Presidential Election: 2012

[Famine]

Domestic;.. makes me think of training the dog to not take a dump in the living room. Yes i mean national politics, as in politics in the homeland aka where one rules within his own borders.

That's domestic. National politics are the politics of a nation.

Thats the area of lesser expertise with professor Dog regarding the american president. I do remember tough that the patriot act started before Obama came into power.

Bush signed the original Patriot Act. It was temporary legislation, set to expire in 2010 but, after forcing it through the House of Representatives, Obama signed a three year extension to it. Oh look, Obama acting as Bush did - say it ain't so!

Aside the fact that Obama is not a inbred idiot

Is he supposed to be? If not, who is? Why is this a concern in the discussion of Obama being the same President as Bush by actions?

he also did not start campaigning the UN with false accusations so he could start a war for the purpose of oil, and lucrative contracts for daddy's friends (haliburton, military contracts...), which ultimately cost the lives of more than 100.000 people.

So who's done that then? That rather sounds like the mantra of someone who hasn't bothered checking their facts. Gosh, let's hope it's not "brainwashing" from wholly trustworthy (because they aren't American) news outlets.

But at least he said he would send the troops no? How noble...

Which would you rather have, a President who says "I'm going to sent my army into Kreblachistan" and does so or a President who says "I'm going to withdraw my army from Kreblachistan when I get into power" and does not?

And Obama lying about putting more troops in countries he said he'd withdraw them from? I have this nice graph for you here:

40,000 looks like it's a lot more than zero to me.

Not to mention the troops in Afghanistan (68,000).

Not to mention the troops in Pakistan - an ally. Or the tripling - tripling - of unmanned drone strikes in that country. Which is an ally.

Not to mention the troops in Libya.

Not to mention the troops in Yemen - an ally - or the Philippines - an ally.

Not to mention the threat to send troops into Syria.

He's sure made a great job of not fighting Bush's wars. Wait, don't tell me, he has to invade allies in the pursuit of Al Qaeda - a justification Bush used but you reject for Bush. Wait, don't tell me, he has to conduct drone strikes on allies because allies' security forces aren't as good as the USA's are because they might have terrorists infiltrating them or terrorist sympathisers in their ranks - unless it's Spain which has no domestic problem with terrorism.


Have you not noticed that you're justifying Obama's actions based on his presentation while condemning the same actions from Bush - that you're endorsing well-spoken lies over the fumbled truth?

It requires one to abandon critical thinking or ignore reality to imagine that, somehow, Obama is different to Bush. Or that Kerry would have been different to Bush. Or that McCain would have been different to Obama. Or that Romney may be different to Obama. Obama's a salesman and he seems to have very many loyal customers who won't hear a bad word against him.

 

[mister dog]

I'm sure that if there wouldn't be any american presence in those countries, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have free game to operate, you would be the first on the bandwagon to say "why didn't Obama do more to stop them", after a new big terrorist attack on US soil...

What's the man supposed to do then? Get all american troops out of there and hope that terrorism calls it a day? I don't think that would work + let's not forget that they mostly let of suicide bombs in their local countries for now, as it's too difficult to have one explode in the US (which would be the main objective for every jihadist).

Let's also not forget the recent example of that man that wanted to bomb the federal reserve in the US. He was stopped on time but the danger is still there, and his sponsors come from the countries that you mention. You need to be present there to be able to fight them, no invasion based on lies, but using your far superior technology to aid the local govs in stopping them where they make camp.

 

[Famine]

I'm sure that if there wouldn't be any american presence in those countries, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have free game to operate, you would be the first on the bandwagon to say "why didn't Obama do more to stop them", after a new big terrorist attack on US soil...

But then I'm not trying to show why Obama isn't Bush based on his just-about identical foreign policy...

You're repeatedly justifying Obama's actions - while condemning Bush for identical ones - and failing to notice he said he'd do the opposite...

What's the man supposed to do then?

Not make promises he either cannot keep or will not keep.

It's simply not that complex. But apparently there's quite a few people - more Europeans than Americans - who are so completely sold on the lies they will justify anything Obama does because he isn't Bush...

Let's also not forget the recent example of that man that wanted to bomb the federal reserve in the US. He was stopped on time but the danger is still there, and his sponsors come from the countries that you mention. You need to be present there to be able to fight them, no invasion based on lies, but using your far superior technology to aid the local govs in stopping them where they make camp.

Again, justifying Obama's actions - the ones he said he wouldn't take - while you condemn Bush for doing the same! Hilariously, you're even endorsing the Bush-era satire of the USA acting as world police...

 

[mister dog]

Let's get this clear; i don't blame Bush for striking at Al Qaeda and the taliban wherever they were, as it's a way to defend his country.

I do blame Bush and his crew; for using the fear installed with the american public for terrorist atacks; so he could do a full blown invasion of a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda; to get rid of Saddam (daddy failed on that one), get all the oil, and have a good old day with all the contracts that war generated, making him and his crew filthy rich.

You see the difference there?

 

[Famine]

I do blame Bush and his crew; for using the fear installed with the american public for terrorist atacks; so he could do a full blown invasion of a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda; to get rid of Saddam (daddy failed on that one), get all the oil, and have a good old day with all the contracts that war generated, making him and his crew filthy rich.

You see the difference there?

Yes. Most of that isn't true.

Most of the US's oil is domestic - in fact US oil production is on course to overtake the world's largest oil producing nation (Saudi) this decade and it makes 70% of its own requirements (with this also increasing in the next few years). Invading Iraq for oil is nonsensical, but also apparently failed - since Iraq made $100bn for itself in 2011 from its oil industry, rather than for the USA. Notice how oil and petrol prices are going up? Don't you think that if we had unfettered access to Iraqi oil, it'd be going down?

As for making Bush filthy rich... You have to be quite rich to make a run for President anyway - Obama's campaign cost $1bn alone. Romney's cost $800m. For comparison, Kerry and Bush put together in 2004 (you know, when Bush "and his crew" were being made "filthy rich" by Iraqi oil) cost $900m... Oh, and Obama's 2008 campaign cost $1bn too - either of Obama's Presidential campaigns have cost more than the entire combined Presidential campaigns of any other Presidential election in history.

Incidentally, Bush holds an MBA from Harvard and made millions in the Bush Texan oil businesses - founding his own oil exploration company like his father before him. He was a personal millionaire long before his dad became President. He was "filthy rich" before you ever heard of him. Barack Obama was a lecturer in constitutional rights (apparently currently not practising what he preached back then). He's only just about a millionaire today - and surrounds himself with much of the same "crew" Bush did..:

Only Obama could hand over gazbillions of dollars to wall street investment firms and line the pockets of health insurance companies, maintain ALL wars he promised to get rid of while interfering in others and putting us on the road to new ones he has promised to start "if it comes to that" and still be seen as a candidate who is anti-big business and anti-war.

... which remains the case.


You seem to have read an awful lot of propaganda about the nature of the "War on Terror" (and "Operation Enduring Freedom") - which is funny given you denounced US media as "brainwashing". It largely seems to be anti-Republican in nature and not particularly logical.


Most people from the USA in this thread are telling you that Obama's policies and actions as a whole are a continuation of Bush's policies and actions - not a reversal. Even Obama's keynote policy of universal healthcare has the single result of making billions for the health insurance industry.

You won't accept it because it doesn't feel right.

I have no idea how anyone can think a man who didn't withdraw troops from a country he said he'd withdraw them from, added more to another, put more in new places and conducts drone strikes on allies, his own citizens and children is a hope for peace. I have no idea how anyone can think a man who presided over a doubling of unemployment, a doubling of unemployment rates, a doubling of national debt, two rounds of "quantitative easing" (spending your way out of debt) and whose plan to improve the lives of 20 million people ends up costing 300 million people more, forcing small businesses out of work and giving billions to a handful of large companies is a hope for economic stability. I have no idea how pointing this out means supporting his opponent who plans exactly the same but with a different animal figurehead.

 

[Signal52]

(Not an Obama supporter, btw)

 

[FoolKiller]

Will be a year in a few months I believe. I just want to know if I am crazy at the fact my friend talks a dookie storm about Bush but doesn't know even know what the NDAA is!! Irony?

Show him this video, where reporter Ben Swann lays out the path of Obama's multiple lies on the NDAA and his administrations refusal to answe, to a judge, about whether they have held Americans in detention without warrant for suspicion of terrorism.

Mister dog, and any others who think Obama is honest and not like Bush should watch too.

