What if Gore had won instead of Bush?

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: What basis do you have for making such a claim? You profoundly misunderstand Ralph Nader and his political philosophy.

Because Business (big or small) would have been stiffled. Ralph Nader was for BIG Government with lots of regulation. Now if that's not what he was for, then I apolgize for my statement. But everything that I heard from him was going to cost billions of dollors to enforce if he were to be allowed to follow through with his promises. That means lots of taxes. Did he not support the theory that we should pay more for energy, so we might conserve more. Never mind about finding new technology or even god forbid, NUCLEAR POWER! Don't get me wrong, actually in the business that I am in, we'd have made a killing, but I would feel wrong for taking all that money while others were forced to go on welfare, because he drove corporations under with his environmental policies. Of course, then we'd (as a country) would in that cycle where most people were on welfare, while a minority paid for it all. After about two generations of that everyone would expect to get that check every month. That's much like what we did to the American Indian. Gave a small check every month and nothing to look forward too. Pretty soon that's all they knew. one of the worst things this country ever did! Killed a proud people!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Nadar ran. Swung the election to Bush.

Actually the way the Government is now is kind of the way I like it. Republicans control the White House and the House of Representitives and the Democrats control the Senate. This way neither the ultra conservatives and ultra librals control anything. Checks and balances in my book. I also like to see the presidency change parties every 8-12 years. Again checks and
balances.


------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[Redblueflare]

To me Bush just doesn't seem like the president type. When he talks he doesn't look or speak like a president. More like a guy who has no idea what he's doing. I don't think Gore could've done a better job, both of them suck.

------------------
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just don't have to listen.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Because Business (big or small) would have been stiffled. Ralph Nader was for BIG Government with lots of regulation. Now if that's not what he was for, then I apolgize for my statement. But everything that I heard from him was going to cost billions of dollors to enforce if he were to be allowed to follow through with his promises. That means lots of taxes. Did he not support the theory that we should pay more for energy, so we might conserve more. Never mind about finding new technology or even god forbid, NUCLEAR POWER! Don't get me wrong, actually in the business that I am in, we'd have made a killing, but I would feel wrong for taking all that money while others were forced to go on welfare, because he drove corporations under with his environmental policies.

Being mistrustful of big corporations and against corporate welfare does not equate to a decrease in the quality of life. Being mindful of the environment does not equate to a decrease in the quality of life. The opposite is true, imo.

Nader was a breath of fresh air because he was willing to take on the corporate interests that really lie behind much of the political policy of the US (regardless of democrat or republican). The interests of big corporations are NOT the interests of most americans.

This philosophical/political attitude does not require an increase in taxes, despite the propaganda of the apologists for big corporations. It simply involves a governement withdrawal from the pro-big business policies and hidden funding to big business. Most people aren't aware, though it is true, that at the height of welfare policy for poor people, before the reforms during the Clinton Admininstration a few years ago, corporate welfare (i.e. financial aid to corporations in one form or another) was even then greater than welfare to the poor (Obviously it remains greater still today after the reductions of welfare to the poor).

Too much of government is run by corporate interests. Too many people in government have major conflicts of interest with what is good for the nation as a whole because of their own personal corporate interests. Nader represented a possible, and much needed, break with that tradition.


[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 08-14-2001).]