General Chat / NE 2012 U.S. Election discussion.

I wasn't neccessarily referring to physical age though, Ling. Plenty of 50 year olds still act like children just as a few teenagers have judgement above most adults. The fact is, until we pull our bootstraps up as a nation, the government will continue to limit. It only takes one to ruin it all, and in one of the largest, and by far, most diverse nation in the world, the possibilities are endless.

It isn't that simple.

Here are my two-cents:
I honestly don't understand why people argue about this all the time. Quit wasting your effort, things like renewable energy are 100,000 times more important than helping the stoners. Sorry, but the world isn't perfect, and although it might be better to decrease punishment for drug use, it would be best not to use it at all. Legalizing marijuana will just allow corporations to make profits out of stupid people while supplying jobs that are mostly low wage.

People say there are no negative side effects, but I can only smell the b.s. of that statement. If you wouldn't want a surgeon or pilot to be a stoner, then it's bad, plain and simple. Not to mention, all the kids that are completely fried due to their negligence. Most people that smoke believe non-smokers are all disgruntled tight-assed "sheeple." It all comes down to who has more responsibility? Who is more mature? The US is full of immature, irresponsible people and the number of them is rapidly rising, presenting the pinnacle of the "I Don't Care Age." I have no problem with legalization, but until people can pull up their bootstraps and realize that the world is not a cartoon, but a serious place that we all have to take part in and work hard. Until I see that, I cannot see it ever happening until we refine ourselves


Elect Jaguarkid140 2016. A vote for me is a vote for the free.

contradiction (n)

con·tra·dic·tion [ kòntrə díksh'n ]

something illogical: something that has aspects that are illogical or inconsistent with each other
opposing statement: a statement, or the making of a statement, that opposes or disagrees with somebody or something

jaguar, you're arguing for the utter control of all drugs, including alcohol and basically pain killers. The point is, alcohol is legal for 21+, why isn't marijuana, which statistically has a lower abuse rate and less side effects.

I don't remember stating complete control of all drugs. I was leaning more towards the opposite. These issues aren't as black and white as you make them.

Nevermind that, I'm just going to stop this arguement because we've driven the thread off topic. I wouldn't want this to be closed.

Nevermind that, I'm just going to stop this arguement because we've driven the thread off topic. I wouldn't want this to be closed.

oh, get the fuck outta here with that.


this is a discussion. now discuss how it's not black and white.

I'd like to add, caffeine is a form of drugs too.
And I'm pretty sure most western countries would barely function as well, without caffeine.

There are actually people who function better because they smoke a joint once in a while.
It relaxes them and some people get more focused by it.

my zoloft demotivates me and makes me take constant naps

should it be illegal?

Yes. Because only working your ass off shall have an exclusive right to make you demotivated and tired.

3) ban future businesses from outsourcing jobs to foreign countries and introduce a tax hike to current business who do so. again, i'm not a business expert and this is a tricky one i'm sure. i do believe something needs to be done here, but i don't know enough so i can't go into detail.

our government uses products made in china to build our bridges. how does that make you feel? let me put it this way... imagine getting pulled over for going 40 in a 35... looking in your rear view and seeing a fucking toyota emblem on the front of the cruiser. "what the fuck" is right.

This one's tougher than you think. If you introduce a tax hike to current businesses they're more likely to get rid of jobs in the US than those jobs they have overseas in order to make up for it. Having jobs outsoured is not only beneficial to a company like Nike or Apple because they can sell they're products for exponentially cheaper, but it also creates more money that they can then put into things such as marketing and research and development. These jobs would be given to Americans. So outsourcing kinda balances itself out in that we can purchase their goods for cheaper and it also creates some new jobs for Americans. Also if you're gonna ban future businesses from outsourcing while already established businesses are thriving off of it you're just gonna completely suffocate the economy. That would make the barrier for small businesses to enter as a competetitor nearly impossible, and would lead to the larger companies eventually just pretty much becoming monopolies

As for your second point I just don't really know what you're expecting. If you're talking about bridges that are being built from taxpayers money, then what would you rather them do? Put more tax dollars into it and build the bridge with more expensive products that were manufactured in the US, or put less tax dollars into it and use chinese manufactured products. Or if you're talking about a private construction firm, why the hell would a business owner spend more money on something just because it was manufactured in the US? As for your Toyota example I don't think that has happened yet, but if it has then yeah I agree that's pretty stupid


On another topic, as for taxing the upper class I'm fine with Obama saying he wants to do that, even tho I think it's bullshit and we pay enough. But I rather it be in a way where he is forced to show us what he's spending these excess tax dollars on. So for example he can give some of our medicare payments and put it towards the lower class. Make us pay more money on the off chance that we need surgery or something, because I understand that we can afford it and some people can't. But I don't know enough about that whole system to know if that would work or not

As for my overall opinion on the election, I think Obama's gonna win which is really unfortunate. The one thing I care about most other than national security is our economy. I want America to have the booming economy we once had, the best economy in the world. And to be honest I don't think Obama has one fucking clue how to do that and he's proven it in the past four years. It's just unfortunate the bullshit he's feeding people in these debates about he isn't gonna outsoruce jobs, about how the upper one percent will start paying more taxes and he'll spend it to make class sizes smaller and to hire better teachers. People just eat that shit up and believe in it like it's actually a possibility. It's like Romney has to contradict himself and say stuff like I don't want to outsoruce jobs even tho he actually does it, because if he got up there and explained why it was actually beneficial it would go right over some people's head and they would instantly just label it as him being anti-American

I think Romney has a better, more realistic view of what can be done. It won't sound as promising on paper compared to what Obama is saying, but he will actually get some of it done

^ which romney was that?

