Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Uncensored2008]

If everything were cut 100% there wouldn't be enough to pay for it. This is what Cantor and the Tealiban either don't understand or cynically ignore.

More revenue has to be brought in. The sooner we grow up about taxes, the better.

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

If you increased the tax on every working person in the USA to 95%, there still wouldn't be enough to pay for it all.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bull-shit-vik hunter; he lives in fear of black helicopters, foreign banker ninja types, squirrels, and generally anybody who isn't afraid of his macho internet tough-guy routine.

I've seen a black helicopter in my area - it says "KLOS" on the side, looks a lot better than the lime green one I see all over the place; a sleek Sikorsky.

Supporting the constitution isn't a conspiracy theory - it is those like you who seek the dissolution of the constitution who are the nut jobs. The small measure of accountability our rulers have to the populace is purely because of the codified law of the constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's no way in hell that ANYONE should ever spend a BILLION dollars on a campaign.

Frankly, I'd like to see a mandatory equal time law in exchange for their FCC licenses.

I'm sick to death of the people who spend the most money being the only voices heard.

The problem you have is the media and the unions.

It was the media who anointed Obama as our ruler. All of Hillarys campaign war-chest was not enough to overcome the press, campaigning 24/7 for Obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's no way in hell that ANYONE should ever spend a BILLION dollars on a campaign.

Frankly, I'd like to see a mandatory equal time law in exchange for their FCC licenses.

I'm sick to death of the people who spend the most money being the only voices heard.

The problem you have is the media and the unions.

It was the media who anointed Obama as our ruler. All of Hillarys campaign war-chest was not enough to overcome the press, campaigning 24/7 for Obama.

Not much we can do about the media until the education system changes. It was the visionary and idealistic but zoned out, tuned out, drugged out flower children of the 60's who went into journalism and now control the media. Most are now decidedly left wing, socialist minded, big government people and perpetuate that by mentoring and replacing themselves with like minded people. But change the moral center and value system within the culture, and the media will likely follow suit.

The unions are a problem because they are able to buy money and power from our fearless leaders. Take away the power of those leaders to benefit or provide any favoritism to the unions and the unions are automatically defanged. They will either revert to their original more noble purpose or they will go out of business.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not much we can do about the media until the education system changes.

Funny you should mention that.... Check my sig!

It was the visionary and idealistic but zoned out, tuned out, drugged out flower children of the 60's who went into journalism and now control the media.

Pretty much. Virtually zero experience with real life - straight from academia to media, with no reality check between the two events.

Most are now decidedly left wing, socialist minded, big government people and perpetuate that by mentoring and replacing themselves with like minded people. But change the moral center and value system within the culture, and the media will likely follow suit.

The unions are a problem because they are able to buy money and power from our fearless leaders. Take away the power of those leaders to benefit or provide any favoritism to the unions and the unions are automatically defanged. They will either revert to their original more noble purpose or they will go out of business.

Yep!

Well stated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not much we can do about the media until the education system changes.

Funny you should mention that.... Check my sig!

That actually should have been specified in the poll options but they only give us 10 options for the polls. But two things that need to happen and fit in there somewhere are;

1. Other than perhaps gathering data and statistics to make available to all states re quality and status of schools, the Federal government has no business being involved with education in any capacity.

2. There should be no Federal funding of schools.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

If everything were cut 100% there wouldn't be enough to pay for it. This is what Cantor and the Tealiban either don't understand or cynically ignore.

More revenue has to be brought in. The sooner we grow up about taxes, the better.

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

I wouldn't know. I don't play the label game.

If you increased the tax on every working person in the USA to 95%, there still wouldn't be enough to pay for it all.

That's because the 1%-ers and the corporations are sitting on all the cash now.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

So do dysfunctional governments. Got any more one-liners?

 

[Foxfyre]

If everything were cut 100% there wouldn't be enough to pay for it. This is what Cantor and the Tealiban either don't understand or cynically ignore.

More revenue has to be brought in. The sooner we grow up about taxes, the better.

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

I wouldn't know. I don't play the label game.

If you increased the tax on every working person in the USA to 95%, there still wouldn't be enough to pay for it all.

That's because the 1%-ers and the corporations are sitting on all the cash now.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

So do dysfunctional governments. Got any more one-liners?

