Um, the world voted to elect Ron Paul

World Vote

[opinion]Plus, Obama is the biggest sleazeball this campaign has left.[/opinion]

There's nothing redeeming about Obama except for the fact that he's an inspirational speaker.

He's the #1 most liberal senator in the Senate, he's for the absolute control and elimination of all hand guns and he wants to make abortions available with no restrictions.

If there's anyone more divisive politically, that person would be George Bush.

Obama is the WORST person that can become President this cycle.

Maybe it's because I'm an outsider here, but I don't see how that makes him a sleazeball.

In fact, anyone who holds the views you listed above would be a progressive leader and my #1 pick.

Oh Darn that Obama; his "liberal" (??? I don't like how you Americans use liberal as the new dirty word) opinions and ideas to make your corner of the world a nicer and safer place....

I guess I didn't make it clear why he was a sleazeball. That's my own personal opinion.

When I use the term liberal, i usually refer to economics, as that is a perfectly fine term. A fiscally liberal politician is one that supports high taxes and equal outcomes. In short, though trite and clich, fiscal liberals are socialists in every sense of the word, because socialism is an economic policy.

But in the sense of communism (the social aspect of controlling your life), Obama is high on that chart too.

Fiscally, John McCain is the best, Obama is the worst. Socially, they're all equal. Foreign Policy wise Obama and Hillary are just slightly above McCain.

There is no real difference between the three remaining candidates. Anyone that believes that Obama or Hillary will get us out of Iraq completely before McCain is delusional. None of them will get us out...and that's why this Obama worship upsets me so much. He's so dangerous, because of the free pass he will get from Congress. The best Presidential terms are the ones when the government does the least encroaching. Those happen when you have one party holding Congress and one party holding the Presidency. When you have one party that controls both, the government gets far too encroaching on your personal liberties.

I really disagree that fiscal liberals are all socialists. Not all fiscal liberals support high taxes. Maybe you haven't heard of moderate or little taxes... I don't know. As for equal outcomes, I have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I would also consider any American politician, including Obama to be the furthest thing from communism there is.

And please clarify this for me: you claim Obama wants to control your life, yet you seem against the idea that he wants to take restrictions off those seeking abortions? Do you think that your government should only interfere in the lives of women who find themselves in difficult and frustrating situations, or do you just support double standards?


In response to the article posted here, why is the world rooting for Obama? Because he's not Bush or another Bush croonie. Obama won't invade Iran and/or Pakistan. Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq. Obama, or Ms Clinton, for that matter, makes us all feel a bit safer.

If McCain gets elected, I'm going to worry about us getting 'liberated' here in oil-rich Alberta.

You mean... the internet voted for Ron Paul.

Perhaps you included the link to be satirical.

OK, i guess if you technically don't support higher taxes then you can still be a fiscal liberal. BUT you would need higher taxes to fund liberal fiscality (word?).

You obviously don't know his positions. I have put so much time and effort into learning about the candidates this time around, and I know that Obama is the closest candidate to Communism we have running.

I come from the camp that every person, born or unborn, has the unalienable right to life. This means I am also against Iraq, I am against capital punishment, and I am against abortion. It's not about the government controlling a woman's life, it's about the government protecting the life of an unborn.

Obama specifically said that he would highly consider invading Pakistan. That's what scares me about these people that think he's so anti-war. He's not. He's just anti-Bush.

The only way the world will start liking us again is if we butt out of other countries' business.

And don't worry about Alberta, Democracies don't fight one another.

So it's because he's black?

how can you compare removing handguns from the streets to communism?



but rly, Ron Paul who? :/
got barely, if any media attention at all in the US...

He's the most liberal of the candidates still in the race. Edwards was the most socialist. And YOU obviously don't know much about the politics of the rest of the world. The US is BY FAR the furthest right of any country in the "western" world, most politicians who are too liberal to get elected here are considered conservative by even UK or Canadian standards. So Chinook is completely right, all American politicians are far from communism.

As for that last statement, I can only laugh to myself at your innocence.

Obama is by far the most socialistic. The only reason why people don't see that is because when he speaks, he doesn't talk about how far he wants to go with his plans. If you really look into his plans, you'll realize he's MUCH further to the left than most realize.

Calling him a communist was probably a bit callous of me. Obviously he's not planning on instituting Communism in the U.S. He just wants to instill many communistic values, that's all.

What, haven't you ever heard of the Democratic Peace Theory?

Man, you need to actually listen to these people, take that research you used on the candidates and use them to notice politics in all the rest of the g-8.

Though after the patriot act and the many different laws that come with, I can't believe you can talk about supporting lack of government involvement in ones life with a straight face, I applaud you wanting to save the unborn (even though by scientific standards, they could be concidered a parasite for most of term) you should probably worry more about the born, since im sure theres more people losing life and liberty then of abortions, by far.

You might have learned about the candidates, but have you learned enough about communism to know how close he is to it?

With Bush in power, we are rapidly becoming something other than a democracy.

Y'all might want to knock it off with the knee-jerk downvotes.

1thirteen3 certainly appears to be expressing an unpopular opinion, but he isn't being obnoxious about it.

