You can't retire on savings. Then you might not spin the wheel as hard all your life to please your overlords.

The fed has to keep stealing your savings, so you have to keep working.

End the fed, and you can actually save and plan your life the way you want to live it. Keep the fed and your savings will continue financing bribery and the aristocracy.

What Justinian I said.

Counterfeiting is far less harmful than what we do to ourselves legally by being idiotic sheep, bribed with our own tax dollars. Let's fix the bigger problem, which is cheaper, before spending more money on a smaller problem.

It's pragmatic. It is logical.

I thought about looking for a government job because the work would be so easy, the standards would be so low, and my job security would be so immaculate.

Then I remembered that I don't hate myself.

The appropriate response to threats on teh interwebs is to laugh at the idiot and hope he [poops] himself!

When people equate jobs and business in the millions/few billions with hundreds of billions, those people are too dumb to have a conversation with anyway.

Is literally retarded.

It's corrupt when anybody does it.

Also, his giveaways were far, far, far larger than we've ever seen before.

Doesn't realize how much The Yell's avatar looks like him.

Don't forget the "stimulus" which was largely a payoff to state and local public unions who had unaffordable pensions.

It's alright. He wasn't going to respond to anything I said anyway.

You_Fool,

Obama's not for a capitalist state, he just claims to be as much for one as it takes for him to get elected. Most communists do not ignorantly presume, as you do, that his aspirations aren't far more socialist/communist. He's openly admitted that his position is far more "left" than he's recently voiced: In the past, he has openly advocated fully socialized medicine, increased redistribution of wealth, and far, far more government involvement in all kinds of private industries.

You do understand that Obama is not an autocrat, right? You do understand that he has to posture to get his policies passed by people far less socialist/communist than him, right? You do understand, as Obama does, that such socialist/communist changes must be enacted in steps, right? It appears that you have no understanding of the restraints Obama puts on his rhetoric in order to appeal to moderates. He's given countless speeches arguing for a more "green" economy (which you just denied he supports much of), but he doesn't go overboard because more attention to this politically sensitive issue will lose votes.

It's a matter of movement in that direction. He's gotten legislation passed moving us in that direction while in office, and he was far more openly vocal about his socialist/communist ideology before he sought national office. Most communists are aware of this and give him their support.

This is in stark contrast with most Libertarian (America's 3rd largest political party)-leaning voters, who are aware of Romney's many substantive disagreements with their ideals and policy positions:

While Obama is not socialist in name, he clearly wants to move the country in that direction (which all socialists know is how to get the country where they want it).

Romney not only isn't Libertarian in name, but is substantively opposed to Libertarian positions on a great number of issues. Romney clearly wants to move the country farther away from the direction Libertarian voters desire.

Pretending that socialist voters are as fractured from Obama as Libertarian voters are from Romney is just ignorant of Amerikan politiks. There's no parallel. These different groups have fundamentally different disagreements with the major-party candidate who is closer to their ideology. Romney's not very close to Libertarian ideology at all.

Einstein,

You_Fool is a troll. This is the first time I've been happy with our mods for a while. I knew that Zarf guy was alright! And maybe those other one or two whose names I do not recall!

In Amerika today, You_Fool, progressive = socialist. I have addressed the fact that progressive has an original and generic definition. I have addressed the fact that this is rarely, if ever, the definition used today in Amerikan politiks. There's a "Progressive Caucus" within the Democratic party; the word has been co-opted. Pretending that it's generic definition is significant, let alone preeminent, in Amerikan politiks is just silly.

Jon Stewart hasn't been funny since Half Baked, and he's not insightful. His "comedy" is based on ignorance. I literally tried to watch and enjoy his show just yesterday.

First was a random play on the bookstore "Borders" with "Completely Closed Borders"... in light of a political story which had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. It was a humorous play on words (the bookstore is "closed"; out of business), but it had absolutely no relation to the bit he Stewart was ranting about. Haha those people who disagree with us on a totally separate issue are so silly? This audience is so dense that a nonsensical out-of-place reference will be slightly humorous, which is par for this show?

He went on to parallel vitriol from the President and and Vice President of the United States to relatively unknown conservative pundits on cable news, as if there's the remotest comparison between their positions within their respective political parties. The notion that unknown pundits on cable news have the office to respect that the President does is just retarded. It's dumb. The notion that they have remotely comparable abilities to reach people with their message is similarly ignorantly stupid and nonsensical.

Basing a joke on the assumption that your audience is too stupid not to equate the President with some unknown pundit is only funny if you're an ignorant buffoon. I know the difference between the President of the United States and the office he holds and some pundit on cable news who is probably lucky if he/she makes 50 grand a year and who represents no organization whatsoever.

Pretending that vitriol from such unknown schmucks magically equals out with vitriol from the President and his office is just stupid, it's not funny. If clips of Romney and Ryan were shown, sure, that'd expose hypocrisy if they complained about vitriol and engaged in it too. But they weren't. The whole bit was just stupid.

He then went on to reference Republicans obviously wanting to repress minority voters, presumably referring to the voter ID laws they support. This, of course, despite the fact that minority voter participation has increased in every place which has enacted voter ID requirements.

Most of his "humor" and rants are based upon similar ignorance. He rightly assumes his audience doesn't know anything about what he's talking about and rants about how absurd people who are educated are.