To some degree mere opinion is not enough, I could write a whole book on the problems of relativism but there have been certain times where indecision and too much of a laissez faire attitude have caused problems. I abhor the saying "we all have our opinions/views" because it is such a meaningless, unhelpful statement, that clarifies nothing but our inability to deduce the correct course of action. Given the circumstances the country faces at this point in history, (and at other points as well, obviously) there is always a correct course of action and an incorrect one. Sure, it may not be clear at first and surely not easy to figure out, but with the right minds on the job and the right kind of deduction I know it's possible. Allowing anything to happen because of mere opinion is not enough. But I am glad we can vote, the danger is I believe people vote more based on their opinions rather than what they know for sure.

That said, I honestly don't feel comfortable at all talking about politics, because I don't feel I have the knowledge or in-depth familiarity needed to reasonably assess which candidate is better for the country at this point in history. My brain instinctively tells me Obama (as well as things I've read and speeches I've heard), but instincts and his charisma are not nearly enough to be indicators of success. Almost every debate I've had off-offhandedly with friends and colleagues basically hinges on data, without it, our arguments at their core become arguments of assumptions and popular knowledge, rather than in-depth politics. The only true debate I've had was with someone who apparently really knew his stuff, and I backed off and conceded.

Yet, as I said, there is a right and wrong, and pulling out immediately out of Iraq is one of the wrongs, but not pulling out for a long time is also incorrect. I am not sure if you have read the agreement, but apparently the Prime Minister of Iraq has drafted a plan with the United States to pull out in around 3 years (even here I need my research, see), because later than that their OWN government would start to become agitated at US presence (as many other 'citizens' are).

And Rockstone I could cite your age as one of the reasons why you are pro-Bush over Obama, but I don't really know what kind of facts you bring to the table or exactly what instances you are comparing between the two.

capitalism is bad

That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it, at least when you look at what has always happened in the past. "The rich" under capitalism have more purchasing power, and get somewhat preferential treatment as a result. They can afford to go to more expensive restaurants, doctors, or whatever. Under socialism, as one of the direct opposites of capitalism, everyone is supposedly equal, but, as history has born out, some are more equal than others. Those associated with the leadership role have preferred access to goods and services. The big difference is that in capitalism, if someone really wanted to save up, they could eventually purchase a good or service they really wanted or needed. Under socialism they would be denied access regardless.

Basically capitalism promises freedom of opportunity. Everyone is equal under the law and can do whatever they want and can afford; under socialism, while everyone is, ideally equal, they are basically held to the lowest common denominator because working harder does not grant you any direct reward. Admittedly, both systems are flawed, but I tend to lean very heavily to the live and let live attitude of capitalism. There is no perfect system and no agreement of opinion can exist. Some people want to lead and be lead, others want to be left to their own lives.

My opinion is that we have to much government, to much external control in our lives. Don't get me wrong, I know I'm as much a sheep as other members of society, huddling in numbers for protection, going with the group because it's easy and safe.