Looks like Obama is our next president......10% LEAD over McCain!!! 10%!

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Lord__Darkstorn

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Strider212

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Strider212

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

You know what another major problem is? POPULATION GROWTH! Pretty soon everyone in the U.S. is going to be on a bread and water diet (which is better than most of the world's population right now)

Natural recources are limited. :|

Uhh, that's not really ON-TOPIC but I had to say something....and I'm too lazy to post a new topic.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Lord__Darkstorn

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical number of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

Reaganomics? There was nothing libertarian about Reaganomics.

The Myths of Reaganomics by Murray Rothbard.

See what real libertarian philosophers have to say about supply side bull**** before spouting inane remarks.

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

Polls are actually a very good indication of things.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

I love that people make it seem as though Obama calls for communism. The closet thing to "socialism" Obama brings to the table is socialized healthcare. We are the only developed nation in the world without socialized healthcare and 48 million are unisured becuase of it.

Obama isn't a socialist, calling him one and throwing him in with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Marx just comes off as juvenile and severely uninformed.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

Obama wants change because America is just circling the toilet after 8 years of failed policies. It certainly isn't change for change sakes.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Strider212

[QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

sSubZerOo

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]

And what about McCain supporting torture, and Gautanamo Bay?

Habeus Corpus anyone?

mfacek

McCain doesn't support torture and wants to close Guantanamo.

He voted to allow torture just this year-

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Strider212

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

So I assume you believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' that will magically correct all of the free market's wrongs. Greenspan/Bush/Reagan didn't regulate well. And here we are.

My real beef with Libertarians is their social ideology. They worship individualism and privacy, which isn't healthy.

I can see why Libertarians support conservative candidates, because they are rich and greedy and don;t care if their neighbors starve because they don't know them well either way. My philosophy professor once said that individualism is an "excuse for people who don't have any friends."

I agree with him on it for the most part.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.sSubZerOo

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Strider212

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

We are talking about the economy side of thigns.. And yes its exactly that.. Where every one is treated equal and its a stable single class where every one basically got assigned jobs.. Russia was exactly that.. The only thing that went against Marx's definition was the fact it was ruled by a oligarchy/dictatorship.. Marx was fond of the democratic side of thigns..

No where does it say that obama wants to desolve social classes.

[QUOTE="mfacek"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="mfacek"]

And what about McCain supporting torture, and Gautanamo Bay?

Habeus Corpus anyone?

Jacobistheman

McCain doesn't support torture and wants to close Guantanamo.

He voted to allow torture just this year-

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html

:lol:

Was this before, or after he voted to let them continue to do it?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Strider212

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

You're half right. Marx advocated something that the world has never seen before, even now. But Russia was not Socialist. Russia is considered by most historians to have been a Leninist country. Leninism differs from Marxism because Vladimir Lenin came up with the idea that a true Communist 'utopia' could not exist while it had enemies in the world. So Lenin expounded that Russia must become a powerful totalitarian state, crush it's enemies, and then there would be freedom to have a Communist state. Leninism didn't work the way he wanted to, to say the least.

Socialism is the way to go, IMO.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Strider212

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

It depends entirely on the situation and what you consider over intervention.. I would agree, I think there is a healthy balance needed in all facets of life.. That being said sometimes its just neccesary.. The great depression could have been avoided possibly if the government reacted fast enough, instead it sat on its hands the entire crash and really didn't do anything..

So I assume you believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' that will magically correct all of the free market's wrongs. Greenspan/Bush/Reagan didn't regulate well. And here we are.

My real beef with Libertarians is their social ideology. They worship individualism and privacy, which isn't healthy.

I can see why Libertarians support conservative candidates, because they are rich and greedy and don;t care if their neighbors starve because they don't know them well either way. My philosophy professor once said that individualism is an "excuse for people who don't have any friends."

I agree with him on it for the most part.

Lord__Darkstorn

lol, Reaganomics? Adam Smith? You haven't read much libertarian philosophy have you? Ever read Mises? Any Austro libertarian?

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

So I assume you believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' that will magically correct all of the free market's wrongs. Greenspan/Bush/Reagan didn't regulate well. And here we are.

My real beef with Libertarians is their social ideology. They worship individualism and privacy, which isn't healthy.

