2012

[-Cynthia-]

I think dondon made a good point, in that the president in reality is only a small part of legislative decisions, and so such elections are given more weight than they really should.

That being said, I will probably vote Obama because I have issues with the GOP candidates in general. Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum (I'm embarrassed to have had him as my state's senator) because they're right-wing Christian conservatives with pretty abhorrent political positions and no apparent plans for an economy fix (blaming Obama and saying cut taxes does not qualify as a plan).

Mitt Romney doesn't seem too terrible, though I have some issues with the economic plan he proposed. He wants to continue the Bush tax cuts, which essentially just helps the rich while doing nothing to erase the national debt. He also wants to decrease regulations on corporations, which I have some problems with.

Ron Paul doesn't have the Bible thumping uber conservative social positions at least, but he's far too much of a free market zealot for my tastes. Anyone who knows about economics in the modern era can tell you that markets do not automatically take care of themselves (the Enron scandal due to lack of regulation, the housing market crashing and the subsequent effect on banks etc.) A centrally planned economy is clearly taking things too far, but markets cannot always 'stand on their own' with no government regulation whatsoever. Monopolies are generally bad for economic health, and a free marketeer like Ron paul would let them run rampant. The earnings gap in the US really does not need to widen, 90% of the nation's wealth is already in the hands of 10% of the people.

Edited September 9, 2011 by -Cynthia-

[Phoenix Wright]

Yeah, I scoff at anyone who complains about any sort of tax increase because of how fucking pathetic they are. Not that anyone understand economics anyway, nor do people have any sense of giving back to the government.

I still don't understand how people don't get the inherent flaw of private anything. I know this was sort of about the primaries (the OP really doesn't make it clear whether or not he's referring to primaries or specifically the presidential election or both) but the GOP's view in trusting entirely in the private industry is inherently flawed. We work like dogs in America and have absolutely nothing to fall back on because of this bullshit about cynicism towards the government. The Republicans of course only fuel that some more because... they themselves can make more money and be better off.

..............more stuff

I don't care too much about politics, but I do know enough about US government to realize that the president is generally responsible for very little of the country's legislative policy (nor does he exert control over many factors that we generally attribute to him), and I also know that most of the GOP candidates are a bunch of die-hard Christian idiots.

To be honest, I don't think there will be a big difference in the next 4 years whether we vote GOP or democrat, but I'd rather the face of our nation not be a blustering dumbass.

I applaud both of you (as well as Cynthia haha).

The basic summary of our parties is that the GOP is unorganized, loud, and for the most part stupid. The Democrats are too quiet and too nice.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

Tell us how you really feel Raven

A gentleman's clap, sir. I quite liked most if not all of what you said.

[Aethereal]

Add to the fact that a *large* majority of people are in jail for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. A very large majority; I think a solid 75% of inmates (or some massive percent) are there because of something related to marijuana. It also costs ~35K/yr to keep an inmate in jail, so just imagine how much we could save per year. In fact, investing that money into more financial aid for people could help too because it's enough to give two people near-full rides to an in-state college every year, and one person a full ride to an out-of-state college (per year).

I'd have to see some kind of reputable source to believe that, or anything close to that. A few years ago, the stat was something like 20% of inmates were incarcerated for drug related crimes in state prisons, and 50% in federal prisons. For DRUG related crimes, not marijuana related. Legalizing marijuana is a minor issue, and really, marijuana isn't remotely as important to any one's life as abortion is for those who need it, or gay marriage is for homosexuals. The exception is, of course, people who honestly need marijuana for medical conditions, but since they're handing out medical marijuana cards for any one who can come up with an excuse for one, that's kind of moot.

[Lord Raven]

I swear I read it a while ago, but a second google search has proved me wrong. At this point its showing that drug crime rates are increasing, but in terms of the economy- abortions and gay marriage aren't as big an issue as the drug war. In terms of social freedoms... yes, those two are far more important than weed. I think what I *may* have read was that 70% of all people incarcerated for drugs were marijuana. So I apologize for that, I definitely should've read much closer.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Inui]

Some things for you liberals/socialists to consider:

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

The one thing Ron Paul can do without Congress is end our foreign occupations and wars, saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives each year, while a lot of the stuff he's "nutty" about (going back to gold standard, leaving the UN, etc.) require congressional approval that will never happen due to the existence of the Democratic party, so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

Have you actually read the bill for the Bush tax cuts (nope, because you'd see it's an across the board cut for everyone, from the richest to the poorest)?

