It is very interesting to talk to you, because we see the same thing from opposite perspectives. I think it is liberals who convince poor, ignorant people into voting for dreams and ideas that either can never come to pass or are not really in their best interest. Either way, it’s how I have felt for a long time and I was shocked to see someone from another perspective express the same view; just reversed. I guess it goes to show it’s all where you stand. I also interpret “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness differently. To me that means the government should stay out of my way so I can pursue those things. I don’t expect the government to fix my mistakes and I don’t want them to take a share off the top when I am successful to provide for me and others in the future. I support individual rights and the individual’s ability to work hard and raise themselves up. I feel liberals have killed some of this spirit in the past 80 years and now they want to put a knife it’s heart.

The opinions on the economic issues can be turned the other way, too: look at Jimmy Carter and the mess Regan had to fix in the early Eighties. However, what we really witness is economic cycles; they are just part of life. When things are going bad; people like to change parties. It’s just the way it is. Social programs and government solutions provide fixes to problems; however, they saddle people with big tax burdens. How much more could you do if there were no income tax? How many more people could you help?

As for me, I ascribe to a different document for the purpose of our government: The Constitution. Remember, the document you quote is basically a letter to England explaining why we are leaving; not a document that outlines the purpose of our government. That is done here:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I would go into what I think this means, but I think we would have different definitions of “promote the general welfare.” I guess that’s the way it is. I would love to convince you to look at my side as much as I am sure you would like to convince me. However, I think we come to the crux of the issue. Here we are, obviously two educated people who have come to different conclusions. We probably have similar backgrounds and all my life I have been surrounded by those who think differently from me; however, it has not altered the truth that I feel self evident: that government is not the solution; people are.

All the best to you all. I feel enriched from the discourse with you all.

and don’t even get me started on gun control (though that obv. don’t apply to the feds)

Here it is in nutshell, then I’ll get off my soap box, Republicans run with high deficits, but keep taxes low. Democrats run with low deficits, but tend to raise taxes. Pick your poison.

Interesting points all around though. I’m very impressed that so many of you pay this close attention to Politics. It’s nice to see in this day and age.

By the way Pablo, when you’re ready to overthrow the Government, as is your constitutional right to do, remember they protect their buildings with guns, as is their constitutional right to do.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

do we forget this? goverment has an obligation under the Social Contract to “secure these rights”, which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit oof [h]appiness”. This means that government ought to look out for the welfare of its people domestically, providing health care, welfare, a plan to end the supbrime mortgage crisis, etc. because that is how people are truly happy. notice how it’s always the Republican (conservative) administrations where economic issues come to fruition: Nixon/Ford, Bush, and W. Bush. If you want to go farther back, then Herbert Hoover in 1929.

Anyway, always good debating politics, but this was really off-topic.

three (four, depending how you look at it) words for you: vast right-wing conspiracy

Mike N: I know that not everything he says is honest; but he’s fairly honest by political standards. All three remaining candidates are proven liars; however, none are convicted (remember that line: Reggie on Billy and George).

On a brighter note, The Red Sox lost today! That’s something we can all agree on…

As for your other point, how can I be conservative after 8 years of George Bush? The answer is simple: I DO NOT THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER. I think that the other two choices represent government-based solutions to health care, economic problems and would be weak on extremists. All in all, policies we never recover from and usually end up costing us more and more in taxes.

Your comment is ironic to me, because as a conservative, I often believe the masses who vote for liberal candidates are the ones being duped into what is false information, false promises and false hope.

I guess it just depends on perspective. I have been fighting this battle for years and I am tired of it. The problem is we need to get off our butts and stop waiting for the government to fix our problems. The government has one big job: to keep us safe. That’s why we are in Afghanistan and that’s why we are in Iraq. It’s why we will be in Iran and Syria and everywhere else where they aid in attacking Americans anywhere.

Let me ask you this: should America have stood idly by after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? Should we have stood idly by as Iraq shot at American planes over the Iraqi no-fly zone we were patrolling for the UN during the mid to late nineties? Should we stand idly by today while Iran and Syria push to threaten the peace initiative in Iraq?

As for the 100 years, stop repeating what you hear on TV. What Senator McCain was referring to was simply an honest analysis of Iraq is this century’s Germany. We have had a base in Germany for 60 years; do I hear any complaints about that in America? How about our bases in the Philippines or other out of the way places that serve as jumping off points for various needs throughout the world? That’s what was being referred to; not that we will be fighting for 100 years. Listen to the actual words he said; not what the talking heads say.