After listening to both major candidates' views on the various issues I have decided to vote for Obama.
The main reason for this is his plan to redistribute the wealth in this country. I think that's a good thing. I think we should take other people's money (just not mine) and give it to those who need it most. As he's only talking about taking it from people other than myself I think that's a great thing. All of those rich people are just crooked leeches on society anyway. I mean really, what do any of them actually do to benefit our society anyway? I say take their money and give it to the poor and unemployed who truly do contribute to our society. Those rich bastards don't need all that money anyway.
Obama plans to use other people's money (not mine) to pay for health care benefits for those who can't afford them or simply claim they can't afford them. That's a good thing. I think other people should pay for such a program, just not me personally.
Obama plans to raise taxes on other people and not me. I think that's also a good thing as the government needs more money to spend on pet projetcs and for helping out those who are too lazy, errr I mean unable, to work. As long as other people (but not me) are paying for it, that's a good thing.
Obama will usher in a new era for America. One that will be all about change. The rich folks who can most afford it will foot the bill for the rest of us, just as it should be. The common man will no longer have to worry about high taxes, health care, or any of those other pesky issues that plague the working class. It's not like they'll actually have jobs and be working anyway. The rich folks will be paying for all of it for us.
As long as someone else is paying for it, I am all for it!
Jaw drops; proceeds to put it back in place. Looks around for the labels Satire, sardonic, or humor...
Uh, okay...wow. I never figured you would vote for him; that being said, congratulations and good luck. You're doing your duty as an an American, voting.
You really need labels?
One of my friends sent this email......it seems liking a fitting analogy.
The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young Fidel came along, every Cuban was at least receptive. When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor, and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!" But nobody asked about the specifics of change, So.... by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. The mainstream media has refused to vet Obama and when others speak the truth, they do their best to represses it. This is very problematic in a free country such as we think we are. Obama is a radical if there ever was one. It will require more than boats to get us out of here should an Obama administritation bring the kind of change that "spreading the wealth around" means....pure Marxist Socialism.
The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young Fidel came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor, and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed.
When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
But nobody asked about the specifics of change, So.... by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.
The mainstream media has refused to vet Obama and when others speak the truth, they do their best to represses it. This is very problematic in a free country such as we think we are.
Obama is a radical if there ever was one. It will require more than boats to get us out of here should an Obama administritation bring the kind of change that "spreading the wealth around" means....pure Marxist Socialism.
No actually. I figured it was one of those, but wasn't going to assume. I've seen stranger reasoning.
You know what's odd, people are screaming and ranting about "Oh no, socialism!"When: 1) It's worked pretty damn well all over the world. 2) We already have socialism in our system, it works, and not one person complains. (Maybe cause they gain? )
Seriously..wtf...
Cheers to someone picking up the tab!
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were the fathers of modern Socialism and as a system, it has not and will never work. Why?..... because it ultimately leads to atheistic Communism. You do remember the former name of Russia don't you....the Union of the Socialist Soviet Republic.
Mason you've probably captured most Obama supporters feelings dead on. Slightly reminiscent of this famous quote:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
here's my updated version:
"In the USA, they first came for president Bush, and I didn't speak up because I'm not president Bush . Then they came for the Republicans, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Republican. Then they came for the talk radio hosts, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a talk radio host. Then they came for the small businessmen and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a small businessmen. Then they came for me, the middle class–and by that time there was nobody left paying taxes to speak up."
I loved this!
It was printed in the local paper on July 16 of this year. (The original letter).
That is the second time I have seen that quote in the last couple of days (of course the first time I posted it. )
Should I be trembling in my booties? Sorry, but I'm just not terrified about the name, or socialism/communism.
Granted, socialism or communism in their pure forms will never work. Why? People. We have ourselves to blame. It's not the system but the people in the system. Ideally, if everyone truly worked together, they would both work. Sadly, the way the world is and the way the world could be are not the same (in any way).
That being said, we're a nation founded on the belief/principle that every man/woman can believe in a supreme deity (or lack thereof) of their choice. We were not founded as a christian nation. If anything we were founded with the Deistic principle of religion being between him and his/her God.
The state has nothing to do with the religion. I don't see how you can put the two together. The fact that the separation of church and state is a huge thing in our country and that an atheistic communism seems odd aside....it's all improbable/impossible. The USSR was a horrible attempt at Communism, so them (and most "communist" countries) being an example to support your views against it is weak. They never were a true communism, never.
