<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Dec 13 2009, 03:13 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What is it precisely that you despise so much about the limited-government contingent within American politics?
If I don't buy Obama care, I get fined or put in prison.
If I don't believe my tax money should be spent buying abortions, I will be thrown in jail for civil disobedience.
If I don't think it is wise to bet the future of our nation on windmills and solar panels so I stop giving my tax dollars to big business green sham, I will be rounded up and thrown in jail.
Conversely, no one is thrown in jail for overpaying their taxes.
No one is thrown in prison for using solar panels to power their home.
No one is thrown in prison for spending their own money on a legal abortion.
From time to time Republicans are a bit eager to go to war with the enemies of our country, but their war mongering pales in comparison to the people who nonchalantly use government force on their own countrymen b/c they believe God should have granted them the power to control the United States.
Democracy was not invented so we could deceive one another into believing that we are in control of everything. Democracy was invented so we could stop governing officials and career politicians from playing God.
Limited-government is the only arrangement for any rational thinker who understands he is merely a common man.
Lex, if you truly believe that voting Republican would afford you a greater level of democracy than voting Democrat then more fool you. The freedom of choice for the individual that you believe accompanies economic liberty is merely an illusion. Over here true liberal thought has been dictated by rampant political correctness, and an oppressive nanny state run by the thought Gestapo of New Labour. But this is not simply a socialist model that you fear..Labour stepped into the vacuum vacated by a sleaze ridden tory party during the late nineties, and were kept in power by a burgeoning housing market supposedly driving a robust economy, an unregulated market which swelled to distended proportions, before the whole gaseous noxious bubble burst and ...... up millions of households, businesses and lives.
Every four years, you are presented with a choice between two major party candidates in the Presidential election in the falacious belief that either of these candidates are the “mainstream” candidates and if you want your vote to count, you need to choose between either one.
For genuine advocates of limited government and the supposed personal liberties that this bestows, that the republican party is exclusively synonymous with this is a misguided premise. If you truly believe in a limited, decentralized government which protects the interests of both economic and personal liberties and rights, whichever way you are polarised there isn’t a major party candidate that will generally fit your values. In the case of the Democratic Party there is a strong contingent that you perceive wishing to violate your economic rights and liberties, whilst on the other side there are too many members wanting to violate your personal rights and liberties.
The current deference to government power is moving us from the individualistic 'Father knows best' or should I rephrase that to 'Founding Father knows best' ethos, to the current way, a 'government knows best' mentality where Barack Obama and his cohorts will dictate economic planning from above because they assume to know best. This is perhaps understandable though Lex in the light of the 'banker knows best' disaster that was inflicted upon the Western World as a result of the non interventionist Laissez Faire doctrine that you so condone. As you have always reminded us Lex, deference to government knowledge and planning is dangerous and is directly responsible for the large part of suffering in the world. But the situation is as acute in the Republican Party, where too many individuals have capitulated in the face of central government demands and interests in exchange for power.
This is as confused a debate as the Rossi Bopper one in which I was branded a Rossi Hater and a bopper within the space of a week. You suppose that I am opposed to the doctrine of Limited Government, yet Povol called me a liberal (albeit as a derogatory term). Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations remains the touchstone of economic liberalism. This is the nub of the argument, that in politics, particularly the case of American Politics, the waters are are extremely muddied and cannot be reduced to such simple construct or even resolved by common ground or a dialectical debate that you always run a mile from.
I am not suggesting that one should sit on a fence, that is a rickety stance, but a view from the bridge allows one to see the individual currents and vicissitudes of the political system as opposed to being mindlessly driven along by the mainstream flow of party affiliation. Paddle your own canoe Lex
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Dec 13 2009, 03:20 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>But you would have,you fit the profile to the tee
I thought you were from the UK,if not excuse me,but those governments have reached levels of idiocy never known to man . Just because they speak the Kings English doesnt make them any smarter, or incapable of stupidity. There is no such thing as a political affiliation who is not capable of any level of idiocy. I personally hate them all,just some more than others.
No I'm honestly not sure I would have voted Democrat Povol - it's very hard for me to say without being resident in the US.
You are wrong. Actually in the UK our governments have long
surpassed levels of idiocy known to man. Regarding political affiliation - I agree, and as I have just concurred with you in the above, there is no such thing as political affiliation which is not in some way aligned with some level of idiocy..a fact that Lex often overlooks. But these are
varying levels of idiocy, and as such voting is very much an exercise in damage limitation. There was a BBC News journalist called Martin Bell who resplendent in his white suit, took a very similar view and and boldly stood as an independent in '97 against one of the historically safest conservative seats in the country, and won. It wasn't often that he spoke in the Commons, but when he did he imparted a rational level headed rhetoric quite unheard of in the house.
Reducing this to a puerile level as I am so prone to doing; we can continue to play Rebub v's Dem 'Tube' tennis with assorted dumb soundbites, and yes, it is too easy to resort to 'dubya' but in so doing I am guaranteed to always serve an ace. Like I said, there are varying levels of idiocy, with representatives of the Rebublican party as my arsenal, let's face it, it will always be 'advantage Arrab' and ultimately game set an match to me
.
My serve:
<object width="425" height="350<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dPb-PN9F2Pc</param><param name="wmode" value="transparent</param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dPb-PN9F2Pc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350</embed></object>
icture_1.png]
