are truckers supporting john mccain or obama?

[tropolis]

which candidate has policies that would be good/bad for the industry.

which candidate are you voting for?

[MartenDrvrCA]

which candidate has policies that would be good/bad for the industry.

which candidate are you voting for?

Obama for me.

[Mackman]

McCain

[BigDiesel]

Lyndon LaRouche or Pat Paulson

[Syncrosonix]

cobra commander

[GTR SILVER]

let's put it this way.....

OBAMA IN 08
OSAMA IN 09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR4Ea8EQoG0

[rgarthman1969]

Nobama or McChange..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[GMAN]

I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. Hussein will raise our taxes and likely help expand anti-idling laws across the country. That is certainly not in the best interest of this country and especially the trucking industry. I don't see much of a choice between either candidate, but since we are likely only going to have 2 choices, I would have to go with McCain. I can't afford for Hussein to be elected. He will push this country over into bankruptcy with all his socialist programs and higher taxes.

[Longsnowsm]

Too late Gman, they have already driven us into bankruptcy... It is all about financial funny business as they shuffle around the deck chairs on the titanic.

I am reminded of a great movie "Brewster's Millions"
Vote: None of the Above :D

Longsnowsm

[GTR SILVER]

"none of the above"................????????????????

great attitude................ :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: not

[GMAN]

Too late Gman, they have already driven us into bankruptcy... It is all about financial funny business as they shuffle around the deck chairs on the titanic.

I am reminded of a great movie "Brewster's Millions"
Vote: None of the Above :D

Longsnowsm


I wish we had a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on our ballots. But then we may never have another elected official. :wink:

[str.whl.hldr]

John "I have an aberrant anger coupled with a noticeable slowing of the mind with age" McCain

OR

Barack "sluggish energy levels with a constant inconsistency" Obama



I'm writing in -Articles of Confederation- because obviously the redundancy in limiting central power and the expressly stated power of the federal government in the constitution hasn't worked.


2008 Tool or Fool, you decide.

[MartenDrvrCA]

Hmmm...I think I change my vote to Jerry Moyes :D

[Longsnowsm]

John "I have an aberrant anger coupled with a noticeable slowing of the mind with age" McCain

OR

Barack "sluggish energy levels with a constant inconsistency" Obama



I'm writing in -Articles of Confederation- because obviously the redundancy in limiting central power and the expressly stated power of the federal government in the constitution hasn't worked.


2008 Tool or Fool, you decide.

A history buff... I like it. Articles of Confederation! Fantastic... Your right the Federal government is out of control... I wonder how many people here remember or know what the Articles of Confederation are and what the controversy was about regarding the Constitution. Very interesting!

Longsnowsm

[Longsnowsm]

"none of the above"................????????????????

great attitude................ :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: not

The lesser of two evils is still "Evil", not the diet coke of evil... :LOL:

So vote for either of them, you will get the same result. Just because you put put a peaches label on the outside of a pickle jar doesn't change the contents of the jar.

Which reminds me of another movie quote from Demolition Man: "Your young, think all you want..."

If either of these guys are elected will you be freer than you are today? Will you suddenly have a right to privacy? Will your taxes be lower, your economic state improved? Will you sudden be safe in your personal effects, and know that your home is your home? Will you have the right to a lawyer and the full protection of the law? Will you really have the opportunity to pursue Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If the answer is yes, then knock yourself out.

I am burnt out. These guys are all blow and no go... I have seen the democrats in charge, republicans in charge... I have voted every time until this year... You know what they have gotten done? Bankrupt the country. That's it. There, at least they have accomplished something...

So I may not vote this year. So "None of the above".

Longsnowsm

[freebird]

None of the above or a write in vote or even not voting is a vote for hussein!
Agreed, poor choice this year, call me what you want but I refuse to vote a muslim in as our leader!
Remember 9/11/01?
Still just a little too soon for me!
PC crap......don't give a f......you know what!!
He's a talker and one who can rally the people, but I'm not buying it!!
So I'll vote McCain and start watching local and state offices real close, they work for us.
If not we need to vote them out!

[GMAN]

I agree Freebird. If you fail to vote you are essentially giving the presidency to Hussein. The Democrats will rally for their candidate. They don't want to lose all those government freebie's. The Republicans are disillusioned and wonder what has happened to conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Many will not vote. If enough conservatives stay home they will unwittingly help to hand the presidency over to the radicals. Hussein and his nutty wife are racists. Just listen to their rhetoric. With Russia invading the Republic of Georgia, U.S. troops in Iraq and the war going on I want someone in office who has some military experience. Hussein wants to tuck tail and run. If Clinton had stood up to the terrorists when he was in office we would probably not be in this war now. :cry:

[Rev.Vassago]

I am voting for Ross Perot.



