Anyone for Obama?

[XC700116]

I'm a Sociology Major, I've read one of them and the other does not exist.

The Comunist Manefesto was wrote by Karl Marx, the Karl Marx Manefesto does not exist (stop making $.hit up).

And for the Record neither of them come close to communism but I am sure you can twist it around.

Spread the fear!

Sorry I mis spoke I meant Das Kapital, I got all wound up typing.

Das Kapital is the book that he wrote to attempt to debunk Capitalism to every extent.

Answer me this. How com every Marxist state has a problem keeping people in while we have problems keeping people from marxist states like Cuba out?

Tell me how the Democratic platform isn't far more closely related to the Marxist ideals than the Ideals on which our country was founded.

Tell me how higher taxation helps our economy?

Tell me how Obamas policys, which we will never hear completely about from the mainstream media will turn our economy around.

I'm not saying that McCain has all the answers like the libs seem to think Obama does. I am saying that he will do less damage than Oboma would.

 

[XC700116]

So the liberals are taking away your guns and rights and money.... and now they are taking your rep too? Where will it end?

BTW.... seems like most all people that actually post their own opinion/perspectives on a topic here get hit with negative rep. I just wish an opposing thought or idea was easier to reply with then giving negative rep. Seems like it would require some sort of independent thought and/or higher brain functions.

BTW I haven't given out any Neg rep for anyones views. Although there is someone on here that has a pattern of doing it and then posting their opinion immediately after. At least they should have the balls to put their name on it.

Also the liberals have a documented history of supporting anti-gun laws especially the 2 that are in question. Their voting history proves it.

 

[ruffryder]

BTW I haven't given out any Neg rep for anyones views. Although there is someone on here that has a pattern of doing it and then posting their opinion immediately after. At least they should have the balls to put their name on it.

Just trying to point out that it seems that people on both sides of the argument get hit.

 

[cmantle1]

Just trying to point out that it seems that people on both sides of the argument get hit.

ditto

 

[XC700116]

Just trying to point out that it seems that people on both sides of the argument get hit.

I see. Either way it's pretty sad that you can't state your opinions or what you've learned about a subject without getting personally attacked. Like many Others I'm guilty of striking back when someone calls me out.

 

[milehighassassin]

Sorry I mis spoke I meant Das Kapital, I got all wound up typing.

Das Kapital is the book that he wrote to attempt to debunk Capitalism to every extent.

Answer me this. How com every Marxist state has a problem keeping people in while we have problems keeping people from marxist states like Cuba out?

Tell me how the Democratic platform isn't far more closely related to the Marxist ideals than the Ideals on which our country was founded.

Tell me how higher taxation helps our economy?

Tell me how Obamas policys, which we will never hear completely about from the mainstream media will turn our economy around.

I'm not saying that McCain has all the answers like the libs seem to think Obama does. I am saying that he will do less damage than Oboma would.

What do you consider a "Marxist State"?

Well to clarify this, other than Cuba show me a Communist economy.

China doesn't count. They are not a COMMUNIST economy, only their government is Communist, and neither doest North Korea.

Cuba is actually a self-supporting economy, while they might not have GREAT conditions they are doing it on their own. If they didn't have a blockade things would certainly be different.



While Karl Marx was very radical, he has MANY valid points. Capitalism helps the rich. Yes, it does help middle and lower class, but not near as much as the upper class. Trickle down economics is complete bull****. It is like a pyramid scheme.

I don't have all the answers, nor do I think I do but I have honestly investigated both sides of the argument.

I do know that we cannot continue spending money while lowering taxes. It is like having a job and going from working 40 hours a week to 20 while increasing what you are buying. We are borrowing money from China and passing our debt onto my grandchildren. Obama does have a plan to balance the budget and yes that will include taxation. Pay it off now or continue to pay crazy interest rates on those Trillions.

What damage is Obama going to do? Stop spending money recklessly?

