CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[Foxfyre]

I think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.

"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.

And there is the beauty of it
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

Really? When in history has there ever been an "unlimited democracy," let alone several of them, whereby history, in turn, has so shown?

I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.

Sorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.

We the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union

The courts were a major part of that Constitution

Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.

Hardly....our Constitution has worked for hundreds of years

Not in the mood for trolling today, rw. Flip-flop on someone else's dime.

I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.

What you were discussing is what it is -- you could as well have been discussing genetic variation in fruit flies, for all I care -- what you were discussing doesn't obviate the need for your assertion to nonetheless be accurate.

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

They are utilized all the time at the local and state level where the people vote for referendums, tax increases, bond issues, etc. and at that level they are the most democratic method to decide issues on which there are differences of opinion.

To the best of my knowledge no recognized nation has ever used the majority rule concept. Even American Indian tribes of old and the most primitive peoples in Africa, etc. have chosen a governing body or leader to speak and decide for all. As civilization developed, we have had dictators, monarchs, feudal lords, popes/religious rule, and other forms of totalitarian governments. Marx proposed a true democratic system but it required totalitarian dictatorship to accomplish it and as things go, once a government has totalitarian power, it does not voluntarily relinquish it.

And whenever there has been a democratic vote to decide a controversial issue--think California's Proposition 8--and it doesn't go the way the politically correct want it to go, such votes are quickly overturned by lawsuits and activist courts. They won't even allow a democratic vote on such things as abortion or gun control out of fear of how the people might vote.

And in truth, in many, perhaps most matters, a tyranny of the majority can trample on the unalienable rights of the minority, as can a tyranny of the minority that holds the power and ability to dictate to all.

 

[dblack]

I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

You're right, there aren't any. Even the French Revolution after the franchise went even to the Paris mob, 1793....actually, that one was maybe as close as it ever came. And talk about an unlimited disaster!! Yow.

I'm tempted by it, things are so bad. LOCAL unlimited democracy --- city for city, counties for counties, like that. None of this minority protection stuff, just let people vote, online, with strong protection against hacking. If cities want no police, fine, let them vote it in. If counties want certain types of people excluded, fine, let them vote it in.

That would be a very interesting political experiment, and one we never have tried.

I don't know what precisely that member means by the term "unlimited democracy" is; that term doesn't have a formal definition in any history, political science or economic texts, papers, lectures, etc. that I've ever been exposed to.

Oh, well, it's obvious, surely. It means nonrepresentative democracy, "pure" democracy as with the Greek demos was, at least theoretically. And it means democracy not corrupted by ....

Not as obvious as all that, I guess. You're talking direct vs representational democracy. Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution). Under such a government, minorities are completely at the mercy of the majority.

Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution).

Which brings me right back to the question I first asked you...In light of your having asserted that...

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

[Please] identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.


Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?

 

[skews13]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

 

[Flash]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

 

[Camp]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

 

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

Stupid analysis based on off the wall speculations and guesses. "But, as far as I can tell" rhetoric finishes off the hack OP.

Says the sniveling little kunt that runs from simple questions.

 

[Flash]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

 

[rightwinger]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

Welfare queens take pennies from your pocket

It is the wealthy who rob you blind and you thank them for it

 

[Camp]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

Stupid analysis based on off the wall speculations and guesses. "But, as far as I can tell" rhetoric finishes off the hack OP.

Says the sniveling little kunt that runs from simple questions.

Ask your question goober and try to articulate it in understandable English.

 

[K9Buck]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

Stupid analysis based on off the wall speculations and guesses. "But, as far as I can tell" rhetoric finishes off the hack OP.

Says the sniveling little kunt that runs from simple questions.

Ask your question goober and try to articulate it in understandable English.

I did. You ran and hid like a kunt.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You're right, there aren't any. Even the French Revolution after the franchise went even to the Paris mob, 1793....actually, that one was maybe as close as it ever came. And talk about an unlimited disaster!! Yow.

I'm tempted by it, things are so bad. LOCAL unlimited democracy --- city for city, counties for counties, like that. None of this minority protection stuff, just let people vote, online, with strong protection against hacking. If cities want no police, fine, let them vote it in. If counties want certain types of people excluded, fine, let them vote it in.

That would be a very interesting political experiment, and one we never have tried.

I don't know what precisely that member means by the term "unlimited democracy" is; that term doesn't have a formal definition in any history, political science or economic texts, papers, lectures, etc. that I've ever been exposed to.

Oh, well, it's obvious, surely. It means nonrepresentative democracy, "pure" democracy as with the Greek demos was, at least theoretically. And it means democracy not corrupted by ....

Not as obvious as all that, I guess. You're talking direct vs representational democracy. Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution). Under such a government, minorities are completely at the mercy of the majority.

Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution).

Which brings me right back to the question I first asked you...In light of your having asserted that...

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

[Please] identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.


Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history.

Thank you.

John Stuart Mill, not history, explained to us the ills and ethical inadequacy of majoritarian rule.

Maybe it would be awesome.

I suspect it would not be awesome for many folks. It would be awesome for individuals whose ideology aligns with those of the majority. So if the majority is but ~50%+1 one, it'd suck for about half the population, which would be a lot of people relative to the size of the population; however, if the majority is a 98% one, it'd be awesome for almost everyone. Such is tyranny of the majority.

is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations?

No. I wasn't advocating for anything. I simply wanted to know whether you were aware of some historical events that had escaped me. I'm no historian, but I did take a few history classes back in the day. Something like what you described wouldn't have escaped me unless it was simply never mentioned.

Ascribing to any form of governance necessarily forces one to embrace an argument based ultimately on the reasoning of relative privation. It just so happens that I embrace democracy, yet it's nonetheless clear to me that, for myself, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. That said, in other societies, the exception I've noted need not apply.

Consider 20th century China with its billion uneducated, inexperienced and poorly informed citizens. Democracy in such a society would amount to the "blind" having governing control over both the "blind" and the "sighted." That would have been disastrous for China, so it's no surprise that Mao and the rest of China's educated elite didn't cotton to democracy. China could have implemented flat-out fascism, but what it actually implemented was something that was basically a a Renaissance monarchy that had elements of a republic that were supposed to guard against the excesses of monarchy. It didn't exactly work out as planned, but, for their situation and the nation's overall fortunes, it was nonetheless better than would have been democracy.

One need only compare and contrast the current economic status of India and China, both of which, at the time, had huge quantities of uneducated citizens. India adopted democracy at the same time (~1950) China commenced its journey toward Communism by adopting its republican-monarchy form of socialism, socialism being something Marx identified as a pragmatic intermediate step on the path to Communism. I think we can all say that China's approach, vis a vis the bar of economic achievement, even after adjusting for the variance in population size, has proven the more efficacious of the two.


Now as for the "limits" part of your question, well, any system of governance needs to have limits, be they constitutional or some other form. To be sure, for instance, even the monarchs from Rome to the Renaissance governed with limits, those limits were provided by the rest of the nobility, and on occasion by the citizenry as a whole. Kings were quite powerful, yet, their power nonetheless depended on the support of their nobles and at least the acquiescence of the common citizenry. A king that angered enough of his nobles was a king who was not long for this world. Assassination isn't the sort of limit one cares to air or espouse, but it is yet a limit, and until about the mid to late 20th century, it was essentially the only viable one available to abate the dissatisfaction issuing from a monarch's excesses.

Democracy too must have limits, ideally built-in ones rather than arbitrary ones such as assassination. It has to have them because democracy and its notion of self-determination inherently, in the name of freedom, forbears a host of vices. Thus the limits of democracy align around elements of character, around ethical values. The problem is that an electorate that is preponderantly and sufficiently ill informed and ill educated -- that is, with regard to the body of information available at any given point in the democracy's duration -- can easily devolve into a turpitudinous society comprised of a majority of overbearing individuals, and yet be democratic.

As and when that evolution occurs, the challenge democracies face is that of reversing the trend. That's a real problem for democracies because concomitant with democracy is the notion that individuals, for the most part, be free to do as they see fit. Unfortunately for democracies' solvency, that freedom includes the freedom to be ignorant -- democracies do not, for instance, force one to master the content taught in school [1] -- despite the fact that one of the great responsibility that accompanies the great freedom democracy affords is the responsibility to be not ignorant but instead be very well informed about the world in which one lives.


Note:

1. I have long felt that perhaps the biggest flaw in our K-12 educational system is the way students are graded. I have long thought that there should be, as are for PhD candidates, two grades: pass or fail. The short of that model is that one either mastered the material or one didn't. The notion that mastering some of the material begs one to ask "why is all of it taught (at whatever grade level) if it's not essential for one to master all of it?"
   
   The grading system we use now is fine for indicating how much of the content one has mastered, but as these times are showing us, mastering most of the content, concepts and skills taught in school is clearly not enough to produce citizens who can aptly suss their way through the increasing complexities and quantity of modern public policy considerations. That wouldn't, of course, be a problem were it not also the case that folks who've not fully mastered the content, concepts and skills taught in K-12 school are yet permitted to have a say, and indeed exercise it, in the increasingly complex matters of public policy.
   
   Think about that...however bright your kids are, would you let them -- were they bereft of experience, strong critical thinking skill, deep knowledge of subject matter and the will and ability to independently obtain and analyze whatever additional information may be needed to fully understand a given topic -- make a major policy (or "policy") decision that will have a material impact on your life and/or livelihood?
   
