Why Nobama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragoczy

That scenario only holds water if you start at him losing the primary. Look at the reason he lost the primary: he didn't follow the party-line on one issue and the party threw all its support behind a challenger for his seat. What follows isn't him "betraying", it's him standing on principle and not rolling over.

Again I ask: Is there no room in the Democrat Party for personal conviction? Is it all party-line?

---

Yes there, is but there do not seem to be ANYONE currently in the Adm of Repbublicans who have ANY convictions at all,do not misunderstand, I am NOT saying Repbulicans have no convictions, only those Associated with the current President
There are in general as many Bad Democratic as Republicans, this i am sure is something we can all agree on??
Could I have voted for McCain if the Economy was bette, yes but he is in my opion still to closly alligned to Bush, he may be trying to distance himself from Bush in genenral,, but it is too late to do that now with just 3 weeks to go
Yes McCain stands up for his beliefs,yes he served with honor in the Srvice, Yes he was a POW NO that in and of itself to me does not Qualify anyone bethey a Democrat or Republican to Run and Become President, not to mention I am not at all comfortable with Sara Paling,
If God Forbid anything happened to the President be it Obama or MccAin, YES I feel far more comfortable with Biden taking over then I do with Pain, Governor for less then 2 years abd a Mayor of a town of 6,000 who only has 45% turn out for her election, so even in a town of 6.000 she still could not manage to get 50% of the vote

Funny how Biden changed his tune about Obama; especially when he said he would be proud to stand as McCain's VP and didn't think Obama had what it took to lead the nation.

McCain is a good solid leader that has actually fought for his country.

Obama hasn't done anything other than pull the wool over his followers eyes. He is going to lead our nation to ruin if given half a chance.

Just becuase McCain is from the same party doesnt mean he is another Bush. But hey any analogy that works, even if it has no basis in fact, is fair game for most democrats right?

We shall just ignore the fact that for his entire career McCain has been on the opposite side from Bush's in the struggle to see who leads the Republican Party's ideology.

Sara Palin might be brand new, she may not have been my first pick (Lieberman was) but at least she is honest, especially compared to the alternative, besides she has real spirit. I believe she has more of what it takes by far than his majesty Barrak Hussien Obama.

The economey isnt going to be fixed by taxing the piss out of the small business owners. Joe the Plumber will be in the poor house in less than a year with Obama in charge.

The war with the nazi influenced terroists isn't going to end just becuase a democrat says so. They will only grow stronger if we pull out of the middle east and other areas that they are congregating in. It is going to take a leader with great resolve and wisdom to defeat them. Not some self serving naive pedagogue with "good intentions" on his lips and no balls in his pants who couldn't lead spit into battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuskovian

Funny how Biden changed his tune about Obama; especially when he said he would be proud to stand as McCain's VP and didn't think Obama had what it took to lead the nation.

McCain is a good solid leader that has actually fought for his country.

Obama hasn't done anything other than pull the wool over his followers eyes. He is going to lead our nation to ruin if given half a chance.

Just becuase McCain is from the same party doesnt mean he is another Bush. But hey any analogy that works, even if it has no basis in fact, is fair game for most democrats right?

We shall just ignore the fact that for his entire career McCain has been on the opposite side from Bush's in the struggle to see who leads the Republican Party's ideology.

Sara Palin might be brand new, she may not have been my first pick (Lieberman was) but at least she is honest, especially compared to the alternative, besides she has real spirit. I believe she has more of what it takes by far than his majesty Barrak Hussien Obama.

The economey isnt going to be fixed by taxing the piss out of the small business owners. Joe the Plumber will be in the poor house in less than a year with Obama in charge.

The war with the nazi influenced terroists isn't going to end just becuase a democrat says so. They will only grow stronger if we pull out of the middle east and other areas that they are congregating in. It is going to take a leader with great resolve and wisdom to defeat them. Not some self serving naive pedagogue with "good intentions" on his lips and no balls in his pants who couldn't lead spit into battle.

---

Thanks for your feedback and may the Best Man win, the one the VOTERS want be it MCcain or Obama, 3 weeks from tonight we will all know
I will just be glad all the Ad will be over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Thanks for your feedback and may the Best Man win, the one the VOTERS want be it MCcain or Obama, 3 weeks from tonight we will all know
I will just be glad all the Ad will be over

---

Actualy as I understand it thr RNC said No Way to Lieberman
Palin Lack in experiece to be VP, Joe Biden doesn't, and as far as lack of experience ot be President, that is what everyone said about JFK., not to mention he was Roman Cathlic, so beteen these to things Kennedy had "against him" he did win

Wonder what it would be like today if JFK, RFK and MLK were still around, makes for instrestingthought if nothing else

Ironic how Palin has more executive experience than Barry Obama and the democrats still want to bring up experience. LOL.

