News Experiment: Favorite National Level Politician sans Rules

[nismaratwork]

To quote Gokul: "Name your favorite politicians at the national level, and tell us why you like them - this thread is relevant to members from all countries."

Why am I doing this?... I'm curious as to whether the presence of restrictions beyond the PF norm is conducive to a different kind of thread, for better or worse. I'm interested to see if this leads to more volume of posts, but less quality. I'm more than a little curious to see how this thread might evolve in contrast to Gokul's, which I think is a fantatic experiment in need only of a control; this.

So, no rules beyond the forum standard, and let's see if this is an issue of rules one way or another, a genuine lack of interest, and how this effects quality vs. quantity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My favorites are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, George Bush, and Dick Cheney.

 

[nismaratwork]

My favorites are Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, George Bush, and Dick Cheney.

For entertainment value, or for their 'drag' effect on the republican chances in 2012?

Dick Cheney is my favorite soon-to-be cardiac arrest victim!

On a lighter note, Michelle Bachman is good for a laugh, and just think... soon we might be able to add Trump to the list.

Oh, I'd add, Michael Steele... the muppet version.

 

[Physics-Learner]

for me, all politicians are lying b******s.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For entertainment value, or for their 'drag' effect on the republican chances in 2012?

Just to show how different the thread will be from the other thread.

I would have to think for a time to come up with more than the top few, but in addition to Obama,

I like Webb; hate to see him step down. I think Webb is a good and highly capable man. I had hoped to see him on the ticket with Obama, but Biden was a very good choice.

Boehner - one of my favorite Republicans. We often [usually] don't agree but I respect him.

Don't know about our new Oregon Senator yet but I think Wyden has done a great job and is usually on the right side of issues from my pov.

I was impressed that our new Senator Merkley responded quickly and in specific terms to my email about the SC decision regarding corporate election influence.

One of my favorite people in Washington is Bob Gates. Not a politician but I can't say enough good about him. He would have loved to be out of there long ago but serves at the pleasure of the President. He is a smart, smooth, balanced, insightful, and dedicated man of the highest caliber. And unlike Rummy, he's respectful of others. He doesn't have to use words like willy-nilly or namby pamby, or call members of the press Pollyannas, in order to respond to legitimate public debate.

I have to like Biden. Hoof-in-mouth disease to be sure, but he is savvy , practical, and knowledgeable in the ways of Washington. I also judge him to be a man of fundamentally good character.

 

[nismaratwork]

Just to show how different the thread will be from the other thread.

I would have to think for a time to come up with more than the top few, but in addition to Obama,

I like Webb; hate to see him step down. I think Webb is a good and highlly capable man.

Boehner - one of my favorite Republicans. We often don't agree but I respect him.

Don't know about our new Oregon Senator yet but I think Wyden has done a great job and is usually on the right side of issues from my pov.

I was impressed that Senator Merkley responded quickly and in specific terms to my email about the SC decision regarding corporate election influence.

One of my favorite people in Washington is Bob Gates. Not a politician but I can't say enough good about him.

Heheheh... Well that was bound to happen.

I agree with Gates to a great extent, Webb is fantastic... which of course is why he's getting the hell out of washington. I'm very curious as to why you find Boehner respectable? My only real opinion of him is superficial... I know very little of his policies.

Once again I'd assert Kissinger, more for his mind that his soul (if he has one), and Golda Meir.

I'd add: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk... for all that he was a hard man, he may have saved Turkey from the fate of so many neighbors.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm very curious as to why you find Boehner respectable? My only real opinion of him is superficial... I know very little of his policies.

First and foremost, I think he is sincere. Contrast this with someone like Mitch McConnell, who is as transparent as glass and akin to a used-car salesman in my view. Boehner’s shining moment in my view was when he begged [and yes, he cried] his colleagues to support the first bank bailout. It went against everything he stands for but he put the country first. I never forget something like that when I see it. He also said damn the consequences and put himself in jeopardy with his constituents by standing firm against the tide of tea when it mattered the most. Right or wrong, he is a good and dedicated man, and a true patriot.

Once again I'd assert Kissinger

One of the smartest people to have graced the halls of the White House, in my view.

