KyleLibra.com

I still haven’t made up my mind who I will be voting for, but it is becoming more and more apparent who I cannot vote for. I have posted this several times, but I will post it again. Before you click on the link below, do a quick thought exercise. On the issues you care most about, what percentage of agreement would you need from a Presidential candidate to be able to vote for them without regret? Forget all of the rhetoric and mud slinging, what percentage would it take? 50%+1, a simple majority? Two-thirds? Three-fourths?

Now check out Glassbooth. It is good, but not without it’s flaws, it definitely doesn’t bother including any third party candidates.

So here is the ultimate question: If the difference between the two major party candidates is marginal, and there is a another candidate you agree with substantially more (in my case 36% more), then why don’t you vote for them? What would stop you from voting for someone who you actually agree with and believe would be the best candidate.

Often the argument is tossed around that you ultimately must decide between the lesser of two evils. A counter argument has emerged to this logic: the lesser of two evils is still evil. We have been conditioned to believe the first argument and ignore the second.

Some people, including myself have reached the conclusion that the candidate I would most like to be President is not running. What should I do now? I don’t want to vote for evil, even if it is the lesser of two, and I don’t love any of the third party candidates. If you are still reading at this point, I will direct you to this excellent article on the matter.

For those of you who enjoy much simpler things like watching catchy videos, check this out and consider it in light of the difference in agreement percentages between the two major party candidates.

A while back, before the site went down I had a post about politics and cows. This is similar, and still very funny.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM — You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

FRENCH CORPORATION — You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION — You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon(tm) and market them world-wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION — You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION — You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION — You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A HINDU CORPORATION — You have two cows. You worship them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION — You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION — You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

ENRON CORPORATION — You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

ARTHUR ANDERSON, LLC — You have 2 cows. You shred all documents that Enron has any cows, take 2 cows from Enron for payment for consulting the cows, and attest that Enron has 9 cows.

These videos are getting pulled really quickly but luckily they are getting re-posted even faster. Usually SNL isn’t even popular enough for the company to try to get clips pulled. I wonder why the sudden change…

• Emo for Obama
• A New Hope

This video has some really good editing.

The good Dr. Paul begins his speech at the fourteen minute mark. Even if you are not a fan of Ron Paul, this is something you need to take some time to watch.

At this point it should be clear that there is something very wrong with this country. Within the past month alone, both the major parties have spent over $100 million in tax payer money to fund their own conventions. At the same time they have both championed plans to pull the country out of recession and reconcile the national debt. Problems they created and continue to do nothing other than talk about. I could go on and on about similar instances of irony, but the point remains the same. If you care at all about some the real solutions that are out there, you need to watch this video.

Here is a wordle of a transcript of McCain’s acceptance speech:

To have some more interesting questions answered, check this out.

I won’t mention any of the stuff about mass protests, but if you want to see something really frightening, look up worldles of some of Bush’s speeches.

Here is a wordle of a transcript of Obama’s acceptance speech:

To have some more interesting questions answered, check this out.

This one comes from Phil…I love the line about China.