Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:Are you honestly defending the position that a person needs government permission to chop down a tree on their own property? Such regulations are absurd both facially and usually as applied.

You're ignoring the possibility that the tree might be important to native wildlife. I know in the suburbs of Queensland they tightly control the removal of Eucaplyptus trees, because the native koala population is dependant on them. There's also the possiblity that a person might have purchased a property knowing full well that local neighbourhood agreements required those trees. And in some places, particularly houses built on steep downward slopes, the roots of trees can be very important to hold soil in place and stop everyone's houses sliding away.

I don't know anything about the case mentioned above, and certainly accept there's plenty of cases where people have attempted to stop trees being cut down when they had no sensible claim... but the argument that any such regulation is absurd is entirely a product of your particularly extreme political views, and has little to do with the reality of why these laws exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:The content is there, you are just not able to read it. Its expected that politicians will go the exta mile in self interest to get elected, then there is the breed who are motivated solely by self interest. Normally the public see through them, but Blair produced a model, now widely emulated on how to spend, look good doing it, not worry about any future but his own but still appear a great statesman in spite of the long term damage done.

You keep talking about Blair in a thread about Obama's fiscal policy. Talking about Obama would be one point removed from the actual point (as any claims about Obama's would always be made irrelevant by an observation of the policies needed and whether he applying those policies), and talking about some other politician that someone thinks is like Obama is a whole other point removed, and almost certainly entirely irrelevant.

Think about it like we were talking about the success of English cricket. You might comment that the English cricket team is playing a wonderfully disciplined game, this work ethic is responsible for much of their success. I might start commenting that the coach Andy Flower was tactically simplistic and too rigid. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I would be focussing on the personality of one guy and any point I made could be dismissed by going back to the actual topic for discussion - the success of the current team. If I was instead to start talking about a former coach from another team, say John Buchanan, and start talking about how he was too rigid a coach and therefore so is Andy Flower, I would be two points of remove from the actual topic and almost certainly no longer making a relevant point.

There is nothing vague about that, but it yes does have more to do with personality than the economic need of the nation under these peoples charge.

But the thing in discussion here is a jobs bill getting blocked in the senate. The issue begins and ends with 'will the jobs bill promote economic recovery?' It really doesn't matter how much the guy behind the bill proposes reminds us of some other guy we didn't like.

Let me give you just one highly visible and historically provable indicator here. During the Blair-Bush years a sea change occured in US/UK politics. The relationship became between the US and Blair not the US and UK. An example of this was the complete cold shoulder given to William Hague and other opposition politicians at the time. In any prior administration the US would not have done this, even when faced with vocally anti-American leaders like Michael Foot and Arthur Scargill. whether they were also crurrently electable or not would also not be an indicator of welcome. They would be welcome anyway, the UK/US relationship would remain seperate to the party divide. However Blair asked for a personalisation. Bush agreed and I have no problems from the US end because the so called 'special relationship' became one of support the US in return for help for Blair. Not actual national mutual support. As supporting one self interested poltician is cheaper than supporting a nations interests this was a cheap deal, and Bush did well out of it. It was however catestrophic for the UK, as Blair gave much away but asked for very little in turn unless it was directly to his benefit.

I agree, more or less, but it just doesn't have anything to do Obama, and even less with the jobs bill.

I am duly concerned that Obama is such a man as to put his own interests first and second and Americas little at all. I see echos of this in pursuing such a concept as wholesale care reform would normally be attempted in a second term, its a legacy move, yet Obama wanted it implemented pretty much immediately, i.e. to see the benefits while still in office, damn the cost. This is not the best example as there are parts of Obamams health reforms that are laudable, but its an opening move.

