Vote, Don't Play Video Games, Obama Ad Suggests

"Moral equivalency (your second paragraph) is a cop-out favorite of the Left. Try again."

You go ahead and try again.  I'm libertarian, not part of "the left." 

Also, it's not a cop out.  It's a fact.  Under the constitution we are all equal, and thus people who vote have no greater citizenship or say in how the government should be or be run than people who don't vote.  Of course, for those said "non-voters" to really put a say into how the government works they'd most likely have to vote and thus no longer become a non-voter, but semantics aside the point holds.

In the US, we have this thing called freedom, or at least we're supposed to have it.  This means we can do whatever the hell we want so long as it does not infringe on another person's rights, and in doing thus we are Americans.  There is no "greater American."  Just because you live by your views and your morals doesn't mean someone who lives by different values, or thinks differently than you, is somehow less important.  Voting for president is worth the hassle in your mind.  It is in mine as well.  The fact that you fail to see is that other people don't feel that way, and they are entitled to their stance as you are to yours. 

And I didn't ignore fraud, I simply left it out as it had no part in the argument I was making.  I don't care if you can vote from your couch or have to do absentee or whatever, and this never was my argument.  I was simply arguing that you have the right to look down on those who don't vote, but that doesn't make it, or you, right.  It's their vote, and they should be able to do whatever they want with it, and this includes not casting it.

Roe vs. Wade- removed the rights of the states to decide the issue for abortion for themselves. A Liberal reform. Social security, a system specifically designed to increase dependence to the state. A liberal reform. The Department of Education, removing the ability of the people to decide which curriculum is taught in their schools, another liberal reform. Secondly, how does opposing measures that remove the populaces freedoms, such as strict gun laws, the Fairness Doctrine, Social Security, and a progressive tax scheme make me "undemocratic"? Aside from that, none of the "reforms" were successful. Our education system is in the toilet. Social Security is going broke. The "progressive tax scheme" may soon be used to punish the successful. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, liberal organizations set up to increase homeownership, are now in the toilet. Add that to the fact that the New Deal, a famous period of liberal reform, and the "Great Society" were both failures.

It's not as if instituting liberal reforms is somehow more "democratic" than undoing them will be. The same positions used to erect them will be used to tear them down. The difference, of course, is that such destruction would be killing your beloved programs. So instead of actually defending the merits of the reforms themselves, of which there are zero, you attack the messenger with logical fallacies and strawmen.

Really? Obama's policies would nationalize healthcare, strangle private education, and likely maintain the current unprecedented level of control over banks. Socialism is a gradual shift, where wealth is taken from one group, by force, and distributed to another group that the State feels is more deserving. Socialism primarily differs in the degrees to which it is Communist, whereas the system takes longer to achieve total public ownership/control of the means of production. The two systems have the same ends, i.e. forcing all the wards of the State to be "equal" regardless of how bad off they are.

Secondly, do you honestly think that Obama can get any of his programs funded without raising taxes on the middle class, or by redistributing "some" wealth? He's proposed, what, $4 trillion dollars of new spending, and promised to pay for it by "going through the budget and eliminating projects that don't work". That particular method of raising funds is ludicrous coming from him, escpecially given his ridiculous campaign expenditures. So, he'll have to raise taxes. It will start with the "wealthy", and then creep down to the middle class. Gradually, the successful, identified as "the rich" will be giving most of their funds to the government, which will then be given to the various tribalist interest groups that compose the democratic party, and to taxpayers sharing none of the costs of government.

He, and the Democrats, advocate programs which would enslave the populace to entrenched beaurocrats in the government. Both he and the Democrats represent the parasites that infect any successful Democracy, the groups who found out that they can just vote themselves money from the government.

So many people are scared of the link with Socialism to Obama that I swear that it's turning into another Red Scare. Besides, wealth distribution through taxes has generally been popular with most Democratic platforms. People act as if this "radical" thinking is just Obama-centric.

Also he is seen as a flaming liberal to most conservatives, but the truth of the matter is, he leans more to moderate liberal. The US political compass is very skewed to the world's political compass. Western Europe is far more liberal than the US.

Well yes, there are only 2 states that use a non-winner take all method. The other 48 use winner-takes-all

As for Nader, i'm not sure but part of the reason that people say he contributed to Gore's loss is because he was taking votes that would have normally mostly gone to the democrats or not all (consiterablly less to republicans and the rest would not have voted at all)... In some states like flordia where the election could be shifted by a relatively small number of voters, every vote counts and the votes that went to Nader could have gone to Al Gore instead... though ofcourse, if flordia didn't have a winner take all method, the votes would have been split 14-13 or something like that and as such, Nader's impact would have been very much diminished when it comes to his contribution to Gore's loss

And the electoral college system could STILL give states a disportionate share of votes and give small state more say... the true falw of the electoral college is not the electoral college itself but how the electors of each state are distributed; the winner-takes-all method seems very wrong to me

However, i would argue that giving small states a disportionally larger number of electors is actually unfair to the larger states... afterall, under such a system, the weight of an individual vote coming from a small state is greater than individual from a large state (its like bob from texas's vote is only with 10 points, while Mary from montana's vote is worth 100 points; or soemthing like that... in the end, Mary has more say in who wins)... i guess it seems fair in the winner-take-all method since not doing so would make small states feel very weak, however in a non-winner-take-all method it would be unfair and need correcting... but since the votes are being split properly, small states should not feel to be to be small as their small vote will still count for something. The Votes would feel more like they are just part of a larger whole of the nation instead of being bound to just the state