Why Nobama

[Kuskovian]

Unfortunately in our current political system, its a matter of trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

As my Seri said in a different thread, we in America often are forced to vote based upon which cantidate we would most like to be "fucked" by at the time.

Voter apathy is a direct result of our own prosperity and it is that same prosperity which history reminds us is a breeding ground rife for complacency.

[Kuskovian]

The polarization is in large part based on the labeling from the NeoCon movement and Americans being dumb enough to fall for it.

Ex. The real america/americans and small town values.

An American is an American regardless of state or income but if they question anything they are are labeled extreme, dangerous, eltitist.

As a libretarian I should want to vote republican but for the past 10 years the party has fallen into the hands of the neocons and religious right. A very dangerous combination. They hide behind values and the flag while attempting to take liberties and increase power. They scare you about those liberal elitists over there, and say that they want to take from you and ruin your way of life.

So if I have to choose I'll choose the socialist over the despot but I prefer option C.

One could just as easily say the polarization is the fault of the elitest ultra left wing radical socialist democrats.

The fact of the matter is it is a combination of both!

Our political system itself is designed in such a fashion that it propogates opposition by nessesity for the focusing of political clout.

[hopperboo]

They hide behind values and the flag while attempting to take liberties and increase power. They scare you about those liberal elitists over there, and say that they want to take from you and ruin your way of life.

I must totally disagree with you.

It's the liberal left that is wanting to increase their power. They hide behind more freedom and rights, when really all they are doing is making more laws against one's rights.

Look at the Democratic's with their smoking bans in public for one shining example.

[mkemse]

I am not sure the the smoking ban is strickly a Democratic thing, plus if you were a non smoker, would you want those who do to smoke around you?? second hand smoke is a legthal a smoking yourself, and I am a smoker and i have learned non smokers and reformed smokers do liketo be around anynow that smoke, be it cigs, pipes or cigars

[hopperboo]

I am not sure the the smoking ban is strickly a Democratic thing, plus if you were a non smoker, would you want those who do to smoke around you?? second hand smoke is a legthal a smoking yourself, and I am a smoker and i have learned non smokers and reformed smokers do liketo be around anynow that smoke, be it cigs, pipes or cigars

No, some Reps support it too, but in the majority they believe each business should choose for itself. It's the Dems that really are pushing for it, as a ban on society.

And I am a non-smoker. I hate that people smoke around me. But if I support taking away their right to smoke because it's unhealthy for me, what is next? Maybe we should take away guns because there have been killings? Or maybe we should take away bars, because some people drink and drive after going out.

If one starts taking away some rights...it's just going to have a domino effect.

[js207]

I am not sure the the smoking ban is strickly a Democratic thing, plus if you were a non smoker, would you want those who do to smoke around you?? second hand smoke is a legthal a smoking yourself, and I am a smoker and i have learned non smokers and reformed smokers do liketo be around anynow that smoke, be it cigs, pipes or cigars

That doesn't justify absolute smoking bans even outdoors - I can understand not wanting to be in a confined space with a smoker, but banning them even in dedicated smoking areas or outside? That's just draconian.

[DesertDom]

That doesn't justify absolute smoking bans even outdoors - I can understand not wanting to be in a confined space with a smoker, but banning them even in dedicated smoking areas or outside? That's just draconian.

Its the slippery slope.

Once people willingly allow some freedoms and rights to be taken away, there is continual pressure by social reformers or those with agendas to 'improve' , close 'loopholes' or otherwise adjust the current version to protect more of us.

On the smoking thing, there have been attempts by cities to ban smoking within the complete city limits.

Sometimes you just got to wonder when it is all going to stop. George Orwells book '1984' was incredibly prescient.

[mkemse]

That doesn't justify absolute smoking bans even outdoors - I can understand not wanting to be in a confined space with a smoker, but banning them even in dedicated smoking areas or outside? That's just draconian.

True but most places I have seen that ban smoking outside are Governement Funded and it was a Federal Mandate not State
And Most if not all Major Corporations now prohbit and have for years prohbitied smoking within 50-100ft of their property
If you look at places like Abbott Labs, Baxter Labs, ect they banned smoking within 50-100ft of their property long before it was mandated to do so saying it was a health issue with 2ns Hand Smoke and I nkow of 1 Corporation (sorry I do not recall the name right of hand) that has exteneded no smoking beyond their property, they will not hire smokers (health insurance reasons) or allow them to even smoke in their homes or cars, but when you think aboutthat, a person apllying to wor there knows that before they are hired, so they have no reasonto complain about that Corporate Policy

[Diablo]

I must totally disagree with you.

