GameTavern Votes: Presidential Election 2008

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Bond, I would love to hear your reasoning for changing your vote. Considering your fiscallly conservative ways, I have a hard time understanding the switch.

This is my basic reasoning:

1. Bush. Bush has moved the Republican party into neoconservatism and evangelicalism, neither of which I agree with in theory or practice. McCain has certainly tried to move the party back to the center and fiscal conservatism, but that is questionable when he nominated Mrs. Palin as his vice president.

I firmly believe Bush has alienated an entire generation of would-be conservatives/Republicans. It is true Bush was not even a conservative himself, but many people will view him as the example of conservatism of their era, and a horrible example at that.

2. Time has passed McCain by. McCain's time to be nominated was in 2000, against Bush in the primaries. This is not McCain's time. He is seventy-two-years-old. He is from our parent's and grandparent's generation. They have had their time. They have done some good, and some bad. It is now our time to make our mark and bear the burden of responsibility.

3. Palin is dangerous. This is an honest question: does anyone believe a word Palin says? Does anyone believe she truly knows what she is talking about? Does she understand foreign policy implications? Does she understand free-trade versus protectionism? I don't believe she does.

Palin is also an evangelical, and I'm not so sure how I feel about evangelicals being in office anymore. I am not trying to say one shouldn't vote for someone because of their religion, but when one's religion encompasses their entire being and absolves them of wrong-doings because they are being driven "by God," then I worry.

4. This is Obama's time. If you look back at our greatest presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, they all share the fact that they were the right men for the right time. It's entirely possible that if they were elected at a different time they would have been miserable presidents. I believe Obama can heal the wounds that Bush has caused.

5. Obama is an intellectual. Our world is not one of black and white or absolutes. This is a shades of gray world, and I believe Obama understands that. His answers aren't always simple, or cut-and-dry, but it's obvious he has put tremendous thought into his answers, and that's what counts in my mind. He thinks. He reflects. He comes to difficult conclusions and admits they're difficult.

6. Greater focus on domestic issues. We can't afford our empire, our foreign intervention, and this living outside our means. We have to return to the principles that our country was founded upon, and that means a return to greater focus on domestic issues. Obama has spoken the most about helping our country, and not intervening in sovereign, foreign countries.

7. No more foreign wars, return to moral superiority. I believe Obama is less likely to get us into another Iraq than McCain is... we need to return to our moral superiority that worked so well for us for decades. It is our greatest strength, not our military superiority, but our moral superiority.

8. A Clinton-esque balanced budget. I'm not convinced either candidate will balance the budget as Clinton did, but I believe Obama has the best chance.

All that being said, it is true that I agree with very little of Obama's policies, and that I agree with more of McCain's, but for our country and for our time, I believe Obama is the right choice. Is it possible Obama could be more like Carter than Clinton or Kennedy? Yes. But I'm willing to take that risk. I believe Obama is the right man for the right time.

I understand this could very well appear as a giant contradiction, but I still think it's the right thing to do.

[TheGame]

Nicely put Bond. I'm also voting for Obama, obviously. Prof S, I know you said your dream ticket would be Powell and Mccain, and I'm pretty sure you heard how Powell feels about this election.

At this point, even though Mccain has more experience, he seems to have very bad jugement. His campaign has been extremely dirty and unstable.

[Professor S]

You bring up an excellent example, Game. Like Powell, I think Bond has made the wrong decision for the right reasons. The biggest probem I have with cnservatives who support Obama is that Obama is the anti-conservative.



Bush is not running for President. I know Obama thinks he is, but McCain is not Bush, and I'm surprised that Bond has fallen for this kind of propoganda. I don;t even think McCain likes Bush, but feels he needs to play politics.

