/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.isidewith.com/results/71496735

Who is Jill Stein???
94% Jill Stein
76% Barack Obama
8% Mitt Romney
>proud as fuck

"4chan sides with Gary Johnson on most issues of the 2012 Presidential Election."
http://www.isidewith.com/results/10

>space exploration
>evolution
>/sci/

>>5012617
I looked her up on google, she actually seems the best, good for you bro.

My results:
86% Jill Stein
85% Barack Obama
83% Gary Johnson
21% Mitt Romney

Yeah, this has to be flawed somehow, no way would I agree so much with a libertarian(or even 21% with Romney)

I'm already voting for Gary Johnson, so whatever.

After the bullshit obama pulled with the redditards, he's unelectable. And romney? He doesn't stand for anything. There is nothing he won't say if it means he can grab more power.

>>5012617
>My results
>Dutch
It's a shame that our media only focuses on Obama vs Romney and pays not attention to other candidates whatsoever.
>Ron Paul only got mentioned briefly

So my question to 'Murricans: Out of the 7 candidates listed on the site, how many do you know? Curious about this.

Jill Stein 76%
Barack Obama 68%
Gary Johnson 57%
Ron Paul 25%
Mitt Romney 13%

(I'm not an American)

>>5012643
honestly, i only knew about romney, obama, and paul
the media only covers the republican and democrat candidates because votes for libertarians or green party are considered wasted votes, since its extremely unlikely that either party will ever see the oval office

Jill Stein - 93%
Barack Obama - 78%
Rocky Anderson - 73%
Ron Paul - 27%
Mitt Romney - 16%
American Voters - 57%

>You agree with Mitt Romney on: no major issues.
Yep, this quiz checks out.

And I'd never heard of Jill Stein before (I'm Canadian) but she sounds pretty awesome.

Who is Jill Stein?

This quiz is BS. They seem to be basing it on what the candidates say they would do versus their actual track record.

never heard of her
in my defense i'm not american

>tfw Jill Stein is the only person on the list who wouldn't be considered far right in Europe

The US has the silliest voting system. Yes you kind of started all the democracy jazz, but seriously, how about keeping up with the times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638&feature=plcp

Romney is correct that Obama removed the work requirement for welfare. Now you can get a waiver for things like "bed rest", "pursing credentials", etc.

I worked my way through college. Nowadays everyone thinks everything is free.

Vote guys. It's the only way to fix the situation.

I support the American Third Position, but since they aren't listed it says I support Ron Paul. They say I am in agreement with him on immigration, but I think that area is one of his primary weaknesses.

Gary Johnson - 86%
Jill Stein - 84%
Ron Paul - 78%
Barack Obama - 77%

Canadian, been voting NDP federally and Liberal (Ontario) provincially.

>not supporting Gary Johnson

I can smell the statist from here.

>>5012767

exactly!

Well fuck
I don't wanna be a hippie

90% Jill Stein
78% Obama
<30% everybody else

It feels good not being a religious nutjob or thinly veiled anarchist.

I don't even know this person

>>5012860
forgot this part

I would vote for Gary Johnson, but I'm not old enough.

>>5012903
0/10

Jill Stein 2012?

>no "I don't know" option

they act like the public isn't severely underinformed including myself

>>5012746
This is incorrect.

>>5012592
>i have a bad feeling he'll 180 on that though
Both Obama and Romney are chameleons dont belive for a second w/e they say.

>>5012621
>http://www.isidewith.com/results/10
>4chan siding with a libertarian
>a suprise
Hell back in the day that number would have been much higher, to bad reddit infestation is killing us.

It's funny how much influence the corporate owned mass media has on people and the world. They ignore those who they don't support and make them look bad. They control the opinions of most people.

>High Jill Steins and low Romney
You´re a good man and my friend.

For /sci/ence!

Ron Paul's plan is to shut down ALL publicly funded research agencies (outside of DoD research)

Gary Johnson's plan is to cut science funding (actually all federal spending) by about half

Romney's plan is to hold a meeting to nominate a person to oversee the formation of a committee that may or may not review the status of the space program and could possibly maybe probably not do anything about it.

Obama's been pushing for overhaul's to NASA and STEM stuff in general since day one. NASA's average budget for the last 4 years is about 3 billion higher than the average for the previous 8. He actually still wants to raise it more to fund a new tech development program through the agency but so far has only managed to get his CCDev/CCiCap stuff funded.