I really wish Ron Paul got the support he deserves.

He has a fairly large cult following around here. I don't think I've ever seen a car with just one Paul sticker, its usually the whole damn bumper plastered in them.

If you think the economy can somehow be "fixed" you're more delusional than you think Obama is. The debt is massive and isn't something you can simply cut or even stall. It will always increase. It always has, it always will. It's impossible to do anything about it, so all that's going to end up being altered is social policies. Since the Republican party is living in the 1800s (or earlier, depending on which part of their 1700-year-old piece of parchment they're throwing at you), this would be a very bad thing.

On top of all this, lower income families statistically have way more kids. Combine this with their already-grand majority and you have a low-income class that is growing at a rate so much greater than the upper classes that the latter rate becomes negligible. And it will only get worse. Overpopulation's a bitch.

Haha what the fuck are you talking about. I understand the economy isn't a tangible thing and can't just be fixed like a broken chair can, but it can definitely be improved. Obama has failed to do that in his first four years

Obama's plan is to increase government revenue by putting more of a tax burden on the upper class, so if their rate is negligible so is Obama's fucking plan. What does overpopulation have to do with taxes? Do you think that income taxes for a family go up when they have another child? If anything more children means taxes go down for the middle class since families can then receive tax credits or deductions from their child care expenses. The upper 10% of Americans pay for pretty much half of the federal taxes in this country, so I think any change in their rate would be somewhat relevant. I just don't get what your second paragraph means. All I get from it is that you're telling me that middle class families need a little help with family planning

Personally, I don't think history repeats itself, but it does rhyme. I can see a second gilded-age.

Also, in response to Ling, lower-income families do not constitute the grand majority. They wouldn't be "lower" income, then. The US isn't becoming overpopulated either. Suburban sprawl is a gigantic issue, but it is easily solvable and it will be "solved" during the oil crisis. Most of the US is rural when compated to Europe or Japan, where even the countryside is comparatively suburban by our standards.

^Yeah I just assumed he meant the middle class, but either way I don't get it

^ which romney was that?

Sorry I forgot to answer this, I was talking about Mitt Romney

Sorry, I should explain, by grand majority, I should explain. Let's low-ball the fuck out of it and call <$30,000 per year per family is low-income. This constitutes 70% of the American population.



And they do statistically have way more children. I don't have an exact figure anymore (I would have last semester), but it's more. So what I said wasn't incorrect.

I understand the economy isn't a tangible thing and can't just be fixed like a broken chair can, but it can definitely be improved. Obama has failed to do that in his first four years

Yeah, no. What do you propose gets cut that might even dent it? Look at the rest of the world. Look at the past few decades. Look at Congress. It doesn't matter. Nothing will happen. It does not matter who is in office. At all.

Oh, and I should mention, that graph isn't entirely accurate because the figures are from 1992. It's bound to be skewed considerably more to the left by now.

I'm so confused. What point are you trying to make by showing me that 70 percent of America makes less than 30,000 dollars a year? I would never debate that

Also, I'm not talking about denting the deficit. We've had booming economies while the deficit was rising. But to say that the policies of who is in office won't effect the economy with things such as market prices and unemployment just doesn't make sense

On top of all this, lower income families statistically have way more kids. Combine this with their already-grand majority and you have a low-income class that is growing at a rate so much greater than the upper classes that the latter rate becomes negligible. And it will only get worse. Overpopulation's a bitch.

I was referring to this, which you guys seemed to think I was making up. The fact is the lower-income population is increasingly exponentially faster than high-income. Take that on any interval you want at +/- 50%. This means the economic gap has and always will widen - right now, extremely rapidly. This makes the economy worse from all angles.

What are you talking about when you say "the economy" then? What could be changed that would alter the money people are making throughout the system, other than top corporations mass-producing things? Less regulation supposedly means more jobs, but it's never happened. What's good for business is bad for the consumers, but what's good for the consumers is unfair to those already making more than they can spend in their lifetimes. I'm not saying tax them - or anyone else - into oblivion, but what do you really think is going to happen if Romney gets elected? What could his economic plan - which he refuses to disclose until he's in office - do? The government isn't a business. If it were, it would have declared bankruptcy and been dissolved decades ago. A businessman will (or can) do nothing.