 

[nismaratwork]

First and foremost, I think he is sincere. Contrast this with someone like Mitch McConnell, who is as transparent as glass and akin to a used-car salesman in my view. Boehner’s shining moment in my view was when he begged [and yes, he cried] his colleagues to support the first bank bailout. It went against everything he stands for but he put the country first. I never forget something like that when I see it. He also said damn the consequences and put himself in jeopardy with his constituents by standing firm against the tide of tea when it mattered the most. Right or wrong, he is a good and dedicated man, and a true patriot.



One of the smartest people to have graced the halls of the White House, in my view.

Hmmm... I have to think about this... my visceral reaction to him is profoundly negative, but you're right to contrast him with McConnell, or I'd add the true nuts like Paul(s), or my new least-favorite-person-alive-in-the-senate: Peter King. "Hoo ha up the RA boys!... wait... MUSLIMS!"

Oh, and I'd take a hundred Boehners over one Santorum.

 

[Al68]

Oh, I'd add, Michael Steele... the muppet version.

I prefer the bass guitar-playing version, myself:

 

[nismaratwork]

I prefer the bass guitar-playing version, myself:

Oooooohhhh...

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually AL, and I promise not to jump on you here... do you have any favorite politicians, in any given country? I admit, you confuse the hell out of me, so maybe this would help me understand where your'e coming from a little more.

 

[Al68]

Actually AL, and I promise not to jump on you here... do you have any favorite politicians, in any given country? I admit, you confuse the hell out of me, so maybe this would help me understand where your'e coming from a little more.

You mean besides Michael Steele (the pretty one)?

Off the top of my head, I'd say Ron Paul as a living example. Barry Goldwater as a no longer living example.

Neither of those should be any surprise. Or confusing.

 

[Proton Soup]

i like Huckabee. he has a refreshing candor that you don't see much anymore, plus he seems genuinely down to Earth and friendly.

also in the telling you what they really think category, i like that guy who resigned from the State Dept. unelected, i know, but still a political position, i think.

 

[lisab]

Oh, and I'd take a hundred Boehners over one Santorum.

Hmm. That just don't sound right, nismar.

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean besides Michael Steele (the pretty one)?

Off the top of my head, I'd say Ron Paul as a living example. Barry Goldwater as a no longer living example.

Neither of those should be any surprise. Or confusing.

No, neither are, and I do respect the latter. Thanks for letting me know.

@Lisab: True, that sounds... well... I didn't give him that name!

@Proton Soup: Past or present, I don't see that it matters. I know what you mean about Huckabee... I don't think I agree with him on anything important, but he doesn't seem like the usual shark in a suit.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, neither are, and I do respect the latter. Thanks for letting me know.

@Lisab: True, that sounds... well... I didn't give him that name!

@Proton Soup: Past or present, I don't see that it matters. I know what you mean about Huckabee... I don't think I agree with him on anything important, but he doesn't seem like the usual shark in a suit.

i'm not sure i'd vote for him just yet. but I'm not really seeing any candidates atm that strike me as presidential. if any republicans emerge, i expect they will be current or ex-governors like Huck.

 

[nismaratwork]

i'm not sure i'd vote for him just yet. but I'm not really seeing any candidates atm that strike me as presidential. if any republicans emerge, i expect they will be current or ex-governors like Huck.

It is an odd field right now, but I can't tell if it's because of non-candidates like Trump and Palin using this for $$$, or if it's truly weak.

I will say this, it's going to be an intersting primary race!

 

[Proton Soup]

It is an odd field right now, but I can't tell if it's because of non-candidates like Trump and Palin using this for $$$, or if it's truly weak.

I will say this, it's going to be an intersting primary race!

i'm thinking that the presidency has become a booby prize. running for president is a dead-end career-ender, unless you're especially talented for hosting a talk show.

used to be, we didn't expect our presidents to be celebrities. and i think we were better off for it. we certainly don't expect it of our governors, and that's about the only decent talent pool for the office. i think i blame reagan and clinton. they set expectations too high for superficiality.

 

[Al68]

No, neither are, and I do respect the latter...

Now that is surprising, considering that Goldwater was one of the most libertarian politicians in Washington. He was the original "neoconservative" by most accounts.

And unlike many Republicans, Goldwater was libertarian on social issues as well. One of my favorite quotes of his: "I think every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the ***."

 

[cobalt124]

To quote Gokul: "Name your favorite politicians at the national level, and tell us why you like them - this thread is relevant to members from all countries."

