> > and the sheep accept it, like they
> accepted the bush/cheny agenda, and
> > swallow that the real threat to america
> was terrorism, and now is socialism...
> You wrote about "the public" and "the
> sheep". I wrote to and called my Congress
> representatives, before the bailout
> vote, to explain my opposition to the bailouts.
> I know a lot of other people who did as well.
> And the numbers I've seen indicate that a
> majority were against it. Considering that it
> is corporate welfare, it is odd that a larger
> percentage of Democratic Congresspeople voted
> for the bailout than Republicans. But there is
> so little difference these days, both parties
> seem to want to spend our money and act
> like our parents, protecting us and doing things
> for our own good even if we don't like it. The
> choice isn't between shit and chicken. Everything
> tastes like chicken.
a lot of people called congress,against the bailout, but the people who didn't
are the sheep and they are largely those who buy into the war and straw man
attacks against obama.
you can't equate the two parties even if they both passed it. the final
version was worse than the first, and the result was corporate welfare. the
extremes on the left were against it for completely different reason than the
right wing nuts who got their way in the end.
all this talk about socialism is chicken shit. even european style socialist
democracies buy into the globalism "FREE" trade scam. what is needed is
"FAIR" trade and an international socialist agenda.
> These straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling
> Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and
> frankly make it seem that those making the attacks are
> afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to
> resort to these tactics instead.
> I think the political disagreement is whether or not it is
> good for everybody to use government policy to "spread
> the wealth around" or to use it to concentrate wealth
> in the hands of the wealthy.
> If government spending is for a public good, or to provide
> food and shelter for those who have none, then that is a
> different story.
i have no problem paying any kind of taxes for the common good; i do have a
problem paying for bureaucratic waste, idiotic wars and bailing out crooked
brokers, who commit insurance, mortgage and financial fraud!
jon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