You've missed the politics of that situation. Obama came to power with control of the House of Reps, and (sort of) supermajority control in the Senate. This level of power gave the party a once in a generation to pass legislation on a highly contentious issue that the Republicans could not sink, as they had done previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Ok, lets help you here. Poliicies take time to mature. If you pass a bill now it will probably be implemented in 2015 or so, and that is for something mundane. An entire shake up of public healthcare is anything but mundane. If you speed things up it is usually at extra cost. Legacy moves are usually made in a presidents second term. Here they get the stuff done, and it takes a while for the benefits to mature. Obama wanted Obamacare actioned on quickly and early in his first term. Why? To bask in it, perhaps.

Actually, the various reforms under healthcare are to be brought in slowly over several years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Thats a nasty price hike. never said anything about the extra costs take a long time, just the positive benefits of new government programs. Yep, as you indicate the costs are pretty much immediate. Its an indicator of the pricetag for Obama being able to claim to see progress during his term in office. Had the heakthcare reforms beendone over a decent steady timeline, i.e. not quickly enough for Obama to look good from it, then such price hikes could be avoided.

But the changes are being brought in over a number of years. And everyone involved recognised this is one step of many that need to be taken. The scale of this first step is merely the product of US healthcare reform being at least three decades overdue, resulting in a system that's paying out twice as much money for results poorer than most developed nations.

sebster wrote:Talking about Obama would be one point removed from the actual point (as any claims about Obama's would always be made irrelevant by an observation of the policies needed and whether he applying those policies), and talking about some other politician that someone thinks is like Obama is a whole other point removed, and almost certainly entirely irrelevant.

I'm also wondering how Obama and Blair can be considered at all alike given that their terms of service, and relative positions within their own parties, are entirely different. Not to mention the massive differences between a federal and unitary government.

sebster wrote:
You've missed the politics of that situation. Obama came to power with control of the House of Reps, and (sort of) supermajority control in the Senate. This level of power gave the party a once in a generation to pass legislation on a highly contentious issue that the Republicans could not sink, as they had done previously.

Its also important to note that Obama isn't the head of the Democratic Party, or even clearly the most powerful member of it given Pelosi, Reid, both Clintons, and arguably Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz.

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:Do you consider that at all likely, given the political rhetoric that's existed in Washington during Obama's presidency?

Which is different from the behavior from the Democrats when Bush was in office, how?

The extent of opposition is really not the same. This is the product of a far nastier ideological drive among the Republicans and straight up better organisation and party discipline than the Democrats exhibit.

To compare, Obama attempted to bring in healthcare reform that was decades overdue, and his proposal was basically a market centred reform, very close to what the Republicans were proposing a decade or so earlier. This was treated with almost universal condemnation by the Republicans, who marched in lockstep in voting against it every step of the way. On the other hand, a lot Democrats voted in support of the invasion of Iraq, surely a far more contraversial act.

It would be a mistake to claim 'therefore the Democrats always cave and the Republicans always steadfastly oppose everything', because the nature of political parties change. Right now we have a Republican party which is hardcore unified around absolute opposition to the Democrats (did read the article I posted recently about the Republican insider who left the party after thirty years?). I suspect the Democrats will respond when Republicans control the senate and/or the presidency, and their culture will shift to be just as obstinate.

I do not think any of that is a good thing.

I thought the point of having different branches of government was to debate things and not have one branch making all of the decisions?

To answer your question directly: Yes, I think that there are some people that actually believe that they are doing the right thing. Forgive me for not being a complete cynic. I mean, I'm getting there, but still. My apotheosis is not yet complete it would appear.

It gets complicated quickly, because a person can't do any good in government unless they win office. So winning office becomes a necessary step to doing something good. So playing cynical political games inevitably become necessary to win office, even for people who only really want to help...

Think of any politician you think was pretty good, and go read about them. Guaranteed they pulled some tricks that were pretty damn ugly.

sebster wrote:This was treated with almost universal condemnation by the Republicans, who marched in lockstep in voting against it every step of the way.

To be fair, today's GOP is not the GOP of a decade ago, as you noted. And, as you note below...

sebster wrote:
I suspect the Democrats will respond when Republicans control the senate and/or the presidency, and their culture will shift to be just as obstinate.

