iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/ … iberal.php
He’s right, he’s not liberal, but a socialist.
He’s really not a socialist. He’s pretty right-wing on most issues, even his healthcare plan is right of center for the civilized world.
he’s a totalitarian…
-Imp
Of course based on your professed inability to discern the difference between Al Qaeda and liberal (I assume you include J.S. Mill and Adam Smith) we may induce that political categorization is not your strong suit. 
you may induce whatever you wish but the fact is that the totalitarian politics of american liberal democrats are on par with the politics of stalin, lenin and mao and are every bit as oppressive as sharia law and al qaeda…
the revolution will be sweet
-Imp
I’m curious Imp, you have metioned revolution in several subjects and topics. What and who do you believe will be behind all of this?
the marxists (and environmentalists and socialists and communists et.al.) piss and moan for their revolution against the capitalists when they rise up and steal control of industry…
the marxists will never have the balls to do anything because if they did they’d get butchered, but they keep pissing off businesses through tax increases, and the businesses leave… why do you think we have jobs going overseas? because businesses want to stay in america and pay 10 times as much in taxes and employee benefits? fuck that. any person who thinks that business exists to give them comfort is an idiot. business exists to make a profit. period. we’re close to the point where there is more going out in government charity (soc sec & medicare) than is being generated… when the government charity stops and the gimmie gimmie gimmie of the people gets louder we have a second american civil war. in the second war, all the liberal meccas will burn to the ground and the gospel of socialist totalitarianism (and all its believers) will be erradicated- and chances are pretty good that someone will push the button… why the hell do you think we have neutron bombs?
-Imp
He’s not neither, but it is not polite to say what everyone would say if he were elected. Think of it: If Jesus walked in your house, and he was black you wouldn’t believe Jesus was an enword, and then you’d rub your eyes out, and then you’d be sob, and a blind sob at that. What good does your label maker do you? Idnit just a little bit of an impediment to thought some times?
Imp, I believe people should stand on their own two feet. The U.S.government wasn’t designed to regulate businesses. If people need help getting on their feet, the churches should be the first to be approache for it. If the government keeps over taxing corporations, they will keep moving to places like Dubai and outsourcing help form other countries. Then there’s medical…if the government kneads their fingers in that dough, you can expect heath care will suffer. I would like to think people who become doctors are all of noble character, but the some do think from a monetary view. I have no problem with that as long as they don’t think of people ‘$’ signs. I have my own small business and I try to provide above board services for my clients. All of my work is is referral with repeat business because I want to instill trust and a good work ethic in which my company carry on a good name.
What’s wrong; did your business fail? If you were thriving would you see things this way? By the way, does it make you happy to know that, even if we are entering a recession, many American businesses are thriving? What kind of government do you advocate? Fascist? Minimalist? None? Oh and by the way GW Bush has presided over unprecedented government spending during his two terms. Is he a one of your cowardly Marxist vermin?
good deal…
yeah, he is.
-Imp
The government was not designed to regualte business, but it has the right to regulate commerce, and the goals it sets forth in the preamble are not inthe least hedged or qualified. If it wants to regulate business, I would say that is within their power. We see to what extent business regulates us. Certainly a government with the power to raise an army to fight an external enemy has the power to fight an internal one. Would you not agree.
Regulating commerce is different from regulating individual businesses. I don’t have a problem with regulating monopolistic entities that kills competitiveness, but that even that must be watched carefully.
People should do that by refusing doing business with a company with a certain product or service. That will get the message accross stronger.
If a company is committing unfair practices that has no direct connection to the consumer, then yes they need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.
Considering the alternative outcomes if Kerry or Gore would have been at the helm, maybe Bush’s spending might be viewed more benign. A large amount of the money spent was due to terroristic activities and the Iraq war. If the liberties we enjoy entail sacrifice, then I for one am ready to make them, even if it requires rubber or tin drives that happened in WWII to effect and secure our country’s fragile freedoms.