Domestic;.. makes me think of training the dog to not take a dump in the living room. Yes i mean national politics, as in politics in the homeland aka where one rules within his own borders.

Domestic means at home. There is domestic and foreign policy and politics. National politics are the politics of the federal government as a whole, as opposed to local politics, the politics in a local community.

I do remember tough that the patriot act started before Obama came into power.

And Obama promised to end it, but instead extended it. Then has his own, worse, version known as the NDAA (see above). You should Google it. Also note that he signed it while out of the country, using an automated remote signing system, late in the evening, when it would not get much press coverage. He signed an atrocious bill into law as far out of the public eye as he could manage. Never mind that he told the American people he would not sign it as it was written, or that Bush, Romney, and McCain, as well as many other Republicans you hate, publicly say they support him on that decision. Now tell me he isn't acting like Bush while Bush applauds his actions.

And Obama lying about putting more troops in countries he said he'd withdraw them from? I have this nice graph for you here:

Check your dates. See how the withdrawal began in 2007? Obama was elected in 2008 and took office in 2009. The withdrawal was a Bush policy already in action before Obama was even nominated by the Democratic party. Obama just continued with Bush's plan. At most we can credit Obama for the sharpest decrease in 2011, well past when he promised to have us out, and still not complete.

I do blame Bush and his crew; for using the fear installed with the american public for terrorist atacks; so he could do a full blown invasion of a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda;

Like Pakistan, Iran, and Yemen? Or is just attacking specific targets and killing hundreds of civilians OK so long as you don't actually declare war on the country that itself has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and is asking you to stop bombing them? Military force is military force. Pick and choose how you want to decide when it is right or wrong all you want, it does not make innocent people any less dead or keep Obama clear from violating any international and national laws.

to get rid of Saddam (daddy failed on that one),

And now I know you have been listening to bullspit reports and biased media. Whatever the reason for going into Iraq under Bush Jr. (I admit it seems fishy) Bush Sr did not fail to get rid of Saddam, because he never made that a goal. Iraq invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia. Both countries asked for help, so we did. Once Iraq pulled out of Kuwait and surrendered we stopped pursuing them. Mission accomplished, two allies made safe.

All that said, right or wrong, Saddam committed multiple acts of war that would have justified Bush Jr's war. The big one that sticks out to me was an assassination attempt against Bush Sr. If attempting to kill the leader of a country is not an act of war then I would love to know what it takes. And it was one of many reasons listed on the war powers bill, signed by Congress. That is another thing that Bush did that Obama did not. The US president has a small window to use troops in other countries without going to Congress. In every instance, Obama failed to do that. There was even a filibuster in the Senate by Rand Paul over the Libya situation.

Obama's diplomacy may seem fine overseas but it is lacking, and illegal, at home.

get all the oil,

Too bad that never actually happened. I'd love some cheap gas.

and have a good old day with all the contracts that war generated, making him and his crew filthy rich.

Replace war with stimulus and you just described Obama. But you don't care if he steals my money to pay his crony buddies.

You see the difference there?

There is one? The end results are all the same.

 

[oopssorryy]

With the way this thread is going I thought this would interest a few people. It is an Alex Jones video, so some controversial things will be said, but he does raise a few good points and goes over them in detail. Go to around 45 minutes in for some interesting stuff. Good watch the whole way through IMO

 

[TheBook]

Anybody know why Gary Johnson isn't on the ballot in Michigan? The only thing I found showed that it was "in litigation", whatever that means.

 

[Joey D]

Anybody know why Gary Johnson isn't on the ballot in Michigan? The only thing I found showed that it was "in litigation", whatever that means.

He ran in the presidential primaries as a Republican and obviously lost. Michigan state law prohibits candidates who have lost to run under a different party in general elections.

The Libertarian Party can still be on the ballot though and there are always write-ins.

 

[bevo]

I just can't imagine voting for a man who blamed a terrorist attack on a YouTube video when it was obvious that wasn't the case. All the other issues to me mean nothing after that. It was a blatant slap to the face to every american's intelligence. I really don't see why this isn't a bigger issue. If he would outright lie to all Americans about such a tragic situation how could anything he ever says be taken seriously. It's pretty scary when you think about how easily he lied about it just to try and save face during an election.

 

[sumbrownkid]

It's not a bigger issue because people are worried about their job security or getting a job than some inbred whackjob's Youtube video promoting hatred on Muslims.