It's the liberal left that is wanting to increase their power. They hide behind more freedom and rights, when really all they are doing is making more laws against one's rights.

Look at the Democrat's with their smoking bans in public for one shining example.

Look at Bush and especially Cheney trying to expand the power of the executive branch. How the religious wing of the party tries to ban gay marriage.

While I do smoke the smoking bans are along the lines of seat belt laws.

Under Bush and the neocons the size of the government has grown to its biggest size ever and the rights of Americans have been reduced. I can be arrested and detained indefinitely of secret warrants, is it likely to happen? Of course not, but they have made a system where it is possible.

So as I already said I will choose a socialist over a despot but would rather have a libertarian.

[mkemse]

Bush & Company have placed themselves abovethe law, what ever they want to do, they do

[hopperboo]

I agree. I think Bush is a POC, but disregarding him, it's the reps that want less laws, more freedoms.

[Thorne]

I nkow of 1 Corporation (sorry I do not recall the name right of hand) that has exteneded no smoking beyond their property, they will not hire smokers (health insurance reasons) or allow them to even smoke in their homes or cars, but when you think aboutthat, a person apllying to wor there knows that before they are hired, so they have no reasonto complain about that Corporate Policy

That's true, but the other side of the coin should also be considered. To my, admittedly uncertain, knowledge, it is illegal in most states for any business to declare themselves a smoking establishment. You cannot post a sign on your door that says "Smokers Only". And the same rationale applies: anyone wanting to work in that business, or enter the business, knows beforehand that smoking will be occurring, and shouldn't have any complaints because of it.

And for the record, I am a reformed smoker, been smoke free for over 17 years now and I'm glad of it. But I still don't like the idea of discriminating against smokers. I would venture to guess that more people die of second-hand alcohol related causes (victims of drunk drivers, for example) than do of second-hand smoke.

[Thorne]

I agree. I think Bush is a POC, but disregarding him, it's the reps that want less laws, more freedoms.

It's in the nature of any politician or bureaucrat, regardless of party affiliation, to want more laws, not less. That is how they attempt to maintain control of an increasingly intelligent and angry electorate.

[Ironwulf]

I agree. I think Bush is a POC, but disregarding him, it's the reps that want less laws, more freedoms.

All americans, republicans or democrates want less laws and more freedoms.

The problem is in deciding which republician sponsored laws should be kept and which democrate sponsored laws should be kept.

Who decides?

Many women feel that the law giving the right of choice is a fundamental right for all women. However, there are constant attempts by the republicans to take this freedom of choice away.

Many people feel the right to bear arms is a freedom that must be protected but each year there are democrate sponsored bills to reduce those rights.

Who decides?

You see that is the problem that results when any group of people wants to impose their values on the masses. It would be nice to say "ok everybody just stop it and let each of us live our lives as we want" but do you think they will?

No, they won't, if for no other reason then some media personality has told them that our country can not survive if you let those other people choose how to live their lives. Those people are not responsible enough to do the right thing without someone forcing them to live like they are told and of course they know who is the right person to do the telling, just ask them.

Until we as a nation grow up enough to take responsibility for ourselves and no longer rely on others to tell us how we should live and how others should not live we will continue as a nation who's polices are based on intolerance not freedom.

.

[mkemse]

It's in the nature of any politician or bureaucrat, regardless of party affiliation, to want more laws, not less. That is how they attempt to maintain control of an increasingly intelligent and angry electorate.

No, in Bushes Case it isn't more laws, it is simply making Laws to suit his needs
He as President has violated more Law then virutaly any President in our History

[Thorne]

No, in Bushes Case it isn't more laws, it is simply making Laws to suit his needs
He as President has violated more Law then virutaly any President in our History

Congress repeatedly passes laws which tend to apply to everyone but the Congress. It doesn't really matter whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. The only difference is in the types of laws enacted. And remember, too: the President cannot pass laws. Only the Congress can do that. I don't think the President can even propose laws directly. Only his cronies in the Congress can propose them, though he no doubt initiates many of them.

And one other thing to remember. Although the Republicans have raised the national debt to record levels, the real problems with our economy didn't start until after the Dem's took control of Congress. I don't think we can honestly blame the current problems on only one person or party. It's everyone's fault, President, Congress, the banks, Wall Street, even the average American, who sees nothing wrong with building massive credit card debts. We are all to blame, to one degree or another.

[Muskan]

"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."

Ayn Rand!

None of this has changed, nor has the danger of smoking changed, nor even the knowledge of it; any honest smoker can tell you that his stamina and health are affected by smoking, and that it can be difficult to stop smoking. (Ayn Rand smoked for many years, until her doctor told her to quit. She put the cigarette out in his office and never smoked again.)

