Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. Government mostly screws up everything it touches so I want it to do as little as possible. So I can either have a conservative govt that understands that and isn't interested in legislative activism -OR- next best thing is to just stick a wrench in the works and grind the whole machine to a halt like what we're about to see here. Business agrees. The market agrees. Win.
Yes. Government mostly screws up everything it touches so I want it to do as little as possible. So I can either have a conservative govt that understands that and isn't interested in legislative activism -OR- next best thing is to just stick a wrench in the works and grind the whole machine to a halt like what we're about to see here. Business agrees. The market agrees. Win.
I would say YES. It's exactly what our Founding Fathers envisioned and is good for the people.
What say you?
I say the founding fathers did NOT envision a two party system.
They had hoped for a non-partisan government. They hoped for the best quality citizens to serve as non-partisan peers and equals to do the right thing for the country always. You can see it in how some of the constitutional powers (like impeachment and conviction for example, or the Senate confirmation of public officials and judges) are structured. They were simply majority votes with no reference to party affiliation.
Non partisans judging and approving of other non-partisans completely on merit.
They feared and dreaded partisanship, and we can see why. WE have a Republican party today that has actively been trying to shield criminals among them from justice.
Not because they ever believed those people innocent, they knew better. It was because those people were 'their guys', and therefore they had to obstruct any investigations into the crimes. One of them tried to steal the presidency for christ's sake, he conspired to overturn an election and continues to lie about the election to approving crowds even this day, and the Republican party refused to cooperate in the investigations (actually trying to sabotage them), they did not want his actions or their own actions helping him to be known.
So, is it good to have power shared? Usually.
Maybe with the old style Eisenhower Republicans, or even the Reagan Republicans. Not with the treasonous Republicans of today. Many sitting Republicans in office today are complicit in the conspiracy to overturn the election. They have dishonored themselves and the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Treasonous? That's how you 'label' those you disagree with?
....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
NO.
It's how I label traitors.
I'm guessing you were a 'Yes' on the civil war thread.
Your terms are acceptable as soon as you stop taxing us
We all have to pay for certain things like the upkeep of federal roads and bridges. We have to fund our military. As a country we have to fund many things to make us functional as a whole. If states want to get rid of medicare, medicaid, fema and other programs the federal government does to help states....then figure out a way to get out of it. I assure you your taxes would skyrocket if your state had to subsidized all of this.
You label everyone you disagree with. There's a pattern of doing that on the left by demonizing those you disagree with. You can't escape the reality of who you are and who you hate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.