Quote :

"They Deserved to Lose by Jacob G. Hornberger Having lost control over the U.S. House of Representatives and possibly also the U.S. Senate, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They deserved to lose. For years, Republicans have used libertarian rhetoric in their political campaigns. “We favor freedom, free enterprise, limited government, and responsibility,” Republican candidates have so often proclaimed. “We’re opposed to big government,” they loved telling their constituents. Recall what Republicans used to tell people during the 1980s, when they controlled the White House but not the Congress: “The only reason we’re not cutting federal spending is because Democratic control of Congress prevents us from doing so. If we only had control over both the executive and legislative branches, we would slash federal spending and abolish departments and agencies.” People believed them, but it was all a lie from the get-go. The libertarian rhetoric was employed for one – and only one – reason: to deceive people into putting Republicans into power so that they could take control over the federal government and its vast IRS-collected resources and then consolidate their power over the lives and resources of the American people. The truth, no matter how discomforting Republicans might find it, is that President George W. Bush is nothing more than a variation of Bill Clinton – and a worse one at that. Sharing Clinton’s socialist conviction that the federal government is an agent of morality through its “compassionate” confiscation and redistribution of wealth, Bush has far exceeded Clinton in social-welfare spending. No one can reasonably deny that Bush and his Republican congressmen have been bigger big-government men than Clinton and his Democratic cohorts. After all, it’s not as if the Republican members of Congress have opposed any of Bush’s big-government actions. Instead, Republicans in Congress have served Bush as loyally and obediently as their rubber-stamp counterparts in the Iraqi congress did for Saddam Hussein. How many departments were abolished when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress? How many agencies? How many spending bills were vetoed? How many pork-barrel projects were jettisoned? How much was federal spending reduced? These people – and their control over the White House and Congress – have been nothing but disasters for this country. Republicans deserved to lose not only because of the damage their big-government devotion has brought to our nation but also because of the horrible death and destruction they have brought to Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed in the president’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, the number of people killed by Bill Clinton’s and Janet Reno’s massacre at Waco pales to relative insignificance. When President Bush announced his intention to invade Iraq, congressional Republicans hopped to attention, clicked their heels, saluted, and said, “Mr. President, we are here to serve you. Issue your orders and we shall obey.” Not one peep about the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. Not one peep about the fact that a war of aggression is a war crime under the principles of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Not one peep about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people who would be killed and maimed in the attempt to “get Saddam.” Not one peep about destroying an entire nation. All that mattered was loyally and obediently serving their commander in chief because he was the head of their political party. When the revelations of torture and sex abuse surfaced, where were the great Republican preachers of morality – those who love looking down their noses at the sins of others while doing nothing to pull the beam out of their own eyes? They just pooh-poohed despicable acts committed by the CIA and the U.S. military – acts of misconduct that more appropriately belonged in a medieval torture chamber or in the seedy outskirts of a U.S. military base. “Just like a fraternity prank,” the great Republican paragons of morality cried. Even worse, they have enabled the Pentagon whitewashes and cover-ups to succeed, not only with their indifference but also with their Pinochet-like grant of immunity from criminal prosecution to the president and his minions in the CIA and the military. The Republican members of Congress, some of whom carry pocket-sized versions of the Constitution, have stood silently by, year after year, as President Bush set up an international set of secret detention and torture centers, some even located in former Soviet-era torture camps, in a desperate attempt to avoid the constraints of the Constitution. Even worse, without hardly any discussion or debate and certainly with virtually no input from the public, these Republican “defenders of the Constitution” quickly rubber-stamped the president’s request to let the military hijack our nation’s criminal-justice system, to suspend habeas corpus, to establish kangaroo military tribunals, and to ratify the president’s ludicrous but dangerous designation of American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” in the “war on terrorism,” denying American citizens of due process of law, right to counsel, trial by jury, and other rights and guarantees that stretch back centuries into English jurisprudential history. Not even bothering to read the so-called USA Patriot Act, the Republican members of Congress rubber-stamped the president’s abuse of search warrants, which would have made even King George III proud. Even worse, they audaciously defended the president’s unlawful monitoring of telephone calls without warrants. Through it all and as a direct result of Republican control of Congress, the federal government has grown larger, more oppressive, more dangerous, and more threatening as each week has passed. Republicans have gotten away with it by terrifying American grown-ups with horrible fears of an ever-shifting array of bogeymen, such as drug lords, illegal aliens, terrorists, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and communists. “Put your trust in us and support our temporary expansion of power,” Republican congressmen have suggested, echoing their commander in chief, “and we will protect you from the bad guys.” These people – the Republicans – should be ashamed of themselves because they have greatly shamed and damaged our country. Unfortunately, however, they feel no shame because while they love to preach the concept of individual responsibility to others, never ever do they apply the concept to themselves. All this is not to say that the Democrats are any better. Their political cowardice and fear of being called “terrorist-loving cowards who hate America” have dissuaded them from opposing consolidation of federal power by the Republicans. But while Republicans and Democrats share the same big-spending, big-government philosophy, there is one big difference between them: Democrats make no bones about being advocates of big spending and big government, while Republicans continue to wrap themselves in libertarian limited-government rhetoric. It is hypocrisy like that which makes the Republican loss a deserving one. "