Do you listen to anything besides what CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal media outlets tell you?

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

Edited September 9, 2011 by Inui

[Zkirsche]

It would help a lot, though. We waste shitloads of money on the drug war and we mainly fail at it- only to block marijuana. I can't remember the exact figure we're shitting out on the drug war off the top of my head but it's a stupidly large amount (not enough to cure our crisis, we need some sort of fucking miracle for that, but still). Add to the fact that a *large* majority of people are in jail for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. A very large majority; I think a solid 75% of inmates (or some massive percent) are there because of something related to marijuana. It also costs ~35K/yr to keep an inmate in jail, so just imagine how much we could save per year. In fact, investing that money into more financial aid for people could help too because it's enough to give two people near-full rides to an in-state college every year, and one person a full ride to an out-of-state college (per year).

This is all true, and a very good point, and if two party's policies are exactly the same except for their view on drugs, I'd go with the anti drug war side. However, that isn't the situation here, as they both have different solutions to the economic crisis which will have a larger effect overall, and that is what should be used to affect the vote.

so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

Because then we'd have a lot more jobless ex-army to deal with. Although cutbacks in the army are probably the way to go, putting a complete end to occupation will hardly help the problem of unemployment.

Edited September 9, 2011 by kirsche

[Inui]

False. Paul has already stated that he'd station the troops on OUR borders and keep them in areas that are ACTUALLY strategically relevant to us.

And the soldiers would spend their salaries HERE instead of overseas and Paul would veto giving free money to other nations.

[dondon151]

Some things for you liberals/socialists to consider:

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

I don't see how this question is even relevant. No one has suggested that it would be a good idea to go completely communist or anything.

The one thing Ron Paul can do without Congress is end our foreign occupations and wars, saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives each year, while a lot of the stuff he's "nutty" about (going back to gold standard, leaving the UN, etc.) require congressional approval that will never happen due to the existence of the Democratic party, so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

I understand that sunk costs are not supposed to be considered when making a decision on future investment, but it's something that the average person strongly considers when making these kinds of decisions where the costs involve human lives. The problem with pulling out faster than a Catholic attempting birth control is that it will just leave us with a sense of "well fuck, what the hell did we get out of that." We all want to end our foreign involvement as soon as possible, but you can't just start a mess and do nothing to clean it up. I personally disliked the idea of going to war in the Middle East in the first place, but now that we've dug ourselves into a hole, it's not so easy getting ourselves out.

Also, Ron Paul's nutty ideas may never get the approval of Congress, but you're neglecting that as the president, he is still the face of our nation - to the rest of the world, his opinion is our opinion. When I'm in China and talking to my relatives about American politics, they speak as if the only relevant individual in American politics is the president (and like, the secretary of state). If he says stupid things, I sure as hell don't want him representing me, nor anyone else in this country.

[Zkirsche]

False. Paul has already stated that he'd station the troops on OUR borders and keep them in areas that are ACTUALLY strategically relevant to us.

So how does that stop money then? Less money on bullets? I guess that makes sense, but your overall security will still be reduced.

And the soldiers would spend their salaries HERE instead of overseas and Paul would veto giving free money to other nations.

So basically, a "fuck the rest of the world" campaign?

I already don't like him.

Edited September 9, 2011 by kirsche

[Inui]

Less money paying nations $3000 per day + utilities to have a single ship docked in their harbors. Less money being wasted on ammunition and supplies helping/hurting other nations and people. Soldiers will still be paid.

"Fuck the rest of the world" is false. "Giving away trillions, and trillions, and trillions of dollars to nations that don't need it" (Israel, China, European nations, etc.) is more like it. And "only entering military conflicts of strategic interest to America and/or to defend us" is more like it.

Why would you be in favor of giving money we don't have to other nations? I'd love to help other nations. Too bad, right now, we're bankrupt. We need to keep our money here until we recover enough to help others.

@dondon: The more money out in circulation, the less it's worth. That also goes for how many people have a lot of it. Because most of our money is with a small elite, the money the rest of us have is worth more. It's quite simple. If everyone had enough money, nobody would be concerned about money, and its value would plummet.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Inui

[Zkirsche]

"Giving away trillions, and trillions, and trillions of dollars to nations that don't need it" (Israel, China, European nations, etc.)

This already shows how ignorant you are.