>entire board is green party fags
you have got to be shitting me

>>5013055
>Romney's plan is to hold a meeting to nominate a person to oversee the formation of a committee that may or may not review the status of the space program and could possibly maybe probably not do anything about it.
actually no, romney is becoming more solidified in his "hell yeah space" position. but it's similar to obama's private-and-public-synthesis idea

>>5012739

>Implying power parties would institute something that gets rid of them.

that quiz misses the most important part
the fact the the goverments influence grew into stuff it has no business messing with

most of the questions are barely relevant in this context because goverment really should have little influence over them

I'm not an American myself and got a 92% with Jill.

>>5013164
>government
>no influence on corporations
You know this is a bad thing.

>>5013164
>NO influence, or very little
suddenly, china
>reduced but still present restrictions or regulations, and an easy means for whistleblowers to expose bad practice
there we go

who the fuck is jill stein?

>mfw not even american

>>5013187
>romney
>evolution as part of creationism
well that's a stance i didn't expect...

does he support evolution but reject abiogenesis?

>>5013187
What a bunch of faggots.

Not even american but whatever.

Who the fuck is this bitch? Tell me she's not a feminist, pls.

>mfw all the non americans vote for the crazy ass green party candidate
makes a lot of sense really

>ITT, people realize republicans aren't their friends and that they've been tricked into voting for them
Funny.

Libertarian Republican, sided with Paul

I was surprised and disappointed at the amount of 4chan supporting Obama

really shows how this place has changed

>>5013226
Sorry for you not being as advanced as us, European master race, on serious subject such as science, the environment, the economy and the social.
We'll let you have fun with with war and corrruption, we don't need that kind of thing.

>>5012661
Paul, Romney and Obama are the big 3

but I wouldn't call myself politically informed

>>5013230
What do you mean "this place has changed"? 4chan was never big into Ron Paul, and has always been democrat leaning trolling aside so far as I recall (atleast going back 5 years)

>>5013239
Always got the opposite idea

/b/ was the most liberal
but boards like /a/, /v, /r9k/ etc always seemed to lean conservative

but maybe we're just noticing our own parties

Jill Stein masterrace

I'm an Eurofaggot so I'm don't know these 3rd party people. Are the Greens in US infested with mindless drones who dream of Soviet Union too? I would like to vote for the party here but I can't because the retards are just too numerous.

And why the heck is the test so full of trivial social issues?

>>5013241
>/a/
>conservative
wat, no.

Jill Stein is the hero we need and deserve.

Vote for her.

>>5013253
>And why the heck is the test so full of trivial social issues?
Do we really have to explain you why?
Because USA of course.

>>5012661

It's unfortunate. Everyone who isn't in a swing state has a worthless vote anyway. If you're not in a swing state vote for Gary Johnson. He's on the ballot in all 50 states and it will help give a third party some coverage.

The US Green Party is so much better than the UK Greens. I'd vote for them.

>>5013260
Yeah, I just looked through their manifesto, makes the UK Green Party look like a bunch of hippies.
We have shitty partys in the UK ;_;

>>5012718

Most voting Americans probably haven't heard of her either.

>>5013216
>sees a woman candidate, immediately thinks "feminist bitch"
are you from Saudi Arabia or something

I forgot to click "more candidates," but I got 56% and 13% for Anderson and Goode, respectively. As an American I can say I think I've heard of Johnson maybe once or twice, but I've never heard of the other two. Anderson is from the "Justice Party" (created this year) and Goode is a Constitutional Party candidate. I'll be surprised if they get more than a rounding error of the larger parties' votes so there's not much reason to discuss them. I'd actually never of Stein either, but the Green Party is pretty well established (as something that steals votes from Democrats).

So who is /sci/ voting for? Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? (obama?)

>>5013187

>No, it is just a theory (a guess)

>>5013187
>Ron /pol/
>We should only fund science when it is for a DoD project.

A man of peace and civility.

Greek communist here, not surprised at all

>>5013290
Greek communist must be strange as fuck if they can side with liberturdians.

Ours are still supporting scientific materialism and Marxist economy.

>>5013290
>Greek
>communist
I don´t know which one is funnier.