U.S. businesses have at least $2 trillion in capital parked offshore and probably almost that much mothballed here at home. Why? Because of a too big, too authoritarian, too intrusive, and too irresponsible government makes them unwilling to risk it to expand and start hiring again. Most are conducting business overseas in more business friendly environments.

The ONLY way out of our current economic mess is for government to get out of the way so those businesses can bring that cash home or out of hiding and benefit us. We cannot tax ourselves out of the hole we are in. We can stop digging the hole however by stopping all non essential spending and let American commerce and industry grow us out of it. That will require major government reform.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wouldn't know. I don't play the label game.

Unless it's like "Tealiban" or something against the enemies of the party...

That's because the 1%-ers and the corporations are sitting on all the cash now.

Is that what the Huffingglue Post told you?

Funny there are so many McDonalds... You're think Chez Carrie would be all the rage, considering that the 1%-ers have all the money..

Say, how did WalMart get so big? The 1%-ers sure the fuck don't shop there... Why isn't Brooks Brothers the most successful retail store, considering that the 1%-ers have all the money? (I'll give you a hint, it's because you're full of shit.)

Class warfare is fun and fills people with righteous rage - but it's really fucking stupid...

So do dysfunctional governments. Got any more one-liners?

Lot's - but I'll wait until you digest and comprehend those already proffered before proceeding.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I wouldn't know. I don't play the label game.

Unless it's like "Tealiban" or something against the enemies of the party...

"Tealiban" is funny. "Leftist" is just trite.

That's because the 1%-ers and the corporations are sitting on all the cash now.

Is that what the Huffingglue Post told you?

Funny there are so many McDonalds... You're think Chez Carrie would be all the rage, considering that the 1%-ers have all the money..

Say, how did WalMart get so big? The 1%-ers sure the fuck don't shop there... Why isn't Brooks Brothers the most successful retail store, considering that the 1%-ers have all the money? (I'll give you a hint, it's because you're full of shit.)

Class warfare is fun and fills people with righteous rage - but it's really fucking stupid...

Is Warren Buffett stupid?

Because he's gone on record as saying (a) there is class warfare, (b) his class is winning the war, and (c) it shouldn't be. Look up the link yourself.

I'll let you absorb his thoughts before wasting any more time on your Norquistian talking points.

 

[DontBeStupid]

10. Other

Government has not been very effective the past couple years. Certainly not as effective as it could be. This is not due to a lack of ideas but due to the minority party having too much power when it comes to filibusters. This could be easily remedied by having a sizable third party. If Congress was split evenly over three parties or four parties, no one party could shut down all work with filibusters, and nothing would get passed without working together.

To make it even more obvious:

Senate
Dems 35 members
GOP 35 members
3rd Party 20 members
4th Party 10 members

 

[AVG-JOE]

[SIZE="-2"]. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.[/SIZE]

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)
[SIZE="-2"]
1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)[/SIZE]

If everything were cut 100% there wouldn't be enough to pay for it. This is what Cantor and the Tealiban either don't understand or cynically ignore.

More revenue has to be brought in. The sooner we grow up about taxes, the better.

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

If you increased the tax on every working person in the USA to 95%, there still wouldn't be enough to pay for it all.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

The Following User Says Thank You to Uncensored2008 For This Useful Post:
Foxfyre (Today)

Uncensored2008: Nice use of irrelevant labeling to sling some political mud!



Foxfyre:

 

[Foxfyre]

10. Other

Government has not been very effective the past couple years. Certainly not as effective as it could be. This is not due to a lack of ideas but due to the minority party having too much power when it comes to filibusters. This could be easily remedied by having a sizable third party. If Congress was split evenly over three parties or four parties, no one party could shut down all work with filibusters, and nothing would get passed without working together.

To make it even more obvious:

Senate
Dems 35 members
GOP 35 members
3rd Party 20 members
4th Party 10 members

You DO know that it only takes one person to filibuster yes? So how do you figure having four parties to make happy would cut down on the filibusters?

You must have forgotten that President Obama entered office with a SUPER MAJORITY in both house of Congress. He had a filibuster proof Senate. So the ONLY group to blame for what did or did not happen for those first two years is squarely on the heads of him and the Democrats. They could have passed anything in the world they wanted to pass.

And because none of them had a clue about the right thing to do or how to do it, we are in the mess we are in right now.

Please try to read something other than Daily Kos for your information now and then, okay?