JFK bumbled and got inordinately lucky at best yet he was at least willing to put his life on the line for his people so I don't begrudge him that and I would pick him over Barry any day. Hubert Humphrey however would have made a far better President, too bad he wasn't rich enough to have a chance at beating John out of the primary.

My bet is things would be far worse if the three stooges of American royalty were still around. A good example is Teddy, drunk as a self intitled skunk.

Unfortunatly as Plato pointed so deftly out so long ago; in a democracy the best man very often doesnt win as opposed to the one that currys favor to the mob.

With Barry having so many advantages in the twisted politically correct world view of lies, it will be very hard for the best man {McCain} to win.

Our only hope is that enough people will come forward out of thier complacency to vote becuase they are fed up with the liberals bullshit and thier agenda of destroying everything good and true about America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Palin Lack in experiece to be VP,

---

This is another liberal talking point that would be entertaining if it wasn't so sad.

A huge media focus on Palin's perceived lack of experience, so much that she can't be trusted to be VP. But, no one says a word about obamas only 3+ years of experience in the Senate. The last 18 months or so he has been running for office and not even tending to his job in the Senate.

And he is qualified to be Pres based on that? Quite the double standard.

Quote:

---

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built. -- Abraham Lincoln

---

Quote:

---

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

---

Quote:

---

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

---

Which one doesn't belong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragoczy

Which one doesn't belong?

---

Oh, oh, oh!

*Hopping up and down raising hands.*

I know, I KNOW!

The third one!!!

Poor poor joe, he aint alone in this, i am paying my fair share too. Of course i shall be equally screwed in November if Obama wins.

Though i bet hezbolla and iran will be just peachy.

Accoring to me, both maccain and Obama are wrong and epreciating for america.

McCain promises to "take on" the drug companies, as if those who produce and market the medicines that improve and save human lives must be fought; he promises to ration energy by means of a cap-and-trade scheme, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to dictate how much energy a company may purchase or use; he promises to "battle" big oil, as if those who produce and deliver the lifeblood of civilization need to be defeated; he promises to "reform" Wall Street, as if those who finance the businesses that produce the goods and services on which lives of americans depend are thereby degenerate; he seeks to uphold the ban on drilling in ANWR, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to prevent Americans from reshaping nature to suit their needs; and so on.

Obama promises to socialize health care (under the tired euphemism of "universal health care"), as if insurance companies, doctors, and patients have no right to use or dispose of their property or to contract with one another according to their own judgment; he promises to increase the minimum wage, as if employers and employees lack those same rights; he promises to pour taxpayer money into "alternative energy," as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to confiscate money from productive citizens in order to subsidize tilting windmills; he promises to force oil companies to fund government handouts to Americans, as if the owners of oil companies have no right to their property or profits; he promises to bail out homeowners who cannot pay their mortgages, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to make some people pay for the financial mistakes or hardships of others; he promises to "incentivize" students to do "community service" by offering them taxpayer-funded college tuition, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to do so; and so on.

In regard to foreign policy, McCain promises to "respect the collective will of US democratic allies," as if America has no moral right to defend her citizens according to her own best judgment; and he promises to finish the "mission" of making Iraq "a functioning democracy" even if it takes "one hundred years," as if the U.S. government has a moral or constitutional right to sacrifice American soldiers to spread democracy abroad.

Obama promises to uphold the idea that "America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom. . . . dignity, and opportunity," as if Americans have a moral responsibility to minister to the uncivilized and the unfortunate across the globe; and he promises to negotiate with jihadists who chant "Death to America," as if Americans will be safe from these lunatics when the lunatics give Obama their word.

Both candidates hold that the purpose of government is to manage the economy, to regulate businesses, to redistribute wealth, to bring freedom or democracy to foreigners, and to defer to the will of others on matters of American security.
But this is not the proper purpose of government.
A government is an institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographic area. The proper purpose of government is, as the Founding Fathers recognized, to protect each individual's right to live his life as he sees fit (the right to life); to act on his own judgment, free from coercion (the right to liberty); to keep, use, and dispose of the product of his efforts (the right to property); and to pursue the goals and values of his choice (the right to the pursuit of happiness). The way government achieves this vital purpose is by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and forbidding foreigners to physically harm citizens or their property. And, crucially, because government is an agent of force, it too must be prohibited from misusing force, which is why the founders wrote the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of which is to limit the power of government to the protection of individual rights. A proper government does everything necessary to protect individual rights and nothing that in any way violates individual rights.
Should a businessman be free to keep, use, and dispose of the wealth he produces—or should he be forced to hand some (or all) of it over to those who did not produce it? The answer one gives depends on whether one thinks a person is morally entitled to the product of his effort—or morally obligated to serve others.

