presidential census

[INTPINFP]

are you voting for mcain, obama, or neither?

please provide your yearly profits data also

 

[Ogion]

I am no american, but aren't there six candidates or so? (Just asking because i think that many here perhaps won't vote for these two...)

Ogion

 

[severus]

@Ogion, technically, yes there are many candidates running. However, the majority of the population has never heard of any of them, let alone would consider voting for them. There is a black woman running for the Green Party, and no one has said a thing about it.

 

[fullerene]

thank goodness you added "neither" as a choice along with Obama and McCain. I saw this thread title and, before opening it, was ready to respond "NO!!"

 

[INTPINFP]

thank goodness you added "neither" as a choice along with Obama and McCain. I saw this thread title and, before opening it, was ready to respond "NO!!"

Lol I understand. But if you ask any american, they will say they "have to vote for one or the other, so the other won't win"

 

[fullerene]

bah, I know. Makes me sick. I almost exploded on an ESFJ friend of mine at the end of last school year for saying almost exactly that. "Well you know one of them is gonna win, so would you rather be more screwed or less screwed?"

....sigh....

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

bah, I know. Makes me sick. I almost exploded on an ESFJ friend of mine at the end of last school year for saying almost exactly that. "Well you know one of them is gonna win, so would you rather be more screwed or less screwed?"

....sigh....

It's sad but true. One way I've heard it put is: Picking your president is like picking your rapist.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Is Ron Paul still in the running?

 

[Thread Killer]

Voting Independent.

 

[Waterstiller]

I'm voting Obama. For a lot of reasons.

Main one? Palin's psychotic.

 

[grey matters]

Decision time is approaching and I am still undecided.

In America you don't really vote for a candidate so much as you vote for the party that the candidate is running with. Politicians are not allowed to vote their conscience anymore, they must vote along party lines or that party will no longer support them and then the candidate will become unelectable. Within party lines politicians have some leeway (or perhaps I should say margin of error) to vote, but those votes must lie within that party's narrow minded dogma or they become traitors and are excommunicated from the party.

In our 2 party system the radicals have taken over. On one side you have the uncompromising liberals who have a belief system that is not unlike a religion. On the other side you have the uncompromising republicans who have a major religion on their side and believe that our government ought to be some sort of Christian theocracy. The country is divided between these extremes which is ironic because, as I understand it, most people are more moderate in their beliefs. Nothing can get done in congress because no one is allowed to compromise. And the real power still resides in the special interests. A two party system really sucks.

Voting 3rd party in this country is like throwing away your vote because, for the most part, 3rd party candidates are unelectable because thier party is not strong enough. If you are someone who has leanings toward republican or democrat but vote for a 3rd party candidate that vote is now one less vote for the republican or democrat you might have voted for, so essentially, by voting for the 3rd party you have actually voted for the party you didn't want. It's fucked up

I hate the 2 party system so much that it goes against my conscience to vote Rep. or Dem. But them again I may kick myself later if the Dem.'s gain control and start enacting policies I disagree with. But if I vote Rep. and the religious right and some of the other radical idiots continue to do the usual things they do, I will feel guilty because I contributed to this. But then again does any of this really matter? The U.S. is no longer a country for the people by the people. "The people" are nothing but a bunch of bugger heads, and for the political parties, the Constitution is nothing more then a mere inconvenience. Perhaps I am racking my brain for nothing. HELP!!!

 

[FusionKnight]

My choices, as I see them, are:

1. Write in Ron Paul
2. Constitution Party - Chuck Baldwin
3. Don't vote

I don't like 3, and 1 is not really an option, since Ron Paul doesn't want to be written in. I'll probably go with 2.

Voting 3rd party may seem like a waste, but at least my conscience is clean. This world may be going to hell, but I'm not going along for the ride.

 

[nihilen.]

I am far from being American, but the results will have an effect on me as much - If not more - as the next american.

I support Obama.

McCan't is an idiot.

 

[INTPINFP]

Is Ron Paul still in the running?

who cares! you can vote for whoever you want in the polls (and it will count!, as long as they are at least 35, since we all know 0-34 year olds are the dumbest beings on this planet )

quote: "
Decision time is approaching and I am still undecided.

In America you don't really vote for a candidate so much as you vote for the party that the candidate is running with. Politicians are not allowed to vote their conscience anymore, they must vote along party lines or that party will no longer support them and then the candidate will become unelectable. Within party lines politicians have some leeway (or perhaps I should say margin of error) to vote, but those votes must lie within that party's narrow minded dogma or they become traitors and are excommunicated from the party.

In our 2 party system the radicals have taken over. On one side you have the uncompromising liberals who have a belief system that is not unlike a religion. On the other side you have the uncompromising republicans who have a major religion on their side and believe that our government ought to be some sort of Christian theocracy. The country is divided between these extremes which is ironic because, as I understand it, most people are more moderate in their beliefs. Nothing can get done in congress because no one is allowed to compromise. And the real power still resides in the special interests. A two party system really sucks.

Voting 3rd party in this country is like throwing away your vote because, for the most part, 3rd party candidates are unelectable because thier party is not strong enough. If you are someone who has leanings toward republican or democrat but vote for a 3rd party candidate that vote is now one less vote for the republican or democrat you might have voted for, so essentially, by voting for the 3rd party you have actually voted for the party you didn't want. It's fucked up

I hate the 2 party system so much that it goes against my conscience to vote Rep. or Dem. But them again I may kick myself later if the Dem.'s gain control and start enacting policies I disagree with. But if I vote Rep. and the religious right and some of the other radical idiots continue to do the usual things they do, I will feel guilty because I contributed to this. But then again does any of this really matter? The U.S. is no longer a country for the people by the people. "The people" are nothing but a bunch of bugger heads, and for the political parties, the Constitution is nothing more then a mere inconvenience. Perhaps I am racking my brain for nothing. HELP!!!"

i totally agree. it is pathetic but at least 1/2 of the obama/mcain supporters are brainwashed idiots raving on about the other party being brainwashed idiots. Its all about picking your poison, sheeple. (oh, did i say sheeple? )

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not afraid.
I'm voting for Obama.

Neither candidate is close to perfect.
But at least one is trying.

Any grace I was crediting McCain evaporated as soon as Palin came into the picture.


.... and yes, the political system has problems. I used to bitch about it, but frankly there's no great way I can see to fix it. The current age of media technology has also drastically changed how politics is done and greatly impacts what evolves.

My only consolation is that the system tends to stabilize itself. Frankly, Bush was awful but the system is STILL alive. It's like the Terminator; even if it looks like crap and is limping along, it survives.

 

[INTPINFP]

I'm not afraid.
I'm voting for Obama.

Neither candidate is close to perfect.
But at least one is trying.

Any grace I was crediting McCain evaporated as soon as Palin came into the picture.

I agree. McCain has little to no enthuasim for being President (at least, that is what his voice conveys.) Kinda funny though how when Palin was nominated, people were saying she was gonna win it for Mcain. Wonder if the same thing's gonna happen to Obama on November 4.

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree. McCain has little to no enthuasim for being President (at least, that is what his voice conveys.)

As far as I can tell, the time since the last debate (and actually all the last debate) has been him trying to discredit Obama's ideas or character without offering anything viable himself.

Fine. So I shouldn't vote for Obama, then. I sure as hell have nothing to vote for HIM for. Who are my OTHER options?

 

[INTPINFP]

As far as I can tell, the time since the last debate (and actually all the last debate) has been him trying to discredit Obama's ideas or character without offering anything viable himself.

Fine. So I shouldn't vote for Obama, then. I sure as hell have nothing to vote for HIM for. Who are my OTHER options?

Vote for Obama, because with Mcain, were almost certainly doomed

also there was this random guy that accurately predicted a bunch of important historical stock market related things in the 1970s80s and he says Mcain will destroy America

 

[Ogion]

Argh, no!!

Voting for the lesser evil, when you do have other possibilities, is really anti-democratic. It's stupid (sorry to say that). When you vote for the lesser evil, all you do is support the evil party. You still vote evil. Why do you do that??

Say for example you would in principle agree with little_party_a. Now, you go to the vote, think, i would waste my vote on the little_party_a since they probably won't come over 50%, so i vote for the lesser of the big evil ones. Do you realise what you do by that? You stomp your principles and worldview to the ground and support, actively empower evil (when you see it as evil). You are part of the support ase of this big evil party.
You voted wrong, because you voted against your ideas and principles. You betrayed yourself. Don't moan and btch around when this big party afterwards does bad things. You wanted that.