Let me remind you of the eurozone crisis which recently resurfaced and had to be dealt with. The crisis which engulfed not only portugal, greece and ireland, but which threatened to bring the rest of the Euro using countries with it, including Spain and italy.

Why would you be in favor of giving money we don't have to other nations? I'd love to help other nations. Too bad, right now, we're bankrupt. We need to keep our money here until we recover enough to help others.

The US's economy however is heavily linked with outside countries however due to the fact that it is, for the most part, an importer country. Much like how greece was threatening to drag the rest of europe with it, teh rest of the world can easily drag you down with it also.

The most beneficial system, IMO, would be one where which countries support and cooperate with each other, something that will never be achieved under the likes of Ron Paul if he's stupid enough to want to leave the UN.

[Inui]

If you view wanting to leave something that causes us to be financially linked to other nations and be forced to enter wars on their behalf as "stupid" then we clearly differ too much in terms of foreign policy to continue this discussion. Waste of time.

Screw the rest of the world indeed. We can't even support ourselves, so how can we feasibly help others without destroying ourselves? We can't.

[lolDeath]

Ron Paul is never going to be elected, he is a novelty dinosaur.

That is all.

[Anouleth]

Some things for you liberals/socialists to consider:

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

Yes, of course it is. Money is defined as having worth. If it did not have worth, it would not be money by definition.

The one thing Ron Paul can do without Congress is end our foreign occupations and wars, saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives each year, while a lot of the stuff he's "nutty" about (going back to gold standard, leaving the UN, etc.) require congressional approval that will never happen due to the existence of the Democratic party, so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

You could make a strong argument that leaving Iraq and Afghanistan in a bad state could come back to bite the US on the ass, so to speak.

Have you actually read the bill for the Bush tax cuts (nope, because you'd see it's an across the board cut for everyone, from the richest to the poorest)?

I thought that everyone knew that.

However, while it's true that it applies for everyone, a cut in capital gains tax primarily benefits the rich since they tend to invest more, while for example, a steel mill worker would probably not be able or have the knowledge of stock markets necessary to invest money after paying for his or her living expenses. In the same way, a tax on yacht ownership would primarily affect rich people even if it applied to everyone, and a tax on tampons would primarily harm women even if it applied to everyone. So the capital gains tax is not really "for everyone", it's "for people who earn money through investing", which generally tends to mean "for rich people".

Do you listen to anything besides what CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal media outlets tell you?

I don't pay attention to American news channels. Typically, I get my news from the BBC.

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

Bolding and capitalising your text, while an extremely classy and respectable move that betrays your good breeding, is not going to improve the content of your argument, especially when you are alleging that there is some kind of conspiracy going on. Likely, I would guess that Ron Paul doesn't receive any corporate money because none of the corporations think he can win. Corporations like money. Why should they give it to a canditate that has poor prospects? I mean, let's face it, some of Ron Paul's positions are electoral poison.

In addition, if the free market actually harmed corporations and the wealthy, then why is there so much more wealth inequality in the US than in European countries like France and England (who have less economic freedom)? Why is there more inequality of wealth in Taiwan than in China?

Finally, just as you argue that Republicans do not "really" support the free market since they still spend an enormous amount while paying lip service to notions of "financial responsibility" and "free markets", most socialists would not consider the Democrats to be socialist, due to Obama implementing spending and tax cuts rather than raising spending and tax. Obama would probably be considered conservative here in the UK, for instance.

"Fuck the rest of the world" is false. "Giving away trillions, and trillions, and trillions of dollars to nations that don't need it" (Israel, China, European nations, etc.) is more like it.

Foreign aid accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget. It does not even begin to add up to trillions. I wasn't aware that the US gave money to China, aside from interest payments on American debt (which is constitutionally required).

And "only entering military conflicts of strategic interest to America and/or to defend us" is more like it.

So really Ron Paul is still in favour of bombing brown people, providing that America can make some money out of it?

@dondon: The more money out in circulation, the less it's worth. That also goes for how many people have a lot of it. Because most of our money is with a small elite, the money the rest of us have is worth more. It's quite simple. If everyone had enough money, nobody would be concerned about money, and its value would plummet.

Well then, obviously then, we just need to give all of our money to rich people. That way, when we're left with a dollar and small change, we'll be richer than ever! If anything, you should be in favour of giving our money away. It just means that the money we have left will be even more valuable!

If you view wanting to leave something that causes us to be financially linked to other nations and be forced to enter wars on their behalf as "stupid" then we clearly differ too much in terms of foreign policy to continue this discussion. Waste of time.