Why am I doing this?... I'm curious as to whether the presence of restrictions beyond the PF norm is conducive to a different kind of thread, for better or worse. I'm interested to see if this leads to more volume of posts, but less quality. I'm more than a little curious to see how this thread might evolve in contrast to Gokul's, which I think is a fantatic experiment in need only of a control; this.

So, no rules beyond the forum standard, and let's see if this is an issue of rules one way or another, a genuine lack of interest, and how this effects quality vs. quantity.

I have an unhealthy? respect for politicians who can talk the issues like it's all obvious and don't get involved other than intellectually. I say unhealthy because usually they don't seem to be nice people. So in the U.K., Kenneth Clarke would be an example. Don't like him, don't always agree with him, but have a sneaky admiration for him. Contrast with current Foreign Secretary, William Hague (who sent the helicopter to Libya), who listening to him speak, comes across like that, but definitely isn't. Haven't explained this very well, I know, will think about it a bit more and see if I can think of anyone else (don't hold your breath though with the current shower we have in the House of Commons).

 

[cobalt124]

Also politicians who "say it how it really is" irrespective of anything else. Finding an example of a current one of these in the U.K. would be very difficult for me.

 

[nismaratwork]

Now that is surprising, considering that Goldwater was one of the most libertarian politicians in Washington. He was the original "neoconservative" by most accounts.

And unlike many Republicans, Goldwater was libertarian on social issues as well. One of my favorite quotes of his: "I think every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the ***."

His social views were hit and miss with me... although the Falwell comment is priceless, but he was a true fiscal conservative... possibly the last of his kind in the R's. I'm not really conerned with how he's styled as a conservative, neocon, libertarian, or anything else... he had some excellent points that seem to have been lost to time and background noise.

@cobalt: I call that a healthy respect, it's why I respect Kissinger for one thing. Oh... and, I'm sorry about the situation on the home front, that really is an ugly mess to pick through... still... you folks seem to produce decent politicians given time.

We (the US), as was noted by Proton, seem to be grooming our (especially presidential) politicians for nothing so much as a beauty pagent.

 

[Al68]

His social views were hit and miss with me... although the Falwell comment is priceless, but he was a true fiscal conservative... possibly the last of his kind in the R's...

Not the last. I'd say Ron Paul, and very few others, are "of his kind" in the fiscal conservative category. That's why lefties call him a nut, extremist, etc.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not the last. I'd say Ron Paul, and very few others, are "of his kind" in the fiscal conservative category. That's why lefties call him a nut, extremist, etc.

Hmmm, I should say I think he's nutty, but it's RAND Paul who strikes me as an absolute lunatic. Ron Paul is just... well... unrealistic, but he is principled so there's that.

Still, I think Goldwater has MUCH more going on in every way than Paul, but that's my opinion as a decidely non-libertarian.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not the last. I'd say Ron Paul, and very few others, are "of his kind" in the fiscal conservative category. That's why lefties call him a nut, extremist, etc.

Righties do, too.

 

[Al68]

Righties do, too.

Yeah, or "Rhinos" do anyway. But the way I see it, most politicians of both parties are perfectly content to continue down a path toward government bankruptcy and the collapse of the dollar. The "nuts" are the only ones with any apparent interest in controlling government spending.

 

[Al68]

Hmmm, I should say I think he's nutty, but it's RAND Paul who strikes me as an absolute lunatic.

I keep hearing that about both Pauls, but no justification for it other than that both of them are actually interested in getting government spending under control. The bulk of the rest are bickering over cutting $60 billion out of a bloated $3600 billion dollar spending spree destined to collapse the dollar if continued. Seriously, who's really nuts here?

I have yet to hear a rational reason why either is "nuts".

 

[mugaliens]

I keep hearing that about both Pauls, but no justification for it other than that both of them are actually interested in getting government spending under control. The bulk of the rest are bickering over cutting $60 billion out of a bloated $3600 billion dollar spending spree destined to collapse the dollar if continued. Seriously, who's really nuts here?

I have yet to hear a rational reason why either is "nuts".

+1. Both of them make very good sense to me. Certainly far better sense than the idea of spending one's way out of debt, the current "Look at me! I'm saving the country!" tactic of our current "leader."

 

[nismaratwork]

I keep hearing that about both Pauls, but no justification for it other than that both of them are actually interested in getting government spending under control. The bulk of the rest are bickering over cutting $60 billion out of a bloated $3600 billion dollar spending spree destined to collapse the dollar if continued. Seriously, who's really nuts here?