 

[Foxfyre]

[SIZE="-2"]. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.[/SIZE]

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)
[SIZE="-2"]
1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)[/SIZE]

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

If you increased the tax on every working person in the USA to 95%, there still wouldn't be enough to pay for it all.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

The Following User Says Thank You to Uncensored2008 For This Useful Post:
Foxfyre (Today)

Uncensored2008: Nice use of irrelevant labeling to sling some political mud!



Foxfyre:

You think that was uncivil? Perhaps it could have been stated more diplomatically but it was not uncivil. Civility does not require sugar coating the truth. I happen to agree that leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics. If they did, they wouldn't be leftist where the economy is concerned. I would recommend reading a lot of Williams and a lot of Sowell for a full discussion on that.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Not much we can do about the media until the education system changes.

Funny you should mention that.... Check my sig!

That actually should have been specified in the poll options but they only give us 10 options for the polls. But two things that need to happen and fit in there somewhere are;

1. Other than perhaps gathering data and statistics to make available to all states re quality and status of schools, the Federal government has no business being involved with education in any capacity.

2. There should be no Federal funding of schools.

How should education be paid for? Corporate sponsorship? Would that really come unbiased and without strings?

There are some tasks that government is perfectly suited to handle - I agree that control of education should be at the state level at its highest - the closer to local, the better. The role of federal funding is to insure that the children of Arkansas have just as much educational opportunity as the children of NY. Note that the same educational opportunity does NOT equate to the same education, as is currently demanded by federal oversight. The federal government successfully took over education in the 60's and 70's because it was easy to prove that, when it came to education, the states were discriminating against parts of their population based on race. I think we'll find the state governments a bit more accountable and trustworthy today.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

I wouldn't know. I don't play the label game.

That's because the 1%-ers and the corporations are sitting on all the cash now.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

So do dysfunctional governments. Got any more one-liners?

U.S. businesses have at least $2 trillion in capital parked offshore and probably almost that much mothballed here at home. Why? Because of a too big, too authoritarian, too intrusive, and too irresponsible government makes them unwilling to risk it to expand and start hiring again. Most are conducting business overseas in more business friendly environments.

The ONLY way out of our current economic mess is for government to get out of the way so those businesses can bring that cash home or out of hiding and benefit us. We cannot tax ourselves out of the hole we are in. We can stop digging the hole however by stopping all non essential spending and let American commerce and industry grow us out of it. That will require major government reform.

Step one is fair and simple taxes - I like a simple combination of income and consumption - pick a number between 1 and 10... say 7.

Levy a tax on all retail sales of 7% and an income tax of 7%. Everybody, including ALL corporations pays exactly the same rate. If you want a jobs incentive, allow businesses to deduct non-executive payroll from their income before taxing it. But that's it - every business gets 1 and only 1 deduction. Call it a 'level playing field'.

If 7% isn't enough to cover the bills and pay off the debt, slide the bar up to 8% / if the coffers are overflowing with cash, slide it down to 6%. Tax policy does NOT have to be rocket science.

Fair and simple taxes will go a LONG way toward ending Americas corruption problem.

How in the hell can spending be addressed before the corruption problem is fixed?

 

[AVG-JOE]

[SIZE="-2"]. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.[/SIZE]

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)
[SIZE="-2"]
1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)[/SIZE]

Leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics.

If you increased the tax on every working person in the USA to 95%, there still wouldn't be enough to pay for it all.

You MUST grow the economy. High taxes run contrary to economic growth.

The Following User Says Thank You to Uncensored2008 For This Useful Post:
Foxfyre (Today)

Uncensored2008: Nice use of irrelevant labeling to sling some political mud!



Foxfyre:

You think that was uncivil? Perhaps it could have been stated more diplomatically but it was not uncivil. Civility does not require sugar coating the truth. I happen to agree that leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics. If they did, they wouldn't be leftist where the economy is concerned. I would recommend reading a lot of Williams and a lot of Sowell for a full discussion on that.

If someone says "Righties are bible-thumping social Nazis", or "Lefties are incapable of understanding macro economics", yeah, it's offensive. It's offensive because I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the left who're VERY capable when it comes to things like macro economics and I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the right who're not bible thumping social Nazis.

Lets just say I take offense to sweeping generalizations that insult EVERYONE on either side of the aisle. If a spade is a spade, call it a spade but if a writer doesn't KNOW all the shovels in the shed, a sweeping generalization like that just makes the writer look snobby and foolish while slinging childish political mud.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uncensored2008: Nice use of irrelevant labeling to sling some political mud!



