Look up Eisnehower and how he coined the “military industrial complex” term. Then you can see that a large proportion of American industry is funded by tax-payer money, in the form of defense spending. I guess that’s not socialism or goverment control of jobs which dictate voting. I guess that’s not going on if you live in Oz.

Quit talking to this guy, he’s a lunatic. He pulls stats out his ass and presents them like their a solid argurment. Look above, I argue with him about allocation and he answers back with a distribution argument. He doesn’t even know what topic he’s debating anymore.

“By, definition, 50% o people will have average or below average lives in this world.”
What definition? Where do you get this stat from? Do you mean lack of food, clean water, irrigable farmland, housing, clothing, medicine, is below average? Because I have news for you, according to the United Nations, 90% of the people on this planet live below average. What can you expect from a guy who considers human beings a commodity. Vinnievidihitler, you actually consider human beings commodities. Where did you get 50% of people are below or above average? You make things up and present them as a viable support for your own callousness.
You need to tell me what the definition of socialism is in your next post or you are full of crap. What is socialism? If you think that police, firemen, ambulance service, post offices, schools and the armed forces are not socialism then you do not know what it is or you’re a liar. Vinnie, look it up on Wikipedia. Clearly, you have a computer, look up socialism. Your lover, George Bush, is a socialist by the proper definition. He expanded the role of government in education more than any other president in the last 20 years. “No kid left behind.”
Pat, this is the type of moron that supports the philosophy of supply side economics even though even a basic Econ. 101 class, government, and the media agree that consumers shape the very exitstence of a capitalist environment. Hey stupid, what do you think “consumer confidence is”? It isn’t called manufacturer’s confidence. I wonder why?
Pat, this is the same type of uniformed sheep that calls Obama a terriorist. Nevermind that the Bush family is friends with the Bin Laden family, Elder Bush put Hussein in power and armed him. King Bush the 1st gave money, weapons and training to Al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets, even though the United Nations at the time classified the group as dangerous combatants. I’ll bet dummy doesn’t know that the United Nations has no definition for terrorists and therefore has not labeled any groups as a terrorist organization.

If being a socialist means that I’m against nepotism, dishonesty and corporate control of our government, then call me a socialist. The government is for the people. Joe McCarthy is thrilled by dogs he has trained. Let’s see, in the 1930′s it was get rid of unions under the guise of get rid of anarchists and socialists. In the 50′, 60′s and 70′s it was get rid of civil rights leaders because they were communists. In the 90′s and 21st century it’s get rid of progressives because they are terrorist supporters.
Vinnie you are a few decades behind in your terminology. This will be the last time I respond to you, as you choose to ignore history and make up your own facts. Good luck living in la-la land.

It is almost certain that Obama’s autobiography is referring to Frank Davis, a known Communist, as his mentor.

Communism would be a strange political doctrine indeed if it did not on some level encourage mentors to teach it to their mentees. In fact, I think that alone would make it the most unique political doctrine in world history. Then, you have pretty credible evidence that Obama was a member of the New Party, a self-described socialist party.

I don’t know who you think you’re fooling with these denials, because it certainly isn’t me. Why don’t you stop bullshitting me and explain in detail just how Obama’s socialism (whether he gets to implement a full socialist program in the time he is President is immaterial, since everyone who has studied socialism knows that there are many different varieties of it, almost as many as there are socialists, including the incremental, go-slow version) won’t end up in the same place all other forms of socialism end up, stagnation and bureaucratism?

Trust me, I don’t need Obama to “save” my job.

It’s only fair considering me and a lot of other people have not had any opportunity to share in the American Dream during the Bush regime.

Yes, because the stock market didn’t hit a new high last October and home “ownership” ratios weren’t at all time highs as well. Since Bush took over I’ve more than tripled my compensation and am now part of a start-up business that has increased my potential upside another 4 to 5-fold.

By definition, 50% of people will have average or below average lives in this world. Electing Obama will only mean that the “average” will drift down as you remove incentives for excellence in wealth creation and create incentives for excellence in wealth redistribution. 50% of people will still be exactly at or below that average.

Good lord I’m arguing with Phil Gramm. And Obama is not a Marxist, not a Muslim, nor a terrorist, nor a redistributionalist or whatever McCain said today. He’s probably going to end up saving your job and mine. And yeah. I wouldn’t mind some of what those CEOs make. It’s only fair considering me and a lot of other people have not had any opportunity to share in the American Dream during the Bush regime.

Wow, devastating comeback. They want to hear one thing: how can I make this company better? Which is actually the only thing CEOs should care about, since business isn’t day camp.

Funny, your hero Obama’s going to be redistributing “money” (since Obama’s a Marxist, clearly, you must realize that he believes in dialectical materialism, which is about as money-obsessed a philosophy as any that’s ever existed), which is the very thing I help CEOs make. If you don’t want more money, redistributed out of the pockets of “the rich”, why vote for Obama?

The whole premise of your attitude toward what I do is undercut by the fact that you want what I help CEOs make.