Certainly, I think that America had good reasons for starting Nato. Remember that after all, the other nations in Nato are forced to enter wars on America's behalf as well, so it's not entirely one way. And protecting friendly nations is sometimes in America's best interests, as well.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Anouleth

[Lord Raven]

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

Something for you capitalists to consider: why are we using materialistic benefit such as money and... things as a sign of success? There are many people that are far more successful than your average actor and god knows who but they don't have the money to show for it- and frankly despite how hard they work they don't even necessarily ask for more. They just do their thing and try to help people.

On top of the fact that you are getting socialism and communism confused. Sadly, communism doesn't work because of people like you that attribute material wealth to success.

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

Because Ron Paul is allergic to becoming President, getting elected and getting his name out there, for some reason. There's a very good reason the media has glossed him over repeatedly.

Why would you be in favor of giving money we don't have to other nations? I'd love to help other nations. Too bad, right now, we're bankrupt. We need to keep our money here until we recover enough to help others.

Altruism and humanity is altruism and humanity. Yes, we should cut a bunch off and tend to ourselves, but we've dug ourselves into enough of a hole that if we were to cut off our foreign aid, I'm sure it would be portrayed in their media as "US withdraws aid, we're screwed, fuck the usa" (not verbatim, obviously, but the point gets cross). It would be a short-term boon but it wouldn't be good for us in the long term.

If you view wanting to leave something that causes us to be financially linked to other nations and be forced to enter wars on their behalf as "stupid" then we clearly differ too much in terms of foreign policy to continue this discussion. Waste of time.

Yes because giving up when someone contradicts you is a great debate technique. Though, this is coming from the guy who's countering you in a massive rush because he needs to get to an important meeting, but I've generally given up on politics anyway.

[Aethereal]

I swear I read it a while ago, but a second google search has proved me wrong. At this point its showing that drug crime rates are increasing, but in terms of the economy- abortions and gay marriage aren't as big an issue as the drug war. In terms of social freedoms... yes, those two are far more important than weed. I think what I *may* have read was that 70% of all people incarcerated for drugs were marijuana. So I apologize for that, I definitely should've read much closer.

Yeah, I can believe that. I just wanted to make it clear that there's a difference between economic issues, and freedoms.

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

These are two statements that show a lot of ignorance regarding why we're having such a huge financial crisis.

The one thing Ron Paul can do without Congress is end our foreign occupations and wars, saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives each year, while a lot of the stuff he's "nutty" about (going back to gold standard, leaving the UN, etc.) require congressional approval that will never happen due to the existence of the Democratic party, so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

I'm not interested in voting to elect someone with whom I disagree very strongly about, on many points, even if they probably would never be passed.

Do you listen to anything besides what CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal media outlets tell you?

This is a two way street.

[-Cynthia-]

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

It depends on the how "lots" is distributed here, with enough inflation a million dollars a week would become a worthless amount. The more important factor is the distribution of wealth, not "does everyone have lots?" (because certain amounts of money no longer count as a "lot" depending upon the state of world economics at the time).

Your comment to dondon is totally incorrect and contradictory. If the elite hold large amounts of money, that makes the amount of money held by the lower and middle classes worth comparatively less not more. You don't seem to have a basic grasp of how markets work.

Have you actually read the bill for the Bush tax cuts (nope, because you'd see it's an across the board cut for everyone, from the richest to the poorest)?

Of course the bill doesn't openly tax the rich less, but it ends up benefitting them more.

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

What do Obama and Romney's campaign contributors have to do with the inequality of wealth caused by completely free markets (and various issues regarding monopolies)? This point seems like a total non sequitur.

[Phoenix Wright]

Some things for you liberals/socialists to consider:

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

In a communist society, no one would be rich, no one would be poor (first of all).

No one ever stated that we'd rather have a society under communism.

Do I think people should have more money? Yes. But I want the distribution of wealth to change. The top ten percent holding 70% of the nations' money is insane.

The one thing Ron Paul can do without Congress is end our foreign occupations and wars, saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives each year, while a lot of the stuff he's "nutty" about (going back to gold standard, leaving the UN, etc.) require congressional approval that will never happen due to the existence of the Democratic party, so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

Obama can too. And he has fewer silly ideas.

