[drislerfottor]

In other words, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Stay in the dark if you want- but then don't whine at those who know what you don't want to.

[Hammaduersnes]

You made the claim, it is incumbent on you to provide the proof.

Or would you allow a student to turn in a paper and say "This is my thesis. google the proof."?

Matt

[Usesdiums]

Matt,

Real quick: The US has devolved into a 2-class society- the haves(approx 20%) and the have nots (80%).

Read 'The Myth of Free Trade' and 'The Silent Depression'.

In a democracy of the kind we set-up post WWII (read 'The Great U-Turn'), this could not have happened, except that the Rich have 'Bought the machinery of our political system.' (read 'Wealth And Democracy').

Concurrently, our government has become a 'shadow type' which operates outside of its Constutional limits, and at times (read 'Watergate: How The Good Guys Finally Won' and 'Fooled Again') subverts elections, and thus the will of the people.

Therefore, as in the past (at least twice-not counting the regional conflict called 'The Civil War') , extra-Constitutional means of change are indeed probable to change a system which has become in itself extra-Constutional.

And that's where Harry Reasoner's words/experiences in 1930's Iowa come again into play.

And, of course, I don't expect you to read any of those sources- because you are content with you limited view.

But fopr anyone else truly wanting to know........................

[Pinkman]

EiK: Or if you Really want America to get back to being America, focus on getting Libertarians into any office possible, as soon as possible. Spreading the 'lesser of two evils' from the final election to the primaries is still promoting evil. MM: And choosing a third evil is supposed to be the solution? Touche, of sorts. Yes, almost any government is evil, but most would agree that having Some government is necessary. So when it comes to choosing necessary evils, the least of all possible evils is indeed the best solution.

MM: Giving capital formal authority to rule seems like greater madness than the status quo. I agree, that's why I prefer Libertarian policies to fascist ones.

JDs: I don't expect you to read any of those sources- because you are content with you limited view. Or perhaps because you cite six entire Books, essentially requiring any respondant to take hours, if not weeks, to determine even if your comments have any basis, much less if they are correct. (Tho at least this is an improvement over previous threads where you wouldn't give Any sources, other than "go google it".)

[Casyimipist]

How do you think Ford got in office?? he was elected---by the congress

Nope he was approved by the congress, there is a huge difference. He is still known as the onluy unelected President the country has ever had. Were Cheney to go it would be up to Bush to nominate his replacement and congress to approve the nomination.

[mikaelluioy]

Evil,

If you can't spend a few hours to get up to speed on the forces behind the the period in which we live, then you will end up a victim of those forces- and virtually without any insight as to what course of action is the best to take.

Likewise, if you can't even find time to google, then why even post, as it is meaningless.

[yazetaw]

Nope he was approved by the congress, there is a huge difference. He is still known as the onluy unelected President the country has ever had. Were Cheney to go it would be up to Bush to nominate his replacement and congress to approve the nomination.

And you don't consider that approval tantimount to an election????? I do

[Vcwdldva]

Nope he was approved by the congress, there is a huge difference. He is still known as the onluy unelected President the country has ever had. Were Cheney to go it would be up to Bush to nominate his replacement and congress to approve the nomination.

Bemused giggles.

How about George Washington and both Adams?

Popular election of Presidents didn't begin until 1820-something with Jackson.

[Elitiachirl]

If you can't spend a few hours to get up to speed ... then you will end up a victim ... virtually without any insight as to what course of action is the best to take. I have the good fortune of living within 30 minutes of a couple decent public libraries and a university library. Iff I were to go, and Iff all your cited works were in their collection and Iff they were all available and Iff their combined verbage did not exceed that of a typical harlequin romance, we would be talking "a few hours". All this is assuming a near-best-case scenario. I, like many here, actually have a life and don't choose to dedicate a week or more of my life to the task of responding to one post on one topic simply because you refuse to make any polite attempt to facilitate a reasonable debate.

If you can't spend a few minutes to find more specific and/or online source citations, then you will end up seeming a pompous asterisk - and virtually without any hope of learning anything from posters here who may know better than you, or at least might provide you with new insights on some issues.

Likewise, if you can't even find time to google, then why even post, as it is meaningless. Given that you are seldom if ever able to cite online sources, isn't it reasonable to infer that You can't find time to google, and thus Your posts are meaningless?

If not, you're destined to lose a Lot of debates (given impartial analysis) when your opponent(s) point out that 'your source' contradicts your position(s), since most google searches will turn up multiple views of a given topic.

[CAxrrAYN]

That you do not even know of the books I reference says that you are not one to judge what is meaningful or not as pertains to the subject(s).

[mealiusarses]

Touche, of sorts. Yes, almost any government is evil, but most would agree that having Some government is necessary. So when it comes to choosing necessary evils, the least of all possible evils is indeed the best solution.

No, the least of all possible evils is the least evil solution.

I agree, that's why I prefer Libertarian policies to fascist ones.

I've not been able to discern a difference between the two.

If you believe that human liberty is very important, you are probably a classical liberal. If you believe that human liberty is secondary to, or only an adornment to, the liberty of capital, then Libertarianism is the right place to be.

[cut sifted ephedra sinica]

No, the least of all possible evils is the least evil solution.

I don't see the difference between this and the best solution(must be trivial, but please, develop ) (assuming that evil, in this expression, means "bad" )

[spamkillerf]

That you do not even know of the books I reference says that you are not one to judge what is meaningful or not as pertains to the subject(s). That you would make such a post proves my second paragraph of my previous post. Especially given that I was merely discussing your strategy of making inconvenient citations and you took it upon yourself to Assume what I did and did not know.

With that, I will leave you to your non-googling and all that entails and implies. Happy Gnus' Ears!

[SHaEFU0i]

No, the least of all possible evils is the least evil solution. I don't see the difference between this and the best solution(must be trivial, but please, develop ) (assuming that evil, in this expression, means "bad" ) Yeah, what he said!

If you believe that human liberty is very important, you are probably a classical liberal. Yes.

If you believe that human liberty is secondary to, or only an adornment to, the liberty of capital, then Libertarianism is the right place to be. How so? Libertarians promote the liberty of capital because without it, there cannot be human liberty, not as a greater goal of some sort. (Indentured servitude, being a small step up from slavery, is the best example - One was technically free, but was not entitled to any of the fruits of their labors, and thus beholden to their master for ongoing sustenance. If such an arrangement were entered into willingly, then so be it, but to have it legislated or otherwise forced is antithetical to Libertarianism.)

[orbidewa]

No, That you do not know the books I reference shows that you do not know of what you speak.

all which needs to be said along that line.

Come back with something worth discussing, otherwise it is pointless to continue with you.

[cyslespitocop]

Wonderful post! That made my Boxing Day.

You just get off on those Anti-American thymes now don't you.