 

[Good to Go]

What damage is Obama going to do? Stop spending money recklessly?

He'll spend his way to national insecurity and welfare dependency.

No doubt, he's got a government plan for EVERYTHING.

 

[milehighassassin]

He'll spend his way to national insecurity and welfare dependency.

No doubt, he's got a government plan for EVERYTHING.

He does?

Care to show me his plan for EVERYTHING?

 

[Mafesto]

Running mate choices may very well change my views, but as of now, I would vote for Obama.

 

[milehighassassin]

Running mate choices may very well change my views, but as of now, I would vote for Obama.

That is how I feel.

If Clinton does get on board I will not vote for Obama, more than likely I will vote for the Libertarian.

Pelosi (I don't think she will be on board either), I am not voting for him.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Edwards.

 

[Mafesto]

That is how I feel.

If Clinton does get on board I will not vote for Obama, more than likely I will vote for the Libertarian.

Pelosi (I don't think she will be on board either), I am not voting for him.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Edwards.

A big ditto on that one!
Tom Daschle would be a good pick for him.


If McCain chose Huckabee, he would have my vote for sure.
In fact if he chose Huckabee, most on here will get tired of me posting in support of them!

 

[pernikm]

When one is discussing Karl Marx one should separate a couple things that most people do not. The form of government and the econmic system. The forms of government include dictatorships, full democracies, republics, Monarchies. It should be noted we are a republic. In a full democracy everyone votes on every issue. We send representatives. Democracies tend to be slow and inefficient...don't believe me? Look at congress. Dictatorships tend to be very efficent...albeit unfair...But I degress.

Economies can be socialist or capitalistic or a degree of both. Communism, combines the form of government and economic system to the degree that government owns industry to redistribute wealth "for the common good". Taxes are very high in that the goal is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and create the "proletariate" or middle class of which Marx preached. On the surface, this system is very popular with the poor for obvious reasons. Unfortunatly, history has proven this system destroys incentive and the ultimate result is that everyone...except those in power...become poor...Cuba, Soviet Union, China. Again, this in turn becomes unpopular and countries resort to a more dictatorial form of government to maintain power, control. Ie. Cuba, Soviet Union, China.

Now on the other hand, there is capitalism. So far Capitalism seems to be working. There is greater disparity between the richest and the poorest and the rich seem to get richer, while the poor tend to get more poor. This econmic system seem to be very popular and governments tend not to be so totalitarian and more democratic, probably because people like the opportunity to improve themsleves. Unfortunately, here is the rub, as Democracies only exist as long as they don't vote themselve riches from the treasury and drive the economy back to socialism and a redistribution of wealth from the the rich to the poor. This is a very popular notion in America. Let's make those rich bastards pay! Well, although this mind set is brings a kind of solice to the mind, it is also socialism, which historically does not work well.

So where are we? We are both capatalistic and socialist at the same time. Most of the federal tax monies go to social programs. Wellfare is socialistic with all of its characteristics. It has been shown to make the poor richer..but not my much and destoys incentive.

One of the big new social programs being touted today is socialized medicine and is going to be quite popular. But lets be honest. Like all social programs it is a redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots. Will this build a better medical system? No, because the amount of money is the same or worse. Right now you have money being extracted from industry and the individual to go to insurance giants...Bad as it may seem, they will tend to be more efficient than the money being extracted from the individual and going to the government. How bad can this be? Think of the department of motor vehicles coupled with the IRS. I can't think of a better model for poor service and inefficiency.

Ultimately as a voter you should decide. Should we try to redistribute wealth and destoy incentive? Or should we push competition and free markets but avoid safety nets? There is a balance to be sure.

The democrats tend to be more socialist and the republicans more capitalist. But both are spending money like drunk sailors. Keep in mind, the democrats have controled congress for the last two years, not the republicans, and spending has not improved. So the question becomes, where do you want you newly increased taxes to go? How do you want your wealth redistributed?

