Hillary Clinton

[Independent_CA]

So, she came to San Deigo State today and gave about a one hour speech. I haven't yet decided who I'm going to vote for but she definitely had some interesting points and positions including a few I hadn't been aware of.

In particular, I didn't know about her National Service plan, which is along the lines of something I've personally favored for quite a while. In all, it was pretty interesting, and I'll definitely be looking into some of her positions more thoroughly.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Dave de Sylvia]

I think she's the Bush of the left. If you like your politics polarised, you should probably go for her. But what do I know I'm not even American :(

[YDtoad]

So, she came to San Deigo State today and gave about a one hour speech. I haven't yet decided who I'm going to vote for but she definitely had some interesting points and positions including a few I hadn't been aware of.

In particular, I didn't know about her National Service plan, which is along the lines of something I've personally favored for quite a while. In all, it was pretty interesting, and I'll definitely be looking into some of her positions more thoroughly.

Anyone else have any thoughts?
Sylvia's right--if you like her positions, check out Obama. There aren't many differences between the two of them on actual positions, except that his are more forthright and honest. She refuses to embrace raising the payroll tax limit, which really needs done if they're going to pay for the programs they want.

And of course beyond that I really can't stand her on a purely visceral level, and I hate the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

[Permanent Solution]

Liberal as I am...I support McCain over Clinton for now.

I trust him to stick to his views. Voting for Hilary is sort of like casting a vote for the popular opinion of the American people over the next 4 years...and I don't trust that at all.

[oathfbass]

did you watch the debate last night independent CA? If not go on cnn or youtube and find it. You can form a more solid opinion on the two candidates based on that.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Actually I revise my position: Bush is more trustworthy :o

[Against Miik!]

Neither Obama nor Clinton is all that trustworthy. They both made Politico.com's list of top 10 most corrupt politicians over the last year.

[YDtoad]

Liberal as I am...I support McCain over Clinton for now.

Good :cool:

McCain all the way.

[Against Miik!]

If you are all serious, what is it you like about McCain's platform?

[YDtoad]

If you are all serious, what is it you like about McCain's platform?

He's been completely forthright and brave on supporting the war in Iraq and the surge (unlike Mitt Romney)
He supports real measures to combat global warming
He supports campaign finance reform
He's pro-life
He generally supports fiscally sane policies
He's an authentic American hero and honorable person
He'll pull Harry Reid into his office and yell at him with a sailer's terms.

[Permanent Solution]

If you are all serious, what is it you like about McCain's platform?

Immigration, economy, environment

[Against Miik!]

Well lets see here, he's admitted he knows nothing about the economy. He's pro amnesty, but I guess if thats your thing thats fine.

He is not fiscally responsible because he supports the military industrial complex. 2/3 of all our dollars already go to the military!

And I respect him for being a POW and everything, but he's not really that great soldier that we all think he is. He finished in the bottom 10 out of 8 or 900 graduates in his class at the naval academy. I don't mean 10%. I mean bottom 10 people.

Pro Life is great, but not the responsibility of the federal government. There should be no federal law one way or the other.

And the surge in Iraq isn't working.

[Saetia]

Hate her.

Hate her.

[oathfbass]

Neither Obama nor Clinton is all that trustworthy. They both made Politico.com's list of top 10 most corrupt politicians over the last year.

How?

[Saetia]

He's a rich white Christian man.

****tard...

[YDtoad]

Well lets see here, he's admitted he knows nothing about the economy.

That's one quote on his part that was dumb to make but not really reflective of his knowledge. All you need to do is look at his committee work to see that.


He's pro amnesty, but I guess if thats your thing thats fine.


He isn't for "amnesty", but he is for giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship. In other words, he doesn't engage in immigrant-hate, unlike Mitt Romney, which is another big reason I support him.


He is not fiscally responsible because he supports the military industrial complex. 2/3 of all our dollars already go to the military!

Ummm that figure is ridiculous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Structure_of_the_budg et

And, yes, he does support the military and defense. That's a good thing. The "military industrial complex" is mostly a boogyman put out by anti-zionist Ron Paul people.


