Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (117375)	12/21/2008 9:47:32 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

FF, Reagan put greenspan in charge of the nation's finances because the right wanted his libertarian approach. >>They virtually never cut spending,<< what percentage of republican presidents or congresses ever cut spending over the course of a year? you can stay within the last 100 years here. >>reduce government, reduce government's role etc...<< same as above, what percentage of republicans have ever done the above in the last 100 years? >>They expand programs and government in different ways etc... Just look at all their positions on the meltdown. It's all about bailouts and inflation.<< i will grant you that the bushevics' approach is excessive, but it is a quantitative difference and not a qualitative difference, imho. i think your view on the war is too simplistic. i think the vast majority of democrats voted to give the president power to go to war (they didn't vote to go to war, big difference) believing the president would use sound judgement. given that the only weapons of mass destruction were a pair of flying shoes, i'd say he didn't. btw, i was pro war b/c the misinformation given to me sounded credible. had i known that the administrations was 1. incompetent or 2. total liars, i would not have supported it. i doubt i'm the only one. >>The libertarian right has no real power and very little representation<< and they never will, which is EXACTLY my point. but that's not a bad thing for you as you would only be able to claim how good that form of government would be until it was tried and failed. note - it might not fail for any one person, but neither has the bushevic version of government. my foundational belief is that people are greedy (love themselves more than others) and they will manipulate any system to serve their personal advantage at the expense of others. it has happened in 100% of all forms of government every devised and i think it happens in your favorite form of government should it ever be given a chance. if nobody will ever give it a chance, well, then it isn't very practical and we might as well talk about the maximum number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.