Could it be happening?!

[onejayhawk]

I am in no way advocating abandoning the republic, but for all intents and purposes we already have...because the congress is f'ing useless.

Would you like to run the Committee for Public Safety? They should get things fixed.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Would you like to run the Committee for Public Safety? They should get things fixed.

J

No, I'd like to see congress restored to functioning. I think I made that clear enough.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, I'd like to see congress restored to functioning. I think I made that clear enough.

Rob Pierre could use you help.

J

 

[IglooDame]

Rob Pierre could use you help.

J

I think the last time we held up France as anything to emulate politically, Thomas Jefferson was still president.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think the last time we held up France as anything to emulate politically, Thomas Jefferson was still president.

My point exactly.

J

 

[kochman]

I think the last time we held up France as anything to emulate politically, Thomas Jefferson was still president.

That's pretty stupid of us, isn't it?

 

[bhsup]

That's pretty stupid of us, isn't it?

Not really. Their systems clearly were unworkable, else they wouldn't be on their 5th try. Maybe this one will last, though.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Those are precisely the type of presidents we need... like G Washington. He could have pulled a Julius Caesar, but it was precisely that he didn't want power that he was judicious in its application.

We end up, in this day and age, only with people seeking power getting into power... that's the system. It has to be that way.

Washington has always been highly overrated.

By the time he declined to run for reelection, he was starting to get a bit senile. He had trouble remembering whether or not he had given his approval for many things. Investigations into Hamilton's misdealings came close to uncovering the president's incompetence, and were scaled back for fear that undermining Washington's reputation would undermine the legitimacy of the entire government.

After literally falling off his high horse during the Whiskey Rebellion (when he rode out in force to crush a revolt over taxes which were considerably higher and more unjust than those which triggered the US Revolution), his back never really recovered. The pain was enough to make it hard for him to stand for extended periods to give speeches and perform his other ceremonial duties. His great qualification for office had been his impressive height and physical appearance, but continuing to present such an imposing figure was getting difficult.

Washington probably recognized that he would tarnish his legacy pretty soon if he did not retire early.

He definitely desired power, but he cared more about his reputation and finances than the hard work of actually managing the country and maintaining political dominance. A lot of what he did was in order to advance his personal interests as the nation's largest landlord (since he was the first to survey the land from a distance, despite never working or improving it, he hated the idea that squatters might making a living for themselves there without paying him lots of rent) and a a major investor in commercial ventures (like that large distillery that would profit greatly from regulations which disproportionally burden its smaller competitors).

Washington was a Federalist, Elitist, Mercantilist, Crony-Capitalist, Big Government type. He is not the sort of man whom we needed then or now.

 

[kochman]

Not really. Their systems clearly were unworkable, else they wouldn't be on their 5th try. Maybe this one will last, though.

Oh, so never mind our Civil War, they've gone through 5 Constitutions.
They approach such matters differently. They certainly cannot be judged negatively, nor can you say their systems were "unworkable", for changing things. IF you really want to discuss it, do so, but a blanket, "no, we shouldn't take any lessons from France" is the epitome of arrogant ignorance.

Washington has always been highly overrated.

While that's a specious claim, the fact remains, he could have stayed in power and opted not to.

After literally falling off his high horse during the Whiskey Rebellion (when he rode out in force to crush a revolt over taxes which were considerably higher and more unjust than those which triggered the US Revolution)

Taxation w/ representation vs w/o representation.

He definitely desired power, but he cared more about his reputation and finances than the hard work of actually managing the country and maintaining political dominance. A lot of what he did was in order to advance his personal interests as the nation's largest landlord (since he was the first to survey the land from a distance, despite never working or improving it, he hated the idea that squatters might making a living for themselves there without paying him lots of rent) and a a major investor in commercial ventures (like that large distillery that would profit greatly from regulations which disproportionally burden its smaller competitors).

This has very little to do with the topic at hand.

Washington was a Federalist, Elitist, Mercantilist, Crony-Capitalist, Big Government type. He is not the sort of man whom we needed then or now.

No, now we need more Federalist, Elitist, Corporatist, Crony-Capitalist, Big Government types like the last two presidents we've had...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, now we need more Federalist, Elitist, Corporatist, Crony-Capitalist, Big Government types like the last two presidents we've had...

Whatever we might need...as the saying goes we will no doubt continue to get exactly what we deserve.

 

[kochman]

I don't buy that idea... I mean, the way I look at it, a lot of the ills on the US now are due to the polcies of previous generations.
They become ingrained... and we have little opportunity to actually make positive change.

Example, it takes $1B to get elected president.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, now we need more Federalist, Elitist, Corporatist, Crony-Capitalist, Big Government types like the last two presidents we've had...

Just two? Only one of the last 10 made any serious effort at reducing the size of government. At least four were into serious expansion.

It is the nature of bureaucracies to seek more bureaucrats. Status is determined by the umber of subordinates.

J

 

[bhsup]

Mitt Romney: 'Circumstances can change'

So he's not saying he is, but he's not saying he absolutely isn't. It's exciting!!

“Circumstances can change, but I’m just not going to let my head go there,” Romney said during an interview on the nationally syndicated radio program “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”

 

[FriendlyFire]

Shall we start guessing his 2016 political views now?

Iam pretty sure that Romney views are both sides of an issue, at the same time.
Romney was hes own worse enemy, kept putting hes foot into hes mouth.

 

[kochman]

Just two? Only one of the last 10 made any serious effort at reducing the size of government. At least four were into serious expansion.

It is the nature of bureaucracies to seek more bureaucrats. Status is determined by the umber of subordinates.

J

Not just two, just that the last two were terrible at it and virtually the same.

Reagan grew mainly the military, he made cuts elsewhere, you know that whole Cold War thing (which at the time made sense).
Clinton made cuts and reforms, signed them into law anyway, kicking and screaming.

You are right, bureaucrats seek more of the same. At least the dems spend more domestically (these days, without a USSR looming), even though they too are generally neo-cons these days.

 

[Antilogic]

Mitt Romney: 'Circumstances can change'

So he's not saying he is, but he's not saying he absolutely isn't. It's exciting!!

I gotta say, I haven't met too many people who are excited by Mittens.

 

[Commodore]

I gotta say, I haven't met too many people who are excited by Mittens.

Well that's because mittens aren't proper gloves and are completely impractical for getting any kind of work done in the cold. I am and always will be a glove man.

 

[Farm Boy]

I kind of liked Ray LaHood when he was in cabinet. But only kind of. For a Republican. The more he talks I'm sure the less I'll like him. Just like most of 'em.

 

[kochman]

I gotta say, I haven't met too many people who are excited by Mittens.

That's mainly because he doesn't drink...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's mainly because he doesn't drink...

For my part it's because he will totally swallow the (proven to have failed completely) line of the Republican part leadership. But maybe drinking would help.