I can see why Libertarians support conservative candidates, because they are rich and greedy and don;t care if their neighbors starve because they don't know them well either way. My philosophy professor once said that individualism is an "excuse for people who don't have any friends."

I agree with him on it for the most part.

Rhazakna

lol, Reaganomics? Adam Smith? You haven't read much libertarian philosophy have you? Ever read Mises? Any Austro libertarian?

You obviously need to Wikipedia 'Libertarian.'

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

So I assume you believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' that will magically correct all of the free market's wrongs. Greenspan/Bush/Reagan didn't regulate well. And here we are.

My real beef with Libertarians is their social ideology. They worship individualism and privacy, which isn't healthy.

I can see why Libertarians support conservative candidates, because they are rich and greedy and don;t care if their neighbors starve because they don't know them well either way. My philosophy professor once said that individualism is an "excuse for people who don't have any friends."

I agree with him on it for the most part.

Lord__Darkstorn

lol, Reaganomics? Adam Smith? You haven't read much libertarian philosophy have you? Ever read Mises? Any Austro libertarian?

You obviously need to Wikipedia 'Libertarian.'

What? Libertarianism is very broad. There are libertarians (like myself) who disagree with Smith and Reagan every bit as much as Marx. Look up Agorism. It's a philosophy that's every bit as anti-corporation as the most radical form of socialism.

Adam Smith is just one very, very small part of libertarian philosophy, and certainly not a part many libertarian philosophers agree with. Reaganomics wasn't libertarian at all. Read the link I posted.

Polls are actually a very good indication of things.mfacek

No, not exactly.

First, popular vote has never determined an election. Second, look at the types of people that actually take the polls. Are undecided votes included? Are casually-interested citizens included? No. Most often, hardcore liberals or conservatives are the ones answering the polls. Not exactly an accurate population sample.

I love that people make it seem as though Obama calls for communism. The closet thing to "socialism" Obama brings to the table is socialized healthcare. We are the only developed nation in the world without socialized healthcare and 48 million are unisured becuase of it.

Obama isn't a socialist, calling him one and throwing him in with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Marx just comes off as juvenile and severely uninformed.mfacek

First off, I never called Obama a socialist: that was an insinuation that you made. It is evident, however, that he believes in several utopian ideas where there are no poor people and everyone has a job.

Second, so just because every other nation has socialized health care, that makes it a good thing? Have you ever studied the economics of socialized medicine?

Giving everyone health care, essentially makes the price of health care equivalent to zero. That means that everyone and their brother would flood hospitals nationwide with nothing less than the sniffles. So guess what? When your daddy comes in for a real emergency, say a heart attack, he has to wait because of huge lines caused by socialized medicine.

Another problem with socialized medicine is that it essentially takes away all incentive for doctors to work at a fair pace. Doctors are no longer paid on a patient by patient basis, so what incentive is there for them to offer speedy, quality helathcare? If you receive the same paycheck each week regardless of your performance, what keeps you from slacking off? Nothing.

Obama wants change because America is just circling the toilet after 8 years of failed policies. It certainly isn't change for change sakes.mfacek

Really? That sounds like it to me. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is so busy touting the words "Change! Change! Change!" that he hasn't spent the time to really explain what he wants to change! He is a wonderful speaker, much better than the other candidates, but I don't buy his change mantra. Other politicians have used the same mantra, and they didn't perform any better.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.sSubZerOo

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

It depends entirely on the situation and what you consider over intervention.. I would agree, I think there is a healthy balance needed in all facets of life.. That being said sometimes its just neccesary.. The great depression could have been avoided possibly if the government reacted fast enough, instead it sat on its hands the entire crash and really didn't do anything..

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

So I assume you believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' that will magically correct all of the free market's wrongs. Greenspan/Bush/Reagan didn't regulate well. And here we are.

My real beef with Libertarians is their social ideology. They worship individualism and privacy, which isn't healthy.

I can see why Libertarians support conservative candidates, because they are rich and greedy and don;t care if their neighbors starve because they don't know them well either way. My philosophy professor once said that individualism is an "excuse for people who don't have any friends."

I agree with him on it for the most part.

Rhazakna

lol, Reaganomics? Adam Smith? You haven't read much libertarian philosophy have you? Ever read Mises? Any Austro libertarian?