And I respect him for being a POW and everything, but he's not really that great soldier that we all think he is. He finished in the bottom 10 out of 8 or 900 graduates in his class at the naval academy. I don't mean 10%. I mean bottom 10 people.


Rank in class rarely has a connection to competence as a soldier or (especially) as a president. George Patton graduated near the top of his class. Would you have wanted him to be president? George McClellan graduated second in his class and he was a failure of a general.


And the surge in Iraq isn't working.

Erm nevermind the dramatically reduced casualty numbers. The surge is working, this is objectively evident.

[Permanent Solution]

How?
Right wing news.

[Against Miik!]

The surge is working in the sense that there are less casualties for no other reason than the fact that we have displaced 3 million Iraqis from their homes. Other than that, I believe only 2 of the 18 benchmarks set by the Iraqi government have been met since the surge.

I meant JudicialWatch.org first off.

Heres a few recent stories:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/did-obama-return-all-rezko-cash
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/obama-wants-licenses-illegal-immigrants
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/obama-linked-federal-corruption-trial

Heres his little blurb on the top 10 list:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

http://judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

[Saetia]

That's one quote on his part that was dumb to make but not really reflective of his knowledge. All you need to do is look at his committee work to see that.



He isn't for "amnesty", but he is for giving und0cumented workers a path to citizenship. In other words, he doesn't engage in immigrant-hate, unlike Mitt Romney, which is another big reason I support him.



Ummm that figure is ridiculous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Structure_of_the_budg et

And, yes, he does support the military and defense. That's a good thing. The "military industrial complex" is mostly a boogyman put out by anti-zionist Ron Paul people.



Rank in class rarely has a connection to competence as a soldier or (especially) as a president. George Patton graduated near the top of his class. Would you have wanted him to be president? George McClellan graduated second in his class and he was a failure of a general.



Erm nevermind the dramatically reduced casualty numbers. The surge is working, this is objectively evident.



Wow you should join the ****ing KKK. Ignorant piece of trash. I can't really get passed anything you're saying without thinking "this idiot is pro-war?". The real war needs to be in Afghanistan, if that's even necessary at this point. They're not going to attack us at home, they lack the organization and funding. If anyone is attacking us "at home" its our own government by spending ridiculous amounts of money on this war and spending the rest on giving Idaho money for Home Security.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's always good to start an argument with "Wow you should join the ****ing KKK" if you want to be taken seriously.

[Against Miik!]

lol, but he makes a point

[YDtoad]

The surge is working in the sense that there are less casualties for no other reason than the fact that we have displaced 3 million Iraqis from their homes. Other than that, I believe only 2 of the 18 benchmarks set by the Iraqi government have been met since the surge.


The displacement has played a role, yes, but that's not the only factor. The increase in military presence has brought security, and with security will come political reconciliation. I don't care if it takes longer, because it's worth it.

[Saetia]

lol, but he makes a point

Thank you sir.

[YDtoad]

Thank you sir.

are you a dei alt account? you seem like an even less cogent dei, and that's saying something.

[Saetia]

Remember Rabbi?

That was me when I was like, 11.

[YDtoad]

Remember Rabbi?

That was me when I was like, 11.

Oh so you're like 13 now? Yeah that gets you on the ignore list.

[Dave de Sylvia]

lol, but he makes a point
nah zero's chill man

[Saetia]

Oh so you're like 13 now? Yeah that gets you on the ignore list.

16

I was probably like 13 when that account was made.

Isn't it a sin to ignore someone?

[YDtoad]

nah zero's chill man

:cool:

[oathfbass]

Has there not been times during the war when the casualties have been low and spiked and went back down again?
compared our other wars the casualties are not that high, but at least if we tell the government that we are serouis about leaving then they will be more serious are stabilizing their country

[beso negro]

McCain is too ugly to be president fortunately

[YDtoad]

McCain is too ugly to be president fortunately

Most of the best presidents have been kinda ugly, tbh. Lincoln? Looked like a troll. FDR? Check out the latter pictures of him, the dude looked like walking death.

[beso negro]

um that's before the television become popular. we haven't had an ugly president since Ike.

[dei]

are you a dei alt account? you seem like an even less cogent dei, and that's saying something.

On the weekends I like to walk around my town and beat the **** out of little Jew kids.

