Replies to post #6411 on VMC SURVEY BOARD (VMSB)

[wall_rus]

Ishmael: David Brook brings up some important issues, but what we have now isn't workin for the average guy. So the question for me is whether we would be worse off or not with someone like Ron Paul as pres. He would still have to deal with Congress to make any changes, but at least, I think, we'd have someone who doesn't talk out of his *ss.

As for Ron Paul being a wasted vote..........I will support him during the primary. Unless the electorate is really pissed off, he won't win the nomination. So, why not? Who else on that stage makes any sense?

[lentinman]

Ishmael:

I'm certainly not a libertarian, but your analogy with Blodgett has one BIG hole. You attack "conservatives" predicated upon the type of activity that he was involved in. But, you apparently either forgot, or ignored, the fact that Clinton was President for all of the years leading up to the tech craze and including the end of it. All the Blodgetts of the world were under Clinton's watch.

Having said that, I don't disagree in general that there is a more permissive atmosphere for greed and corruption when "conservatives" of the chimp ilk variety are in power.

I've debated this issue with many of my conservative friends. One example of many that I use is the FDA. It is easy to criticize the FDA as being slow, requiring too many hoops to jump through, etc. But, without it, we would all be dead by now. There is zero question in my mind that drugs (or other consumables) would make it to the marketplace that would have killed every single one of us by now.

Government intervention is a NECESSITY to protect us from those who would abuse the marketplace. Government's job is to provide an enforceable set of rules that allow the "free market" to do it's thing where people and companies are dealt with as equally as possible. Government may not be perfect (duh), but without government supervision, we would have a disastrous result.

Len