You obviously need to Wikipedia 'Libertarian.'

What? Libertarianism is very broad. There are libertarians (like myself) who disagree with Smith and Reagan every bit as much as Marx. Look up Agorism. It's a philosophy that's every bit as anti-corporation as the most radical form of socialism.

Adam Smith is just one very, very small part of libertarian philosophy, and certainly not a part many libertarian philosophers agree with. Reaganomics wasn't libertarian at all. Read the link I posted.

Agorism eliminates the state. That means no gov. services

Agorism makes the free market even more invasive into the lives of people.

Agorism encourages UNTAXED economic activity.

Agorism SUCKS!

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Lord__Darkstorn

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

You're half right. Marx advocated something that the world has never seen before, even now. But Russia was not Socialist. Russia is considered by most historians to have been a Leninist country. Leninism differs from Marxism because Vladimir Lenin came up with the idea that a true Communist 'utopia' could not exist while it had enemies in the world. So Lenin expounded that Russia must become a powerful totalitarian state, crush it's enemies, and then there would be freedom to have a Communist state. Leninism didn't work the way he wanted to, to say the least.

Socialism is the way to go, IMO.

To you last statement, I have to disagree. There are HEAPS of economic data that show mass redistribution of wealth actually hurts the economy. It creates gigantic disincentives for the workforce. And if the workforce ain't workin' it ain't good.

In the end, the math doesn't lie.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

So I assume you believe in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' that will magically correct all of the free market's wrongs. Greenspan/Bush/Reagan didn't regulate well. And here we are.

My real beef with Libertarians is their social ideology. They worship individualism and privacy, which isn't healthy.

I can see why Libertarians support conservative candidates, because they are rich and greedy and don;t care if their neighbors starve because they don't know them well either way. My philosophy professor once said that individualism is an "excuse for people who don't have any friends."

I agree with him on it for the most part.

Lord__Darkstorn

lol, Reaganomics? Adam Smith? You haven't read much libertarian philosophy have you? Ever read Mises? Any Austro libertarian?

You obviously need to Wikipedia 'Libertarian.'

What? Libertarianism is very broad. There are libertarians (like myself) who disagree with Smith and Reagan every bit as much as Marx. Look up Agorism. It's a philosophy that's every bit as anti-corporation as the most radical form of socialism.

Adam Smith is just one very, very small part of libertarian philosophy, and certainly not a part many libertarian philosophers agree with. Reaganomics wasn't libertarian at all. Read the link I posted.

Agorism eliminates the state. That means no gov. services

Agorism makes the free market even more invasive into the lives of people.

Agorism encourages UNTAXED economic activity.

Agorism SUCKS!

Agorism is a method of eliminating the State. I'm not an Agorist, but Agorists are anti-corporate. It's a fact. An purely agoric wouldn't even have corporations.

How does agorism make the free market invasive? The main idea behind agorism is voluntarism. All exchanges must be voluntary. How is that invasive?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Strider212

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

It depends entirely on the situation and what you consider over intervention.. I would agree, I think there is a healthy balance needed in all facets of life.. That being said sometimes its just neccesary.. The great depression could have been avoided possibly if the government reacted fast enough, instead it sat on its hands the entire crash and really didn't do anything..

Incorrest. The purpose of the Great Depression was not to cut spending, but to CARE FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE PEOPLE!

FDR was hands down our greatest President because he made sure that people SURVIVED the Depression; if he was being conservative about it many more people would have died because of it. Remember the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) which created MILLIONS of jobs across the country implroving infrastructure? Remember the NRA (National Recovery Administration) which gave checks to tens of millions of down-and-out Americans who couldn;t affors to buy food? Remember the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority, which still exists to this day) which was true Socialism in the U.S. and took money from giant corporations and gave the profits to the farmers? The New Deal kicked major ass.

[QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.-Austin-

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

Form of government=/= how people use that system of government.

Even dictatorships can be benefitial if they are well done.

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Strider212

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

You're half right. Marx advocated something that the world has never seen before, even now. But Russia was not Socialist. Russia is considered by most historians to have been a Leninist country. Leninism differs from Marxism because Vladimir Lenin came up with the idea that a true Communist 'utopia' could not exist while it had enemies in the world. So Lenin expounded that Russia must become a powerful totalitarian state, crush it's enemies, and then there would be freedom to have a Communist state. Leninism didn't work the way he wanted to, to say the least.