...it will only get worse (or, continue along the line it is going), for now anyway.

sebster wrote:
It gets complicated quickly, because a person can't do any good in government unless they win office. So winning office becomes a necessary step to doing something good. So playing cynical political games inevitably become necessary to win office, even for people who only really want to help...

Think of any politician you think was pretty good, and go read about them. Guaranteed they pulled some tricks that were pretty damn ugly.

They made sausage, as it were.

dogma wrote:To be fair, today's GOP is not the GOP of a decade ago, as you noted. And, as you note below...

Definitely. And the GOP of a decade ago was much worse than the one a decade before that, and that GOP was much worse than the one a decade before that. It's really been a steady slide for multiple decades, and at each point you think would be rock bottom, they've just kept digging.

...it will only get worse (or, continue along the line it is going), for now anyway.

Unfortunately the mindset the GOP has developed in its supporters has ended up trapping them in being opposed to Obama and Democrat policy simply because it is Obama and Democrat policy. The inevitable response that we're seeing more and more is for the Democrats and their supporters to adopt the same mindset.

If any piece of governmental stupidity were to shake the general population out of this and realise 'hang on, this is stupid' I would have thought it would have been the entirely self-created 'debt crisis'. But that only seem to convince both sides to dig their heels in even harder.

They made sausage, as it were.

That's pretty much it, except the process has been producing pretty crappy sausage for a fair while now.

sebster wrote:
Definitely. And the GOP of a decade ago was much worse than the one a decade before that, and that GOP was much worse than the one a decade before that. It's really been a steady slide for multiple decades, and at each point you think would be rock bottom, they've just kept digging.

That's been true of the Democrats as well, though not to the same extent.

sebster wrote:
Unfortunately the mindset the GOP has developed in its supporters has ended up trapping them in being opposed to Obama and Democrat policy simply because it is Obama and Democrat policy. The inevitable response that we're seeing more and more is for the Democrats and their supporters to adopt the same mindset.

The hilarious part is that the debate is often focused on who did it first, or who also did it.

Granted, its only hilarious because I can't really lose either way, my parents, however, are less amused.

sebster wrote:
If any piece of governmental stupidity were to shake the general population out of this and realise 'hang on, this is stupid' I would have thought it would have been the entirely self-created 'debt crisis'. But that only seem to convince both sides to dig their heels in even harder.

We are a nation founded by religious fanatics, after all.

dogma wrote:That's been true of the Democrats as well, though not to the same extent.

They still need another 4 years as the minority party to get there, I think.

dogma wrote:That's been true of the Democrats as well, though not to the same extent.

In totally different ways, though.

The Democrats are, more or less, still built around triangulation, and their politics seem to built around promising as little as possible, delivering on those promises as little as possible, all to achieve government where upon they can continue to serve their vested interests. As a result, following the entirely humiliating defeat of Gore by Bush in 2000, their response was to abandon what leftwing policy they had, and move more to the centre.

In contrast, the Republicans are built around a core list of beliefs that each person must adhere lest they be declared RINO. In a sense this would be admirable, if these beliefs weren't nasty and really pretty damn crazy. As a result, following the emphatic defeat they suffered in the house, senate and presidency in 2008, they didn't consider moving back towards the centre, but decided the problem was that they'd been too moderate in their politics, re-branded with the Tea Party and moved even further right wing.

The hilarious part is that the debate is often focused on who did it first, or who also did it.

True. Or that after pointing out this is happening, any conversation on it will last for about three minutes before someone comes in and starts sounding off about socialists or theocrats, completely unaware that they're demonstrating the exact behaviour that's being discussed (I can only assume biccat's internet is down today).

We are a nation founded by religious fanatics, after all.

I've read a few pieces that have said that's exaggerated. That the Puritan were only a single early settlement, and that they were given prominance by certain groups wanting to focus on the US early religious heritage. I'm certainly no expert on the subject, mind.