I'm in the same boat as the jobs people.

 

[Quackjack]

Now people are claiming Obama engineered Sandy to stay in power... epic fail guys.

 

[Joey D]

Now people are claiming Obama engineered Sandy to stay in power... epic fail guys.

If Obama could engineer a storm, we would have used it on terrorist while shouting USA! USA! USA!

 

[Danoff]

Now people are claiming Obama engineered Sandy to stay in power... epic fail guys.

Well Bush did engineer Katrina because he hates black people... so... that's old technology.

 

[livemusic]

Krugman approves of engineered storms to help the economy.

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

Show him this video, where reporter Ben Swann lays out the path of Obama's multiple lies on the NDAA and his administrations refusal to answe, to a judge, about whether they have held Americans in detention without warrant for suspicion of terrorism.

Thanks for that! I didn't do it yet because I feel I should have calm relations during this hurricane! He just posted more things about how everyone hates Obama but Obama's been real change. Is it safe to say my friend is nuts?

 

[FoolKiller]

Thanks for that! I didn't do it yet because I feel I should have calm relations during this hurricane! He just posted more things about how everyone hates Obama but Obama's been real change. Is it safe to say my friend is nuts?

Depends on how they define change, I guess. If change is pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro green, pro gun control, then yes it is change.

If change is less dictatorial executive powers, less government interference, and less military actions, then it hasn't happened.

Fact is, way too many people support large government so long as it takes their side on specific issues. Few realize that large government eventually screws everyone over.

 

[Joey D]

Fact is, way too many people support large government so long as it takes their side on specific issues. Few realize that large government eventually screws everyone over.

But what if it's what the people want? I don't think big government is all doom and gloom that some people like to make it. If it was wouldn't people rise up against it?

And isn't it always people supporting the government as long as it's on their side? I mean you support smaller government as it takes your side on specific issues.

 

[Keef]

But what if it's what the people want?

What if "the people" doesn't include me? Everybody has their own opinion but there is an extreme difference between legislating the freedom to express those opinions (as the Constitution does) and legislating an actual opinion itself (as affirmative action/gay marriage/various welfare taxes/healthcare laws do). The only way to be fair to everybody is to not cater to anybody, but instead to give all individuals the freedom to strive for their own well being in whatever way they see fit so long as they don't harm another person's life, liberty, or property in the process.

Foolkiller and I do not support small government because it takes our side on things. We support it specifically because it doesn't take our side on anything, and doesn't force us or anybody else to do all sorts of things that we think are silly.

Here's an example: Do you want to pay into Social Security to help the elderly? If so, great, go ahead and do that. But I don't want to, so why should I be forced to? That's not fair. If you want to you should be allowed to, but if you don't want to you should never be forced to, and yet we are.

 

[Joey D]

What if the people doesn't include me? The only way to be fair to everybody is to not cater to anybody, but instead to give all individuals the freedom to strive for their own well being in whatever way they see fit so long as they don't harm another person's life, liberty, or property in the process.

Foolkiller and I do not support small government because it takes our side on things. We support it specifically because it doesn't take our side on anything, and doesn't force us to do all sorts of things that we think are silly.

Here's an example: Do you want to pay into Social Security to help the elderly? If so, great, go ahead and do that. But I don't want to, so why should I be forced to? That's not fair. If you want to you should be allowed to, but if you don't want to you should never be forced to, and yet we are.

But what if smaller government doesn't include me? If you have a smaller government you are catering to those who don't want a big government, thus being unfair to those who do want a big one. Either way one group isn't going to be treated fairly. A fair government would be one that caters to everyone and since human nature doesn't work that way, no government will ever exist like that.

Bottom line: In the end someone's going to get screwed.

 

[Famine]

Bottom line: In the end someone's going to get screwed.

The more powers, rights and freedoms you give to a government, the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more likely it is that your personal rights and freedoms will be ignored - or rather trampled - in order to enact some policy that its no-one's right to benefit from.

A government should not cater to you in any way. Or me. Or anyone. It shouldn't take sides, nor favour any party over any others. This is what fair government is. Only a small government, limited in its powers, can achieve this.


You're probably right that such a government may never exist - because people are selfish and misunderstand the purpose of government, and will happily give away their rights and freedoms (sometimes even ignorant of their existence) because they think it'll help them or honour some random, ridiculous belief they have (like that gays shouldn't marry). That's no reason not to try to make it happen.

 

[Joey D]

The more powers, rights and freedoms you give to a government, the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more likely it is that your personal rights and freedoms will be ignored - or rather trampled - in order to enact some policy that its no-one's right to benefit from.

A government should not cater to you in any way. Or me. Or anyone. It shouldn't take sides, nor favour any party over any others. This is what fair government is. Only a small government, limited in its powers, can achieve this.

You're probably right that such a government may never exist - because people are selfish and misunderstand the purpose of government, and will happily give away their rights and freedoms (sometimes even ignorant of their existence) because they think it'll help them or honour some random, ridiculous belief they have (like that gays shouldn't marry). That's no reason not to try to make it happen.

It's only an opinion though, there's nothing factual to say a big government will always trample the rights of the people. If you ask someone who prefers big government they'll give you the exact same answer with the word small replaced with the word big. I'm not advocating large government here, I'm just saying that I don't believe a small government would be really any better or worse than a big one. So really I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[Keef]

...thus being unfair to those who do want a big one.

I don't understand how a small government is unfair to anyone. See, because to finance a big government you must take resources to finance it from people who may not want to give up those resources. You don't have to do that with a small government, at least not nearly the same degree.

Either way one group isn't going to be treated fairly.

In a small government everybody would be allowed to do as they please, work as they please, and keep the money they earned as they please. In a big government nobody is allowed to do as they please because of oppressive laws, nobody is allowed to work as they please because of safety regulations and affirmative action, and nobody is allowed to keep the money they earn as they please because that money is forcibly taken from them to finance the government.

A fair government would be one that caters to everyone

Completely the opposite. Because to cater to everyone, the government must take from someone. Government is not Walmart, you cannot simply choose not to walk in and pay them or else you will be punished.

It's quite clear to me that you have no idea what "fair" means. Since our government derives its power from the people, we can objectively state the people who support big government are acting unfairly, as they support forcibly taking the resources of some people and giving it to others. Those people cannot logically state that small-government supporters are unfair when the very thing they support is objectively unfair.

There is absolutely no way for you to justify that it's fair to take something from somebody who doesn't want to give it up. That is precisely what a large and powerful government must do in order to operate.

My small government philosophy is very simple: If you want the government to take your money and give it to others - you do, clearly - then do it. But if you don't want them to take your money, you don't have to. It's really ****ing simple.

Basically what I'm saying is stop being a mooch. Give to causes if you want to, but stop forcing other people to give if they don't want to.

It's only an opinion though, there's nothing factual to say a big government will always trample the rights of the people.

There has never been a single case throughout recorded history of a government which has expanded, gone to war, stifled productivity, and stripped rights from the people, that has survived. They have all failed. Every. Single. Time. That is precisely where this government is headed - and all others - if we do not get back to Constitution law which was established by studying all those failed civilizations throughout history to see what went wrong.

You're wrong that we don't know this will fail. In fact, what we don't know is that our Constitution can succeed. Never in the history of man has a civilization been established that operated the way the Constitution does. We don't know if it can work, but what we do know is that if we don't try to make it work we will fail like everybody else did.

 

[Joey D]

I don't understand how a small government is unfair to anyone.

It's unfair to those who want a big government. If you support a government that takes care of its citizens through programs, distribution, etc. You'd be treated unfairly if all the went away because something you stand for is no longer an option and you've had something stripped from you. It's the exact opposite of what you happen to believe in and it still carries the same validity.

In a small government everybody would be allowed to do as they please, work as they please, and keep the money they earned as they please. In a big government nobody is allowed to do as they please because of oppressive laws, nobody is allowed to work as they please because of safety regulations and affirmative action, and nobody is allowed to keep the money they earn as they please because that money is forcibly taken from them to finance the government.

That means trusting people to do the right thing, which they won't. Humans need confinement and need structure, it's how it's been since we first started to become human and band together. Having a government where everyone does as they please will never be feasible or ever practical.

My small government philosophy is very simple: If you want the government to take your money and give it to others - you do, clearly - then do it. But if you don't want them to take your money, you don't have to. It's really ****ing simple.

