Poll: McCain-Palin vs. Obama-Biden

**JAD_333** · 14 Sep 08, 21:01

Originally Posted by Plutodog

[COLOR="Blue"]Well, you actually garbled what I believe but let me try to clarify for you. I believe there are policies, practices that are good for society as a whole, providing practical benefits for the common good that you would call "socialist" and thereby condemn out of hand. I object to THAT practice.

Well, you see, where we are coming from is not what is good, but how you go about doing "good."

If some good for society is only possible by altering the Constitution, we have to ask, will that good outweigh the possible long range damage to our form of goverment.

Do you deny that a good program could lead to bad consequences? If the program is inherently socialistic, the issue becomes Is Socialism good for our country. I don't think you consider that side of the issue.

**Plutodog** · 14 Sep 08, 21:55

--Quote:
-----Originally Posted by Plutodog
Thanks for the head's up, Mod. I trust you won't be too shocked that my #1 concern is also keeping my family safe and Americans safe as well.

Originally Posted by Bluesman: I'm going to go ahead and throw the BS flag on you, here. If you're a liberal, then that cannot be your first concern. It's by definition. You either don't know where you really fit on the scale, or you're trying to hide that from the rest of us.

I’d appreciate it if you’d pick up that false flag. Your definition is inaccurate. You and I may disagree on what is the best way of keeping our families and America safe but to conflate that disagreement as you have into me or other liberals not being first and foremost concerned with keeping my/our family/ies and my/our country safe is inaccurate and churlish. (Definitions 2 & 3, Merriam-Webster). You’ve drawn a ghoulish, twisted caricature of fellow citizens like me--which advances what, exactly?

Originally Posted by Bluesman: But, NO, liberals certainly do not care nearly as much about personal and national security as they do about several other unrelated concerns.

I would generally disagree, reserving specifics until you can be more specific.

--Quote:
-----Originally Posted by Plutodog
I'm a little surprised not throwing names around like "lib tard" is some big compromise, but I'll try to take it in stride...the respect will come a little harder about that particular little non-compromise but we lib tards are nothing if not big hearted.

Originally Posted by Bluesman:...so big-hearted, in fact, that most believe that is the organ to think with.

I don’t know who you’re talking about. The liberals I know of and agree with believe one is wisest, most balanced when they use BOTH their heads AND their hearts. The two are actually meant to work in tandem, each keeping the other out of trouble.

--Quote:
-----Originally Posted by Plutodog
I'm also kind of keen on keeping America what it has always been in terms of the liberty and justice for all, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, going to war only as a last resort, not as a presumptive strike, etc., etc. Crazy ol lib tard like me thinks our greatest strength is in sticking to these basic principles...

Originally Posted by Bluesman: I assume you meant 'pre-emptive strike', and this goes to prove my point: no liberal would EVER consider a pre-emptive strike, and that's why they should never get within a country mile of any matter dealing with national security.

No, I meant presumptive as in preventative – seeing what you think another power COULD do sometime in the future more or less accurately depending on the intelligence and whether that intelligence is politicized, crafted to help fit the presumption. President Bush and his administration did quite the job of that in his September 2002 speech and subsequent National Security Strategy (starts on lucky page 13). For it to be preemptive, it would have needed to be much more definite, much more real of an immediate threat than it actually was.

Originally Posted by Bluesman: OF COURSE a pre-emptive strike should be undertaken when the alternative is being struck. What the hell do you imagine is being pre-empted? If you'd shrink from hitting first, before your enemy can kill Americans and break our stuff, then you're simply not equipped to even think about national security.

OF COURSE a pre-emptive strike should be undertaken when it’s based on something much more tangible, much less contrived to suit underlying plans/strategy such as that of the Neocon (Definition 2, Merriam-Webster)PNAC empire dream as outlined in their white paper in 2000. What you define as shrinking from hitting first, I see as refraining from hitting reflexively with a certain degree of paranoia -- or in furtherance of an empire dream that would change America dramatically and drastically from what the Founders envisioned – or some combination of the two.

Perhaps it would help enlighten as to my attitude to provide the following: I believe we live in a dangerous world and that much of that danger cannot be long or effectively completely preempted or prevented from touching any human or group of humans. Bad things are going to happen from time to time, to many of us and our fellows – both man-made and nature-made disasters and outrages will happen. It’s unavoidable and there is no complete security – not even in misguided attempts to give up all liberty in favor of security.

