informed voters? i think not.

[PurpleCherokee]

You guys that are saying that there are uninformed voters on both sides. You're absolutley right. And those of you saying that the media is biased on both sides, you're also right.

But I think the point of the poll was how disproportionately it is slanted to the left.

I'd put some serious money down that there were FAR more uninformed Obama/Biden voters than there were McCain/Palen voters and that that was almost a direct result of the media bias.

 

[goodburbon]

Boatwrench

My state is late in the primary season.

AND I won't declare because I don't believe strictly in one party or the other.

 

[Boatwrench]

My state is late in the primary season.

I feel your pain. California was in June until the 2004 campaign, by the time we voted it was all over but the tears and finger pointing. Now our primaries are in June, but with the Iowa caucauses moving to December...well by the time March comes around now it doesn't really matter.

 

[casm]

Was talking to a older retired co-worker yesterday. Worked for 50+ years at NASA, and has been working for free the past 5 years or so.

He said he went to Nevada to help people register to vote (democratic), and he said it was pretty scary how most of them were completely uninformed on their voting.

Some months ago, I was talking to an Obama supporter about the upcoming election. She was unaware of my political leanings, and I was deliberately remaining fairly conversationally-neutral in an effort to see how much she actually understood about Obama's proposed policies. Eventually I made the comment that his policies were remarkably socialistic in nature, and because of that I didn't feel that I could in good conscience support or vote for him. Her reply to this was to tell me that I was wrong, and that the proposed policies were only there to help people.

When I pointed out to her that I grew up in a socialist country, still have citizenship with that country, and have lived in or travelled to a number of socialist countries (as well as a couple of communist ones), and can spot a socialist candidate a mile off in the pitch dark as a result, she went into a tirade about how I couldn't possibly be right because that's not what Obama is for and I was clearly just - and I quote - "some Republican asshole".

To say the least, I was rather disappointed: this is about equivalent to telling an Auschwitz survivor that the number tattooed on their arm is actually their old high school locker combination. A couple of semesters of civics, poli-sci, and 'lol George Bush sucks' rhetoric evidently carried more weight in her mind than someone sitting across the table with two-and-a-half decades of personal experience dealing directly with what the Senator proposes to impose upon America.

Granted, this is only one person out of the however many millions that elected Obama. But if there's one thing that really shook me about this election, it was how much of the Obama camp appeared to have replaced research and fact-finding with the cult of personality and empty slogans. These are tactics straight out of the playbooks from such political luminaries as Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and Castro - and what's truly frightening is that people appeared to want to go along with it.

It's truly a shame that more Americans couldn't (or didn't want to) see what they were voting for. I moved here 10 years ago in part to get away from the restrictiveness of European Socialism. However, in the less than 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it looks as though we're taking the steps necessary to create a new one - perhaps not a physical wall, but an ideological one. It's truly saddening to watch, and I hope that good men and women will stand up to prevent this happening.

 

[Tom R.]

Some months ago, I was talking to an Obama supporter about the upcoming election. She was unaware of my political leanings, and I was deliberately remaining fairly conversationally-neutral in an effort to see how much she actually understood about Obama's proposed policies. Eventually I made the comment that his policies were remarkably socialistic in nature, and because of that I didn't feel that I could in good conscience support or vote for him. Her reply to this was to tell me that I was wrong, and that the proposed policies were only there to help people.

When I pointed out to her that I grew up in a socialist country, still have citizenship with that country, and have lived in or travelled to a number of socialist countries (as well as a couple of communist ones), and can spot a socialist candidate a mile off in the pitch dark as a result, she went into a tirade about how I couldn't possibly be right because that's not what Obama is for and I was clearly just - and I quote - "some Republican asshole".

To say the least, I was rather disappointed: this is about equivalent to telling an Auschwitz survivor that the number tattooed on their arm is actually their old high school locker combination. A couple of semesters of civics, poli-sci, and 'lol George Bush sucks' rhetoric evidently carried more weight in her mind than someone sitting across the table with two-and-a-half decades of personal experience dealing directly with what the Senator proposes to impose upon America.

Granted, this is only one person out of the however many millions that elected Obama. But if there's one thing that really shook me about this election, it was how much of the Obama camp appeared to have replaced research and fact-finding with the cult of personality and empty slogans. These are tactics straight out of the playbooks from such political luminaries as Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and Castro - and what's truly frightening is that people appeared to want to go along with it.

It's truly a shame that more Americans couldn't (or didn't want to) see what they were voting for. I moved here 10 years ago in part to get away from the restrictiveness of European Socialism. However, in the less than 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it looks as though we're taking the steps necessary to create a new one - perhaps not a physical wall, but an ideological one. It's truly saddening to watch, and I hope that good men and women will stand up to prevent this happening.