Socialism is the way to go, IMO.

To you last statement, I have to disagree. There are HEAPS of economic data that show mass redistribution of wealth actually hurts the economy. It creates gigantic disincentives for the workforce. And if the workforce ain't workin' it ain't good.

In the end, the math doesn't lie.

Actually, it was Alexander Hamilton who proclaimed that gov. spending, and therefore debt, was a 'blessing.' And isn;t he your American Capitalist messiah?

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Lord__Darkstorn

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

It depends entirely on the situation and what you consider over intervention.. I would agree, I think there is a healthy balance needed in all facets of life.. That being said sometimes its just neccesary.. The great depression could have been avoided possibly if the government reacted fast enough, instead it sat on its hands the entire crash and really didn't do anything..

Incorrest. The purpose of the Great Depression was not to cut spending, but to CARE FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE PEOPLE!

FDR was hands down our greatest President because he made sure that people SURVIVED the Depression; if he was being conservative about it many more people would have died because of it. Remember the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) which created MILLIONS of jobs across the country implroving infrastructure? Remember the NRA (National Recovery Administration) which gave checks to tens of millions of down-and-out Americans who couldn;t affors to buy food? Remember the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority, which still exists to this day) which was true Socialism in the U.S. and took money from giant corporations and gave the profits to the farmers? The New Deal kicked major ass.

See you would think that, but he had some of the worst economic policies in the history of the United States. Check out this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration

FDR actually endorsed price floors. In other words, he created shortages to keep prices high? How the hell were people supposed to pay for things when the prices were so high? Your same NRA was responsible for this. Terrible policy.

Second of all, no doubt FDR brought employment, but it wasn't his policies that ended the depression. Have you ever seen some of the work done by the CCC? A lot of it was awful. The war brought about high levels of productive work that weren't present during the depression. The difference was the work was PRODUCTIVE.

Creating jobs is a useless activity if the work isn't productive. If I am a politician, and I create 1000 jobs involving people eating pencils, does that make me a worth candidate? No.

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Strider212

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

It depends entirely on the situation and what you consider over intervention.. I would agree, I think there is a healthy balance needed in all facets of life.. That being said sometimes its just neccesary.. The great depression could have been avoided possibly if the government reacted fast enough, instead it sat on its hands the entire crash and really didn't do anything..

Incorrest. The purpose of the Great Depression was not to cut spending, but to CARE FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE PEOPLE!

FDR was hands down our greatest President because he made sure that people SURVIVED the Depression; if he was being conservative about it many more people would have died because of it. Remember the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) which created MILLIONS of jobs across the country implroving infrastructure? Remember the NRA (National Recovery Administration) which gave checks to tens of millions of down-and-out Americans who couldn;t affors to buy food? Remember the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority, which still exists to this day) which was true Socialism in the U.S. and took money from giant corporations and gave the profits to the farmers? The New Deal kicked major ass.

See you would think that, but he had some of the worst economic policies in the history of the United States. Check out this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration

FDR actually endorsed price floors. In other words, he created shortages to keep prices high? How the hell were people supposed to pay for things when the prices were so high? Your same NRA was responsible for this. Terrible policy.

Second of all, no doubt FDR brought employment, but it wasn't his policies that ended the depression. Have you ever seen some of the work done by the CCC? A lot of it was awful. The war brought about high levels of productive work that weren't present during the depression. The difference was the work was PRODUCTIVE.

Creating jobs is a useless activity if the work isn't productive. If I am a politician, and I create 1000 jobs involving people eating pencils, does that make me a worth candidate? No.

CCC work can't be considered lackluster, since it was mostly building fences and trails and walls. The reason it=s that they were getting paid, and therefore able to survive.

[QUOTE="mfacek"]Polls are actually a very good indication of things.Strider212

No, not exactly.

First, popular vote has never determined an election. Second, look at the types of people that actually take the polls. Are undecided votes included? Are casually-interested citizens included? No. Most often, hardcore liberals or conservatives are the ones answering the polls. Not exactly an accurate population sample.

...The polls in key swing states are a good indictaion of thigs. Obviously not the overall poll, but polls done in certain states are indications of things.