Further, I also think it is in our interest to have a modicum of care, consideration for the citizens of other countries on our planet and to not too quickly or easily see harm that we may visit upon them as “collateral damage”. When we do that, we not only harm others of God’s children whom we really ought to see as also being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, but we also create enemies – lots of them, and in a part of the world where those folk believe they can win cushy, sensuously rewarding spots in the after-life if they respond to perceived or real outrages by throwing their explosive laden body or vehicle in the midst of our soldiers or civilians (or those of our allies). The inevitable down-trail result of that situation continuing unabated, I think, is us finding ourselves in a situation where our immediate security/survival requires devastating use of our own WMD’s to a genocidal degree. The fall-out (literally and figuratively) of such action ought to be seriously considered NOW, not then.

I do worry about what we must become in order to put ourselves in that situation. And again, I believe that’s drastically different than the Founders had in mind. We ought, instead be working for a more rational path, doing more on various fronts and in various ways outside of over-use of military power to avoid that kind of a future. I believe the Neocon dream is one we should be disabused of. I believe we should reject any aspiring leader who is “equipped” in such a misguided philosophy for the individual, the national, and the international good.

Finally, again, disagreeing with this war or that one should not be conflated into being entirely against war or in any way against rational self-defense if your intent is to converse, or to have public citizen debate of political issues rather than simply to smear.

I see that whole Limbaugh and Rhodes and Rove (or a Democratic counterpart) as caustic to our politics and our democratic Republic. I can engage in it too, and do on other sites where it seems the only way to help some folks understand that thinking liberals will not be shut down or intimidated by the stuff a talk show host can get away with by use of screened calls and the hang-up button. But it's really a downward spiral that is quite dispiriting for all but the inveterate hate-mongers amongst us.

Sorry, the links fell out in my previous version -- I believe I've added them all back.

**Plutodog** · 14 Sep 08, 22:36

Originally Posted by Parihaka

What policies, what practices?

Good question and it becomes difficult to intelligently discuss because so many on the right politically will call so many things “socialist” and condemn it as akin to or on the slippery slope to the expired Soviet Union or Communist China, etc., etc. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about. Keep in mind a couple things. First, we may argue about degree and specifics of any of the below. Second, there is waste, fraud and abuse in government, just as there is in private business. But to favor any or all such examples as those below is not to desire or approve waste, fraud or abuse.

And finally, any one of you or I may not see each and every one of the below as "socialistic". That's part of the problem of the kitchen-sink, debate scuttling pitching of the term as an argument against things in the first place.

--> free public schools
--> police services
--> fire services
--> military defense
--> social security
--> some level of welfare
--> infrastructure – roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc.
--> some level of public planning, zoning, etc.
--> heck, government for that matter, at all levels. Some libertarians to the degree of anarchism would see any government whatsoever as socialism at best, dictatorship at worst.

For my part, I believe capitalism needs to be adulterated, regulated and enhanced by things like the above. I do not believe pure capitalism leads to anything other than the strong oppressing the weak in any manner they find advantageous, self-sustaining. I bow not for a moment to the so-called "free market". Nor do I think most people would if it were to gain full control.

**Plutodog** · 14 Sep 08, 22:45

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Well, you see, where we are coming from is not what is good, but how you go about doing "good."

And on that I would agree and be happy to discuss/debate means and ends.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

If some good for society is only possible by altering the Constitution, we have to ask, will that good outweigh the possible long range damage to our form of goverment.

Agreed. And we should be awfully damned careful about doing any constitution altering. Luckily, the Founders made that fairly tough to do.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Do you deny that a good program could lead to bad consequences? If the program is inherently socialistic, the issue becomes Is Socialism good for our country. I don't think you consider that side of the issue.

Of course I don't deny that. What I do deny is that a good program or policy or ideal necessarily fails simply because it wasn't a good program or policy or ideal to start out with. Our democratic Republic is and has always screeched and squealed going down the tracks more or less over our history as a result, at base, of citizens not filling the role we must in order to make things work as well as possible when dealing with fallible human minds and mixed human characters and motivations.

