1 - 7
In response to:

Two Anti-Choice Parties

flboisseau Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 6:18 PM
The answer is to this question is very simple and clear: "I asked him if he'd ban alcohol and cigarettes, since those kill far more people." The answer is why should we make a bad situation worse. The solution is to fix the welfare system and especially the child protection system to make it easier to remove children from the homes of those parents that abuse mood altering drugs. Once we have those changes made and tested, then we can look at legalizing some of those drugs that are currently illegal.
In response to:

Do Blacks Need Favors?

flboisseau Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 8:17 PM
If Samuel B. Fuller, a black man with a 6th grade education, can become a multimillionaire in the depression, owning a cosmetic company, several newspapers, the Regal Theater in Chicago and a Department Store, then the answer is a resounding NO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Fuller
I think that what some are missing and what the this author is trying to say, is that we need work together, and that we each have something to offer. The other big point is that we can not from where this country is currently to where it needs to be in one giant step. The left realized this years ago and have very effectively moved the sentiments in this country in the direction of a bigger and more controlling government. To counter that we need to come up with ideas that will move the sentiments in the other direction. One example of doing that is to reform welfare (including the elimination of the minimum income) to allow and encourage those of welfare to improve their situation. One way to do that is to make use of Milton Freidman's idea of a Negative Income tax. A system that provides a minimum level of support, which encourages people to work to improve their situation, while reducing that support by a portion of what they provide. The goal is to encourage people to work and to reward that work, compared to the current system that does not. The thing that those of us who understand that a smaller government leads to a more productive, freer and thus more prosperous society. Is that those that rely on government to provide for them will be afraid if you make too many changes too fast. Instead you have to give them a chance to test the waters and get their bearings.
Bob502, I am tying my comment to yours because it adds support to what you are saying. I personally know Mr. Brat, but can not say that he is a friend. While most people are focusing on the fact that Mr. Brat is a professor of economics, what most do not know or unwilling to admit is that he is also a professor of ETHICS and combines the two in his teachings. Based on that, I believe, that while he understands the economic reasons that others use to justified illegal immigration, he can not ignore the ethical issue that turning a blind eye to it causes. In our pursuit for a our economic goals we can not turn a blind to the ethical issues of our decisions. Check out this article to see what I am talking about http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2014/06/12/5-shocking-dave-brat-quotes-the-media-will-never-report/
There is more to getting involved then casting an informed vote, you also have to make them feel your prescience. New bumper stick if anyone wants it. Politicians make your life hell Return the favor, get involved.
Ms. McAulay, The solution for small government supporters like you and me, is to not support Gay Marriage, but instead to remove marriage from the dominion of the Government and leave it totally in the hands of religion.
In response to:

Electoral College

flboisseau Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:42 PM
Here is how the electors would of come out if the rule suggested above was in use in 2000, 2004, 2008. 2000 - Gore 231 - Bush 298 2004 - Kerry 214 - Bush 314 2008 - Obama 298 - McCain 231
1 - 7