I have yet to hear a rational reason why either is "nuts".

I don't know that I HAVE a rational reason, but as I generally agree with some portion of attacking etitlements directly, that's not bad.

I think I originally formed my opinion when... one of them, Rand I think, wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy.

This is an honest question: I also recall them going after entitlements, but not Defense... is that correct or am I mixing things up? I'm not a little tired... lord I hope I don't regret this post in the morning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

+1. Both of them make very good sense to me. Certainly far better sense than the idea of spending one's way out of debt, the current "Look at me! I'm saving the country!" tactic of our current "leader."

That is a complete misrepresentation of the policies in place. Stimulus programs are not inteneded to spend our way out of debt. Do you actually believe this is the philosophy behind the recovery program? If one wishes to reduce this to a simile, stimulus programs are like starting fluid, not gasoline. We can't run a race on starting fluid, but you can't burn fuel if you can't start the engine.

Secondly, we never need to pay the debt. We need to balance the budget. Once we do that, through growth, the debt will take care of itself. We came out of WWII with a debt-to GDP-ratio of about 122% [linked many tmes before] - much higher than it is today, But by the 70s, the debt load was insignificant.

Everyone knows we need a balanced budget. In fact the only person in recent memory to do so was a Democrat - Clinton. The problem is that we just suffered the worst economic crisis since the Depression. NOW is not the time for radical cuts in spending. If we manage to underspend and stall growth, the damage will likely be much worse than continued spending. We need to work towards a balanced budget, but we need to allow time for the recovery to continue gaining momentum. Once the engine is firing on all cylinders, then we can start the race.

If one objects to spending policies based on some specific theory of economics, that is one thing, I can respect that. That is logical. But reducing your position to the argument that THEY are all stupid and only you understand this, and all Democrats just want to spend us into oblivion, is nothing but a fact-deprived convenience used to support a personal bias.

 

[Al68]

NOW is not the time for radical cuts in spending.

The problem is in how we define "radical". Using the word radical to refer to $100 billion, or several times that, out of a $3600 billion budget is insane.

I don't know what's worse, Democrats opposing $60 billion in "cuts" (reduction in spending increases), or Republicans thinking that that's in the right ballpark. Or Harry Reid on the Senate floor lecturing about the importance of continuing funding for a "Cowboy Poetry Festival" in Nevada. Seriously.

Spending "cuts" an order of magnitude greater than what Democrats call "radical" would be very modest by any reasonable standard. Not to mention the only way to avert disaster.

And why is it that Democrats talk about federal spending as if they were completely oblivious to the fact that it's a net drain on the economy? Do they think wealth just magically appears so they can spend it?

 

[Al68]

I don't know that I HAVE a rational reason, but as I generally agree with some portion of attacking etitlements directly, that's not bad.

I think I originally formed my opinion when... one of them, Rand I think, wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy.

This is an honest question: I also recall them going after entitlements, but not Defense... is that correct or am I mixing things up? I'm not a little tired... lord I hope I don't regret this post in the morning.

You probably will regret it, considering that you admitted not having a rational reason to consider the Rands nuts. But don't worry, you can retract it. Call it a typo or something.

As far as eliminating the DOE, I'm not sure specifically, but I'm pretty sure both Pauls (and I) want several federal departments eliminated. That obviously doesn't mean eliminating all of DOE's functions, it just means combining and streamlining federal departments. The overlapping and bloated bureaucracies we now have are nothing short of ridiculous. Pretty nutty, huh?

And I'm pretty sure both want serious entitlement reform, and to reduce defense spending. Defense should be the bulk of the federal budget, since that's the primary reason we have a federal government, but the bulk of the federal budget should be much smaller.

 

[Pythagorean]

I have no idea what any politicians are talking about. I have even less idea what people talking about politicians are talking about.

I'm slightly tempted to project my ignorance onto everyone else.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have no idea what any politicians are talking about. I have even less idea what people talking about politicians are talking about.

I'm slightly tempted to project my ignorance onto everyone else.

Why not? Sans Rules... go for it man.

@Al68: Probably, but the truth is the truth, I don't think my vague memories of conversations here rise to the level of a rational reason for them to be nuts.

I disagree with them for most of the reasons Ivan has listed, but to be fair, that just makes them scary, not nuts.

 

[Al68]

I disagree with them for most of the reasons Ivan has listed, but to be fair, that just makes them scary, not nuts.

Scary? The U.S. survived most of its history without the regulatory state and welfare state, and without an income tax. Without any of the things most opposed today by the Rands and others. Not only survived, but went from literally nothing to become the greatest economic power in history. Yep, scary stuff there.

 

[Gokul43201]

And you believe that all the policies that helped US growth in the 19th century will work as well today?

 

[nismaratwork]

Scary? The U.S. survived most of its history without the regulatory state and welfare state, and without an income tax. Without any of the things most opposed today by the Rands and others. Not only survived, but went from literally nothing to become the greatest economic power in history. Yep, scary stuff there.

The conditions for workers during that time were'nt exactly stellar, and the history of countries is one of passing through such a period and emerging with protections for its citizenry.

I wouldn't expect to recreat the progress of the last 100 years by turning the clock on politics back by a similar measure.


edit: Nooooo! Gokul beat me... this time.. *ta ta TUM!*

 

[Al68]

And you believe that all the policies that helped US growth in the 19th century will work as well today?

For the most part, yes. Although it would seem obvious that "policies" is an odd word to use, considering the fact that it is a lack of government policies that we're talking about. Government for the most part simply didn't make economic policy for free citizens; they made their own policies for themselves as free citizens.

 

[Al68]

The conditions for workers during that time were'nt exactly stellar, and the history of countries is one of passing through such a period and emerging with protections for its citizenry.

I wouldn't expect to recreat the progress of the last 100 years by turning the clock on politics back by a similar measure.

I said nothing about turning back the clock on the conditions for workers. I was referring to exactly what I said: there was no federal welfare state, regulatory state, or income tax, none of which is necessary for decent working conditions. The living conditions of working people greatly improved during during that time as a result of economic freedom.

Today, federal regulations and high taxes are stifling economic growth, inhibiting wealth creation and decent jobs. That's a bad thing, not a good thing, for working people. How could you possibly misinterpret my post to mean the polar opposite of it's actual meaning?

 

[Pythagorean]

Why not? Sans Rules... go for it man.

By project my ignorance, I meant to imply that I'm not sure if everyone else knows what they're talking about either when it comes to politics.

Though, strangely enough, after encountering this thread, I happened to stop on a CSPAN channel and some Dem named Keith Ellison was criticizing the right and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his criticism. So I dunno, maybe I'm a Dem, not an Indie, but definitely not a Fundie (anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti, anti, anti).

 

[nismaratwork]

By project my ignorance, I meant to imply that I'm not sure if everyone else knows what they're talking about either when it comes to politics.

Though, strangely enough, after encountering this thread, I happened to stop on a CSPAN channel and some Dem named Keith Ellison was criticizing the right and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his criticism. So I dunno, maybe I'm a Dem, not an Indie, but definitely not a Fundie (anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti, anti, anti).

Maybe you're Pythagorean?

 

[Pythagorean]

maybe you're pythagorean?

rational numbers don't exist, spiders are your gods!

(woah, anti-yell feature...)

 

[nismaratwork]

rational numbers don't exist, spiders are your gods!

(woah, anti-yell feature...)

Oh you have to pick the one living creature that completely spooks me... figures.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the most part, yes.

Like reverting to tariffs for revenues? (I think I know your answer to that one, but I'm not certain.) Like getting rid of the Fed, the FDA and CDC, the VA, the DOE, NSF and NASA, the National Park Service, ...?

Although it would seem obvious that "policies" is an odd word to use, considering the fact that it is a lack of government policies that we're talking about.

Sure, I meant "policies" to include "lack of policy" as well.

Government for the most part simply didn't make economic policy for free citizens; they made their own policies for themselves as free citizens.

Government didn't do a whole lot to "promote the general welfare" of the people either, and that's something it is charged with doing.

 

[Al68]

Like reverting to tariffs for revenues? (I think I know your answer to that one, but I'm not certain.) Like getting rid of the Fed, the FDA and CDC, the VA, the DOE, NSF and NASA, the National Park Service, ...?

For revenues, yes tariffs, excise taxes, fees for services, etc. Yes, get rid of many federal agencies, consolidating legitimate functions, including some of the functions of those you listed, like veterans benefits, nuclear safety, etc. A more detailed response would belong in a different thread.

Government didn't do a whole lot to "promote the general welfare" of the people either, and that's something it is charged with doing.