Again "Socialism", the catch-all, as good or bad for our country is, IMO, a false and unhelpful premise for discussion. And yeah, I do try to consider all sides of this and other issues. Being human, I'm sure I don't always succeed and being fallible, I've certainly been wrong and will continue to err. Luckily I'm in good, universal company.

**Ironduke** · 14 Sep 08, 23:01

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Not if he believes there's such a thing as a 'good' socialist, he doesn't.

And generally, a liberal does NOT believe in individual liberty, but rather gives it lip service, while trying to advance the power of the state. He just says those things to hide what he's really all about.

So don't take those throw-away lines as being anything else; they're just camoflage.

It depends on the sum of all of their political stances, not just being a liberal in general. I wouldn't call the liberal reformists of Iran opponents of individual liberty, they are proponents of it against the power of the state. Perhaps a better term to use would be social liberal or statist.

Liberal is just too generic and vague to be used in these contexts. I'm an economic liberal, as I support free trade, free markets, and policies that are generally laissez-faire.

**BadKharma** · 15 Sep 08, 01:21

Originally Posted by Plutodog

I think you might want to keep BadKharma's screen name in mind...and be careful what you wish for. Also, you might want to be nice to the minority here with the name calling...it would make you look better.

Besides...

we're making a list and
checking it twice,
we'll remember when Barack wins
who was naughty and nice.
Barack Obama's comin' you clown!

Just kiddin', of course...

I find it very disheartening that you have now decided to attack me personally. Do you feel it was correct of BHO to change the wording on the presidential seal and use it for campaigning? I did not use lib-tard, if you look at my posts I have not used slurs. I would ask you to look through the thread on where user names come from.

Originally Posted by Plutodog

Thanks for the head's up, Mod. I trust you won't be too shocked that my #1 concern is also keeping my family safe and Americans safe as well. I'm a little surprised not throwing names around like "lib tard" is some big compromise, but I'll try to take it in stride...the respect will come a little harder about that particular little non-compromise but we lib tards are nothing if not big hearted.

I'm also kind of keen on keeping America what it has always been in terms of the liberty and justice for all, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, going to war only as a last resort, not as a presumptive strike, etc., etc. Crazy ol lib tard like me thinks our greatest strength is in sticking to these basic principles...

OK.........let me get this correct you are concerned with our countries safety however you feel if irrefutable intelligence is uncovered concerning a strike against our country you feel we should not strike first and wait for the blow to fall before retaliating?

**BadKharma** · 15 Sep 08, 01:34

Originally Posted by Plutodog

And finally, any one of you or I may not see each and every one of the below as "socialistic". That's part of the problem of the kitchen-sink, debate scuttling pitching of the term as an argument against things in the first place.

--> free public schools
--> police services
--> fire services
--> military defense
--> social security
--> some level of welfare
--> infrastructure – roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc.
--> some level of public planning, zoning, etc.
--> heck, government for that matter, at all levels. Some libertarians to the degree of anarchism would see any government whatsoever as socialism at best, dictatorship at worst.

For my part, I believe capitalism needs to be adulterated, regulated and enhanced by things like the above. I do not believe pure capitalism leads to anything other than the strong oppressing the weak in any manner they find advantageous, self-sustaining. I bow not for a moment to the so-called "free market". Nor do I think most people would if it were to gain full control.

Tell me please what is socialistic about the fire service as a former FF/Paramedic I would be very interested in knowing. Considering I worked on average 72 hours/week in order to boost my check with overtime in order to afford different things that I wanted and to pay off credit cards debts my ex-wife saddled me with. As a capitalist I believe that falls in the category of working to improve your situation. If it was socialistic I would not have been able to work overtime for increased wages, I would not have had increased pay for being a FF/Paramedic rather than a FF. Also might I remind you that Benjamin Franklin started the first Fire Department in this country as a private business betting upon insurance companies to pay for the service.
Earlier you posted some long and flowery discussion on how you felt the US highway service was a socialist enterprise. Although some things in the US are for the good of the common people that does not automatically make those things socialist in nature.

