Post #33,710
3/28/02 11:39:38 AM
|
What if Gore was the president?
[link|http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26999|link]
Libertarian Harry Browne's take on it.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #33,718
3/28/02 12:44:43 PM
|
He does have a point of sorts
Despite what many on the left and right think, either for good or worse, things probably wouldn't be too different under Gore.
The War on Terrorism would have different retoric, but it would still be happening. Enron would have collapsed no matter who was in power. Violence in the middle east would have flared up no matter what.
Unlike Browne, I don't think things would have been identical. The content control idiocy being pushed by Hollywood would be more dangerous under a Democratic president, but at the same time I don't think Gore would have been as quick to push totalitarian security like Ashcroft / Bush.
Browne can maintain the posistion that things are exactly the same because he is opposed to pretty much all government action. This lets him gloss over the real differences between the parties.
I'm sure he is right about Republicans not complaining when Bush does things that they would rail against if Gore did them. Such is the nature of politics in this day and age. Where party affiliation is usually more important then real posistions.
Jay
|
Post #33,719
3/28/02 12:50:58 PM
|
You mean Gore wouldnt have called out the brownshirts?
Clinton was pretty fast on the draw using the IRS/INS BAFT to jam people or policies he didnt like. You think Gore would be different?
thanx,
Bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #33,786
3/28/02 9:53:34 PM
|
Re: You mean Gore wouldnt have called out the brownshirts?
I'm sure he would have to one degree or another. Just that he would not have been quite as heavy handed about it.
Under Gore, I expect the round up of aliens would have been smaller and more selective. I'm not niave enough to think it wouldn't have happened at all.
By the same token, some form of anti-terrorism bill was inevitable. Congress had to be seen as doing something and that meant passing a bill. But I don't think a version signed by Gore would have been quite as stupid.
Jay
|
Post #33,726
3/28/02 1:08:57 PM
|
That's sort of counter-intuitive
The content control idiocy being pushed by Hollywood would be more dangerous under a Democratic president, but at the same time I don't think Gore would have been as quick to push totalitarian security like Ashcroft / Bush.
While I agree with both those predictions, seeing someone else make them makes me realize an odd thing. We both believe the Republican would favor more government control, while the Democrat would favor more corporate control.
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #33,733
3/28/02 1:31:12 PM
|
I think it works more like this...
The Republicans would like more Republican control, and the Democrats would like more Democrat control. The Libertarians would like way less government, and let things sort themselves out.
The good things about Libertarians is they don't seem as cynical as the the mainsteam parties. The bad thing is, the only reason they're not cynical is that they're too naive.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #33,727
3/28/02 1:09:34 PM
|
laughing
Every so-called conservative talk show I've listened to has protested the current campaign finance "reform" bill. Limbaugh, Liddy, Hamlin, Hannity - they've all blasted it.
"I didn't know you could drive to Europe." -- An eavesdropper, piping in when he overheard a conversation about someone who had driven to Montreal.
|
Post #33,739
3/28/02 1:54:58 PM
3/28/02 1:56:12 PM
|
What that means is...
..if all them are agin' it, it must be good!
(Note to self: The worst thing you can do is mistype transliteration of dialect!)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
Edited by jb4
March 28, 2002, 01:56:12 PM EST
|
Post #33,749
3/28/02 2:34:49 PM
|
One of us is confused.
He has indicted as criminals an entire company (Arthur Andersen) for the sins of another company (Enron), demonstrating that he's not a "friend of business," he's only a friend of some businesses \ufffd those run by his friends. Wasn't Arthur Andersen the auditor? Didn't they have a problem with shredding paperwork? Weren't they the people who were supposed to be making sure that Enron's accounting practices were in order? Other than that, I'd pretty much agree that there isn't much difference in the parties.
|
Post #33,751
3/28/02 2:40:09 PM
|
Never let a nit get in the way of a good rant :)
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