Bond's assertion that Obama would be ANYTHING like Clinton when it comes to spending is absurd, even according to Obama's budget. Obama wants to increase spending by 1 trillion and has no real plans to pay for it. Worse yet, Congressional leadership want to increase spending by three times that amount, and they are the ones who will send the bills to Obama. So the question is, do you think Obama will veto a spending bill from the leadership of his own party? Do you really think ANYONE is getting a tax cut under Obama or a democrat led Congress? Mark my words: If Obama wins, you will hear the following in an address: "America, these times are far too tasking and our deficit is far to large for us to have tax cuts at this time. But, I will send out some checks to those that are truly struggling (read: those that don't pay taxes in the first place) and together we will get through these tough times." Mark my words.

I'll agree that Palin wasn't the best choice, but lets be real: She'll be the Vice President for essentially a one term President, and I see no chance of her even winning her own primary in four years a real candidate decides to run for the Republican ticket.

"This is Obama's time". That sounds like it came stright from an Obama ad. How do you think he'll heal woulnds when he is the most liberal Senator in the country? How has he ever shown he has been anything but lock step behind his party?

We're talking about someone who has stated they want to redistribute wealth, or "share your success"... this is a tenant of socialisma and one of the planks of communism. Obama may not be a socialist, but he sure sounds like one.

Obama says a lot of nice things, but the sad fact is little of what he says relates to any of his brief experience in public service. Bond, it blows my mind that with the supreme court in jeopardy, a congress led by idiots, yes IDIOTS like Pelosi and Reed and a time with so much at stake you would ignore all of your poltiical principles and vote based on feeling ("It's Obama's time" has nothing to do wiuth issues or facts) rather than rational thought. Thats not what intellectual Republicans do.

Another seemingly rational republican falls under the cult of Obama's personality.

[Dylflon]

I knew that the Professor couldn't go two pages in this thread with out being condescending towards someone else.

[TheGame]

Prof, I agree with you on a lot of what you said, and I do think Bond probably should have left the part about it being his time out.. or at least elaborated on it more. But even with that said, I still agree with Bond on it.

(If I had 2 weeks to make this post it'd sound better, since I'm a tad emotional on the subject. But I'ma make it quickly now.)

You almost have to look at the bigger picture. The reason to go for Obama is a lot more then his stance on certain issues, the very fact that he's about to be elected stands for a LOT more then just that.

My first point, throwing race completly out the window for this one... is the fact that you have a guy who is running one of the cleanest campaigns for president in recent history. I'm not gonna toss down the flag and say Obama has won, but lets look at it like this. If Mccain wins, what does it prove about politics? If Obama wins, what does it prove about them?

If Mccain wins, it proves that using fear and pointless off subject attacks actually plays over well with the american people. If Mccain wins, it proves that politics will be going in the same direction, straight to hell... And by him pulling it off it'll leave an impression on future people running for president that if you go low enough, even as far as trying to imply the person you're running against is a terrorist, it can help you "win".

If Obama wins, it proves that you can run a clean respectful election and win. If Obama wins, it proves to politians that the American people know how to look past low blow attacks, look past an unfortunate name, and look past race and judge people based more off of the content of their character.

Granted, I'll be the first to admit his race gives him advantages among certan crowds, as does Mccain's. But I think the implications made by electing a black president that will do our country good, It proves what america stands for, that we're truely a place that accepts change, and that accepts everyone. I think other countries would give us some credit for this.

Beyond that, what has made all the great presidents great wasn't just their stance on a few good issues, not everyone in the country agreed with them or voted for them. This includes John F. Kennedy, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, and even Washington.... What made them stand out in history (besides the fact that some of them were killed), is the fact that they had this presence to them that inspired people in their country to grow and be better.

No matter what Obama does, may he make mistakes or not, he will reignite the base of America in my opinion. That's why I'd call it his time. He is an inspirational speaker, he is a good person, and I think he loves his family, and loves his country. (And its sad I can't say that without questioning it about most recent times presidents)

Of course, as President Bush has proven, you don't know what they'll do until they get into power. But, would you rather trust someone who is running the most negitive campaign in history, and who has made extremely bad political feuled decisions just to get extra votes? Or would you rather truth the guy who is running a clean campaign, who is very inspirational... Who actually has the power to tell the american people something they don't want to hear, but they could still support it because he's respectful about it?

