i'm voting for ralph nader or no one! there is no democracy when our politicians are responsible only to corporate lobbyists who finance their campaigns and not the voters who believe they are meaningful constituents in a democracy. Obama sounded good when he was debating Edwards and subscribed to ending special interest group influence. However, once he received the nomination, he immediately spent a half hour kissing up to the all-powerful AIPAC lobby organization. That ended my interest in Obama.

 

How did I get drug into this?? LOL...

Capitalism---The America our forefathers created

Socialism/Marxism---The America Obama wants us to be...


This is a NO-Brain-er folks...

 

Do you actually read the stuff you type, or do you just drool **** like this all the time?

 

Yup, that was laughable..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I

 

Interesting...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-...eature=related

 

Somebody here makes sense. Why weren't there options for McKinney, Barr, and Nader on the poll? They are running too. If we all continue to vote for the same democrats and republicans we are the ones tho blame for where we are headed. You want change? don't vote for McCain OR Obama.

 

I don't think the system we have now is capitalism, anymore than theoretical marxism/socialism has ever been practiced in reality - using any of those terms might help to make a stereotype-based argument but has little to do with reality. By capitalism I have always thought of the concept of profiting from the concept/design/sale (including return on the capital necessary to do so) of some service or good. Not simply gaming of markets to profit, futures, selling short, takeovers etc - all of these are simply one form of greed or another, and a historical reason regulation over such greed has, and will always be necessary. Similarly dictatorships and welfare states are bastardizations of concepts behind socialism. To suggest that obama is a marxist/socialist as so many have done on this often mindless thread is inane. If somehow wanting to give people a fair shake is wrong, then our country is beyond saving. And for those who think they have 'done it the hard way, and are self-built men, and pulled themselves up etc etc - you better recount the opportunities you've had. Unless you overcame genuine "underprivilaged", try learning what that is truly like. And I'm not talking about rural poor as underprivilaged. We all suffer by having a large segment of our population dragging the country down.

The simple labeling and name calling is counterproductive - if what we have is capitalism why is so much of it being underwritten by govt. funds?

 

I "err on the side of life" to give each human a chance to make themselves. What they do with their life is up to them within(or outside
) the boundary of the law. That is the ultimate "Pro-Choice" stance. The choice and ability to fail. There are those who choose the path to success and others who dont. Those that choose higher education and those who dont. Those that apply their talents and those that dont.

Choices have consequences
Rights have responsibilities
Hard work has reward

The only "judgement" passed down is the one that says: "He/She is too untalented, lazy, uneducated, poor, or criminally minded to do for Him/Herself, therefor should be subsidised by the successful ones".

This is not equity. This is not fairness. This is the lowering of standards because those folks "arent good enough". The successfull folks are judged just as everyone else is: By standards.

This is what caused this mess with these defaulting mortgages and the investment instruments that are backed by them. If the Community Reinvestment Act hadnt been changed in 1995 to artificially change to mortgage market dynamic, there wouldnt have been the oppurtunity for "predatory" loans. The federal governement mandated lower standards for loan approval. There was a reason why the standards were there to begin with!