2
   

Barak Obama says Republicans practice "Social Darwinism"

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 09:05 am
Re: Barak Obama says Republicans practice "Social Darwi
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
"They have a philosophy they have implemented and that is doing exactly what it was designed to do. They basically don't believe in government. They have a different philosophy that says, 'We're going to dismantle government'," Obama said.

If only he was right. The Republican boom in government spending is now almost as big as the "Great Society" expansion under Johnson.

In every election, Republican candidates proclaim that "government is the problem, not the solution." And once they are in office, they spend most of their time trying to prove it.

We can't forget the other phrase they are trying to prove - "power corrupts"

I think it was on one of the Sunday shows that someone said that The GOP has managed to reach the level of corruption in 10 years that it took the Democrats to reach in 40.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 09:09 am
So what's a nice guy to do if he doesn't believe in government? As today's Republicans are proving, running for public office is going to prove counter-productive.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 09:13 am
Surely you don't mean to say that we should accept a premise that Republicans, or any other politicians, are nice guys?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 09:13 am
philosophical anarchy is a well reasoned response.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 09:27 am
Setanta wrote:
Surely you don't mean to say that we should accept a premise that Republicans, or any other politicians, are nice guys?

Some of them were -- a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, when they were young, idealistic, and out of power. But you are right: that is not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is that I'm a nice guy (no really). And I don't really want to contemplate which side of the culture wars is producing the more corrupt politicians. I would rather live under a government that offers corrupt politicians much less to sell. The state Adam Smith envisions (slightly bigger than the classical liberal nightwatchman state) seems like the optimal size to me. Whether I'm right or wrong, I am not alone. But what chance do we have of getting there if the only practical way is by running for office -- and if people won't close down public offices once they occupy them?

dyslexia wrote:
philosophical anarchy is a well reasoned response.

As a personal attitude towards politics, I got there shortly after November 9, 1989. As a way of making a difference in politics, I don't see how it's workable, alas.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 09:28 am
workable smirkable, it's the only sanity left for me in my dotage.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 08:26:57