Seriously. I really am. He is the best man for the job.

[Longsnowsm]

Well personally I think it is a little over to the top for me to fault Obama because he was born and given this name, so I am not going to join the band wagon making references to his name or what people think it implies.

Secondly I a socially liberal, but a fiscal conservative. But what conservatives call conservative today is anything but conservative. It wasn't that long ago that Clinton was in office and was dragging our boys into Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo... And conservatives said that the constitution didn't authorize us to play the worlds police. Conservatives were for minding the business of the US. Conservatives would have never concocted a scheme of attacking someone because you suspected or didn't like what was going on in another country. Conservatives used to be conservative. Today what people think of as conservative isn't conservative in it's true form. The radical of the party have stolen conservatism and it is now their Brand and is generally associated with the exremists of the party. These people now say consevatism is about our religion. They have turned conservatives into a bunch of people that are fearful, and that just continue to feed our fears in order to expand their power.

Since I am on a movie theme kick. Go watch the movie "Enemy of the State". I remember when that movie came out thinking "Ho Hum". It was ok as a movie, but come on what a bunch of liberal hysteria. You know what if you can watch that movie today and not have chills go up and down your spine then I don't know what to say. That little snippet in the opening scene with the Congressman just about summarizes just how nuts this country has become. What is really free? What is enough freedom? Are we going to allow our fears to continue to make this country into a prison? The so called conservatives that are in charge of the so called conservative party have completely lost their minds. They will do anything to increase their power and control. This movie went from being Ho Hum, to now it is very relevant to our times. Conservatives hide behind their insanity in the blanket of national security...

Conservatives used to be concerned about our economy, our jobs, our way of life. Today all they seem to care about is the best interests of the multinational corporations. Getting the a trade deal that allows them to go someplace for slave labor rates, tear down barriers that helped protect this countries trade(yes, that were even in the constitution because this wasn't something new), to ensure our economy wasn't disrupted by those that would seek to manipulate and do us harm. Today conservatives cannot wait to cut another deal, and we become the poorer nation for it. They don't try to get good deals for us, but for the companies they represent. Some day someone will actually do the math and actually see we are losing in these deals. The only saving grace if you can call it that is the dollar has fallen off a cliff and we are quickly becoming the cheapest labor market in the world, and by the time it is done we will be a third world nation in order to get there. Strong dollar policy is more that talk. Conservatives used to laugh an the budgets the democrats would pass. Conservatives used to brandish the credentials to say if they were in charge they would balance the budgets, cut the pork, and get things lean and mean. Well they have been in charge, and they turned out to be worse than the liberals... Yes, WORSE. Any of you hard core "conservatives" want to spout the goodness of our trade deals then show me the numbers, not just some BS sound bite you heard. You have to start thinking for yourself and stop listening to some vomit that the party told you to think. Any time they quote something, go get the facts and start to figure it out for yourself. This is precisely how we got in this mess.

Watching the debates and looking around at who was running on the conservative ticket... The only one that seemed to represent what conservatives once were was Ron Paul! Every so called conservative attacked truly conservative ideas as nutty... So I think the conservatives have gone off the reservation, and I don't think they are coming back if all you have to vote for is a guy that never had a shot to begin with.

And to me what's worse is we are still walking around repeating their nonsense and actually have forgotten what conservatives represented. The party of small government, freedom, based on the constitution and the traditions of our nation. That is long gone if we have such a short memory and have become a bunch of lemmings that allowed the conservative party to be abducted.

So go ahead, let's just keep repeating what the conservatives tell us... They stole what was once your party. I think about a nice Thomas Jefferson quote:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. - Thomas Jefferson

Can conservatives ever come back to this kind of thinking? Will our nation?

Vote: None of the above

Longsnowsm

[zipy46]

This guy !!!!!

http://www.leconcombre.com/concpost/us/postcard4/alfred_e_neuman.jpg

[GMAN]

Good post, Longsnowsm. I am not sure how you rationalize the fiscal conservative with social liberal. To me the terms are contradictory. I will disagree with you on one issue. I don't think the Republican party has been hijacked by the Christians, but by the liberals. The Republican party used to be conservative. I am conservative, but don't necessarily consider myself a Republican. Several years ago there was an exodus from the Democratic party to the Republican party so that these liberals could get elected. It didn't change their vote or point of view, but did enable many liberals to get reelected under the conservative flag.

We need to get back to adhering to the Constitution. Most of the social programs we take for granted were never allowed or provided for in the Constitution. Unless we get back to smaller government and greater self reliance, this country will cease to exist. This is not the same country it was only 30 years ago. Changes have been tremendous. Government is not our friend nor is it our benefactor. It is now the largest employer in the nation. The bigger the government grows, the greater the tax burden on those of us in the private sector. It isn't necessarily just the so called conservatives who have moved so much of our industry abroad. Over regulation, over taxation, unreasonable environmental laws, etc., have all contributed to many industries moving out from under the scrutiny of an overzealous government. The major unions were also a strong contributor leading to industries either ceasing to exist or moving much of their capacity to more friendly countries.

