Talk Elections

...what would a map look like?

Hard to tell; as always so much of it could only have happend when it happend... the farm crisis, Arch Moore and all that

The Horton ad wouldn't be as effective today as it was then.

Hey, Lee Atwater would be dead.  I guess Karl Rove would take over.

All the cold war phrases would ring a wee bit hollow with Gorbachev no longer in power. If the campaign were fought exactly the same way that is.

The rape question would be replaced by a question about Dukakis' wife and daughter being killed in a terrorist attack.

The answer, probably, would not change.

It would probably look a lot like the 2004 map.

I don't know. Dukakis was a lot more conservative than Kerry...

Wonder if Dukakis would still drive a tank?

Dukakis picks up CA, MD, DE, CT, IL and VT.

Bush picks up IA, MN, WI, and WV (4 of the "Dukakis Five").

Ron Paul for Prez!!!! :D :D :D

EstA loco.

:)

beef, didnt you used to be  a libertarian?  or do i have you confused with someone else?

I have some moderate libertarian views - the theory that government exists solely to protect our rights is fundamentally correct in my mind.  And for a while I thought about voting for Badnarik until I heard him on NPR and decided he was too extreme to support.  I also have some populist leanings. 

I just think the idea that Ron Paul could have done any better now than he did in 1988 is loco.

So what are you doing in the socialist party?

Hey now, that was uncalled for.

It's Philip, what do you expect? Pretty mild for him actually

Almost all the Democrats on this board seem to support socializing health care, turning Social Security into a welfare program by eliminating the payroll tax cap (thus putting the top marginal rate at over 50%), putting price controls on perscription drugs, and repealing all the progress that's been made on de-regulation.

I'm sure some of these people even support the "Fairness Doctrine" (i.e. censorship).

This country is headed down the path of communism if your party ever gets back in power.

That was also uncalled for. 

Heh.

I believe that government exists to protect our rights.  Well, one of the rights we have is the pursuit of happiness - we have the right to make a decent living from honest work, and not become the chattle of huge multinational corporations, to be discarded when we no longer fit into the bottom line.

Wake up and look around.  The forces of unbridaled capitalism are taking away the livelihoods of millions of Americans.  Manufacturing in the US is almost dead, because we have to compete with cheap overseas labor, itself abused with attrocious living conditions and miniscule wages.  Our nation is so far in debt that we're being bought up with foreign capital.  So our slavemasters aren't even Americans!  And those of us who can make a decent living live in constant fear of bankruptcy due to lack of or inadequate health insurance.  I make a very nice wage, have no debt, and save about 25% of my income.  But I am one bad illness away from being wiped out financially.

Do you want to go back to the late-19th century?  Do you know what life was like for the common American back then?

You can't escape socialism.  Our schools are socialized.  Our highways are socialized.  Some things just make sense to run collectively.  It's time to re-evaluate our economic ideals and join the rest of the civilized world.

Hey, what do you think about Feingold running for President?

So, you're not a "libertarian" of any kind then. You're a communist. Definitely in the right party, in that case.

Unbridled capitalism? We are socialist-lite.

Creating things more and more cheaply isn't called slavery. It's called progress, and it means those that were tied up in manufacturing can now do something else, which in turn increases our standard of living.

Life for the average American in the late 19th century was far better than almost anywhere else in the world.

He's twice-divorced and voted against banning partial-birth abortion.  There are Democrats to bring the message of economic revival to the heartland.  Feingold is not one of them.

I really like him, I've always liked him, but there is zero chance of him being elected President.  And his vote on partial-birth abortion really pissed me off.

Perhaps, but only as long as other, more fundamental rights are not infringed.

Why should you be able to pursue happiness, but not the corporation? Surely, the people who run the corporation have the right to pursue happiness by firing you, under your argument?

Unbridled capitalism? Hardly.

I didn't realize it was his 2nd divorce. As for partial-birth abortion, it's an ambigious term that include a lot of 2nd trimester abortions, and does not include exceptions for when the women's life was in danger. Anyone who advocates "state's rights" should have been against the ban.

Can an average Joe start a computer software the same way Bill Gates did? How about a car company similar to the doings of Henry Ford?

The answer to both of these is of course no, but I wouldn't exactly say the reason is socialism.


Whose standard of living does this increase, the same people who made it impossible to do what people like Henry Ford or Bill Gates did?

You have to do something original. I am sorry some communists don't understand that.

Anyone who buys goods and services benefits from an increase in productivity.

The rights of the individual do not apply to corporations.  Corporations are a tool to serve individuals.  Not the other way around.

The rights of the individual do not apply to individuals who own corporations?

Why shouldn't they apply to those who own the corporations? To rephrase the question: Why should your boss not be entitled to pursue happiness by firing you?

In any event, the notion of a so-called "right to pursue happiness" is rather arbitrary. If it exists, it does not override another person's right to property.

Well, by that logic we should have no tax whatsoever.

Taxation is justified only to the extent that it protects freedom.

...and, in addition to defense, provides us with public education, county, state, and federally-sposored transportation, Social Security, Medicare, public works and improvements, recreational facilities, and a host of other things.

No, only freedom. Roads should be funded by tolls, ideally, but the gas tax is pretty much the same thing, so oh well.

Question: Are you a fan of Grover Norquist?  Have you read any of his books?

No.

No, not so. The power to tax is absolutely independent of the "right to pursue happiness." Taxation is a justified measure insomuch as it provides for the protection of individual rights and for the general welfare.

In any event, you haven't answered my previous question. Why should your boss not be entitled to "pursue happiness" by firing you? Why should your happiness take precedence over his?

I think you are twisting my original point and trying to get me to defend a straw man.  Of course a company should be able to fire you, or lay you off.  A company has to stay competitive; stay profitable. 

However...

When there is too loose of a state grip on economic activities, the forces of big money and large corporations naturally work to crush the little man.  People lose the ability to gain a fair living through honest work.  And because we've opened the floodgates of globalism, we're competing on an unfair footing with foreign nations with a drastically different business environment and living conditions from our own.

We have a right to have some amount of control of our own lives and our own destinies.  And runaway anarcho-capitalism is taking that freedom away from us.

What's the difference between government taking away our freedom, and Big Business taking away our freedom?  None, I say!

I dispute that point. But, let us accept it for the sake of argument.

The government does not owe anyone a living. The government exist solely to protect and promote the rights and freedoms of the people; it does not exist to give them handouts, whether directly in the form of money or indirectly in the form of excessive regulation.

Another important point is that everyone's freedoms must be equally protected. I see no justification for protecting the worker more than the business owner. On the contrary, both must be equally protected; socialism does not do so.

At the risk of seeming harsh, so what? Ultimately, the company is doing what it is supposed to do: achieve a profit. It is not responsible for your welfare, nor should it be.

A rather convenient argument, no?

But I ask: if you should be able to control your own life and destiny, why should the business owner not be able to do the same? Why should his so-called right to control his destiny be sacrificed to help you?

There is an enormous difference. The government is obliged to protect your freedom; the business must respect it, but it need not protect it.

In any event, businesses aren't taking anybody's freedoms away. If anything, it is the freedom of the business owners that is being trampled.