That's not to mention that I'm talking about socialism, not communism. They're inherently two very different systems of government/economics. Here's a reply I got from somone when I asked for information:
Socialism is not communism. They are very different things. Communism is a political philosophy centered on an authoritarian government planning the economy by establishing industries of the nation state, the dictating the production, price and the distribution of wealth. Socialism is capitalism with a few changes. Socialism the government (in general) reserves the right to regulate, invest, in the major industries vital to stability of the economy and general welfare of the people of the nation. Such as the Banking, Lending and Trade, Credit, Energy (Oil, Coal, etc.),Stock exchange, Pharmaceutical, Medical Technology, Heath Insurance, Agriculture Industries. As well a socialisitic command economy is used to fund Scientific Research and Projects (NASA, Jet Propulsion Lab), in Environmental preservation and protection (Yosemite, Yellow Stone), national infrastructure, county hospitals, etc. The United States is not far from being a socialist nation. The government just has to be willing to close the loop holes in capitalism that allows for risky Cooperate policies and income schemes that leads to instability in the national economy. It can be very confusing because communism and socialist are often used interchangeably, when in fact only China, Soviet Union, Cuba are good examples Communist states, many countries of western Europe and Scandinavian are good example of socialism. Although we prefer to call them welfare states that way we can demonize the word socialism by equating it to communism.
Face it lula, if you have ever received help from the government at any time, that's socialism. Our current government/economic system is very socialist. (See the bolded part)
~L
Well Mason, the title definitely deserved a reading of this article. I too have decided to vote for Obama and I also plan on taking fulla advantage of his powers:
1) First, I'll Make my wife leave her job, that way we can go from a $45,000 a year household to a $24,000 a year household. This will not only lower my taxes, but get money from the Gov't.
2)I will suspend my insurance at my job so that i can get Obama's insurance.
3) I will leave my wife and kids so that she can collect even more money with me not around.
4) I will leave my job for one that pays less and I do less work, maybe security in some boring place.
What the hell, I'll just quit my job and wait till Obama gets me into a new house and a new car.
I had no idea of the source, but evidently someone thought it was worthy enough to post on the net and get circulated all over the world!
Good job Nitro Cruiser.
lula posts: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were the fathers of modern Socialism and as a system, it has not and will never work. Why?..... because it ultimately leads to atheistic Communism. You do remember the former name of Russia don't you....the Union of the Socialist Soviet Republic.
ANTHEMROAD POSTS:
Ya, I think we all should be trembling if Obama and the Dems win big.....institutionalizing Marxist Socialism would mean the end of freedom as we know it according to the provisions of the US and State Constitutions.
I agree we do have a certain amount of Socialism already in place....far, far, far too much personal irresponsibiity.....and want of gib brother government to take care of us.... we are asleep at the switch and as frogs sitting in a pot of water slowly getting boiled to death.
Not necessarily, if it's done right then they can gell together. They're not mutually exclusive, or polar opposites. Socialism doesn't equal anti constitution, some of the very people whose writing we base our constitution on. Jean Jacques Rousseau, john locke, and thomas paine (rumored) to name a few.
Communism/Socialism was made to be evil by those in the mccarthy era. The difference with socialism as it is now days, and how it was intended, is that back then it was supposed to help, not support.
That's my type of socialism, and I feel it's right and works. It's time for the end of this red/conservative paranoia over it. It's truly a good idea, IF done right.
Don't get me started on the whole big brother gov't deal, my mother dealt me that stuff for years. It's a load of hokey.
I disagree...Socialism and Communism by virtue of being what they are can not under any circumstances ever "work" for the good of the people.
What do you mean? Of course it does. OUr Founders wanted to "insure domestic tranquillity" through the Constitution as the framework of our government. They did this by recognizing our God given natural right to life in their Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the why and the Constituion is the how of American government. This was later protected against infringement by the 14th Amdendment. The God-given inalienable right to Life was protected for almost 200 years until the Supreme Court decided to "legalize" abortion in 1973. But ten years before that in 1963, the state threw prayer out of school and the Ten Commandments out of public buildings, court house hallways, etc. and it's been downhill for us from there.