And I don't mean to downplay it at all, but thousands of people aren't dying a year. We need to get out because nothing is going on. And even if something were, and we were not involved at all, it's none of our damn business. We don't have a right to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. We don't have a right to set up military bases across the planet. We don't have a right, or an obligation, or a need, to be the world's police force.

Have you actually read the bill for the Bush tax cuts (nope, because you'd see it's an across the board cut for everyone, from the richest to the poorest)?

The rich need an increase in taxes to bring in more revenue.

Do you listen to anything besides what CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal media outlets tell you?

Do you listen to news at all? Ron Paul is the best from a pile of shit.

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

You must be joking.

[Dark Sage]

Some things for you liberals/socialists to consider:

If everyone has lots of money, is money worth anything?

This question is meaningless because I doubt there'll ever be a situation in which everybody has a lot of money.

@dondon: The more money out in circulation, the less it's worth. That also goes for how many people have a lot of it. Because most of our money is with a small elite, the money the rest of us have is worth more. It's quite simple. If everyone had enough money, nobody would be concerned about money, and its value would plummet.

Right, we should support the fact that 90% of the country's wealth is in the hands of the top 10%. It's not like they have more than enough already and it's not like there are people who are on the fringe of being homeless who would kill for that money. As Cynthia pointed out, if the elite holds more money, the lower classes' money would be worth less, not more. You should try making arguments that aren't logical fallacies. People would be more inclined to listen to you that way.

The one thing Ron Paul can do without Congress is end our foreign occupations and wars, saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives each year, while a lot of the stuff he's "nutty" about (going back to gold standard, leaving the UN, etc.) require congressional approval that will never happen due to the existence of the Democratic party, so why not vote for him so he can end the wars and wasted money overseas?

Isn't that what all politicians promise? Also the president only has a certain amount of legislative power. In other words, he's not going to be able to do everything you're claiming he could do and only an idiot who has no sense of reality would buy into that.

I actually read a book by Ron Paul and I was only able to read a few chapters before the book was propelled against my wall. From what I hear, he's a bigot too, so that's another reason not to like him.

Do you listen to anything besides what CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal media outlets tell you?

Do you listen to anything besides what Fox News and other conservative media outlets tell you?

IF THE FREE MARKET REALLY BENEFITED CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY, WHY HAS RON PAUL RECEIVED NOT A SINGLE CENT FROM A COMPANY OR WEALTHY BUSINESSMAN, WHILE OBAMA, ROMNEY, AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENT PUPPETS HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS???

One reason might be because Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, if he ever gets off his ass and runs for president. His positions are generally not very popular, so of course the corporations don't want to invest money into what they see is a bad prospect. Common sense and all that jazz.

I myself by the way support the idea of a free market since at it's best, a free market could possibly allow the poor at getting a shot at becoming wealthy. Still, the way it's going now, the free market is arguably supporting economic injustice and inequality. I'm not sure of a solution on how to fix that, but then again, that's not my job.

On another note, I also hate all the potential candidates for the election because I believe that 99.99% of all politicians are corrupt scumbags, possibly including our president. Therefore I support no candidate or political party and basically try not to pay attention to politics.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, I can believe that. I just wanted to make it clear that there's a difference between economic issues, and freedoms.

I guess I should solidify my stance at this point; marijuana is a mixture of a social freedom and an economic issue, so I do believe it's good to not gloss over it completely.

On another note, I also hate all the potential candidates for the election because I believe that 99.99% of all politicians are corrupt scumbags, possibly including our president. Therefore I support no candidate or political party and basically try not to pay attention to politics.

To be honest, I don't think Obama's *that* corrupt. As far as politicians go I feel like he's one of the more pure ones -- doesn't say a lot, but I do get the feeling that he's trying ridiculously hard and he's just so... idk. He's just unable to do anything. Considering how much he's aged, I just sometimes have a hard time believing he's really as corrupt as the average politician. It's like when you care *so* much about someone or something and you're just trying so hard to keep it from keeling over and whatnot, but all it feels like you're doing is delaying the inevitable and you need something short of a miracle to actually pull it off... it just saddens me that people talk so much shit about this man. Edited September 13, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[eclipse]

*looks at photo*

Two different lightings, one looks like it got hit with a filter. . .

*wanders back on topic*

No, I'm not answering that, because:

1. Everyone else got to it first, and I don't feel like making this an echo chamber.

2. I'm not a socialist/liberal.

[Narga_Rocks]

Serious Discussion, people. I just removed 10 posts that were about wonderful things like whether Obama is an alien. No warns, this time.