Should doctors, patients, and insurance companies be free to contract voluntarily with one another—or should the government dictate the terms of their agreements? The answer one gives depends on whether one thinks individuals have a moral right to act on their own judgment for their own sake—or a moral "duty" to sacrifice for their neighbors or "the poor" or society.

Should a nation's leaders rationally, self-interestedly decide, given all the relevant facts, how best to defend their country's citizens from foreign aggression and then act accordingly—or should those leaders selflessly defer to the judgments of leaders of other nations? The answer one gives depends on whether one regards acting on independent judgment as morally correct—or deferring to a "collective will" as the right thing to do.


I use to love America, I use to think that it woul be great if I get a chance to be a citizen of America, my brother lives there and it was so easy for me to shift, but I gave up that idea, its not the america which I used to love.
This america which Maccain or Obama are promising, is no better than India, America is depreciating its values.
This crisis, Ohh comeon! I am not talking of economic crisis, (actually there's no economic crisis its just a hoax) The crisis I am talking about is the Moral Ethical crisis. Americans lost their ethical identity. I wish they retain it somehow.
I see america NOT as a country fastly moving towards freedom of Individual providing soveriegnity for each an every individual in himself, on the other hand, America is slowly becoming a collectivists state under the statist government. America is becoming socialist and communist, I fear America itself will turn out to be a new soviet union. what a disgrace!

Last One Turn Out the Lights: Marines Quietly Begin Leaving Bases in Iraqi Cities
Friday , October 17, 2008

By Jennifer Griffin


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html



Interesting how good news out of Iraq is not reported by the 'unbiased' main stream media. This story, whether you like the war in Iraq or not, is substantive proof that George Bushs surge policy is working. The policy which John McCain supported wholeheartedly.


But if CCN and the 'unbiased' media outlets would report on Irag progress and successes, that would give props to McCains past decisions. Does anyone else wonder why the many Iraq successes aren't reported to the masses who don't bother to figure things out for themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskan

Accoring to me, both maccain and Obama are wrong and epreciating for america.

---

Muskan, very well thought out post. I agree with quite a few points that you have made. Given where our country is going and anyones realistic ability to stop the slide, I adhere to a policy of supporting the least damaging candidate in elections now. Not a big fan of McCain for some of his positions, but given the other guys blatant socialist plans, there is really no other choice for me in this election, since 'none of the above' is not a viable choice. :)

Which is exactly why i am voting for McCain and Palin, (especially Palin in my book) the best chance for us to reclaim our traditional values lays with those two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Which is exactly why i am voting for McCain and Palin, (especially Palin in my book) the best chance for us to reclaim our traditional values lays with those two.

---

I happened to be in Jueanu the night of Palin's RNC speech and Anchorage for the following week. I asked a lot of people what they thought of her and they were almost to a person extremely complimentary of her, saying that she had reduced state spending, got rid of of unnecessary state jobs and pushed to get more revenue in by trying to expand energy options. The only guy that did not like her was someone who lost a job due to a cutback, understandable I guess. How people spoke in glowing terms said a lot about here, I wonder if she realized the hack job that DNC was going to do to her when she accepted the VP offer?

The art of the political smear is not restricted to the DP, but they sure are damn good at it. You have to wonder if they would have put up a woman on their ticket with similiar experience levels howe they would have defended her?

In any case, I have to agree with you, I was supportive, but not too enthused about McCain until he chose Palin. She is a breath of fresh air with a great moral compass. If McCain manages to win, there is a good chance she could be the first female president. Now wouldn't that be something?

Barack Obama is currently campaigning on the promise of a middle class tax cut, just like candidate Bill Clinton did in 1992. Clinton exhorted that the top 2% of earners pay 'just a little bit more' to make this tax cut a reality. 43% of the people bought it, and Clinton won the presidency. Isn't it similar to the case of Obama?


In February 1993, President Bill Clinton addressed the country by saying "I've worked harder on this than anything I've ever done in my life, and while I said I'd like to lower your taxes, I can't." He then increased federal income taxes on all four brackets. Later that year, the Senate faced the issue and with a 50-50 deadlock, Al Gore cast the deciding vote. It determined the vote for increasing taxes was going to pass. And they got a chance to take out more money forcibly from the citizens as compulsory taxation.
Barack Obama has also used same tactics of social welfare.
I feel that maybe more americans now just don't really care, and are letting media biases determine their thoughts and actions. There are plenty of first time voters in this election that are eager for the chance to vote against the Republican Party, and will obviously have no recollection of the "big lie" Clinton played on the masses.
How far into an Obama presidency will he retract his middle class tax cut promise? Will he wait several weeks, a few weeks like Clinton, or will he renounce it before he even takes office? It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
How can anyone trust that Obama will keep his word about tax cuts, when he also has so many expensive programs on his agenda? How can anyone trust what is being presented in Obama's campaign?