What has changed is that today's liberals have decided that they can build a more totalitarian government by attacking cigarette companies. By creating a "public awareness" about the dangers of smoking they create the impression that the government is more concerned with your health than you are, thus the need for Medicare and the FDA. By painting the tobacco company executives as manipulative crooks, they create the impression that only the government can control the "ruthless greed" of all businessmen, and so justify the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. Through legislation and prosecution, they have empowered a generation of litigious, anti-business, anti-conceptual lawyers who will sue anyone for anything. (The lawyers behind the anti-tobacco lawsuits are also behind suits against gun manufacturers and HMOs, to name but two popular targets.)

I can now understand why Ayn Rand said she isn't libertarian!

[mkemse]

Congress repeatedly passes laws which tend to apply to everyone but the Congress. It doesn't really matter whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. The only difference is in the types of laws enacted. And remember, too: the President cannot pass laws. Only the Congress can do that. I don't think the President can even propose laws directly. Only his cronies in the Congress can propose them, though he no doubt initiates many of them.

And one other thing to remember. Although the Republicans have raised the national debt to record levels, the real problems with our economy didn't start until after the Dem's took control of Congress. I don't think we can honestly blame the current problems on only one person or party. It's everyone's fault, President, Congress, the banks, Wall Street, even the average American, who sees nothing wrong with building massive credit card debts. We are all to blame, to one degree or another.

I know only Congress can pass laws, but Bush seems to have the ability to "skirt" the law or interpret it the way that suits him regardless of the result
and he did the same thing as Governor Of Texas, he did it HIS WAY
He set some very ugly 1st's as Governorand has continued to as President, but Iwill give him credit for being consistant and he did not even win 1 term in Office, the Repulican Supremem Court gift wraped 1 term after Florida's Hanging Chad Fiasco

[mkemse]

All americans, republicans or democrates want less laws and more freedoms.

The problem is in deciding which republician sponsored laws should be kept and which democrate sponsored laws should be kept.

Who decides?

Many women feel that the law giving the right of choice is a fundamental right for all women. However, there are constant attempts by the republicans to take this freedom of choice away.

Many people feel the right to bear arms is a freedom that must be protected but each year there are democrate sponsored bills to reduce those rights.

Who decides?

You see that is the problem that results when any group of people wants to impose their values on the masses. It would be nice to say "ok everybody just stop it and let each of us live our lives as we want" but do you think they will?

No, they won't, if for no other reason then some media personality has told them that our country can not survive if you let those other people choose how to live their lives. Those people are not responsible enough to do the right thing without someone forcing them to live like they are told and of course they know who is the right person to do the telling, just ask them.

Until we as a nation grow up enough to take responsibility for ourselves and no longer rely on others to tell us how we should live and how others should not live we will continue as a nation who's polices are based on intolerance not freedom.

.

Most House Resolutions if not all are Public Record including it's Sponsor
Any Bills Passed in Congress are Public REcord and they always idicated who sponsored a particular bill

[QuietMaster]

Bush & Company have placed themselves abovethe law, what ever they want to do, they do

... plus McCain and Palin project the belief that they are the legimitate heirs to the White House, by royal decree.

Consequently, it is their rights for the electorate to proceed with their coronation ceremonies on November 04.

Interesting concept, indeed.

[QuietMaster]

So as I already said I will choose a socialist over a despot but would rather have a libertarian.

Sharing these videos.

Enjoy !!


PS: I participated on a political forun regarding the UN representatives, and foreign countries perspectives on the US elections.

Sharing two of the videos I presented during that discussion as an example on how others view Obama.

======================

Barack the Magnificent -- by Mighty Sparrow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntSalB09uzM

Caribbean people for Barack the Magnificent
Obama-Mania is spreading and there's no cure or vaccine

Why not Obama?

http://www.barackobama.com

Song by the Mighty Sparrow:
The calypso king has been writing, performing and recording for almost 50 years.

http://www.mightysparrow.com

======================

Barack We Love You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgy6vL8ch8w

[Muskan]

The US are the most important economy in the world for ONE SINGLE FACTOR:

- It is the ONLY large economic area where there are still free markets and entrepreneurship is valued.

Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore and to a much lesser degree New Zealand and a few other areas are also rather good, but they are very, very small compared to the US.

In economic terms, they do matter: Switzerland is the 7th largest exporter of services and the 13th largest exporter of industrial goods, which is an absolutely stunning performance for a country of just 7 million, but the US achieve performances not that far off with 300 million people.