And meanwhile, here in North Carolina, the Dems and Pubs have mustered forces to make it nearly impossible for a third party to get on the ballot.
Check out "If This is An Election" at http://www.lpnc.org/

11/9/2006 2:03:57 AM

ANY third party NEEDS to win so we can spice things up.

Simple.

11/9/2006 2:41:36 AM

Well, there's like 12 3rd parties, but the only one's that have any hope of winning are Greens and Libertarians.

I'm doing my part

11/9/2006 8:03:10 AM

Nationally, there's three "major" third parties: the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitution Party (right of Republican).

On a smaller scale, there are two "one state only" third parties of note: the Vermont Progressives (left of Democrat) and the Minnesota Independence Party (centrist, Jesse Ventura's party) that based on results are somewhat successful for third parties.

The Vermont Progressives elected six members to the Vermont State House Tuesday. They also have some mayorships, including mayor of the state's largest city, Burlington.

The Constitution Party elected their first ever state legislator Tuesday, Rick Jore in Montana.

The Greens did have a state legislator in Maine, John Eder, but he barely lost to a Democrat for reelection. There was another Green there that I believe lost by only 4 votes.

Libertarians have a "federal House seat" of sorts. Ron Paul of Texas describes himself as "R/L", a member of both the Republican and Libertarian parties.

11/9/2006 8:29:30 AM

Quote :

"ANY third party NEEDS to win so we can spice things up."

True. But before we can win, we have to be able to just get on the ballot. 53% of all NC house races had an unopposed democrat or republican. 44% of NC Senate races had the same. What kind of voter choice is that?

Quote :

"I'm doing my part "

Good for you! Libertarian ideas of smaller, more responsible government helped put the GOP into power. The message works. Most Americans want to work hard, keep their money for their own families and desire to be left alone by their gov't.

11/9/2006 10:00:23 AM

^ EarthDogg, did you see how Badnarik did? Half a million dollars for that...

11/9/2006 2:21:44 PM

Greens got more than 10% of the vote for the governorships in Illinois and Maine.

If you think that greens are statist or "big government" since theyre on the left, you're very, very wrong. they're a local activist party that supports delegating more powers from centralized to local governments and decentralizing as much power as possible, not so good as a national party.

Remember the Natural Law Party?

11/9/2006 2:31:57 PM

Quote :

"Libertarian ideas of smaller, more responsible government helped put the GOP into power."

Maybe back in reagan's day, but they used gay hating pro-life born agian christians for the past 10 or so years.

11/9/2006 4:29:59 PM

I pretty much stop reading libertarian rants when they misapply the term "socialist"

11/9/2006 4:50:28 PM

Quote :

"did you see how Badnarik did? Half a million dollars for that... "

Yes 4% is pretty pathetic. He needs to find something else to do besides run for office.

11/9/2006 10:44:34 PM

You may want to take a look at thirdpartywatch.com. Good website. I posted this there in response to a "purist" bashing anyone lamenting Badnarik on his piss poor performance.

Quote :

"The REAL problem here is indeed name recognition (LP). People don’t know it exists. So if you’re an Lib, why don’t you get off your ass and try to do something like him, instead of bitching in an interwebnets blog?"

(start of my response)
I think people most definitely know the Libertarian Party exists.

