The Election

[Marauder]

I would also pose the question of who we should consider "less fortunate". What about the punks who have Mommy and Daddy coddle them and pay for everything they have, and then have the brats decide to "run away" to "be their own person" or whatever bullshit. They wind up as unemployable transients, but they are hardly "less fortunate". What about the teen mom who had the opportunity to finish high school and go to college, but decided she'd rather whore herself out to whatever guy came along that fit her idea of making up for Daddy not loving her. Is she "less fortunate" or did she just throw her life away because she chose to make a stupid mistake?
The only people I *want* to keep on their feet and happy are my family and friends. I am my brother's keeper, but not Joe down the street's keeper. The only people who should be subsidized from my tax dollars are those who have a mental illness or physical disability that precludes them from being able to work in any capacity. With the opportunity to finish a high school education for free and however many bursaries & scholarships are out there, and the ROTP program, there are less and less excuses to not become a recipient of a secondary and post secondary education. I don't mind some sort of "safety net", but wholeheartedly agree it should be capped. In my estimation, you should not be able to live off Uncle Maple without returning an investment of work (insert NDHQ joke here ) for any longer than 60 months TOTAL (cumulative). There's helping a fellow Canadian out, and then there is ripping me off blind with taxation to keep slugs on their fat, happy, ignorant ass for generation after generation. Unsat, end stop. As for being one paycheck away from being in crisis, there's been more than one month that I've had to settle for paying rent, utilities, food, and gas and foregoing anything else (like renting a movie or buying some shiny kit from Lightfighter or going out to the pub) in order to be in a position to pay next month's rent. Too many people buy Caddillacs when they can only afford Chevys, and too many people blow extravagent amounts of money on dumb crap like going bar hopping and clubbing, or buying the hot new XBox game, or buying a $2000 watch they can't afford. I've seen all these examples from other uni students, and they never fail to wonder why I would call them jackasses when they were whining they had no cash in the bank. There are times when people get a horrificly bad break, but that's a drop in the pond compared to people who go broke through simple, blatant fiscal irresponsibility. Balancing a checkbook and keeping track of income vs expenses and knowing how much your credit card is burdened are not nuclear physics level stuff. It's all just one more sign of the times where some dickhead would rather have an icy wrist and go rolly in the Benz that have the cash to pay their next goddamn rent check.

And in case it hasn't been made obvious yet, I'm all for the death penalty for murderers (DNA, postitive forensic evidence, and multiple eyewitness needed), child molesters, and kiddie pornographers, and traitorous pieces of shit like the Khadrs. Fasttrack the appeals, then take them out back and tell them to face the ditch. Won't happen even with the Conservatives (too worried about reelection and such, same for all politicans), but just thought I'd clear the air. I do like Harper's idea of canking the faint hope clause, having full sentences being served,   and having sentences served consecutively instead of concurrently (no more volume discounts on crime was the phrase he used that I particularly liked). Wish he'd lower the Young Offender max age to 14 or 13, but again, snowball's chance I know.

 

[Infanteer]

So Marauder, are you still planning on voting for the NDP?

 

[Marauder]

Greeeeezy fooking civvys, I swear..... <grumble grumble grumble> Your hair past your shoulders yet? You are going indig arn't ya? I'll have to mail you some patchouli to drown in when you meet my girl when I get to Van City on Labour Day.

I'd rather swallow a Browning and take the 9 mil pill than vote for Comrade Organizer Layton and his singing, dancing Commie Revue.

Uhhh, see, now I have to go and wash my hands just for typing his name. Bleah.

 

[RCA]

   I pretty sure that Marauder and I can agree to disagree as we   fall left and right of centre of arc. I won't vote for Harper and what ever party that has evolved as I feel they are the party of intolerance.   However, as said before, one party does not represent a person's total views. For instance, the NDP's instance that military personal increases only be devoted to peacekeeping I find nonsensical.