[Independent_CA]

did you watch the debate last night independent CA? If not go on cnn or youtube and find it. You can form a more solid opinion on the two candidates based on that.

No I didn't get a chance, too busy partying because it was Thursday night. I'm actually about to go watch some of them right now.

Nice to see 2 pages of response to this already, even if some of it has been a little strange. :lol:

Like I said, I'm not in the Hillary camp because of this, at least not yet, but she did say some things I liked. And it was really the first time I've ever been able to hear one of the candidates speak at length about their ideas without interruptions or arguing. Plus, when else are you ever going to get the chance to see somebody who legitimately has a chance to be President in less than a year? Not too often I imagine.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Poor John Edwards. He really does seem the nicest guy out of all the Democratic candidates, but he's not really electable. Same with Mike Huckabee.

[YDtoad]

um that's before the television become popular. we haven't had an ugly president since Ike.

Yup and we're about to break that trend :cool:


Same with Mike Huckabee.


Yeah pretty much :p

[Illmatic]

And, yes, he does support the military and defense. That's a good thing. The "military industrial complex" is mostly a boogyman put out by anti-zionist Ron Paul people.


yeah like Dwight Eisenhower

[ringworm]

i laugh everytime i hear someone say the surge is working

i'll dig around for links before i state how comical and misleading thinking that is

[YDtoad]

yeah like Dwight Eisenhower

what he warned against isn't what McCain is about.

[Mr. Ron]

i laugh everytime i hear someone say the surge is working

i'll dig around for links before i state how comical and misleading thinking that is

yeah thats always a fun thing to hear.

[YDtoad]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/our-view-on-war.html

[Mr. Ron]

well I'm convinced!

[YDtoad]

well I'm convinced!

Even democrats have admitted that the surge has been a success. Denying it is just foolish.

[Virus278]

Has there not been times during the war when the casualties have been low and spiked and went back down again?
compared our other wars the casualties are not that high, but at least if we tell the government that we are serouis about leaving then they will be more serious are stabilizing their country

I thought if we pulled out now it would cause a large amount of Iraqi deaths.

[YDtoad]

I thought if we pulled out now it would cause a large amount of Iraqi deaths.

It would. And the cowards, defeatists, and opportunists don't care about that.

[Mr. Ron]

It would. And the cowards, defeatists, and opportunists don't care about that.

we're doing a pretty good job at killing Iraqis on our own, anyways. How many civilian deaths have there been? But thats all collateral, am I correct?

[ringworm]

lol, the violence is low because they are just busy being trained by our soldiers


yesterdays "extremists", todays "awakened"

[YDtoad]

we're doing a pretty good job at killing Iraqis on our own, anyways. How many civilian deaths have there been? But thats all collateral, am I correct?

the civilian deaths have been caused by the terrorists. Like the incident today, in which AQII terrorists used two mentally challenged women as suicide bombers. I guess the rest of them finally realized that the 72 virgins for murdering people line is a load of crap. These are the people who will rule if we run away.

[dei]

We are the terrorists, Steve.

[YDtoad]

We are the terrorists, Steve.

no.

[Mr. Ron]

the civilian deaths have been caused by the terrorists. Like the incident today, in which AQII terrorists used two mentally challenged women as suicide bombers. I guess the rest of them finally realized that the 72 virgins for murdering people line is a load of crap. These are the people who will rule if we run away.

now why are they there in the first place, steve? Think.

[YDtoad]

now why are they there in the first place, steve? Think.

They're taking place because AQII wants to create a power vacuum, a state of anarchy, in which they can thrive. Which is exactly what would happen if we left.

[Mr. Ron]

You're missing the point.

[ringworm]

we are training the same people we fought, thats why the violence is low

we're giving guns and training them, we're even letting the different sects to train alone, what good is that going to do?

its like we've got crips on one side, and bloods on the other, and we think they are going to get along because we are pre-occupying them with military training

[Smokey D]

They're taking place because AQII wants to create a power vacuum, a state of anarchy, in which they can thrive. Which is exactly what would happen if we left.

They're there because America over threw the existing power structure and then didn't create a new one, allowing foreign influences to inject themselves into the game.

[YDtoad]

They're there because America over threw the existing power structure and then didn't create a new one, allowing foreign influences to inject themselves into the game.

Regardless of how they got there, they're there, and they're seeking to fill a power vacuum. And if we leave, that's what they're going to have. They desire violence and anarchy, and the surge prevents this from happening.

As for us training them, early we had some trouble with training police who then operated death squads etc. that hasn't been the case for a while though. The two sides are moving toward reconciliation.

[Mr. Ron]

They're there because America over threw the existing power structure and then didn't create a new one, allowing foreign influences to inject themselves into the game.

ding ding ding

[Mr. Ron]

Regardless of how they got there, they're there, and they're seeking to fill a power vacuum. And if we leave, that's what they're going to have. They desire violence and anarchy, and the surge prevents this from happening.

As for us training them, early we had some trouble with training police who then operated death squads etc. that hasn't been the case for a while though. The two sides are moving toward reconciliation.

so you have no problem supporting terrorists if they're on our side

[YDtoad]

so you have no problem supporting terrorists if they're on our side

no see they're not becoming terrorists now. The terrorists are mostly foreign born.

[dei]

Yeah, the terrorists are born in America.

[McP3000]

tl;dr thread, but basically its gunna be Obama or Hillary vs McCain

I hate obama and Hillary, and only despise McCain. He get's my vote, even though i would prefer Ron Paul...of course

[entheogen]

ok seriously people she voted for the war and for the patriot act ... f*ck her

the best candidate is of course Ron Paul and there used to be one other candidate worth voting for - Dennis Kucinich

hilllay and mccain are both worth voting against even if you have no opinion of the other guys

now if it comes down to hillary versus mccain ... then we're basically screwed

[Smokey D]

Your opinion is voided by the fact that you think Ron Paul is in anyway a good candidate.

[entheogen]

let me guess - you think RP is bad because he would get rid of the department of education ?

[Det_Nosnip]

lol. There are SO many reasons why RP is bad...that doesn't even scratch the surface.

[Smokey D]

No, I think he is bad because he would destroy the economy, abolish the welfare state and collapse the international order. He pretty much wants to return America to how it was in 1890.

[entheogen]

how would he destroy the economy ? and what "order" is there in the world now ?

and i would not miss the wellfare state ... as long as we still need to pay for health insurance and for *good* education - what is in this wellfare state for us really ?

[Mr. Ron]

how would he destroy the economy ? and what "order" is there in the world now ?

and i would not miss the wellfare state ... as long as we still need to pay for health insurance and for *good* education - what is in this wellfare state for us really ?

So you basically do not care about people.

[Smokey D]

how would he destroy the economy ?

He wants to abolish the Fed.

and what "order" is there in the world now ?

A lot.



and i would not miss the wellfare state ... as long as we still need to pay for health insurance and for *good* education - what is in this wellfare state for us really ?

You'd pay a lot more.

[entheogen]

to Smokey - how did the economy exist before 1913 ?

to Ron - i do care about the people ... unfortunately i don't think they can be saved from themselves

[Mr. Ron]

to Smokey - how did the economy exist before 1913 ?

to Ron - i do care about the people ... unfortunately i don't think they can be saved from themselves

Yeah but welfare is there for people who are at a point where they cannot work. Thats good.

[Smokey D]

to Smokey - how did the economy exist before 1913 ?


Nothing like it does now, so don't make the comparison.

[entheogen]

Nothing like it does now, so don't make the comparison.

did you watch the film - "money masters how international bankers gained control of america" ?

[Mr. Ron]

lmfao

[Smokey D]

did you watch the film - "money masters how international bankers gained control of america" ?

So what?

[entheogen]

economy does well when the money supply is optimal ... we do not need the fed to regulate the money supply

we need something like the fed but it should be more open ... we should be electing people like bernanke directly like we elect presidents

[Smokey D]

economy does well when the money supply is optimal ... we do not need the fed to regulate the money supply

The economy needs something like the Fed to preserve credit lines.



we need something like the fed but it should be more open ... we should be electing people like bernanke directly like we elect presidents

NO! People don't know enough about economics to make those sort of decisions.

[Dave de Sylvia]

the best candidate is of course Ron Paul and there used to be one other candidate worth voting for - Dennis Kucinich
I guess you don't have many principles then.

[Smokey D]

I suspect most of the grassroots support for Paul stems from disaffected young people who are unhappy with the Iraq war, who then learn about his other stances and graft them into some weird hodgepodge.

But I have no empirical basis for this theory.

[McP3000]

I suspect most of the grassroots support for Paul stems from disaffected young people who are unhappy with the Iraq war, who then learn about his other stances and graft them into some weird hodgepodge.

But I have no empirical basis for this theory.
Doubt it

most of Ron Paul's support comes from middle class America.

[gregulus]

I suspect most of the grassroots support for Paul stems from disaffected young people who are unhappy with the Iraq war, who then learn about his other stances and graft them into some weird hodgepodge.

But I have no empirical basis for this theory.

typical ron paul supporter is either:
A) a stoner
B) a college business student
C) someone who just got into politics 4 months ago

they, like ron paul himself, say nothing more than "the value of the dollar is plummeting." unlike ron paul, they don't say how they would fix it, and when told why the gold reserve is illogical they say "i won't support anyone's positions 100%."

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'm not convinced Ron Paul supporters actually exist. It's just a really convincing internet bot that can vote.

[beso negro]

well tell me what other candidate abides by the constitution, believes in a small, limited government, and is against the war?

when i find one i'll vote for him instead of Ron.

[Iskandar]

A big government is still a limited government, and not necessarily any more authoritarian than a small government.

There's this persistant myth that a smaller government always provides more freedom. Yet look at Europe, whose traditionally "big" governments are associated with a level of social liberalism unknown in America.

As for being against the war, Kucinich was, and he dropped out because he realized he did not have a chance of gaining the nomination. Neither does Ron Paul. He's staying in the race purely for ideological reasons. He can't win.

[McP3000]

A big government is still a limited government, and not necessarily any more authoritarian than a small government.
What

There's this persistant myth that a smaller government always provides more freedom. Yet look at Europe, whose traditionally "big" governments are associated with a level of social liberalism unknown in America.
What

As for being against the war, Kucinich was, and he dropped out because he realized he did not have a chance of gaining the nomination. Neither does Ron Paul. He's staying in the race purely for ideological reasons. He can't win.
well duh

[Iskandar]

What


WhatExactly what I said.

It only makes sense to claim that big government = less freedom if you assume all government action is a restriction upon freedom, and that's not true.

[Kage]

All government action is a restriction upon freedom.

[Iskandar]

All government action is a restriction upon freedom.Not really though.

[Already_Taken]

In theory it is, but some government action is necessary and nearly universally wanted. Education for instance, the government makes it a law to go to school for children, (restricting freedom) but education is obviously a good thing and most sane people agree.

[McP3000]

Not really though.
oh but it is

unless paying taxes is a freedom that i dont understand

[Iskandar]

oh but it is

unless paying taxes is a freedom that i dont understandTaxation ensures freedom by paying for public goods which benefit everyone.

Have you ever been so poor you needed to rely on these services?

[McP3000]

Taxation ensures freedom by paying for public goods which benefit everyone.

It's all for the good of the worker-commune hive.
hahahahaha

"hive"
because people are ants

and
because the bulk of taxation goes to pay for public goods

[Iskandar]

"hive"
because people are antsThat was the joke.
because the bulk of taxation goes to pay for public goodsWhat do you think it goes to?

[Smokey D]

oh but it is

unless paying taxes is a freedom that i dont understand

Taxation takes from the freedom of some to enable the freedom of others.

But it is true that European states have far less restrictive social policies than the US.

[McP3000]

Taxation takes from the freedom of some to enable the freedom of others.
Well if you think that giving people free money is a freedom and not a crutch then i guess so.

But it is true that European states have far less restrictive social policies than the US.
Completely agree.
Completely irrelevant.

[Smokey D]

Well if you think that giving people free money is a freedom and not a crutch then i guess so.

As much as I hate analogies, a crutch gives a cripple the ability to walk. It might even help them learn to walk unaided.

Completely agree.
Completely irrelevant.

It's relevant to Alex's argument. Which was 'high taxation doesn't restrict all freedom because some places with high taxation have high rates of freedom'.

[Iskandar]

My argument being that government action can provide freedom to those who lack it.

Which is a pretty important part of modern liberalism and similar ideologies.

Well if you think that giving people free money is a freedom and not a crutch then i guess so.If there is a disparity in wealth, there is a disparity in freedom.

It's not fair that certain people should have far more freedom than everyone else while others lack it, assuming they all work hard.

[McP3000]

As much as I hate analogies, a crutch gives a cripple the ability to walk. It might even help them learn to walk unaided.
There's an incentive to learn to walk again
There's no incentive to get off the government's tit

It's relevant to Alex's argument. Which was 'high taxation doesn't restrict all freedom because some places with high taxation have high rates of freedom'.
Well, they could have more freedom with less taxation
they aren't inherently linked

My argument being that government action can provide freedom to those who lack it.
Don't say freedom, say money. Because that's what it is.

If there is a disparity in wealth, there is a disparity in freedom.

It's not fair that certain people should have far more freedom than everyone else while others lack it, assuming they all work hard.
You see
People dont work hard when they get a welfare check.
It's obviously harder to get rich starting from lower class rather than middle class, but the government isn't responsible for you being in the unlucky sperm club.

[Smokey D]

There's an incentive to learn to walk again
There's no incentive to get off the government's tit

You can add incentives.

Well, they could have more freedom with less taxation
they aren't inherently linked

Possibly not, since removing the support systems created by that taxation would make some people a lot less able to exercise their freedom.

[Iskandar]

There's an incentive to learn to walk again
There's no incentive to get off the government's titYeah, welfare is so much better than a full-time job. You totally can have the same standard of living that you would with a salary and benefits.

You're grossly overstating the extent to which welfare reduces the incentive to work.Well, they could have more freedom with less taxation
they aren't inherently linkedPerhaps, but:
Don't say freedom, say money. Because that's what it is.Money is freedom. It represents the freedom to participate in an economy and thus realize your desires.
It's obviously harder to get rich starting from lower class rather than middle class, but the government isn't responsible for you being in the unlucky sperm club.It shouldn't matter what someone is born.

In my opinion, of course.

[McP3000]

Yeah, welfare is so much better than a full-time job. You totally can have the same standard of living that you would with a salary and benefits.
You can live a quite simple and lazy life off welfare if you wish.

You're grossly overstating the extent to which welfare reduces the incentive to work.
I know.

Perhaps, but:
Money is freedom. It represents the freedom to participate in an economy and thus realize your desires.
I agree

It shouldn't matter what someone is born.

In my opinion, of course.
I agree, but you advocate being treated differently for your economic background by the government.
If I was the son of a rich oil tycoon owner, had the same GPA as a lower class man's kid, should the lower class kid be accepted above me purely because he's poorer than me?
No.
The government shouldn't give preferential treatment to poor people because they are poor. A much much larger portion of the state has to work just as much and yet pay all their taxes. Its called the middle-class.

[Det_Nosnip]

I like it when conservatives ignore the Great Depression. :rolleyes:

The capitalist American economy requires unemployment in order to survive. Heirgo, SOMETHING has to be done to provide for those who are unemployed.

[Independent_CA]

I'm not convinced Ron Paul supporters actually exist. It's just a really convincing internet bot that can vote.

Nah, I saw some when Hillary Clinton came to SDSU the other day for her speech. They we're pretty real.

Unless of course said internet bot has developed biological avatars that it can control to do it's bidding...

[monkeysonmars.]

In theory it is, but some government action is necessary and nearly universally wanted. Education for instance, the government makes it a law to go to school for children, (restricting freedom) but education is obviously a good thing and most sane people agree.

depends how see freedom. if you accept that there are more and important freedoms that can be picked out (which you should do) then education is an increase in freedom because the increase in freedom for the large majority who benefit from education (later life choices) will be greater than the loss of freedom that the total population of children 'suffer'.

The government shouldn't give preferential treatment to poor people because they are poor. A much much larger portion of the state has to work just as much and yet pay all their taxes. Its called the middle-class.

government intervention is necessary to support the economic freedom you seem to want, taxation doesn't reduce freedom, it reduces freedom of private property rights. maximum private property rights does not equal maximum freedom.

