| Neither Republicans nor Democrats are the answer |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: WinstonSmith (reply) post date: 12.12.03 (7:41 pm) While I disagree with your views on the role of government in protecting citizens from being exploited by the rich & powerful ... someday 3rd party movements will arise ... But in 2004 we need to get rid of Bush because he is a disaster ... (Clinton wasn't great ... but he was better than Bush) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 12.12.03 (7:44 pm) Reply to: WinstonSmith Yep, I agree- we definitely need to get rid of Bush. I only wish we had better choices, I really don't like any of the candidates so far. :( posted by: SamAdams (reply) post date: 12.12.03 (7:47 pm) You misquote me ... I think that government should be there to ensure that the rich & powerful do not exploit the vulnerable and poor. Bush is trying to install a neo-feudal slave state. I also DO think that having safety-nets like Social Security ARE GOOD ... and that some people (who are uneducated, or mentally retarted, etc.) DO NEED HELP and should not be left at the mercy of swindlers like Neil Bush & Kenny-boy (Enron) to rape mercilessly. Moreover, I think that a civilized society does co-operate to ensure that services needed to live decently are put in place: YOUR SYSTEM WOULD ENSURE THAT ONLY THE RICH GOT POLICE PROTECTION, FIREMEN, CLEAN-WATER, SEWAGE SYSTEMS, ETC... This is barbaric ... People have an obligation to pay taxes... In BUSHIES WORLD, only the middle-class and working people BEAR THE BURDEN of heavy taxes relative to their efforts ... THE CORPORATE RAPISTS & RICH ARE NOT BEARING THEIR FAIR SHARE... Individuals have rights and responsibilities ... Government has a responsibility to ensure that some individuals (or corporatioinis or groups of people) DO NOT TRAMPLE ON THOSE WHO ARE NOT THE STRONGEST & RICHEST ... THIS ISN'T SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND TO HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE... You may want to live like that-- most civilized people do not. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 12.12.03 (7:58 pm) Reply to: SamAdams You're right, I did misquote you, and I apologize. But the point still stands. It is not civil to force anything on anyone. I'm not really sure how you got that in my system only the rich would benefit. If privatization of businesses and all other functions of government that should not be the responsibility of the government were to occur, drastic tax cuts would follow, allowing the poor to actually keep their own money. This would certainly benefit the poor. As it is now, as you've pointed out, the rich benefit from the taxes the poor are forced to pay. We both agree that this is bad. My solution is to cut taxes. What's yours? Obviously, if you favor government intervention in the areas of Social Security and welfare or other measures, you cannot cut taxes (at least not as drastically) and still provide those services through the government. Your last point is the same as mine- individuals have rights and responsibilities and the government has the responsibility to protect and defend those individual rights. I want a society in which everyone benefits, that's what I'm advocating. In yours, we all pay for everyone else. It doesn't have to be that way, there are other solutions. posted by: SamAdams (reply) post date: 12.13.03 (6:33 am) Profit motive means safety, health, workers right etc. GOES OUT THE WINDOW ... Government ISN'T BAD ... as the conservatives (corporate rapist) have tried to BRAIN-WASH our people to think... I do FAVOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION OVER CORPORATE INTERVENTION ... If done right the former means that the vulernable are cared for and thd EQUAL RIGHTS (not just for the rich)a re protected ... Under Corporate Intervention-- WE ARE ENSLAVED, EXPLOITED & IMPOVERISHED TO ENRICH THE CORRPUT BUSHIES & KENNY-BOY (ENRON) LAY. posted by: WinstonSmith (reply) post date: 12.13.03 (7:40 am) No one is perfect. It is a matter of the lesser of the evils. Frankly, any one of the Dem candidates will be better than Bush. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 12.13.03 (11:24 am) Reply to: SamAdams I think I see where the misunderstanding is. I am not saying that rich corporate types should be in control. I think that corporations, private businesses, and just about any form of company, would benefit society best if the workers could be given more control. If the government sold these things that are currently unde its control to the workers, the workers would benefit. They would care more and would work harder. They would receive better benefits because they would be, at least partially, deciding what benefits they receive. This would be possible if government was limited to only protecting individual rights and defending the nation- taxes could be cut so that the workers actually get to keep most of the money they earn. I have no problem paying taxes for the government to provide a service for me, IF it is a service I want performed for me. How is it fair to force me to pay for things I don't want, things that could be better provided to those who do want and need them if the government was left out of it? If the government was given less control and the people more, everyone in society would benefit. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 12.13.03 (11:26 am) Reply to: WinstonSmith It's always the lesser of two evils- it would be nice if this wasn't the case. I agree, Bush needs to go, I'm just not sure yet who's best to replace him. I really don't like Dean very much, but I need to do some research on the candidates before I decide. :) posted by: elementamsk8a (reply) post date: 12.14.03 (1:08 pm) Ok i read a little from each replysince im a lazy bitch and you guys are right, bush should be out of power. i am a libertarian but he still isnt a very good president i admit it. i agree almost 100% with dragonbait. posted by: JamesYerian (reply) post date: 12.19.03 (1:30 am) I'm going to make a bold prediction, Dragon-- if the Libertarian party ever gets to become a dominant party, it will start shedding its principles just like the other two parties. We'll soon be talking about the Libertarian Senator and his massive pork projects. Ideologies are great, but in practice they never resemble the promise. So rah-rah for Libertarians all you want-- they thrive on not being a major force in Congress. Once they get there, Libertarians will stop pretending they have all the answers. Power corrupts. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 12.19.03 (10:21 am) Reply to: JamesYerian As much as it pains me to say this, James, you could very well be right in your prediction. Power does have a tendency to corrupt. But, if the Libertarian Party was to somehow gain control of the US, and employed its policies for its vision of America, the politicians would not have enough power to be corrupt. Granted, that's assuming they abstain from allowing the initial power to thwart their mission, and whether that would happen or not, I really don't know. But I think that the shape of the nation demonstrates that new answers are needed, and I personally think the LP's ideas are the best for our country. |
|