NationStates Jolt Archive

It's true, the Conservative Libertarian that you all know and love may be voting for Larry Kissell (a Dem) for the 8th District house seat in North Carolina, because well. The Republican that holds the seat now Robin Hayes has been in office for 8 years now and really I haven't seen him do anything about one of the issuse that I care about the most, which is Illegal immigration. Of course if you go to Larry's website, he doesn't really comment on illegals, but he does touch on issuse of lowering taxes, reducing the size of Gov. Co. and he is even for alternative fuels! Of course one of the things I try to do for every election is try to vote for as many third party candidates as I can, because I'm sick and tired of this two party system we got now! Here's the website showing off Robin Hayes and Larry Kissell.

http://www.larrykissell.com/

http://www.hayes.house.gov/

So has anyone else decided they'll vote for the opposite party that they usually vote for?

I don't vote for Democrats or Republicans unless I feel they won't automatically kowtow to their party(pretty rare).

More specifically, I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

I don't vote for Democrats or Republicans unless I feel they won't automatically kowtow to their party(pretty rare).

More specifically, I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

That what I was thinking really. Yesterday I was coming home from church with my parents and they asked me if I was going to vote for Larry because he's a teacher and I'm like No....I'm going to vote for the guy who is more aligned with my own political views. I mean really that was a stupid question.

So has anyone else decided they'll vote for the opposite party that they usually vote for?

Yup. I won't be voting "libertarian" anymore. I guess instead I'll be waiting for a party that supports what is essentially embodied in The Autonomist Party platform (**points to sig**). Which means I'll probably never vote for a party again. ( :headbang: ) (edit: and at any rate, I've come to the conclusion that two-party first-past-the-post "representative" democracy is essentially illegitimate. I will vote for or against legislation and other matters presented directly to the people. Those seeking offices of authority over me, however, will face only opposition from me.)

Mary Fallin (http://www.maryfallin.org/)continues to disgust me, so I probably will not vote for her this time either. It's pretty much a given that when she runs I vote Democrat.

(all other races I just vote for whomever is closest to my ideal candidate, but I actually vote against her.)

Mary Fallin (http://www.maryfallin.org/)continues to disgust me, so I probably will not vote for her this time either. It's pretty much a given that when she runs I vote Democrat.

(all other races I just vote for whomever is closest to my ideal candidate, but I actually vote against her.)

I can relate to the "voting against" part of that. I'll be voting against Katherine Harris as opposed to for Bill Nelson in November. It's the only nanogram of the pound of flesh I wish I could extract from that woman for dumping Dubya on us in 2000, and it's been cheapened by Nelson's fucking vote on the torture bill, but I'll still take it.

I don't vote, period. No politician deserves anyone's vote.

I don't vote, period. No politician deserves anyone's vote.

Then you don't get to bitch about the current administration or the congress after the 06' elections since you refuse to do anything to change it.

By the way, Wilgrove, I'm glad to hear that you may be supporting Kissell over Hayes, and I promise that if I ever live in a place where the Republican is more in line with my values than the Democrat--and it can happen; the Democratic mayor of Fort Lauderdale called low-income housing "communism," after all--I'll certainly vote for that candidate. I have voted for Republicans in the past. Just not lately. ;)

I may vote crist for governer. odd perhaps since Im a democrat, though I care little for party loyalties.

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.

so you'd be happy living under a dictatorship?

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.

Eh you never know, look at how close the 2000 elections were.

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.

that's why I also volunteer for my party and go out and encourage others to vote.

however there have been quite a few local elections and state questions as of late that have come down to less than 50 votes, it makes me want to not skip voting day even more.

I mean what if 60 random idiots wake up that morning....I have to try to offset that.

that's why I also volunteer for my party and go out and encourage others to vote.

however there have been quite a few local elections and state questions as of late that have come down to less than 50 votes, it makes me want to not skip voting day even more.

I mean what if 60 random idiots wake up that morning....I have to try to offset that.