I love that people make it seem as though Obama calls for communism. The closet thing to "socialism" Obama brings to the table is socialized healthcare. We are the only developed nation in the world without socialized healthcare and 48 million are unisured becuase of it.

Obama isn't a socialist, calling him one and throwing him in with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Marx just comes off as juvenile and severely uninformed.mfacek

First off, I never called Obama a socialist: that was an insinuation that you made. It is evident, however, that he believes in several utopian ideas where there are no poor people and everyone has a job.

You say we will have a socialist capitol hill. If that doesn't insinuate him as a socialist, I have no clue what does.

Second, so just because every other nation has socialized health care, that makes it a good thing? Have you ever studied the economics of socialized medicine?

Giving everyone health care, essentially makes the price of health care equivalent to zero. That means that everyone and their brother would flood hospitals nationwide with nothing less than the sniffles. So guess what? When your daddy comes in for a real emergency, say a heart attack, he has to wait because of huge lines caused by socialized medicine.

Another problem with socialized medicine is that it essentially takes away all incentive for doctors to work at a fair pace. Doctors are no longer paid on a patient by patient basis, so what incentive is there for them to offer speedy, quality helathcare? If you receive the same paycheck each week regardless of your performance, what keeps you from slacking off? Nothing.

You flat out portray Obama's stance on healthcare wrong. He doesn't want complete socialized healthcare, just that all Americans be covered with insurance. It wouldn't be free for anyone, only if you absolutely couldn't pay for it. Essentially the same hospitals, doctors, etc.

Obama wants change because America is just circling the toilet after 8 years of failed policies. It certainly isn't change for change sakes.mfacek

Really? That sounds like it to me. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is so busy touting the words "Change! Change! Change!" that he hasn't spent the time to really explain what he wants to change! He is a wonderful speaker, much better than the other candidates, but I don't buy his change mantra. Other politicians have used the same mantra, and they didn't perform any better.

How is changing the way we approach the war on terror (focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan more than the costly and deadly war in Iraq), restructuring the Bush tax cuts, setting a timetable for withdrawel from Iraq, changing our healthcare system, etc. just "change for the sake of change"?

[QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]Watch out. McCain may pull a Bush move and win the election! (he will lie and cheat)stupiddk

Wait a sec, Obama already is doing this with his party's early voting in Ohio and his direct ties to voter registration fraud organization Acorn. Oh well, Obama IS a terrorist and a liar and it will show come election day.

ahah anyone who believes an american born christian is a terrorist really is an idiot,

and McCain has lied more times than any other presidential candidate......

Ties to the anti-semitic, racist, and radical Louis Farrakahn of the Nation of Islam and Bob Ayers, the unrepentent terrorist. Obama is getting away with fraud with the american people wiht his lies. He is much more dangerous than McCain. How can you be proud of Obama if we get attacked again like 9/11 because of his lack of expierence on Foreign and Domestic Issues. Hes all fluff and politics. How come McCain's health plan, plan for Iraq/Afghanistan, Economic Stimulus plan is the only one that experts say will fix problems? Obama is a lair and a cheat.

whatever i hate debating online in these stupid political threads its a waste of time:roll:

[QUOTE="TheBeast789"]

ahah anyone who believes an american born christian is a terrorist really is an idiot,

and McCain has lied more times than any other presidential candidate......

flazzle

Look, you make Obama supporters look stupid with ignorant, unprovable claims like this. Unless you know every claim and every proven, admitted lie from all presidential candidates in history and can prove it, keep these blanket statements to yourself.

oh stfu and get off my case, no ones to hear you whine you price...

If anybody can do it, McCain can.cool_baller

It's funny that most people here don't realize that Al Gore was as much as 10% behind Bush in 2000 and look how he turned out:lol:.

[QUOTE="cool_baller"]If anybody can do it, McCain can.KH-mixerX

It's funny that most people here don't realize that Al Gore was as much as 10% behind Bush in 2000 and look how he turned out:lol:.

yeah he lost......

A lot can change in three weeks...supercubedude64

This ^^^

CCC work can't be considered lackluster, since it was mostly building fences and trails and walls. The reason it=s that they were getting paid, and therefore able to survive.Lord__Darkstorn

And why not? Work by definition is supposed to be productive. Economic growth doesn't happen without productivity. This is a fundamental economic principle.