Government certainly didn't do much compared to what it does today, but that's not exactly a reasonable standard, considering how intrusive and powerful today's government is. The U.S. federal government was instituted to protect our nation and our liberty, not restrict it to control society or achieve a social agenda.

 

[nismaratwork]

For revenues, yes tariffs, excise taxes, fees for services, etc. Yes, get rid of many federal agencies, consolidating legitimate functions, including some of the functions of those you listed, like veterans benefits, nuclear safety, etc. A more detailed response would belong in a different thread.Government certainly didn't do much compared to what it does today, but that's not exactly a reasonable standard, considering how intrusive and powerful today's government is. The U.S. federal government was instituted to protect our nation and our liberty, not restrict it to control society or achieve a social agenda.

May I ask you a somewhat blunt and personal question? Well, I'm about to, my point is that you don't have to asnwer:

Have you lived in a repressive regime before, a truly intrusive government? Even visiting for a time, you learn the difference between a strong central authority, and massive restrictions or moving a social agenda. Our government is powerful, but slow and beaurocratic by nature... it's too self-involved to be the force you describe.

 

[Al68]

May I ask you a somewhat blunt and personal question? Well, I'm about to, my point is that you don't have to asnwer:

Have you lived in a repressive regime before, a truly intrusive government? Even visiting for a time, you learn the difference between a strong central authority, and massive restrictions or moving a social agenda. Our government is powerful, but slow and beaurocratic by nature... it's too self-involved to be the force you describe.

Yes, I have visited many countries more intrusive than the U.S. (I'm a U.S. Navy veteran). I was comparing the current U.S. to the U.S. historically, not to those more intrusive governments. Was that not obvious? (and I was referring to economic freedom specifically).

But that makes my point even more valid: Those who prefer government intrusion to liberty have plenty of other places to go. Those of us who want liberty don't.

Clearly the U.S. ranks well in the liberty department today relative to other nations. But the fact that oppression exists elsewhere is not a justification for it. Would you say that it's fine to beat your wife because people beat their wives far worse elsewhere? That's just not a logically valid argument.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I have visited many countries more intrusive than the U.S. (I'm a U.S. Navy veteran). I was comparing the current U.S. to the U.S. historically, not to those more intrusive governments. Was that not obvious? (and I was referring to economic freedom specifically).

I understand that, I was truly wondering what your personal experience had been. You talk about the US government in a way that reminds me of someone in ye olde Romania, or Greece. I wondered if that was a result of not really understanding what a truly intrusive government can do, but I believe you, so that's a moot point.

But that makes my point even more valid: Those who prefer government intrusion to liberty have plenty of other places to go. Those of us who want liberty don't.

Clearly the U.S. ranks well in the liberty department today relative to other nations. But the fact that oppression exists elsewhere is not a justification for it. Would you say that it's fine to beat your wife because people beat their wives far worse elsewhere? That's just not a logically valid argument.

I don't believe that we're oppressed, just because the world, the population, and the government has grown with time. It's a matter I've addressed before... we have profoundly different perceptions of similar situations.

 

[Al68]

I don't believe that we're oppressed, just because the world, the population, and the government has grown with time. It's a matter I've addressed before... we have profoundly different perceptions of similar situations.

Obviously, I was using the word "oppressed" in a relative sense. We are economically oppressed more so today in the U.S. than historically, but far less than many other countries. As was pointed out before, the U.S. ranks 9th in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom" .

The fact that I oppose current infringements on liberty in the U.S. should not be taken as some indication that I am unaware that similar, and worse, infringements are common around the world.

 

[nismaratwork]

Obviously, I was using the word "oppressed" in a relative sense. We are economically oppressed more so today in the U.S. than historically, but far less than many other countries. As was pointed out before, the U.S. ranks 9th in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom" .

The fact that I oppose current infringements on liberty in the U.S. should not be taken as some indication that I am unaware that similar, and worse, infringements are common around the world.

Your vehemence seems to be in conflict with your actual beliefs... you recognize the freedom we have, so is it fear of the future that has you, or something I'm just not understanding?

To me, in this, "...best of all possible worlds..." we're lucky to be where we are. The notion that we can return to a simpler time replete with liberty from the government in return for social slavery, is largely illusory in my view.

The way you seem to want to proceed doesn't, in my view, yield positive resuls (for many reasons already stated in other threads, and here by Gokul).