**Donnie** · 15 Sep 08, 01:43

Originally Posted by Plutodog

[LEFT]Good question and it becomes difficult to iut goverigently discuss because so many on the right politically will call so many things “socialist” and condemn it as akin to or on the slippery slope to the expired Soviet Union or Communist China, etc., etc. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

our government was never designed to do the things you want it to. Anything you add to the original intent of this goverment is socialism.

I've posted this before but its the basis for our government.

The 4 principal reasons why our federal government was formed:

(1) The common defense (national security);

(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (police)

(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;

(4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs).

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787

And finally, any one of you or I may not see each and every one of the below as "socialistic". That's part of the problem of the kitchen-sink, debate scuttling pitching of the term as an argument against things in the first place.

this is silly, just because something is socialistic doesnt make it socialism, socialism is takeing from one person and giving it to another, if you have a "program" that does this then its socialism. i keep seeing this list from social...ahem, libs, its getting old.

--> free public schools

socialism, get rid of it

--> police services

this was something the founding fathers felt we needed, however this should still be paid for by those who use thier service.

the FED should only be paying for Federal agents

--> fire services

should be (and often is) paid for by the private sector and those who use this service. a cities fire department should be paid for by the city it serves.

the FED should not be paying for any of these services

--> military defense

this is one of the only things government is responsible for

--> social security

socialism, get rid of it.

--> some level of welfare

socialism, get rid of it

--> infrastructure – roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc.

this should be paid for by those who use, the FED would pay for interstate highways as one of thier responsibilities to national defence and interstate commerce, all other roads should be handle by the state county and cities that own them

--> some level of public planning, zoning, etc.

handled at the city level

--> heck, government for that matter, at all levels. Some libertarians to the degree of anarchism would see any government whatsoever as socialism at best, dictatorship at worst.

thats a straw man.

takeing money from a group of people that is used to benifit that same group is one thing, take a fire department for instance. the city that uses it pays for it, some guy in new york is not paying for my fire department

but take something from a group of people and give it to another group, is social... who the hell are we kidding, its down rite communism.

For my part, I believe capitalism needs to be adulterated, regulated and enhanced by things like the above. I do not believe pure capitalism leads to anything other than the strong oppressing the weak in any manner they find advantageous, self-sustaining. I bow not for a moment to the so-called "free market". Nor do I think most people would if it were to gain full control.

your idea is to take what someone else has made at the end of a gun, and giving it to someone else.

i call people who do that thieves.

**Plutodog** · 15 Sep 08, 01:49

Originally Posted by BadKharma

I find it very disheartening that you have now decided to attack me personally. Do you feel it was correct of BHO to change the wording on the presidential seal and use it for campaigning? I did not use lib-tard, if you look at my posts I have not used slurs. I would ask you to look through the thread on where user names come from.

BK -- I was not attacking you, personally or otherwise and I apologize if I was not clear in that. I was responding to Blues with his seal and suggesting that it might bring him "bad kharma" and referring to his use of the term "lib tard" etc. Go read his post, check out his seal, what it says. I was actually trying to be funny with all involved, including Blue even though I think "lib tard" is over the top. So I am sorry if it was read otherwise.

And no, I don't think it was wise or correct for the Obama campaign to come up with that dumb seal. I was glad it got tossed. I don't know who's idea it was but it was dumb and ridiculous. It deserved ridicule.

Originally Posted by BadKharma

OK.........let me get this correct you are concerned with our countries safety however you feel if irrefutable intelligence is uncovered concerning a strike against our country you feel we should not strike first and wait for the blow to fall before retaliating?

Nope, if irrefutable intelligence is uncovered concerning an imminent strike against our country, I feel we should act first and with adequate force if that is the best option to take it out. I don't believe that was the case with Iraq at any point -- not even close. We had cherry-picked intelligence massaged to make a case that wasn't there. We had other options and we were working them. Bush did not want that, IMO, he wanted to take Saddam out, occupy Iraq and use it as part of PNAC. It was a dumb idea. Occupation of an Middle East soil is only going to bring more M.E. enemies, terrorists. Our presence in Saudi Arabia was one of the biggest burrs under the murderous Osama's saddle. And meantime, we let that S.O.B. get away and rebuild in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and we've wasted 5 years and expended how many lives on the WRONG WAR?

