/lit/ - Literature

>goes on /lit/
>tries to discuss /pol/

discuss.

>>3105271
>finnegan's wake

I don't see the problem, he's clearly upholding the legacy of great Peace Prize winners like Henry Kissinger.

>>3105279
>discuss.
Discuss.

>expecting peace to be actual peace

lel

i just made this in paint because it's slow right now at work.
i made it after seeing this ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04mxA_5noXg

what do you guys think about it?

>>3105300

Lolmurrica.

>>3105300
I'd give it a rand/joyce

This is Obama thread.

What book is this?

Because Clinton normalized strikes

>>3105313

>>3105298
>tfw the eu recently won the nobel peace prize

>>3105310
>tfw obama said ayn rand was for teenagers in his last rolling stone interview

xD

Obama didn't win a nobel peace prize.

He was used for a political statement against the previous administration by those crazy scandis.

>>>/fa/5063994

Didn't vote for Obama the first time because I wanted more Nobels for Americans.

>>3105351
>Racism on 4chan
Discuss.

I'm so racist I believe Romney when he says he will give my money to the rich to create a job for me. People with edumacations says the rich will spend 50 million on paintings instead of 10 million, but I won't listen. I'm racist.

>>3105369
>discussing racism on /lit/
>not knowing /lit/ hate niggers

If not show me some decent books written by black people.

>not voting for Gary Johnson

What's wrong with you?

>>3105388
/lit/ doesn't hate black people, you hate black people. fucking stormfag.

>>3105292
>discuss.
>Discuss.

Discuss

>>3105388
>not knowing /lit/ discusses black authors regularly
Fuck off back to edgy teen land.

>>3105391
prove me wrong

>>3105388
dude most of /lit/ isn't racist. stormfaggots just lurk here when they're waiting for new pics on >>>/hm/

i thought everyone knew this?

>>3105389
>voting for gary johnson
xD what is wrong with YOU.

I hate black people.

I'm not racist I just enjoy using the word nigger now and then.

>>3105389
>not understanding the electoral college
>thinking a vote for anyone besides obama or romney counts

>>3105392
>discuss.
>Discuss.
>Discuss

discuss

>>3105397
>xD

Everything you say has been discredited.

>>3105404
>discuss.
>Discuss.
>Discuss
>discuss

discussion over

>>3105351

Nice one.

>>3105411

>discuss.
>Discuss.
>Discuss
>discuss
>discussion over

>>3105396
/lit/ likes Ralph Ellison

>>3105419
>Ralph Ellison
>good

pleb

>>3105403
>thinking a single vote for anyone actually matters

Voting for who you think will win is not the fucking point. Vote with your conscience, motherfucker.

Also, pic related.

>>3105428
>pleb

back to /mu/ with you

>>3105431
Impressing answer.

>>3105428
Him, Richard Wright, Chinua Achebe, and Toni Morrison are pretty commonly discussed around here.

>>3105430
My conscience dictates that I use my single vote in a way that counts, even if in a small way. 1 vote out of 60 million for a candidate in the running is worth more than 1 vote out of 1 million for one who isn't.

>>3105430
>libertarian
>federal funding

>>3105442
It's better than having that money spent on drones and drug raids.

>>3105439
So you think O and R aren't completely terrible and you'd rather vote for one of them instead of someone who will actually not fuck America up even more?

>>3105446
I'm not convinced.

>>3105453
Strawman, yo. Doesn't counter the argument he was making.

Also >>>/pol/

OCT 26

We just found out how much more money Mitt Romney and the Republicans have in the bank: $45 million.

I hope that sounds like a lot to you, because it is. And it doesn't even include outside groups.

That is a massive advantage to have with such a short time left. But we have the power to decide whether that will be the determining factor in this election.

Help close that cash-on-hand gap so our voices don't get drowned out in a tidal wave of negative ads -- chip in $150 or more now.

I know this campaign has asked a lot of you. That's why it's so important that we don't slow down now, when we've come so far together, and when this race is so close.

A $45 million disadvantage means we could have to fight back against an estimated 780 30-second ads in a battleground state like Colorado. With only 11 days left, that's a devastating prospect.

Thanks to you and more than 4 million other grassroots donors, we're close, but we really need to close this gap -- and close it immediately.

So, please donate $150 or more right now to keep this campaign strong straight up until the last vote is cast on November 6th:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Close-the-Gap

Thanks,

Julianna

Julianna Smoot
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

>>3105459
Yeah but it's a stupid argument that doesn't take into account wether or not voting for either of the two-party candidates is morally justifiable.

>>3105453
This:
>>3105459
and also, yes, I don't think Obama is completely terrible. He's about 50% terrible, which is at least as good as any American president in my 38 years. There are certain things he's done that I am 100% behind, whereas I can approve of literally none of Romney's platform.

I don't know why so many people are shocked every election cycle that presidents are politicians.

Don't vote. You are too stupid to vote. Let your boss decide for you while you work overtime.

>>3105467
It's me ( >>3105477 ) again. In between elections, fight for third parties, against lobbying, campaign finance reform, or any of the major structural barriers to the sort of republic we should have. At the election, vote for the lesser of the two evils, because the third choice, voting for neither of them, is really no better than voting for the greater of them.

>>3105486
Fair, fair. I just can't see a big enough difference between them on the issues that really matter to me to say voting for one would be better than voting for the other.

The again, if I had to choose between the two I would probably vote for O just so people don't get the idea that anything will actually be any different.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Koch_Brothers_Exposed/70241178?locale=en-US

>>3105271

OCT 22

According to a report out by the Associated Press this week, the top five donors to Mitt Romney's campaign and groups supporting him in this election are: a billionaire casino mogul, a billionaire waste management executive, a real estate developer, a Texas oil tycoon, and the other Koch brother -- Bill -- owner of a mining conglomerate worth $4 billion.

From the start, Barack Obama has refused to take any money from federal lobbyists and special-interest PACs. Our way is the harder way to raise money -- we need more people giving less to keep pace. Just the men listed above have donated more than $75 million to Romney's campaign and outside groups supporting him. Five people. $75 million.

This matters because after sitting on that money for months, Romney advisers are executing a "big bang" ad campaign right now. Just this coming week alone, estimates put them at $57 million in on-air advertising.

After 18 months of hard work, I'm sure as hell not giving this election up to these guys without a fight.

Will you donate $150 or more today and make sure this race is decided by ordinary Americans like us?

https://donate.barackobama.com/Close-the-Gap

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

>>3105467
I think it's odd to think that it's not very clever to make your small concessions and vote for who you'd think would do the best job and could still plausibly win. But no one's made an argument minding the electoral college or the geographical distribution of parties, so I'll not bother with much of anything.

>it's morally wrong to
This implies a whole mess of conclusions that a lot might not agree with, so you might want to expand on it.

>>3105300
that ad was fucking hilarious

>>3105507
Let me rephrase that.
>I think it's odd to say it's not in your or everyone's best interests to make your small concessions*

>>3105430
>spends two dollars in his state for every dollar in revenue
>prides himself on his low taxes and small government
what a fucking hypocrite
also

>maybe if i roll back regulations to industrial britain tier theyll work out differently for the lower class

>>3105500
There are HUGE differences between them--just not on every issue. Maybe you don't care about those issues? I encourage you to google "differences obama romney" and read for 10 minutes, though. I think you'll find you've changed your mind.

>>3105526
>There are HUGE differences between them--just not on every issue. Maybe you don't care about those issues? I encourage you to google "differences obama romney" and read for 10 minutes, though. I think you'll find you've changed your mind.


HAHHA THIS IS WHAT AMERICA ACTUALLY BELIEVES ENJOY YOUR OLIGARCHY I SURE WILL

Fucking /pol/ shit, it is like politics brings out the dumbest in any crowd.

>>3105571
Well argued, sir.

