(V): "Artful Dodger: And no matter how you spin it you cannot deny that the USA as well as other democratic western governments have stuck their nose in and helped and aided those they like... you called it the enemy of your enemy I believe."

Actually I wouldn't deny this.  It's clear that the US has done just that.  For whatever National interests they used for an excuse, it's clear that the US was involved in more than one questionable foreign undertakings.

"Capitalism is an economic system that vastly differs from all others. It's not really a system at all but a lack of a system."

so was communism as under the USSR system. No real system to talk about as it didn't work.

Communism is more a political and social system whereas capitalism is economic.  Like anything, such can be abused and often is.  In Communism, abuse is the norm.  In Capitalism, no so. 

I suppose that one could argue that in a perfect Communist system all would benefit.  Or even in a dictatorship, if the dictator is a benevolent one, that could be a good thing. 

But where there are failings of the US foreign policies of the past or present, most of the blame can be leveled at the politics and attitudes of soverignty.  Likening communism with capitalism is just plain rubbish.

(V):   Of course businesses lobby the government.  Personally I wish it were against a law.  I disagree that there isn't a separation of the two.  I would agree that they can (and often are) closely linked.  And in some cases, the two do operate as if they are one. 

I don't see how Palin's suits have anything to do with the discussion.  Should she have gone naked?

(V):   If u are refering to political advertizing law.  The McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 set some restrictions on how much money could be donated for political ads.  But there are loopholes a mile wide.

Here is an article on maze of complex issues regarding this legislation with the court cases surrounding it.

http://www.politicaladvertisinglaw.com/

(V):   I agree w/ u.  But, here the mentality of our courts is that how you are able to spend your money constutes free speech.  In other words, regardless of whether funds raised are remotely even, candidates have the "right" to allocate their moneys however they see fit - that means any restriction placed upon time limits on commercial time being bought is considered a violation of free speech.

I think this particular mentality is rediculous & has nothing to do with individual free speech as an "inalienable" human right.