No economy that is less free than the US can ever compete with the US, period!

The only way any other economy will ever be able to compete and overtake the US is if either:

- the US see their economic AND individual freedom substantially reduced (and I hope even Obama, if he were elected president, would not be able to do that, although it's exactly what he'd want)

- some other large country increases their level of freedom substantially to the point of being equal to or better than the US for at least 2 generations.

A bureaucratic monster like the EU will NEVER be competitive.

Anyone who thinks the EU as it is now could compete with the US is a fool.

As for China, it's easy to have massive growth rates as long as you're just catching up with the status quo, but once you're close to that level, things can only improve through INNOVATION and that only happens when there is both, economic AND individual freedom.

Economic freedom has gained substantially, it is now possible to be an entrepreneur in China, but the limits are there: after a certain point, you have to cozy up with government or one of the groups close to government and that's the end of the entrepreneurial freedom.

That's why a falling US market means a falling Chinese market.

This is a fact!

So why is America choosing the ideas of Redistribution of Wealth"?
Everyone working according to his abilities and getting according to his needs" That's what Marxism is, that's what curse is. We all know that without proper discrimination of abilities and profits, no development can ever happen, because it is detrimental.
So are the americans ignoring that reality?

Barack Obama on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM, 2001: The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that...

Is Obama a Marxist? Bidden gets angry!
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

2001 OBAMA: 'TRAGEDY' THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED
http://www.drudgereport.com/

[mkemse]

... plus McCain and Palin project the belief that they are the legimitate heirs to the White House, by royal decree.

Consequently, it is their rights for the electorate to proceed with their coronation ceremonies on November 04.

Interesting concept, indeed.

Then that explains why the RNC ordered 2 Thrones for the White House (sorry, could not resist that after your reply ) Plus McCain supports 95% of Bush's Policies andsince most jave veeb so succeful, and plans to continue on the same basic path, wht no feel they have an inherent right to the White House

[QuietMaster]

So why is America choosing the ideas of Redistribution of Wealth"?

Redistribution/distribution of "wealth" has existed for millenia and millenia, etc., -- through taxation.

This is nothning new whether in the "western" economies and/or the centrally planned economies [ Russia and the former soviet/commumist bloc ].

The tier/structure of income levels are the focused issues regarding the differences with Obama's and McCain's proposals.

Obama's proposal places more money into the hands/pockets of wider segments of society where each individual/business.corporation can use the money for his/her specific preferences.

McCain's proposal places more money into the hands of the super-rich individuals/corporations with the hope that benefits will "trickle down" to the broader base of society.

[QuietMaster]

Then that explains why the RNC ordered 2 Thrones for the White House (sorry, could not resist that after your reply )

They also ordered a third throne for the "first Dude of Alaska". *LOL*

[mkemse]

They also ordered a third throne for the "first Dude of Alaska". *LOL*

I hear that also, byw Palin said if she wins she wants to present herslef as a more Middle Clas Women and wil only buy her clothes from Neiman Marcus to make her point

[mkemse]

The Heritage Foundation which is Ultra Right Wing, even said today that Obama's Tax Plan is Far better for Middle Class workers then McCain's is

[hopperboo]

The Heritage Foundation which is Ultra Right Wing, even said today that Obama's Tax Plan is Far better for Middle Class workers then McCain's is

Until Obama ups his taxes again.

It's not going to help jobs. It's not going to help small businesses that are trying to grow.

And it certainly won't help the middle class long term.

The 'poor' (I use this term loosely) people will remain poor and the rich people are just going to be pissed about taxes.

[skp2bear]

After voting Republican for many years I am voting today for Obama. We are forgetting in our government laws may be proposed by the president but short of martial law only congress can enact laws. 90% of Bush's proposals were rejected or just ignored by Congress. It was congress who gave Bush his powers. Inmy eyes Iraq was the wrong move but the faulty information came from outside the US through the Clinton white house. I feel we need someone who may bring a much needed breath of fresh air be it right or wrong. Maybe it will get us out of our rut. To me Palin is another Clinton just guilty of a different moral sin.

[mkemse]

Until Obama ups his taxes again.

It's not going to help jobs. It's not going to help small businesses that are trying to grow.

And it certainly won't help the middle class long term.

The 'poor' (I use this term loosely) people will remain poor and the rich people are just going to be pissed about taxes.

Only time will tel, let's see what happens let'sd also see who wins, i feel a Sunami coming nov 4th
I am 100% far worse now theni was in 2000

if all tha is coreect, then why are all the Conservative Columnists supporting Obama, why is Palin own home neewpaper not even supporting her??