  No surprise, but I am opposed to the death penalty, just for the simple reason the system isn't perfect and there is no way to justify putting the wrong person to death. And if we were to have the death penalty, there must be an appeals process just to ensure justice is done correctly. No problem with streamlining the process, but if it takes 2 or 10 years, so be it as it behooves us to get it right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but are not consecutive sentences in the system now. If not then yes, they should be, but they should not mandatory but at the judges discretion. Making anything mandatory in the sentencing ties judges hands as each case is and should be judged separately. Witness the outcry WRT Latimer. As to serving full sentences, is this for all crimes? Is there a place for rewarding good behavior or rehabilitation? Parole has its place (and I agree it shouldn't be mandatory but earned) in that a person can be monitored on the street for a period of time before the actual sentence is completed. The fault in the system in not putting enough resources to do the monitoring, not the actual concept of parole. It is better to have someone on the street being productive, rather then in jail draining resources. And I do believe in longer sentences for certain crimes. For instance pedophilia is incurable and therefore a person cannot be rehabilitated. However, in the scale of things, taking a human life is a worse crime because it is the ultimate crime. The problem it is such an emotional issue. Just remember the system, to be fair and objective, can not be designed by victims, just as much as it can not be designed by criminals.

  Social welfare is a touchy issue with no perfect solution. I am not naïve to believe that it can be a disincentive to work. In Canada, we have decided that we look after the collective as to the oppose to the US concept of individual rights (hence the difference of good government vs. the pursuit of happiness.) Therefore we have decided to be "our brothers keeperâ ? (us opposed to me). As to limiting the amount of years to collect. What happens at the end of that period? Will this individual miraculously decided it is now time to become productive. Or will this person turn to crime as the easier route. Criminals, being stupid in the first place, will get caught and sent to jail for longer periods of time (in keeping with the law and order program) so we end up paying anyway.

  Getting rid of minimum wage and letting the market decide? Good or bad. If companies would pay sustainable wages on there own without being having legislated, I would be all for it. But companies owe their loyalty to their shareholders before their employees. They are rewarded for keeping labour costs as low as possible and it is not their problem whether that employee is below subsistence level or not.

"I would prefer to eliminate all of the employer-paid payroll taxes and move them over (along with, initially, an equivalent increase in gross pay) to where we can see them as deductions.â ?  

   First the increase in gross pay wouldn't happen. Secondly, WRT EI anyway, since it can only now be normally be collected through layoffs, companies should bare some of the costs of unemployment. CPP, could be eliminated if more companies moved to a system of assisted RRSP programs and they were portable. In this case, it would be fair to shift CPP to the employee.

"Too many people buy Cadillacs when they can only afford Chevys, and too many people blow extravagant amounts of money on dumb crap like going bar hopping and clubbing, or buying the hot new XBox game, or buying a $2000 watch they can't affordâ ?

   Unfortunately you are probably right, but consumer demand drives this economy, and consumer spending is what untimely creates jobs.

"What about the teen mom who had the opportunity to finish high school and go to college, but decided she'd rather whore herself out to whatever guy came along that fit her idea of making up for Daddy not loving her.â ?

   Do you honestly believe that enough of these cease that actually exist. Single parenthood is a major issue and teen motherhood is definitely a case of losing opportunities, of which the prick who impregnated her usually gets a way scott-free to carry on with his life.   I don't believe they should marry the girl, but should carry som eof the financial burden for not keeping it in his pants.

The election will be decided on the bread and butter issues such as Health, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc. Issues such as same sex marriage, abortion are not policy areas, but ones of personal preference with no middle ground to move to and should be ignored as they just become inflammatory and rhetoric.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Brother's keeper is one thing.  Brother's controller is another.  If we want wholly public health care and education, fine.  Unfortunately, the proponents then argue that it should give them the right to control what I own and what risks I may take.  If there are to be restrictions imposed with the "gift", I don't want the "gift" in the first place.

 

[girlfiredup]

Hmmm ok this is really bugging me.   I'm not much of a political individual with highly knowledgeable insight into the political world but a few things cross my mind when I think about those in leadership roles, mainly those running for leadership of a country and how we can ensure that the citizens of a country are all in agreement with a leader and the plan he brings forth for the country prior to being elected.

First off, I think the citizens of a country should be able to vote on the said plan of action and then that plan becomes a covenant agreement between the people of the country and the leader.   Still with me?   I know, maybe this is crazy but it's a slow day at the office.  