>>5013304
>scientific materialism and Marxist economy
>implying you know what that means

>>5013309
I'm pretty sure that it is has nothing to do with the nationalistic isolationism and meaningless babble about "surplus value" found in the Communist leaflets and websites here.

But who am I to judge them when they claim it to be Marxism?

>>5013140
Romney's sudden interest in space only appeared following the Curiosity landing.

Prior to this, both Romney had consistently hinted at making serious cuts to NASA's funding and science funding in general. And his VP nominee Ryan has consistently voted against increased funding and support for NASA.

They only changed this attitude when Romney's campaign realized how poorly they were performing in Florida polls.


If you think his sudden interest in space is genuine you're a fool

interesting.

>mfw Jill Stein created this site and you still give it some legitimacy

>>5013313
If you think that any politicians sudden interest in anything is genuine you're a fool.

Gary Johnson - 91%.

It's no surprise to me at all how close Obama and Romney are on my list - Obama 66%, Romney 63%. In pretty much every election cycle, I think of the Democratic and Republican candidates as equally unappealing, pretty much a coin-toss decision between two evils.

>>5013234
i prefer my personal and economic liberties in addition to my science
also, i prefer effective sources of alternative energy like nuclear, which i know makes a few europeans faint.
wind is not effective
biofuel is not effective, but might be in a decade
solar is not effective, but might be in a decade
ect.

>>5013313
>Ryan has consistently voted against increased funding and support for NASA.
the only thing ryan did concerning the space program was vote for the constellation cut with obama
you should google harder

>>5014023
makes a lot of sense, really.
time to dive into the website creators and see where it goes

Interesting... first I took the quiz with javascript turned off and could only give yes/no answers and I agreed with Romney 63%, then took it with javascript on, where I could give more thoughtful, in-depth responses, and agreement with Romney fell to 27% while agreement with Democrats and Libertarians remained pretty much steady. This seems to be in keeping with the results of studies like this:

http://global.christianpost.com/news/recent-study-suggests-conservatives-are-less-thoughtful-73026/

>>5014023
>>5014099
apparently it's not affiliated with anyone
http://www.isidewith.com/about/

>>5014094
Not the only thing.
>Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan voted against the 2008 and 2010 NASA authorization acts in Congress

>>5014094

And actually he voted against the 2010 act so that means he voted against the cancellation of constellation. Google more.

Damn Jews.

I'm not even American.

>Obama on the bottom

AND I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE

not American, Don't even know who Jill Stien is

I side with Obama and Stein most and California and American voters.

I said marijuana should be illegal but punished by fines instead of jail time, but apparently California didn't disown me.

>>5014205
Fines just make it profitable to charge someone with a crime. Good job making addicts poorer.

>>5014210

Exactly we get all the benefits of taxation while driving down drug use.

Marijuana is supposed to not be addictive right?

>that feel when very much conservative

>lower business regulations, increase protections for whistleblowers, so the consumer can vote with their dollar if they don't like <big bad company> doing <bad thing>
>make gay marriage a civil union, but without the titles and whatnot of an actual marriage. but still get the same economic benefits
>SPACE SPACE SPACE SPACE GO NASA
>alternative energy not for sustainability of whatever the fuck, but for cheaper living and less grid maintenance. go nuclear and solar!
>legalize marijuana, but tax and regulate it. mostly tax. it's about time we made some money off the potheads
>make a faster track to citizenship for mexicans, that way they can get in the work force and start paying taxes more easily, instead of skipping it.

i'm a very strange conservative

I side 95% with this glorious man

>>5014220

>Punishing drug use reduces drug use.
It doesn't matter how you punish them. They WILL get the substances they want one way or another, even if they can't afford transportation and their homes fall into disrepair. And I wasn't saying that legal punishment being profitable was a good thing. It only increases the incentive to make unlawful searches and makes it harder for the poor to fight unlawful arrest.

>>5014221
You may be the best kind of conservative. How do you feel about science funding and war?

This Jill Stein sounds like a cool gal.

ukfag here

>>5014241

If it's not punishable by jail time they won't need to fight arrests.

If as proponents suggest marijuana is really not addictive then people won't buy it once they get hit by enough fines.

>>5014246
>science funding
fuck yes
as a great man once said
"the french bake, the italians paint, the americans invent"
i have no fucking intention of seeing that falter. tons of science and engineering research. I'd prefer not to use the DoD as a primary funding source but it's not all that bad.