Karl

Running mate choices may very well change my views, but as of now, I would vote for Obama.

 

[Mafesto]

When one is discussing Karl Marx one should separate a couple things that most people do not. The form of government and the econmic system. The forms of government include dictatorships, full democracies, republics, Monarchies. It should be noted we are a republic. In a full democracy everyone votes on every issue. We send representatives. Democracies tend to be slow and inefficient...don't believe me? Look at congress. Dictatorships tend to be very efficent...albeit unfair...But I degress.

Economies can be socialist or capitalistic or a degree of both. Communism, combines the form of government and economic system to the degree that government owns industry to redistribute wealth "for the common good". Taxes are very high in that the goal is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor and create the "proletariate" or middle class of which Marx preached. On the surface, this system is very popular with the poor for obvious reasons. Unfortunatly, history has proven this system destroys incentive and the ultimate result is that everyone...except those in power...become poor...Cuba, Soviet Union, China. Again, this in turn becomes unpopular and countries resort to a more dictatorial form of government to maintain power, control. Ie. Cuba, Soviet Union, China.

Now on the other hand, there is capitalism. So far Capitalism seems to be working. There is greater disparity between the richest and the poorest and the rich seem to get richer, while the poor tend to get more poor. This econmic system seem to be very popular and governments tend not to be so totalitarian and more democratic, probably because people like the opportunity to improve themsleves. Unfortunately, here is the rub, as Democracies only exist as long as they don't vote themselve riches from the treasury and drive the economy back to socialism and a redistribution of wealth from the the rich to the poor. This is a very popular notion in America. Let's make those rich bastards pay! Well, although this mind set is brings a kind of solice to the mind, it is also socialism, which historically does not work well.

So where are we? We are both capatalistic and socialist at the same time. Most of the federal tax monies go to social programs. Wellfare is socialistic with all of its characteristics. It has been shown to make the poor richer..but not my much and destoys incentive.

One of the big new social programs being touted today is socialized medicine and is going to be quite popular. But lets be honest. Like all social programs it is a redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots. Will this build a better medical system? No, because the amount of money is the same or worse. Right now you have money being extracted from industry and the individual to go to insurance giants...Bad as it may seem, they will tend to be more efficient than the money being extracted from the individual and going to the government. How bad can this be? Think of the department of motor vehicles coupled with the IRS. I can't think of a better model for poor service and inefficiency.

Ultimately as a voter you should decide. Should we try to redistribute wealth and destoy incentive? Or should we push competition and free markets but avoid safety nets? There is a balance to be sure.

The democrats tend to be more socialist and the republicans more capitalist. But both are spending money like drunk sailors. Keep in mind, the democrats have controled congress for the last two years, not the republicans, and spending has not improved. So the question becomes, where do you want you newly increased taxes to go? How do you want your wealth redistributed?

Karl

Very good points.
Your thorough explanation promotes viewing issues more objectively than I have been.

The health care issue......I think you are right, we don't want the govt. running that one.
Sure, the current system is in need of some serious tweeking.
So why not give it that tweeking instead of letting the govt. take it over?

 

[Ollie]

What damage is Obama going to do? Stop spending money recklessly?

Heres a question for ya.
When you go to balance the budget, the one major way you do that is to curb spending.

Yet he has already stated (and I believe put forward legislation) he wants to increase by a factor of 4 the money we give away to other countries.
He wants to cut military spending (Clinton did that and it was a disaster for our military).
Obama wants to increase domestic spending on social programs.
How do you do all this??
You tax the living chit outta everyone in the country.

Everyone keeps talking about how he will change things.
Yet I have not seen ANYTHING that shows me he will change it for the better.
If you like the idea of your taxes tripling, then I guess that would be a change.
If you like the idea of surrendering to terrorist, then I guess that would be a change also.
LEts not forget he wants to do away with boarders and let everyone come and go as they please. I guess if you like drug lords and terrorists simply walking into the country, that would be a change.