I resist the temptation to speculate since it leads to no definite answer. Of course, the Iraq war was unnecessary, a cool trillion could have been saved there. But Bush’s spendthrift modus operandi went way beyond matters of national security. Remember he vetoed no bill that the Republican controlled congress sent to him.
During the Clinton years, Gore was busy reviewing and cutting the fat out of administrative costs. No comparable effort has been undertaken during the Bush years. It’s weird. It’s almost as if he intentionally wants to break the bank i.e. the American tax payer.
Early on the Bush administration and Greenspan explained how they wished to starve govenment from the tax side. That I understand. But why not show some responsibility on the spending side? I tend to attribute it to Bush’s irresponsible personal history. He was bailed out by his parents and their high rolling friends whenever he failed.
Whatever the explanation, the Bush Administration blissfully ignored administrative costs until the end of the last fiscal year. Then, concurrent with his proposals to reduce the federal deficit on the backs of the next administration (I love it when they do that 
) I saw a modest reigning in on administrative costs. Too little too late. Hopefully the next President is one who has a penchant for cleaning up huge messes, because that’s what Bush is leaving.
Sir; Every form of relationship requires a sacrifice. Try to remember that the Romans were asking nothing more of the Christians than a pinch of incense for the Genius of the Emperor. What that meant for the Christians was that they were citizens of Rome, and not of the kingdom of God. It does not take much to be a member here. You want to pay for your liberty with Blood. Does it occur to you that blood has already bought your liberty, but that the liberty of your children may require a whole life time of effort? The sacrific demanded of us is not laid upon us, but is laid upon our children. Why? Why should we accept that, and why can’t this country afford to pay its own way to war? The rich, who have brought the whole country to the point of poverty, refuse to sacrifice even enough to maintain the infrastructure. And You are ready to spill blood. Everyone should give what they have. The poor have nothing but their lives to sacrifice, and the rich refuse to give any of what they have taken as a sacrifice for a war only they will benefit from. It is obscene. And it is unjust. Give your part, and demand the same from all as the price of belonging here.
Felix, it’s obvious we are on different sides of the fence politically. You appear to be be more of a liberal nature while I am conservative. Going back and forth in the ‘blame game’ is just a matter of opinions as far as I’m concerned. I don’t feel like going into a quid pro quo of deliberation. I’m too old for these type of discussions. Maybe in my youth I would have given it a go.
Juggernaut, the United States however it is viewed by people historically, I believe is a good model for other countries to be. It in my opinion is worthy of sacrifice for the ideals it encompasses. There are precious few nations like the U.S. which allows the types of freedoms we enjoy right now. People that are considered rich aren’t under obligation to give their money away. Plus I don’t feel they are responsible for people that are poor right now. If they are needy, they need to seek out churches that can help them. This is the case of my church right now. There are several families who are finacially hurting that receive help from money donated by all the members who can afford it. Plus they receive personal and spiritual help too. I enjoy helping them because I feel blessed by the Lord which in turn helps me spiritually to help my fellow man. In my opinion if everyone would help out of compassion for others without being compelled to do so through government intervention, this world would be much better off.
I help people. specifically, Native Americans, because they are due everything for the crime of our taking this country; and we give them spit. It does not matter how this country is divided, between rich and poor or black and white. As long as it is divided it is weak in the eyes of our enemies. Those who defend this country should do so, and those who can afford to pay for the defense of their property should do so, willingly, or by law.
My vote goes to Obama! The main reason is that he might do something about the genocide in darfur. He at least talkes about it, which is better than the other candidates. During WW2 we stood by and watched as americans. And after it happened, we were all mourning even though we let it happen. It is our moral human obligation to get involved when humans are being raped and butchered. The same stuff is going on right now, and we just stand back and sip our tea. Sick! Join the Darfur coalition since the gov’t doesn’t do anything.
I think Obama would do more to eliviate human suffering than the other candidates and that outweighs the importance of small economical margins in my mind.