Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Precisely! You're not hearing what I'm saying.
You're NOT choosing for yourself. In this state, others are choosing for you!
You can choose for yourself what's important. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Where we need to draw a line is between what we want personally, and what we force someone else to go along with or pay for. When what someone wants is a thing that another person has to pay for, that's when things get ugly. What's happened here is that in the process of voting for public policy for things that we individually want, instead of running our own lives, we have legislators doing it for us. That's given rise to corruption out the wazoo.
And puh-leeze don't tell me that New Jersey's school districts are superior in terms of quality to others, if you factor in the cost of them. Have you looked at your property taxes? Based on what we're paying here, all our kids should be rocket scientists. Sadly, the majority of them can't make change for a buck without a computer doing it for them, nor tell the difference between homonyms or where apostrophes are supposed to go, like "book's for sale".
As for Forrester, I think he's a schlub. But he's not the communist that Corzine is. Something is seriously wrong with this state. We continually find ourselves in a hole, and yet inexplicably insist on voting again for the legislators who have shovels in their hand, as though they won't dig the hole deeper.
It's amazing, really.
|
I nevver suggested our school districts are superior, but one of the first proposals Forrester actually hinted at was a property tax relief that would be paid for from the state's budget. Where would that money have come from? I'd pay more in a second if it was funneled into the school system. I will balk at anyone who isn't directly addressing this issue.
I think we have some common ground here, but you seem to be suggesting that there is some alternative to having elected officials legislating for us. What does it look like when we all 'decide for ourselves'? I'm just not understanding what you are advocating.
The last election, and the one before that, and the one before that... they've all been a Lesser of two evils situation - get used to it. It's been like that for two generations, and it's probably gonna stay that way for quite a while. I could not in good conscience vote for Forrester. I found him much more dangerous than the 'communist'. At the very least, I doubt the communist in this case is looking to get rich off his stay in office... I personally had a lot more doubts regarding the other guy.