I forgot how many states we had...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y3jmE87SoE

lol

that is a really old video...that is from like october of last year....I expect better from you...

You're posting a video from last year's presidential election campaign.

Were you not paying attention during that time?

If not, why? Your future kinda depends on it, ya know?

Why oh why would I not pay attention to the presidential election campaign? 1) Not interested in candidates 2) Doesn't like the current "two party" format 3) Football season 4) Challenge Car 5) school 6) work 7) I control my own destiny, so my future doesn't depend on that a-hole.

DirtyBird222 wrote: Why oh why would I not pay attention to the presidential election campaign? 1) Not interested in candidates 2) Doesn't like the current "two party" format 3) Football season 4) Challenge Car 5) school 6) work 7) I control my own destiny, so my future doesn't depend on that a-hole.

Thats a pretty ignorant thing to say.

I apreciate and respect the trust you put in me to decide your future. If you knew me that might scare the hell out of you.

ManofFewWords wrote:

DirtyBird222 wrote: Why oh why would I not pay attention to the presidential election campaign? 1) Not interested in candidates 2) Doesn't like the current "two party" format 3) Football season 4) Challenge Car 5) school 6) work 7) I control my own destiny, so my future doesn't depend on that a-hole.

Thats a pretty ignorant thing to say.

How/why? Please elaborate.....

porksboy wrote: I apreciate and respect the trust you put in me to decide your future. If you knew me that might scare the hell out of you.

Thats awesome. If you don't vote, you cant bitch.

Joey

It's all right.

We'll still let you become the 11th province.

Shawn

joey48442 wrote: Thats awesome. If you don't vote, you cant bitch.

Who said he didn't vote? Perhaps he just knew in advance that he wasn't going to vote for either the Democricans or the Republicrats. These days it's the choice between Commie Socialists or Fascist Socialists. I voted, but definitely not for either of those choices.

Gosh...after 15 months on the road, he mis-spoke! What next? Will the sky fall?!?!

All people who have never misspoken, please walk across the water and raise your hand!

You know, I disagreed with #43 and didn't vote for him, but his speaking abillty (or lack there of), was never the issue. And even if I thought he was a poor manager (my main complaint) , I never referred to him as an A-hole in a public forum. Bad form. Just my humble opinion of course.

Also, not for nothing, but some of you guys should really look up the definition of socialist and fascist. These are not pure, defined terms. I know these words are thrown around (inaccurately) on TV as "put-downs", but you have to know what something means before you use.

OK, I'm going out for a drive on my local socialist road down to the socialist post office. My horn doesn't work; I hope I don't get casught by the fascist policeman.

Public infrastructure services are not socialist, and police are not fascists.

Explain that one. Not the fascist police part...but the other part.

Last time I checked, any government service provided to benefit the society (ie, the wealthy and the poor) was considered socialist.

Or is there a thin red line in there somewhere?

Duke wrote: Public infrastructure services are not socialist, and police are not fascists.

You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

PHeller wrote: Last time I checked, any government service provided to benefit the society (ie, the wealthy and the poor) was considered socialist.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but here goes:

If you take some of everybody's money, and build a nice road across a new bridge to the library, all of which everybody can use, that's not socialism.

But if you take a lot of money from rich people, and give it to poor people, that is socialism, because once you give the money to the poor people, the rich people who earned it can't use it any more.

I didn't vote for him and don't really trust him, but when that remark was made I really didn't pay too much attention. I took it as a wry comment made after being on the road running for office for two or three years (well, he was!) and maybe it seemed that there WERE 56 or 57 states and he was campaigning 8 days a week! The "Spreading the wealth around" bothers me more.

Hey, he was in the Senate. All he would have had to do was count the Senators and divide by two...

FWIW I'll bet Biden thinks there really are that many states...

Duke wrote: ...But if you take a lot of money from rich people, and give it to poor people, that is socialism, because once you give the money to the poor people, the rich people who earned it can't use it any more.

I'm going to call shenanigans on that one:

To say socialism takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor is profoundly silly and is clearly an attempt to tie "typical" liberal ideal to socialism (ohhhh, dirty word).

In socialism there are NO rich or poor people, that is the WHOLE POINT of socialism. Fundamentally socialism is silly of course, and probably can only really function in a Star Trek like society were everything is so automated and advanced, there really is a need to do anything. Or perhaps in a really simple society.

aircooled wrote:

Duke wrote: ...But if you take a lot of money from rich people, and give it to poor people, that is socialism, because once you give the money to the poor people, the rich people who earned it can't use it any more.

I'm going to call shenanigans on that one: To say socialism takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor is profoundly silly and is clearly an attempt to tie "typical" liberal ideal to socialism (ohhhh, dirty word). In socialism there are NO rich or poor people, that is the WHOLE POINT of socialism. Fundamentally socialism is silly of course, and probably can only really function in a Star Trek like society were everything is so automated and advanced, there really is a need to do anything. Or perhaps in a really simple society.

ok, so your example doesn't say RICH or POOR, but its the same concept. make everyone equal by taking money from the people who make more money than they "need" and giving it to people who don't make as much money as they "need"

i put need in quotes because it is most likely going to be an arbitrary amount decided by someone in an office pushing papers around somewhere. kinda like how everyone that drives faster than me on the freeway is crazy and everyone driving slower than me is an idiot that drives too slow.

I see what you are saying, but I think you are still muddling the idea. In true socialism people don't "make" any money (again, kind of the point).

What I think you really want to say, is that in true socialism, people who would normally make a lot of money in other systems (e.g. doctor) would make the same (that is zero) as everyone else (e.g. box boy) in socialism. Of course there is not exactly great motivation to work your ass off to become a doctor at that point. Now of course, if there was an immediate shift to socialism, your point would be true, but only at the transition.

I think if you think about a true definition of socialism, calling current politicians socialist is pretty silly. Saying that they are pushing for socialist aspect to the society is also pretty silly considering many aspects of the society could already be considered socialized (in an un-pure way)

And that's what I find hilarious.

The conservatives keep blaring about that we're turning socialist and before long we'll be just like the Communists or something. It instilling this fear that taxes=socialism, and people are starting to see "Red".

No-one is about to admit the shortfalls of a true free-market capitalistic government. Don't they have that in the Arab nations?