its just a question of semantics...
I was speaking of the idea of selling out a man's fishing hole through a secret trade deal to china in exchange for payments to wall street, the clintons, the parties and some outsourcing contracts to IBM, then taxing the man's fishing equipment to death, setting up a Fishmart in community and then giving the man a free .5 fish card vs... a man catching plenty of fish in his fishing hole tax free.
I was speaking of the idea of selling out a man's fishing hole through a secret trade deal to china in exchange for payments to wall street, the clintons, the parties and some outsourcing contracts to IBM, then taxing the man's fishing equipment to death, setting up a Fishmart in community and then giving the man a free .5 fish card vs... a man catching plenty of fish in his fishing hole tax free.
you'll never find anybody who disagrees with you more
almost everybody cares about what's better for the group
am I the only one who cares what's best for the individual?
the group has political parties and donors and non profit groups and who knows what all on their side
the individual is the last and most important component to society. His rights must be respected above all others.
no, when given a choice between what is best for the group and what is best for the individual I will always side with the individual, even if he is probably wrong
we will have many new groups and could stand to lose a few old ones, but once you lose the individual all things I love are lost
Last edited: