"There is noone else running who for who you are allowed to vote".....umm, that statement didn't make any sense. I know you're all flustered since I mocked "his holiness". However that shouldn't impair your ability to construct a coherent sentence.
To clarify, I don't like Obama. I didn't like Hillary Clinton either. If I could vote for who I wanted, I would vote for Barak Obama's campaign advertising head, whomever that may be. I know full well that Obama is campaigning on an everything-and-nothing platform. All I really care about is preventing votes for McCain. Voters for Ron Paul get the candidate their votes elect, though I am really glad he's not going to have a chance at winning at this point.
Ron Paul didn't have a chance from the beginning. That much was obvious. He wasn't exactly an insider within his party and had few allies in Washington. He did actually stand on constitutional principles however. This has been almost unheard of in a Presidential race over the last 20 years. He didn't get the nomination, but he did bring his ideas to the arena of national discourse. That in an of itself can affect the outcome of future elections. I'm not a big fan of McCain myself, but between McCain and Marx Junior I'm going to have to go with McCain. And as far as hurting me goes...don't embarrass yourself.
What's embarrassing about a baseball bat? McCain has said repeatedly that he intends to carry on the policies set forth by the bush administration. Where has Obama said that he plans to nationalize industry? Where do your comments about Obama being marxist come from? I wasn't aware that Illinois was a hotbed of socialism.
"What's embarrassing about a baseball bat?" When one must use it to win an argument (or an election). As far as nationalized industry goes, that is very much a communist ideal. Nationalized industry was a cornerstone of the U.S.S.R. Nationalized industry implies government ownership and operation of industry. This of course demolishes the concept of private property and private enterprise. Explain to me exactly how that isn't a Marxist idea.
Obama has in-fact advocated nationalizing the health-care industry. His proposed increases in capital gains taxes speak to the philosophy of wealth redistribution on the federal level. Both of these concepts are integral to Marxist dogma. I'm not sanguine about McCain's proposed domestic policies either, but in this election I need to pick the lesser of two statist evils. Much of McCain's constituency consists of fiscal conservatives. One way or another he would need to find a means of appeasing them in order to gain their continued support. There do not appear to be many fiscal conservatives among the Democratic voting base. Most left-of-center supporters advocate socialist ideology on some level. Since our current political system is a two-party system, I am forced to reluctantly vote for McCain and at least slow the incremental march towards a socialist system of government. Between bad and worse, I will cast my vote for bad.
Because the concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever-smaller and ever-more-powerful elite is somehow a good thing? The continuing deregulation of this country is leading towards a monoculture of power. Serious work needs to be made on behalf of preserving the middle classes and making class mobility easier rather than harder. If this includes taking money from the "most productive" members of society and giving it to everyone else, so be it. If we do not do anything to arrest the consolidation of power in this nation, we will end up with a situation of having a small percentage of "haves" and a great mass of "have nots" who will eventually revolt in an attempt to redistribute the wealth of this nation in their own very inefficient way. Or, perhaps they won't. Either outcome is unacceptable
( ... )
Apocalyptic Regime? That's a fine example of hyperbole. Exactly how is the current regime Apocalyptic? I'd agree the current regime has screwed up more frequently than Jake Plummer did in his last playoff game, but I'm still waiting to see how the Bush/Cheney administration has brought about the apocalypse. The "continuing deregulation" you mention is hardly the cause for poverty in the U.S. It seems the citizens of the United States are continually being over-regulated in everything. We're taxed on every penny we earn. We're taxed on every penny we spend. Owning property involves even greater taxation. If you own a car, you're taxed. If you drive it, you're taxed even more. We're even taxed when we die. And after we die whatever we leave behind to our families and friends is taxed yet again. Preserving the middle class is by definition preserving free enterprise. Mercantilism is the phenomenon that created the middle class from the static tyranny of the feudal caste system. The redistribution of wealth and regulation of industry is
( ... )
Re: Mocking HyperbolejayhovaSeptember 2 2008, 23:27:44 UTC
No No! Not the guy with the chipmonk cheeks and the beauty quean govener of the largest state in the nation. They will crush us under their brutal heel. Obama Save us!
I'm for concentrating wealth into my hands. I really don't need to finace the government so that it can decide how to spend it. Yes Let's keep corporate monsters like Bill Gates from keeping and then spending their enormous profits on cancer research and charter shcools. Think of all the saleries of all the goverment regulators that could be paid with that money. Think of their families. What we need is more goverment and less freedom. Freedom will only be abused anyway. If something is going to be made, make it in China. Those jobs can be converted to service jobs that don't actually contribute to the GNP. Think how great it will be when the goverment regulates things like how much we make and how much things cost. BTW it's always cool to threaten people with violence. It makes you look tough and cool.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
When one must use it to win an argument (or an election).
As far as nationalized industry goes, that is very much a communist ideal. Nationalized industry was a cornerstone of the U.S.S.R. Nationalized industry implies government ownership and operation of industry. This of course demolishes the concept of private property and private enterprise. Explain to me exactly how that isn't a Marxist idea.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment