IMO, you forgot, 3. Because he wants to keep wages low by having a large supply of cheap labor available. (class warfare again) You choose to ignore the class warfare angle but it is not ignored by others.
Dear me. Warfare? Don't you think that is a bit extreme? No one forces anyone to work here. I didn't mention your "3." because it is part of my "2." Cheap workers exploit their low overhead to get opportunity, which many will convert into higher wages over time. It is the way things work and have always worked. You did not start your job at the same pay-rate you currently enjoy. You began the job, proved your worth and progressed to your current post. No class warfare involved. We all use one another for our own ends.
You take [Bush] at face value. I can understand that. Many people take politicians at face value.
Ouch! Amongst the unkindest of cuts.
But if you look at what he does as opposed to what he says in his rhetoric, it is clear where his loyalties are. The owning class and the religious right. That's his base, and that's who he is extremely loyal to the interests of.
Well, of course I don't think it is as cut and dry as you make it, though surely there is a grain of truth in what you say. As is true for us all, Bush has certain moral, economic and political affinities for certain others in this country. It is to be expected that he would attend to their perspectives, since he shares them.
I understand your respect for someone who can stand on principle. I just wish the principles he stood for were different.
Undoubtedly you do. And that is why we have our political system. You are free within that system to press against the principles of others. But this idea of personally attacking someone, calling him a "monkey" or a "moral coward", etc. merely because he has a set of principles with which we disagree is childish. It is not like Bush is a certified liar and moral coward, unlike his predecessor.
Personally, I don't much care about the specific principles, as long as the principles exist and are consistently maintained without falsity. In that way I can attack the facts and what a guy stands for. But all of this "Islam is peace", "Reverend Dean Sweet Baby Jesus" crap makes me ill.
Your charactarization of "harming people by law" kind of says it all in reference to the issue of regulation. You will most likely see any and all regulation as "harming people by law"...
Not exactly. I just think oftentimes when politicians begin to throw around law to stop people from doing something, they almost always create unintended consequences that ultimately make matters worse elsewhere. You just cannot legislate morality. |