As for the rest of your post, the concern is not that he did not win. I doubt anyone expected that. The concern is money received and how that transferred into votes. Compare to other candidates in the race:

TX-10:

McCaul (Republican): $1,030,710 (as of 10/15) for 97618 votes, 55.32%. That is $10.56 per vote.
Ankrum (Democrat): $55,543 (as of 10/15) for 71232 votes, 40.37%. That is $0.78 per vote.
Badnarik (Libertarian): $409,618 (as of 10/15) for 7603 votes, 4.31%. That is $53.88 per vote.

You can take a look at other Libertarian campaigns for U.S. House in Texas that achieved the same results. If a candidate did not file, that means their fundraising was negligible.

Warren of TX-18: did not file a report with the FEC,3664 votes, 4.26%.
Smither of TX-22: $38,461 (as of 10/15) for 9011 votes, 6.10%. That is $4.27 per vote.
Cunningham of TX-25: did not file a report with the FEC, 6933 votes, 4.24%.
Powell of TX-27: did not file a report with the FEC, 4722 votes, 4.32%.
(end of my response)

For their sake, Libertarians better hope he doesn't run for President in 2008. Or they at least better have more people attend the convention to not vote for him.

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 12:10 AM. Reason : /]

11/10/2006 12:08:40 AM

Quote :

"If you think that greens are statist or "big government" since theyre on the left, you're very, very wrong. they're a local activist party that supports delegating more powers from centralized to local governments and decentralizing as much power as possible, not so good as a national party."

the greens are supportive of VERY intrusive government policies in many regards, though. they're hardly a pro-environment Libertarian or constitutionalist party.

Quote :

"Maybe back in reagan's day, but they used gay hating pro-life born agian christians for the past 10 or so years. "

I suppose that by "putting the GOP into power", he meant the 1994 "Republican Revolution", closely tied to the "Contract With America", which was almost totally forged in the smaller, more responsible government model, and had nearly nothing to do with catering to the Religious Right.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

11/10/2006 12:29:25 AM

you know what, fuck it, i wrote a paragraph, but you wont care what it says anyway. i've studied the green party quite a bit and they are definately the advocate of local democracy and local control of issues, including environmental issues. ralph nader does not equal the green party. i dont agree with them on everything, but theyre close to what i believe. you're a libertarian. whoop dee doo. stop acting like anyone who doesnt believe what you believe is some evil statist anti-capitalist that wants to eliminate the market economy. thats a very stupid, naive, self-righteous view. you want the market to solve the problems on its own, while i want cooperation b/w public and private , non-profits and for-profit institutions.

yes, im drunk, so im probably sounding mad.







[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2006 12:37:18 AM

i'm not hating on environmental responsibility (although my definition of it is not the same as that of the Green Party's)

and yes, the Green Party is, in some respects, in support of decentralization. However, they've never met a free market they liked--in fact, they're basically socialists. they're also hugely in favor of EXTREMELY intrusive affirmative action programs in various guises (far beyond racial affirmative action, although they do support PAYING REPARATIONS).

that's just a small part of it. yes, you are right in that they support giving more authority to state and local governments, but i still view them as FAR AND AWAY the most "big government" and "statist" of any American political party. they want a government hand (from one level or another) involved in EVERYTHING.

11/10/2006 12:57:08 AM

nm, there will be no reconciliation of views happening here. why bother. i'm not a green, but ill vote for them before i vote for the party of fucking ayn rand. i'm a social libertarian, ill leave it at that. i've already discussed my views on here in another thread.

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 1:09 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2006 12:58:54 AM

Quote :

"while i want cooperation b/w public and private "

I took a look at the Green's platform. Some of their stuff sounds a bit dicey...

"Restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation."

I'm assuming it would be the gov't doing the restricting. As with all gov't meddling, the unintended consequences would be massive and destructive to the economy.


"We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender."

Again, would it be the gov't doing this replacing? Gov't trying to dictate culture..Look Out!


"All viable candidates at the state and federal levels should have free and equal radio and television time and print press coverage. "

This sounds a bit fascist.


"We advocate that prisoners be granted the right to vote"

We vote that all prisoners should be released immediately!


"A universal, federally funded childcare program for pre-school and young schoolchildren should be developed."

Now we're talking socialism.

"We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives."

Seems like the plan would be very intrusive into the money of the people who are working and paying all of these "citizen dividends".

and the winner is....

"More progressive taxation. Sales, corporate and income taxes should be adjusted to relieve the burden on those less able to pay and increase the burden on large and multinational corporations and the super wealthy, who do not pay their fair share."


Sorry Greens, Karl Marx and his followers are already working this side of the street.

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2006 1:30:04 AM

know what's funny or kinda sad?

both parties do the same thing, it doesn't matter what they say, they both do the SAME FUCKING THING, which is take too much of your hard earned money and give it to companies and other undeserving people (most of it)

the dem's act like they are really 'for the people' and only tax to give back but that's bullshit, how ever did they raise the funds for election campaigns?

the rep's act like they will cut government which, of course, doesn't happen either though the sheer inertia of what's already there or an unwillingness to part with money all ready coming in...

thus BOTH PARTIES DO THE SAME FUCKING THING....

/rant

a GOOD 3rd party would have to lure moderate dem's and moderate rep. away from their respective parties as well as having a decidely different stance on things.

11/13/2006 8:03:55 AM

Reason Magazine's Radley Balko weighs in on the issue...

Quote :

"The number one issue most voters cited in exit polling Tuesday was terrorism. Half of those voters gave their votes to the Democrats, showing that even in what was thought to be the GOP’s strongest issue, President Bush’s expansionist, civil-liberties-be-damned approach to locking up the evildoers isn’t the sure thing the Republicans thought it was. From there, Tuesday by most indications was a rejection of big government conservatism, not 1994-style limited government conservatism. The second issue most important to voters, for example, was corruption. The third was Iraq. Voters who cited each voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Nowhere in exit polling did voters say they were throwing the bums out because they spent too little, refused to raise the minimum wage, or because voters were clamoring for more regulation of business, or socialized health care. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) seem to get it. The two rock-ribbed conservatives wasted no time in laying out a vision for the Republican party in line with 1994’s Contract with America. Republicans “voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100% and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years,” Pence wrote in a letter to his GOP colleagues announcing his candidacy for minority leader. “We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.” Of course, there's a lot about guys like Mike Pence on John Shadegg not to like. Their “leave us alone” approach to tax and spend issues, for example, doesn’t extend to the private lives and personal habits of individual Americans. It’s tough to see them being of much help in keeping the encroaching Nanny State at bay. But they're a far better face for the GOP than the White House. They at least present an option that offers some separation from the mushy Republicrat-ish concoction the two parties have become since 2000. There is no party of limited government right now, only two parties who fight over which special interests will benefit from big government. It appears that over the next few months, the neo-1994 crowd will do battle with the conciliation advocates in the White House for control of the Republican Party. The Pence-Shadegg faction versus the Boehner-Blunt establishment. Here’s hoping Pence and Shadegg win handily. The Republicans didn't lose on Tuesday night because they haven’t been governing enough like Democrats. They lost because they’ve been governing exactly like Democrats"

http://reason.com/news/show/116649.html

11/15/2006 10:52:55 AM

Quote :

"know what's funny or kinda sad? both parties do the same thing, it doesn't matter what they say, they both do the SAME FUCKING THING, which is take too much of your hard earned money and give it to companies and other undeserving people (most of it) the dem's act like they are really 'for the people' and only tax to give back but that's bullshit, how ever did they raise the funds for election campaigns? the rep's act like they will cut government which, of course, doesn't happen either though the sheer inertia of what's already there or an unwillingness to part with money all ready coming in... thus BOTH PARTIES DO THE SAME FUCKING THING."

From 1991, an advertisement ran by a commoner in newspapers across the country:

Quote :