I think the party that most reflects the Constitution is the Libertarian party. They basically feel that unless it harms another it is OK and the government has no business getting involved.

[Scottt]

Remember the election in 2006?
Almost two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $ 4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 2% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

It certainly is not CHANGE we can live with.

Remember its Congress that makes laws not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

[dieselpower]

I don't know which candidate to vote for. I really don't trust Barack I don't know the reason, but something about him doesn't seem right. I kinda like McCain because he is talking about trying to dill for oil ( its worth a try). The one reason I am a little nervous about McCain is he is up in age. I know age should not matter, but this is a tough position to run. I remember George W back in 2000, he looked fresh and poised to take controll of the steering wheel fastword to 2008 he looks tired and sometimes he looks like he doesn't give a dam he just looks so stressed to me he looks a lot older to me now than he did back in 2000. I agree with some of the stuff Barack says and what McCain is saying. I don't like the fact some blacks are giving Barack their votes just because he may be half black ( I am a black man myself but I'm not giving him *****. The person I want to vote for will do what he says he will do and wants to help everybody not just his crooked buddies and palm greasers. If I had to vote today I would vote McCain but we have until November so hopefully by then I will have heard enough empty promises to make a sound decision.

[Colin]

Remember the election in 2006?
Almost two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $ 4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 2% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

It certainly is not CHANGE we can live with.

Remember its Congress that makes laws not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

:roll:

Remember, the President signs into law whatever bills Congress hand to him and that he agrees with.

[Colin]

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof. :roll:

[SemperFi]

I want ...

higher taxes, a bigger and more intrusive government, a weaker military, the government to take care of me, to spend myself out of existence complying with all the new environmental policies, to learn to be a good socialist, so ... OBAMA :x

[BigDiesel]

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof. :roll:

You must need more welfare I am guessing........

[Colin]

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof. :roll:

You must need more welfare I am guessing........

Nice try. You attempt to be pithy, but I wonder if you overlooked my sarcasm.

And "must" then "guessing"? Either you know something or you have a supposition. Which is it?

[GTR SILVER]

I want ...

higher taxes, a bigger and more intrusive government, a weaker military, the government to take care of me, to spend myself out of existence complying with all the new environmental policies, to learn to be a good socialist, so ... OBAMA :x

very well put....................... 8) 8) 8)

[JeffTheTerrible]

I'm just a bit curious.. I see the word "socialist" being thrown around a lot. Now, I don't support it in any way, although I'm sure I'll be accused of such for asking this question... but do any of you even understand the basics of it? Because most people I've asked this question of don't, and, judging by some of the applications I've seen of it in some of the threads posted on this forum recently, I'd feel inclined to believe it's more the same here.

[Colin]

Socialist sure sounds good though if you're trying to vilify someone after using their middle name doesn't work.

[GMAN]

I'm just a bit curious.. I see the word "socialist" being thrown around a lot. Now, I don't support it in any way, although I'm sure I'll be accused of such for asking this question... but do any of you even understand the basics of it? Because most people I've asked this question of don't, and, judging by some of the applications I've seen of it in some of the threads posted on this forum recently, I'd feel inclined to believe it's more the same here.


What would you like to know about socialism?

[str.whl.hldr]

I am burnt out. These guys are all blow and no go... I have seen the democrats in charge, republicans in charge... I have voted every time until this year... You know what they have gotten done? Bankrupt the country. That's it. There, at least they have accomplished something...

So I may not vote this year. So "None of the above".

Longsnowsm

If you dig the constitution or freedom why not write in Ron Paul or the libertarian candidate. Silence equals consent, is not voting.

I only partially agree with the bankrupting the country part. Other countries have to pay tribute to us when they purchase oil and keep dollars in their treasury's. The "petro dollar" will probably stand for a while longer. It is interesting to see other countries that despise "us" try to barter services/goods for oil so they won't have to pay our tribute. Iraq really screwed up trying to switch to the Euro so did Iran. If dollar hegemony fell in the world oil market we would be crushed. Once we stabilize Iraq to where we can get 5-6 million barrels a day in a couple of years, I have little doubt we'll see tanks rolling towards Tehran. I really don't know, these geopoliticalthings get dicey. It is interesting though.

[JeffTheTerrible]

What would you like to know about socialism?

I know enough about it already. I'm waiting to see who's the first to stumble in trying to explain it when they have no idea about the dynamics of it (and the same can be said in regards to any system of government). There's always at least one.