Great post! Your experience with the female Obama supporter is typical of young adults indoctrinated in college/university. You cannot reason with most of them.

While there have always been very small pockets of people opposed to democracy and freedom in this country, never was it considered American to support Socialism, Communism, or some other ism that's in opposition to our free and democratic way of life. Now I see people on TV and Internet political shows openly saying they are Socialist and that capitalism was proven to not work. They probably think taxing businesses to hell will help the economy, too. :looser:

 

[LBEXJ]

Serious question here ...

How is it the Obama/Democratic policies excessively resemble those of a socialistic philosophy? Maybe I just do not understand what a socialistic form of government is ... government owned/regulated business' as well as government controlled economies. Is this not what both parties do to some extent?

Someone please school me here ...

Les

 

[goodburbon]

American way

Your health is your responsibility

Socialist way

your health is the responsibility of the state

American way

your business plan sucked, your business fails
your business plan rocked, you are rich

Socialist way.

Your business plan sucked, we don't care your business fails
your business plan sucked, but we need your product, thanks we'll take that.
your business plan rocks, thanks, we'll take that.


American way.

you find a job
your work output is phoenomenal, here's a raise
your work output sucks, you're fired

Socialist way.

here's your job, try not to eff it up too bad or we'll throw you in jail.
your work output is phonomenal here's a plaque
your work output sucks, cool mine does too.


American way.

you have worked hard all your life and earned millions of dollars, congratulations you bought an island I'm jealous.


Socialist way

You've worked hard and earned millions of dollars for the state, congratulations here's a plaque.


Is the picture I'm painting starting to come together?

 

[Tom R.]

Serious question here ...

How is it the Obama/Democratic policies excessively resemble those of a socialistic philosophy? Maybe I just do not understand what a socialistic form of government is ... government owned/regulated business' as well as government controlled economies. Is this not what both parties do to some extent?

Someone please school me here ...

Les

To be fair, it's not true Socialism, but redistribution of wealth is certainly leaning that way. And Obama wants to redistribute even more, which means higher taxes. It may not come from income earned by lower and middle classes, but it will come from other areas (capital gains, death tax, businesses, etc.) that will directly and indirectly affect everyone.

If you're poor and lazy, or perhaps indoctrinated by a liberal university, I suppose you'd like the tenets of socialism. If you worked your butt off, worked hard to attain a good paying job, or created your own business and helped society by creating jobs, and began to enjoy some of the fruits of your hard labor, you might have a different perspective on the government taking even more of your hard-earned money.

The U.S. government already taxes businesses higher than most every other nation on this planet, and the wealthiest people pay a significantly higher portion of taxes than any other group. The federal individual income tax didn't start until the early 1900s, and even then it was suppose to be temporary. We can eliminate it and reduce the size of the government and be just fine.

However, to rid the fed of its cash cow won't go over well with those in power. These people are used to working with large amounts of money to feed their pet projects and social experimentation.

Traditionally, Dems believe they--and they alone--can save the poor and criminal element. They get all giddy like little school girls at the prospect of raising taxes to create or enlargen HUGE social programs. Hey, free money! If someone makes $1500/month at their job, but can make that amount from unemployment insurance (provided via a business tax), it's easy to see that it provides no incentive to work. It creates idle time, irresponsibility, loss of dignity, among other less desirable behaviors (e.g. unwed mothers, fatherless children, crime).

So, in effect, the Dems keep the poor down (keeps their voting base up). Besides all of the problems this creates, it also means taxes must continue to increase. Creating a huge welfare force reduces new job creation, which reduces tax revenue.

 

[Tom R.]

Is the picture I'm painting starting to come together?

Loved it! :laugh3:

 

[Boatwrench]

If you worked your butt off, worked hard to attain a good paying job, and began to enjoy some of the fruits of your hard labor, you might have a different perspective on the government taking even more of your hard-earned money.

I have worked my butt off, worked hard attained a good paying job, made my employer a profitable man have begun to enjoy the fruits of my labor only to have him say, your shift nowis work Saturday for 6 hours and take an 8 hr day off in the middle of the week, but not a Monday. Six months later, we started staying open 8hrs on Saturday, no change in hourly wage...hmmm seems like a pay cut to me...as he got greedy...so that defines capitalism? the American Way? So in a twisted sense the American way is Greed.


So, in effect, the Dems keep the poor down (keeps their voting base up). Funny I don't disagree with your statement there and anyway you look at it that's a wrong platform[/B.

 

[Boatwrench]

Good Bourbon,

I really want to disagree...and I do...but I going to spend sometime with the grand daughter and then come back and demonstrate what I believe is half truths and mis-representations in your statements.

I'll leave with this to ponder until I can discuss further, this country already has many socialist tendencies and they were put in place by Federalist over 200 years ago. i.e. the concept of provide for the common defense.

