Philly the Kid wrote:

FTN wrote:While I have a general disdain for the government in Washington, there is nothing wrong with Capitalism. In fact, its far and away the most efficient, well designed system. I love Karl Marx, I found his stuff that I studied in college really interesting. But Marxism is fatally flawed because it doesn't accurately measure human greed. By nature, we always want more. You can't really unteach that. And you'll never get people to buy into it, at least not in this country.

The Law of Entropy says otherwise. People can't conceive of things because they've never seen it in-action. We have today a contemporary 21st century version of Pharoahs and Monarchs, Feudal times. Transnational Mega-corps have carved the globe up in to fiefdoms. We don't have true capitlaism. There is no level playing field and FTN, you're a bright guy but excuse me if I don't take your word as the authority on the true nature and capabilities of humankind.

Rome never saw their demise coming and yet it came. Ottomans. Find an empire in history that survived? The system we have is not sustainable, and not in the form its devolved in to.

The world is different now than it was 2000 years ago.

And people within the Roman Empire saw the collapse coming.

Philly the Kid, you are talking about a country you clearly aren't familiar with. First, do you really think that people will see your way if you just explain it to them? Are you Rush Limbaugh? You seem to think America is all either stupid or uninformed and if they were just as smart as you they'd agree with you.

A lot more than the upper 5% in wealth wouldn't like it. We live in a society where, for the most part, if you work hard you can do better than you're doing now. The idea of hard work making your life better is thousands of years old. Marx didn't believe in that. He believed that individual freedom was unimportant in the face of collective equality. This isn't just greed we're talking about. It's choice. You want to eliminate it and have the group tell individuals how to live.

No, we aren't a country where majority rules. I'm thinking you are Rush. This is a country where everyone matters. The person in poverty that you wish to elevate matters as much as the person with wealth you seek to destroy. Neither should be cast aside in any society.

You say you're not for rewarding the lazy and punshing the hard working and innovative. You can say what you want but that's what your system does.

You say that the overwhelming majority of your "country-men/women -- including many on this board who think I"m nuts ... would get on board with it." You've had years to sell the board on your utopia. Have you sold anyone? Am I too stupid to get it?

The notion that companies would cease to exist and we'd have no products and services and jobs... is absurd.

You can't refute my assertion with this. You're system will take away the decisions from private companies and put them in your hands. I'm assuming you're the President here. You haven't indicated why they'd continue to invest their money in a corporation that you're telling them how to run and limiting their revenue. You offer something different and then dismiss that there is any other outcome other than the one you want. Your A doesn't lead to B.

You should get out into America and meet people. Your so called "Powerful" may not be the people you think they are. Have you been to rural south? Do you know people from all walks of life? I don't claim to, but I know a lot of middle class people and I'm pretty sure 95% of them wouldn't want to live in your society. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are poor who would want to live in your society. You're giving them something they don't have for nothing. I heard a caller on talk radio who said he was voting for Obama because "Obama's going to take money from rich people and give it to me." Now that's not exactly true but I'm sure that sounds good to some.

I think you recognize many of society's inequities and how they're wrong. Kudos to you for that. They shouldn't be ignored. Unfortunately, your solutions are not in touch with the people in this society.

You simply can't plan an entire economy.

People see complexity and thing there must be design, but in fact it is exactly the opposite--complexity, whether of organisms like Disco Stu or the economy are successful precisely because they evolve, and are not created.

Socialists and other advocates for increased planning are the economic equivalents of creationists.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjC2AlWy6CI[/youtube]

McCain lobs a bomb

That's freaking disgusting. LaEx, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing a documentary on this guy.

These jerks are behaving like politicians. I just may abstain.

Hey PtK, a guy on here, I think an engineer, gave you a pretty good explanation of the towers.

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjC2AlWy6CI[/youtube]

McCain lobs a bomb

Weird with the cheery music at the end and then the disclaimer. Is that supposed to help people forget they just watched an attack ad? (Serious question to jhoya there.)

I don't think this works, simply because McCain's probably a lot more vulnerable to "using influence for shady friends" charges--the PAX broadcasting guys, for instance, and of course Mr. Keating. (For that matter, Obama released an ad today linking McCain to Ralph Reed, who was involved with a recent fundraiser for him.) Tends to happen when you spend a quarter-century in Congress.

Yeah, yeah, some McCain apologist can (and surely will) explain why all that was on the up and up and he's really pure as the driven snow. As some Obama sycophant could with regard to Rezko; if there was a direct hit to be scored there, the Clintons would have used it.

The truth, as we all know if we're honest, is that politicians have sleazy friends and supporters. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is as viscerally impactful as McCain claiming not to know how many houses he owns.

I don't think it does either, but it might be enough to stalemate the issue for now. Considering Obama's announcing his veep tomorrow or Saturday, then the two conventions, this issue will be forgotten quickly. Getting it close to a draw and sweeping it under the rug might be all McCain wants.

So, for someone who doesn't follow the nitty gritty as much, did Obama start all this house BS even though he had a multi-million dollar mansion? That seems full retard.

Yeah, but McCain and his wife have seven houses, and McCain said he didn't know how many houses he had. To be fair, his wife owns many of them on her own, so it could have been tricky to know how many houses he owned, but it still sounds awful.