[GTR SILVER]

What would you like to know about socialism?

I know enough about it already. I'm waiting to see who's the first to stumble in trying to explain it when they have no idea about the dynamics of it (and the same can be said in regards to any system of government). There's always at least one.

A socialist is one who believes that all work and all profits should be shared equally....(let the government take control )

[JeffTheTerrible]

Actually, most references to Socialism I've seen made on this forum would imply that it's labor-movement Socialism (defined by Marx as the transitory period between Capitalism and Communism), where wealth is not distributed equally, but is distributed unequally dependent on the specific task and skill level of the task being performed by the worker.

[tropolis]

im surprised some of you guys like mccain just because of what's come out with him and the DHL drivers

[GTR SILVER]

The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.


The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion.

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :shock:

[Longsnowsm]

Good post, Longsnowsm. I am not sure how you rationalize the fiscal conservative with social liberal. To me the terms are contradictory.

I think the party that most reflects the Constitution is the Libertarian party. They basically feel that unless it harms another it is OK and the government has no business getting involved.

Actually Gman, Libertarian's are an excellent example of socially liberal, fiscal conservatives. They mind their own business unless your doing harm to others. This includes the activities in your bedroom and on many other social issues. The word liberal has been mutilated to mean socialist and big government. Democrats have the same issues as republicans. What the party used to stand for is mostly represented by radicals today.

Those that are in power today in the Republican party know just how to get everybody foaming at the mouth and marching to their orders. All they have to do is hit on the buzz words: Flag burning, school prayer, abortion, Pelosi, or Radical Islam and people are off to the races... It is shameful.


Longsnowsm

[Longsnowsm]

[

If you dig the constitution or freedom why not write in Ron Paul or the libertarian candidate. Silence equals consent, is not voting.

Once we stabilize Iraq to where we can get 5-6 million barrels a day in a couple of years, I have little doubt we'll see tanks rolling towards Tehran.

I might just do that... Write in Ron Paul and at least express my opinion.

On the stabilizing Iraq and the oil. I know this gets hit on by the Republicans, but their facts are wrong about the potential oil out of Iraq and what stabilizing production means. Oil production in Iraq hit it's peak in the late 80's at just shy of 3 mbpd. It's peak production since that time came in 2001 at just under 2.6 mbpd. Iraq has not had the development that other countries have had so there is room for production growth. So those that want to talk about the benefits of Iraq and it's oil production seem to intentionally fudge the numbers to help justify our presence and to show how much more work we have to do and why we have to stay. I think if you look at the data most of their capacity is already back online.

What is the current production rate in Iraq? Roughly 2 mbpd, current post-war capacity is 2.2 mbpd, pre-war capacity was roughly 3 mbpd.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html

I saw some data someplace recently that showed the production rates from their fields which showed most of their production is also in decline. Since they haven't had the investment in their infrastructure they may be able to boost production levels back above that 2.6 mbpd, but I doubt they will ever approach the 3 mbpd. A more plausible scenario will be they sustain existing rates for a while longer.

The stabilization story we hear some some in the public arena is pure BS. The facts speak for themselves, but then again that would be hard to put in a 30 second sound bite. :lol:

Longsnowsm

[str.whl.hldr]

Oil production in Iraq hit it's peak in the late 80's at just shy of 3 mbpd. It's peak production since that time came in 2001 at just under 2.6 mbpd. Iraq has not had the development that other countries have had so there is room for production growth. So those that want to talk about the benefits of Iraq and it's oil production seem to intentionally fudge the numbers to help justify our presence and to show how much more work we have to do and why we have to stay. I think if you look at the data most of their capacity is already back online.

What is the current production rate in Iraq? Roughly 2 mbpd, current post-war capacity is 2.2 mbpd, pre-war capacity was roughly 3 mbpd.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html

I saw some data someplace recently that showed the production rates from their fields which showed most of their production is also in decline. Since they haven't had the investment in their infrastructure they may be able to boost production levels back above that 2.6 mbpd, but I doubt they will ever approach the 3 mbpd. A more plausible scenario will be they sustain existing rates for a while longer.


Longsnowsm

Its funny, we both read the same report but have two different perspectives. True most of their pre-war nationalized Arab engineering capacity is back on line. But look at the list of undeveloped fields or near production fields. Not to mention Iraq has cheap, cheap, cheap to recover oil- less than $3 per barrel.

Estimates of 45-100 billion barrels of recoverable oil and you don't think they'll reach 3mbd?? Is it because you think current production will decline before we tap 45-100 BILLION barrels??? I'll conceded that anyway.

