2012 Presidential Debates

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Copping out by adopting an unrealistic ethos like libertarianism is just self-perpetuating your disenfranchisement. Yes, the current cycle is dominated by an unprecedented amount of money from corporate and private interests--but it is all we've got. Removing yourself from relevance through libertarianism is self-indulgent, Pyrrhic masturbation--at best.

There isn't always a perfect option. That's kinda life.

“The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy; <--- you are here
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

As far as libertarianism being an unrealistic ethos, I think it's just a tad better than totalitarianism don't you? We've seen that 1 play out over and over again, but never a true libertarianesque government that I can think of (I'd argue America has never been a truly free society, because as consequence of freeing the slaves Lincoln started a monolithic federal government with himself as tyrant). The debate 100+ years ago was never left vs. right (which is completely meaningless), it was liberty vs. tyranny.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the picture posted by dredge, I doubt you will disagree with me that companies like Harvard Uni, M$, and Google have a completely different financial stance than that of B.O.A, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. Bill Gates has said that he should be paying more taxes even after he donated billions of dollars to charities. I am sure we all heard about the big financial scandal that Goldman Sachs did, but what big financial scandal has Harvard U. done? How can you not see the dichotomy between the two sides?

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your argument is that since both parties received the most money from entities with larger disposable income, they are in bed with their campaign backers and answer to them. Now, I am going to ignore the giant leap in conclusive reasoning and instead offer a counter. Could it be that those big corporations backed the parties because they like their fiscal stances? This would then lead to the whole thing just receiving money for doing a good job.

All those same big banks backed Obama in 2008. In fact, Goldman Sachs was his 2nd largest donor. He still owes them all favors. They're just putting their chips on Romney this time, so they have all bases covered no matter the outcome.

Like I said, 2 masks 1 face.