   I damn sure wouldn't, and I say that having four straight-A student kids. I wouldn't because even though they have most of the noted qualities, they lack the experience of actually applying them to resolve practical challenges. My oldest is at the point that I don't mind that he can vote, even though he may disagree with me. I know he's got the skills, knowledge and will to not "rush in" when making important decisions; I know he's a responsible person, citizen.
   
   By the same token, I have some cousins who are about 10-15 years my oldest's seniors. I wouldn't, and nobody should, give them a say in what food to buy for a caged bird. They know plenty of stuff; they just don't aptly use their knowledge, and they're intellectually/cognitively lazy. But you can be sure they vote. You and everyone else should thank your lucky stars they only have one vote each.

Do you think that would be a good idea?

From the essay above, I think you can tell my answer to this question is, "no."

 

[Camp]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

Stupid analysis based on off the wall speculations and guesses. "But, as far as I can tell" rhetoric finishes off the hack OP.

Says the sniveling little kunt that runs from simple questions.

Ask your question goober and try to articulate it in understandable English.

I did. You ran and hid like a kunt.

Ask the question goober. Stop acting like a punk and evading, unless of course you really are a punk.

 

[dblack]

I don't know what precisely that member means by the term "unlimited democracy" is; that term doesn't have a formal definition in any history, political science or economic texts, papers, lectures, etc. that I've ever been exposed to.

Oh, well, it's obvious, surely. It means nonrepresentative democracy, "pure" democracy as with the Greek demos was, at least theoretically. And it means democracy not corrupted by ....

Not as obvious as all that, I guess. You're talking direct vs representational democracy. Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution). Under such a government, minorities are completely at the mercy of the majority.

Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution).

Which brings me right back to the question I first asked you...In light of your having asserted that...

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

[Please] identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.


Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history.

Thank you.

John Stuart Mill, not history, explained to us the ills and ethical inadequacy of majoritarian rule.

And, preceding him a bit, Aristotle. Followed by pretty much everyone who's given it much thought.

is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations?

No. I wasn't advocating for anything. I simply wanted to know whether you were aware of some historical events that had escaped me.

Ah... ok. Nevermind then.

Do you think that would be a good idea?

From the essay above, I think you can tell my answer to this question is, "no."

Sorry. tl;dr - but I'll take your word for it.

 

[skews13]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

Welfare queens take pennies from your pocket

It is the wealthy who rob you blind and you thank them for it

Morons like him will never get it. He's a good little follower.

 

[Flash]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

Welfare queens take pennies from your pocket

It is the wealthy who rob you blind and you thank them for it

I think you are confused about this.

The welfare queens cost us hundreds of billions every year and it come out of the pockets of taxpayers like me.

The combined cost of government is the largest expenditure of my family and most families in America.

The big out of control government (combined) is almost 40% of the GDP and it supports a filthy welfare state. A welfare state where worthless 3th generation welfare queens and illegals get subsidies health care and food and housing and even free cell phones. That is despicable, isn't it?

The cost of the government in the US is greater than the GDP of all but three other countries on the face of the earth and all that money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Our problem in this country is that it is a democracy that allows the majority (that is usually only a voting plurality) the ability to use the government to steal what they are unwilling to provide for themselves. It is morally wrong and it is an economic disaster.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Big government becomes the instrument of that thievery.

The best way to stop the thievery is to defund the government down to only the basic necessities. Like defense, courts, police, etc. We need to stop all transfers of moeny from those that earn it to those that didn't earn it. No more welfare, bailouts, entitlements or subsidies.

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

Welfare queens take pennies from your pocket

It is the wealthy who rob you blind and you thank them for it

And it’s military spending that represents the greatest waste of taxpayers’ money, not ‘welfare’; it’s the military that is the epitome of big government – both wholeheartedly and blindly supported by conservatives.

 

[Flash]

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

Welfare queens take pennies from your pocket

It is the wealthy who rob you blind and you thank them for it

And it’s military spending that represents the greatest waste of taxpayers’ money, not ‘welfare’; it’s the military that is the epitome of big government – both wholeheartedly and blindly supported by conservatives.

You are barking up the wrong tree with me. I am a non interventionist. Welfare takes all kinds of forms including foreign.

War was supported by that idiot Obama, wasn't it? The one that all you Liberals broke your necks trying to vote for? The President that fought the war in Iraq for three years, bombed Libya and escalated the war in Afghanistan and was at war every day of his administration.

I want to stop all welfare domestic and foreign and that includes fighting other people's wars for them. Will you join me?

 

[cnm]

It's about homogeneity. Nationstates are happiest when they are homogeneous. Ethnically disparate populations are infamously unstable and crime and violence-ridden.

What bullshit. NZ is more diverse than the US if the metric is percentage of 'whites'.

 

[cnm]

Welfare takes all kinds of forms including foreign.

Yet you lived off government contracts.

 

[cnm]

Shouldn't you show data demonstrating US education was better before a federal education agency was formed? After all, that's your premise.

No [...]

What a surprise.