Looked at from the other side, you were the first nation founded with a direct, legal seperation between government and church. To some extent, it seems the rest of the world has slowly gotten less religious, and a lot less inclined to talk publically about their religion, while the US has continued to have surges in religious importance.

sebster wrote:
The Democrats are, more or less, still built around triangulation, and their politics seem to built around promising as little as possible, delivering on those promises as little as possible, all to achieve government where upon they can continue to serve their vested interests. As a result, following the entirely humiliating defeat of Gore by Bush in 2000, their response was to abandon what leftwing policy they had, and move more to the centre.

Eh, I would say the center move was a Clinton thing, and that Gore repeated it, but was trumped by Bush via personality (ugh) and a stronger centrist bent (in campaign).

sebster wrote:
In contrast, the Republicans are built around a core list of beliefs that each person must adhere lest they be declared RINO.

Their House is, their Senate isn't so much, and their Pres. is a battle ground. But that's new to this cycle, in terms of intensity.

sebster wrote:
I can only assume biccat's internet is down today.

Nah, he just got annoyed because I got snarky and started questioning his legal philosophy on logical grounds, same as always.

We may not be a nation founded by religious fanatics, but we sure are one inhabited by them. We're lucky our government was already so secular...

And the business owners whom are making record profits (something Republicans seem to be blind to despite every single news source I've read about from FOX to CNN to Economist to the more obscure stuff reporting it...) are using those fanatics as a political tool to maximize their profits even more, all the while refusing to start hiring.


Supply-side economics doesn't work when there's no demand (like right now, with high unemployment and inflation exceeding the national average payroll increases), and Republican politicians either don't know jack about demand-side economics or just don't care. Assuming government-supported supply-side economics ever worked at all, which I've yet to be convinced of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an unrelated aside, we now have Cain arguing he's more black and has more street cred than Obama.

*facepalm*

Melissia wrote:And the business owners whom are making record profits (something Republicans seem to be blind to despite every single news source I've read about from FOX to CNN to Economist to the more obscure stuff reporting it...) are using those fanatics as a political tool to maximize their profits even more, all the while refusing to start hiring.

Supply-side economics doesn't work when there's no demand (like right now, with high unemployment and inflation exceeding the national average payroll increases), and Republican politicians either don't know jack about demand-side economics or just don't care. Assuming government-supported supply-side economics ever worked at all, which I've yet to be convinced of.

As an unrelated aside, we now have Cain arguing he's more black and has more street cred than Obama.

1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.
2. Maximizing profits is good.
3. Democrat Keynesian economics is a big pile of dog poop sitting in a lovely bouquet of flowers. (aka it's still poop) The american economy would be fine right now if it weren't for government tinkering. Just go back to the Community Reinvestment Act to discern the heart of our current problems.
4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.

Have a nice day!

Phanatik wrote:1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.

But w/o government business wouldn't be able to operate nearly as easily. No patent law or enforcement means anyone can steal your ideas. No law enforcement means competition can literally firebomb your business and laugh. Have fun finding a place with a good power grid that you could afford to set up shop and won't kill you with faulty systems. But who is going to want to come to your shop, what with the crappy road system and you can't do mail order becuase there is no centralized mail system. You could hand deliver packages to places within walking distance. Government is far more than 'social engineering'. Business and Government exist becuase of each other, not in spite of each other.

Phanatik wrote:2. Maximizing profits is good.

We increased our profits by dumping our industrial waste behind the school! Or how about, we maximized out profits by cooking the books and taking our employees benefits! Maximizing profits isn't good in and of itself; how one does it matters as well.

Phanatik wrote:4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.

Ahtman wrote:But w/o government ...

Who advocated getting rid of government completely?

A constitutional government is just fine.

Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering, because of course they knew/know more than the founders.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:

Ahtman wrote:But w/o government ...

Who advocated getting rid of government completely?

A constitutional government is just fine.

Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering, because of course they knew/know more than the founders.

Regards,

I guess Ahtman believes in an all or nothing approach to government controls.

