On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 11:16, Levi Bard wrote:
> So conservatives always espouse their agendas?
The terms conservative and liberal are as bad as open and proprietary --
it's a 1-dimensional tag for people who have an IQ below 50.
By the very definition, I am liberal freedom, but then I'm fiscally
conservative even though it's really liberal? So I'm a split,
double-liberal, also known as a moderate? WTF?
> Or do they fall under #3? :P
The government cannot legislate morality. They are the _worst_ example.
You need a good example, and government is _not_ it.
Ironically, our leaders _do_ make an _indirect_ impression on our
people. Bill Clinton's 1st order in the White House was _not_ "Gays in
the Military." It was to suspend FBI background checks on incoming
White House staffers.
Why? Over 50% were _failing_ hard-core drug tests. We're not talking
weed, but coke, heorine, etc... This was not well-known. But even
then, weed usage went up 3x within a year.
And Democrats feel "just say no" failed. Not great, but far better than
what happened. Frankly, I could give a crap, I'm my own person, and I
think the American agenda to "find an excuse instead of admitted who
they are" is ultimately the problem.
The reason I _never_ voted for Clinton was because I would _never_ go
into private business with him. He's unethical -- that is _undisputed_
-- and, allegedly, a killer. And no, I'm not talking about Bill. ;-ppp
Ironically enough, even though the "Balance Budget Amendment" tanked,
_all_ other portions of the 1994+ Republican Congress' "Contract with
America" were _passed_, signed by Bill Clinton with little fuss. People
don't give credit to Bill for what he did in 1994-1998. Unfortunately,
by 1998, he went back to the pre-1994 party line and things started to
tank again.
Although the .COM BS wasn't his fault -- it didn't matter who was in
office on that one.
> And why do I get the feeling that numbers one, two, and three are seen
> to be fairly synonymous?
People people over-simplify.
Socialism fails for many reasons. The never-shrinking form of
government is a biggie. But the primary law is that socialism means
more government, and government is mutually exclusive with freedom.
Enough government is required to prevent anarchy (which is too much
freedom), but right now, we're well past Alexander Hamilton's greatest
nightmare.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:57 EDT