Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: logic101.net
Election results are not dictated by lotteries, random number pickers, or dice rolling. They are determined by conscientious decisions and direct action by voters. Voters determine who the winner is. Your comparison of horse races to elections is ridiculous. No matter how many people at the race track place bets on horses they will not have influenced the outcome of the race in any way. Voting directly affects the outcome of elections. If picking the winner is the reason you vote then you're wasting your time. I vote because I want to reduce government.

I'm not suprised that you don't know who Ron Paul is. Anyone who is genuinely interested in smaller government would make an effort to find out which candidates are really trying to reduce government so they could support that person.

The notion that Republicans are holding back the tide of socialism is laughable. No Republican president has presided over a decrease in federal spending since the 1920's. Republicans have been promising to abolish the Dept. of Education and NEA for 20 years but have repeatedly increased funding for it. Republicans held a majority of seats in Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Since Reagan became president the federal budget has grown from $600 billion to $2.1 trillion and the federal government has spent $30 trillion. The national debt is $6 trillion (officially, although I suspect the real amount is higher).

George W. Bush has yet to veto any legislation since taking office and with his own party in control of Congress it's unlikely he'll do so. According to economist Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, social welfare programs under Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton. Republicans have been on a spending spree since Bush took office. They've wasted hundreds of billions on pork. You can see some of it on this list.

I watched the debates between Bush and Gore. When Gore proposed a taxpayer funded prescription drug program Bush should've pointed out that government has no place paying for prescription drugs with taxpayers' money. But, instead he proposed a government program of his own. On national TV Bush said that no American should pay more than a third of his income to the federal government (but up to and including a third is ok). Bush and Ashcroft have said they support an individual's right to keep and bear arms while supporting stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control).

You said you'd like to see federal programs eliminated and others scaled back but you don't expect that to happen in your lifetime. And why should you? You vote for people who expand existing programs and create new ones. Keep it up and you'll meet your expectations.

The federal budget doesn't need to grow to keep up with inflation. Inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve which needs to be abolished. Money is created when the Fed loans money to government or to banks (which loan it to consumers). The money is created on printing machines or via electronic bookkeeping entries. When there's more money in proportion to the available goods and services the purchasing power of the dollar declines and the costs of goods and services rise to compensate. The Constitution states that our money must be Gold or Silver. Paper money is not Constitutional.

Anyone who is serious about gun-rights would be wise to cancel their membership and never send any money to the NRA. The NRA is a group of sellouts and compromisers. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of gun-control and has even endorsed some gun-control legislation. I suggest joining Gun Owners of America or JPFO instead. They don't compromise.

The question you need to ask yourself is, "Do you want smaller government?" If the answer to that question is 'yes' then the first thing you must do is to stop supporting the people who are making government bigger. You will never get smaller government any other way.

134 posted on 11/17/2002 11:43:53 AM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]


To: Alan Chapman
Alan, you continue to prove that you live in a fantisy world where neither logic or reality are allowed to penetrate. In the REAL WORLD, election results are determined by votes. However, your contention that "as long as a candidate is on 100% of the ballots he has an equal chance" will ONLY work if elections are on a random number generation program, or a throw of the dice.

In the real world, campaign skills, financing, and name recognition often determine the results of an election. A candidate running on the LP ticket is hamstrung by all these factors. This is why LP candidates loose. However, in loosing, they tend to draw conservative votes away from the GOP candidate. This often puts a Socialist in office.

You say you want smaller government, yet your actions help to grow government by putting Socialist in office who will ignore the Constitution. Who will place activist judges on the bench. Who will further restrict gun ownership and the right to self defence.

Al, you really need to get a grip on reality. Your vote tends to set your agenda back. Perhaps you should just say home next election? It would be a step in the right direction since you don't seem to want to take responsibility for your seeming desire to see Socialists in office. The sad thing is that you don't have the grasp on reality to see that there is a difference between a candidate that wants to hold government growth and one that wants to have government intrude on every aspect of everyone's life.

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
135 posted on 11/17/2002 4:02:33 PM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson