at "war" with, abuses of power by the DOJ, the DEA raiding legalized marijuana facilities, lets not forget that nifty new healthcare that was proclaimed not a tax at first and then when states raised objections to it it suddenly became a tax, oh and one last thing.. the non-answers about the American's murdered in Benghazi.
Oh Mississippi, I wish I could say I was surprised.
And think about the increases in terms of financial aid, grants, and student loans toward college students under Barack Obama's administration.
Just what I was talking about!
Social issues!
We don't NEED these things! These THINGS do not help the economic issues we are dealing with.
Actually to a degree "we" do, to a degree. If you look at economies of scale assistance packages and education programs help growth of an economy in the long term.
Look at it this way - in a closed small economy.
Let's say you have a closed small community of 200 people. If all are employed and their isn't growth to the numbers over time certain jobs cease to exist by natural attrition. For example with no population growth ( births match deaths etc) at some point you will no longer need builders as there will be no new houses or extensions on houses. Instead it is limited to simple maintenance. If there isn't education programs so that the some of the children of builders become a more technical workforce than we have a built in unemployed. If we suddenly have unemployed who aren't funded in some way that instead of having a community of 200 consumers we have less. that means less people buying goods at the stores of those amongst the 200 who own sores so they can afford to employ less. That also means less logistics as businesses selling less less stock, less transport less infrastructure etc. You create a cycle of deflation and increased unemployment.
Spending too much on such programs creates other problems of course of being unsustainable in the long term which will mean it can't achieve what is needed to be achieved by it. A wider economy needs a balance. The best place to be is always some where near the middle. Note I'm not saying in the middle, the needs of the time can vary sometimes when economically tough it needs to lead toward the right. Other times in the interests of long term sustainability need to lean a little more toward the left. It's often a line ball call on when that shift needs to occur, and that is where it get's complex. Was that change needed now ( in the US) to shift to conservative spending to ensure the long term sustainability of the truly needed programs to enure the future growth, that's the question that needs to be put before voters at the time. If a party arguing that it does, hasn't presented the argument forcefully enough at the right time to get that change to occur than I would say that as a political movement they have failed their members. Sometimes a super close electoral margin can send that message to a political movement to tread carefully. that's what happened in our last election here in Oz. The party governing only JUST holds power, though personally I don't think they got the message that they needed to get.
Four years in office already and there's no cigar. So, either the ghost of Bush is more flesh than I thought (even though the guy's chilling in his estate in Texas) or maybe we really need to figure out if the wonder notions of Barack aren't so wondrous after all.
@WillPayton: I appreciate that you responded in a civil manner instead of the opposite. And while it is annoying that someone can post something like that and seemingly get away with it, they are just trolling for attention because they know it will aggravate others. And by responding, you are in turn doing what they want. Would it not be easier to just flag said user and leave it to one of the other mods or myself to handle it?
@beatboks1: Yeah but the growth never equals the expenditure on a large scale budget. It works in very small scale format, but that is not what any of Obama's programs are based on. They are going to be huge expenditures to gain those 5 Million jobs, the results of which will be debt beyond the reasoning behind the program and why it was funded in the first place.
I think it would probably be in America's best interest to drop the Two-Party System because based off what I have seen over these last couple of years both the Democrats and Republicans are incompetent to a degree and would rather cause a fracas over simple ideologies and differences that could be pushed a side for a couple of minutes to contribute to the greater good.
I completely agree with this. I've been saying for years that what we should get rid of the FPTP (first past the post) voting system, which is what leads to the two-party system we have today. Actually, given the system we have, a third party will never really be a valid option. What we need is to move to an instant-runoff, or other system, that doenst have the problems of the spoiler effect. Also, get rid of the electoral system which, while it helps smaller states, it only screws everyone else. In our system of government small states already have a way to gain more power than their population numbers, it's called the Senate.
Anyway, if anyone hasnt see it, here's a cool video that quickly explains the problems of FPTP:
And one explaining the benefits of instant runoff:
@WillPayton: I appreciate that you responded in a civil manner instead of the opposite. And while it is annoying that someone can post something like that and seemingly get away with it, they are just trolling for attention because they know it will aggravate others. And by responding, you are in turn doing what they want. Would it not be easier to just flag said user and leave it to one of the other mods or myself to handle it?