Please consider I take none of this personally, and I hope you and TomR do not either, I just like a good debate.

Tom

 

[DrMoab]

Please consider I take none of this personally, and I hope you and TomR do not either, I just like a good debate.

Tom

I don't think you like to debate. I think you are a closet right winger who won't or can't admit it because it would put your safety in jeopardy in the town you live in.

 

[LBEXJ]

American way: Your health is your responsibility
Socialist way: your health is the responsibility of the state

I assume you are talking about who "pays for healthcare"? Both seem to want to tell me what is good for my health and both seem to support "healthcare reform". Both also seem to allow those who can buy a "waiver" to poison all of us by postponing or circumventing proper disposal of toxins.

American way: your business plan sucked, your business fails
your business plan rocked, you are rich
Socialist way:Your business plan sucked, we don't care your business fails
your business plan sucked, but we need your product, thanks we'll take that.
your business plan rocks, thanks, we'll take that.

I'd say both Rep. and Dem. have taken the "socialist" approach per your definition of it. Taxpayers are bailing out poor business plans because we "need" certain "services" as we speak.

American way:you find a job ... your work output is phoenomenal, here's a raise ... your work output sucks, you're fired.
Socialist way: here's your job, try not to eff it up too bad or we'll throw you in jail ... your work output is phonomenal here's a plaque ... your work output sucks, cool mine does too.

American way: you have worked hard all your life and earned millions of dollars, congratulations you bought an island I'm jealous.
Socialist way:You've worked hard and earned millions of dollars for the state, congratulations here's a plaque.


Both parties have supported labor laws that restrict or have made it expensive to get rid of those who's "performance sucks" ...

I guess I have worked for socialists for years. I have seen lots of people getting "rich" on the labor or services I have provided while I have gotten by. I don't have too much of a problem with that ... who knows if I have been treated fairly. BTW: Have you ever worked somewhere where there is a "salary cap"? I can save the company thousands of dollars by being more efficient, yet gain nothing because of it under this 'guise. Was it a Rep. or Dem. that invented that one?

Is the picture I'm painting starting to come together?

Not Really. It seems to be "finger pointing" and "name calling" when the real problem is all of us. Both parties seem to only be interested in what is good for them, which is money and power, and to poke their nose into my business. I am not completely innocent either. I probably carry too much debt and expect a higher standard of living than what I can afford. I guess I'm not much on politics ... seems to just be a blame game.

I prefer to just leave the definition of a "socialist" as one who suppports government owned/operated business and a "socialistic economy" as one that is controlled by the government. I'll leave the "who's to blame" to the finger pointers.

Les

 

[tharlanjr]

Republican or democrat doesnt matter, you can be a liberal republican or a conservative democrat...

The American way opposed to the socialist way is correct...

I guess it is more of the Orig American way.

If your company has a salary cap, then you work harder and move to a different company that doesnt, or start your own business.

You work and make yourself sucessful, and dont complain because one company has a salary cap.

I am sure their boss gets paid more, and the boss above them even more.

You gotta move up in order to get paid more. Untill your CEO there is always room to go...

If its a matter of comparing rep vs dem, you really need to look at what they stand for opposed to what they call themselves.

 

[goodburbon]

I'm not laying blame on only 1 party. America as a whole is becoming more socailist every day, half of our citizens have an entitlement additude.

One of the 2 parties running was a bit more up front with the socialist policies, can you guess which one? I'm not calling names, I'm calling a spade a spade.

 

[casm]

American way: Your health is your responsibility
Socialist way: your health is the responsibility of the state

I assume you are talking about who "pays for healthcare"? Both seem to want to tell me what is good for my health and both seem to support "healthcare reform". Both also seem to allow those who can buy a "waiver" to poison all of us by postponing or circumventing proper disposal of toxins.

Part of the reason for this is that both parties have let healthcare become one of their causes célèbres. The Democratic Party feels that we need a national socialised healthcare system; the Republican Party's response is to give a tax credit to be used for healthcare spending. It's basically been decided that we need some kind of healthcare reform because the other guy wants to do something about it, and neither plan is particularly good.

American way: your business plan sucked, your business fails
your business plan rocked, you are rich
Socialist way:Your business plan sucked, we don't care your business fails
your business plan sucked, but we need your product, thanks we'll take that.
your business plan rocks, thanks, we'll take that.

I'd say both Rep. and Dem. have taken the "socialist" approach per your definition of it. Taxpayers are bailing out poor business plans because we "need" certain "services" as we speak.

While I agree with the point you're making, the only reason I can support the bailout of certain industries (banking, automotive) is to prevent further damage to the economy from the wider issues that their collapse would generate. Personally, I don't like it - if your business model was so poor that you couldn't offer goods or services that people wanted to buy or your management was negligent in the operation of the business, tough. You eat the big green weenie.

