• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cuccinelli says Christie should quit RGA

justabubba said:
then share with us a list of every GOP member who can WIN the white house in 2016

i bet there will be no name on that list other than christie (which will now require an asterisk)
Click to expand...

The last thing I read on possible candidates for the GOP came to a total of 38 viable possibilities.
 
vesper said:
Baloney, I am not betraying Reagan's legacy but those like you who compromise to the point you no longer stand for anything do.
Click to expand...

RWR compromised all the time. He had no need to compensate externally for internal feelings of inadequacy.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think it is nothing more than sour sniping from a man who was visibly snubbed by Christie. Christie stepping down from the RGA gives more fuel to whatever allegations are being made against him and weakens him as a future candidate. I don't want either of those things to come to pass but I could see why Cuccinelli might.
Click to expand...
If Cuccinelli was the only one calling for Christie to step down, you might have a point. Because Christie received big big bucks in his race from the RCA that was hardly challenged, the same organization, with Christie the head, refused to give Cucinelli the funds needed the last 6 weeks of his campaign that would have won the election. Instead Virginia is now in the hands of McAwful who will make sure whoever the Democrats choose as their candidate in 2016, Mc Awful will do everything in his power to be sure that state goes blue.
 
vesper said:
I too am an admirer of Reagan. And I do believe the big government lovers in the Republican party, Rockefeller Republicans (the blue blood elites) hated his guts.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone be an admirer of one of the worst Presidents in American history? A "big government lover" was Reagan - during his years in office government jobs increased by more than 1.2 million. Contrast that growth with the reduction of 700,000+ from 2009 to 2012. National debt more than doubled.


Since the early 90s, there has been a deliberate attempt to create the Reagan myth - it has been incredibly successful unfortunately.
 
Jack Hays said:
RWR compromised all the time. He had no need to compensate externally for internal feelings of inadequacy.
Click to expand...
He had no choice but to compromise for most of the time of his presidency as he had a Democrat majority in Congress. Which by the way kept him from achieving what he truly wanted. next!
 
justabubba said:
same challenge. name every GOP member who has a legitimate chance to win the white house in two years
Click to expand...

The problem most people and the media have is they focus on just a set number of names, the old tired, tried and blue names. But there are always those sitting on the side that no one has even thought of yet. Some you might want to keep an eye on are former Indiana Governor Daniels, current Indiana Governor Pence, Nevada Governor Sandoval and who knows what other names may emerge from either the Senate or the House. There still is 2 years to go before the Republican primaries begin in earnest. Who knows what events or happenings will take place between now and then. But as of 19 Jan 2014 here are the lastest polling results vs. Clinton.

Clinton 46 Christie 38
Clinton 49 Ryan 40
Clinton 49 Paul 39
Clinton 51 Rubio 38
Clinton 50 Cruz 35
Clinton 49 Bush 38
Clinton 48 Huckabee 42
 
Somerville said:
Why would anyone be an admirer of one of the worst Presidents in American history? A "big government lover" was Reagan - during his years in office government jobs increased by more than 1.2 million. Contrast that growth with the reduction of 700,000+ from 2009 to 2012. National debt more than doubled.


Since the early 90s, there has been a deliberate attempt to create the Reagan myth - it has been incredibly successful unfortunately.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no understanding what the man's ideology was and the Democrat Congress he had to deal with that thwarted much of what he wanted to achieve.
 
vesper said:
If Cuccinelli was the only one calling for Christie to step down, you might have a point. Because Christie received big big bucks in his race from the RCA that was hardly challenged, the same organization, with Christie the head, refused to give Cucinelli the funds needed the last 6 weeks of his campaign that would have won the election. Instead Virginia is now in the hands of McAwful who will make sure whoever the Democrats choose as their candidate in 2016, Mc Awful will do everything in his power to be sure that state goes blue.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen many people calling for Christie to step down. Certainly not among those of respectability and prestige, the people who dislike him will continue to dislike him but I don't see how it pays to strike down one of the GOP's rising stars who even if he didn't run could bank away millions for the GOP. Consequently I think this is why so few people would like to deliberately throw him under the bus when none of the allegations against him personally have been substantiated. If something solid comes along I think you'll see people start murmuring about that, until then it doesn't make sense to feed the controversy. Except if you have a bone to pick with him.
 
vesper said:
He had no choice but to compromise for most of the time of his presidency as he had a Democrat majority in Congress. Which by the way kept him from achieving what he truly wanted. next!
Click to expand...

The requirement to compromise was designed into our government by the founders. RWR got that. That's why he was great. You don't get it. That's why you are a failure vector.:peace
 
vesper said:
You obviously have no understanding what the man's ideology was and the Democrat Congress he had to deal with that thwarted much of what he wanted to achieve.
Click to expand...


and you obviously believe the mythology. What is a "Democrat Congress"? I know of a Democratic Congress. and seriously, you believe Congress "thwarted much of what he wanted to achieve"?
Pray tell - what exactly did they thwart?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The requirement to compromise was designed into our government by the founders. RWR got that. That's why he was great. You don't get it. That's why you are a failure vector.:peace
Click to expand...
Compromise yes, but not to the point you no longer can be distinguished between the left which is what the Republican elites have been about for decades. And you are one of them. You love big government as much as the left, you just think you can do it better. When a Republican reaches that point they have lost their soul.
 
Somerville said:
and you obviously believe the mythology. What is a "Democrat Congress"? I know of a Democratic Congress. and seriously, you believe Congress "thwarted much of what he wanted to achieve"?
Pray tell - what exactly did they thwart?
Click to expand...