The US (we) are all about stabilizing the market and world. I'm not listening to the media about that it just is the way it is. Even Jimster Carter told the world "you mess with oil flow you mess with me" or something like that. :D

We'll be in Iraq for a very long time regardless of how much the world, Iraq (if they dare) and media moans and whines. Lots of fields are going down soon. The US production is slated for a huge loss in 2010. Oil companies have done all that they can, given current tech, to keep the oil flowing in the US. We are headed for a sharp decline, so is Mexico, so is the world except for a handful of country's.

Look at Saudi, where is there increased production? For over a decade they have been saying they will be able to do 15-20mbd if needed. So... where is it. Is it not needed. Will they not make even more money. They have been putting more and more wells in Ghawar. Why not getting oil from other fields? Once Ghawar goes terminal,call it in, we're done. Oil will become like food, sure the world as "enough" for all but politics and power will dictate starvation. Cynical people make fun of the late night info-mercials that say for pennies a day we can save a life. Its true. Oil is next.

I hesitated to get on this thread because I truly hope I'm wrong.

[GMAN]

Actually Gman, Libertarian's are an excellent example of socially liberal, fiscal conservatives. They mind their own business unless your doing harm to others. This includes the activities in your bedroom and on many other social issues. The word liberal has been mutilated to mean socialist and big government. Democrats have the same issues as republicans. What the party used to stand for is mostly represented by radicals today.

Those that are in power today in the Republican party know just how to get everybody foaming at the mouth and marching to their orders. All they have to do is hit on the buzz words: Flag burning, school prayer, abortion, Pelosi, or Radical Islam and people are off to the races... It is shameful.


Longsnowsm


When I think of social liberal, I think of all the social programs the liberals have put into place. Although, some of them may have been started with honorable intentions, they have essentially enslaved people for more than 40 years. Any time you are dependent on the government for your livelihood and shelter, you are a slave to that government. That is part of what I think of when I think of social liberal. I understand what you are saying though. I recall having many spirited discussions with one of my professors in college about Libertarians and comparing it to the Republicans and Democrats. Much of his idea seemed to involve drugs and sex. I think the guy was a hippie before joining academia. :lol:

[GMAN]

Actually, most references to Socialism I've seen made on this forum would imply that it's labor-movement Socialism (defined by Marx as the transitory period between Capitalism and Communism), where wealth is not distributed equally, but is distributed unequally dependent on the specific task and skill level of the task being performed by the worker.



To be perfectly honest, the liberals of today are more socialists than anything. Their idea of helping America is to enslave the citizens with their big government programs. The problem with socialism is that someone has to pay for all those expensive programs and the big government spending programs. As government grows so does spending and more programs and on and on. Socialism takes the incentive out of working for our bread. We no longer need to be productive because the government will take care of us under socialism. Socialism starts out fine, but quickly drifts into inefficiency, corruption, and waste. Social Security was the big start of socialism in this country. It got a big push in the 1960's with Lyndon Johnson's big expansion of welfare and government subsidized housing. What was previously considered shameful is now considered an entitlement by those living off the government tit. Socialism does not allow for failure long after the program is dead and buried. Success and achievement is discouraged and public private partnerships are the norm. Success is penalized. Inefficiency and failure are rewarded. Sound familiar?

Starting with John F. Kennedy and subsequent presidents, a program which forced employers to fire current employees and hire minorities who often were not as qualified in order to meet government mandated quota's. No longer could companies hire those most qualified, but were forced to hire people based upon them being given preferential treatment based upon their race rather than their abilities. During the late 1960's and early 1970's the government decided that children needed to be forcibly bused to schools away from their neighborhoods to again meet their idea of a racially mixed environment. This made it more difficult for parents to be involved in their children's schools. The net result is that children graduating from public schools today are not as well educated as they were just 40 years ago. They call it a dumbing down of America. The U.S. used to have an educational system envied by the world. That is no longer the case. All this is what socialism is all about. Politicians exploit the uneducated and disenfranchised with their rhetoric about inequalities such as wealth vs poverty, age vs youth, black vs white. Jesse Jackson and others have been doing this for many years. They tell people that they are being discriminated against and they deserve this and that when they should be telling people that they need to stay in school, get an education and get a job to EARN what they want. Instead of encouraging people they pit one group against another. A lot of people have bought into their rhetoric. It is all about control. It is ultimately all about socialism. Bill Cosby has gotten a lot of flack from the black community for talking about individual responsibility, about parenting, getting an education and stop blaming others for their failures. It really isn't a black and white issue. It is about divide and conquer. If people are concerned about discrimination or other issues, they don't see what is really happening around them. Socialism takes responsibility away from the individual and puts it on the government. The government is responsible for providing for the individuals rather than the individual providing for themselves.