Good point. I will follow your suggestion. Thanks.
@Living_Monstrosity: Mate, I would kindly implore you relax with the memes. The voting's over and at this point, you seem to want nothing more than to work others up.
@Living_Monstrosity: Mate, I would kindly implore you relax with the memes. The voting's over and at this point, you seem to want nothing more than to work others up.
It was just because WillPayton has repeatedly been posting in a pretentious 'holier than thou' manner for the last few days
@WillPayton: For once, we are in agreement about the lack of efficacy that comes from the two-party system.
Luckily, Gary Johnson sot 5% of the vote this year, larger than any Libertarian before, if I'm not mistaken. There may be hope yet.
It may surprise you, but I voted Libertarian for President once. =) Of course, that was when I was younger and hadnt really realized that I was wasting my vote.
Whether you are liberal or conservative, or libertarian, I think everyone should get an equal vote... and everyone should be able to vote for the candidate they like best, rather than the one they hate least who has a chance to win.
If we go to an instant-runoff system, then people could really vote with their conscience, with "alternate" votes in case that person doesnt win. This alone would have a huge impact on our politics. Combine this with public campaign financing (get all money out of politics, get rid of lobbyists) and then we're really talking.
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
The spoiler effect is a real thing, it's basically why FPTP eventually leads to a two-party system. Yes, your vote still makes a statement, but if enough people vote like that it can lead to a candidate being elected that most people dont want. Like I said, in our system, the logical vote is for the one you hate least, who is one of the two who has a chance of winning.
In any case there's other reasons why particular votes are close to worthless... like for example if you live in a non-swing state, especially ones where electoral votes are not proportionally distributed. In the state I live in, it really makes no difference if I go out to vote or not. It goes for one party with 100% certainty.
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
Naive mindset to have in this day and age in my honest opinion. I know people that voted 3rd party because they didn't want to vote for Obama again. Then why not vote for the only other person that has a chance at victory? Anything less is just an insult to your own intelligence, assuming they have one in the first place.
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
The spoiler effect is a real thing, it's basically why FPTP eventually leads to a two-party system. Yes, your vote still makes a statement, but if enough people vote like that it can lead to a candidate being elected that most people dont want. Like I said, in our system, the logical vote is for the one you hate least, who is one of the two who has a chance of winning.
In any case there's other reasons why particular votes are close to worthless... like for example if you live in a non-swing state, especially ones where electoral votes are not proportionally distributed. In the state I live in, it really makes no difference if I go out to vote or not. It goes for one party with 100% certainty.
I would rather vote on principle, instead of voting out of political strategy. And, I live in California. I could convince my whole neighborhood to vote for Romney and not an iota of a difference would be made.
@Meticulous said:
@Illuminatus said:
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
Naive mindset to have in this day and age in my honest opinion. I know people that voted 3rd party because they didn't want to vote for Obama again. Then why not vote for the only other person that has a chance at victory? Anything less is just an insult to your own intelligence, assuming they have one in the first place.
If you're voting for the lesser of two evils, aren't you still voting for evil?
That has always been my philosophy. Call it naive or antiquated if you wish, and I would agree, but the idealism is what drove the Founding Fathers to rebel and eventually create a land where people had the propensity to be free and independent.
And, voting for someone who I agree with wholeheartedly is not an insult to my intelligence. If anything, I think you would find a direct correlation between my intelligence/education throughout the years and how I vote.
Just to confirm my beliefs a few weeks before the election, I took this online quiz. Here were the results:
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
The spoiler effect is a real thing, it's basically why FPTP eventually leads to a two-party system. Yes, your vote still makes a statement, but if enough people vote like that it can lead to a candidate being elected that most people dont want. Like I said, in our system, the logical vote is for the one you hate least, who is one of the two who has a chance of winning.
In any case there's other reasons why particular votes are close to worthless... like for example if you live in a non-swing state, especially ones where electoral votes are not proportionally distributed. In the state I live in, it really makes no difference if I go out to vote or not. It goes for one party with 100% certainty.