>>3105520
>maybe if i roll back regulations to industrial britain tier theyll work out differently for the lower class
He presumably means worker rights and not things like ISOs and other standards. For the most part it wouldn't make any difference, except maybe in some construction because one off projects, it doesn't matter if x does a shitty job.

>>3105571
>2012
>Not realizing the world is, was, and always will be an oligarchy
How's high school?

>>3105439
>My conscience dictates that I use my single vote in a way that counts
Impossible, even if you live in a swing state.

>>3105486
>In between elections, fight for third parties, against lobbying, campaign finance reform, or any of the major structural barriers to the sort of republic we should have. At the election, vote for the lesser of the two evils, because the third choice, voting for neither of them, is really no better than voting for the greater of them.

>doing the opposite of what you should do

Vote for third parties, but join a big party and vote in primaries and stuff.

>campaign finance reform

Fuck off to reddit, hipster.

>>3105477
>I don't know why so many people are shocked every election cycle that presidents are politicians.
Ask liberals.

>Romney flip flops occasionally

>ETCH A SKETCH XD WHY IS AMERICANS VOTING FOR THIS FAGGOT???

>>3105271
Another year it's necessary to vote for a Democrat, but this is the last time.

Secretly I want Rmoney to win just so the conditions for violent revolution will be perfect

>>3106135
lol really. any time liberals accuse a conservative of flipflopping, it is almost entirely them getting their revenge in for Kerry. it's "you did it to our guy, so we're going to do it to your guys at any time we can."

don't make it right, but let's not pretend like it's solely liberals who act this way.

>>3106143
I didn't pay attention to politics in 2004, besides hating bush, I just know that most of my liberals friends are saying romney will be the worst president ever after making fun of conservatives for overexagerating how bad obama was.

>>3105336
Why does putting a cowboy hat on a black man make him 10x more awesome?

>>3106149
>I didn't pay attention to politics in 2004, besides hating bush, I just know that most of my liberals friends are saying romney will be the worst president ever after making fun of conservatives for overexagerating how bad obama was.

sure, sure, but again, let's not pretend that liberals are uniquely shitty here - it's a shitty system that leads people on both sides to do basically the same dumb shit. maybe a little less dumb on the left, but not much less dumb.

>>3106155

>thinks the 'left' exists in the states

>>3106156
left in extremely relative american terms

do not give one single fuck about pedantic definitional debates, you know what i mean, motherfucker

>>3106155
>maybe a little less dumb on the left
I disagree with this

>>3106156
also this

I don't think bush and romney are right-wingers, real conservatives would have cut gov't. We don't have real conservatism in the US any more than real liberalism.

>>3106171

We have two center-right parties

>>3106171
listen dude i don't give a sht, whatever, it really just seems from observed behavior that the republican party is more dominated by the crazy idiots within the party than the democratic party is. you could probably also describe this as the republican party being better organized though. whatever i don't give a shit.

>>3105388
>black people being able to read let alone write

>>3106190

/pol/ pls go

>>3106173
Wrong that's fucking stupid. The dems are center-left, the repubs are center-right.

>>3106176
I don't see it that way, the repubs has the religious right, while the dems have the social justice types on the left. The difference is that the repubs didn't organize their entire convention around letting southern baptists speak like the dems did with their feminists.

>>3106223
Relax, /pol/ isn't very well read. They learn here.

>>3106231
basically none of your political analysis is any good - dems are more centrist than center-left in any meaningful way. republican crazy idiots aren't limited to the organized evangelical right. and the crazy idiot population of the democratic party is not correlated in a meaningful way with social justice types.

but whatever, go back to your libertarian r/atheism wanking

>>3106231
> The dems are center-left, the repubs are center-right.
laughing_everyone.jpg
Dems are center-right, Repubs are far right.

>>3106231

The democratic party certainly is a center-right party. The republicans are fairly centrist but they swing far right no occasion. We don't see any swings the other way.

>>3106242
>>3106242
>We don't see any swings the other way.

That's not true, we just haven't seen any for the last 30 or 40 years.

>>3106246

That's effectively what I meant, but you're right, that's an important distinction.

>>3106237
>basically none of your political analysis is any good - dems are more centrist than center-left in any meaningful way. republican crazy idiots aren't limited to the organized evangelical right.
>>3106239
>Dems are center-right, Repubs are far right.
>>3106242
>The democratic party certainly is a center-right party.

see, I disagree, I think you're just as delusional as the right-wingers who call Obama a socialist. Your bias is speaking, because you think that since the country doesn't align to your beliefs that makes them right-wing, when really that makes you far left. There's nothing wrong with that, you just have to be aware of your bias.

>>3106264

I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that you have very little political knowledge, especially with regard to the spectrum of belief outside of the united states

>>3106275
No I just stopped being 14.

>>3106264
>see, I disagree, I think you're just as delusional as the right-wingers who call Obama a socialist.

noooooo, no, I don't think so.

The thing is that the scale that we're using isn't something that we made up - it's the scale of how politics mostly works. If you take the observed universe of political beliefs, and you form it into a spectrum from furthest left (something like, I don't know, anarcho-communism) to furthest right (something like Catholic monarchism or neo-fascism), and you weight it by what things actually exist around the world, and in history, even in US history, and you observe the issues and stances taken by contemporary US parties, it becomes really difficult to say that the Democratic Party is a party of the left in a meaningful sense.

The thing is that there is a universe of things that are parties of the left, and the Democratic Party as it presently exists doesn't look a whole like those parties - doesn't look anything like those parties. Which is one reason for saying it's not. And if you look at it historically, the Democratic Party used to look a whole lot more like those parties, which is another reason for saying it's not. By comparison to other parties and political ideologies around the world, and by comparison to its own history, the Democratic Party isn't really left. The only context in which you can call it a leftist party is in the context of mainstream contemporary American politics. But there's no particular reason that we should limit our context to that - and a lot of good ones that we shouldn't.

You can argue that the Democratic Party as presently situated is better than a leftist party. But you can't really argue that it is a leftist party, at least not if you want the term "leftist" to have any semblance of meaning beyond the relative meaning it takes on in the current Manichean American political system.

>>3105439
A vote is counted even if it goes for a losing candidate, even if it goes to a dead sure loser. What is this special definition you are placing on the word "counts"? The losers are always counted as much as the winners. What you are talking about is something even more absurd: you treat your country's presidential election the same way people treat the races, and you want to pick a winner, even though the winner might cause you to lose rather than get any winnings.

Americans.

>>3106291
>The thing is that the scale that we're using isn't something that we made up...
except it doesn't make sense to compare politics on a global scale because there is no such thing as a global spectrum, something liberal in one country might be conservative in another country. Communism in Soviet Russia is right-wing, not because you're shifting the center but just because it's traditional.

How do you define your global spectrum? Why does fascism and theocracy go next to libertarian capitalism or a mixed-state economy like the US? There's never been a universally agreed upon spectrum of politics, because it's absurd to simplify politics to a single line, and the only people who attempt to do so are charlatans.

>The thing is that there is a universe of things that are parties of the left...
How are they right-wing? They don't support smaller government or more capitalism, they support social democracy programs like medicare for all. Just because they couldn't get it through the senate doesn't mean they stop being liberal. You may be dissatisfied with their effectiveness, but you don't get to shift the center just because you're unhappy.

>>3106332

> Communism in Soviet Russia is right-wing

you're an idiot

What the hell is this crap about my mistyping the captcha? DAMN YOU OBAMA!

>>3106343
how do you define left vs. right

>>3106346

left = anti-capitalist (anarchism, communism)
right = pro-capitalist (liberal, conservative, us-style libertarian, fascism)

left = fraud is stopped by government.
right = fraud is stopped by everyone being too afraid to by anything.

>>3106364
I meant "buy".

>>3105585
I don't get the joke.

>>3106364

all capitalism is fraud, so the right can never practically solve that issue.

>>3106332
>You may be dissatisfied with their effectiveness, but you don't get to shift the center just because you're unhappy.

