Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
The Ukrainian Question
Topic Started: Oct 22 2014, 06:23 AM (361 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Jolly
Oct 22 2014, 11:48 AM
Quote:
 
If you can't see that then you're out of your mind.


Then consider me out of my mind.

Maybe Jefferson knew what he was talking about.

Quote:
 
"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.[1] Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
I'm not talking about what would be better—a growing or limited government—because I favor a limited government. And I'm not talking about what politicians say they're doing, or what Jefferson thought, because neither of those have any bearing on what's really going on right now in the United States.

It's undeniable that Obama's increasing the scope of the federal government. But it's also undeniable that his predecessor did no different. Or did you forget that we didn't have a DHS before Bush's tenure?

As for Mitt Romney, he wanted to double the size of Guantanamo, expand FBI wiretapping and spying programs to include civilian immigrants, and raise military spending to 4% of the GDP.

If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend the Republicans are for smaller government then that's your business, but it's not based on anything actually happening in reality.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
especially since all the reviews for Mario's are in Russian rather than Ukrainian

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2