0

I think the main element is this: McCain (who, contrary to the MSM portrayal of him as a conservative is no such thing), in order to achieve the desired top spot went against his own preferences and threw a bone to conservatives. That is, "Put me there, and I'll turn the Republican party over to the conservatives when I'm gone."

[...] so I'll merely summarize with this: from my political viewpoint, Palin best represents my views. That's what elections are for, IMO, choosing the candidate who best represents one's views and interests.

Definitely, it appears that many conservative people are for first time in history, electing a Vice-president.
You have described the sentiment that many conservatives have about McCain. And you have put your confidence in Palin which has shown more conservative "bone".

I guess what I want to know is, what are you willing to loose in order to support your claim:

I think Obama would be a complete disaster; I think McCain has the potential to suck but suck much less.

And what makes Obama such a disaster in your view that would warrant to sacrifice some principles?
I, personally, subscribe to the notion that if I don't like any of the alternatives, I will show my choice and vote of confidence, by staying at home the day of elections. I know it sounds anti-democratic because every party goes to the extreme of trying to guide everyone to the voting booth, and make you feel patriotic-democratic. However, I view it as party self-interest driven and not for democracy.
What makes you not want to seat at home this one?

I know, a lot of questions.

0

Definitely, it appears that many conservative people are for first time in history, electing a Vice-president.
You have described the sentiment that many conservatives have about McCain. And you have put your confidence in Palin which has shown more conservative "bone".

In February, conservatives were effectively sidelined; watched from the bench until late August.

I guess what I want to know is, what are you willing to loose in order to support your claim:
And what makes Obama such a disaster in your view that would warrant to sacrifice some principles?

IMO he is merely a tool with absolutely no agenda or thoughts of his own. I'm more afraid of the folks pulling his strings than of that from the other camp to which I am friendlier to. And McCain has given more than lip service to his base, whereas Obama seems rigidly frozen. Obama's candidacy to me is akin to this meme.

I, personally, subscribe to the notion that if I don't like any of the alternatives, I will show my choice and vote of confidence, by staying at home the day of elections. I know it sounds anti-democratic because every party goes to the extreme of trying to guide everyone to the voting booth, and make you feel patriotic-democratic. However, I view it as party self-interest driven and not for democracy.
What makes you not want to seat at home this one?

That was my viewpoint less than a month ago. I was not going to 'waste' my vote on a candidate which would lend credence to things to which I do not aspire. I was a write-in for the top and merely playing the undercard.

0

Do you think McCain came up with the ingenious idea of picking Palin himself or do you think he had help? If he can pull out a gun like that what other potential do you think he has? Must be a lot smarter than he looks. Maybe a little dangerous too huh?

0

Do you think McCain came up with the ingenious idea of picking Palin himself or do you think he had help? If he can pull out a gun like that what other potential do you think he has? Must be a lot smarter than he looks. Maybe a little dangerous too huh?

I'm pretty sure all politicians surround themselves with advisers that both shape and bring forth said politician's position.

1

IMO he is merely a tool with absolutely no agenda or thoughts of his own. I'm more afraid of the folks pulling his strings than of that from the other camp to which I am friendlier to.

I come originally from a country in Europe, that saying that it is "extremest" socialist is an understatement. In fact, there was not party that would not at time of election try to show how socialist they were. The result?
Out of thirty-eight million people, 24% were unemployed. That's a lot of families, trying to survive, at the mercy of government welfare.
For more than two years I could not obtain employment. I stood in lines equivalent to the "black Friday after thanksgiving" over here, when every merchandiser tries to get you in their stores with the promise of very discounted items. The different was, these lines were for one, maybe two opening for a very low entry job, equal as cashier over here. All this people, including me, would spend hours in line to just apply to such ridiculous low job. But for the many "high qualified graduated" applicant it was not so ridiculous any longer, any thing to survive; it was not unusual to feel like cows, definitely, were treated like nothing.

I guess, what I am trying to say is, I have seen what socialism is.

More and more people in this country feel inclined to follow that path. Mister Obama has cashed on that trend. Promising more and more, better and better of anything that make the population happy. But the price is terrible.

I don't know Dave, you say that he doesn't have an agenda, I see his agenda is the same that any liberal, just improved to a whole new level.
What do you think of the socialism Obama is preaching?

Votes + Comments
Wow
0

What do you think of the socialism Obama is preaching?

My real opinion is that Obama does not know or care: folks will line his pockets and write his script.

0

Ultimately, no one can guarantee what someone running for office is going to do once [s]he gets elected. Most likely [s]he will not fulfill all the promises spoken during campaign. Nevertheless, if the main message it is “I will redistribute wealth”, “I will increase government to control your every need” and more of the same as Obama has been proclaiming. Chances are, he will do enough damage before people realize what's happening.

“Redistribution of wealth” is a doctrine flawed at its core. But it sounds so good at the ears of the average person. After all, it is “promising” equality isn't? Most of us are hard workers, poor comparing to these big “rich filthy people”. Every one loves equality, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, that is not want it ends up to be or what he means.

I would like to use a simplistic example:
Suppose you are a kid again and you decided to sell lemonade at the street corner, for 5 cents a glass. You want the money to buy some cool new Lego kit. Your brother wants a Lego kit as well, but he doesn't want to do much about it. He knows if he whines enough mama or daddy will provide.

You made a good profit after spending almost a weekend at the corner. One whole buck you made.
Now you get home all happy and show the buck to your dad. But dad thinks that it is good for you to learn the lesson of sharing. Sharing is a virtue, isn't? He forces you to "understand" that you need to share “half of the dollar” with your younger brother, so both of you can have the same amount of money to spend.

I know the story can be extended to the ridiculous. And it is very, very simplistic. Nevertheless, think about the ethic of it, and what could be the result next time, you as a kid want something. Would you not smart up and wait for dad to provide, instead of trying to be self reliant?

That in its core is the doctrine of "redistribution of wealth".

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.