"Throw The Hypocritical Rascals Out! T.H.R.O. Political Analysts credit the T.H.R.O Campaign as "The" Catalyst which started the Modern Reform Movement and was responsible for 124 new faces in Congress in the 1992 Elections, the highest turnover in 50 years. Sadly, in 2001 the National Debt is over SIX and a HALF TRILLION $$$! I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! Hello, my name is Jack Gargan. I'm just a recently retired "working stiff". Like most of the people I talk with, I'm fed up with members of Congress who care more about getting re-elected than they do about what's happening to our country. Specifically, I'M APPALLED that Congress continues to hock the future of our children and grandchildren. Our national debt is now over 3 TRILLION dollars, and going higher by the minute. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I'M BITTER that more than half of all our income taxes go just for the annual interest on that national debt (it's not just some outrageous amount we stuck our children with). I'M OUTRAGED that Congress even talks about further raises in our taxes while totally ignoring the ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS IN SHEER GOVERNMENT WASTE as documented by the Grace Commission report. I'M ANGRY that, after being told by the American public that their existing salary was already an overpayment on their abilities, they turned around and arrogantly voted themselves the biggest raise in history! Then they had the gall to insult our intelligence and call it a "vote for ethical government." If they have to be paid to be ethical they have no business being in public office. And, if it is such a lousy job, how come every one of them works so hard to stay in office term after term? I'M INCENSED every time I stand in the checkout line behind someone with designer sunshades, designer jeans and $100 sneakers who pay their bill with food stamps, their vote bought and paid for by a congressman who knows how to use federal giveaway programs to keep themselves in office! (I have no quarrel with food stamps going to truly needy people.) I'M EVEN MORE LIVID when I discovered this same Congress then screwed our retired senior citizens by taking 52 BILLION dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund using voodoo economics to make the federal deficit look not quite as outrageous, while slipping the trust fund an I.O.U. in return. God forbid we have even a mild recession, or our retired folks will also end up holding the bag! I'M ENRAGED when I see money pouring in to incumbents from PACS, special interest groups who use their money to stifle public interest, to congressmen who will sell their soul for another term in office. I'M DISGUSTED at the number of shady dealings by members of Congress who get nothing more than a slap on the wrist from their peers when they get caught in the act. Something's mighty wrong with the system when 98% of incumbents are re-elected. The other 2% don't lose. They either go out feet first, or in total disgrace for conduct too embarrassing even for congressional standards! I'M FED UP with Congress' "to get along, you've got to go along" philosophy. I'M SHOCKED that the world's richest nation can become the world's biggest debtor nation, all within the space of one generation! I'M REALLY HACKED OFF that Congress has permitted, and in some cases actually abetted, the S&L rip-off which will now cost every American family an estimated EXTRA $30 per month for the next 30 years ... and not even prosecuting the scoundrels, their friends, who have stuck us with this bill! I'M TIRED of paying for the "franking privileges" (postage) and printing costs of blatant advertising disguised as newsletters to the voters back home, subsidizing congressmen for everything from haircuts to lunches to health insurance plans, and paying for an army of over-paid congressional "aides" (more than 32,000 at last count). Talk about an "aides epidemic"! I'M INSULTED that Congress, who exempted themselves from Social Security laws, has set up a pension plan that will pay a congressman in six years what the average American under Social Security must work a lifetime for (and there are 14 CONVICTED FELONS currently drawing fat congressional pensions - up to $80,000 per year! - and 6 more waiting in the wings to reach retirement age. But mostly, I'M SAD that we as a nation have thrown up our hands in surrender to the politicians and bureaucrats who have put us in this predicament. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE IN TO THOSE CLOWNS! Maybe one person can't make a difference, but you and I together can! And here's what we must do: The root of all our problems is elected officials who use their incumbency to put a stranglehold on their office. They devote most of their time and energy to raising money for re-election, rather than to running the country properly. I propose that we simply rise up and VOTE EVERY INCUMBENT SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN OUT OF OFFICE! Further, that we only elect new people who will pledge to strictly limit the term of their office and to prohibit the federal government from spending money it does not have, except in a bonafide national emergency. Won't you help me by supporting this initiative? You CAN make a difference (and this just might be your last chance to do it peaceably). Nothing fancy. Nothing complicated. Just simply pledge to VOTE EVERY INCUMBENT SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN OUT OF OFFICE. There's no way we could end up with anything worse than what we already have! Our effort will initially be against federal incumbents. If this works, we can then go after state and local problems where they exist. don't worry about the 5% of good representatives who will tossed out with the bad guys. There are literally thousands of other public service opportunities for them to move to with open arms. I've set up a non-profit organization, T.H.R.O., Inc. (Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out). I've borrowed my life's savings to seed the venture and am working without pay (as are the scores of volunteers who are helping with this project). You can help by doing the following: The following is merely a COPY of the original ads that ran in 633 Major Newspapers Nationwide which succeeded in replacing 124 members of Congress with Brand New faces. PLEASE DO NOT SEND MONEY. - T.H.R.O. NO LONGER ACCEPTS MONETARY DONATIONS OF ANY KIND, JUST SPREAD THE WORD FOR FREE ON THE NET. We no longer use a membership database, just copy our UPDATED AD and share it with your family, friends and co-workers. Please Feel free to drop us a line. 1) Complete and return the pledge below so I can determine how many of you share my anger and WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Don't worry if you can't send a contribution. I am more interested in your VOTING support. 2) If you can afford a contribution, no matter how large or small, it will be gratefully accepted and go entirely to keeping this initiative going. These full-page ads cost up to $60,000 a pop so we need all the help you can give. 3) Get with your local Supervisor of Elections and get voter registration drives started in your area. Then, make sure YOU vote and get as many people to the polls as you can. 4) Write letters to the editor of every newspaper you can, promoting the T.H.R.O. campaign. Send me a clipping on anything about T.H.R.O. that gets published. 5) Use U.S. flag postage stamps pasted upside-down (distress signal) on all your mail - especially that going to Congressmen and elected officials. Let's send those jerks a message and flood the mail with U.S. DISTRESS signals! 6) Let me know if you, as an individual or as a group, can underwrite the cost of an ad in your local newspaper, shoppers guide, newsletter, etc. If so, I'll provide a "camera-ready" copy to the publication. BEFORE COMPLETING AND RETURNING A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION YOUR PLEDGE, PLEASE PHOTOCOPY OR #N38495 CHARTERED IN FLORIDA FAX TO AT LEAST 2 FRIENDS. Yes, I'm for real and this campaign is for real! I'm not running for any political office, nor am I supporting or endorsing any individual or party. This campaign is also not directed against any individual or party. It's the "good ol' boy"/seniority system which is corrupt and corrupting our representatives. Our only hope for a cure is a CLEAN SWEEP, and start over from scratch. The only party I'm for is the huge party this nation is going to throw on election day when we throw those arrogant bums out on their collective butts! "I have an impeccable lifetime personal and business history and can withstand the closest scrutiny. Check me out." ~ Jack Gargan, Founder of T.H.R.O."

11/15/2006 12:33:47 PM

Quote :

"I'M INCENSED every time I stand in the checkout line behind someone with designer sunshades, designer jeans and $100 sneakers who pay their bill with food stamps, their vote bought and paid for by a congressman who knows how to use federal giveaway programs to keep themselves in office! (I have no quarrel with food stamps going to truly needy people.)"

ive never seen this happen but im sure I would be very confused and wouldnt someone who owns all this expensive stuff want something other than canned peas?

11/15/2006 2:40:57 PM

^ No, people need to eat regardless of their situation. Second, I believe food stamps are awarded with a cash value. As such, you can buy frozen pizza or frozen lasagna with food stamps at Food Lion just as easily as canned peas.

11/15/2006 2:56:07 PM

^ im pretty sure you have to buy certain items with food stamps. Its like a coupon but for free food.

maybe thats just in certain states.

11/15/2006 9:38:34 PM

That's how it works in SC at least.

11/15/2006 9:39:09 PM

im pretty sure thats the way it works here too

11/15/2006 9:40:09 PM

^ Isn't that what the WIC approved stickers are for?

11/15/2006 9:48:23 PM

^

Well let's see...

You buy all your WIC-labelled items with your welfare money, and that leaves the rest of your money freed up to buy butts and booze.

Has anyone ever been thanked personally by a WICcan for helping buy their stuff for them?

11/15/2006 10:58:29 PM

Quote :

"im pretty sure you have to buy certain items with food stamps."

Like I said, they can buy frozen pizza and lasagna. Food Lion is aware which items you can use food stamps to purchase and which items you cannot. When they ring you up you will pay twice; once with food stamps for all food related items and a second time with cash/credit/debit to purchase the booze, cigarettes, and DVDs that food stamps do not cover.

11/16/2006 12:37:26 AM

Quote :

"Like I said, they can buy frozen pizza and lasagna."

I'd doubt it, only storebrand items are allowed, and many times they have to buy them in larger quantities.

Quote :

"You buy all your WIC-labelled items with your welfare money, and that leaves the rest of your money freed up to buy butts and booze."