Foxfyre:

You think that was uncivil? Perhaps it could have been stated more diplomatically but it was not uncivil. Civility does not require sugar coating the truth. I happen to agree that leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics. If they did, they wouldn't be leftist where the economy is concerned. I would recommend reading a lot of Williams and a lot of Sowell for a full discussion on that.

If someone says "Righties are bible-thumping social Nazis", or "Lefties are incapable of understanding macro economics", yeah, it's offensive. It's offensive because I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the left who're VERY capable when it comes to things like macro economics and I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the right who're not bible thumping social Nazis.

Lets just say I take offense to sweeping generalizations that insult EVERYONE on either side of the aisle. If a spade is a spade, call it a spade but if a writer doesn't KNOW all the shovels in the shed, a sweeping generalization like that just makes the writer look snobby and foolish while slinging childish political mud.

I know it is offensive to those on the left to be papered over with a generality just as it is offensive to those on the right. There is a fine line between "being offensive" and being uncivil however. I didn't think the line re macroeconomics was a sweeping generalization at all, certainly not in the same sense as the illustrations you used. In doing message boarding and teaching management courses for a long time now, I saw the sentence as accurate. Righties are not 'Bible thumbing social Nazis' and that is clearly intended as an insult. But if you said 'righties are not going to agree to increased taxes on the rich or keynesian spending projects' that is also generalizations that might not pertain to each and every 'rightie' but I would see it as an essentially accurate statement.

I would have phrased the macroeconomics line more diplomatically but I don't think it was intended as an insult but rather a statement of fact. Sort of like 'that outfit makes you look fat'.

The fact is, I honestly don't believe leftists do understand macroeconomics or there would not be many economic leftists.

The option on the poll choices taking away the ability of Congress and the President to use the people's money for any form of charity or targeted benefit speaks to that. And I seriously doubt any staunch economic leftist really understands why that is so important.

For that matter probably some on the Right don't see why that is important either, and might not ever agree with it, but if they were inclined to really think through the rationale, I think they would understand it. I honestly have attempted to teach the reasoning to staunch leftists who meant well, but they were unable to grasp the concept well enough to explain it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You think that was uncivil? Perhaps it could have been stated more diplomatically but it was not uncivil. Civility does not require sugar coating the truth. I happen to agree that leftists don't comprehend macroeconomics. If they did, they wouldn't be leftist where the economy is concerned. I would recommend reading a lot of Williams and a lot of Sowell for a full discussion on that.

If someone says "Righties are bible-thumping social Nazis", or "Lefties are incapable of understanding macro economics", yeah, it's offensive. It's offensive because I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the left who're VERY capable when it comes to things like macro economics and I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the right who're not bible thumping social Nazis.

Lets just say I take offense to sweeping generalizations that insult EVERYONE on either side of the aisle. If a spade is a spade, call it a spade but if a writer doesn't KNOW all the shovels in the shed, a sweeping generalization like that just makes the writer look snobby and foolish while slinging childish political mud.

I know it is offensive to those on the left to be papered over with a generality just as it is offensive to those on the right. There is a fine line between "being offensive" and being uncivil however. I didn't think the line re macroeconomics was a sweeping generalization at all, certainly not in the same sense as the illustrations you used. In doing message boarding and teaching management courses for a long time now, I saw the sentence as accurate. Righties are not 'Bible thumbing social Nazis' and that is clearly intended as an insult. But if you said 'righties are not going to agree to increased taxes on the rich or keynesian spending projects' that is also generalizations that might not pertain to each and every 'rightie' but I would see it as an essentially accurate statement.

I would have phrased the macroeconomics line more diplomatically but I don't think it was intended as an insult but rather a statement of fact. Sort of like 'that outfit makes you look fat'.

The fact is, I honestly don't believe leftists do understand macroeconomics or there would not be many economic leftists.

The option on the poll choices taking away the ability of Congress and the President to use the people's money for any form of charity or targeted benefit speaks to that. And I seriously doubt any staunch economic leftist really understands why that is so important.

For that matter probably some on the Right don't see why that is important either, and might not ever agree with it, but if they were inclined to really think through the rationale, I think they would understand it. I honestly have attempted to teach the reasoning to staunch leftists who meant well, but they were unable to grasp the concept well enough to explain it.

