@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

No, but I have absolutely no regard for Islam. And I have no regard for a guy who has befriended William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

Ron, you just said in another thread that you are an undicided voter, but judging from your comments you know exactly who you are NOT voting for, that kinda makes one pretty decided voter in a two party race.

Man, this login issue is a real pain. Anyway, I think in the other thread I said I will likely vote third party, although I didn't say who. These are important times. I think third parties have more relevance today than ever before. Witness the bipartisan bailout Congress worked on over the weekend. Mark my words, the essence of this bailout will be from the top down instead of from the bottom up. There will be lots of talk about confining CEO pay and that's supposed to make us peons feel good. There isn't a decimal SMALL enough to register the ratio between CEO pay and the size of the entire mess.

Anyway, sorry my rant got a little off topic.

Edit: you must have added to your post after my reply. I was not voting for Nader it was the guy I was responding to...I forget his name.

@gaganraj said:

and of course Arab = Bad.

I guess our numerical system should be questioned by the average american as well...

No, but I have absolutely no regard for Islam. And I have no regard for a guy who has befriended William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

This is bound to ruffle some feathers: the 800 pound elephant in the room is the fact that Obama has an ARAB NAME. This alone makes a huge difference in many people's mind, especially those undecided voters.

Now there is a huge difference between undecided voters who are watching and learning so as to invest their precious vote wisely on the issues and then there is the ignorant, ill informed idiot who thinks Obama is a Muslim terrorist ....now you have said before that you are an undecided voter, which one are you?

Well, Pete, I'll be voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. Obama the Muslim terrorist, huh? Now, that's a stretch. You don't think a Presidential candidate having an Muslim name in these times is relevant? Taqiyya.

You seem to get a big kick out making fun of those who believe in God. Do you also mock those who believe in Allah or are you a single religion hater?

This is bound to ruffle some feathers: the 800 pound elephant in the room is the fact that Obama has an ARAB NAME. This alone makes a huge difference in many people's mind, especially those undecided voters.

This whole matter of a winner and a loser is unimportant to me. Obama is a better orator. Substance and character is what matters to me. As Solo said in another thread, one decides the winner based on their own bias and this is why the media will declare Obama the winner every time.

@teezer said:

Here are the results from the fact checkers:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

I watched the "debate", but I found it terribly annoying. Politicians annoy me in general, and I'm not happy with either of these candidates.

I agree, they annoy me too. I think we should have a citizenry legislature; like the concept envisioned by the geniuses who wrote the Constitution.

Stinkie, I would never confuse communism with socialism. I define communism as the government controlling the means of production (the old USSR) while socialism is the government providing cradle-to-grave care of it's citizens. I don't need or want the government to care for me; I don't want that dependence. I think the essential job of government is to protect I believe excessive government interferes with individual freedom. Some would point our own Patriot Act as proof of this.

I do see the humane-ness of socialism, but I would not be willing to spend 50% of my income on it. Doesn't that high of a tax rate tend to interfere with entrepeneurial efforts? I would think there would be a disincentive to earning. I guess it comes down to the life style we are each used to.

I notice the "I have no job..." at the bottom of your posts. I hope this is a temporary condition.

Tom, Washington was right, wasn't he? He also mentioned the importance of religion in this speech, which is interesting considering how repellent the concept is to some these days.

I thought the Scandinavian countries were under some form of socialism in which the government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation.

I have to say I like the coalition approach. I prefer it when Congress is gridlocked or on recess. The less the "govern", the better we are.

Anssi, did I read somewhere that Finland is trying to de-socialize itself?

For me, this script is essential. I use this thing more than any other script out there, by FAR. I'd be lost without it. In order: water, food, shelter, windowizer.

The original thread started by Solo was really far reaching, I guess. The mainstream media is left leaning so it's hard to introduce a third party. The right does want a third party because they will siphon off votes. I find it interesting that most viable third parties are basically conservative in their beliefs.

Who is Matt Gonzales?

Edit: the lesser of two evils is still evil....priceless!!

Edit: In the interest of accuracy and honesty, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was introduced by Republicans in 1999 and it passed both Houses with a veto-proof majority. The bill enjoyed wide bi-partisan support.

Eric, you make a good point regarding third party access to the media. The last third party candidate who had access and was a part of the debates was Ross Perot (in 1992) and he got 19% of the vote! We need third parties now more than ever. Actually, a more accurate statement might be that we need a second party now more than ever.

Stinkie, I guess either definition could apply to our current situation. Whatever the proper definition is, it's a move away from what our founding fathers envisioned as a democratic republic. A collection of states with the federal government having a few but distinct rights and what rights are not enumerated go to the States.

We are rapidly departing from this tenant and I don't like it. I'd have to say that President Bush, for whom I voted twice, has NOT been an adherent to our founding form of government. This is why I will likely vote Libertarian.

PS: You spelled totalitarianism correctly.

Tom, I did skip over a lot of history, but I think the basics are accurate. I shudder at all the
"we need more regulation" chatter coming from Capitol Hill these days. I'm a laisez faire kinda guy and do not want more government oversight or regulation. Unfortunately, this is precisely what will happen. This is yet another step toward socialism. It is a fine line. Greedy mortgage brokers and lenders rushed to sign up anyone with a pulse because they could pass the risk onto Wall Street in the form of mortgage backed securities. The risk was not assigned to the risk taker. There was no regulation controlling this business model. Had there been such regulation would we be in this current mess? I don't know. I do know if we put this pricks in prison for a spell, this behavior will cease. Of course this means there has to be a law that was broken; thus here we are back to regulation...

I also think the current bailout solution is not the answer. It rewards bad behavior. The House Republicans, the true conservatives Daniel referred to, prefer an federal insurance plan to backstop the crapping mortgages rather than the fed buying these mortgages and them trying to either collect or re-sell them.

We live in interesting times.

Edit: Stinkie, the amount of debt the average American has is disproportionate to their income/assets. We have been living beyond our means for probably 30 years now. We have come to expect the largesse offered by government and we keep voting for the candidate who promises us the most.

fella77, it's impossible to discuss these deep issues with someone like you. I suggest you do a little reading. You'll be a better person for it.

I hate to interfere with the left wing love fest here, but the librarian did not lose her job.

Does anyone here understand what the Glass-Segall (sp?)Act is/was. It was a Depression-era Act meant to separate banking, insurance and brokerage. It was repealed under Bill Clinton. Admittedly, he had a Republican Congress, but it happened under his watch. Many smart people point to this repeal as one essential reason we're in this mess today. It allowed these Wall Street crooks to create these highly complicated derivatives and notional financial instruments such as credit default swaps.

This mess was further aided by Clinton's and Bush's "desire" to increase home ownership. In 1999, the Fed ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept weaker credit from borrowers. Thus we got 97% financing and no income verification loans to name a few.

Sony pulled the video from You Tube because of "copyright infringement".

Edit: I found it elsewhere. Man-o-man does that ever suck!!!! Whoever signed off on this song is in the wrong business.

I am very happy for you 3eighty. Here's hoping for healthy remainder.

Ross, I turned 60 on Friday. I have to say I feel much younger. Like 45.