They'd have bought those whether they had money for food or not, at least this way we know their kids will have food.

11/16/2006 12:49:27 AM

Quote :

"at least this way we know their kids will have food."

..unless of course they trade the food for more butts n booze

11/16/2006 2:03:00 AM

so, if by the grace of god these people become something other than complete morons, their children will live reasonable lives.

11/16/2006 2:08:58 AM

Reminds me of a time we were about to go onto a govt'-protected beach. The pony-tailed park ranger warned everyone to not feed the fish because they would become dependent on us and stop fending for themselves.

The welfare irony was too delicious

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2006 10:05:04 AM

Well fish are fish, and people are, you know, people.

I can see you don't really care about the grown person who wouldn't eat without welfare, but what about thier children? Do you not think that we have some obligation to help them grow up healthy?

11/16/2006 10:40:19 AM

Well then wouldn't a program that fed their children directly be more helpful?

Also, fish are fish and people are people, but we share some traits.

11/16/2006 10:43:15 AM

Kris, aren't you the one that said "We can train animals so humans must also be trainable!"

Well, supporting someone is rewarding bad behavior, which trains them to engage in bad behavior.

Humans, like animals, are perfectly capable of finding food in this world (humans are actually more capable than animals as we can navigate human society). They can utilize homeless shelters, do odd jobs for those with food, whatever it takes to eat. Fuck, if all else fails they can eat stray dogs. To say there are people that would not eat without government assistance is to conclude there are people too stupid to manage finding food themselves. And with 16 waking hours in a day only the retarded are not smart enough to manage what should come naturally.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/16/2006 10:55:06 AM

Quote :

"Well then wouldn't a program that fed their children directly be more helpful?"

What more direct way is there than giving the parents food to give to their children? You think we should give the food stamps to the children, and let them drive over to the market and shop for their own food?

Quote :

"Also, fish are fish and people are people, but we share some traits."

But when a fish starves, it's natural, when a human starves, it's because society failed.

Quote :

"Kris, aren't you the one that said "We can train animals so humans must also be trainable!""

Context [kon-tekst] -noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

Quote :

"Well, supporting someone is rewarding bad behavior, which trains them to engage in bad behavior."

We aren't really rewarding bad behavior, they're only getting food, if we were rewarding it we'd be giving them the cigarettes or lottery tickets they value more than food.

Quote :

"To say there are people that would not eat without government assistance is to conclude there are people too stupid to manage finding food themselves."

We're talking about children getting healthy meals, not some lone 25 year old male who can go wherever he wants.

11/16/2006 12:04:39 PM

Quote :

"But when a fish starves, it's natural, when a human starves, it's because society failed."

So, fish society didn't fail?

Also, a direct way to give kids healthy meals is to allow parents to bring them to soup kitchens.

11/16/2006 12:53:43 PM

Quote :

"So, fish society didn't fail?"

Fish don't have a society.

Quote :

"Also, a direct way to give kids healthy meals is to allow parents to bring them to soup kitchens."

I'd think that kids are allowed in soup kitchens, but I'd imagine it's tough for the kids to get to the soup kitchen before school or before their parent gets home from work.

11/16/2006 2:08:23 PM

So if an ape starved, you would blame if on ape society? They do have a society.

And society is a natural development, so its failure is simply a natural course.

11/16/2006 2:11:11 PM

Quote :

"So if an ape starved, you would blame if on ape society?"

That depends, if the apes had enough food to feed all of them, yet one of them starved, yes the ape society failed, now if there simply isn't enough food availble to feed all of them, then it's nature's fault.

Quote :

"And society is a natural development, so its failure is simply a natural course."

If you use a definition that broad for "natural" I suppose so, I was refering moreso to weather and climate and such, but failure causes a society to be less effective.

11/16/2006 2:14:42 PM

Well, I suppose if you see the goal of society as to make sure all members, weak and otherwise, are taken care of, then starvation is a societal failure.

But that's a definition of society that goes against our Darwinian backgrounds, we aren't out to make sure we all make it.

Also, are you considering the whole of the human race as one society? Is a starving child in the Congo, where food supplies are short the fault of America, who has more food than it needs?

11/16/2006 2:22:30 PM

Quote :

"Well, I suppose if you see the goal of society as to make sure all members, weak and otherwise, are taken care of, then starvation is a societal failure."