I like McCain a bit more now that I know his wife is heir to a beer distributorship fortune

jeff2sf wrote:That's freaking disgusting. LaEx, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing a documentary on this guy.

These jerks are behaving like politicians. I just may abstain.

I can't tell if you're kidding or serious. And my documentary is not on this guy.

The ad is a low blow. There's no indication of corruption between Obama and Rezko. But McCain seems perfectly justified because Obama has said that McCain was part of the Abramoff scandal implying McCain took bribes or some other illegal activity. And the house thing is stupid. His wife is rich. She buys and sells houses and probably doesn't tell him. Yada yada yada. I wonder if the whole "I don't know how many houses I have" was baiting Obama. He shouldn't be talking about houses.

dajafi, Ralph Reed’s name wasn’t on the fundraising invitation, he did not attend the event and he personally has not contributed any money to the McCain campaign. He was asked to send out emails to get people to the event by the Georgia governor. I don't know if his email even solicited any money, but he's certainly not out there fundraising.

There never was anything to the PAX charges. In the Keating scandal the senate didn't indicate he did anything wrong but "used poor judgment." If you can get people to dislike McCain for a 20 year old mistake that he recognized long ago, by all means. Rezko, on the other hand, was raising money for Obama until 2005. There's no real evidence, despite what the ad implies, that Obama did anything improper. I'd say his association with Rezko was using poor judgment.

I doubt John McCain is privy to Hensley and Company financial statements or his wife's personal finances. He really doesn't need to be. But we've never had a President whose wife made more money than he did. So the conclusion is that the money is his.

Woody wrote:I like McCain a bit more now that I know his wife is heir to a beer distributorship fortune

But subtract those points for holding a football like this. And look at those creepy little troll hands.

Yo, honestly

McCain and Obama just play QB

Chad J. and Anthony Gonz are steady wideouts

Champ and Asomughua the CBs

five Mississippi

The shit I just described > voting

I think the Rezko stuff is too inside for regular joe to care about.

The thing I can't get my head around is this:

Who doesn't think the guy running for president isn't wealthy? Who is surprised that he's got a lot of money, houses, cars, whatever? Who really cares which one of them has less money? Who buys that the guy who makes millions less is somehow closer to what the average joe experiences?

If anything, the capitalist over here is marginally more impressed with Obama because he made what he has sort of himself, unlike McCain. Both are career pol's though, so it's not like the comparison is all that great.

jeff2sf wrote:That's freaking disgusting. LaEx, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing a documentary on this guy.

These jerks are behaving like politicians. I just may abstain.

If PtK, LAex, and jeff2sf threw a party, would anyone go near the punch bowl?

drsmooth wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:That's freaking disgusting. LaEx, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing a documentary on this guy.

These jerks are behaving like politicians. I just may abstain.

If PtK, LAex, and jeff2sf threw a party, would anyone go near the punch bowl?

You always have to watch us raging centrists. Middle or Die.

VoxOrion wrote:
The thing I can't get my head around is this:

Who doesn't think the guy running for president isn't wealthy? Who is surprised that he's got a lot of money, houses, cars, whatever? Who really cares which one of them has less money? Who buys that the guy who makes millions less is somehow closer to what the average joe experiences?

If anything, the capitalist over here is marginally more impressed with Obama because he made what he has sort of himself, unlike McCain. Both are career pol's though, so it's not like the comparison is all that great.

Well, I don't think it's really about the money. As you say, I don't think anyone's looking to elect a president who really needs the work. People like to elect people who they perceive as successful.

But in 2004, Bush had plenty of money and Kerry had plenty of money. Yet it's only Kerry, and Gore to a degree in 2000, who was successfully portrayed as effete and out of touch with the concerns of the common man, and McCain's campaign has been pretty successful painting Obama with the same brush, despite, as you say, Obama being a little better example of the American myth/dream of rags to riches that a lot of voters find appealing. The house story is a good opportunity to portray McCain as not simply wealthy but "so wealthy I don't even know or care how much money I have". It gives Obama a ticket to play in the elitist sweepstakes, and he has some catching up to do.

The story is asinine and irrelevant, and certainly its big play causes me to lose some respect for the Obama campaign. But I really can be effete and out of touch with the concerns of the modern man, so the fact is it will probably gather some votes.

jeff2sf wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:That's freaking disgusting. LaEx, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing a documentary on this guy.

These jerks are behaving like politicians. I just may abstain.

If PtK, LAex, and jeff2sf threw a party, would anyone go near the punch bowl?

You always have to watch us raging centrists. Middle or Die.

laxatives AND LSD!! In one bowl!!!?!1

Swish - I think what you describe goes to something a lot of conservative commentators talk about: In the post-war era, Americans don't really mind the wealthy elite, but cultiral elite status really gets to them. I think it's ironic that the left tends toward class demagoguery (for which conservatives cry "Marxism!") and don't actually seem to get as much traction as they would like from it - meanwhile the conservatives demagoug cultural elitism and a) get away with it and b) have much greater success with it. The examples you provide of Kerry and Gore apply well, I think Dukakis falls here (and Clinton notirously was immune - his Rhodes Scholar status, for example, was received as a plus not a negative).