Are you rally looking for a positive change? Or are you looking for more of the same, and more of these elections to be trashy and unprofessional?

I'ma cut it off here, I could have probably written a lot more about it. But that's why I think its his time, and that's why I'm voting for Obama. Maybe 4-8 years from now a person who shares my more conservative views will come along and play the cards right. At this point, I feel like voting for Mccain would be a bad decision and it will not fare good for the country in the long term.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I knew that the Professor couldn't go two pages in this thread with out being condescending towards someone else.

Nothing in my post responding to Bond's comments were condescending, or were at least not intended to be. More exasperated than condescending, and I will admit to being a bit put-off by Bond's reasoning considering his political alignments, and that showed in my post. For that I apologize if it came off insulting. The questions were intended to be honest questions to someone who is philispohically conservative yet voting for Obama, who is now exposed to be a REAL socialist after this bomb-shell:



The man wants to flip the consitution on it's head. If the democrat running was Bill Clinton or even John Kerry, I would kind of understand where Bond was coming from, but its not. The democrat running is Barack Obama, and all the EVIDENCE points to the fact that Barack is the farthest left of any major candidate in recent years, if not ever. Notice I say evidence, and not Obama's rhetoric, which is very reasonable. But when you compare Obama's rhetoric to his actions as a public figure, they don't match up in the least.

And Xantar, this conversation has nothing to do with your view on politics, but is intended to be a conversation between two fiscally conservative people about why they would vote for Obama, since it goes against everything that a fiscal conservative stands for, and when Bond did not address his core values in that area that he's shown over the years in his reasoning, it shocks me. And your obvious baiting is a little tiresome, especially when you reference threads from a month or more ago, but its nice to know I've gotten to you. And with that I will no longer read any of your responses. See how annoying that is?

[Bond]

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I am always open to changing my mind and my political viewpoints, and I don't view this as a a sign of weakness or "flip-flopping." It's honest introspection.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Bush is not running for President. I know Obama thinks he is, but McCain is not Bush, and I'm surprised that Bond has fallen for this kind of propoganda. I don;t even think McCain likes Bush, but feels he needs to play politics.

I agree. McCain is definitely not Bush. But as I said before, I believe 2000 was McCain's year, not 2008. McCain has definitely drifted away from several of his more moderate viewpoints to the right to appease the Republican party's base. Just as I would agree with you that McCain doesn't particularly like Bush, do you think McCain particularly likes Palin? McCain is no Bush, and Palin is no McCain.

I like McCain, but I don't like him in this election cycle.

Bond's assertion that Obama would be ANYTHING like Clinton when it comes to spending is absurd, even according to Obama's budget. Obama wants to increase spending by 1 trillion and has no real plans to pay for it. Worse yet, Congressional leadership want to increase spending by three times that amount, and they are the ones who will send the bills to Obama. So the question is, do you think Obama will veto a spending bill from the leadership of his own party? Do you really think ANYONE is getting a tax cut under Obama or a democrat led Congress? Mark my words: If Obama wins, you will hear the following in an address: "America, these times are far too tasking and our deficit is far to large for us to have tax cuts at this time. But, I will send out some checks to those that are truly struggling (read: those that don't pay taxes in the first place) and together we will get through these tough times." Mark my words.

Well, I thought Bush would continue Clinton's balanced budget, and I was very mistaken about that, so I could be wrong here again. But, if Obama does raise taxes on the top 5%, stops foreign intervention, and even decreases military spending, I do believe there is some hope for a balanced budget. Of course, if he increases spending dramatically in the medicare, medicaid, and social security spectrum (the welfare spectrum), then there is no hope.

I do favor McCain's tax policy over Obama's. I don't like the idea of income tax on principle, but sometimes one has to air on the side of pragmatism over principle. But let's go back to Bush again for one moment. Decreasing taxes in a time of war? Obama's tax policy isn't the worst thing in light of Bush's mishandling of the economy.

Look, I am (my family) is not going to benefit at all from Obama's tax plan. If anything, we'll most likely have our taxes raised. But sometimes you have to put country first, and not always vote in one's own self interest.

"This is Obama's time". That sounds like it came stright from an Obama ad. How do you think he'll heal woulnds when he is the most liberal Senator in the country? How has he ever shown he has been anything but lock step behind his party?

Was not the Cold War Reagan's time? Was not the Civil War Lincoln's time? Was not the beginning of our country Washington's time? In light of history, I think this argument is quite rational and strong, but I don't have time to expand upon it.

We're talking about someone who has stated they want to redistribute wealth, or "share your success"... this is a tenant of socialisma and one of the planks of communism. Obama may not be a socialist, but he sure sounds like one.

I don't disagree, but let's end corporate welfare just as soon as we end the redistribution of wealth.

Obama says a lot of nice things, but the sad fact is little of what he says relates to any of his brief experience in public service. Bond, it blows my mind that with the supreme court in jeopardy, a congress led by idiots, yes IDIOTS like Pelosi and Reed and a time with so much at stake you would ignore all of your poltiical principles and vote based on feeling ("It's Obama's time" has nothing to do wiuth issues or facts) rather than rational thought. Thats not what intellectual Republicans do.

I again don't disagree. I would much rather have different parties control the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

And where are these intellectual Republicans? As far as I'm concerned, they're gone.

Originally Posted by Xantar

I'm no admirer of Bond or TheGame, as you well know. Hell, I used to call TheGame willfully blind and ignorant to his face, and I tend to think Bond's decision to vote Obama sort of gives the lie to his stated support for split government (which I never believed anyway, but that's another post). Believe me, I'm not stepping in here because those two are suddenly my best buddies. I'm posting this because of what I see as a disturbing tendency for you to turn everything into a ranting, personally-insulting tirade against everyone who disagrees with you.

I believe that one should stand by one's theoretical political principles, but, in the end, govern in a centrist fashion (aka. compromise), as I view centrism as the best hope for our country. I find the assertion that you think I'm "lying" rather insulting, but I digress.

[Professor S]

Bond, I just fear that you're throwing the baby our with the bath water over ideas that, IMO, are small when you look at the big picture. To me, the big picture is giving the current congress that might have a filibuster proof majority a socialist (or shudder the thought, marxist) President. We could feel the effects of a such a disastrous election for 30-50 years, especially in the supreme court where Obama's choices will affect at least two generations of Americans in very important areas(property rights, consitutional issues, states rights, etc.). What did you think of the embed in my last post? Did it move you at all (hopefully)?

Amd the intellectual Republicans I mention are those like Noonan, Will, Brooks and Powell, all of whom have had serious issues with the social republican far right wing of the party and Palin in particular. Trust me, I sympathize. I've often wanted to see a push towards a third party of Pragmatic Conservatives who push for reasonable social and economic freedoms, regulated through currency management and cattle shute regulation, but not the punitive actions of FDR's regime, inspired by the progressive movement of the early 20th century.

My fear is that sometimes we can be so impassioned about how social conservatoives, or as I refer to them "useful idiots", are getting in the way of real progress that we put the idea of the perfect in the way of the good. In these cases, we vote for someone like Obama, more out of disgust for some of the pandering of our own party than in agreement with theirs. I think this is more destructive than helpful to democracy in general.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You bring up an excellent example, Game. Like Powell, I think Bond has made the wrong decision for the right reasons. The biggest probem I have with cnservatives who support Obama is that Obama is the anti-conservative.



Bush is not running for President. I know Obama thinks he is, but McCain is not Bush, and I'm surprised that Bond has fallen for this kind of propoganda. I don;t even think McCain likes Bush, but feels he needs to play politics.

