FDR and select 20th century Congresses are responsible for a majority of it.
Right. Let's go back and blame FDR. Especially those of us who didn't live through the Depression and WWII. Nevermind the Depression was largely caused by 'free market' policies and the measures FDR put in place have since prevented such an economic meltdown.
Who said what about the Depression? I thought this was about government bloat. Outspending economic downturns has proven to be such a wonderful policy.
And yet you suggest we continue to vote for corruption rather than take a new direction. The only issue Republicans have left is fear. That's it, that's all they've got to sell, and I'm not buying.
Whose buying what Paul's selling? Not Congress. Govtrack says that his % of votes missed is poor in relation to peers (he misses significantly more than Pelosi and Kucinich for crying out loud, so much for the model Congressman).
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 343 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 338 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).
98.5% of the bills he sponsors don't even make it out of committee and NONE of them have been enacted. His congressional "effectiveness" says something about his position relative to the center (and probably about his ability to accomplish things as well). Even if he somehow ended up president, he's not accomplishing much of anything without Congress's backing [unless your boy decides that executive orders aren't really an abuse of constitutional power. After all, it's for a good cause....].
Yes, well thankfully Republicans lost both Houses of Congress last year depriving Bush of his sugar daddies.
You're either missing or willfully ignoring the fact that power corrupts. The small government, fiscally responsible "knight in shining armor" opposition party ends in up in power. Now what? They enact a few token reforms to demonstrate their effectiveness, then either become a do-nothing Congress who antagonize voters who want progress, or suddenly realize that power is cool, as pork, favors, and other parliamentary nonsense abounds. Or all of the above.
He says he won't run as a third party candidate and the Republican party isn't smart enough to nominate him, so I think you're safe
I know I'm safe. He lacks confidence and votes to run third party. My point was that he is no Perot.
This is not (or didn't used to be) a government of, for and by political parties, remember?
We have popularly elected representation (namely Congress). Parliaments have parties, period. Even "one party" states have factions within the state party.
An opinion many would reject. As odious as Kerry truly is, he could not have been anywhere near as destructive as Bush (who is also pro-war, pro-spending and pro-big gov btw). First, he wouldn't have enjoyed the rubber stamp Congess Bush had, giving him everything he wanted.
Second, he was critical of the Iraq war during the election campaign. He would have been forced to bring it to some resolution as early as possible, rather than repeat the droning mantra of 'stay the course'.
Third, he denounced Bush's open border policy and acknowledged the destruction of the middle class caused by illegal immigration.
It is an opinion, you can agree or disagree. It happens to be an opinion many hold as well.
First, maybe.
Second, Kerry didn't even try to disguise the fact that he'd say anything to get elected. I don' care what you think about the origins of the war, withdrawing before Iraq is stabilized (or we are told to leave by the Iraqi government) would be a grossly irresponsible act.
Third, you actually believe in the veracity of Kerry's statements on that issue?
One word: 'credulity.'
Not voting does one thing: completely excludes you from the process. This has been proven time and time again across the world, non-participation is a sure way to guarantee your concerns will be flouted.
Wrong. Casting a vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum is a choice. Voting third party or withholding my vote altogether are other choices. It's my vote to cast or withhold as I see fit. Congress was lost to the Democrats last time by that very mechanism. The purposeful withholding of votes is most assuredly an exercise of participatory power.
How clever. You should be a sophist. Did you miss or deliberately ignore what I said later on:
That's not really the case. In philosophy, one can argue that, abstractly, not choosing is a choice (i.e. choosing to not choose). That doesn't follow when it comes to voting.
Abstaining in an election is not a vote, it is an omission (your vote is not cast at all). Don't fool yourself thinking that you're voting against all of the candidates. What you are doing is not participating in deciding which candidate wins. One of them is going to win, period. You might as well vote for the best available choice. Failing that, at least vote third party. Not voting at all is ridiculous.
You are fudging the line between making a choice and actually voting. You can CHOOSE to vote for a candidate and you can CHOOSE to not participate. You can only VOTE in the election. You cannot vote by not participating. Withholding a vote only has significance where a specific amount of votes are needed or your vote is required (say in a legislative assembly). That does not pertain here. Votes are cast. They are positive actions only. If a vote is not cast, it does not exist.