I see a functional society as at least being able to provide for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So saftey, basic medical care, and basic food supply are included for all members of society, no matter how worthless they are.

Quote :

"But that's a definition of society that goes against our Darwinian backgrounds"

Why is this the standards we should model our society out of? Those backgrounds would have many people how have done great things for society dead because they were sickly or their parents couldn't care for them. Society functions better on a more complex set of standards than "survival of the fittest".

Quote :

"Also, are you considering the whole of the human race as one society?"

I'd like to eventually, but no, just individual governments. I'd like to think we have at least some responsbility for all mankind, but that's simply not feasable right now, we are best off focusing on our respective country's people, and then slowly widening the scope.

11/16/2006 2:30:38 PM

Quote :

"Those backgrounds would have many people how have done great things for society dead because they were sickly or their parents couldn't care for them. "

See, here is my problem. Those that "have done great things for society" would therefore not be included as worthless and we would thus care for them. The sickly and the old are not necessarily the useless. Sure, some people may not be able to care for themselves, and it is ok for society to take care of them. But some people simply refuse to "hunt or gather" even though they are capable and it is not only responsible to let them starve, I'd say its moral.

11/16/2006 2:48:24 PM

Quote :

"Those that "have done great things for society" would therefore not be included as worthless and we would thus care for them."

How can we do that without seeing the future? How can we know if someone who seems worthless may do something great for society? We can't know, so why not just care for all of them? It doesn't take much to invest in mankind, and so much can possibly be gained from it. Then there are the obvious humanitarian reasons, but I tend to focus on our productive ones.

Quote :

"But some people simply refuse to "hunt or gather" even though they are capable and it is not only responsible to let them starve, I'd say its moral."

These people could very well become very important to society. The only people who should not be allowed some of the basic rights are criminals.

11/16/2006 2:54:42 PM

I see your (overly optimistic) point that we might eliminate a great prodigy if we let the lazy starve. I however, would think that far more of those people are simply a waste and that the benefit from the few prodigies will fall short of the waste of resources caring for the others. Also, mechanisms for caring for them aren't very good. Private charity does the best job at that, so I'm all for those that give a fuck chipping in. Governments do a terrible job at it, and generally encourage more failures to "hunt or gather" as an unintended consequence.

11/16/2006 2:59:34 PM

Quote :

"I see your (overly optimistic) point that we might eliminate a great prodigy if we let the lazy starve. I however, would think that far more of those people are simply a waste and that the benefit from the few prodigies will fall short of the waste of resources caring for the others."

But it takes so little. We have diminishing returns from giving others more than they need, while we get such large gains from giving them basic neccessities. It's not even that they may be some prodigy, they may give birth to someone important, or they may simply be in the right place at the right time, or perhaps just keeping them alive encourages someone else to do great things.

Quote :

"Also, mechanisms for caring for them aren't very good."

Sure they are.

11/16/2006 3:35:08 PM

Kris, he's playing with you. The fact is, there is no such person that would starve to death if the government did not feed them. We provide food stamps to make it easier to feed them well, not to guarantee basic survival, which any half competent person over the age of 6 can manage on their own.

As I've said, society has never failed in the way you are thinking. In 200 years of history free people do not starve to death under any known circumstances.

11/16/2006 4:00:23 PM

Quote :

"which any half competent person over the age of 6 can manage on their own."

Bullshit. You might want to increase the age to about 12.

and in the past two hundred years free people have starved to death. Look at the Irish

I don't think they give out stamps anymore. I believe it is all DSS cards now.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2006 4:08:50 PM

I'm sorry, I don't think rational people would consider the Irish free during that era. The Irish certainly didn't think they were free at the time and a large segment of Ireland's economy was directly controlled by the British Government.

But the age of self reliance is negotiable. Odds are any age capable of coherent speech could manage to ask a stranger to bring them to the attention of charity organizations.

11/16/2006 5:54:33 PM

i dont think the issue of why people have to be on food stamps to begin with is being address in this thread.

i dont know the answer tho

11/16/2006 6:04:13 PM

Set 'em up.

[Edited on November 16, 2006 at 6:29 PM. Reason : crap, over-counted the number of responses in the thread]

11/16/2006 6:28:23 PM