Bond's assertion that Obama would be ANYTHING like Clinton when it comes to spending is absurd, even according to Obama's budget. Obama wants to increase spending by 1 trillion and has no real plans to pay for it. Worse yet, Congressional leadership want to increase spending by three times that amount, and they are the ones who will send the bills to Obama. So the question is, do you think Obama will veto a spending bill from the leadership of his own party? Do you really think ANYONE is getting a tax cut under Obama or a democrat led Congress? Mark my words: If Obama wins, you will hear the following in an address: "America, these times are far too tasking and our deficit is far to large for us to have tax cuts at this time. But, I will send out some checks to those that are truly struggling (read: those that don't pay taxes in the first place) and together we will get through these tough times." Mark my words.

I'll agree that Palin wasn't the best choice, but lets be real: She'll be the Vice President for essentially a one term President, and I see no chance of her even winning her own primary in four years a real candidate decides to run for the Republican ticket.

"This is Obama's time". That sounds like it came stright from an Obama ad. How do you think he'll heal woulnds when he is the most liberal Senator in the country? How has he ever shown he has been anything but lock step behind his party?

We're talking about someone who has stated they want to redistribute wealth, or "share your success"... this is a tenant of socialisma and one of the planks of communism. Obama may not be a socialist, but he sure sounds like one.

Obama says a lot of nice things, but the sad fact is little of what he says relates to any of his brief experience in public service. Bond, it blows my mind that with the supreme court in jeopardy, a congress led by idiots, yes IDIOTS like Pelosi and Reed and a time with so much at stake you would ignore all of your poltiical principles and vote based on feeling ("It's Obama's time" has nothing to do wiuth issues or facts) rather than rational thought. Thats not what intellectual Republicans do.

Another seemingly rational republican falls under the cult of Obama's personality.

Legend:

Lime = Condescending



On the subject of how evil you seem to make leftism and socialism out to be:

Am I mistaken or have your banks not just been nationalized? And as far as I know it I believe your public school system is made free to children. In fact...if socialist ideals were brought to your health care perhaps you could have free health care like many other first world nations.

I think left wing ideals might just be the right thing for America right now. You need health care reform, educational reform, and perhaps some institutions to help the millions of Americans who will be losing their jobs in the recession.

I'm not going to claim to know your stance on any of these matters but I hear a lot of people using tax cuts in their arguments and complaining that they won't get them under Obama. Well tough shit, man. America isn't doing so hot these days. I reckon America should be taking it's tax money and putting it towards the social institutions that your country needs to fix up.

I don't mind paying taxes when I know that if I didn't I perhaps wouldn't be able to enjoy such things as free health care, and public schools for my future children.




Side note that has no bearing on my previous argument but is a rail against the man in non sequitir style:

How the hell has socialism become synonymous with evil? I think it beats the hell out of this self-devouring corporate-favored capitalist system that has been at the root of such problems as terrible environmental damage, exploitation of foreign workers, and the ability for companies to hold your life at ransom every time you need to visit the hospital for serious illness. Not to say that I think that communism is sweet and everyone should make the same wage but I'll be god damned if I believe that a system where very few benefit greatly while the majority of people have very little is a system that works.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Legend:

Lime = Condescending

Well, I guess thats your opinion. They weren't intended to be, as I explained in my earlier post. I don;t feel the need to explain my self further, so if you still feel that way, go right ahead. I would ask that if you are going to respond to one sentence or two of my posts, at least acknowledge the other few paragraphs.

On the subject of how evil you seem to make leftism and socialism out to be:

Am I mistaken or have your banks not just been nationalized?

Yes, and I don't like it one bit. There is far too much centralization of power in the economic front right now, especially when the government decided to force banks to sell equity to it, even banks that were doing ok. If monopolies/consolidation of powers are bad in private industry. why are they so widely accepted when the government centalizes it? If Wal-Mart is bad, what happens when the government excercizes those same forces?

And as far as I know it I believe your public school system is made free to children.