You don't have no 2-party-*system* in the US.There are other parties and you can vote for them. You could even go to the vote and write on your voting-paper "I don't support these parties." Now, i see that your system deoes make it hard for little parties to get some influence. In Germany we have a proportional representation with a 5%-hurdle. This means, that in the voting for the parliament the parties get the number of seats corresponding to the percentage of their votes. (The government gets elected by the parliament, not the people). You have to win over one state by at least 51% to get the states seats. So this brings about an effective 2-party-system, but still. This does not mean it is built-in in the system...

Sorry if this post was a bit harsh, but i hate this complaining thinking that you would anyways have no choice.

Ogion

EDIT: @Jenny, as far as i know, there are 6 candidates. i don't know exactly their names and parties, but i am sure you will be able to find out.

 

[INTPINFP]

Argh, no!!

Voting for the lesser evil, when you do have other possibilities, is really anti-democratic. It's stupid (sorry to say that). When you vote for the lesser evil, all you do is support the evil party. You still vote evil. Why do you do that??

Say for example you would in principle agree with little_party_a. Now, you go to the vote, think, i would waste my vote on the little_party_a since they probably won't come over 50%, so i vote for the lesser of the big evil ones. Do you realise what you do by that? You stomp your principles and worldview to the ground and support, actively empower evil (when you see it as evil). You are part of the support ase of this big evil party.
You voted wrong, because you voted against your ideas and principles. You betrayed yourself. Don't moan and btch around when this big party afterwards does bad things. You wanted that.

You don't have no 2-party-*system* in the US.There are other parties and you can vote for them. You could even go to the vote and write on your voting-paper "I don't support these parties." Now, i see that your system deoes make it hard for little parties to get some influence. In Germany we have a proportional representation with a 5%-hurdle. This means, that in the voting for the parliament the parties get the number of seats corresponding to the percentage of their votes. (The government gets elected by the parliament, not the people). You have to win over one state by at least 51% to get the states seats. So this brings about an effective 2-party-system, but still. This does not mean it is built-in in the system...

Sorry if this post was a bit harsh, but i hate this complaining thinking that you would anyways have no choice.

Ogion


EDIT: @Jenny, as far as i know, there are 6 candidates. i don't know exactly their names and parties, but i am sure you will be able to find out.

i agree with your philosophy but im afraid it doesnt apply here. remember we are dealing with mindless drones on each side. yes, some of us appear to emulate their behavor by using lesser of two evils ultimatums but we appear as drones only on the exterior. Remember, half of the people voting for one particular party are diehards, while the other half simply vote to stop the other majority of diehards

 

[sagewolf]

You don't have no 2-party-*system* in the US.There are other parties and you can vote for them. You could even go to the vote and write on your voting-paper "I don't support these parties." Now, i see that your system deoes make it hard for little parties to get some influence.

In theory, it's not a two-party system. Practice and theory aren't the same thing, really. It'll be a Democrat or a Republican.

In Germany we have a proportional representation with a 5%-hurdle. This means, that in the voting for the parliament the parties get the number of seats corresponding to the percentage of their votes. (The government gets elected by the parliament, not the people). You have to win over one state by at least 51% to get the states seats. So this brings about an effective 2-party-system, but still. This does not mean it is built-in in the system...

Same thing in Ireland, but the electorate is so bloody STUPID that it's basically been a one-party system for the past two decades. And Fianna Fail are utterly incompetent. Then again, Fine Gael are an utterly incompetent opposition, and the smaller parties are only good enough to make up coalitions in the Dail with bigger parties.

I say we re-establish the monarchy. Then, in place of elections, we hold revolutions every five years. It would keep people interested, at least.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

i agree with your philosophy but im afraid it doesnt apply here. remember we are dealing with mindless drones on each side. yes, some of us appear to emulate their behavor by using lesser of two evils ultimatums but we appear as drones only on the exterior. Remember, half of the people voting for one particular party are diehards, while the other half simply vote to stop the other majority of diehards

Having already voted (Obama), it did come down to picking the least worse candidate. The trouble with the other candidates is that they are as extreme or more so than the generic dem or rep. Cynthia McKinnon of the green party is more liberal than anyone in the race. Nader is a righteous P****, Barr the so called libertarian changed 60% of his views to fit into the libertarian party and the socialist whose name I don't know or need to know. He's socialist fergawdsake!

