Actually, I am very offended that you would even put the word communist next to John McCain. Barack Obama is a socialist. He has close ties to both marxist professors and black liberationists. He beleives in wealth redistribution, socialized healthcare, socialized 401k and so fourth. Those are more communist than not. OH and need i remind you that the NAZI party was the National Socialist Party. Hmm this is very confusing. Lastly, John McCain is running for number one. Not Mrs. Sarah Palin. However, Mrs. Palin has more excutive experience than Mr. Obama.

The GOP believes in wealth redistribution as well. After all, we subsidize GOP business after GOP business to the tune of $Trillions (this can easily be FACTUALLY documented). So frankly its insulting to read the mind-numbed irrational gibberish that folks like you spew about "wealth redistribution" as though in and of itself it is a bad thing,

Frankly invoking the Nazis demonstrates how desperate you are because if you had REAL solid arguements to level, you'd level them. But the reality ist that the GOP has lost the support of the majority of america for its POLICIES, so you are left to engage in ad-hominem and scare tactics.

OK so what if McCain wins? You know that if he wins he will at best win by the narrowest of margains. And in winning, McCain will alienate completely some 25% of the nation (minorities) as proof that the system is rigged.

And McCain will also be advocating policies that the majority of the USA doesn't believe in. His win will be based on the fear mongering that you are engaging in.

So how does McCain govern a nation that basically does not believe in his policies?

Yeah, she was in the PTA.

degsme,

What an incoherent, rambling turd of a post that was! Get a real job and see how you like it when a bunch of scumbag politicians steal your money!

First i'm not republican. I'm an indepedent. You mentioned that a McCain victory would alienate the minorites. So you are a collectivist then. I believe if individualism. Individuals should NOT be judged or characterized by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Therefore, the government should not be advocates of collectivism. Yes the GOP believes in wealth redistrubution, but not to the point of the democrates (socialists). Therefore, I will go with the lesser of two evils. Obama has no experience, and is a marxist. It's McCain or Obama. I'll take McCain. Especially when it comes to the present dangers of Iran and Russia. He is better suited for the job

degsme, There's a huge difference between someone sticking a gun to your head, and robbing you of your income in the name of fairness (what democrats do), and between giving everyone the same opportunities, but some will exploit those better than others and come out on top (what republicans do). If you doubt that a law, tax or regulation is the point where people will guns will rob you of life/liberty/property, try not following them and see what happens. They are the tools of force -- sometimes necessary, but should be used only in the most extreme cases. Democrats love to use force in every case, and then call the republicans insensitive. So should we teach people to take opportunities, and help others voluntarily (and some will not and be greedy -- and we will have to learn tolerance)? Or should we force everyone to do what we want, crush everyone who disagrees under our jack boot, and call anyone that disagrees with us communists, like the National Socialists did, the DNC does, or authors like Kinsley did in that article? This also begs the question on whether you think authors like Kinsley are ignorant of history, or choosing to twist it for their own ends because their constituents and followers aren't smart enough to know the diference?

I could not agree more! Good Post Suzy

Stop trolling.

Learn to reason and think.

Do you want to have a discussion or do you want to name call? Marxist? collectivist?

The reality is that minorities in the USA perceive there to be broadly active racism in existance. Whereas whites do not. what YOU believe doesn't matter, because YOUR belief doesn't change the challenges that McCain would face in governing.

Do you really think that minorities in the USA won't see it as a rigged election if McCain wins?

What are the consequences to the long term stability of the USA if such a perception does broadly exist?

Learn to THINK rather than just parrot words you don't even really understand

Degsme, what a brilliant come-back that touches on all the intellectual points I made. You claimed that the republicans support wealth-distribution, and I showed that they support freedom (which NATURALLY has some people succeed more than others -- and the Democrats use force to try to stop it). Your witty repartee was "stop trolling". I bow to your superior argument.... it's like Listening to the DNC explain why years as mayor and governor is less experience than an 143 working days as an absentee senator.

I don't understand why the Republicans are still called the rich folks and used in the same instance with greedy corporations. This belongs nowadays to the latte drinking Democrats. Look who the rich ones are in the Senate, Hollywood, Wall Street, and the Tech Firms. They are all Democrats living a cushy life and keeping the rest of us down. Corrupt New Jersey Democrats can be seen is every city in New Jersey and it is pitiful filling their pockets and pretending to care while keeping the poor dependent upon them and the Middel Class with no voice. Republicans are no longer the rich greedy folks that the Socilaists want you to believe.

McCain/Palin in 2008

Degsme, what's more important, perception or reality? Nevermind, your whole argument was that perception was more important. Let's not try to educate them on the truth, lets cater to their ignorance, because that will somehow make the world a better place?

Setting aside the nonsense about taxes being a "sticking a gun to your head" (no one restricts your ability to leave the USA and go live without its benefits and protections that you get for the taxes you pay).

Lets look at the actual numbers.

• The GOP has long used deficit spending to avoid raising taxes. At a rate of roughly $500Bil/yr. Which is essentially $1700/yr/person (children included) in tax liability.
• The national debt in 1980 was $930Bil The GOP added $2.3 Trillion to that under Reagan. Or roughly $8,000 in tax liability PER PERSON.
• By the end of the the Bush Administration this was up to $14k.
• Clinton reduced that. And GWB had doubled it to $30,00

Now I dunno about you, but a $30,000 tax bill is much much higher than what I pay annually.

And we did not get to vote on these tax raises. And they are enforced "by the gun".

Furthermore, most of what we spend on the US Navy (roughly $100bil/yr since 1985) goes towards securing the oil shipping lanes from the ME to the US and Europe. That's a subsidy to the Oil Cos. Yes we as individuals would have to pay for the higher oil prices if the Oild Cos had to pay the Llloyds rates without the US Navy

BUT using YOUR LOGIC about allowing individuals to choose- if the cost of securing the shipping lanes is reflected in the price of gasoline, then I can choose to pay it and buy a Hummer, or to pay less of it and by a Prius. But when GWB or Ronald Reagan spends my TAX $$$ to subsidize the oil companies' shipping costs, they hold a gun to my head and MAKE ME PAY for making it cheaper for Schwarzenneger to drive Hummers.

So who is using the "jack boot" here?

Degsme,

Calling you a collectivist is not name calling. It is defining your ideas into one word. You think of people in defined groups, I think of them as individuals. Therefore, I am an individualist. That is what the founding fathers wanted this country to be about. That is the difference between capalism and socialism. Under capalism (aka free market system) the gap between people will increase but who cares? The average well being of each citizen increases dramatically. Who cares if the middle class is rich and the upper class is ultra rich. Under socialism we are all broke. Barack Obama is getting into bed with Socialist. That is a dangerous.

Since Suzy's post is inconsistent with the historic facts, your seeing it as a "good post" means you are ignorant of history.