'SOME lefties don't understand macro economics' is like 'that dress makes you look fat' because it singles out the particular fat girl like the designated lefties are singled out by the use of the qualifier 'some'.

Teaching right-brained reasoning to a leftist is like teaching most men to clean thoroughly. The smart ones will be able to dig what your saying and perform to proper standards if they want to continue getting laid, but relating to how thorough cleaning makes a woman feel is not going to happen. The beautiful goal of our system is to glean the best of all sides, something sweeping generalizations inhibit.

P.S. - I understand macro economics just fine, thank you very much, I simply see the results of the study and the predictions yielded by them in a slightly different light than many self described 'righties'.

 

[Foxfyre]

If someone says "Righties are bible-thumping social Nazis", or "Lefties are incapable of understanding macro economics", yeah, it's offensive. It's offensive because I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the left who're VERY capable when it comes to things like macro economics and I have a lot of friends both on this board and in the world who lean to the right who're not bible thumping social Nazis.

Lets just say I take offense to sweeping generalizations that insult EVERYONE on either side of the aisle. If a spade is a spade, call it a spade but if a writer doesn't KNOW all the shovels in the shed, a sweeping generalization like that just makes the writer look snobby and foolish while slinging childish political mud.

I know it is offensive to those on the left to be papered over with a generality just as it is offensive to those on the right. There is a fine line between "being offensive" and being uncivil however. I didn't think the line re macroeconomics was a sweeping generalization at all, certainly not in the same sense as the illustrations you used. In doing message boarding and teaching management courses for a long time now, I saw the sentence as accurate. Righties are not 'Bible thumbing social Nazis' and that is clearly intended as an insult. But if you said 'righties are not going to agree to increased taxes on the rich or keynesian spending projects' that is also generalizations that might not pertain to each and every 'rightie' but I would see it as an essentially accurate statement.

I would have phrased the macroeconomics line more diplomatically but I don't think it was intended as an insult but rather a statement of fact. Sort of like 'that outfit makes you look fat'.

The fact is, I honestly don't believe leftists do understand macroeconomics or there would not be many economic leftists.

The option on the poll choices taking away the ability of Congress and the President to use the people's money for any form of charity or targeted benefit speaks to that. And I seriously doubt any staunch economic leftist really understands why that is so important.

For that matter probably some on the Right don't see why that is important either, and might not ever agree with it, but if they were inclined to really think through the rationale, I think they would understand it. I honestly have attempted to teach the reasoning to staunch leftists who meant well, but they were unable to grasp the concept well enough to explain it.

'SOME lefties don't understand macro economics' is like 'that dress makes you look fat' because it singles out the particular fat girl like the designated lefties are singled out by the use of the qualifier 'some'.

Teaching right-brained reasoning to a leftist is like teaching most men to clean thoroughly. The smart ones will be able to dig what your saying and perform to proper standards if they want to continue getting laid, but relating to how thorough cleaning makes a woman feel is not going to happen. The beautiful goal of our system is to glean the best of all sides, something sweeping generalizations inhibit.

P.S. - I understand macro economics just fine, thank you very much, I simply see the results of the study and the predictions yielded by them in a slightly different light than many self described 'righties'.

Ah, but you see, 'that dress makes you look fat' does not always infer that the person wearing it is fat. It likely infers only that the dress is unflattering.

Saying that 'leftists don't understand macroecoomics' does not imply that the left is stupid or ignorant. It only implies that the left doesn't understand how their concepts, ideas, and proposals fit into the consequences that are outlined in macroeconomics.

And because I do understand macroecnomics, at least as much as most lay people do, I don't think our system should be looking to 'glean the best of all sides.' Some sides we don't want period. Easing people into economic slavery is only slightly less painful than shoving them brutally into it--think Obamacare or Cap & Trade--but the end result is economic slavery. Sometimes there is no side worth embracing.

Those who understand macroeconomics can look at such programs and see the dangers. Those who cannot--and that will more often than not will be the left--see only the positives and can ignore or blow off the negatives as 'worth it' for some vague altruistic concept they imagine.

That in a nutshell is what separates rightists from leftists in America.

The right accepts short term pain, even if it may include going against their own personal interests, in order to achieve a long term goal.

The left embraces short term comfort in trust that there will be no pain as a consequence for it.

The right wants to govern themselves.

The left wants a central power to govern everybody as the left wants it to govern.

Disclaimer: Statements here are rhetorical and do not imply there will be no exceptions within any group.