From: rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:27:29 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <Aug.22.10.12.56.1992.21205@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>rjc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) writes:
>
>>   Although I'm not voting for Bush, I'm defending these unfair
>> and unfounded attacks from the media and special interests. 
>...
>> I'd advise you to vote for Bush. 
>
>Why do I think that Ray may have been less than totally honest about
>his political agenda?

  It could seem that way if your reading comprehension is low, or you
take what I said out of context. Let me quote what you so conveiniently
deleted:

>      The major difference between Democrats and Republicans is that
>Democrats want to control your wallet and Republicans want to control
>your social habits.  You only need to decide which of these you like least.
>For me, if I had to choose betwen a Demo or a Rep, I'd choose a Rep, because
>money is power. A middle class/upper class gay/black/druggie is
>much more likely to be accepted than a poor one.
>
>
>   If you don't want to vote for a third party, and you want to keep
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>control of your wallet, I'd advise you to vote for Bush. He is not
>a gay hater. He's a compassionate man.

  I am calling it as a see it.  Bush is the lesser of the *two* evils
provided you _do not_ include a third party.  Democrats want to limit
your economic freedom, Republicans want to limit your social freedom.
Since money is the key to power, you can always buy yourself more
social freedom (run a business in the US, live off shore, etc)
Economic/property rights essentially boil down to social rights.
The trade off is simple.

    This all assumes you only include the two parties. A third option
is the Libertarian party which will limit neither your economic
freedom nor your social freedom.

   I will also defend what I see as unfair attacks on Clinton. First of
all, attacking the private personal history of a candidate is an *ad hominem*
and has nothing to do with their economic plans. Family values are
not a valid election issue.   

   The reason I am defending Bush is because for 1+ year, the media
has been bashing Bush and praising Clinton with bogus statistics and
economics and rhetoric about a monolithic monster called "the republican
party"  Clinton's economic plan deserves to be heavily scrutinized
(more so than a non-plan does) because what he is proposing is dangerous.
Taking $200 billion more out of the hands of Americans and spending it
during a recession, and forcing small businesses to provide health
insurance.   I know people who own small businesses with only 1 or 2
employees. These businesses gross about $100,000-$400,000 a year.
If Clinton forces these businesses to pay for health care, they will
HAVE to lay off workers. My brother-in-law's uncle owns a pizza
business. He takes home $35k/year, has 3 employees, and breaks
even each year. (no accumulated capital).  How in the hell is he supposed
to pay for health insurance for all 3 workers without lowering their
wages, or laying them off?


   Since you're so keen on mind reading, why don't you spell out my
so-called secret agenda?  Is it that I am a free market
capitalist? wow, big secret. Is it that I am a conservative? I already
told you I am an atheist libertarian (minarchist). Is it that I consider
Bush the lesser of the two evils? I already said that.

  So just what is my secret agenda? Please tell me so I know what it is.

-Ray

>--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39697 alt.politics.clinton:1926 alt.politics.bush:1571