"Make it a hundred...That would be fine with me." -to a questioner who asked if he supported President Bush's vision for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 50 years

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War." --on Russia's invasion of Georgia, forgetting crises such as the Gulf War, 9/11, and the Iraq war, Aspen, Colorado, Aug. 14, 2008

"In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." --on Russia's military action against Georgia, Birmingham, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008

"We have a lot of work to do. It's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." --referring to a border that does not exist, ABC News interview, July 21, 2008

"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia." --referring to a country that no longer exists, Phoenix, Arizona, July 14, 2008

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." --breaking into song after being asked at a VFW meeting about whether it was time to send a message to Iran, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, April 18, 2007

"Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known. And it's unfortunate." -before correcting himself by saying Iran was training "extremists," not Al Qaeda (There's that Sunni, Shia thing again, right John?)

"No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."

"The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. --"Meet the Press" interview, June 19, 2005

"It's not social issues I care about."

"There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." --prior to visiting a Baghdad market while being flanked by 22 soldiers, 10 armored Humvees, and two Apache attack helicopters

"Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong." --Jacksonville, Fla., Sept. 15, 2008

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation." --in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies

..and John McCain has zero "executive experience" or for that matter he has had zero private sector experience either.

Another Republican with "Daddy" issues.

I already voted...care to guess who for?

I voted early today at the local polling station.

Thanks for the preeceeding post providing a bunch of quotes (alltough it would be nice to know who said them) personifing the smear campagin of Obama and the media against the Republicans.

It just proves as Muskan said that they are willing to say anything they can get away with to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I voted early today at the local polling station.

Thanks for the preeceeding post providing a bunch of quotes (alltough it would be nice to know who said them) personifing the smear campagin of Obama and the media against the Republicans.

It just proves as Muskan said that they are willing to say anything they can get away with to win.

---

100% of the quotes are by John McCain. No smearing, just quoting what the man said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr_BuzzCzar

100% of the quotes are by John McCain. No smearing, just quoting what the man said.

---

I'm sure that you would not mind providing the journalistic atribution for these quotes. Please don't point to some wacko blog making things up speaking to the "talking point kiddies".

I would expect to see dates, times, witnesses, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesertDom

I'm sure that you would not mind providing the journalistic atribution for these quotes. Please don't point to some wacko blog making things up speaking to the "talking point kiddies".

I would expect to see dates, times, witnesses, etc.

---

+1

I'm sure some of them where taken out of context also.

That is what they were doing on the Obama T.V. adds, showing clips of his speeches that made it seem like he was talking about a whole other topic.

Total B.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hopperboo

+1

I'm sure some of them where taken out of context also.

That is what they were doing on the Obama T.V. adds, showing clips of his speeches that made it seem like he was talking about a whole other topic.

Total B.S.

---

What is sad is when the "talking point kiddies" read something somewhere and either are 1) ideologically driven, don't have the 2)time or 3)intelligence or )4 just plain lazy and don't bother to investigate what they are reading, no matter how absurd it is.

Too bad there are those on both sides of any issue who vote and have no idea what they are voting on or for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesertDom

I'm sure that you would not mind providing the journalistic atribution for these quotes. Please don't point to some wacko blog making things up speaking to the "talking point kiddies".

I would expect to see dates, times, witnesses, etc.

---

Most (but not all) are annotated with when and where. They are snapshots of the changes this particular politician has made in his stances and what I believe to be insights into him as a man. I worked for Sen McCain in 2000 in SC. I was badly disappointed in the turns he took after 2004. I no longer believe I know where he really stands. Couple that with an overspending administration and incredibly ineffective foreign policy decisions and I am ready for a change. From my perspective the Republicans have lost their way as a party. The party of Rockefeller, Goldwater, Reagan is not well represented by this current crop. maybe they resurface as the fiscally conservative, small government party that really does care about people. I hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesertDom

What is sad is when the "talking point kiddies" read something somewhere and either are 1) ideologically driven, don't have the 2)time or 3)intelligence or )4 just plain lazy and don't bother to investigate what they are reading, no matter how absurd it is.

Too bad there are those on both sides of any issue who vote and have no idea what they are voting on or for.