By stealing their alarm clocks and injecting them with Tranqualizers!

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.

Then you don't get to moan about the government. Next!

Then you don't get to moan about the government. Next!

Why not? What's the point of voting when no one you like will win? What's the point of choosing between two pieces of shit? Shit is shit, whatever it calls itself.

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.

If you're being truthful here, then I feel oddly comforted.

If you're being truthful here, then I feel oddly comforted.

Ever think that a Heinlein system of voting might benefit this country?

Ever think that a Heinlein system of voting might benefit this country?
Which one? The "service equals citizenship" one or the "solve a quadratic equation to open the voting machine" one?

Actually, neither. I'd be interested in mandatory voting with religious exceptions, however.

Which one? The "service equals citizenship" one or the "solve a quadratic equation to open the voting machine" one?

Actually, neither. I'd be interested in mandatory voting with religious exceptions, however.

The first. I disagree with mandatory voting for the very reasons that you (and I as well) feel comforted that the above posters refuse to vote.

The first. I disagree with mandatory voting for the very reasons that you (and I as well) feel comforted that the above posters refuse to vote.I think we defer to the military too much already to make service a requirement for citizenship. I like Heinlein's stories, but his more authoritarian tendencies bother me.

If you're being truthful here, then I feel oddly comforted.

You shouldn't be. Many people with similar political views as mine do vote (Republican, of course).

I think we defer to the military too much already to make service a requirement for citizenship. I like Heinlein's stories, but his more authoritarian tendencies bother me.

If it were military specific I would agree. IIRC, it was public service that was required, not necessarily military but that was the majority.

It's true, the Conservative Libertarian that you all know and love may be voting for Larry Kissell (a Dem) for the 8th District house seat in North Carolina, because well. The Republican that holds the seat now Robin Hayes has been in office for 8 years now and really I haven't seen him do anything about one of the issuse that I care about the most, which is Illegal immigration. Of course if you go to Larry's website, he doesn't really comment on illegals, but he does touch on issuse of lowering taxes, reducing the size of Gov. Co. and he is even for alternative fuels! Of course one of the things I try to do for every election is try to vote for as many third party candidates as I can, because I'm sick and tired of this two party system we got now! Here's the website showing off Robin Hayes and Larry Kissell.

http://www.larrykissell.com/

http://www.hayes.house.gov/

So has anyone else decided they'll vote for the opposite party that they usually vote for?


my guess is it's all pillow talk. you will more than likely sit through 2 more years of pork barrel spending and silence on issues such as illegal immigration/immigration reform, social security reform and energy reform. Remember, Howard Dean heads the DNC which funds most of these congressional races. don't think for one minute there are not strings attached.

I doo agree we need a 3rd, and even a 4th party though. There is just no common sense at all right now in Washington.

I mean just look at Alternative Energy. We are dependant on Foreign oil from the middle east and venezuela, pathetic. yet the democrats scream bloody mary about drilling in a very remote and very small part of Alaska as well as off the shore and they refuse to allow any more nuclear power plants to be built or for any more oil refineries to built. Then you have the Republicans who seem content with the Status Quo, shrug their shoulders when gas prices skyrocket and seem indifferent to alternative energy research. Idiots, all of them.

short term solution = domestic drilling, nuclear energy and build more oil refineries.

long term solution = alternative energy research. Ethanol, Hydrogen Fuel cells, hydro-electric and wind power and whatever else seems feasible.

it is not that hard. oh, and more money should be put into nuclear fusion research. sure that is a long way off but money makes things happen.

You shouldn't be. Many people with similar political views as mine do vote (Republican, of course).

Trust me, I know--I live the results of that every fucking day.

I may vote crist for governer. odd perhaps since Im a democrat, though I care little for party loyalties.

Charlie Crist is the best person to uphold
Jeb Bush's legacy.

*Quietly swallows to avoid vomiting on own keyboard.*

Mary Fallin (http://www.maryfallin.org/)continues to disgust me, so I probably will not vote for her this time either. It's pretty much a given that when she runs I vote Democrat.

(all other races I just vote for whomever is closest to my ideal candidate, but I actually vote against her.)

What's wrong with her? Other than the fact that she sounds like a phony and a GOP party hack, and whatever plastic surgeon did her facelift left her grinning like the Joker?

I vote for the candidate most in line with my political views who has a good chance to win. Which means, around here at least, I vote democrat. Though I would consider voting Green in a local election.

Trust me, I know--I live the results of that every fucking day.

As do we all. :(

Voting is pointless. Is your vote going to make any difference? Of course not. So why vote? I prefer to stay at home and enjoy the day.
You want the US to control the world but you refuse to sacrifice your life to do that and now you suggest that voting is irrelevant.

You rant on about a lot of things but you won't use bullets or ballots to support your worldview. I guess that makes you kinda irrelevant in the scheme of things. :p

What's wrong with her? Other than the fact that she sounds like a phony and a GOP party hack, and whatever plastic surgeon did her facelift left her grinning like the Joker?

I have met her in person on numerous occaisions, talking to her about politics is like trying to saw your leg off while not getting any blood on your jeans. It's painful and messy and impossible.

You want the US to control the world but you refuse to sacrifice your life to do that and now you suggest that voting is irrelevant.

You rant on about a lot of things but you won't use bullets or ballots to support your worldview. I guess that makes you kinda irrelevant in the scheme of things. :p

With a name like Means To An End, how can you expect him to show something like principles?

His name is synonymous with complete amorality. Which explains why he supports Bush.

You rant on about a lot of things but you won't use bullets or ballots to support your worldview. I guess that makes you kinda irrelevant in the scheme of things. :p

That's a pretty cool phrase: "bullets or ballots." Yes, we all are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things -- nothing minor that we can do, such as voting or joining the army, is going to make one iota of a difference. So why do it?

I'm voting for Republican challenger Robert Lorge for Senate over Democrat Herb Kohl...mostly because Kohl uses his own finances to buy his seat every time he faces an election.

All politicians do this with money from various sources, of course, but Kohl has long since settled into "career-politican" mode. We need some sort of change, and Lorge is the only true option.

I'll be holding my nose when I do it though...but considering we already have Feingold, I won't worry too much about a Republican Senator.

Trust me, I know--I live the results of that every fucking day.

Yeah. Too bad he only has a couple of years left -- with another term, who knows what he may have accomplished in the Middle East and economically at home?

Yeah. Too bad he only has a couple of years left -- with another term, who knows what he may have accomplished in the Middle East and economically at home?


That statement would work splendidly if it was sarcastic.

Yeah. Too bad he only has a couple of years left -- with another term, who knows what he may have accomplished in the Middle East and economically at home?

Yep--he could turn the entire Middle East into a raging war and plunge us into a depression. Of course, that assumes he could get re-elected (without Diebold's help), even if it weren't unconstitutional for him to run again. At this point, assuming the Republicans were dumb enough to renominate him, he'd get about 38% of the vote, and carry maybe 6 states at best.

That statement would work splendidly if it was sarcastic.

If we didn't cut and run, we might be able to turn Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria into stable democracies and a model for the entire Middle East. We would be able to announce further tax cuts to spur our economy in growth and create more employment. We really should repeal that pesky two-term limit. Why is it there in the first place? Damn you, FDR!

Why would you, a citizen of a non-border state, care about illegal immigration? You Northerners really have no idea.

If we didn't cut and run, we might be able to turn Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria into stable democracies and a model for the entire Middle East. We would be able to announce further tax cuts to spur our economy in growth and create more employment. We really should repeal that pesky two-term limit. Why is it there in the first place? Damn you, FDR!

Oh?

OK...I'll give you one guess as to who the Democrats would run if presidential term-limits were repealed before 2008.

I'll give you a hint...he fancies himself a sax player. :p

You sure you want to walk down that muddy road? I know I sure don't!