I would rather vote on principle, instead of voting out of political strategy. And, I live in California. I could convince my whole neighborhood to vote for Romney and not an iota of a difference would be made.
Unless you agree with a candidate 100%, then you are always voting out of political strategy. You're making the calculation that voting for that person is better than voting for someone else, or voting for no one. So there is really no such thing as purely voting for principle, there is only degrees of it.
But the point is that regardless of your motives for voting for candidate X, there's a mathematical value of a vote. In our current system, the value of that vote depends on whether you vote for one of the 2 parties or a third party, as well as on what state you live in. I want to have a system where the value of everyone's vote is equal. At that point it's easier to vote for principle, because you can get closer to the candidate you want without sacrificing the value of your vote.
And I also live in California, which means the value of my vote is also zero, at least to within any reasonable approximation. I can get all my Facebook friends to vote with me, and still zero. But, if I lived in Florida or Ohio, it's a different matter. If I get 100 people to vote with me, I now probably have Presidential candidates coming to have their pictures taken with me.
I think it would probably be in America's best interest to drop the Two-Party System because based off what I have seen over these last couple of years both the Democrats and Republicans are incompetent to a degree and would rather cause a fracas over simple ideologies and differences that could be pushed a side for a couple of minutes to contribute to the greater good.
I completely agree with this. I've been saying for years that what we should get rid of the FPTP (first past the post) voting system, which is what leads to the two-party system we have today. Actually, given the system we have, a third party will never really be a valid option. What we need is to move to an instant-runoff, or other system, that doenst have the problems of the spoiler effect. Also, get rid of the electoral system which, while it helps smaller states, it only screws everyone else. In our system of government small states already have a way to gain more power than their population numbers, it's called the Senate.
Anyway, if anyone hasnt see it, here's a cool video that quickly explains the problems of FPTP:
And one explaining the benefits of instant runoff:
I also agree with all of this, the first past does not work.
@Living_Monstrosity: Mate, I would kindly implore you relax with the memes. The voting's over and at this point, you seem to want nothing more than to work others up.
I understand why you are angry, but whats the difference in him posting it himself> it would still annoy people. A meme is still an opinion.
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
The spoiler effect is a real thing, it's basically why FPTP eventually leads to a two-party system. Yes, your vote still makes a statement, but if enough people vote like that it can lead to a candidate being elected that most people dont want. Like I said, in our system, the logical vote is for the one you hate least, who is one of the two who has a chance of winning.
In any case there's other reasons why particular votes are close to worthless... like for example if you live in a non-swing state, especially ones where electoral votes are not proportionally distributed. In the state I live in, it really makes no difference if I go out to vote or not. It goes for one party with 100% certainty.
I would rather vote on principle, instead of voting out of political strategy. And, I live in California. I could convince my whole neighborhood to vote for Romney and not an iota of a difference would be made.
@Meticulous said:
@Illuminatus said:
@WillPayton: There is no such thing as throwing away your vote as long as you vote for someone/something you believe in.
Naive mindset to have in this day and age in my honest opinion. I know people that voted 3rd party because they didn't want to vote for Obama again. Then why not vote for the only other person that has a chance at victory? Anything less is just an insult to your own intelligence, assuming they have one in the first place.
If you're voting for the lesser of two evils, aren't you still voting for evil?
That has always been my philosophy. Call it naive or antiquated if you wish, and I would agree, but the idealism is what drove the Founding Fathers to rebel and eventually create a land where people had the propensity to be free and independent.
And, voting for someone who I agree with wholeheartedly is not an insult to my intelligence. If anything, I think you would find a direct correlation between my intelligence/education throughout the years and how I vote.
Just to confirm my beliefs a few weeks before the election, I took this online quiz. Here were the results:
Mr. Obama was at 33%, if you were wondering.
Who gives a crap. Its called being a realistic person. We are all victims to the FACT we have a two party system. The only reason the 3rd parties are there in the first place is so that they can be used as a strategy against the system itself. Idealism has no part in an adult educated decision process, its only an effective means to retain that which one does not want to happen, and make it exactly so.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment