David Brooks?  Isn't he the Bill Kristol of print?

And Bush has accomplished such a sea change in his tenure that every candidate's first term will start as Bush's third.  We have a lot of damage to undo that will take a lot of political will and capital to fix.  Obama's the only one not foaming at the mouth to kill hisself some furinners.

To be honest, if you don't like either candidate, then don't vote or write in someone.  Voting for someone you dislke makes no sense, even if you dislike the other candidate more.....  It's really at the point you should vote FOR the person you feel would do the best job.

That makes no sense.  To be honest, only the big 2 parties have a shot.  If I absolutely do not want one candidate it would be extremely foolish to not vote or to not vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating that candidate.  I would rather have a 3rd Bush term *shudder* than a 1st Obama term.

If the super delegates end up picking Hilary over Barack because she cuts them a deal and Barack has more votes from the people--there will be
rioting in the streets. I don't think most people are getting just how
important this is to a lot of Americans who feel as though their voices
have not been heard. If she ends up stealing this away from him-- there
will be blood in the streets and it will not be pretty.

Didn't happen when Bush won even though he had fewer votes from the people and wouldn't happen here.

See, the training worked - we're all very compliant now - we don't do the right thing and riot when our liberty is removed.  We applaud and watch American Idol.

"I don't see how two, primarily socialistic candidates, like Obama or Hillary will bring Liberty back."

Socialist? Really? I'm a socialdemocrat myself and I really don't see it. They look more like Social-liberals to me. (Different animal altogether.) And I wouldn't mind if they were socialists. Socialism good! (well, the social democrat kind, anyway)

"Easy to say living in a country with billions to burn in oil money. :)"

Well, kind of the point, there. If our country hadn't already been social-democrat with a commitment to keeping national/state control over resources, we'd have handed off all the oil revenue to private enterprise on the ridiculous assumption that all of society becomes prosperous by making a small group of people very, very rich.  And we'd still be one of the poorest countries in Europe.

But the state did the bulk of the investments on its own (or our) behalf and now we're financially secure. Because we're a social-democratic country.

Just look at the US. All the logging and mining in national parks and proposed drilling for oil in the arctic --- all about opening it up for private entreprise, with subsidized roads and tax breaks etc. It'd be cheaper for the tax payer if the government did those investments on their own behalf and sold off the wood, the ore and the oil to pay down the national debt. Instead they go the roundabout way of thinking that if the government takes all the expenses and all the profits go to private enterprise, the country will prosper. (and that's not even going back to the days of the Robber Barons)

I'm betting the people doing the actual work don't care where their paycheck comes from, and the people who just sit back and collect the profits, what good are they anyway?

We've had privatization of government monopolies over the last few decades on the premise that prices would go down as a result. Prices went down for a while, due to improved, cheaper technology, but then they went up at an alarming rate, because unlike state-run businesses with political accountability, private enterprise is all about the profit margins.

Don't mean to derail the thread. Ignore me.

Ignore me.

----------------

Knever, Knut!