I don't know if Obama will be a good or even decent president. I do know the bar has been set so low by president dipshit that he doesn't have to do much to be an improvement. We'll just have to see how he does.

btw, I believe there are more than 6 running. Some aren't on the ballots of all states.

 

[FusionKnight]

who cares! you can vote for whoever you want in the polls (and it will count!, as long as they are at least 35, since we all know 0-34 year olds are the dumbest beings on this planet )

Actually, they don't tally write-in votes unless the person being written in submits an official form to the election commission. Ron Paul write-in votes will not even be counted.

Having already voted (Obama), it did come down to picking the least worse candidate. The trouble with the other candidates is that they are as extreme or more so than the generic dem or rep. Cynthia McKinnon of the green party is more liberal than anyone in the race. Nader is a righteous P****, Barr the so called libertarian changed 60% of his views to fit into the libertarian party and the socialist whose name I don't know or need to know. He's socialist fergawdsake!

You're forgetting the Constitution Party!

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

True, but I didn't see the Constitution Party candidate on my ballot Monday. May not be nationwide I'm afraid. A pity.

Edit: It sounds by the second question here that it may not have met conditions. I doubt they raised the requisite signatures.

 

[NoID10ts]

NoID10ts
for
President!


Write me in. I have all the answers!

Legal Disclaimer

Actually, when I say I have all the answers, I do not really mean I have all the answers, and in reality, I don't have any answers at all. But, I at least have as many answers as the other assholes who are running. Actually.....the truth is, there are no answers. That's the rub. All the people can't be happy all the time. Someone will always get screwed. Someone will always be unhappy. Depressing isn't it? But vote for me anyway and I will at least try to make your screwing a little more bearable. Maybe I'll tell you some jokes and a dirty limerick or two to mask the pain.​

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

NoID10ts

for
President!​

Write me in. I have all the answers!​

Legal Disclaimer​

Actually, when I say I have all the answers, I do not really mean I have all the answers, and in reality, I don't have any answers at all. But, I at least have as many answers as the other assholes who are running. Actually.....the truth is, there are no answers. That's the rub. All the people can't be happy all the time. Someone will always get screwed. Someone will always be unhappy. Depressing isn't it? But vote for me anyway and I will at least try to make your screwing a little more bearable. Maybe I'll tell you some jokes and a dirty limerick or two to mask the pain.​

Damn! Too late. And since my vote is THE crucial swing vote for the entire election nationwide.....it looks like you are out.

 

[NoID10ts]

Damn! Too late. And since my vote is THE crucial swing vote for the entire election nationwide.....it looks like you are out.

It was a beautiful dream.

 

[moonpie]

I'm voting for Alan Keyes!

He's way blacker than Obama and he is for repealing the income tax.

He is also for the marriage amendment against gays which I hate and a huge sales tax, which I hate, and totally against abortion, which I have removed from my decision making process after every woman ever has told me I ought have no opinion. And I am sure there are a shit ton of things I am against. But, he does actually mention the Constitution sometimes, and he moshed.

Also, Ron Paul is not on the ballot in California.

Some good quotes:

"These days politicians talk as if the money belongs to the government unless we can prove otherwise. That’s the real logic behind the demagogic “soak the rich” tax proposals. If people [with] higher incomes have no just claim to their money, on what grounds can the rest of us lay claim to what we make? The idea of a basic individual right to property that the government must respect is tossed aside in favor of a socialist understanding of property as a collective good that the government distributes according to its whim. The “soak the rich” tax proposals are therefore a politically shrewd way of getting the mass of our people to buy into socialist logic without having to declare socialist objectives. By following this approach, the day will come when our paychecks won’t record our net pay; they’ll record our government allowance. In words, it’s a small difference, but in fact it’s the difference between economic slavery and economic freedom."
Source: Our Character, Our Future, p. 73-4 May 2, 1996
"Under the current tax system, before you have put bread in the mouths of your children, before you put a roof over the head of those children, before you put a stitch of clothes on their backs today, you pay the government. We’re worse off than serfs. Serfs used to pay their masters after they were fed and clothed. We have to pay our master before we’re fed and clothed. I think, I think it’s a travesty. And I think it’s time we ended it." Source: Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999

 

[ElectricWizard]

The Socialist Party candidate's beliefs, like their platform, are all over the place. Eh, what the hell, they were founded by a bunch of reformists with anger management problems combining with some other reformists, what can one expect?
Anyways, I'm not from the US, and I wouldn't vote either way.
Also, Alan Keyes seems to have quite a lot in common with me. That is, he seems to dislike doing his homework.

