Quote:

---

Tangerines said:
I'm scared may actually win.

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
Alright, so lets do another Bush term.


When you can't find a job, living out on your ass, and your parents are broke because of health problems, then you'll be wishing that monkey got in.

Enjoy your RFID and 6 bucks a gallon gas.

---

actually obama's tax plan closely resembles bush's. funny right?

anyways, obama wants to tax anyone (aka a family or business) jointly making 250,000 or more. this means:

1) it will slow economic growth
2) it will increase unemployment
3) you will still be paying that tax in the long run--customers pay taxes, not businesses, they just collect taxes for the government.

(check out how markets are reacting already: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_obama_panic__133374.htm )

also, he wants to tax the rich more, who are already paying a great % more than the rest. some people pay NO taxes. how is this fair?

please remember we are a global marketplace. you might not have a higher education than highschool, but i'm sure you've heard of outsourcing, a response to globalization. well, if you tax the big businesses more they will just leave out country and set up a pseudo headquarters at a tax haven (island or country where they pay little to no taxes). this means we will be forcing business outside of the united states. that is not good for our economy, and we would receive little to no taxes from them that way.

(check this out: http://haroldblack.blogspot.com/2008/10/pardon-my-personal-distress-but-for.html )

another note: government is inefficient, unlimited resources and are not required to make a profit is a setup for disaster. ( http://mises.org/story/1471 )


last point: socialism has failed many times in history. capitalism has never failed.


p.s. when you said $6 bucks a gallon gas... i guess you don't realize that obama is against drilling for oil and wants to solely rely on foreign countries with foreign interest... this means higher prices. if we could tap into our own oil reserves we could get gas much cheaper. see how fucking rich the saudis are. it really is liquid gold.


basically by your points, you are voting for the wrong fucking person.

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
Corps are out sourcing and avoid taxes by having there headquarters over seas and using that an excuse for not paying taxes. Any time we send shit to China we gotta pay them tax, but when they ship to us, they dont pay shit. How the fuck is that fair?

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
If you outsource jobs you WILL pay more, but the tax breaks by employing more domestic people, with those tax cuts they'll be paying a hell of a lot less than they did before the Clinton administration.

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
We need LESS regulation

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
Tax and spend

or borrow and spend?


I rather not drive our dollar down and put this country in the shit house. War in Iraq is lowering our dollar value every month. Gotta look at the bigger picture too

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
Look at Enron...

---

Quote:

---

usg543 said:


you know why china is such a fucking powerhouse? because their government artificially keeps their currency low. that's one reason their economy is growing so fucking fast.

---

Quote:

---

mel_lonta_tauda said:
expect to see prices dropped for fried chicken starting next week

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
Need to stop drilling, we have the fucking power to make vehicles that get much greater gas mileage than we do now, just using gasoline.

Everything is fucked, obama isnt the answer but he's much better than MC at the matter

---

Quote:

---

free healthcare.
less taxes.
spread the wealth.
get out of iraq.
start a war with iran instead.
CHANGE!!!

---

Quote:

---

zippo420 said:
Your a dumbfuck

---

Quote:

---

wowitch420 said:
usg, please shut the fuck up with your retarded obtuse view of politics. We know you are a pro life libertarian, no need to divulge to us your complete ability to stream utter bullshit from your mouth, spare us. we get it.

---

Quote:

---

Kaptain said:
Just go to youtube and watch obama's stance on your female friend mary jane. Light hearted. Remember this is a marijuana forum, and if your love for the ganj is as solid as you say, it should certainly be a factor when deciding on which candidate.

---

years ago he supported decriminalization of marijuana. now he flip-flopped and now says it should stay illegal. check the RECENT youtubes.

Biden (that's his VP running mate encase you didn't know ) is a strong supporter of the drug war.

if you really cared about marijuana and it was your main issue you'd vote the marijuana party or some shit (hell even libertarian). not obama or mccain.

hell palin is from a state where marijuana is legal to grow up to 14 plants in your own home... of course this means nothing just like your comment.

Quote:

---

Commentary: Why a two-party system limits US politics
by Joost Steffensen

There are two ways to designate the nature of a political system. The first is based on it's philosophy and it's laws, hence the US is a democracy and Myanmar a dictatorship. The second way is to base the designation on the country's political reality. The two-party system is America's political reality. And despite the fact that other parties have the same rights as the major parties their rights are abrogated by a systematic bias towards the parties in power.

The title of this article says that a two-party system limits US politics. I think that that it putting it too politely. In my opinion it's fair to say that a de facto two-party system endangers democracy.

A democratic system is no guarantee for a democratic government. The Nazis in Germany came into power after winning about a third of the vote in two consecutive elections and leveraging their brokerage power to have Hitler elected chancellor. Similarly the Taliban in Afghanistan came to power after democratic elections.

Democratic systems come with inherent flaws, the main one being that people without democratic intentions can be democratically elected and then use their power to change the system. For this reason it is necessary to keep updating our laws and adapting our system as new leaks become apparent. In this respect democracy is like a boat that will sink when we stop plugging leaks and bailing water. Or to quote Thomas Jefferson: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

So how did this two-party system come about? Basically it is a direct result of the way people in the US are elected to congress. The US congress was not designed with political parties in mind. In fact many of the founding fathers had a deep distrust of political parties. However when Hamilton started his Federalist party, Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican party (later the Democratic party) in response.

Now the way people in the US are elected is more personality based than party based. People are elected to represent a district not a party. As a result only people who can get the majority of votes in a certain district can get a seat in congress. Since people representing small parties can never get majorities they are effectively excluded form the political process.

So what are the flaws in the US two-party system?

Flaw 1: Winner takes all district based elections

Winner takes all means one person represents everybody. That's right one person represents the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the gays, the democrats, the republicans, the libertarians, the pro-lifers and the abortionists, pro and anti gun, black, white, Latino, Asian, rich, poor, etc. Is it possible for one person to really look out for all the people in his/ her district or is this person more likely to pander to the plurality that elected him/her. Which brings us to:

Flaw 2: plurality not majority wins

This basically means that as long as you have the most votes of all the candidates you win. That sounds fair, but consider this: Say you live in a district that is for example overwhelmingly liberal. There are two liberal candidates and one conservative. In the election the liberals both get 32% of the vote and the conservative gets 34%. In this scenario the conservative candidate wins. This is why third party candidates such as Ralph Nader or Ross Perot are often considered spoilers. As a result people overwhelmingly support the candidate they think are most likely to defeat the opposition, not necessarily the candidate they like. If a majority is needed then according to the example there would have been a run-of election between the two best candidates. The first round would allow voters to freely select the candidate of their choice without fearing repercussions later..

So what are the results of these flaws?

The main result is dominance by two parties which are often strongly polarized. If one of the parties loses popularity a third party might become popular. However if it does it will inevitably lead to the decline and subsequent demise of one of the existing parties.

How does the two-party system affect campaigning?

Campaigning in a two party system is overwhelmingly negative. With only one opponent it is quite easy to focus on the opponents perceived weaknesses rather than highlighting personal strengths.

How does the two parties system affect peoples choice?

The two-party system severely limits peoples choice. As shown before a lot of voters are not adequately represented simply because one man can't be all things to all people. Even those whose candidate won are unlikely to be adequately represented. After all there are hundreds of issues and the two big parties represent only two possible constellations of stances on these issues. For example some people might want more tax-cuts,but be pro-choice. Where does this person turn? What if you want stronger environmental protection, are pro-life, but are strongly anti-gun and at the same time an ardent socialist? Or what if you want stronger government programs but are very much in favor of the war in Iraq? The present status quo pretends that people who think like this don't exist, but in fact there are nearly as many possible views as there are Americans. Can they really be adequately represented by two parties?

So how is the two-party system a danger to democracy?

One of the arguments for the two-party system is stability. By making sure that there are two large parties things change slowly and that is supposedly good.

However over time the two parties have not grown closer together in fact they have polarized making it increasingly difficult to pass important legislation since any legislation can nowadays be blocked with a filibuster or presidential veto requiring a two thirds majority to break.

Having more parties in congress virtually guarantees majorities on issues that enjoy a popular majority. Here's how that works. Say 80% of the American public supports a law against hats. If that is the case parties who have this item on their agenda are more likely to get elected than similar parties with the opposite view. As a result a majority of chosen parties is likely to support this issue if it came to a vote. The more parties are elected and the more people vote based on issues rather than personality the more likely it is that congress will pass legislation representing the will of the people.

At this point the two parties in fact don't really represent the will of the American people. In fact they hardly need the American people. After all no matter how badly congress does the choices for the American electorate remain the same. That in itself is undemocratic

But as time goes by it gets worse. The polarity between the parties is now so great that they increasingly regard the other party as a threat. So far neither party has had a majority large enough in both houses to make constitutional changes that would eliminate the other party, but in theory in a two-party system exactly that situation is possible.

Historically there seem to have been two ways dictatorships came into being.

The first, most common and most feared is by the the rapid rise of forces with dictatorial intentions who mount a take-over either through political (Nazis, Taliban, Saddam Hussein) or military (Castro, military junta in Myanmar, Islamic revolution in Iran) means.

The second type of take-over is much more insidious. In this case the government is assumed by people who generally have good intentions, but once in power they become convinced that they are the only ones who know what is best for the country. As a result they change the constitution so they can stay in power longer and eventually adopt fully the trappings of a dictatorship. This is what happened in Zimbabwe, it is what's happening in Cameroon just now and it might be what's happening in Venezuela and Russia.

This is the where democracy in America is at. We can only hope the worst doesn't come to pass.

---

Quote:

---

Kaptain said:

WAYDZOOORRRRRRZZZ

WAYD

WAYD WAYD WAYDz0Rz

---

Quote:

---

Tangerines said:
Actually, jobs will be harder if gets elected because he will be making taxes higher and making the minimum wage higher. Less money for companies to spend = less jobs available.

Anyways, I am going to college and will be able to get a job in my field because I'm smarter than the average Joe Plumber.

---

Quote:

---

ezKiel said:
The racist shit ain't funny either. You just look like a fucking inbred calling him a monkey.

---

it's : obama : a smiley

Quote:

---

Kaptain said:
w@DZ0rz

---

Quote:

---

mel_lonta_tauda said:
expect to see prices dropped for fried chicken starting next week

---

Quote:

---

usg543 said:

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
this whole thread is fucking retarded.  obama sucks.  mccain sucks.  get over it.  u can go back and forth all day about why not to vote for either one.

---