This is an area where I actually agree with reasonable government control and funding as I think it truly does even the playing field, BUT, I do not believe that it should be controlled to the point that most progressive thinkers do. I believe in school choice, and charter schools and voucher programs have been a blessing for a school system that struggles greatly to serve those that need it the most, and I believe the money paid by the parents should follow the child. These programs are greatly opposed by leftists in our country.

Honeslty, with the basic expert consensus that the American school system is a failure (I don't entirely agree with this), I wouldn't bring that up as an example of how well socialism works.

In fact...if socialist ideals were brought to your health care perhaps you could have free health care like many other first world nations.

I've seen socialized healthcare up close and personal. Great for a "stick out your tongue and say ahhh" check up, but when the chips are really down and you need a specialist, its absolutely pathetic. My father in law is a Veteran on disability who needed a heart transplant. The transplant went over fine, but it was his care afterwards that nearly killed him, as they rotated doctors who double and triple prescribed him medication (10 times the normal dose of Prednazone), and after nearly killing him threw him out the door when he hit $1 Million dollars because a spreadsheet told them to.

Later, he broke his arm and needed to be prepped overnight because of the imminue deficiency he has as a result of anti-rejection meds, and they refused unless they put him on a morphine drip. Reason: They had spent all the money the government allowed for the heart transplant, but they could spend the money if it were for pain, so to get him prepped they needed to lie to the government, falsify documents, and then spend thousands of unneeded taxpayer dollars on a morphine drip he didn't need. When you are a patient of the government, your physician is a spreadsheet.

Besides the horror of my anecdote, I could also post the rediculous wait times for specialists in Canada, and how those with the means often come to America and pay for specialist care. The main thing I'd like to get you to think about is how the socialist healthcare nations depend on free market nations for their treatments and services. The great innovations and techniques are not being discovered in nations that socialisze their healthcare, they are being created in nations that reward innovation. Even pharmaceutical companies based in more socialized nations do most of their research and develoipment in the US (GloxoSmithKline for example) because of the freedom they enjoy. Socialized nations piggy back their care on free markets, and without the American free market, the level of treatment you currently enjoy would not exist and I dare say the level of treatment in the world would be far lower and the length of our lives would be dramatically lower.

I think left wing ideals might just be the right thing for America right now. You need health care reform, educational reform, and perhaps some institutions to help the millions of Americans who will be losing their jobs in the recession.

Well, I'd rather have the occasional drop in employment than the seemingly permanent unemployment rate of 11% or more we see in France, Germany, etc. Even they are electing more conservative leadership to fix the issues.

I agree with most of those observations except for the last, but the problem I have with your solutions is the same I have with Marxist solutions. Karl Marx was a brilliant social critic, but his solutions where terrible and history has proven this. These issues need to involve free markets and incorporate the power of them to be truly successful.

1) Healthcare - The best healthcare in the world is provided by private companies, there is no argument in this, the issue is getting it to more people. Instead of the blanket solution of "let the government do it" we should seriously provide tort reform to limit pain and suffering malpractice rewards, which would greatly reduce the cost of malpractice insurance that is crippling our medical community with insane overhead costs and forcing doctors out of my home state of Pennsylvania. Also, instead of indirectly charging everyone for their "free" inferior healthcare, let them keep the money they earned in the first place with tax credits and then allow them to purchase their own healthcare tax free. Not only would this create more choice and competition, but it would also help with one of the greatest challenges of employer based healthcare: what do you do between jobs? If employees managed their own care, they would already have first rate healthcare, temporarily unemployed or no. And for the record, yes, I am advocating the abandonment of employer provided healthcare, which by the way, was created as a reult of punitive economic policies of the great depression. This would increase the funds busineeses could offer directly to the employee, and those funds could then be applied tax free to the employee's healthcare of THEIR CHOICE. We keep our current medicaid and medicare socialized system for the truly indigent and penniless.