 

[severus]

If only the Libertarian Party wasn't made up of failed Republicans....

 

[grey matters]

NoID10ts
for
President!


Write me in. I have all the answers!

Legal Disclaimer

Actually, when I say I have all the answers, I do not really mean I have all the answers, and in reality, I don't have any answers at all. But, I at least have as many answers as the other assholes who are running. Actually.....the truth is, there are no answers. That's the rub. All the people can't be happy all the time. Someone will always get screwed. Someone will always be unhappy. Depressing isn't it? But vote for me anyway and I will at least try to make your screwing a little more bearable. Maybe I'll tell you some jokes and a dirty limerick or two to mask the pain.​

That has got to be the most honest campaign poster I have ever read.

 

[Ogion]

Yes, simply out of that we should vote for him, and of course because he is no idiot

Ogion

 

[Annee]

I am voting against religion in government. Which means I am voting against Palin.

So - Obama by default.

 

[Jennywocky]

EDIT: @Jenny, as far as i know, there are 6 candidates. i don't know exactly their names and parties, but i am sure you will be able to find out.

I'm sure I could too (and already did, with a few).

Actually, despite how my tone might have been perceived, I'm pretty happy with Obama. So thanks anyway.

(I realized years ago that politics is one of those great topics where everyone claims to be unbiased but is more or less as biased as the next guy.)

NoID10ts
for
President!


Write me in. I have all the answers!​

I thought NoID10ts was our friend: Why would we want to do this horrible thing to him????

 

[NoID10ts]

Yes, simply out of that we should vote for him, and of course because he is no idiot

Ogion

You can be my vice president, the fact that you are not a US citizen might be a problem but there have got to be ways around that.


*rubs chin deep in thought* I wonder how I can become president of the world.

 

[FusionKnight]

If only the Libertarian Party wasn't made up of failed Republicans....

Yeah, what's up with that? I'm strongly libertarian in my political philosophy, but based on what I've seen of the Libertarian Party, I would never support them with money or my vote.

How a libertarian can be pro war, pro regulation, and defend abortion, I cannot fathom.

 

[Chronomar]

I'm voting Obama. For a lot of reasons.

Main one? Palin's psychotic.

This is what I'm saying too. I don't really love either, but then again, I'm pretty picky, so for me to like the candidate, they would have to basically have my opinions 100%, which, although a nice sentament, is unreasonable. I made my choice desision chart thing, and would have had to use it too, if Palin hadn't been the VP. I think I would have chosen Obama anyway using my logic chart thing. It is not a fool proof process, but then again, nothing really is, save electing one's self. Which is...*consults chart*...near impossible. Worse odds than winning the lottery, which itself has worse odds than being hit by lightning.

My #1 reason for Obama is that I agreed with him more. This primararly had to do with basic differences between the democrat and republican platforms, not really anything specific to the candidate himself. I consider my self an independant, I'm going to register republican, and then most likely vote democrat most of the time. Just to mess with all of their feeble minds (muhahahahah). My mother already has iniciated this plan for herself, and it really cuts down on the amount of political mail you get. I think we have them hoodwinked.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Yeah, what's up with that? I'm strongly libertarian in my political philosophy, but based on what I've seen of the Libertarian Party, I would never support them with money or my vote.

How a libertarian can be pro war, pro regulation, and defend abortion, I cannot fathom.

Uh, what? I thought the libertarian party was acting anti-war and anti-regulation. What have you seen of the libertarian party?
(I will readily admit that Bob Barr is not a good libertarian. He is downright crappy, he should go back to being a georgian congressman.)

Abortion, however... it splits up the libertarians 50/50 too.

 

[Decaf]

Uh, what? I thought the libertarian party was acting anti-war and anti-regulation.

Abortion, however... it splits up the libertarians 50/50 too.