Make no mistake....over these 40 or so years, our failure to protect the paramount right to life is leading us to totalitarianism and the dictatorship of relativism.
Really? tell that to the hundreds of millions who suffered untold misery and suffering under it. Both real Socialism and Communism deny men have a right to private ownership of productive goods. According to them the means of production must be owned and managed by the State. Communism ruins the individual, the family, and society itself. Again, the individual right of ownership is completely abolished. No true incentive to self -development and progress is left. Freedom, so prized by all of us is destroyed, and people become just like parts of a machine.
you need to listen to your mother.
Socialism is a very broad term that has been interpreted in many different ways. A dictionary definition has it given to any one of the schemes for changing society chiefly by an equal distribution of property possessed and regulated by the State authority. Some socialists define it as a form of government leading to a state of society. Communism is indeed a form of Socialism in that both deny that men have a right to private ownership and a complete abolition of private ownership of all means of production.
Even though the rhetoric used to idealize each system promises a better world for the people, the power actually imposed is brutal dictatorship and oppression of the people. The two systems are completely devoid of social justice and social charity.
I sincerly hope this is a joke.
And even if it is...... it's in poor taste.
Well it's your right to disagree, but facts are facts, and they were both designed to help the people.
That's my socialism, is the kind that HELPS people.
Sorry, but you're full of shite with that. In your beliefs, you fail to see the duality of the nation and the relativism that encompasses it. If our nation was intended to be as you see it, it would've been. Our founding fathers would've made it so, but it wasn't. The contitution is a secular document, as is the DoI. There's no (constitutional) basis for the claim of the right to life due to religion, because you can't take them hand in hand. They're two entirely different things. If you claim the right (in abortion) to life based off the constitution, you're playing with dice, because who is to say that it covers unborn children? It's never defined. If you claim the right to life (in abortion) based off of religion, then you hit the brick wall of separation of church and state, that the government is not supposed to base decisions on their religion or the majority religion because we're a multi-culural/religion nation. To do so would only open up the path towards possible Theological Fascism, i.e. the very thing you claim to dislike b/c of socialism/communism.
What I mean by the state/religion point was your constant implying some sort of Christian principles to this nation; this isn't a christian nation. We're a FREE nation. We were founded as a country for those of every religion. So you trying to apply your religious beliefs on our country, to interpret things that way - is faulty, it's a fallacy.
You have to step outside of your faith for a second, just a second and see it in the eyes of those who are not Christians.
No one here, including myself, is saying their pain and suffering was fake I've an adopted grandmother who is russian, and a friend at school who is russian. They both were living in the Soviet Union. I've heard horrible stories.
What I am saying, is that we can have Socialism/Communism in our economy or government, because we already have it. The only problem with it not working right, is that people won't work together.
I'm also saying, that theoretically, ideally...as communism/socialism were designed...there were the people in mind, and their well being.
It's like any man made or ran institution, it's open to corruption. Such as, for example, your faith. Just because your God says it's perfect and whatever, doesn't make it so.
I think we're just talking past each other, or talking from different angles, because I'm talking theoretically and as applied to a nation that has shown the ability to have socialism work efficiently.
KFC, I'm not going to become paranoid over that. I'm not, I refuse to because it's just hokey created to make people afraid. I'm going to use my head; my rational, logical thinking and approach things as such. That being said, she now agrees with me. We've talked about it and she's (on her own thinking) told me that it really is silly.
These statements betray a rather frightful ignorance of history and a naivete that is perhaps endearing but nuts. Jonestown was a 'truly good idea' to some people.
Think about it Daiwa, just think about it. Before then Communism was, granted, a put off to most. Still it wasn't "the greatest evil of our time." If the McCarthy era had never happened then I honestly - imo - I dont think communism would be such a worrysome thing by people.
The PTAP was/is completely different. Socialism doesn't equal a cult, and seems a tad off topic.I'm perfectly smart enough to realize that good ideas can go awry, just look at politics, or both parties. I realize that. I'm not f'ing stupid, alright people?
Again, as I've said, I'm discussing this theoretically.Gah, hopefully someone will understand me. Honestly I feel like i'm talking to a wall, it's pretty simple thing I'm trying to explain. I don't expect anyone to fall on their knees and say that they're all socialist now, but at least concede something.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
