The US elections in November, 2010.

[maiforpeace]

If the polls stay steady until the election, looks like we will be passing Prop 19 here in California.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny." - Calvin Coolidge

SSDD.

[Coito ergo sum]

"A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny." - Calvin Coolidge

SSDD.

Perhaps, but can you think of a virtue in laying a tax on the people that is not required by public necessity and sound public policy? Is taxation an end or a virtue in and of itself?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny." - Calvin Coolidge

SSDD.

Perhaps, but can you think of a virtue in laying a tax on the people that is not required by public necessity and sound public policy? Is taxation an end or a virtue in and of itself?

First, can you tell me when an American politician first forecast the end of the United States because of taxation issues?

[Coito ergo sum]

"A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny." - Calvin Coolidge

SSDD.

Perhaps, but can you think of a virtue in laying a tax on the people that is not required by public necessity and sound public policy? Is taxation an end or a virtue in and of itself?

First, can you tell me when an American politician first forecast the end of the United States because of taxation issues?

I don't know, but that has nothing to do with the quote (which does not forecast the end of the United States).

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm voting for the Rent is Too Damn High Party! http://tv.gawker.com/5667182/crazy-rent ... gov-debate

[Warren Dew]

Jerry Brown, the Democratic candidate for governor in California, thinks we need more welfare and less jobs:

Brown, the man that would be governor once again made it clear during an on-air rant in 1995 that jobs were not only a low priority for him, but that welfare was even more important. In fact, he believes that the United States is so rich, that all of us could be on welfare as a system to replace capitalism.

“The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs. Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care.”

http://www.worldnewsheardnow.com/tier-5 ... fare/3440/

Perhaps Brown's previous stint as governor there explains the sad shape California's economy is in today.

[Elderito]

OK Fucker (a loose translation of your name) let me get this straight. You've posted many times on this thread about an impending disaster for the Democrats this November. You seem gleeful at the possibility of returning the GOP to power. The party of: Birthers, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Sharon Angle, Rush Limbaugh, Rand Paul, et al. is your preferred group?

Is that in any way rational?

These people talk of defending the Constitution but do not seem to have read it, or respect it at all. They want religious freedom only for Christians, free speech only for those with whom they agree, and habeas corpus only for those they like. Their economic policies are only politically driven, "when in power spending is good, when out of power the deficit is paramount".

Is that any way to run a country?

[Coito ergo sum]

OK Fucker (a loose translation of your name) let me get this straight. You've posted many times on this thread about an impending disaster for the Democrats this November.

...together with links to back that up. It seems to be the consensus that the Dems are going to get their heads handed to them in a big way, to the tune of 99 seats at significant risk in the House, with estimates of from about 55 to 63 seats shifting from Dem to Rep. The Senate is also predicted to have a shift, but less dramatic.

You seem gleeful at the possibility of returning the GOP to power.

Not gleeful about the GOP. I oppose them too, for the most part, since they've also not been willing to behave responsibly. I am hopeful that we may see better work done on the Hill if we have a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. We saw that in 1994, and we had some great results. I don't expect the same wonderful economy now, because we don't have something like the internet, cell phone and other new tech industries on the horizon to expand business. But, it does seem to be a good idea in American politics to have a dispersion of power between the parties.

The party of: Birthers, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Sharon Angle, Rush Limbaugh, Rand Paul, et al. is your preferred group?

No. I have as many objections to that group as I do relative to the Democrats. However, I oppose the reckless spending, and somehow, someway, someone must get the message that we can't keep going on printing money like we're Milton Bradley selling Monopoly games, and we can't create gigantic government entitlements without paying for them.

One of the saddest thing about this election year is how fuckwits like O'Donnell are in the mix.

I like what I see in Chris Christie, though. He is a no-nonsense, balance-the-budget, fix-the-problem, kind of guy, and he appears to be doing a great job in New Jersey. And, for a Republican to be popular in New Jersey is a big deal. And, he doesn't care much for pushing religion or other irrelevancies. I like that about him.

Is that in any way rational?

I don't vote for O'Donnell or any of her ilk. I live in Florida. I can only vote for who is on the ballot - I won't vote for Kendrick Meek or Alex Sink, because they offer more spending and higher taxes, across the board. That has to stop. Unfortunately, my alternatives are Rick Scott for Gov, and either Crist or Rubio for Senate. But, I think any of those latter three are worlds superior to Meek or Sink on economic issues, and that's what I care about.

These people talk of defending the Constitution but do not seem to have read it, or respect it at all.

Neither do the Democratic candidates, in the end. Each of these scumbag politicians say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean. That's why the Democrats think that everything can be handled by the Federal government - they don't give a flying FUCK about the Commerce Clause or federal "enumerated powers." Sure, I agree that the first amendment, while not using the words separation of church and state, does in fact separate church and state. However, I also believe that the federal government does not have the power to mandate private individuals purchase a commercial product as a condition of citizenship or residence. I also think that free speech includes hateful speech.

They want religious freedom only for Christians,

Some of them do, sure. And, I oppose them.

free speech only for those with whom they agree, and habeas corpus only for those they like.

Some, sure, and I oppose them. Just like the many Democrats who believe in free speech, except when it's called "hate" speech.

Their economic policies are only politically driven, "when in power spending is good, when out of power the deficit is paramount".

Is that any way to run a country?

What I advocate is lower spending and a balanced budget, or at least a controllable deficit and debt that is a manageable percentage of GDP.

If you are concerned about deficits, then you should be really concerned now, since the numbers are staggering. I heard Democrats complain about Bush's spending - "we had a surplus under Clinton, now we have a deficit." I agree - we did. And, Bush should have vetoed reckless spending, and he did not. He was not a great President. He's not the bar I want to see set. Obama had a chance to be fiscally responsible, and he made Bush look like a piker when comes to spending.

I don't know what to tell you. No, it isn't any way to run a country, but it's the country we have. And, I certainly can't see rewarding the present reckless, drunken-sailor spending spree, full of government takeovers of private companies, bailouts of private companies, massive payments to irresponsible banks, and rewards to wall street criminals masquerading as "protecting the economy." Is that any way to run a country?

We may be past the point of no return. I don't know.

[drl2]

I just came across the best summary of modern US politics I've seen:

http://www.babelgum.com/6003213/elect-t ... orant.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Many people saw the ignorant American electorate coming - it seemed that the removal of civics and government classes from the public schools, and the dilution of core classes, like math, science, history, etc., has made Americans less well educated than we were 30-40 years ago.

I think we need a revival of classical liberal arts education.

[maiforpeace]

OK Fucker (a loose translation of your name) let me get this straight.

A friendly reminder to play nice and refrain from the name-calling please. We usually refer to Coito ergo sum as CES around here.

[Coito ergo sum]

OK Fucker (a loose translation of your name) let me get this straight.

A friendly reminder to play nice and refrain from the name-calling please. We usually refer to Coito ergo sum as CES around here.

LOL - among other things....

[Warren Dew]

And, Bush should have vetoed reckless spending, and he did not.

In fairness, after the Democrats got control of Congress, some of the spending bills got big enough for even Bush to veto them - in particular a $100 billion pork barrel water bill and a $300 billion agriculture bill. Congress did override both vetoes, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Interesting Slate article about the Democrats' woes: http://www.slate.com/id/2271826/