Who's gonna win?

[Diogenes]

The problem is not the parties. The problem is the people.

Most every one has something they want government to spend money on.

Hardly. I want people to respect my person and my property and do no harm to either, but both foreign peoples and domestic criminals want to take what I have from me.

I do not WANT government spending money on these things, but I recognize that it is a necessity for me to survive. This is a grown up acknowledgment that we must all support some level of government in order to keep our lives and our property safe from people who would take it from us against our will.

I recognize necessities. I don't clamour for favors.

The Republicans (generally) believe government can make us moral (with enough guns people will do what we tell them)

A complete misunderstanding of the dynamics at work. The Republicans believe that if you remove from society the people who hurt others, you will enrich the ratio of decent people to bad among the population at large. It may have the macroscopic consequence of making society more moral, but that is not it's primary purpose.

and Democrats believe that government can provide for our health and welfare.

That's what they TELL people they believe. What they believe is that they can vote farm by watering their "vegetables" with government money.

[ladajo]

If you have time to go through it, this can be very educational.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

The most possibly disturbing trend, which I attribute to corporate lobbying and special interest representation (translated to plain english as "corruption") is the tax burden shift from corporate world to citizen world.

[Diogenes]

We can change the job the Navy is asked to do? Well the Romans did it in their time and international commerce took a thousand years to recover.

You have to wonder if anyone is still interested in history.

What you going to do when the Middle East goes in atomic war mode and you can't put boots on the ground? You know - collect the launch pads?

What you gonna do when China decides to nibble on its neighbors?

A pound of prevention is worth a ton of war. Funny how people have forgotten that.

America guarantees the current international system. We should stop because it is too expensive (ala the 1920s)? We got the 1940s in return. Anyone still read history? Yes it costs too much. It will have been thought cheap after the next world war.

What you are saying is that the rest of the world is Childish and have to be baby sat. Well I tend to agree, because they all keep embracing that socialism sh*t.

Funny though, that you seem to think it is alright to impose our notions of morality on others. And here I thought you were all against the nanny state or something? I guess if you don't see an immediate connection to drugs, you CAN think straight.

[Diogenes]

You cannot because the bulk of this country wants their entitlements and this is a democracy. Its simple math.

And yet it was founded as a Republic. You have hit the nail on the head. We have become a Democracy, the opposite extreme of Monarchy, and something which the founders dreaded as much if not more than tyranny.

As one of them said, "I would rather have one King ten thousand miles away, then ten thousand Kings one mile away. "

Democracys cannot survive, and it does not matter what you do attempting to save them. One half of the population is stupider and more irresponsible than the other half, and it is far easier for the dumb half of the population to convince a small percentage of the smarter half to go along with dumbness, than it is for the smarter half to convince a small percentage of the dumber half to quit looking to get free stuff.

The negative feedback system which kept our Government fiscally solvent is broken, and it is the Liberals who broke it. At one time, the voters were those who paid the bills, but now you do not have to be a contributor to get a say in how the government spends other people's money.

The Democrats have long been kept in power by these fools, and as a result they have ran up a 130 trillion dollars in debt paying off these fools with Government borrowed money. The Nation was stupid to ever allow the franchise to expand beyond the tax paying base, and I believe the 24th amendment was when we pulled the trigger on our slow national suicide.

[MSimon]

A complete misunderstanding of the dynamics at work. The Republicans believe that if you remove from society the people who hurt others,

If that was all they believed it would be absolutely fine. What gets them in electoral trouble is believing they can prevent people from harming themselves. A habit acquired in the Progressive era when the Republicans gave up being a libertarian party and became a moral socialist party. Not all at once mind. It took 40 years or so to make the transition complete.

The Libertarian Party formed in 1972 from the remnants of Republican libertarians. The party has been ineffective electorally. But very effective political theory wise. See Colorado come November. Or Washington State. Possibly even Oregon.

Eventually the Southern Democrats who became the heart of the Republican Party will lose their power and we will again have a libertarian party (my money, my body) contending with the socialists. The Republicans currently do not contend seriously with the economic socialists because it would compromise their power to impose moral socialism.

[MSimon]

"The government ought to...." is the root of all political evil.

[Teahive]

The negative feedback system which kept our Government fiscally solvent is broken, and it is the Liberals who broke it. At one time, the voters were those who paid the bills, but now you do not have to be a contributor to get a say in how the government spends other people's money.

That is an issue. On the other hand, the government doesn't just take and spend money, it also restricts people's lives in many ways while it does so. And those affected can easily argue that, if they are to submit to the rule of government, they should at least have a say in the matter.

But hey, there might be a solution for democracy...

[ladajo]

Mike Collins. Oh yeah, he is totally unbiased...

[GIThruster]

You cannot because the bulk of this country wants their entitlements and this is a democracy. Its simple math.

And yet it was founded as a Republic. You have hit the nail on the head. We have become a Democracy, the opposite extreme of Monarchy, and something which the founders dreaded as much if not more than tyranny.