[Knifeboy]

You can live a quite simple and lazy life off welfare if you wish.

I live in a country with a thick welfare safety net.. And we don't just all sit on our asses all day long

The vast majority of people prefer working to doing nothing.


And you can't start a family on wellfare

[Iskandar]

You can live a quite simple and lazy life off welfare if you wish.You could, but you won't have anywhere near the same standard of living that you would if you worked full-time.

Unless you were a dope dealer or something.

I think conservatives of your ilk simply exaggerate the problems with America's welfare system. Obviously abuses occur and the system isn't perfect, but that doesn't make it inherently evil or something.

[entheogen]

I guess you don't have many principles then.

i compensate with common sense :)

[Against Miik!]

I live in a country with a thick welfare safety net.. And we don't just all sit on our asses all day long

The vast majority of people prefer working to doing nothing.


And you can't start a family on wellfare

Yeah but Americans are dumb. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. So on top of one person being on welfare, they have more babies than rich people have, thus creating more products of welfare, thus creating a welfare state, thus creating...

Hillary Clinton

[Dave de Sylvia]

i compensate with common sense :)
By supporting candidates with diametrically opposing views?

[Reaganista]

Yeah but Americans are dumb. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. So on top of one person being on welfare, they have more babies than rich people have, thus creating more products of welfare, thus creating a welfare state, thus creating...

Hillary Clinton

that hasnt been true for over a decade why do people keep saying it

[ringworm]

It only makes sense to claim that big government = less freedom if you assume all government action is a restriction upon freedom, and that's not true.
at least you understand wher i am coming from for a change :)
because it is true for very many, there's nothing crazy or backwoods about wanting less involvement

and I liked gregulas's abc of a typical Paul supporter :)

[Against Miik!]

I am for restriction of corporate actions. Corporations weren't really that prevelant when the founders wrote up the Constitution, and I think it is something that needs to be added. These days, with less government, corporation generally take over.

It should be minimalistic, and should allow corporations to do what they do, but should protect against monopolies and other things.

I firmly believe that any government action is a restriction upon personal liberty. I'm sure anyone can come up with a handful of counter examples, but regardless, nobody can argue that the actions our government has taken since 9/11 has been good for freedom.

[entheogen]

Corporations weren't really that prevelant when the founders wrote up the Constitution

corporations came into existence at the same time when the slaves were freed

watch the movie "the corporation" ... good documentary

[Against Miik!]

I have seen it actually.

[i am the robots]

vote for monica lewinskis ex-boyfriends wife

[Khari]

Neither Obama nor Clinton is all that trustworthy. They both made Politico.com's list of top 10 most corrupt politicians over the last year.

Okay.... phew.

1. Politico is biased. Anyone that looks at their front page will tell you that they are pro-republican [not that its necessarily bad, just biased. I'm an Obama supporter]

2.Why would you look to ANY political media, especially one of that calibur to inform you on who is what? It's just wrong.

[Khari]

It's a bit like this, in my sight. I'm a very all encompassing person in political stances, I support every side of the politic [not moral] spectrum because it's needed for purpose. Look back at history, and you'll see why. America can't work as a one party system now can it? I mean maybe, but I doubt it. There's always going to be the people who want progress and restraint. Now Clinton and Obama both want to progress in some way. Look back to Bill, though. He wasn't half bad, but he didn't do half as much as he could. Obama, being the first black president... honestly.. He'd be damned if he didn't try to be the best president ever. Being the first anything is a burden. He doesn't want to here "OHHH NO, There's no way in hell, I'm gonna let another n***** be president again. You saw what Barack did." If you want another politician, get Hillary. If you want an extremely honest person [hey, anyone that admits to smoking something as humiliating as crack has to be owed some credit], then Obama is definately what you want. Their policies are insanely similar. It's more than just text that you need to see.

[Against Miik!]

Okay.... phew.

1. Politico is biased. Anyone that looks at their front page will tell you that they are pro-republican [not that its necessarily bad, just biased. I'm an Obama supporter]

2.Why would you look to ANY political media, especially one of that calibur to inform you on who is what? It's just wrong.

I meant JudicialReport. That was my bad. JudicialReport isn't half bad.