Argumentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

[Craighead, Scot D]

>Bush increased the parts of the budget that help his cronies and
>financiers and decreased the parts of the budget that that help the
>general public... all to find that his "tax cuts" aren't going to actually
>take place because of the enormous shortfall.

There will be no shortfall.  As the economy is recovering we have yet again
new numbers that indicate a surplus.

>Do you agree with the methods used?  Particularly, the support for
>undemocratic regimes in the Middle East that are willing to help fight the
>enemy d'jour?

Yes.  Sometimes you have to take what you can get.  I would rather help
people that want to fight our enemies anyway than risk the lives of more of
our military personel.  (By the way, who serves in the military?  Rich
people or poor and middle class?)

>Do you agree with the definition of "terrorist" as used in the U.S.A.
>Patriot Act?  Are you even aware that the description of illegal
>activities therein covers ALL dissent against the current regime, foreign
>and domestic?

Don't know, but it's probably difficult to write a good definition.  Like
pornography, it's hard to define, but we know it when we see it.

>Hey, nobody likes terror... but terror begets terror and hunting people
>down just makes other people feel more victimized and helpless and more
>like terrorism is their only hope.
>
>An unyielding, authoritarian power does nothing better than compel people
>to strike against it.

I just don't see any other way.  These people have devoted their lives to
terror and can't be reasoned with.  I base this on their own words.  If
there was a way to reason with them, I would advocate it.

>> I beleive for the most part the government should get out of the way
>> of business and let the economy go.  Yes, as you point out, the rich
>> get richer, but the poor stay employed.
>
>There's really no proof for that whatsoever.

I think the 1970's illistrated it very well.

>And, of course, there's the simple fact that "getting out of the way"
>means letting more than just the economy "go".  It means letting go of the
>environment, labor rights, and individual liberty... to name three things.

As I said before, most of the time consumers and employees will keep
companies in line.  If they can't, that is when government needs to step in.

>I would argue that the federal government hasn't done anything "to punish
>the rich" in its entire history.

How about the luxury tax on yaughts that Clinton tried a few years ago?  The
result was a collaps of that industry in this country as buyers simply
looked elsewhere (in other countries) to buy them.  Who got hurt?  The
employees of those companies.  The owners didn't, they shutdown shop and
moved to Canada.  The buyers didn't, they baught elsewhere.  The employees
not only lost their jobs, but had a choice of moving to a new country or
starting a new career.

How about the tobacco law suit filed by the federal government.  Who has
been hurt by it?  Phillip Morris?  They're doing OK.  Cigarettes cost a lot
more, but are selling at the same rate.  Poor people are spending more money
on cigarettes then they were before.  That's who got hurt.

>If you really oppose this, then you should oppose U.S. troops in Kuwait,
>Saudi Arabia, Colombia, and East Timor, to name a few places.
>
>Do you think the U.S. should stop supporting those governments?

Yes, I most certainly do.