Voting is representative of a choice; it is also a specific form of influence. Not voting means you exercise none of that influence on who's elected. Additionally, since you did not participate in the election, the candidates are not beholden to you.
No one's disputing that you can do what you will with your ability to vote.
Your assertions about the 2006 elections are debatable, but for sake of argumentation, sure. What have the Dems accomplished that you are so proud of? They've continued in some form every one of the "Republican" policies you take such issue with, in addition to monkeying with taxes, social programs, and foreign policy.
Record borrowing from future generations to fund an imperialistic war is not a conservative value.
Imperialism was the imposition of colonial rule by European countries, especially the scramble for Africa, during the late nineteenth century. Many writers construed imperialism in terms of their understanding of the motivating forces. Among these, Hobson, Luxemburg, Bukharin, and especially Lenin focused on economic factors, the rational pursuit of new markets and sources of raw materials. Lenin argued, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), that imperialism is an economic necessity of the industrialized capitalist economies, seeking to offset the declining tendency of the rate of profit, by exporting capital. It is the monopoly stage of capitalism.
NOPE.
Schumpeter (1919) defined imperialism as the non-rational and objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion.
NOPE
Imperialism is rooted in the psychology of rulers and the effects of surviving pre-capitalist social structures,
NOPE
not the economic interests of nation or class. Alternative accounts view imperialism as: an outgrowth of popular nationalism; a device to underwrite the welfare state, which pacifies the working class (notably in Britain); personal adventurism; an application of social Darwinism to struggles between races; a civilizing mission; and as simply one dimension of international rivalry for power and prestige. The latter implies that socialist states too were prone to be imperialistic.
Nope, nope, nope.
Wrong again. As I've already explained, the purposeful withholding of votes can drastically affect the outcome of an election. That's influence and active participation.
War is peace. Ignorance is knowledge. Slavery is freedom. And non-participation is participation, apparently.
Even if not voting affected the outcome of the election, I doubt it was in a positive manner. Does this follow: (a) You didn't vote for the GOP because you don't approve of them. (b) You didn't vote for the Dems, ditto. (c) You didn't vote for a 3rd party for some reason known best to yourself. (d) You wanted change and the GOP were in charge. (e) Therefore, you wanted them to lose. (f) You don't agree with Dems, so you don't vote for them either. (g) Therefore, you sit out of the election because you want the GOP to lose. (h) That means, in a two-party system, the Dems will win. (i) Therefore, you want you actions to help the Dems to win. (j) However, you don't vote for the Dems because you don't agree with them, yet you tacitly understand that your [in]action's likely result is in putting the Dems in power. (k) Therefore, a reasonable observer might conclude that you acted in a specific way with specific goals, but did so in an effort to avoid direct culpability. (l) You attempt to avoid direct participation because the Dems don't meet your standards either. (m) Therefore you try to avoid acknowledging that your choice is inconsistent with your principles (n) Therefore you did precisely what you condemn in others, supporting the lesser of two evils.
There is no way that could be termed active. It is a passive attempt predicated on the assumption that willful passivity involves less culpability than willful action despite being directed toward the same end.
'Bush is bad but the others are worse', is that your point? Sheesh. That's what I've been saying all along. NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE. That's why we need a new direction. Continuing to vote for 'Republicans' for no other reason than you think Dems are worse is idiocy IMO. And insanity can be described as continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different outcome.
Just say no to idiocy and insanity.
New direction, sure. We just differ on what precisely that direction should take and how to best accomplish it.
Continuing to passively stick your head in the sand in midterm elections could be termed much the same, with the added issue of beating around the bush (no pun intended).
That's not insanity, that's chaos theory
I've humored you by going relatively far afield, but I still think Ron Paul is a minimally viable candidate. Go marshal up support. Prove me wrong. In the meantime, I'll back someone who actually has a chance. That 'lesser of two evils' argument is only one perspective. The other is that 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough.'
Assuming that anyone not voting for Paul is voting for Rudy is, well, *what was the term in that other Pres discussion for people who only think in good and bad with nothing in between*