I once had my sister in-law get all red faced and angry while she extolled that we do not live in a democracy. She was fuming about it. "We talk about spreading democracy around the world. Why don't we have some here at home?" I tried to explain to her what Plato's Republic was all about but she wasn't having any of it. I noted to her that once upon a time, I think it was in the Omni Magazine premier issue, Dec. 1978?; there was an analysis of what the coming computer age would enable as regards voting from home. What was being called "Cube TV" was the ability for all citizens to vote form home on a daily basis. The trouble of course was that in order to be fully appraised on all the issues, one needed to spend about 50 hours/ week studying them, and this doesn't even begin to approach looking at local politics.

There are great reasons both positive and negative why Republics work and pure democracies do not. That doesn't mean you'll ever convince anyone with their hand out to vote for what they believe is right rather than what they think will benefit them individually.

[Diogenes]

If you have time to go through it, this can be very educational.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

The most possibly disturbing trend, which I attribute to corporate lobbying and special interest representation (translated to plain english as "corruption") is the tax burden shift from corporate world to citizen world.

I recommend that you read this.


http://takimag.com/article/in_defense_o ... z2Acroai1z

The new ruling class is a coalition of politicians, bureaucrats, educators, lawyers, media people, and associated business interests that draws income and status from an enlarged and activist state. It does not own the means of production but is content merely to control them. Its general desire is to avoid the entanglements that destroyed the old ruling class. It wishes to avoid more than token identification with the English people at large.

The present—and so far the most successful—scheme of liberation is to make power opaque and unaccountable by shifting it upwards to various multinational treaty organizations—e.g., the EU, WTO, NATO, etc.—and to Balkanize England into groupings more suspicious of each other than willing to combine against the ruling class.

[Diogenes]

"The government ought to...." is the root of all political evil.

The Government ought to free the slaves.

[Diogenes]

A complete misunderstanding of the dynamics at work. The Republicans believe that if you remove from society the people who hurt others,

If that was all they believed it would be absolutely fine. What gets them in electoral trouble is believing they can prevent people from harming themselves. A habit acquired in the Progressive era when the Republicans gave up being a libertarian party and became a moral socialist party. Not all at once mind. It took 40 years or so to make the transition complete.

The Libertarian Party formed in 1972 from the remnants of Republican libertarians. The party has been ineffective electorally. But very effective political theory wise. See Colorado come November. Or Washington State. Possibly even Oregon.

Eventually the Southern Democrats who became the heart of the Republican Party will lose their power and we will again have a libertarian party (my money, my body) contending with the socialists. The Republicans currently do not contend seriously with the economic socialists because it would compromise their power to impose moral socialism.

Except it isn't socialism. You do have a habit of repeating your propaganda, and No, you aren't going to win this conflict. The "My Body My Choice" people are leaving fewer troops on the battlefield for future conflicts, while their opposition is busy out demographic-ing them.


My side is winning the long war.

[Diogenes]

The negative feedback system which kept our Government fiscally solvent is broken, and it is the Liberals who broke it. At one time, the voters were those who paid the bills, but now you do not have to be a contributor to get a say in how the government spends other people's money.

That is an issue. On the other hand, the government doesn't just take and spend money, it also restricts people's lives in many ways while it does so. And those affected can easily argue that, if they are to submit to the rule of government, they should at least have a say in the matter.


My philosophy is that if people want a say they should Pay for it! Those of us pulling the wagon do not need input from those riding in the wagon.


But hey, there might be a solution for democracy...

Good for Romney. About time we used the Democrat tactics against them! Actually, I think the article is nonsense. I have no doubt that Obama and Clinton would rig elections if they could, but I don't believe goody two-shoes Romney would do such a thing. It is out of character for him.

[Diogenes]

The negative feedback system which kept our Government fiscally solvent is broken, and it is the Liberals who broke it. At one time, the voters were those who paid the bills, but now you do not have to be a contributor to get a say in how the government spends other people's money.

That is an issue. On the other hand, the government doesn't just take and spend money, it also restricts people's lives in many ways while it does so. And those affected can easily argue that, if they are to submit to the rule of government, they should at least have a say in the matter.

But hey, there might be a solution for democracy...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10 ... -to-obama/

[Teahive]

Mike Collins. Oh yeah, he is totally unbiased...

He certainly is biased, but it's not his research, and both the numbers and the methods used are open. Don't dismiss the findings just because you don't like the messenger.

My philosophy is that if people want a say they should Pay for it! Those of us pulling the wagon do not need input from those riding in the wagon.

Maybe those in the wagon don't want to be pulled.

Good for Romney. About time we used the Democrat tactics against them! Actually, I think the article is nonsense. I have no doubt that Obama and Clinton would rig elections if they could, but I don't believe goody two-shoes Romney would do such a thing. It is out of character for him.

You made my day.

But I wouldn't attribute it to Romney, anyway. There are plenty of people outside of the candidates themselves who would be interested in manipulating election outcomes.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10 ... -to-obama/

Do you expect me to argue along party lines? Vote rigging is vote rigging. This should be investigated, the software and hardware checked for signs of tampering.