All these things point towards the bigger picture. The media and politicians are arguing whether or not Obama’s plan is socialism or not. In a pure sense, it is not; however, I would argue that the entire government is headed towards socialism.

The bailouts were a horrifying mistake and the spark our leaders needed. Now we have the “temporary” nationalization of banks. Combine that with a redistribution of wealth and more government control and we are headed towards a socialistic superstate where we we be far less free. The fact is, the government needs to be reduced in power. All this talk of taxes and whatnot takes America’s eye off the real ball. Federal income taxes are illegal and enslaves the people in financial debt.

The more and more the government tries to fix things, the worse off we will become. The very thing that made America so great, which is personal and economic freedom is becoming a memory. Thus I oppose everything the government is doing.

We should remember what John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

McCain and Obama’s message is, “Ask not what you can do for for your country, but what your country can do for you.” The exact opposite of what we need to hear. The grotesque misuse and understanding of power has infected the minds of all in power while the people themselves have become apathetic sheep.

I’m not certain that the banking mess is SOLELY caused by bad loans. It’s what was done with the bad loans that created the mess.
Now, I don’t have a good skating rink analogy, but here goes:
It’s not the spoilage of the fish that causes problems, but the consumption thereof.

In the second clip, after Bush is heard saying “homeownership rates are at an all-time high”, the person being interviewed said that
“…unfortunately, that was based on people who couldn’t afford to pay those loans back once housing prices started to fall.” This is simply a straw man set up to distract us from the fact that banks and investors engaged in unsound financial dealings.
#1. the value of the home does not impact your ability to repay a mortgage. That’s because the mortgage is based on a security note that has a fixed principal – the sales price that you paid for your house!
#2. it may be tempting to say that the falling house prices kept folks from refinancing, however, if they shouldn’t have gotten a loan in the first place, refinancing is a non-issue.

I don’t know about the rest of the issues, but that one seems to be barking up the wrong money tree.

Cheers,

Mitch

@Debbie: I wish the libertarian party had a convention I could actually vote in. How can I vote in the libertarian primary? I’m sure there are better choices than Bob Barr. The U.N. is just as corrupted as the American government and one is enough to deal with.

On “your history” comment : Didn’t Rep. Tricky Dick bring the troops home from Vietnam and didn’t Slick Willie Clinton invite the terrorists to attack on 911 by cutting our defense by 35% and closing military bases?

Beside Obama’s U.N. agenda, Obama’s defense spending cuts should be a top concern for all voting Americans after 911.

Kill The Poor – Dead Kennedies –

About the Neuron Bomb. The Humane Bomb.

The Turncoats are coming,
Armed with Bats are in their Belfry,
One Green Light for the B.S. (Barack Shit) of Obama,
And, Two Red Lights for the M.S. (McCain Shit) of John,
And, I on the opposite Blog will be,
Ready to write and spread the alarm,
Let Freedom Ring Again in this Land!

They know that, as long as they keep the third parties out, they will be back in again sooner rather than later.

Does your history show that the Rep’s go to war and your Dem’s bring the troops back? That is largely what has happened here. Right wing = war in Australia for the past 100+ years.

I’ve become a huge fan of the Cato Institute, They have fine writers and offer fantastic information. Normally, I think most libertarians are looking for a good republican candidate, but there really aren’t any. McCain isn’t a republican in my book; he’s a pro-war democrat. If the republicans could get a strong anti-war candidate, I would support them.

Yes, the media should treat everyone equally. I was disgusted to see major networks like the New York Times endorsing Obama. No news network should EVER endorse a candidate; it proves they are biased.

Since you won’t tell me who you’re voting for, I am guessing either Ralph Nader or John McCain

Just like any other political party, I suppose, but when “The Party of Principle” is your tagline, I think you’re setting higher expectations of yourself, and the Libertarian Party does not live up to them.

I used to think that the Libertarian Party could be a strong and viable third party, but every time there is an opportunity for them, they seem to squander it.

Maybe it would help if we had a media that would expose the mistakes of BOTH parties. Except on YouTube or a short series on CNN (which was a surprise!), you don’t hear anything about the Democrats’ role in the economic mess. Everything is blamed on the Republicans, and the Democrats get off largely off the hook.

Have you seen any media coverage of Obama breaking Illinois election laws? Click here.

Have you read Orson Scott Card’s article on the media and the state of journalism today? Click here.

It’s just a mess. People complain that Americans are largely uninformed, but can you really blame them when much of what we see in the media is just the toting of the party lines? The media is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog!

I mean, when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, the media dug into every bit of her past and private life. The media put her through more scrutiny than they ever put Obama through. Any criticisms of Obama are brushed aside. Any relationships or associations of Obama are brushed aside. But, for Palin, they went on a scavenger hunt.

Shouldn’t the media treat candidates from all sides with the same amount of scrutiny?

@Marzie: Good morning to you too Marzie! I’m serving Count Chocula and bananas