Obama is trying to have it both ways, can't you see that? He says drugs are a public health issue (I agree,) and yet would still maintain the laws that mark users as criminals.

Good point on the cost of the Iraq War - I agree totally. But again: Obama does not show me the numbers. The expiration of Bush's tax cuts, the reduction of "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid, the development of technology - all this sounds fiscally conservative in regards to making entitlements solvent, but how much money does he really think we can come up with? Even half the current debt to the system is $25 trillion. I do not see tinkerings with taxes and reforms coming close to any such number. The entitlement system is a wonderfully fair-sounding idea, and totally unrealistic. My daughter's generation is going to suffer greatly as a result of these choices, today.

Agreed. And to call McCain "common trash" is also a bit out of line, and a step in the wrong direction. But that's 'Reap for ya.

See, the comment by McCain about his wife should have been turned into a huge talking point. And if Clinton had won the nomination or really been ahead and gone into general election mode, I'm sure she would have made it into one. Obama won't and that is one of the reasons that his "talk" of doing politics differently rings true.

Part of the problem with the Social Security issue is that people are only taxed for the first $102,000 that they earn (payroll tax). This is a problem, because what about the people who are earning more than that? This means that the poor or those who make less than 100,000 a year are shouldering most of the cost to Social Security. Obama explicitly states on his site that he intends to raise the amount drawn from the payroll tax on his site

So again, getting wealthier earners to pay a more proportionate part (a policy Obama has directly and explicity campaigned throughout his entire campaign) is a part of his solution to help fund Social Security, if not the entirety of it.

This should be important to any Libertarian, as it helps reduce the amount of distribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

Also, saying he has no interest in legalizing drugs is NOT the same as saying he supports the laws that mark the users as criminals. In fact, in the above quote he is saying that he supports measures that PREVENT substance abuse, and help young people never get involved with them the first place. You know how this happens? It starts with fixing their economic problems, so they aren't trying to run away from their impoverished and shitty lives.

I'm sorry, and I mean no offense to you, but all the facts seem pretty clear, and I feel you are just simply wrong.

I read Obama's platform on the entitlements for seniors issue. While I'll agree most of those things would be helpful in the short term, (not the heating for seniors part, i think that's a terrible idea) I think it does not really address the magnitude of the problem. The cost is going up, but the number of recipients are going up as well. The problem with government subsidized healthcare is that it makes technological innovation function in inefficient ways. Think about this. If you can charge anything you want, because there is no competition, you would always be opt to use the most expensive equipment (in some cases just for liability purposes) as oppossed to find ways to cut costs.

At this point, there is no easy solution to this problem, and it will take a lot of creativity to even begin to dig our way out of it, but I think the structure is fundamentally flawed.

Go ahead and prove that statement. And you might want to look into Switzerland when doing your research.

I have a lot of things to say about the whole video interview:

1. When he says that he the attacks on his wife "totally unacceptable". First off, what's HE gonna do? Oh no! My political opponent finds something I said "totally unacceptable" RUN AWAAAAAAAY! I'm not sure how you can say that's manish in the slightest. Of course, what could he do? Jack shit, but because just like Michelle Obama, the Tennesse GOP has the freedom to say whatever they want.

2. "The GOP ... can say what ever they want about me": What a load shit. Last week Obama threw tantrum over Bush's warnings against appeasing terrorists (very thoughtful and intelligent comments, as it turns out), and his name wasn't even in the speech. Obama needs to think long and hard about being president, because the interviewer hit on the head. You see what kind of stuff everyone says about Bush, and about his family, and if Obama wants to be president himself, he's probably going to have to put up with the same amount of abuse.

3. "For them to.. play snippets of her remarks that are unflattering to her.": I have a brilliant idea, for both Michelle and Barack. If you don't want people playing remarks that are unflattering to you, how about not getting up in front of a podium and saying remarks that are unflattering to you. It's just that simple.

4. I guess it's perfectly ok to accuse McCain of "Losing his bearings" due to his age. That's not an attack or smear in the slightest, is it? The hypocracy is thick enough to cut with a knife.

Alright guys, feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but I can just sense that Obama is a disaster waiting to happen.

Nothing about climate change or peak oil?

Why is every thread devolving into a libertarian mudslide?

You're wrong.

Judging from the blather you usually post, I don't put a lot of faith in your senses either.

Indeed. Just don't be surprised if it loses them votes.

And, if you choose not to protest at vicious attacks on the innocent by political candidates, you shouldn't be surprised if your national politics favours stupid, shallow, nasty people.

Democracy: where the voters get what they deserve. And serve them right.

That's a pretty great video. I do think it's kinda stupid to launch a political attack on the guy's wife. I'm not voting for Obama's wife. I don't give a shit what she thinks about the issues or the country. I'm planning on voting for Obama, the GOP's job should be trying to convince me why I shouldn't for legimate reasons. But that would be hard.

That's all they've got: the swamp attack. They are trying to ensure that the casual reader sees libertarian ideas first and everywhere.

But the ideas are all so . . . bad.

Jesus Christ. Seriously? He's going to make them look like asshole for attacking his wife. You don't fight someone by punching their lady. Obama's going to make that point loud and clear, which will make Republicans look like fucking child molesters. How you could not pick that up by reading what I wrote is fucking amazing.

Hi. Do you know what "appeasement" means? No, you don't. Neither does the president.

And I didn't realize Laura Bush was the centerpiece of a Democratic State Party campaign ad. Please post that for me, would you? Thank.

And you're right, Obama's name wasn't in the speech. Good pick up. Maybe you should also read the multitude of articles in which White House advisors told the press Bush was talking about Obama. This distortion of the truth by deluded right wingers such as yourself is about the best proof that Bush was out of line.

Hey, brilliant! You're a God damn genius. Also interesting how you brought Barack into that little speech there, even thought he said he was fair game. What this is, is a dude defending his wife. I am going to assume here that you don't love anything because you can't relate.

Um. it wasn't because of his age. He said he lost his bearings because McCain repeatedly stated he would not make ugly attacks during the campaign, then he did. See how that works? If you say something, then do the opposite, someone might say you "lost your bearings." You should stop sucking from the right wing teet, because you appear shockingly ignorant of the facts.