McKinney, Barr, Nader

The Doctor wrote: I think the best thing that could happen to the American political system is to have an option "none of the above".  I bet he'd win every election.  At least until the major parties got their acts together.

Nader is a proponent of the "no confidence" vote option.

Edited by BroSpence - September 25 2008 at 01:29

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Well there's the source of our disagreement. We clearly have a different conception of the social contract. Though I think its rather clear from the intentions of our founders that our government was not constructed to provide the protection you talk about.

As a point of argument...

Our founding fathers also had slaves, lived between the 18th and 19th century, and to an extent were terrorists.

what if he did an "inadequate" job of painting?

Edited by jimmy_row - September 21 2008 at 14:38

Finnforest wrote: Well first I don't consider it theft to band Americans together to support basic human care at the end of life, but rather a social contract deserving of "threatening the freedom" of the hard core Libs.  We do it as a people to make sure everyone can get access to the help in a dignified manner, rather than perhaps having to suck up to some church to get the kind of community charity that the conservatives favor.  This kind of hands off approach existed in the distant past, when poor americans died alone or on "poor farms".  We can do better than than, without advocating full socialism, by making sure an older person can remain in their home and get health care at the end of life, yes, backed by our country as a whole, not on individual charities with their own shortcomings and agendas.  You are correct to point out that government can be inefficient and I applaud those who work to make us better on that front.  But you can start with corporate welfare, the military, and 1000 other things before you get to cutting off help for our most vulnerable.

Well thats fine that other things should be cut off first, but it doesn't change the fact that social welfare is just as bad as corporate welfare, though of course the former is easier to support because it has the face of your grandmom attached to it.

You use alot of nice words about banding Americans together, but how can you call it anything besides theft when an entity takes money from you through force?

^ Pretty soon, the "Indifferent Party" (soon to be called simply the "indies") would seize control, and proceed to do an inadequate job.

The Doctor wrote:   jimmy_row wrote: Hey guys...just an idea.  How about we have a debate...or better yet, a discussion, and we use actual points of reference alongside our experiences but without hiding behind anger or sarcasm?   Where's the fun in that?

hahaha point taken: what would an argument be without emotion? 

Slartibartfast wrote: That's right, the poor and unemployed need to go back and be born into some rich family, so they won't be poor and have all those privileges handed to them, I mean don't they realize that the sole purpose of their existence is to be exploited by the wealthy so that those who have a lot can have a whole lot more?

Edited by The Doctor - September 21 2008 at 13:05

Well first I don't consider it theft to band Americans together to support basic human care at the end of life, but rather a social contract deserving of "threatening the freedom" of the hard core Libs.  We do it as a people to make sure everyone can get access to the help in a dignified manner, rather than perhaps having to suck up to some church to get the kind of community charity that the conservatives favor.  This kind of hands off approach existed in the distant past, when poor americans died alone or on "poor farms".  We can do better than than, without advocating full socialism, by making sure an older person can remain in their home and get health care at the end of life, yes, backed by our country as a whole, not on individual charities with their own shortcomings and agendas. 

You are correct to point out that government can be inefficient and I applaud those who work to make us better on that front.  But you can start with corporate welfare, the military, and 1000 other things before you get to cutting off help for our most vulnerable. 

Why does the existence of a governing body remove your duty to help the poor and elderly? The government doesn't absorb this moral duty and remove you of culpability. We're a group of free individuals who can take our own initiatives to help people. Why put such a huge responsibility in the hands of a laughably inefficient government organ. The money can be much better spent when its localized. This idea of a Robin Hood government may be romantic, but at its core its still theft regardless of the cause.

Hey guys...just an idea.  How about we have a debate...or better yet, a discussion, and we use actual points of reference alongside our experiences but without hiding behind anger or sarcasm.  ?