2) Education - The best use of public funds in education right now are being spent by private companies, like the 30 or so charter schools in New Orleans, and through vouchers that have been a huge success as McCain mentioned in his last debate. If No Child Left Behind has tought us anything its that throwing money at a problem does not solve it, and bigger is not better. I was not a charter school fan at first, but after seeing how they provide such better choice for families and smaller class sizes for students, their level of edcuation has skyrocketed and these schools can worry about teaching and not student management due to insane school size. Once again, these are public funds, but it is not public execution. Allow free markets to work with our tax dollars, and they show great success.

3) Institutions - What kind of institutions beyond what we alkready have? Thats an honest question.

I'm not going to claim to know your stance on any of these matters but I hear a lot of people using tax cuts in their arguments and complaining that they won't get them under Obama. Well tough shit, man. America isn't doing so hot these days. I reckon America should be taking it's tax money and putting it towards the social institutions that your country needs to fix up.

And thats an opinion I fundamentally disagree with on a philisophical level. Let me ask you a question: With unemployment going up, how will taxing our comanies far more inspire them to hire more people or not continue with more layoffs? Actions have uninteded consequences.

I don't mind paying taxes when I know that if I didn't I perhaps wouldn't be able to enjoy such things as free health care, and public schools for my future children.

Please don't be so melodramatic to portray America as some third world nation. The fact is that we have economic cycles, but over the last 30 years our levels of wealth and and standard of living have greatly improved while allowing us to be free of much of the buracracy and nanny state-like control of other nations. You could also make the case that our greatest dalience with socialist philosophy during the great depression actually made the problem worse and last for 10 years instead of two. Read the book "The Forgotten Man" for that economic argument.

How the hell has socialism become synonymous with evil? I think it beats the hell out of this self-devouring corporate-favored capitalist system that has been at the root of such problems as terrible environmental damage, exploitation of foreign workers, and the ability for companies to hold your life at ransom every time you need to visit the hospital for serious illness. Not to say that I think that communism is sweet and everyone should make the same wage but I'll be god damned if I believe that a system where very few benefit greatly while the majority of people have very little is a system that works.

I've never said that socialism is evil, but it is a horrible idea put forth by well meaning people. Thats its danger. Its a philosophy that cripples nations and their people. Keep in mind, Canada is not a socialist nation, but you have socialist constructs.

My main concern with the slide towards true socialism of communism is how is cripples its own people by not allowing them to truly be self-sufficient, even if they ant to be, and convinces them that they need to be taken care of instead of taking care of themselves. As Ben Franklin said: `Poverty should be made so uncomfortable as to make it an intolerable state of being'. I hate progressive tax rates that keep people economically stagnant and inhibit the transfer of wealth from generation to generation, and severely punishes success that philisophically we should be celebrating. Also, we have to come to the realization that demonizing business only hurts ourselves as it is big business and free markets that provide Americans with their success. Basically, I hate any form of government that makes the assumption that we can't achieve as a nation unless the government holds out hand and guides us, because we're all pathetic idiots that need the help of those who know better than us.

But the worst part is that socialism involves taking choices away from people and placing them in the hands of a government, and that is not the governments place and is fundamentally oppressive, even if it is intended to help. "A hug is oppressive if you don't want to be hugged".

I could go on with more examples, but I'll leave you with the greatest: America, even now, over time has been the greatest force in the world economically and influentially and we enjoy the highest standard of living and the most freedom in the world as observed by independent research and observaton... yet we want to change everything fundamentally and abandon the tenants of the greatest governmental document ever written?

On face value this argument makes no sense. The power belongs with the people, not with the government, and I'm tired of how we are all so eager to hand over our rights to those who want to "take care of us" by limiting us and our expectations of ourselves.

EDIT: For my treatise of why socialism blows, please this this post I made a few years ago about Widget Inc.

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/sho...ight=socialist

[Dylflon]

Did someone vote in this today or something?

That's silly.

[Neo]

I'm a little behind the times.