Phanatik wrote:

1. Businesses exist to make a profit for their owners/shareowners. They don't exist to fund government social engineering, or provide a "living" wage or various benefits to it's employees.
2. Maximizing profits is good.
3. Democrat Keynesian economics is a big pile of dog poop sitting in a lovely bouquet of flowers. (aka it's still poop) The american economy would be fine right now if it weren't for government tinkering. Just go back to the Community Reinvestment Act to discern the heart of our current problems.
4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.

Have a nice day!

1 and 2 are alright mate.

3 is certainly debatable.

4 is...

4. She brought it up.

Phanatik wrote:4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.

Yeah...that is kind of an odd statement. I don't think Obama's opinions were formed much from the madrasa so much as they were due to his growing up around political radicals.

I think Sharpton had a point (although he didn't make it very well) that Obama really was separated from the "black experience" (as Cain put it). He lived a fairly secluded life and was exposed to a lot of higher-ed. types thanks to his parents' connections. Whether due to superior intelligence or affirmative action, his higher-education experience was pretty secluded as well.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, exemplifies what we think of as "black culture" (except for voting Democrat). He grew up poor, went to a small school (Morehouse), then worked his way up through various companies to become incredibly successful.

The contrast between President Obama and Mr. Cain is, in my opinion, staggering. But the case shouldn't be made based on tearing Obama down, rather by building Cain up.

Phanatik wrote:
4. Since you brought up a racial issue, apparently Cain IS more black than Obama. I think Obama is black/arab/white, while Cain is "just" black. Also, I think it was Al Sharpeton? that said Obama hadn't been around for the struggle, as Obama was brought up in a madrasa (learning to hate whites/america/england/israel). At the same time, Cain was making himself an american success story.

So, you really are a liberal plant?

Phanatik wrote:
A constitutional government is just fine.

Why? Because its the Constitution, or because you're using "Constitutional" the same way you use "socialist"?

Phanatik wrote:
Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering...

Whut? The height of American power was basically right after WWII, long after progressives started tinkering.

Phanatik wrote:
...because of course they knew/know more than the founders.

Because, of course, the Founders knew more than the progressives, and were a monolithic group that did not include views that laid the foundation for American progressive thought.

biccat wrote:I think Sharpton had a point (although he didn't make it very well) that Obama really was separated from the "black experience" (as Cain put it). He lived a fairly secluded life and was exposed to a lot of higher-ed. types thanks to his parents' connections. Whether due to superior intelligence or affirmative action, his higher-education experience was pretty secluded as well.

Wait, so someone can be excluded from the "black experience" and potentially benefit from affirmative action?

Its also telling that you didn't consider Cain's potential benefit from affirmative action.

Phanatik wrote:4. She brought it up.

And you...did something else with it.

Ugh, stop quoting him.

dogma wrote:Wait, so someone can be excluded from the "black experience" and potentially benefit from affirmative action?

Yes, that's kind of the point of affirmative action. AA says we don't care what your background is, how much money you have, or how privileged your life has been. All we care about is what color your skin is. If it's the right color, YOU WIN! Otherwise, off.

It's what the more enlightened among us would call "racism."

dogma wrote:Its also telling that you didn't consider Cain's potential benefit from affirmative action.

You'll note that I didn't consider Obama's potential benefit from affirmative action either. Had you read my post closer, you would have noticed that.

biccat wrote:
Yes, that's kind of the point of affirmative action. AA says we don't care what your background is, how much money you have, or how privileged your life has been. All we care about is what color your skin is. If it's the right color, YOU WIN! Otherwise, off.

It's what the more enlightened among us would call "racism."

Wait, so affirmative action is not a necessary component of the black experience, but is based on racism?

Did you not think about what you intended to write?

Edit: Also, saying that affirmative action is based solely on skin color tells me that you have no idea how affirmative action works.

biccat wrote:
You'll note that I didn't consider Obama's potential benefit from affirmative action either. Had you read my post closer, you would have noticed that.

Really?

biccat wrote:
Whether due to superior intelligence or affirmative action, his higher-education experience was pretty secluded as well.

