You don't remember us ever going into Afghanistan to get him at one point, then all of a sudden we just up and leave? We actually had a good reason to go overseas after 9/11.

I would agree that to move from pure capitalism (which we don't have by the way) to socialism in its most extreme form (communism), it would probably take a revolution. This doesn't mean that socialism creeping its way into a country's government is impossible though. I believe socialism could (and is) creep into a country (the US) very slowly and take root to where the people are dependent on the government to fix their problems.

Also, it depends what you call a revolution. People voting slowly (and over many years) for drastic changes in the way a country's government does things could be considered a non-violent, slow revolution. Do I believe this could result in full blown communism in the US in years to come? Almost certainly not, but socialism is certainly creeping its way into our country.

What it comes down to is whether or not you think that to be a good or bad thing.

I just want to jump in and say we never left. The media just doesn't talk much about the fact that we're still there.

I agree. It's very strange to look at politics in the US now - I was used to the Clinton's "third way" politics (or whatever they called it) - taking the best from all over, and providing some form of centrism that a technocrat could at least say was some form of representative government.

After that, things went even stranger. Take the faith- based initiatives, for example. I mean, basically it drew funds from the executive branch's discretionary funding, and pushed tax- money into a form of welfare projects. In a way outsourcing government functions to private organisations based on their philosophical and religious motivation. Then it's the insurance- company business - they get subsidised by the state at the federal level to insure people, without having any requirements about actually getting people more healthy. In the sense that if they can provide insurance to only people who are least likely to get sick, they keep more money in the end. That's.. curious.

And those are two complementing examples of how government funds are placed outside the government's control (good?) but which still is funded by tax- money (not so good..?).

Similar examples could probably be made for other businesses, such as the various military contractors, maybe. So what we're seeing is that tax- money is spent through government, but without the checks or oversight the government probably should have.

I mean - just as we have here on the north pole, you have a framework that's supposed to guide how businesses operate. But what happens when government can supply big actors with subsidies and laws that they want? As you say - do people really want that? Say, for example, to subsidise the oil- business, so the gas- prices don't spiral out of control? How should that be done.. if at all?

Because.. and I'm being half- way sarcastic as usual.. but for a "third- way" politician, all of these things would be a manageable game, right. To trick the businesses into giving something back to the little guy once in a while. I heard many Clinton supporters use that as an argument early on (the she knows how to deal with Washington, etc). While Obama at least argues that he will direct a way to bring all of this out in the open (something many have been arguing with the money in politics - that it's fine if it's made public who you get money from).

But what if someone turns up who - in that context - tries to turn everything over to the businesses without any strings, and call it preventing socialism? While still using the government as before to spread money around?

..I'm having a hard time figuring out what to call it, really. It's not socialism.. It's not.. er.. an oligarchy. But I mean - throwing money out, having secret meetings, refuse to have any form of public policy- making - and then saying "trust the free market"..? I'm not completely convinced about the maths here, you know...

Yup and he also has said he supports "the right of self-defense" but his voting record says otherwise. He is full of crap. www.ontheissues.org

• Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008) (Underming again pre-emtion laws in most states)
• Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008) (He just contradicted himself)
• Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008) (Criminals won't register their guns. Whats so "common sense about this)?
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
• Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007) (What they didn't mention is that he supports a nationwide ban on concealed carry in all public places, undermining 44 state constitutions and 40 states RIGHT TO CARRY LAWS)
• Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
• Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
• Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005) (You know after all the criminals have nothing to do with gun crimes)

Really sounds like he supports "self defense" He says crap to get votes because the average American who watches CNN an hour a night isn't smart and is spoon fed a lot of this ****. I tell you for one calling me a bitter gun owner (being from Pennsylvania and all) I was rather pissed. He is a hypocrite of the first order. I don't belive any of the crap that comes out of his mouth. When he says something go look at his voting record to see what he really means.

www.ontheissues.org
Project Vote Smart - American Government, Elections, Candidates and Voting

^Both very non-partisan websites that simply state how a political offical votes on certain issues.

Alright. Now I'm ready for this post.

2A, you're an awesome poster, but I'm afraid that you're a raving fanatic and your claims of these "votes" are completely unfounded. In this post the bottom four votes that I've found related to gun control. According to your own source they are the only ones that related to gun control.

In case the double negatives get you, this bill was to keep the government from taking away guns that are legal. Obama voted for it, Clinton against it, and McCain for it. Your agrument against him fails there. Obama 1, You 0.

This bill was to keep people from suing companies over their guns being used the wrong way. Obama voted no, Clinton voted no, and McCain voted yes. So, McCain wanted to blame the gun companies for people doing bad things with the guns? How is it their fault that the guns they make are used in a crime when it's not their job to control what happens with the guns. Obama 2, You 0.

None of them voted on the bill that wanted to take money from health care to pay for programs "[carrying] out any anti-firearm program, gun buy-back program, or program to discourage or stigmatize the private ownership of firearms for collecting, hunting, or self-defense." They all voted yes for child locks on guns.

My point here is that your arguments about Obama's voting record are completely unfounded. His only vote actually for guns was the one where they wanted to take away federally legal guns in case of a disaster. You have failed.

"I don't know where he is and frankly I don't spend a lot of time on it"
G.W. Bush.

I guess it's socialism to a lesser degree? I'm not sure what exactly to call it either.

lol, I must not have seen the post that you responded to with this...

He tells the C.I.A. and such what to do in meetings after they have reported to him, and if they have much to report leter, they report it. This just means that they haven't had much success. That's all it means, plain and simple.

There are only so many things they can do, as I asked earlier, what else would you have him do?

Pro2a, how much education in Constitutional law do you have? A perfectly legitimate reading of the Constitution in an originalist manner gives states and municipalities much more control over militia and weapons than does the federal government. If a locality doesn't deem weapons necessary to the security of a free State, they have the right to enact gun control or gun bans.

Its funny you mention that. Those were the only two times that he actually voted in favor of guns. You also have to look back to when he was a representative from Illinois. He voted time and time again and made numerous statements against gun owners. Then he turns around and says "Oh ya I support the second amendment" He gets an 'F' rating by the NRA. John McCain on the other hand like I've said before is no day at the beach, but is a lot more pro-gun or pro-conservative values for this matter then Obama and Hillary.
------
I've read the constitution thoroughly, I'm working on the Federalist papers right now (which make it VERY clear about the founders intent), I've watched many DVD's about the constitution, I've also read a few books about the constitution, and bill of rights. I've thoroughly studied and read books regarding the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments. I know my stuff. I think our beef is that we don't agree on the interpretation.

Yep its called pre-emption. I'm well aware of what it is. States can not pass laws that are more strict then the federal government provided it does not infringe on the constitution.

They can make laws that supersede the 2nd Amendment and regulate it that way. Banning handguns like Chicago and DC have undermines the 2nd Amendment. That they cannot do. That’s like saying we can ban Islam, but other religions are ok. Or that you can talk about whatever you want, but you can't talk bad about the President. Or that search and seizure only applies to American citizens and not foreign nationals while they are here.

Guns are no different. You can't ban handguns and say well you're still allowed to have rifles and then argue you respect the 2nd Amendment. It's black and white. There is no middle ground. Either you're for the private ownership of firearms or you're not. It's not "Common sense" to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citzens like Obama and Hillary want to do.