Slashdot Mirror

* Voting cards failed to fit properly in the slots of some voting machines in Osceola County, giving 300 votes to the Libertarian candidate (where only 100 Libertarian voters are registered). Misaligned card machines have long been a source of errors.

The Risks folks can strike this one off the list. It turns out that this one is a legitimate vote bump, not a tech glitch:

I was watching NBC Nightly News this evening. Brokaw and crew detailed the grievances about Palm Beach County and all of those poor old people who just must have accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan. Then we heard that the Democrats also have their eye on Osceola County!

It seems that the Democrats are suspicious about the number of votes that Libertarian Harry Browne got in Osceola. You see, there are only 120 or so registered Libertarians in Osceola County, but Harry Browne got 309 votes there. The Democrats feel that if there's only 120 registered Libertarians and Harry Browne gets 309 votes ... why, hell. There must be voter fraud! These people aren't just going to decide to vote for Harry Browne on their own!

Well, guess what. It wasn't voter fraud. It was me. No false modesty here. It was Neal Boortz.

You see, I'm broadcast on 580-WDBO in Orlando. WDBO goes blasting into neighboring Osceola County and it's two largest cities, Kissimmee and St. Cloud. I've been on that station for quite some time now talking up the Libertarian position. Last Saturday Royal, Belinda and I traveled to Orlando to do a special two-hour election show. Believe me, I talked up Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party through a good part of those two hours.

So - to my pals in the Democratic Party. You can drop Osceola County from your list of counties with potential voter fraud. I'll take the full blame. Concentrate on those poor old folks in Palm Beach County who just can't seem to read a ballot.

Forget not the fact that the geezers vote en masse, no smart politician wants to get them angry(Or scared).

Oh, I realize it. I just wish everyone did.


________________________________________

Everyone but me that listens to Album88 and boortz.

Of course the PSA's on Ablum 88.5 can be a bit annoy. The same for Bootz's ads for new replacement windows and whiteteeth. But at least I don't have to hear a morons ask stupid questions about thier stupid brakes job insult everyone that listens.

MarNuke

I am continually bothered by the fact that Libertarians makes noone responsible for the less fortunate.

This is a lie. The Libertarian party makes the private sector responsible for the less fortunate. (You need to consult a dictionary to understand what I mean by the word "fortunate.") The huge problem with liberal thought is that whenever there is a problem the assumption is that the government has to step in to "fix" it. (Like they "fixed" our retirement with the bankrupt social security scam and they "fixed" health care for the elderly with the bankrupt Medicare scam). At this point usually the liberals scream, "But the Libertarian solution is not perfect! They'll leave kids starving in the streets!" Well guess what? Is the government solution perfect? Hell no! Will it ever be? Hell no! If you're looking for a "perfect" solution then you're going to be looking forever.

Not everyone comes out of a wealthy family that can afford a)health care b)good food and c)safe living conditions.

If someone can't afford health care, good food, and safe living conditions, then why the hell are they having children?? People treat it like it's some kind of right, and if they can't afford it then they have the right to use the government as an instrument of plunder.

but, if I use a cliche, think of the children.

Yes! The chiiiiiiilllllldren!!! The ultimate political whore!

Its not their fault mommie's a crackwhore, and daddy's in prison, but they get no welfare, can't pay for education, and don't stand a rats ass of surviving to adulthood.

You're right. But guess what? That doesn't make it my fault either! So how on earth does this give the government the right to take my money by force when it's not my goddamned responsibility?

And the rich grow richer.

This is the "evil rich" argument. The formula works this way: you can use peoples jealousy over other people's property to buy votes and political support. Pretty scummy, isn't it?

And don't give me that "voluntary taxation" shite. Look how well "voluntary standards" work (not at all). There will always be unpopular charities (like disease research that's doesn't have the word "cancer", or any celebrities suffering from it, but still kills/cripples lots of people), and besides, why should the charitable be punished, and the heartless be rewarded?

How much more popular would charities be if we weren't currently being taxed higher than we were during the height of world war II? And I don't know what your last question refers to, but let me counter with this: why should the achievers be punished and the irresponsible be rewarded?

First of all, your subject:

Screw the old, roads, and health!

