McKinney, Barr, Nader

Slartibartfast wrote: Hey, stop calling those libertarian nutters libertarian nutters.   Babar's got five votes so far after all.

Here's hoping that he finishes with 5 more votes than Obama and McCain in November.

NaturalScience wrote: crimhead wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Hey, stop calling those libertarian nutters libertarian nutters.   Babar's got five votes so far after all. Here's hoping that he finishes with 5 more votes than Obama and McCain in November. Do you often hope for zero probability events such as this?

We all gotta have our fantasies.


My meds haven't kicked in yet as well.

maybe I'd vote for Ralph Nader if I could, he was so good at wimbledon this year

Yes, the perfect write-in I do believe. 
What would happen if enough people did that, anyway?

BroSpence wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Beautiful.

Nobody will help the poor and unemployed? Part of the reason we're in the state we are in is because leaders think they have the authority to help the poor and unemployed.

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.  ?

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.

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. 

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