But the candidates coming from the Libertarian party don't appear to hold to party lines very tightly. I like that candidates are allowed the freedom to represent themselves honestly, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for them.

Regulation to a Libertarian is always a slippery slope. Some regulations seem good, but once you put in place a system by which regulations can be progressively made you introduce a major avenue for corruption. A pro-regulation Libertarian is a lazy Libertarian in my opinion. It may help fix things by focusing on the short term, but that has never been a good way to run a country.

 

[moonpie]

Whatever happens, 1 of the 2 big idiots are going to get into office and not mention the real important issues of the day. The two big ones to me are the Federal Reserve which is unconstitutional, devalues our currency, is useless and crappy and full of idiots by definition, was created by evil people to do evil things, and is the cause of most of the symptoms we are trying to adjust with more of the same.

"Man, my AIDS is getting real bad, maybe I should screw some more people with AIDS and get different strands. That will make it better."

Nope.

Also, the income tax makes us slaves, and the Declaration of Independence which I value more highly than the Constitution (as is correct) states that our rights as derived from God(the definition of God to me in this context is "something one cannot ignore or refute") is that we have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That just doesn't sound like the income tax to me.

Vote Alan Keyes. If only because there is no one good, they are tools of a vaster power structure that we are not told about, and either way you'll get the same thing. We are strapped to a stake over a bed of dry tinder. At least spit in your executioner's face before you go down.

If Alan Keyes is not on the ballot just write in Sambo.

 

[ElectricWizard]

If only the Libertarian Party wasn't made up of failed Republicans....

If only they were made up of the anarchists that they stole their name from...

 

[Decaf]

I wonder if they'll let me forgo my vote in favor of taking a vote away from Palin.

 

[FusionKnight]

Whatever happens, 1 of the 2 big idiots are going to get into office and not mention the real important issues of the day. The two big ones to me are the Federal Reserve which is unconstitutional, devalues our currency, is useless and crappy and full of idiots by definition, was created by evil people to do evil things, and is the cause of most of the symptoms we are trying to adjust with more of the same.

"Man, my AIDS is getting real bad, maybe I should screw some more people with AIDS and get different strands. That will make it better."

Hurrah!

If only they were made up of the anarchists that they stole their name from...

Well, I've argued for a long time that a totally honest libertarian essentially has to be an anarcho-capitalist. The non-aggression principle basically rules out any form of non-voluntary government.

 

[ElectricWizard]

A totally honest libertarian has to be an oxymoron?

 

[FusionKnight]

Explain.

From Wikipedia:

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government,[1] i.e. the state. The term anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχω, anarcho, meaning "without archons" or "without rulers",[2][3] from ἀν (an, "without") + ἄρχή (arche, "to rule") + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν). It is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state."[4]

 

[NoID10ts]

SO, WHICH ONE OF THESE GENTLEMEN WILL BE SERVICING YOU FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS?​

​

​

 

[Ogion]

Seems to be both of them, hand in hand, or shall i say hand on body?

Ogion

 

[ElectricWizard]

Explain.

From Wikipedia:

It's Wikipedia. Wikipedia says:

Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Anarchism can't just be defined based on some dictionary, one has to take into consideration the actual anarchist movement in history, along with the actual meaning of the term 'anarchy'. Anyways, I would prefer this one:
"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." (Brian Morris)

"when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." (Brian Morris)

Perhaps Proudhon?

"Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

Malatesta could work here too...

Anarchism is "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government."

Labadie... "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."

As for 'Libertarian', the term was first used by an anarchist back in around 1858. It grew popular in the 1890s as a way to get around anti-anarchist laws. To quote Bookchin, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit."

 

[grey matters]

Rather flexible individual, that drawing is. Looks like he can "service" himself. Let's hear it for independence!

On another note, I was watching the news last night, they were reporting live from Washington D.C.. People in D.C. go to bars to watch the election results just like other people go to bars to watch football (they actually do this in other cities as well, it just seems to be more common in D.C.). Anyway they interviewed a group of German citizens who flew to D.C. just to participate in this activity. The Germans were that concerned about American politics.

Here's my question: Are people in other countries really that concerned about American politics or was this just an isolated abnormal occurrence? Please don't think I am full of myself for asking this question. The question is meant the way it was stated, nothing more.

 

[zxc]

Well the US Government is extremely aggressive, and with the military power to back it up.