This is so typical of the liberal mindset these days. If I don't agree with the liberal philosophy, then I must hate the old, the poor, and the children. This sentiment is echoed in your subject: "Screw the old...." I'll chalk this up as a hollow accusation of "hate speech," which is just an attempt to discredit me without having to address what I say.

Mr. Government's pocket is being lined with cash? Who is this elusive government that takes your money just because it can!

I'm assuming you are an American. If not, then parts of this reply might not apply to you. Are you aware of our tax system? Do you not realize that the government gets fifty cents of profit on every gallon of gasoline whereas the oil company gets thirteen? Furthermore, what did the government do to earn those fifty cents? NOTHING! They just take it. And why in the hell are you pretending that the government is "elusive"? The government is bigger than ever, my friend. Tell me, how many federal programs has Clinton proposed or enacted compared to the number of federal programs that he has dissolved?

Hmm, could it be that the government, in fact, spends this money on getting things done??

This is downright stupid. Are you implying that you think that the government is the only group in the world that is "getting things done" whereas everyone else is doing nothing?

Could it be that the government actually gives this money BACK to the people, serving as a kind of redistribution organization?

You hit the nail on the head with this one. The government is, in fact, mostly a huge income redistribution engine. It was Voltaire who stated, "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." I'm now going to ask you a question that no liberal has been able to answer for me (yet): How is it fair that the government uses force to take money from one person who earned it and gives that money to another person who didn't earn it?

Could the government be doing things like building roads, keeping the elderly alive, and
helping people who have little money get health care?

Building roads is a valid function of government. "[K]eeping the elderly alive" and "helping people who have little money [to] get health care" are not. Tell me, where in the constitution is health care outlined as a right? And, tell me, if someone receives health care "from" the government, who is paying for that health care?

Apparently, you seem to think that congressmen are motivated financially to tax us. They're power hungry, not money-grubbing.

Taxing the high wage earners is a means to an end. Tell me, what percentage of the income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? And what percentage is being paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners? If you need help, you can check out this link.

Most congressmen are already incredible rich, anyway. But, lets assume you're right. The government takes in say $5,000 a year from the average person, this times 250,000,000 people or so is $1,250,000,000,000. So lets divvy this up, shall we? This means that every year, we have approximately $2,000,000,000 for each congressman. Not bad, eh? And all this from making our gas prices high! Damn those bastards!

You have beat up a strawman. Now, do you think you can answer my questions?

An interesting interpretation, but one with which I must disagree. The phrase in question is, of course, "general welfare." What does "general welfare" mean? And to whom does it apply? According to the constitution, it applies to the "United States." Apparently you interpret this to mean, "Everyone has a right to health care, and the government shall take money from the rich in order to maintain this right." Tell me, where in the constitution is health care enumerated as a right?

Furthermore, if you agree that health care is part of America's "well being" for which the government (and not the private sector) is responsible, then, tell me, what else is part of America's "well being"? Do people have a "right" to be happy? Do people have a "right" to internet access and cable TV? Once you accept that some people have a "right" to plunder others' pockets, then the only thing left to decide is how much the government is allowed to take. Tell me, what's the limit?

Furthermore, you assume that a private solution may be found, and I tell you that there are those people out there for whom no one cares, though we don't care to admit that to ourselves.

I made no such assumption. Sometimes a private solution may not be found. Sometimes people will "fall through the cracks." But guess what! That happens with the shitty, inefficient government solution as well! Nothing will be perfect, that's just a fact of life. Furthermore, I am not obligated to care about anybody.

And when they fall sick, only the government is left to provide for them.

Do you not yet understand that the government "helps" people by robbing other people at gunpoint? What happens to me if I don't want to pay money into any of the government's bankrupt, immoral income redistribution schemes (Social Security springs to mind).

If someone is making under 10 or 15 grand a year, I'm really not going to bear them any malice if they don't have to pay income taxes.

Nor do I bear them any malice on behalf of the government's corrupt, income redistribution schemes. But you didn't answer the question. How much of the federal income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? If you need a hint, click here.

They probably already have it tough enough.

And whose fault is it that they're in a tough situation? Who should bear the responsiblity if they choose not to get educated and to spend their money on beer and cigarettes and have children that they can't afford to raise?

Thanks to technology, images move quickly. Truth and clarity lags far behind. When it comes to sorting out the difference, we are on our own.