| ssj12 said: I;m voting Nader since Ron Paul didnt win Republican nomination. |
| ssj12 said: I;m voting Nader since Ron Paul didnt win Republican nomination. |
ssj12 said:
vote Nader, he would put more green in your wallet. |
Vote for Nader, if you want to help put Obama in office.
| TheRealMafoo said: I am not really a fan of socialism or communism, so I will vote McCain. Anyone who uses the term "economic justice", needs to never lead this country. |
A purely free market is not foolproof. It leads to monopolies and exploiting the working class. People fought and died for our rights to 8 hour shifts, 5 day workweeks, and age limits on when they can cram us all into factories. I'd call each one of those anti-free-market regulations "economic justice." I'd also call them a basic human rights issue.
Remember the Depression? We've been socialist ever since. It only takes one big market crash to scare people into providing the safety blanket for the poor. It's been there ever since. If you think America is 100% capitalist, you're wrong. We're socialist as hell. And with the cost of food going up and the health value of food going down, and the cost of energy going up, and the population going up, all at the same time, more capitalism isn't going to help anybody. If anything we'll turn to more socialism to minimize the effects on the hungry.
I think a country's only as good as how it takes care of its hungriest citizen. You ever seen a bum frozen to death in the street? Do you blame welfare or capitalism?
Kasz216 said:
You really need to re-read Obama's positions. He will put troops back in Iraq if Iraq can't handle it. He's also promised to be very hard on Iran and invade them if nessisary. As for Minimium Wage. The problem with that is that it increases inflation, as when the workers wages go up, companies raise the price of products in retaliation. Furthmore the smaller mom and pops that hire minmium wage workers because they can't afford it take a big hit and go out of buisness. It's better to raise minium wage when the economy is booming and companies are less likely to adjust prices to make back profits or do so on a smaller scale. To do it when the economy is bad just raises inflation... and puts a lot of people who work for small chains out of buisness helping bigger corporations secure higher market shares and be able to screw people more. The abortion issue is troubling though. However compared to the global food crisis and that Obama's current stances are just going to make food everywhere a LOT more expensive, he's likely going to cost lower and middleclass people money, not save them. Besides McCain is promising about $2000 more per middle class worker in tax cuts then Obama. |
Word up. Good looking out. I'll definitely do a lot more research by November. Neither of the candidates are really liberal enough for me anyway. I wanted Kucinich. :( If Obama really starts to piss me off, I'm not against going 3rd party.
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed and hoping Obama's acting moderate to get swing votes (like everybody ever) and after he's elected he'll be some sort of super-liberal monster.
In the past threads where we all took that quiz about our political beliefs, I think I was the most liberal person on VGC. I was way past Gandhi, and almost off the chart. Teehee.
| Nader | Obama | McCain | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt single payer national health insurance | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| No to nuclear power, solar energy first | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare |
On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Open up the Presidential debates | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Adopt a carbon pollution tax | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Impeach Bush/Cheney | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Put an end to ballot access obstructionism | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Work to end corporate personhood | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Defend, Restore and Strengthen the Civil Justice System |
On the table | Off the table | Off the table |
| Adopt the National Initiative | On the table | Off the table | Off the table |