**Plutodog** · 15 Sep 08, 01:57

Originally Posted by BadKharma

Tell me please what is socialistic about the fire service as a former FF/Paramedic I would be very interested in knowing. Considering I worked on average 72 hours/week in order to boost my check with overtime in order to afford different things that I wanted and to pay off credit cards debts my ex-wife saddled me with. As a capitalist I believe that falls in the category of working to improve your situation. If it was socialistic I would not have been able to work overtime for increased wages, I would not have had increased pay for being a FF/Paramedic rather than a FF. Also might I remind you that Benjamin Franklin started the first Fire Department in this country as a private business betting upon insurance companies to pay for the service.
Earlier you posted some long and flowery discussion on how you felt the US highway service was a socialist enterprise. Although some things in the US are for the good of the common people that does not automatically make those things socialist in nature.

I agree that the fire service -- indeed all the things I listed -- are not socialistic in the pejorative sense that most throw the word around. But there are those who do in the libertarian camp -- especially the really radical, purists to the point of anarchy -- and that would include the National highway system and local road departments. They think everybody should do everything for themselves.

Others want to concentrate on Social Security or public schools or welfare or you name it. The socialism part apparently comes in because it is publicly funded through our taxes whether or not we actually feel we need those services. So again, you can see where throwing the term around rather than dealing with specific issues simply does not work if clarity and intelligent conversation is the desire. As to my words, geez, I write like I write. Flowery is not my intent. Getting my meaning across is.

**Donnie** · 15 Sep 08, 03:17

Originally Posted by Plutodog

I agree that the fire service -- indeed all the things I listed -- are not socialistic in the pejorative sense that most throw the word around.

thats not true, you cant compare fire with welfare. Fire in most cases get no federal funding, and where it does get it, it shouldnt, if the fed pays for anything beyond its original directive they are engaging in socialism.

that includes schools, welfare and everything you listed that was not its primary objective. National defense, Public order, Instate commerce, and foriegn relations. everything else is headed toward a socialistic state.

**JAD_333** · 15 Sep 08, 04:53

Originally Posted by Plutodog

For my part, I believe capitalism needs to be adulterated, regulated and enhanced by things like the above. I do not believe pure capitalism leads to anything other than the strong oppressing the weak in any manner they find advantageous, self-sustaining. I bow not for a moment to the so-called "free market". Nor do I think most people would if it were to gain full control.

You throw these terms around as if they are ridgidly practiced as defined. Pure capitalism doesn't exist in practical form any more than absolute beauty does. It is an approach to economic growth, not a political system. It is natural to human beings. Government's only legitimate role is to enforce the rules...regulating commerce.

The problems we see today with free markets is not the fault of free markets per se, but rather the result of undoing years of tinkering with them for social ends. We had built up a system of tariffs and quotas designed to protect inefficient industries and, by extension, jobs and wage levels. So, naturally when you return to free markets, there are bound to be problems.

It's pretty hard to defend free markets when you see all the jobs going overseas and listen to people who lost their theirs jobs in the process. Obama and Clinton promised to help those people by "tinkering" with NAFTA. To McCain's credit he defended free markets. I don't know whether Obama or Clinton understand the implications of reversing course now, beyond knowing promising it will yield votes. But if they were honest, they would have told those people that returning to protectionism would make the country worse off. Economic growth is no longer possible in isolation from the global economy.

**Bluesman** · 15 Sep 08, 05:33

Originally Posted by Plutodog

Well, you actually garbled what I believe but let me try to clarify for you. I believe there are policies, practices that are good for society as a whole, providing practical benefits for the common good that you would call "socialist" and thereby condemn out of hand. I object to THAT practice. I have no problem discussing the relative pro's and con's of individual ideas in that regard. I see that as being more rational, more fair, more objective.

The ONLY reason to even have a government is to do those things collectively that cannot be done individually or in a privately-held collective. That list is huge from your perspective, and very limited in mine and the Founding Fathers'.

Liberals are collectivists; conservatives are individualists, and the difference is between the natural tension of individual responsibility and freedom to do as we dam' well please for the latter, and to coerce free-born individuals 'for their own good' by the former.

So, my bottom line to you is simply: mind your own goddam' business. I'll let you know when I need you to get involved.

Again, to clarify -- and understanding that I can speak best for myself and those I agree with. A liberal like me DOES believe in individual liberty -- see post above -- within the limits of where they start to impinge on the liberty of other individuals and the society as a whole. You may deride that as "lip service" and I'd have to disagree. But again, I believe we do the general subject justice when we deal with specifics, not the blanket condemnation that you seem to find agreeable.

Nope. Condemnation from me. Because what you advocate as a liberal is coercive.

Get this real clear: EVERY SINGLE ACTION by ANY government, ANYwhere , is dangerous to the freedom of individuals. Some we accept, in order to live better in proximity to one another. BUT...all law is backed by force and the power of the state, whether it be for general good or for the accumulation of power over fellow citizens. ALL law, even the good ones that allow us a better life, objectively considered, and NOT based on what YOU think is best for me.

And your list of what constitutes 'good' is much, much longer than mine, and usually based on your prejudices, and not any philosophical underpinning that can be defended by a grounding in personal liberty.

As to the power of the state, I believe that our government is supposed to be a reflection of, an extension of WE THE PEOPLE. It should be us, using our collective wits, our collective strength to do things we can't so easily or so rationally do individually for the common good. That our democratic republic has not been so good at making sure that happens is, IMO, OUR shortcoming as individuals and as the collective WE THE PEOPLE. It is we who must be active and involved in both electing folks who keep that in mind and act accordingly -- and it is we who must be active and involved in following up between elections, providing our individual and collective oversight to insist that our government stays on course and/or returns to course -- or gets voted out when they fail to do so.

This is precisely why you're wrong.

Consider the case that PJ O'Rourke cited re: collective judgement of WE THE PEOPLE. In the purest form of people-powered democracy, the New Hampshire town hall meeting, a man that wished to build a golf course on his private land - acquired for that very purpose, mind you - was prevented from doing so by the popular will. I wish I had the entire article to hand, because it flatly states why that ridiculous notion you're flogging is exactly WHY a liberal simply cannot grasp that political power weilded through even democratic means is STILL COERCION against a free man and what should be rightfully his to dispose of as he wishes.

Now, in a demonstration of the counter-intuitive effect, I expect that you're too intelligent to grasp what I'm telling you when I say that what a liberal believes is that COLLECTIST ACTION AND JUDGEMENT, although appearing democratic, is actually a retrograde force against liberty. History demonstrates that whenever a majority decides to do ANYthing that the minroty opposes and that is inimical to that minority's interests, tyrrany is the result, be it large or small.

To see the state as the problem, the enemy, the boogyman is -- to my way of thinking -- attacking symptoms of the REAL problem. That would be that we have long and to varying degrees fallen down on the job of active citizenship and balancing of power. Yet again, specifics are more easily and clearly rationally discussed.[/COLOR]

'Active citizenship' is code for FORCE, as you're using it. See also 'Soviet Union, Attempt to achieve Utopia by'.

I gather it looks that way to you. There are other at least equally rational views.

And if you attempt to implement your views by force (and political power IS force), whether you're backed by a majority and parlimentarian rules and due process or not, I'll blow your head off your goddam' shoulders, along with as many of your brownshirts as I can get before they take me down, commissar.

**Donnie** · 15 Sep 08, 06:21

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I'll blow your head off your goddam' shoulders, along with as many of your brownshirts as I can get before they take me down, commissar.

damn blue, and i thought i was being to harsh

**JAD_333** · 15 Sep 08, 06:25

In 1922, Ludwig von Mises, a proponant of socialism wrote the following:

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism. All other definitions are misleading.

The ideal of taking over the means of production is difficult to establish in the US because of deeply rooted legal protections of private property. The work-around is to tax business and wealthy people and use the money to fund social programs.

The end result is the same. Welfare needs begets more welfare needs, and of course higher taxes. If left unchecked, business will be unable to produce enough excess wealth to maintain it.

This is reason enough to oppose Obama's social vision. We already have a fairly full stable of social programs. Why do we need more? Is making socialism the goal?

View Poll Results: Which ticket will you be voting for Nov. 4th?

Thread: Poll: McCain-Palin vs. Obama-Biden

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

The Blues is Cool but I'm a Kristofferson Fan

Socialism

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

The Palin debate

Obama picks Biden as Vp

The Candidates and the Economy

My finals paper- McCain's financial woes.

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions