> Libertarian mayoral candidate Dave says he has a plan to reduce > violent crime and aggression "drastically". Dem mayoral candidate > Steve says he has a plan to reduce violent crime and aggression > "a little bit", and criticizes Dave's plan as too > "all-or-nothing". Question 1: Who should win the election: Dave > or Steve?
Answer 1: Insufficient information, I would need to actualy see both of there plans, evalutate them against real facts, and then find out on there position on a vast array of other issues as Crime is not the only thing in the world that should be adressed. Incase you were not refering to the morale ideal should, but the hypothetical... I do not know enuff about the electorate of Dave and Steve's constituency to tell wich form of selling yourself will be more effective in swaying undecided voters in your direction. > > Question 2: How does Steve plan to limit his reduction of > violence without supporting that which he refuses to reduce? > You should ask Steve that, I don't know what Steve's plan entails, nor do I know what the criminal situation is in Steve's comunity, and of course I do not know there financial state either to comment on how that might effect the ability to carry out any alternative plans. Perhaps Steve is honest to a fault, and while Dave is happy to lie and embelish reality, Steve went out on a limb and spoke of reality in a hope that it would appeal to the voter. If Dave's plan is unimplementable, and will result in watered down police department, it may result in an inability to protect even the basic liberties of the average citizen when they realy need it, and Steve has placed saftey of life above saftey of tax fraud perhaps. Perhaps even, Steven feels that some crimes are plain old inapropriate, and does not desire or believe in spending a great deal of money to fight recreational pot use in his district, wich is of course a crime. However, Dave, not having the same point of view wants to apeal to the christian right and pound down hard on those evil pot smokers. I realy can't answer on such limited information on Dave, Steve and there community now can I. > > Since I can't completely decipher your points (remember my > handicap) about blurbs that assault and judging and demonizing > the viewpoints of different thinkers, I only THINK I disagree > and/or plead "not guilty". > > > > -Mark > We can agree to disagree if you like, but I can not demonize a man that would for instance, show restraint against the pursuit for legalizing crystal meth and heroine so that he had a chance to win, and work to protect the most basic of human rights. However, if you want to demonize such a man, that would be your 'right.' ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