So.. let's take ever popular Paul Martin as an example.   He comes up with a "plan" for our country on how he can reduce the deficit while providing us citizens with tax breaks and some other lovely perks (as an example).   His "plan" of action is made public and we, the good citizen, get to view his plan and vote on it prior to the election.   If the vote is unanimous (we like the plan) then he gets to proceed with the running and if elected and he does not follow through with his plan, I say he gets tried in a court of law for treason, breach of contract.. or whatever. Sounds crazy but I think someone needs to be accountable for my tax dollars and millions of other tax dollars going astray.   Make the plan a legal binding document between the cabinet/gov and the canadians or else face the people.

 

[RCA]

Problem I see is you have 30 million people and 30 million ideas of how things should be.

The reason behind the political party is that they represent a certain spectrum and people vote for the party that most closely theirs. Majority wins.The minority get to wait 4-5 more years. Not a perfect system but has stop us from anarchy.

 

[casing]

...30 million ideas of how things should be.

Not really.  Most people can't think for themselves.  One of the reasons for lack of voter turnout.  Also a reason why the same already-proven-to-be-a-liar politicians keep getting voted in over and over.

 

[girlfiredup]

I'm not saying that the 30 mill ppl with 30 mill views are the ones responsible for implementing those ideas into the plan but they should be able to vote on the plan that the party represents.   We are essentially doing that now but blindly.   How many canadian citizens that actually vote really know what they are voting for?   We have some general idea but we all know that it subject to change. Let's say Harper gets elected and he doesn't come through with his promise to fund the military but instead decides to provide only a 1/4 of what he promised or perhaps nothing at all.   Don't you all think he should be held accountable?   Bottom line is, he really doesn't have to come through with his promises at all and we need a system that will ensure a plan is carried out.

 

[casing]

GirlFiredUp, I agree with you on the accountability aspect. A problem arises in how best to implement that sort of thing.

 

[muskrat89]

Back in the old days C.O.R advocated recall procedures. I think there should be a system where, if the populace feels they have been given a snow-job, they have the ability to "fire" that elected official (see California). It shouldn't be a cakewalk, by any means, and would need to be well thought out. You don't want a system that has "the people" recalling politicians, willy-nilly, for every little thing....on the other hand, it may be a good incentive to a) keep your promises and b) don't make promises if you are not sure that you can keep them....


Note - Don't want to start a "COR-War", but to my knowledge, has been the only party that had an actual platform item, to that effect...

 

[Infanteer]

Girlfiredup, you are referring to putting public policies to a referredum of sorts.   Many American states practice this quite frequently (California being the most significant case) where bills are put on the ballots, often when local elections are held.   I am not sure that it has proven to a great success, as many people are bombard by a series of bill numbers on their ballot form, or don't have the time to properly educate themselves on the issue.

I don't think I like the idea of sending most issues to the public to vote on.   The key word in the term "representative democracy" is the term represent.   I vote on a Member of Parliament to represent my interests in the legislative matters of the state.   I trust in him as a public figure to explore the issue deeply (which most Canadians have neither the time nor the will to do) and vote in my best interests.   Direct democracy tends to collapse when it is taken beyond the local level, there was complaints about too many citizens with too many diverse opinions in Ancient Athens, so I doubt anything would have changed by now; that is why we have a representative system, it services the Nation State better.

I never really hold politicians to their election promises, because it's easy to say you'll buy an Aircraft Carrier or curb free trade when your running for office, but it's a different story when you're in the hotseat.   Rather than blusterous statements which pertain mostly to ideology, I'd like to see some hard figures in an "action plan" which looks realitisically at statistics and available resources and goes from there.   RCA commented correctly that political spending is a zero sum game, and if politicians promise big changes, you know they have to come from somewhere.

As for the accountability issue, I fully agree.   More stringent auditing of the terms of politicians couldn't hurt.   In Athens, citizens appointed to offices were audited at the end of their one year term; if they were found to be incompetant or corrupt, they were punished accordingly.   Perhaps we could use something like this.   However, we would want to be careful not to stifle innovation and reform for fear of a jail sentence.   Another possiblity I've seen was an interesting idea on how to bring accountability into government spending by reinstating the position of Comptroller General for Canada, which Diefenbaker axed following the Glassco Commision.

Canada's Receiver General takes all funds in for the government.

Canada's Comptroller General signed off on all government expenditures.

Canada's Auditor General makes sure the books are balanced and that nothing fishy is going on.

Checks and balances, the foundation of good democratic order.

 

[RCA]

The problem with our system is that for those that didn't vote for the winner are not represented fully. Don't see any around that.

Recall would be a fine tool   but I feel that it would tend to be used as a weapon and tie up resources better used else where. For every one   hat is in favour, there is another with an axe to grind. (witness California)

Referendums are a gimmick to so call empower people. Thats what the vote is for We elect and pay people to make decisions. Not t o keep throwing back to us when they the decision is difficult or potentially difficult. As a leader do I make all the decisions in garrison, but when life threatening, take a consensus. I think not.

Political promises are not contracts. If a politician were  to say he was going to iincrease the military by 5 billion, and have tax cuts of 7 billion would you vote for him. It is up to the voter to get educated. Learn, take everthing with a grain of salt, and believe everything has a spin.

As too a decentralized system, the richer provinces would be for that as it would be in there own best interest to keep as much of their own resources as possible. More people would grgravitite to these provinces because with better economies because of better health care, better education, job prospects etc. Why is Ontario so strong now and we still have a farly centilized system depsite Mulroney. Should hese provinces reap the benifits just because of an accident of geography.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not to be too tendentious here but the reason some of my folk went to the Maritimes and stayed was to take advantage of accidents of Geography... Land, trees, fish, coal, the Navy, a bit of Freedom from clan chiefs more interested in sheep than kin. 

They made out not too bad for a while...

Some of them actually made enough to start papers, railways, shipbuilding companies, shipping lines, and even make it to the house of Lords.

Based on their exploitation of accidents of geography.

Sorry aboot the natives.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The whole point is to permit (1) and encourage (2) people to migrate.

1) Indeed, not everyone will be satisfied with the result of a federal election.  Heavily centralized Canadian federalism is ultimately "Pay taxes to provide our benefits and shut up.  You were outvoted.  Your job is to provide us with privileges.  Get over it."  (If you don't think some socialist-leaning Canadians enjoy expressing Canadian trends in government that way, think again.)  Some people would like government to have a greater role in their lives, and some would like less.  There will be greater satisfaction overall if we shuffle federal-provincial powers to enable provinces to provide these different environments.  People who want to run their own lives can move to a libertarian-leaning province and enjoy their selfish liberty.  People who want to pay lots of taxes rather than be bothered with premiums and fees can congregate in a socialist-leaning province and enjoy their altruistic comradeship.

2) It reduces unemployment wherever they left, changing the dynamics of the local labour market.  The more migration, the more likely we are to reach unemployment equilibria between regions.  Sitting around waiting for things to get better is not a solution.

 

[muskrat89]

So, Mr. Sallows - (and I'm not being argumentative, as I understand your point) Hypothetically speaking, should everyone in the Maritimes migrate? Or, just the unemployed, or the   unemployed as well as those seeking a higher standard of living? I migrated to Maine, and then to Arizona out of economics (and women) but they were for better, more stable jobs. What form do you envision the ideal migration taking?

I do not know the current unemployment figures in Canada, but how would you address it if employment levels were relatively the same between provinces, but not the standard of living? Does migration address that as well?

Just curious. Thanks.

 

[girlfiredup]

I don't think I like the idea of sending most issues to the public to vote on.   The key word in the term "representative democracy" is the term represent.   I vote on a Member of Parliament to represent my interests in the legislative matters of the state.   I trust in him as a public figure to explore the issue deeply (which most Canadians have neither the time nor the will to do) and vote in my best interests.   Direct democracy tends to collapse when it is taken beyond the local level, there was complaints about too many citizens with too many diverse opinions in Ancient Athens, so I doubt anything would have changed by now; that is why we have a representative system, it services the Nation State better.

Ha.. this sytem has spiraled into one scandal after another with millions of dollars disappearing.   I would like to see the representative I vote for carry out his plan of action and be held accountable to it.   Too many unanswered questions in my opinion.

I never really hold politicians to their election promises,

So what's the point in casting a vote then?   Might as well just toss the dice or flip a coin.

I'd like to see some hard figures in an "action plan" which looks realitisically at statistics and available resources and goes from there.

Wha?   You mean to say they aren't operating this way?   So where are they pulling their numbers from?   The sky?   How reassuring.

As for the accountability issue, I fully agree.   More stringent auditing of the terms of politicians couldn't hurt.

Indeed!   I'm all for that and the sooner the better because one of the 3 stooges and his circus freaks are about to be elected.

Anyway, I should have known better than to get involved in a political debate... I'm way over my head (sort of).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have no idea, nor do I really care except in the sense of an interested observer who is curious to see how things play out.  I am one of those fools who continues to believe the "invisible hand" can achieve overall better results than government when it comes to determining where people live.  It may not work the way I suggested above.  All I propose is to reduce the money being paid out to cushion people from the consequences of remaining in depressed areas.  About the only thing of which I am completely confident is this: reduce the unidirectional money flow, and something useful is likely to happen.

"Dare to dream, Arnold.  Dare to dream."

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just a quick update for those who do have Healthcare as their number priority.   Harper has just upped the ante big-time by guaranteeing the additional funding Martin has been unwilling to commit to.   More importantly he has identified the absolute need for the Provinces to measure 'results' (which neither the Liberals or NDP are demanding) rather than just throwing money at the problem.   This is essential as the Provinces have a history of diverting Federal Funds to pet projects, or worse simply flushing the money down the toilet by bloating bureaucracy.

Being in the Medical Industry, I'm tellling you that this type of oversight is absolutely essential and it is refreshing that at least one of the party's has finally taken an official stand on it.

I would add, that if they are planning on demanding accountability for expenditures in Healthcare by the Provinces (which is an indirect expenditure), I would also look for demanding greater accountability in the direct expenditures of the various departments in Ottawa.

As a final note, I would just mention that the Conservatives are the only party who has indicated they would dramatically increase the power,   scope and budget of the Auditor General (Sheila Fraser).   I mention this because the media did not really pick up on it, and it's important to recognize that even after Adscam, the Liberals have fought this proposal tooth & nail.   This is important because you have to ask yourself "Why is it a governing party would not want increased transparency in government spending if that spending is in fact kosher?"

In any case, enough editorialization, here's the article...

Enjoy,


Matthew.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Link: http://hispeed.rogers.com/news/national/story.jsp?cid=n060453A

Conservatives would spend billions more on health care, Harper says
at 19:01 on June 4, 2004, EST.

Harper outlines his health platform in London Friday. (CP/Jonathan Hayward)LONDON, Ont. (CP) - Stephen Harper says a Conservative government would pump billions of dollars into the health-care system.

Harper announced Friday that he would boost health transfer payments to the provinces by between $2 billion and $3 billion a year - on top of the $37 billion in extra health funding promised in last year's federal-provincial health accord. The money would come with one condition: that the provinces agree on a list of health indicators that would determine whether health services were improving.

"We will ensure that health indicators and a list of home-care services are developed as quickly as possible," Harper said, adding that waiting lists are one example of an indicator that would be used.

"Spending alone is not the solution."

The Conservatives would also spend up to $800 million a year for a new "catastrophic" drug plan. It would cover prescription drugs costs above $5,000 a year for an individual, and would be federally funded.

"It is really a federal proposal, but we've said it has to be negotiated with the provinces," Harper said.

"They may or may not like this model. This is the proposal we will take to them."

The types of drugs covered under the plan would be worked out with the provinces, Harper said.

The Liberals accused Harper of copying their platform, but he argued the government has left health care in a sorry state since taking office.

"When the Liberals were elected in 1993, it took nine weeks from seeing a general practitioner to receiving treatment from a specialist. Now it takes 18 weeks. In 1993, it took five weeks to get radiation treatment for cancer. Now it takes eight weeks."

Earlier in the day, Harper promised more help for farmers hurt by the mad-cow fallout, but the specifics were scarce.

At a farm near Hamilton, Harper accused the Liberals of setting up "complex and confusing" aid packages that have provided little direct help to farmers.

Harper did not promise new programs, but said a Conservative government would ensure that aid flowed more quickly.

Harper said the most important thing is to have better relations with the United States, which is still limiting beef imports from Canada.

He said the Liberals have been anti-American, adding that is partly why the U.S. still has restrictions.

STEVE LAMBERT


© The Canadian Press, 2003

 

[Gunnar]

I sometimes hear the question, "Why are you a Liberal?" and
frankly, I have to laugh. Laugh and laugh, because perhaps this
person may tire of my laughing, and he will eventually wander off.
Sometimes I ponder seriously when I hear this question, because I'll
look around and around and there's nobody there asking the question.
Why am I a Liberal?

I am a Liberal because I believe everyone deserves a chance. And if
necessary, a second chance. And if, by the eighth or ninth chance,
this guy needs another chance, I mean, come on. This guy is due.

I am a Liberal because I believe in helping those in need. All of us,
you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first,
okay? I'm a little short this week.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the equality of all people,
regardless of their race. That is why I think we should give free
medical degrees to minorities because, well, duh. Like any of those
types are going to make it through medical school.

I am a Liberal because I fervently believe in tolerance. Tolerance is
critical in our diverse society, and if you have a problem with that,
mister, then I will inform the authorities and I bet that after a few
hours in their "special room" you too will agree that
tolerance is critical.

I am a Liberal because I believe that we should take our noses out of
other people's bedrooms. I say we move the noses to their banks and
storage sheds and scout troops, and so forth.

I am a Liberal because I hold sacred freedom of the press, as well as
freedom of the TV and freedom of the movie. Where I draw the line is
freedom of the talk radio, and don't even get me started about that
damn Internet business.

I am a Liberal because I recognize that education is important. Very,
very, extremely very important. We must increase spending on
education and enact important education reforms, such as eliminating
standardized tests. Because we can never hope to measure this
beautiful, elusive, important thing we call education.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the separation of church and
state. We must stop the religious extremists who want
school-sanctioned prayers. Now, you tell me - with all that chanting
and praying and incense-burning going on, how can our kids
concentrate on the big condom-and-banana midterm?

I am a Liberal because I believe in the rights of women, be they
lawyers or housewives or skanky interns. For too long women have been
the victims of discrimination, and we must target programs to help
these women, and also the various people who have descended from
women.

I am a Liberal because I believe in women's right to choose. I mean,
not a church school or a tax shelter, or something like that,
obviously. Let's be reasonable.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the rule of law. Or, at least,
lawyers. Because hey, according to my attorney, I could have been on
the Number 7 bus when it crashed yesterday. As far as you know.

I am a Liberal because I believe a healthy economy depends on good
jobs at good wages. So fork 'em over, you fat bastard boss man.

I am a Liberal because I believe the government should step in to
create good jobs when that fat bastard boss man moves my good job to
Mexico. Hey, I know! Maybe we can take all the money that boss man
spends on non-job-creating stuff, like solid gold yachts and mink
spats, and use that money to create jobs.

I am a Liberal because I fear the power of giant unrestrained
monopolies, such as Microsoft, Nike, Parker Brothers, Univac and the
Erie Canal Company. The government must wage an unrelenting, all-out
war to crush these scary monopolies to a pulp before they get too
powerful.

I am a Liberal because I believe in a strong military. Strong, yes,
but caring and thoughtful too, and ready to face new challenges. A
military that enjoys long strolls on the beach, cuddling in front of
a warm fire, unafraid to show its vulnerable side. Must be NS/DDF.

I am a Liberal because I believe there is too much violence in
society, especially in our schools. To avoid another Columbine
tragedy, we should have mellow "rap" sessions with at-risk
teens, such as the Goths. The violence will only end after the teen
Goths see that we adults really care, and are "hip" to
their groovy teen Goth scene.

I am a Liberal because I believe in campaign finance reform. Sadly,
our politics are dominated by advertisements, paid for by the
contributions of giant corporations. All too often, these drown out
legitimate grassroots opinions, like the kind heard on
TimeWarner-AOL-CNN, TimesCorp, or Disney-ABC.

I am a Liberal because I believe in public support of the arts. By
"the arts," I of course mean those things made by, or
excreted by, an artist of some sort. It is especially important that
art be provocative and take controversial stances, like opposing
Conrad Black, and so on.

I am a Liberal because I believe in the environment and conservation.
For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in
Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a
big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you
and me.

I am a Liberal because I detest greed. Especially the sickening greed
of those who struck it rich in the 1980s, and greedily refuse to give
me any of their stuff.

I am a Liberal because I... hey look! A new episode of Survivor!
Geez, I hope they don't vote off Jenna, she's my favorite.