Socialism attempts to sell the people that we are all equal. That is not true. We are only equal in this country in our freedom. We have a right to succeed or fail based upon our drive, ambition and talent. We are NOT equal in our abilities or drive. Socialism takes away from the producers and gives to the takers. They want to think of everyone as being equal. In reality, that is also a lie that is told to the people to pacify them. If you look at what is happening in this country and has happened in the major socialist countries, such as Russia, China, etc., the hierarchy and party officials get the cream jobs in government and the rest of the populace suffer. They try to sell the people that they they are sacrificing the same as the average people, when in reality they are moved around in their limousines to their mansions, courtesy of the people. It isn't that there aren't wealthy individuals under socialism, but that it is hidden. I remember seeing people waiting in line for hours to get a loaf of bread in Russia during the 1960's and 1970's. Without incentive, people cease to be productive. Not to worry, the government will take care of you.

[GTR SILVER]

Actually, most references to Socialism I've seen made on this forum would imply that it's labor-movement Socialism (defined by Marx as the transitory period between Capitalism and Communism), where wealth is not distributed equally, but is distributed unequally dependent on the specific task and skill level of the task being performed by the worker.



To be perfectly honest, the liberals of today are more socialists than anything. Their idea of helping America is to enslave the citizens with their big government programs. The problem with socialism is that someone has to pay for all those expensive programs and the big government spending programs. As government grows so does spending and more programs and on and on. Socialism takes the incentive out of working for our bread. We no longer need to be productive because the government will take care of us under socialism. Socialism starts out fine, but quickly drifts into inefficiency, corruption, and waste. Social Security was the big start of socialism in this country. It got a big push in the 1960's with Lyndon Johnson's big expansion of welfare and government subsidized housing. What was previously considered shameful is now considered an entitlement by those living off the government tit. Socialism does not allow for failure long after the program is dead and buried. Success and achievement is discouraged and public private partnerships are the norm. Success is penalized. Inefficiency and failure are rewarded. Sound familiar?

Starting with John F. Kennedy and subsequent presidents, a program which forced employers to fire current employees and hire minorities who often were not as qualified in order to meet government mandated quota's. No longer could companies hire those most qualified, but were forced to hire people based upon them being given preferential treatment based upon their race rather than their abilities. During the late 1960's and early 1970's the government decided that children needed to be forcibly bused to schools away from their neighborhoods to again meet their idea of a racially mixed environment. This made it more difficult for parents to be involved in their children's schools. The net result is that children graduating from public schools today are not as well educated as they were just 40 years ago. They call it a dumbing down of America. The U.S. used to have an educational system envied by the world. That is no longer the case. All this is what socialism is all about. Politicians exploit the uneducated and disenfranchised with their rhetoric about inequalities such as wealth vs poverty, age vs youth, black vs white. Jesse Jackson and others have been doing this for many years. They tell people that they are being discriminated against and they deserve this and that when they should be telling people that they need to stay in school, get an education and get a job to EARN what they want. Instead of encouraging people they pit one group against another. A lot of people have bought into their rhetoric. It is all about control. It is ultimately all about socialism. Bill Cosby has gotten a lot of flack from the black community for talking about individual responsibility, about parenting, getting an education and stop blaming others for their failures. It really isn't a black and white issue. It is about divide and conquer. If people are concerned about discrimination or other issues, they don't see what is really happening around them. Socialism takes responsibility away from the individual and puts it on the government. The government is responsible for providing for the individuals rather than the individual providing for themselves.

Socialism attempts to sell the people that we are all equal. That is not true. We are only equal in this country in our freedom. We have a right to succeed or fail based upon our drive, ambition and talent. We are NOT equal in our abilities or drive. Socialism takes away from the producers and gives to the takers. They want to think of everyone as being equal. In reality, that is also a lie that is told to the people to pacify them. If you look at what is happening in this country and has happened in the major socialist countries, such as Russia, China, etc., the hierarchy and party officials get the cream jobs in government and the rest of the populace suffer. They try to sell the people that they they are sacrificing the same as the average people, when in reality they are moved around in their limousines to their mansions, courtesy of the people. It isn't that there aren't wealthy individuals under socialism, but that it is hidden. I remember seeing people waiting in line for hours to get a loaf of bread in Russia during the 1960's and 1970's. Without incentive, people cease to be productive. Not to worry, the government will take care of you.

AGAIN jeff............this is for you.........................

The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.


The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion... :shock: :shock:

GMAN...thumbs up....... :wink: :wink: 8)

[JeffTheTerrible]

The "liberals" don't really strike me as Socialists, per se... they strike me more as a failed attempt at replication of Social Democracy.
The ills of Socialism, and, in particular, Marxist theory is that is dismisses human nature completely. The ideal Communist system would be a worldwide Proletarian system - i.e., the "one world order". Without such a system in place, Communism is ultimately doomed to failure, because it is not designed in a way which it can be integrated into a world market inclusive of mixed economy systems. The Soviets realized this would never happen, as have most Communist parties around the world, which is why, rather than pushing for Communism, they push instead for Socialism, with the form of Socialism based on the principles put forth by Rosa Luxemborg being more prevalent in the West.
Again, Socialism was ideally to be the transitory period of a Marxist government from a Capitalist system to a Communist system. However, as with other systems of government, it began to take different forms, ultimately making integration between Socialist countries impossible. Albania, Yugoslavia, China, and North Korea each adopted an indigenous form of Socialism, rather than following the Soviet doctrine. Thus, the systems became incompatible, and differing lines of thought began to form a rift within the Soviet Bloc, as well, a classic case of this being the Prague Spring and the Hungarian Revolution, where the governments of each respective country tried to implement their own system of Proletarian government. However, the Soviets could not allow this, for fear that it would cause instability across the Bloc (as well as allowing a greater degree of independence from Moscow of the satellite states). Thus, the Brezhnev Doctrine was implemented, which was, essentially, to crush any resistance by any means necessary.
And therein lies the major detractor of Bloc-style Socialism.. it must be wholly accepted, as it cannot withstand a widespread movement for social change. The utter collapse of the Soviet Bloc with the implementation of the Sinatra Doctrine is a shining testament to this.
Thus, a police state had to be formed, to crush any opposition. And crush the opposition they did. Did they kill of 10 million? 20 million? Even more? The world will never know, but it's pretty much accepted that the Soviet regime proved to be even more murderous than the Third Reich.
Thus, the Marxist principle failed completely. Instead of creating a transitional phase in which government would be abolished completely, and "power to the people" would become a reality, with no class distinction, the exact opposite happened, where the system essentially became an Oligarchy in a manner of speaking, leaving a ruling class holding absolute power over the lower classes.
Altruistic Communism, as envisioned by Marx, could never become a reality, for one simple reason - human nature, and the tendency of power systems to ensure their own survival systems at any expense.
As for the ideology stating that everyone is equal, it's actually much worse than that.. what such systems teach is egalitarianism, which tells us, in essence, that we are all the same, with no distinctive qualities about us. If I went through the same experiences as Jimi Hendrix, I would do the exact same things he did, because I have no distinctive personality traits, and what may be considered such is actually based solely on one's surroundings and experiences, and a bunch of other horse****. Therefore, it places criminals at the same level as the common citizen, because it draws the conclusion that nobody would come to a different conclusion than the person who decided to murder or rape somebody.

[freebird]

hussain supporter tells of Nobama(08) accomplishments.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyk0fjtdHdI
Great choice for a candidate!
I'd welcome a third party candidate, Ron Paul was even one I was looking at, then he goes and backs out!
Like it or not we have only two choices.
A write in or no vote is going to be a vote for Nobama.
The real interesting thing will be when both announce their choice for V.P.
Strong possibility that will be our president to be!
Sorta looks like Edwards blew his.......chance! :oops:

[GMAN]

The "liberals" don't really strike me as Socialists, per se... they strike me more as a failed attempt at replication of Social Democracy.
The ills of Socialism, and, in particular, Marxist theory is that is dismisses human nature completely. The ideal Communist system would be a worldwide Proletarian system - i.e., the "one world order". Without such a system in place, Communism is ultimately doomed to failure, because it is not designed in a way which it can be integrated into a world market inclusive of mixed economy systems.


Socialism is destined for failure. Even if you have the same system worldwide it will ultimately fail. You can put any label on it you wish, but socialism or any of it's variables will NEVER quash the human spirit to be free and excel. There will ALWAYS be those who strive to achieve and better themselves. I think human nature strives for freedom. There are those who may attempt to suppress human nature under the guise of socialism, communism, etc., but it won't be accomplished. Just look what has happened worldwide. Every form of socialism has failed. Russia, China and others ultimately come back to capitalism and freedom. Things are not completely free in either of these countries, but they are much better. It is in the interest of both societies to have a free, capitalist society. A country withers under socialism, but prospers under capitalism. The greater the government controls the less productive a society becomes. The more freedoms a society has the greater their productivity.

[Longsnowsm]

Freebird, Actually Ron Paul stayed in the race for the nomination until McCain won it. He received very little press because the party treated him like some outsider who was a nut. The party is controlled by the nuts, so everything that would seem normal to most people seem nutty to them.

And if a vote for both Lemmings "Dumb" and "Dumber" equates to a vote for the guy you don't like... Well you better rally some friends to make up for the vote I won't cast for either of them. I am sure I won't be alone.