The Ghost of RubangB said:
A purely free market is not foolproof. It leads to monopolies and exploiting the working class. People fought and died for our rights to 8 hour shifts, 5 day workweeks, and age limits on when they can cram us all into factories. I'd call each one of those anti-free-market regulations "economic justice." I'd also call them a basic human rights issue. Remember the Depression? We've been socialist ever since. It only takes one big market crash to scare people into providing the safety blanket for the poor. It's been there ever since. If you think America is 100% capitalist, you're wrong. We're socialist as hell. And with the cost of food going up and the health value of food going down, and the cost of energy going up, and the population going up, all at the same time, more capitalism isn't going to help anybody. If anything we'll turn to more socialism to minimize the effects on the hungry. I think a country's only as good as how it takes care of its hungriest citizen. You ever seen a bum frozen to death in the street? Do you blame welfare or capitalism? |
If that bum lived in a country where every opportunity to succeed was available to him, and he chose not to take advantage of it, I blame the bum.
Where is the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, does it say it's your right to be fed by the government? I believe it's the countries responsibility to remove all roadblocks to success. I believe it's the individuals responsibility to take advantage of it. If you do not do what is required of you to feed and house yourself when you otherwise could have, why should I?
In revers, if I stop working, and have no means of supporting myself, it should be no one else's obligation to do so. If people want to donate there money/time to charities to feed and house the poor, that's great (I do this), but to have the government tell me I need to go to work because they won't, pisses me off.
That is not what the US government was established to do.
| ssj12 said: Impeach Bush/Cheney |
from that link:
"In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq"
Sorry, but that's total bullshit. Congress voted, and approved the war. Going to war was the wrong thing to do, but in no way was it a criminal act by the presidency. He followed policy.
You can't impeach someone just because you don't like what they do. They actually have to break the law first ;)
The Ghost of RubangB said:
A purely free market is not foolproof. It leads to monopolies and exploiting the working class. People fought and died for our rights to 8 hour shifts, 5 day workweeks, and age limits on when they can cram us all into factories. I'd call each one of those anti-free-market regulations "economic justice." I'd also call them a basic human rights issue. Remember the Depression? We've been socialist ever since. It only takes one big market crash to scare people into providing the safety blanket for the poor. It's been there ever since. If you think America is 100% capitalist, you're wrong. We're socialist as hell. And with the cost of food going up and the health value of food going down, and the cost of energy going up, and the population going up, all at the same time, more capitalism isn't going to help anybody. If anything we'll turn to more socialism to minimize the effects on the hungry. I think a country's only as good as how it takes care of its hungriest citizen. You ever seen a bum frozen to death in the street? Do you blame welfare or capitalism?
Word up. Good looking out. I'll definitely do a lot more research by November. Neither of the candidates are really liberal enough for me anyway. I wanted Kucinich. :( If Obama really starts to piss me off, I'm not against going 3rd party. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed and hoping Obama's acting moderate to get swing votes (like everybody ever) and after he's elected he'll be some sort of super-liberal monster. In the past threads where we all took that quiz about our political beliefs, I think I was the most liberal person on VGC. I was way past Gandhi, and almost off the chart. Teehee. |
Yeah... I was supporting Obama the whole primaries. Then once he got elected at i set down and looked at the policies i realized i'd of been happier if Hilarly Clinton was elected.
I'm hoping Obama won't be too bad a president. Things in Iraq are going REALLY well right now to the point of where by the time Obama becomes president a phased Withdrawl is a good idea. Which is ironic since his campaign's main focus is to make Iraq look like it's going poorly still... he might be worse for the third world though... and may or may not screw up the economy, but hopefully he brings in some actual experts on it.
Which amusingly the third world was the one thing Bush got right. Africa sees Bush as the US' best president in a long time (despite his backwords abstinancy programs). Bush gave and pushed more money to Africa and other poor countries then any other president.

Here we go... Anyway, I work for the McCain National HQ and the numbers are pretty solid. For all the opposition's rhetoric we are virtually tied. Key swing states will be imp, especially Michigan and the SW--plausible Romney VP effect. NH is a must win and Lieberman will help us out there. Obama is a commi his socialist ideals are too radical and he is the most liberal Sen. even more than Kerry and we see how that worked out. Btw, my sig should be evident of my preference :)
Obama has flip flopped on NASA budget, oil drilling, etc, etc, etc, and etc. Btw rubang he supports partial bith abortion so he's right up your disturbing alley.
TheRealMafoo said:
from that link: "In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq" Sorry, but that's total bullshit. Congress voted, and approved the war. Going to war was the wrong thing to do, but in no way was it a criminal act by the presidency. He followed policy. You can't impeach someone just because you don't like what they do. They actually have to break the law first ;) |
I think that would be impossible anyways if Nader was president Bush wouldnt be. =P


Nader won't even get 5% of the vote in my book.