Should I infer that you biases so cloud your judgment that you cannot be relied upon to recall what you, yourself, wrote? I mean, I guess you could be implying that being isolated by affirmative action, or intelligence, is not an advantage, but generally isolation is the result of being accepted to prestigious institutions; which is something nearly everyone would call an advantage.

Phanatik wrote:

Ahtman wrote:But w/o government ...

Who advocated getting rid of government completely?

I certainly didn't. Pointing out that business doesn't exist outside of government, and vice-versa, is not the same thing as saying there is no government. When I stated "w/o government" I was talking about the relationship between the two, as your statement seemed to admonished government for even daring glance in the direction of business and that it is holding businesses down when in reality they have benefited from each other.

I like this idea that Affirmative Action is the standard by which the "black experience" is measured. Oh, and Al Sharpton can go feth himself. He doesn't now nor has he ever spoken for all African Americans nor is he the arbiter of what constitutes "blackness".

The optimal application of affirmative action is where it drops slightly each generation until gone. Basically a huge population started with nothing 300 years after everyone else got established. There's undeniably a systemic bias because the inheritance rate was so much lower in that population.

Affirmative action as something that just stays forever is obviously dumb and defeats the purpose. Affirmative action that slowly decreases over time fulfills the original purpose.

A high-school teacher of mine used to say that the blacks put themselves in their own situation, speaking of the poverty-stricken ones in Chicago.

Oh, how I trolololed when I got suspended for my response, but that was 8 years ago.

Phanatik:

1: I never said they weren't. That's the government's job, because you can't trust corporations to be upstanding citizens despite the fact that they practically have citizenship. Only actual people who have the same rights as corporations but less power can be trusted to be upstanding citizens.

You know how ti is. Corporations want all the rights of being a citizen without any of the responsibiltiy that comes with the social contract.

2: Bam, bullet to your head. I maximized my profits by eliminating my opposition, Mexican-style. This is good.

3: Supply-side economics is a lie, and always has been. It doesn't work, it never has, it never will.

4: Yeah, I think I'll ignore this little rant of yours claiming that Obama hates white people and Israel. Reading such inanities is intellectually painful.

Melissia wrote:
4: Yeah, I think I'll ignore this little rant of yours claiming that Obama hates white people and Israel. Reading such inanities is intellectually painful.

I thought that saying he "hated" America, which is his own country, and England, for some bizarre reason is even more odd than mentioning Israel personally.

Nobody hates England! We have bowler hats and crumpets and tea and everything!

I find it odd that people claim he hates Israel despite the fact that almost decision Obama's made regarding the middle east is pro-Israel.

Less pro-Israel than Bush was sure, but still pro-Israel. Like 800/1000 instead of 999/1000.

Frankly, I strongly dislike smug, dishonest Obama and infinitely preferred McCain, and if it wasn't for the Jesus juice I would be a republican over a dem any day of the week, but some of the gak that I read on here, and hear from the mouths of Republicans when Im in the States is embarrassingly silly. It really is schoolboy stuff. If your going to slag people off, at least use some facts.

Be it biccat saying you were "ridiculous" when you claimed BO was compromising with the dem's (he clearly is because I keep reading about how his own party is pissed off with him being a wet blanket in negotiations) the birth certificate or Muslim or "hates" America/Isreal/Britain gak, or the never ending tripe the tea party spew, I'm genuinely starting to feel embarrassed for sensible educated Republicans.

Just who the hell are you going to vote for?!

But alas, I must crawl into my scratcher for the night..

Nighty Night dakka!

Phanatik wrote:

Ahtman wrote:But w/o government ...

Who advocated getting rid of government completely?

A constitutional government is just fine.

Notice that the golden age of america was before the progressives started tinkering, because of course they knew/know more than the founders.

Regards,

What is your definition of the golden age of america and what is your definition of what the founding fathers believed. Because there is a big fething difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.

youbedead wrote:
What is your definition of the golden age of america and what is your definition of what the founding fathers believed. Because there is a big fething difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.