Subject:
|
Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:48:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
"Don Heyse" <dheyse@hotmail.spam.go.away.com> wrote in message
news:Htr6A9.1wy9@lugnet.com...
>
> Hey, that reminds me of something I occasionally think about. Since
> all politicians are corrupt, but they're all we have to work with, what
> works best?
I think pork-barrel spending leads to corruption, but all hail the community
so noble that they refuse to accept it. The lobbiests are at the root of
the pork. The lobbiests represent corporations - and corporations represent
their workers (if my employer gets tax incentives to be where it is, then I
get a job where I am - and you won't see me complaining).
> Two parties that may both marginally represent an insignificant
> portion of your interests, or many parties, one of which may marginally
> represent your interests a bit more than the others?
You're assuming that a party can only marginally represent one's interests.
I can think of at least one fringe party that would represent my interests
much more than the two Republicrat parties we have now.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is Nader Really a Threat to Democracy?
|
| (...) I think I disagree with this argument. Corporations represent their shareholders, not their employees. Would you complain if some other place goes beyond tax incentives and actually pays the company to relocate elsewhere, without you? The (...) (20 years ago, 27-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