[QUOTE="stupiddk"][QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]Watch out. McCain may pull a Bush move and win the election! (he will lie and cheat)TheBeast789

Wait a sec, Obama already is doing this with his party's early voting in Ohio and his direct ties to voter registration fraud organization Acorn. Oh well, Obama IS a terrorist and a liar and it will show come election day.

ahah anyone who believes an american born christian is a terrorist really is an idiot,

and McCain has lied more times than any other presidential candidate......

Ties to the anti-semitic, racist, and radical Louis Farrakahn of the Nation of Islam and Bob Ayers, the unrepentent terrorist. Obama is getting away with fraud with the american people wiht his lies. He is much more dangerous than McCain. How can you be proud of Obama if we get attacked again like 9/11 because of his lack of expierence on Foreign and Domestic Issues. Hes all fluff and politics. How come McCain's health plan, plan for Iraq/Afghanistan, Economic Stimulus plan is the only one that experts say will fix problems? Obama is a lair and a cheat.

whatever i hate debating online in these stupid political threads its a waste of time:roll:

It sickens me that there are millions of Americans out there right now that want to elect a man to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world during a war and one of the most severe financial crisis' since the Great Depression that has less than 180 days as a Junior Senator to call "experience." Obama is the youngest and least experienced person to ever run for President in the History of the US. It's ridiculous. Do you guys have any idea what this guy is gonna do to this country? He's a terrorist. End of Story. Anyone who has ties to people like Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers is definitely a terrorist. You might as well elect Castro himself.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]Yea dude, the election is already over. C_BozkurT_C

McCain and Palin make a pretty bad image for the US too IMO.-RocBoys9489-

i still don't like Biden as Obama's running mate. Biden gives off a radical aura imo. I really hate him.

Biden is a great American.

Palin is a radial Christian who believes unapologetically that victims of incest, rape or both should not be able to have an abortion. She belongs to a church that believes Alaska is a refuge for Christians during the apocolypse...

The only thing that seperates her from radical Islam is lipstick and hockey pucks.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="cool_baller"]If anybody can do it, McCain can.TheBeast789

It's funny that most people here don't realize that Al Gore was as much as 10% behind Bush in 2000 and look how he turned out:lol:.

yeah he lost......

Exactly my point.

[QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="cool_baller"]If anybody can do it, McCain can.KH-mixerX

It's funny that most people here don't realize that Al Gore was as much as 10% behind Bush in 2000 and look how he turned out:lol:.

yeah he lost......

Exactly my point.

ooooo I see what you did there lol

[QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"][QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]Watch out. McCain may pull a Bush move and win the election! (he will lie and cheat)KH-mixerX

Wait a sec, Obama already is doing this with his party's early voting in Ohio and his direct ties to voter registration fraud organization Acorn. Oh well, Obama IS a terrorist and a liar and it will show come election day.

ahah anyone who believes an american born christian is a terrorist really is an idiot,

and McCain has lied more times than any other presidential candidate......

Ties to the anti-semitic, racist, and radical Louis Farrakahn of the Nation of Islam and Bob Ayers, the unrepentent terrorist. Obama is getting away with fraud with the american people wiht his lies. He is much more dangerous than McCain. How can you be proud of Obama if we get attacked again like 9/11 because of his lack of expierence on Foreign and Domestic Issues. Hes all fluff and politics. How come McCain's health plan, plan for Iraq/Afghanistan, Economic Stimulus plan is the only one that experts say will fix problems? Obama is a lair and a cheat.

whatever i hate debating online in these stupid political threads its a waste of time:roll:

It sickens me that there are millions of Americans out there right now that want to elect a man to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world during a war and one of the most severe financial crisis' since the Great Depression that has less than 180 days as a Junior Senator to call "experience." Obama is the youngest and least experienced person to ever run for President in the History of the US. It's ridiculous. Do you guys have any idea what this guy is gonna do to this country? He's a terrorist. End of Story. Anyone who has ties to people like Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers is definitely a terrorist. You might as well elect Castro himself.

wow no offense but i dont i have ever found someone sounding so ignorant, just yelling out accusations of someone being a terrosist, you dont know crap about him seirously, just because one guy said, "well oh this guy is a terrorist or is related to terrorists" seriosly he probably did that for attention, stop trying to sound smart and calling people terrorist...

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"][QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="cool_baller"]If anybody can do it, McCain can.Nills

It's funny that most people here don't realize that Al Gore was as much as 10% behind Bush in 2000 and look how he turned out:lol:.

yeah he lost......

Exactly my point.

ooooo I see what you did there lol

Dude, you totally got me there with your sig:lol:.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"][QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"][QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]Watch out. McCain may pull a Bush move and win the election! (he will lie and cheat)TheBeast789

Wait a sec, Obama already is doing this with his party's early voting in Ohio and his direct ties to voter registration fraud organization Acorn. Oh well, Obama IS a terrorist and a liar and it will show come election day.

ahah anyone who believes an american born christian is a terrorist really is an idiot,

and McCain has lied more times than any other presidential candidate......

Ties to the anti-semitic, racist, and radical Louis Farrakahn of the Nation of Islam and Bob Ayers, the unrepentent terrorist. Obama is getting away with fraud with the american people wiht his lies. He is much more dangerous than McCain. How can you be proud of Obama if we get attacked again like 9/11 because of his lack of expierence on Foreign and Domestic Issues. Hes all fluff and politics. How come McCain's health plan, plan for Iraq/Afghanistan, Economic Stimulus plan is the only one that experts say will fix problems? Obama is a lair and a cheat.

whatever i hate debating online in these stupid political threads its a waste of time:roll:

It sickens me that there are millions of Americans out there right now that want to elect a man to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world during a war and one of the most severe financial crisis' since the Great Depression that has less than 180 days as a Junior Senator to call "experience." Obama is the youngest and least experienced person to ever run for President in the History of the US. It's ridiculous. Do you guys have any idea what this guy is gonna do to this country? He's a terrorist. End of Story. Anyone who has ties to people like Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers is definitely a terrorist. You might as well elect Castro himself.

wow no offense but i dont i have ever found someone sounding so ignorant, just yelling out accusations of someone being a terrosist, you dont know crap about him seirously, just because one guy said, "well oh this guy is a terrorist or is related to terrorists" seriosly he probably did that for attention, stop trying to sound smart and calling people terrorist...

Dude, obviously no one here takes you seriously with your horrible grammar, okay? Go spread your stupidity somewhere else. You know nothing about politics.

sweet, this is just awesome, ive always wanted our president to be some radical whose BFF is a known terrorist. LewyDeng2

O god...

Please....PLEASE inform yourself.

[QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"][QUOTE="TheBeast789"][QUOTE="stupiddk"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]Watch out. McCain may pull a Bush move and win the election! (he will lie and cheat)KH-mixerX

Wait a sec, Obama already is doing this with his party's early voting in Ohio and his direct ties to voter registration fraud organization Acorn. Oh well, Obama IS a terrorist and a liar and it will show come election day.

ahah anyone who believes an american born christian is a terrorist really is an idiot,

and McCain has lied more times than any other presidential candidate......

Ties to the anti-semitic, racist, and radical Louis Farrakahn of the Nation of Islam and Bob Ayers, the unrepentent terrorist. Obama is getting away with fraud with the american people wiht his lies. He is much more dangerous than McCain. How can you be proud of Obama if we get attacked again like 9/11 because of his lack of expierence on Foreign and Domestic Issues. Hes all fluff and politics. How come McCain's health plan, plan for Iraq/Afghanistan, Economic Stimulus plan is the only one that experts say will fix problems? Obama is a lair and a cheat.

whatever i hate debating online in these stupid political threads its a waste of time:roll:

It sickens me that there are millions of Americans out there right now that want to elect a man to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world during a war and one of the most severe financial crisis' since the Great Depression that has less than 180 days as a Junior Senator to call "experience." Obama is the youngest and least experienced person to ever run for President in the History of the US. It's ridiculous. Do you guys have any idea what this guy is gonna do to this country? He's a terrorist. End of Story. Anyone who has ties to people like Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers is definitely a terrorist. You might as well elect Castro himself.

McCain has ties to many questionable people; some with ties to Farrakhan, the black panthers, the watergate scandal, etc.
Some with radical stances or leanings.

Obama's lack of experience is a legitimate issue. The people he's known in his life are not.