Yes, he is the candidate for change, but I don't think it will be change for the better.

 

[Powderhunter]

Its called the NREPA. With Dems controlling everything I'm scared.
A bill that would designate all of my/your favorite riding areas off limits. Already been drafted.
But azz clowns wouldnt know it if it hit em upside the head.
Cause they live in land of th suck.

Unknowingly killing our sport you will.


http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/Action_Alerts/07/SAWS_Action_Alert_-_Hearing_on_Northern_Rockies_Ecosystem_Protection_Act.htm

We informed our members about HR1975 in February 2007. We have also sent out information to our members regarding this proposal in prior years under the various names and different bill numbers that the proposal has held.



HR1975 is the grand daddy of all wilderness bills. This bill, if it were to pass in the House and Senate and was also signed by the President, would implement portions of the "Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative" of "The Wildlands Project", and it would designate approximately 20.5 million MORE acres as wilderness in the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.



This bill currently has 115 co-sponsors in the House. Ten of those co-sponsors are democrats that are also members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands (refer to the subcommittee member names below in bold), which will be holding the referenced hearing. Recall that the democrats are currently in control of the House during this 110th Congress.



Is there enough support among the subcommittee members to promote this bill out of this subcommittee for a larger House vote? I certainly hope not, but since we don't know for sure, we need you to act on this alert ASAP.



http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=27&extmode=view&extid=111



The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, led by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), will hold a legislative hearing on the following bill:

H.R. 1975: To designate certain National Forest System lands and public lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, wildland recovery areas, and biological connecting corridors, and for other purposes.(Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act)

When: Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

Where: Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building

The hearing will be webcast live on the Committee's Web site at:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/

Requested Action:

SAWS requests that you write a short and polite letter (email), or make a phone call if your prefer, requesting that your House Representative NOT support this bill in the event it does make it to a full House vote. And if one of the subcommittee members listed below is YOUR representative, it is imperative that you contact them immediately and request that they oppose this legislation.



20.5 million more acres of wilderness would not only shut down a good portion of the areas that we currently are allowed to recreate on, but it would also devastate local communities near these new proposed wilderness areas from the loss of jobs caused by numerous businesses going under due to the lack of access to our national forests.

[/un quote]

 

[Ollie]

oh yea.
Lets not forget the other "change" Obama would make.

Putting Al Gore in charge of Enviromental Protection Agency is a change. Kiss your riding goodbye.

But hey,
vote for Obama if you like change.

 

[Mafesto]

oh yea.
Lets not forget the other "change" Obama would make.

Putting Al Gore in charge of Enviromental Protection Agency is a change.

Is that speculation?
If you can provide some credible evidence on that one, I will vow today to vote (and campaign) against him.

 

[winter brew]

I seem to remember Hillary saying she would put Gore in charge of the environment, havn't heard that from Obama but it wouldn't surpride me. It guarantees getting votes from the masses of ill-informed environmental extremists. Even Mccain has jumped on the short green bus in search of votes!

 

[graveler]

doesnt Bush have a son we can vote for????

 

[Ollie]

I seem to remember Hillary saying she would put Gore in charge of the environment, havn't heard that from Obama but it wouldn't surpride me. It guarantees getting votes from the masses of ill-informed environmental extremists. Even Mccain has jumped on the short green bus in search of votes!

You know, I could be wrong.
It may indeed be Hillary. I was watching CNN a few weeks back.

However, I decided to check it out a little more.
I went to Obama's web page and read up on his Enviromental standards.
HOLY **** IS THIS GUY SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Kiss your riding goodbye.
This guy is seriously OUT THERE!
He talks about getting spending undercontrol. Read the Enviromental standards at the bottom of the link.
Everything he talks about will cost BILLIONS each. Where do you think all the money is going to come from?