Why would you, a citizen of a non-border state, care about illegal immigration? You Northerners really have no idea.

Because in North Carolina, an illegal can get a drivers license without an SS card, then they can drive on our roads, and vote, and basically enjoy the services that they don't pay for, but the taxpayers do. Here in North Carolina, we've had alot of drunk accidents caused by illegals driving drunk, and they only get a slap on the wrist.

Because in North Carolina, an illegal can get a drivers license without an SS card, then they can drive on our roads, and vote, and basically enjoy the services that they don't pay for, but the taxpayers do. Here in North Carolina, we've had alot of drunk accidents caused by illegals driving drunk, and they only get a slap on the wrist.
The drunken driving thing sounds like a problem with your legal system in general.

As to the myth that illegal aliens don’t pay for services, it’s a load of bullshit. If they own property, they’re going to pay property taxes, if they buy something, they’re going o pay a sales tax, and seeing as how most employers automatically deduct income tax, they’re paying that to except that they don’t have a means to file a return and get some money back.

In the Ohio Senate race this year Sherrod Brown went out of his way to alienate me on Meet the Press yesterday.

Driveling on about "exporting American jobs" and populist demagougery like that is not something I consider a legitimate argument.

In the Ohio Senate race this year Sherrod Brown went out of his way to alienate me on Meet the Press yesterday.

Driveling on about "exporting American jobs" and populist demagougery like that is not something I consider a legitimate argument.

I saw that. DeWine must have alienated you as well, then.

If we didn't cut and run, we might be able to turn Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria into stable democracies and a model for the entire Middle East. We would be able to announce further tax cuts to spur our economy in growth and create more employment. We really should repeal that pesky two-term limit. Why is it there in the first place? Damn you, FDR!


Whose puppet is MeansToAnEnd?

It's not as good as Jesussaves.

:D

*Quietly swallows to avoid vomiting on own keyboard.*

Jeb Bush is not a bad governer. Crist is much better than Jim "I lick Israel's balls" Davis. At least Crist is pro-gun and anti-tax.

Jeb Bush is not a bad governer. Crist is much better than Jim "I lick Israel's balls" Davis. At least Crist is pro-gun and anti-tax.

He's not a bad one. He's not a particularly good one either, and he certainly has no compunction about spitting in voters' faces if he doesn't like their decisions--like the class-size amendment, for instance.

He's not a bad one. He's not a particularly good one either, and he certainly has no compunction about spitting in voters' faces if he doesn't like their decisions--like the class-size amendment, for instance.

the class-size amendment is bullshit. He is right not to act on it.

the class-size amendment is bullshit. He is right not to act on it.

The class size amendment is law, bullshit or not. It's the law, voted on by the citizens of the state of Florida. Don't like it? Get it repealed. Until then, it's Jeb's sworn duty to uphold the law--or is there something about being a Bush that makes you above the law?

I don't vote for Democrats or Republicans unless I feel they won't automatically kowtow to their party(pretty rare).

More specifically, I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

just out of curiosity, who are you planning to vote for...Lieberman or Lamont (of course, feel free not to answer/TG it to me so as not to start another miniwar on here)? I'm still pretty undecided and pissed at both, so I dunno...but I gotta decide soon so I can get my absentee ballot in on time...

The class size amendment is law, bullshit or not. It's the law, voted on by the citizens of the state of Florida. Don't like it? Get it repealed. Until then, it's Jeb's sworn duty to uphold the law--or is there something about being a Bush that makes you above the law?

Even if he wanted to uphold it, I don't think it would be feasible. The public school system is strained enough, not to mention the teachers in our state are under paid.

Even if he wanted to uphold it, I don't think it would be feasible. The public school system is strained enough, not to mention the teachers in our state are under paid.

And we've been running budget surpluses too. So instead of giving rich people more tax cuts, spend the money on what the people said they wanted it spent on--smaller class sizes. That's the law, and it's Jeb's job--his primary job, at that--to uphold the laws of the state of Florida.