However, given the current economic climate, we can't let this happen - and I'm specifically talking about the banking and automotive industries in this case. The idea of a bailout appals me, but it's the lesser of two evils.

American way:you find a job ... your work output is phoenomenal, here's a raise ... your work output sucks, you're fired.
Socialist way: here's your job, try not to eff it up too bad or we'll throw you in jail ... your work output is phonomenal here's a plaque ... your work output sucks, cool mine does too.

American way: you have worked hard all your life and earned millions of dollars, congratulations you bought an island I'm jealous.
Socialist way:You've worked hard and earned millions of dollars for the state, congratulations here's a plaque.


Both parties have supported labor laws that restrict or have made it expensive to get rid of those who's "performance sucks" ...

I guess I have worked for socialists for years. I have seen lots of people getting "rich" on the labor or services I have provided while I have gotten by. I don't have too much of a problem with that ... who knows if I have been treated fairly. BTW: Have you ever worked somewhere where there is a "salary cap"? I can save the company thousands of dollars by being more efficient, yet gain nothing because of it under this 'guise. Was it a Rep. or Dem. that invented that one?

To be fair, most of the people who can't be got rid of due to incompetence, laziness, or both are typically working in heavily-unionised shops - such as government. Remember that unions and employers are both corporations, and they've negotiated a set of terms by which employees may be retained in their positions. If those terms were negotiated to the employers' detriment, too bad. They should've had better negotiators, and the union should've realised that there are economic implications (read: future unemployment) to demanding too much.

Is the picture I'm painting starting to come together?

Not Really. It seems to be "finger pointing" and "name calling" when the real problem is all of us. Both parties seem to only be interested in what is good for them, which is money and power, and to poke their nose into my business. I am not completely innocent either. I probably carry too much debt and expect a higher standard of living than what I can afford. I guess I'm not much on politics ... seems to just be a blame game.

I have to disagree here: goodburbon's picked out and contrasted some of the more evident aspects of a socialist government. I don't see it as finger-pointing or blamelaying; it's just calling it as it is.

I prefer to just leave the definition of a "socialist" as one who suppports government owned/operated business and a "socialistic economy" as one that is controlled by the government. I'll leave the "who's to blame" to the finger pointers.

Les

Let's say you witness a crime and the cops are called. They catch the bad guy. You give them a statement, and in that statement tell them that you saw the bad guy do it. That's not laying blame; that's incontrovertible fact based on your observation and experience. Now let's say that they came to you after they had the guy in handcuffs, asked you if you saw anything, and you replied with, "naw, but he looks like the kind of SOB who'd do that," that would be laying blame because there's no foundation on your behalf for the statement you just made regarding him.

Politics is much the same: an observable process. And as with just about any observable process, you can categorise parts of it differently than others. I don't see how naming many of Obama's policies as socialistic in nature is playing a blame game - it's just describing them for what they are based on the observation of roughly 80 years' worth of socialist governments in operation around the world.

 

[Boatwrench]

I don't think you like to debate. I think you are a closet right winger who won't or can't admit it because it would put your safety in jeopardy in the town you live in.

Thanks. :rof:

 

[DrMoab]

Thanks. :rof:

Anytime Tom! :cheers:

 

[LBEXJ]

Politics is much the same: an observable process. And as with just about any observable process, you can categorise parts of it differently than others. I don't see how naming many of Obama's policies as socialistic in nature is playing a blame game - it's just describing them for what they are based on the observation of roughly 80 years' worth of socialist governments in operation around the world.

'm not laying blame on only 1 party. America as a whole is becoming more socailist every day, half of our citizens have an entitlement additude.

One of the 2 parties running was a bit more up front with the socialist policies, can you guess which one? I'm not calling names, I'm calling a spade a spade

I do not disagree Burbon about what you posted. I apologize for the "blame" comment ... it really has nothing to do with the socialism topic. It has more to do with where the responsiblity lies with the current economic crisis.

I agree that political opinions are expressions of "perception" , but I'll add they are also based upon a variety of interpretations ... the topic of socialism and what socialism actually is. Personally I see both parties leaning heavily towards a socialized approach to government.

I really do not think the Federal Government (both parties) want to "own" any Business or Industry, but they sure want to "control" them. The saddest part is, as a nation, most people look towards the government to solve all our problems. You've all heard the old adage: "By God, there ought to be a law ..." People also need somewhere to place blame.

I understand, now, where those that support a more conservative approach to government see the Democratic Party as having a more socialized agenda. But I see (and maybe others also) where the Republican Party has a socialistic agenda about business/the economy. Both parties, as far as I'm concerned, have strayed too far away from what government's role was originally intended to be.



Peace ...

Les

 

[DeftwillP]

I'm calling a spade a spade.

racist