The parties are so far removed from people and the real issues that it doesn't matter which one you vote for. Your gonna get pretty much the same garbage. Out of control spending, the US playing the worlds police force, more attacks on the Constitution and the sanctity of your home, your property, your rights. And a bigger assult on your wallet. So keep voting for them and wonder why you keep getting the same results... It is the definition of insanity.

Oh, And let me add that if your voting out of "fear" that the other guy(regardless of dumb or dumber) will win because you didn't vote, or you think it was a wasted vote because that is what they said... The guy that convinced you of that idea actually stole your vote! If you let them use fear and intimidation to get your vote even though you wouldn't otherwise vote for them what does it say about their message? Their ideas or platform if they can scare you into thinking the other guy is the boogie man. Sorry I am tired of the politics of fear, lies, and distortion. It is time to start voting for real people trying to find real solutions to the problems that we all face. If there isn't anyone that you think represents that kind of thinking then don't vote. Don't let them scare you into voting for them, don't let them manipulate you.

I would love everyone to write in some fictitious character and actually have it win... Sorta like the None of the Above vote in Brewsters Millions. I think it would be a riot! :lol:

Longsnowsm

[GMAN]

I like some of the things Ron Paul has to say. Unfortunately, he sometimes comes across as being a little nutty.

[MommaKay]

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof. :roll:

Those who don't have anything real to use in attacking Barack Obama resort to using his middle name, Hussein, because every ignorant redneck peckerwood in America knows that only Muslim A-Rabs have a name like that.

Unfortunately, the fact is that both Obama and McCain are corporate puppets who do NOT have the interests of the average American Citizen in mind. Their one and only job, once elected, will be to further this interests of "The Global Economy." Sure, Obama might be slightly more liberal on social issues than McCain; sure, McCain might be slightly more willing to cater to the demands of the so-called Religious Right than Obama. In both cases, "slightly" is the key word.

Obama wants to shift the focus of American Warmongering to Afghanistan, while McCain wants to keep it in Iraq, at least until he can restore the Cold War with a modern Russia. Make no mistake about it, however -- BOTH of these potential Presidents want to maintain the United States on a permanent war footing, because there's just plain too much money and power to be derived from being perpetually at war.

The FBI is currently instituting new "guidance" to its functionaries which allows them to investigate EVERY American -- everything they do, no matter where they do it; everything they have ever done; every financial transaction; every communication; every association -- all in the name of "Keeping America Safe." And most of the so-called Citizens of this formerly free nation will say, "That's okay. They won't investigate ME." The point? Neither Obama nor McCain have voiced any opposition to this.

We used to have a Constitution. We used to be a free people. Once upon a time. Okay, now it's time for people to reply with the typical inane, "If you don't like America, leave it you commie pinko..." yada yada yada.

[MommaKay]

I'm just a bit curious.. I see the word "socialist" being thrown around a lot. Now, I don't support it in any way, although I'm sure I'll be accused of such for asking this question... but do any of you even understand the basics of it? Because most people I've asked this question of don't, and, judging by some of the applications I've seen of it in some of the threads posted on this forum recently, I'd feel inclined to believe it's more the same here.

No. They know that "socialist," and "Marxist" are bad words because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have told them so. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually fit the person or situation being discussed.

"You like rocky road ice cream!? You frickin Marxist!" :evil:

[MommaKay]

Socialism is destined for failure. Even if you have the same system worldwide it will ultimately fail. You can put any label on it you wish, but socialism or any of it's variables will NEVER quash the human spirit to be free and excel. There will ALWAYS be those who strive to achieve and better themselves. I think human nature strives for freedom. There are those who may attempt to suppress human nature under the guise of socialism, communism, etc., but it won't be accomplished. Just look what has happened worldwide. Every form of socialism has failed. Russia, China and others ultimately come back to capitalism and freedom. Things are not completely free in either of these countries, but they are much better. It is in the interest of both societies to have a free, capitalist society. A country withers under socialism, but prospers under capitalism. The greater the government controls the less productive a society becomes. The more freedoms a society has the greater their productivity.

The Scandinavian countries are all highly "socialistic," and are all doing very well. Don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism -- they are not the same thing, nor does the former necessarily lead to the latter. The United States of America is rapidly approaching totalitarianism -- but that totalitarianism will be dictated by massive capitalist monopolies operating in "Public/Private Partnerships" with the government.

Socialism is not anathema to freedom; neither does Capitalism guarantee it. Monopolistic Capitalism, in which massive corporations control all aspects of human interaction, is no better than a completely Socialist system with equal control. In both cases, the PEOPLE have only that freedom granted them by those in power. In other words, not much.

[rigidsporty]

Anybody BUT Obama!

[Rawlco]

Obama seems to favor the conserve and tax our way out of the fuel price problem, and that means the 55mph nationwide speed limit again. I hate the 55 mph states enough without having them all be 55. Ick.