Ya, no I don't want that, I've even said I'm not advocating big government here. I'm just saying thinking your beliefs are right is no different than anyone else thinking their beliefs are right. People who believe in big government can rattle off a ton of reasons why it's good for the country and how it'll allow us to succeed. In the end though I think a small government would fail just as miserably as a large government

You're wrong that we don't know this will fail. In fact, what we don't know is that our Constitution can succeed. Never in the history of man has a civilization been established that operated the way the Constitution does. We don't know if it can work, but what we do know is that if we don't try to make it work we will fail like everybody else did.

I'm not sure how you get that it will absolutely fail. There's an equal chance of any form of government working for a given population.

 

[Famine]

It's only an opinion though, there's nothing factual to say a big government will always trample the rights of the people.

Hence "more likely".

If you ask someone who prefers big government they'll give you the exact same answer with the word small replaced with the word big.

Except there's no logical basis for that position.

Big government exists to rule, not to govern. It exists to take rights and freedoms (usually financially, but not always) "for the greater good". A government with limited powers - a small one - cannot do this because it simply doesn't have the power.


Take incandescent light bulbs. The bulbs are cheap and effective but also a little inefficient at the job of making light, using up electricity to make heat instead. The alternative - fluorescent, energy-saving light bulbs - are much more efficient and waste less electricity, but are less effective (particularly the switch-on phase) and more expensive to buy and make.

A big government would ban incandescent bulbs at the expense of your pocket (purchase costs) and of jobs (bulbs made in US factories replaced by bulbs made elsewhere; bulbs that are more expensive and time-consuming to make reducing profit margins and endangering workforce) because it's for the greater good to waste less electricity. A small government would not get involved - it's not fair to people to take the choice off them. A majority of people would probably decide that the overhead costs of buying the bulbs and the fact they give off sod-all light for 30s are offset by the cost of energy use and lifespan and buy them in preference, but a minority would prefer the instant light of the incandescents and just... turn their lights off more often so as not to waste electricity (and money).


Now, you may say "Well... good. Incandescents harm the polarbears!*". Well, it's your choice to do something about it or not - and it's other people's choice too. It's not your choice whether they do something about it or not - and it's not their choice whether you do.

Robbing people of the choice to do the wrong thing renders the choice to do the right thing irrelevant. You can't do good if that's the only option!

I'm not advocating large government here, I'm just saying that I don't believe a small government would be really any better or worse than a big one. So really I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

If you believe that a government's job is to tell you what rights and freedoms you have - and change them at whim - then you should believe a big government is better. If you do not, you should not.


*Crossthread joke

 

[Joey D]

Big government exists to rule, not to govern. It exists to take rights and freedoms (usually financially, but not always) "for the greater good". A government with limited powers - a small one - cannot do this because it simply doesn't have the power.

It also doesn't have the power to fight the public off from making catastrophic decisions. Sometime the government needs to step in to stop a few people from making it really bad for the rest of us. Natural resources is one thing I can see the government protecting for the good of the people, and maybe that only stems from what I've seen done to the Great Lakes...I'm looking at you Dow Chemical.

You can't trust people to do the right thing, because as history as taught us, they won't.

 

[Danoff]

It's unfair to those who want a big government.

It would be, if those people were the only ones funding big government or affected by oppressive laws. Small government gives everyone a choice, big government takes that choice away.

 

[Famine]

You can't trust people to do the right thing, because as history as taught us, they won't.

And who, exactly, forms a government?

Give government that much power and there's rectum all you can do about it. People - and industry - get their power from coin. Which is easily withdrawn with immediate, noticeable effects.

It also doesn't have the power to fight the public off from making catastrophic decisions. Sometime the government needs to step in to stop a few people from making it really bad for the rest of us.

A small government still has the police and the army to do the job of upholding citizens' rights. A big government apparently often forgets that's its job, particularly when there's coin involved to influence its decisions.

 

[Joey D]

It would be, if those people were the only ones funding big government or affected by oppressive laws. Small government gives everyone a choice, big government takes that choice away.

I don't dispute that, all I'm saying is that by going with either form of government you are going to alienate a group of people that support the other form.

And who, exactly, forms a government?

Give government that much power and there's rectum all you can do about it. People - and industry - get their power from coin. Which is easily withdrawn with immediate, noticeable effects.

Untrustworthy people, but a group of untrustworthy people might actually make a better decision then just one schmuck.

I'm not saying give the government ultimate power, but I don't think they should be powerless either.