>war
well, i'm not a fan of america being "world police", but having a decent part of our armed forces at as the "muscle" for the U.N would be nice. why can't we go back to the badass U.N of the pre-50s that kicked ass and took names?

>>5014257

>American inventions
Subsidized by Chinese PhDs

I decided I'd vote for Green Party yesterday, actually. Though their views on nuclear energy and genetically modified crops are terrible.

>>5014252
If they already purchase even though there is a risk of being imprisoned, then they will still attempt to purchase if they punishment is less severe.

>>5014257
The best kind of conservative

>>5012739
>Yes you kind of started all the democracy jazz

>>5014271
green party is kind of dumb
i guess all the europeans are getting her due to the socialist slant

>>5014271
agreed. i wonder how many nuclear physicists and engineers they have consulted to form their energy policy.

>>5014267

Not if they don't have enough disposable income. With all the fines we can start a program to help those who are still spending for pot.

>>5014290
I find it not too consequential. If they ever actually become influential in the US, there'll probably just be an offshoot party that's more scientifically minded.

>>5014260
i would must prefer if we "out invent" china.
oh and enact some fucking trade embargos on that bitch for their price fixing of the yen and all those fucking bullshit rare earth mineral manufacturing things (want Chinese cheap neodymium!? you locate all manufacturing into china and hire Chinese nationals only!!)

>>5014290
>i wonder how many nuclear physicists and engineers they have consulted to form their energy policy.
none
wait, i should re-specify
>they consulted CNN

>>5014267
>he means cosmonaut

If you care about science, Jill Stein is your girl. Of course we realize that she won't win, but if Coke and Pepsi see a decent number of votes going to her, they'll work to appease the voters who chose her in coming elections. This happened with Nader in 2000.

>>5014291
No, they WILL get what they want. Having less money is not a deterrent for drugs, it is a factor that makes them more likely to use. Your fines will have the opposite affect. Besides, I simply don't want to punish someone for non-violent crimes. So they made a stupid decision, why should that warrant taking their money?
There are plenty of programs out there to hep them already. Treatment only works if they want it to.

>>5014301
No I didn't
?

>>5014318
>jill stein
>nuklers r scary!
>genetic modification!? is that like grey goooo!?
no thanks

>>5014319

How will they buy drugs if they don't have money to do so?

Weed isn't like heroin or cocaine, we're not going to see teenagers selling their bodies because they got a fine.

>>5014094
>the only thing ryan did concerning the space program was vote for the constellation cut with obama
you should google harder
Incorrect - Ryan voted AGAINST the 2008 AND 2010 NASA Authorization Bills

>>5014290
>>5014271
What's their energy policy? Don't tell me they are against both nuclear power and GMO's.

>implying I would vote for Romney

>>5014221
Does that even count as "conservative"?

>>5014338
BUT MUH NUKLARS!

>>5014359
i suppose?
it'd probably be closer to libertarian but i'm not all that socially liberal

>>5014368
>not socially liberal
In what way?

so many people on Gary Johnson's Johnson. any chance he'd actually win?

>>5014374
hold on, let me get my fire suit on
>pro-life
>climate change is probably not as bad as it's being made out to be, and we have more leeway than most of the media would suggest (this is from reading the climate papers, they're very cautious to give mandates or deadlines and caution against hasty changes to public policy)

>>5014221
>pro-alternative energy
>solar
that's were you went wrong.

>>5014387
solar will ultimately win out in the end, and it's a decent "reduce-your-bill" thing at the moment. less of a grid load on residential power
solar as baseload is the dumbest fucking thing ever

>>5014338
>nuklers r scary!
Nuclear weapons ARE scary. They are the single greatest, preventable threat to our species' longevity.

>genetic modification!? is that like grey goooo!?
Being anti-GMO ticks me off too.

>>5014384

>climate change
>socially conservative
wat?

While I disagree with you, I don't think government is the way to go for fixing climate change. Getting consumers to back green energy through solar and better cars got us so much farther down the road than anything the government did during that time. Though some states did help things along.

>>5014384
>pro-life
Why?

>climate change is probably not as bad as it's being made out to be, and we have more leeway than most of the media would suggest (this is from reading the climate papers, they're very cautious to give mandates or deadlines and caution against hasty changes to public policy)
I agree, but exaggeration may be necessary to push policies held back by the many people who deny the Earth is even warming. Plus cutting oil consumption now will lessen the impact of peak oil, which is the main reason I support curbing emissions.

>>5014391
win out in what way? they are far too inefficient to be used for anything more than a supplementary thing. They have high starting cost, plus high maintenance cost. I don't get the appeal.

>>5014392
the problem is she's anti nuclear weapons and nuclear power

>>5014384

Climate scientists are funded by the NSF, who gets choked like a bitch every time Republicans get the twitch. I'd be afraid of making a recommendation, let alone a mandate.

>>5014392

GMO foods trigger allergies and affect the surrounding ecosystems drastically. Are they economically beneficially? To some people - like the stockholders of del Monte. Are they sustainable? No. Do they solve hunger problems? No. Do they resist disease? Sometimes, but so do babies soaked in tricolsan, I don't see that being implemented in maternity wards.


[Env sci research scientist here.]

>>5014405
that's what i'm thinking
don't subsidize alternate energy, but support research into it
alternatives will become market viable and even preferred at an accelerated rate.
market solves the problem

>>5014285
It's a Australian and New Zealand party and they are doing a pretty good job here.

>>5014411

Are you saying we can feed everyone with just organic food?

>>5014344
Yes and yes. They have a right to concern over management of these technologies. To outright ban them is reactionary and pedantic. They obviously do not speak to those who study the science behind these technologies...

I found the lack of nuclear power and alternative energy questions somewhat annoying.

>>5014406
>the problem is she's anti nuclear weapons and nuclear power
I don't have the fervor that most of /sci/ has for increasing nuclear energy use because I deplore the very idea of benefiting from an energy source that puts the burden of long lived nuclear waste on future generations. I would want nuclear power to be taxed for the cost of keeping the waste isolated for thousands of years. If it can still compete with renewable energy sources after such a tax then by all means let the industry grow.

That said, nuclear energy research should continue in hopes of making nuclear energy more cost effective despite the cost of waste storage.

>>5014409
solar panels get better over time if you haven't noticed
the problem is this assumption that they'll become amazing next Tuesday or never get above where they are now, both are wrong
it'll gradually get better and gradually supplant other things as they reduce in price. but theyll be almost entirely for home energy use or off the grid, never as baseload

baseload is for nuclear mang

>>5014411
>GMO foods trigger allergies and affect the surrounding ecosystems drastically. Are they economically beneficially? To some people - like the stockholders of del Monte. Are they sustainable? No. Do they solve hunger problems? No. Do they resist disease? Sometimes, but so do babies soaked in tricolsan, I don't see that being implemented in maternity wards.
Plenty of non-GMO's cause allergic reactions. "Drastically" is too strong a word since they are no different than an invasive species. GMO's benefit EVERYONE by increasing nutrition and yields. GMO's are sustainable.

Where the heck did you get all this hippy BS?

>>5014445
waste burning reactor designs are in the pipeline as well as clever means of cheaply reprocessing fuel

>>5014450
>renewables for everything above baseload
Can I vote for you?

>>5014458
>waste burning reactor designs are in the pipeline as well as clever means of cheaply reprocessing fuel
That's why I consider myself "pro-nuclear", but I'm just as disgusted by people who would disagree with a waste storage tax as I am with people who want to ban nuclear energy.

That's just my two cents.

>>5014450
it doesn't matter how much better they get. there is a theoretical limit, and it is not that high (can't remember the exact figure, ill look for it if you want). In reality, it can't even reach the limit. I just don't think it'll ever get efficient enough where people would be willing to risk putting expensive as hell panels on their house. Maybe for off the grid as you say, but how good would they be if the market for them was that specific and small.

>>5014463
not mandatory, never mandatory, just put federal funding into it (not subsidies, or very strategic subsidies) and let the market decide what they like best (either paint-on panels, fixed panels, flexible panels, roof tile panels, ect).

right now GE makes most of its money by sucking up subsidies and making crappy wind turbines. this is very bad

and maybe you can vote for me next cycle

Mother nature had enough of nuclear energy so she sent the tsunami so no one would trust it anymore

>>5014431
>I found the lack of nuclear power and alternative energy questions somewhat annoying.
I agree. I answered all three questions with MOST for all the science question. At least they had a space exploration question. I would have been MOST disappointed if they didn't have that.

>>5014477
>right now GE makes most of its money by sucking up subsidies and making crappy wind turbines. this is very bad
What's so bad about wind turbines? We need all the non fossil fuel based energy we can get.

>>5014475
if there is a theoretical limit around the 30% mark, then a market will probably pop up around making 20% efficient panels as cheap as possible.

at 50 cents a peak watt (we're at 90 right now) you can cover almost all of your house's baseload with maybe $5000 in panels and grid ties and batteries (this is assuming batteries advance as well)

so your panels will pay for themselves in like three years (right now they pay for themselves in about 9 years)

>>5014493
they're inefficient, a massive money sink for maintenance, very low power generation, eyesore, ultrasonic sound pollution ect. and they have very little opportunity to advance or become better.

this is why i don't like the green party, they're all like "BLARG WE MUST STOP ALL OIL IMMEDIATELY BLARG". peak oil isn't for a while, peak natural gas isn't for a looooooong while. we have time to transition without dumping money into useless shit short-term

>>5014426

> implying the two options are organic and GMO

>>5014457

MFW neither of us have substantiated anything, but you're the one arguing for non-natural crops.

>>5014405

Yes, and it's not like government research, regulation, and taxation fueled the shifts you are talking about. They would have happened on their own.

Pun intended?

>>5014498
>wind power is inefficient because it costs too much money to maintain turbines
I can't agree with you on that unless I see some numbers, I'm afraid.

>eyesore and produce sound pollution
Sound pollution doesn't matter and I like the look of the turbines in my area.

>no possibility of becoming better
Of course they will get better. Designs will get better and materials will get better. However, I agree that they won't get significantly better, not as much as solar or nuclear might.

>>5014523
Sorry, forgot my trip.

>>5014500
>MFW neither of us have substantiated anything, but you're the one arguing for non-natural crops.
YOU were the one making claims. GMO's increase nutrition and yields. That is a fact. That's the entire reason GMO's are produced!

>implying natural = better
>implying domesticated crops are natural and not engineered

>>5014491
that's assuming there's no maintenance cost. As i said, they're not exactly cheap or easy to maintain. It's also about the area they cover, where are you going to put them? it is hard to find an area where they are both protected and can get the right amount of sunlight. Start up costs are also an issue. it doesn't matter if they pay for themselves in 3 years, the average person isn't willing to make an investment that will take that long to pay off, whether for lack of patience or that they can't pay the immediate costs. Even if you are willing to wait, what's the pay off? they'll make you 5 grand every 3 years (again assuming no maintenance costs.) which isn't very much at all considering the effort they take. They're also not suitable for the majority of the market. Surely no one in NY or in an apartment could use them. It'd have to be strictly homeowners who know they will be living in that house for some time. Lastly, your 5k in 3 years figure seems a bit off. that's assuming a $140 electric monthly bill (if they supply all your power, which i doubt).

>>5014545

Horticulture is one thing. Fussing with DNA is another. Horticulture induces selective pressure and causes various types of viable plants to be more likely to produce offspring, etc. Genetics is great for epidemiology and various other things, but when we start knocking bits out of the DNA of our food sources, we should expect problems, not solutions. We don't know enough about what happens to just plug our ears, close our eyes, and open our mouths.

>>5014507

I didn't say government didn't do anything (research was very important). But federal regulations on emissions (if they ever got a bill passed or not blocked by a court somewhere) hardly made an impact. Only the liberal states gave incentives for green energy, consumers and businesses had to do the work elsewhere.

>>5014565
>Horticulture is one thing. Fussing with DNA is another.
>Genetics is great for epidemiology and various other things, but when we start knocking bits out of the DNA of our food sources, we should expect problems, not solutions.
So you say.

You are just saying "GMO's are bad" with different words. Argue HOW they are bad. How do they harm humanity worse than malnutrition?

>tfw you will never have your way come election cycles

No one actually said the USA should cooperate less with the UN, did they?

Welp, I'm either gonna vote for Jill Stein or feel like that would be throwing my vote away and vote Obama to contribute to the opposition of Romney.

>>5014411
excuse me, what did you say?

>paid by government research grants
>agreed with Ron Paul 84% of the time

I have always wondered how it feels to fuck myself up the ass.