Ah. The Soviet Russia thing (as someone pointed out) is kind of idiotic; this is more kind of incredibly optimistic / naive.

I would argue that the reason the current administration passed the health care plan they did is fundamentally not because they're ineffective, but because the plan they passed is one that they - or more broadly, the mainstream of the Democratic Party - agreed with. If they had wanted a strong public option, let alone single payer, they would have fought for it, which they didn't - the left wing of the party did, but the Obama administration did not. Constantly rebuffed people who wanted it. Let them fight their own battles, then came in with a plan of their own.

Judged by its fruits, the current Administration, which I think we can reasonable say is representative of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, is - liberal on social issues (though not radical). Center right on foreign policy, and centrist on economic issues - extremely moderate reforms of the social safety net are not 'leftist'; neither is an unwillingness to regulate Wall Street. And if the simple passage of a jobs bill and the existence of any kind of government spending to pump up the economy and the willingness to raise taxes to any extent at all makes someone leftist, the term has no meaning whatsoever. The problem with defining a political spectrum solely by American politics is that you can get to the point where you start calling some really crazy shit "leftist" - like the idea that drone strikes and assassination and counterinsurgency is a "left" opposition to invasions. And the other problem is that it lets the parties involved define the political spectrum for their own ends - by defining the centrist Democratic Party as "left", it provides more space for them to move right.

>>3106355
It's pretty much this. Before the bourgeois came into complete power (i.e. in France after the revolution, in Soviet Russia after the Revolution, in Germany after WWI etc.) the left defined itself by being anti-imperialism/monarchism/mercantilism. Now that the bourgeois have won, they oppose capitalism, corporatism, and plutocracy.

On a scale of hurt, though, the left fucked up by ever oppossing the monarchies of Europe to let the bourgeois succeed to power: rule under the bourgeois is even more oppressive and ugly, wars under the bourgeois have been even more merciless, and extortion and taxation has risen at every level of society.

>>3106375
So we have to see through the left's opposition to the bourgeois and to capitalism. Either that, or - from the far right - a powerful captialistic family of plutocrats will instill itself as Kings and Queens again, under whatever title, and it will take centuries to civilise them.

>>3106383
install*

>>3106368
>I don't get the joke.
Obama does not read the Bible himself, so he is being fooled by the gays.

>>3105618
He's quite right, even if he is just re-capping Thucydides.

>>3106385
No, I mean what is the pun on the shirt.

>>3106393

Moses uses the Navier–Stokes equations to part the Red Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier_Stokes

MIT proves the Bible is fact, not fiction.

>>3106383
Yes.

Nobel peace prize means shit. The state is violent and racist, and the leader of such is necessarily a tool of traumatic oppression. Fuck that.

>>3106375
>Now that the bourgeois have won
wut

>>3106372
>I would argue that the reason the current administration passed the health care plan they did is fundamentally not because they're ineffective, but because the plan they passed is one that they - or more broadly, the mainstream of the Democratic Party - agreed with. If they had wanted a strong public option, let alone single payer, they would have fought for it, which they didn't - the left wing of the party did, but the Obama administration did not. Constantly rebuffed people who wanted it. Let them fight their own battles, then came in with a plan of their own.
If the Obama administration was right-win they would have never tried to pass a healthcare bill in the first place which no one wanted, since Obama was elected to fix a failing economy, and he spent the first year of his presidency doing something way out of left field.

>>3106372
>centrist on economic issues - extremely moderate reforms of the social safety net are not 'leftist'; neither is an unwillingness to regulate Wall Street.
Uh, what is Dodd-Frank? 100 new regulations that we don't even know yet. I hate the cognitive dissonance you leftists have where Obama can do all these far left things but you'll just push them back to the center to justify your victimhood complex.

So, not being from the U.S., I understand the two-party monopoly (or whatever the right word is) that goes back and forth as foreign policy, pretty much. Dissimulation of uniformity. Ya dig?

>>3105330
Don't we come to that same conclusion after every Rand discussion here?