And we've been running budget surpluses too. So instead of giving rich people more tax cuts, spend the money on what the people said they wanted it spent on--smaller class sizes. That's the law, and it's Jeb's job--his primary job, at that--to uphold the laws of the state of Florida.

If we raise the taxes we will slow our economy, which is one of the healthiest in the union. We can not allow this to happen which is why we need someone who will continue in the low tax footsteps of Jeb Bush.

just out of curiosity, who are you planning to vote for...Lieberman or Lamont (of course, feel free not to answer/TG it to me so as not to start another miniwar on here)? I'm still pretty undecided and pissed at both, so I dunno...but I gotta decide soon so I can get my absentee ballot in on time...

I have to be honest, I'm terribly torn. I know considerably more about Lieberman and while I disagree with some of his political stances, I agree with others. Nevertheless, my points of disagreement are big ones. Lamont is a bit more of a mystery. At first glance, he seems very agreeable. But I question his sincerity.

I have to be honest, I'm terribly torn. I know considerably more about Lieberman and while I disagree with some of his political stances, I agree with others. Nevertheless, my points of disagreement are big ones. Lamont is a bit more of a mystery. At first glance, he seems very agreeable. But I question his sincerity.

that sounds exactly like me. My biggest issue with Lamont is that he hasn't really publicized any of his stances, and I don't know how he works in politics (because he hasn't really). Plus, throwing out a top senator who is well respected by the other senators could be pretty bad for the state

Oh?

OK...I'll give you one guess as to who the Democrats would run if presidential term-limits were repealed before 2008.

I'll give you a hint...he fancies himself a sax player. :p

You sure you want to walk down that muddy road? I know I sure don't!
I would bet that sax and sex would beat tax and tex. :D

That's a pretty cool phrase: "bullets or ballots." Yes, we all are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things -- nothing minor that we can do, such as voting or joining the army, is going to make one iota of a difference. So why do it?
Now maybe if you could convince a few thousand Republicans to see it your way, you could improve the lot of Americans. :D

that sounds exactly like me. My biggest issue with Lamont is that he hasn't really publicized any of his stances, and I don't know how he works in politics (because he hasn't really). Plus, throwing out a top senator who is well respected by the other senators could be pretty bad for the state

Check out his website. There's a section on Issues.

votiny dem sint enuff! u must vote greenm whenevr u can!

just out of curiosity, who are you planning to vote for...Lieberman or Lamont (of course, feel free not to answer/TG it to me so as not to start another miniwar on here)? I'm still pretty undecided and pissed at both, so I dunno...but I gotta decide soon so I can get my absentee ballot in on time...

I'll answer the question since I am from CT...Lieberman without a doubt. Lamont is a one issue candidate, is funded by the more extreme elements of his party, is a partisan hack and says some of the most asinine things when it comes to other issues. He also has contradicted himself numerous times and flips and flops on issues more than John Kerry. The war in Iraq is not the only issue out there. Lamont would make an awful senator.

Now if someone is a one issue voter and that issue is withdrawl from Iraq, then they have good reason to vote for Lamont in their mind. I am not big on one issue voters and cadidates, such as those dealing with either side of abortion, but this is a republic and people can vote for whatever reason they please.

Liberman I believe is a statesman, can represent the people of CT the most effectively with his experience and knowledge, has a balanced political outlook and is not partisan when it comes to urgent issue of the war on terror and the war on Iraq.

I think some people are obsessed with Bush that they will bring good men down who are seen taking pictures with him or standing to close to him. Lamont is a joke. Might as well elect an internet Blogger as senator.

votiny dem sint enuff! u must vote greenm whenevr u can!

Ok, did not understand one word of that...

Ok, did not understand one word of that...

voting democrat is not enough. You must vote green whenever you can. /translated

voting democrat is not enough. You must vote green whenever you can. /translated

Ahh thanks, whatever happened to proper grammer and spelling? God I hate the "AIM/Txt" speak.

If we raise the taxes we will slow our economy, which is one of the healthiest in the union. We can not allow this to happen which is why we need someone who will continue in the low tax footsteps of Jeb Bush.
What part of budget surpluses didn't you understand? You don't need to raise taxes. You just don't need to cut them.

What part of budget surpluses didn't you understand? You don't need to raise taxes. You just don't need to cut them.

fiscal responsibility would also be a good thing.

What part of budget surpluses didn't you understand? You don't need to raise taxes. You just don't need to cut them.

turning the surplus into a deficit? no thanks.

fiscal responsibility would also be a good thing.

We currently have fiscal responsibility in Florida--we're running budget surpluses as opposed to deficits. The people of the state said four years ago that they wanted smaller class sizes, and Jeb said "go fuck yourselves--I'm giving tax cuts" as opposed to spending the surpluses on what the citizens wanted and voted for.

turning the surplus into a deficit? no thanks.
How would not cutting taxes turn the surplus into a deficit. This is Florida we're talking about here, not Bizzarro-World.

How would not cutting taxes turn the surplus into a deficit. This is Florida we're talking about here, not Bizzarro-World.

Because your saying we should spend the surpluses on the classes. Spending the surpluses will eventually create a deficit, then what would happen? Liberals would be calling for higher taxes, which is unacceptable.

We currently have fiscal responsibility in Florida--we're running budget surpluses as opposed to deficits. The people of the state said four years ago that they wanted smaller class sizes, and Jeb said "go fuck yourselves--I'm giving tax cuts" as opposed to spending the surpluses on what the citizens wanted and voted for.

Could we borrow your people then? Here in NC, we have a run away budget that just keeps on growing and ugh! In Charlotte, NC they're trying to do a light rail kind of thing, and so far it's costing the city half a billion dollars! Jeez they could've completed the I-485 loop for less money than the stupid light rail!

Could we borrow your people then? Here in NC, we have a run away budget that just keeps on growing and ugh! In Charlotte, NC they're trying to do a light rail kind of thing, and so far it's costing the city half a billion dollars! Jeez they could've completed the I-485 loop for less money than the stupid light rail!

the same sort of thing was preposed in Florida and was passed. However it was repealed a short time later. GOd I love this state.

Because your saying we should spend the surpluses on the classes. Spending the surpluses will eventually create a deficit, then what would happen? Liberals would be calling for higher taxes, which is unacceptable.

its called fiscal responsibility. As long as you don't increase spending more than the surplus, there is no way to create a deficit. So if you have a 1 million surplus, and you spend 900,000 of it on education, you would still have a 100,000 surplus. There is no necessary tax increase. Just a little common sense (IE, don't spend money you don't have)

and yes, god forbid we increase taxes for a petty thing like education...considering your state is among the lowest for both starting and overall teacher salaries, it is no surprise that you have a teacher shortage, even before the class size restrictions...amazing that people would rather work where they can afford to live.

Could we borrow your people then? Here in NC, we have a run away budget that just keeps on growing and ugh! In Charlotte, NC they're trying to do a light rail kind of thing, and so far it's costing the city half a billion dollars! Jeez they could've completed the I-485 loop for less money than the stupid light rail!

That's far-sighted thinking. When the I-485 is empty because gas is too expensive to buy, you'll be glad you have a light-rail option.

That's far-sighted thinking. When the I-485 is empty because gas is too expensive to buy, you'll be glad you have a light-rail option.

wasn't The Big Dig in Boston supposed to cut down in traffic and save commuters from burning gas?

Government in general just can not take on massive projects. too many people try to suck off a little compensation here and there.

wasn't The Big Dig in Boston supposed to cut down in traffic and save commuters from burning gas?

Government in general just can not take on massive projects. too many people try to suck off a little compensation here and there.

I disagree. Government's the only one that can take on those kinds of projects--no one else has the money or the willingness to take a loss on a project like that, and mass transit always runs at a loss. There's not a transit system in the US that gets by on what it makes in fares. It's always subsidized by the feds, the state and municipalities, and if tax dollars are going to it, I sure as hell don't want them going to companies that are going to take care of CEOs and shareholders first and everyone else last.

I disagree. Government's the only one that can take on those kinds of projects--no one else has the money or the willingness to take a loss on a project like that, and mass transit always runs at a loss. There's not a transit system in the US that gets by on what it makes in fares. It's always subsidized by the feds, the state and municipalities, and if tax dollars are going to it, I sure as hell don't want them going to companies that are going to take care of CEOs and shareholders first and everyone else last.

Well those people are the one that invested money in the company, they should get a return on their investment.

I disagree. Government's the only one that can take on those kinds of projects--no one else has the money or the willingness to take a loss on a project like that, and mass transit always runs at a loss. There's not a transit system in the US that gets by on what it makes in fares. It's always subsidized by the feds, the state and municipalities, and if tax dollars are going to it, I sure as hell don't want them going to companies that are going to take care of CEOs and shareholders first and everyone else last.


I agree, completely.

Plus, living in the bay area, we have a bunch of mass transit systems that work fairly well, plus a ton of bridges, all public. Government can't take on big projects? The Golden Gate Bridge disagrees.

Well those people are the one that invested money in the company, they should get a return on their investment.

Sure--as long as it's privately funded all the way. But if it's publicly funded and subsidized, then taxpayers--all taxpayers paying part of the freight for that kind of deal--should get primary consideration. Not shareholders and CEOs.

Sure--as long as it's privately funded all the way. But if it's publicly funded and subsidized, then taxpayers--all taxpayers paying part of the freight for that kind of deal--should get primary consideration. Not shareholders and CEOs.

Yes, but the government hires the private companies full well knowing that companies have shareholders and CEO to take care of. If shareholders don't get a return on their stocks, they'll sell the stocks and the company will lose funding.

Then you don't get to moan about the government. Next!

Vote for Dweedledum or Dweedledee
In a framework of debate written for you courtesy
Of the ultra-rich and the media that filters out any voice that challenges their power. Because you don't speak for oil tycoons and bankers.

I don't vote, it only encourages them. ;)

Vote for Dweedledum or Dweedledee
In a framework of debate written for you courtesy
Of the ultra-rich and the media that filters out any voice that challenges their power. Because you don't speak for oil tycoons and bankers.

I don't vote, it only encourages them. ;)

Vote third party, don't reward bad behavior. :sniper:

Yes, but the government hires the private companies full well knowing that companies have shareholders and CEO to take care of. If shareholders don't get a return on their stocks, they'll sell the stocks and the company will lose funding.
I have no problem hiring a company to do contracting and construction work--that's expected. But I would have real problems with a private company taking over the running and administration of a public transit system once it was built.

Uh, my Representative is running unopposed, Ted Kennedy is running against yet another nameless Republican (Ken Chase), and there's no way I'd vote for anyone attached to Mitt Romney for any job higher than dog watcher, so it looks like I'll be voting straight Democrat for the large elections. But my state representative is a Republican and a damn good man on top of that, so I'll vote for him.

its called fiscal responsibility. As long as you don't increase spending more than the surplus, there is no way to create a deficit. So if you have a 1 million surplus, and you spend 900,000 of it on education, you would still have a 100,000 surplus. There is no necessary tax increase. Just a little common sense (IE, don't spend money you don't have)

and yes, god forbid we increase taxes for a petty thing like education...considering your state is among the lowest for both starting and overall teacher salaries, it is no surprise that you have a teacher shortage, even before the class size restrictions...amazing that people would rather work where they can afford to live.
You would have to sustain that sort of spending so even if you dont raise taxes at 1st, the surplus will run out and will have to raise taxes down the line. Which is why Crist is so great. He's not going to raise taxes, unlike tax and spend Davis.