I don't have to agree with anything he says either, but if he's being respectful of differing opinions then debate him instead of being childish about it.

Use your head and argue the points- If you want a one sided love nest to make sophmoric political jokes, there's a buttload of sites out there.

Really? I didn't know he's fighting for the proletariat and seeks to eliminate social classes. I also didn't know that he wants the state to own all of the land which will be used and worked by the proletariat. I'm also really surprised to hear that he'd want to ensure every single person recieved the same wage, because every person's contribution to society should be valued equally, and he wants to eliminate materialism.

Oh wait, he doesn't want to do any of these things?

But you just said he wanted to instill communist values!

I said "obviously he's not planning on instituting Communism in the U.S."

But let's go for the 10 planks of communism:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. Check. Obama supports Eminent Domain

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Check. Obama wants to raise taxes so the rich pay over 50% of their income

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Kinda check. More to do with his taxes, but he doesn't want to completely abolish it

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Check. All in the name of terror prevention.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Check. Supports the Federal Reserve

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. DOT? Check.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. No Check.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Check. Raise the Minimum wage? Check. Farm subsidies? Check.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. No check. He's never addressed this issue.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. Check. Increased federal funding for college students? Check

Obama has 7.5 Checks out of 10. That makes him pretty communistic. Granted, I know he didn't start all the stuff that i mentioned. BUT, he does support it, and that makes him communistic. Combine that with his goal to socialize healthcare, and we're all headed for a nightmare.

Personally I'm just going to vote for the person who I think will make us look the least like an ass.

All the platforms and promises are just used car salesman BS to get you to vote for them. The president is barely more than a figurehead in this country...Yes I know he "controls" the military, but does he really?

People loved Bush after 9/11 then hated him after Iraq...personally..I hate him because he talks like a goof. All the war stuff?...he only knows what he's told so I don't hold one man personally responsible for Iraq. We as American will never know ALL the facts (you certainly can't trust the media) so to think we do IMO is foolish. But if you're looking for a scapegoat this dumb*ss is certainly your man.

Does anybody really think one canidate will do better than another at pulling our troops out?..it's a bad situation with no simple solution. Talk is cheap...and today it buys votes.

Say what you want about me, but I hold little to no stock in the actual role of our president other than not doing something publicly that makes him/her look like a jack-*ss.

Bill Clinton? ..had a great run until he got caught with his pants down..literally. People everywhere wondered why we really cared that some married guy got a BJ...we got mad because it made us look bad in the eyes of other countries...who already hate us.

America is a great country..yes we have problems..healthcare is a big one..but what I really want in a president is a person that won't choke on a f-ing pretzel.

Ok. There are some serious misconceptions here, along with some ridiculous assertions.

First of all, before you argue that things make him "more communist" you should check to see if other candidates also support those things. And no, Ron Paul does NOT count as a candidate in this analysis. While I admire his conviction and agree with some of his politics, RP would be an AWFUL president. No compromise and pure principle do not work in real life and especially not in politics.

Secondly, I'm not really sure where you're getting these so called "planks" of communism. Communism refers to a society in which the means of production are communally owned and there are no distinct social classes. These "planks" sound like something invented by a politically motivated individual to "prove" the US and other countries are becoming communist.

for 6) you should be aware that REGULATION, which is what the DOT does is very separate from CONTROL and CENTRALIZATION.

for number 4) I don't even know what the heck you're talking about.

Eminent domain is not the same thing as the abolition of private property. It's not even close, while I can't say I like the idea of it (i'm into property rights) it doesn't actually repeal the idea of private property, since the owner is compensated for (theoretically) what the land is worth. All eminent domain does is temporarily suspend the right of CONTROL of personal property IF the state can show a pressing need. Courts need to approve eminent domain actions.

On a sidenote, I reject your assertion that unborn fetuses are people. One skin cell is not a person and one unfertilized egg is not a person, one sperm cell is not a person, combination does not suddenly create a person. Abortion is not murder, it's removal of a POTENTIAL person, not an actual one, and given the population problems the world will soon be experiencing, that's not really a bad thing.

That said, I really don't LIKE abortion on a personal level and I wish it wasn't ever done. Doesn't mean it should be banned though.

Fine, I won't bring up Ron Paul in that regards. John McCain gets a 4.5, Hillary gets a 6.5. Obama is still the closest to Communism.

Ron Paul, however, WOULD be a great President as he would greatly reduce the amount of government in our lives and protect our natural rights. You know he was one of the only republicans to vote AGAINST the war...the FIRST time? Plus, he gets a 0 on the Communism scale.

These "planks" are straight from the Communist Manifesto. Google 10 planks of Communism. Or Try Wikipedia.

Regulation is a form of control. It may not be absolute control, but it is still a form of control in a supposed "free country".

That's a difficult one to understand. It's more dealing with Habeus Corpus and stuff. It's kinda confusing.

Eminent domain isn't the abolition of private property? If you have private property and the government decides to take it over in the name of "the people" is your private property being abolished? Yes.

Courts may need to approve eminent domain actions, but the support for eminent domain is just as bad.