---

Yes, you are correct and this thread is sadly proof of that. I recommend that anyone who really wants to know the facts regardless of the candidate you happen to support, go to this site and read the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Then VOTE, you only get the goverment you want if you VOTE.

Letting others VOTE so you don't have to be bothered with making the effort to get the change you want only gets you the goverment they VOTED for.

I agree and as someone once said "If you do not vote, do not complain about who won"

I wasted my time reading 'nobama' supporters and 'McCan't' supporters talk past each other.

truly sad

If you don't want to even bother trying to see the truth then none of you should vote.

hehehe, Diablo, you sure got a point there. And if the president of the United States wouldn't make decisions which likely affects people all over the world it would just be plain fun to follow the campaign. The way it is, it is scary rather than funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr_BuzzCzar

Most (but not all) are annotated with when and where. They are snapshots of the changes this particular politician has made in his stances and what I believe to be insights into him as a man. I worked for Sen McCain in 2000 in SC. I was badly disappointed in the turns he took after 2004. I no longer believe I know where he really stands. Couple that with an overspending administration and incredibly ineffective foreign policy decisions and I am ready for a change. From my perspective the Republicans have lost their way as a party. The party of Rockefeller, Goldwater, Reagan is not well represented by this current crop. maybe they resurface as the fiscally conservative, small government party that really does care about people. I hope so.

---

Sorry, that is not journailistic attribution, what you have provided really gives no way for an intelligent thinker to determine if the quote ever was 1)actually said, 2) taken out of context or is 3) true. If a person did not actually hear something being said in a live context (video, etc) or in person, that person should take the time (as previously mentioned) to validate some of the outlandish things being attributed to politicians in this election or any other.


There is a good defintion of attribution and journalistic ethics on this url: http://www.dailypress.com/services/s...1750.htmlstory.

excerpts:


ATTRIBUTION

Attribution is to a newspaper story what footnoting is to a dissertation. It lets readers know where our information comes from. Relatively little of what we report is based on our own direct observation; we rely mostly on information gathered from others: human sources, government documents, library research, etc.

The attribution we attach to the information we publish allows our readers to judge for themselves the quality of our sources and of the information those sources provide. It tells them we have done our homework, that we don't just invent what we print.

Part of any complete attribution is a complete identification of the source, particularly a human source. The motives of those who press their views upon journalists must be routinely examined, and, where appropriate, revealed to the reader. That way, the reader can judge just as the reporter did the quality of the information being presented, whether it's from an impartial observer or from someone who gains by a particular spin on the truth.

end of excerpt

With the growth of the wacko partisan blogs and weakening of overall journalistic integrity, validating a statement and source is more important than ever when you try to make an informed decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diablo

I wasted my time reading 'nobama' supporters and 'McCan't' supporters talk past each other.

truly sad

If you don't want to even bother trying to see the truth then none of you should vote.

---

What you say is correct, however the problem in America goes far beyond talking past each other. In America we are seeing a polarized nation which BECAUSE people do not vote our leaders are selected by just a small percentage of the citizens and knowing this they do not feel beholden to the general population that did not elect them in the first place.

The problem with that is the people who do vote are the people who's beliefs are on the extreme edges of the political ideal spectrum. The two sides hate each other and what they believe in, for them the only truth is their truth.

Whether that truth is valid for the masses is not important.

The politicians have learned that to win only requires taking one or the other extreme positions then moderating it just enough to get a majority of the undecided people who do still go out and vote to lean their way.

Politicians who try and take the center ground lose because the center no longer votes in numbers great enough to win a election without one of the extreme sides help.

Knowing this has allowed politicians to run wild in Washington and it has only become worse as time passes and more and more of the idealogical center stops voting.

People in this country need to wake up and realize that having conserative or liberal ideals is not unamerican nor unpatriotic and that both are just parts of the idealogical compromise required by people of different backgrounds with different hopes and dreams trying to live on the same planet.

Thats all I have to say about that.
.

The polarization is in large part based on the labeling from the NeoCon movement and Americans being dumb enough to fall for it.

Ex. The real america/americans and small town values.

An American is an American regardless of state or income but if they question anything they are are labeled extreme, dangerous, eltitist.

As a libretarian I should want to vote republican but for the past 10 years the party has fallen into the hands of the neocons and religious right. A very dangerous combination. They hide behind values and the flag while attempting to take liberties and increase power. They scare you about those liberal elitists over there, and say that they want to take from you and ruin your way of life.

So if I have to choose I'll choose the socialist over the despot but I prefer option C.

America needs something like..... Atlas Shrugged Revisited!
America now needs Jhon Galts and Howard Roarks!