For one thing he wanted to shut down the Department of Education and return the duties to the states.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think it is nothing more than sour sniping from a man who was visibly snubbed by Christie.
Click to expand...

Cooch might rethink his refusal to appear with Cruz on stage at his fund-raiser,
driving away Cruz voters to pass on the election or go to Sarver .
 
vesper said:
Compromise yes, but not to the point you no longer can be distinguished between the left which is what the Republican elites have been about for decades. And you are one of them. You love big government as much as the left, you just think you can do it better. When a Republican reaches that point they have lost their soul.
Click to expand...

In RWR's own words:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.


"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.


"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'


"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
 
Perotista said:
The problem most people and the media have is they focus on just a set number of names, the old tired, tried and blue names. But there are always those sitting on the side that no one has even thought of yet. Some you might want to keep an eye on are former Indiana Governor Daniels, current Indiana Governor Pence, Nevada Governor Sandoval and who knows what other names may emerge from either the Senate or the House. There still is 2 years to go before the Republican primaries begin in earnest. Who knows what events or happenings will take place between now and then. But as of 19 Jan 2014 here are the lastest polling results vs. Clinton.

Clinton 46 Christie 38
Clinton 49 Ryan 40
Clinton 49 Paul 39
Clinton 51 Rubio 38
Clinton 50 Cruz 35
Clinton 49 Bush 38
Clinton 48 Huckabee 42
Click to expand...

Is it assumed that there will be no challengers to Clinton--that she is a shoo-in, even though she has repeatedly stated that she is not interested? Why is that, Pero? If for health or some other reason she doesn't run, wouldn't that create a problem for the Dems to field some candidates, since everyone is currently concentrating on one person?
 
polgara said:
Is it assumed that there will be no challengers to Clinton--that she is a shoo-in, even though she has repeatedly stated that she is not interested? Why is that, Pero? If for health or some other reason she doesn't run, wouldn't that create a problem for the Dems to field some candidates, since everyone is currently concentrating on one person?
Click to expand...

Pol, I have never heard she wasn't interested. What I have heard is she hadn't made up her mind yet. But the same thing is happening on the Democratic side, the old tired, true and blue names are floated. Clinton, Biden, Warren, Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer. In all polls concerning the Democratic nomination Clinton is in the mid 60% range and everyone one else is in single digits except Biden which comes in at 10-11%. Hence the coronation of Hillary. But she was way ahead in 2007 and she lost in the 2008 primaries. I expect a fresh face.
 
Perotista said:
Pol, I have never heard she wasn't interested. What I have heard is she hadn't made up her mind yet. But the same thing is happening on the Democratic side, the old tired, true and blue names are floated. Clinton, Biden, Warren, Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer. In all polls concerning the Democratic nomination Clinton is in the mid 60% range and everyone one else is in single digits except Biden which comes in at 10-11%. Hence the coronation of Hillary. But she was way ahead in 2007 and she lost in the 2008 primaries. I expect a fresh face.
Click to expand...

I believe she stated that she wasn't interested, because she wanted to devote her time to advancing women's causes around the world. It is hard to believe, though, that one would not be interested in being President of the United States!
 
Jack Hays said:
In RWR's own words:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.


"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.


"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'


"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Click to expand...

Here are a few quotes for you to ponder.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Man is not free unless government is limited.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!


The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.

All of us should remember that the Federal Government is not some mysterious institution comprised of buildings, files, and paper. The people are the government. What we create we ought to be able to control.

We are learning that the way to prosperity is not more bureaucracy and redistribution of wealth but less government and more freedom for the entrepreneur and for the creativity of the individual.

The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them.

Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.

We are going to put an end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the federal government. The federal government exists to serve the American people.

Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted to it by we the people.

I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace.

The Founding Fathers established a nation under God, ruled not by arbitrary decrees of kings or the whims of entrenched elites but by the consent of the governed. Theirs was the vision of a striving, God-fearing, self-reliant people living in the sunlight of justice and breathing the bracing air of liberty.

We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation, crushing our ability and incentive to save, invest and produce. This must stop.

There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Our Founding Fathers devised a system of government unique in all the world – a federation of sovereign States, with as much law and decision-making authority as possible kept at the local level.

When we deprive people of what they have earned, or take away their jobs, we destroy their dignity and undermine their families.

Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer. It´s so hard for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of individuals working night and day to make their dreams come true. The fact is, bureaucracies are a problem around the world.

I think the best possible social program is a job.

The size of the Federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.

Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive, [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled.
The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself. … hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.
There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Republicans believe the best way to assure prosperity is to generate more jobs. The Democrats believe in more welfare.

I’m convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.

Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.

These quotes make it perfectly clear that Reagan was all about small government and that is something the Republican elites have strayed away from, including you.
 
vesper said:
Here are a few quotes for you to ponder.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Man is not free unless government is limited.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!


The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.

All of us should remember that the Federal Government is not some mysterious institution comprised of buildings, files, and paper. The people are the government. What we create we ought to be able to control.

We are learning that the way to prosperity is not more bureaucracy and redistribution of wealth but less government and more freedom for the entrepreneur and for the creativity of the individual.

The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them.

Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.

We are going to put an end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the federal government. The federal government exists to serve the American people.

Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted to it by we the people.

I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.

America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally and it is the world’s only hope to conquer poverty and preserve peace.

The Founding Fathers established a nation under God, ruled not by arbitrary decrees of kings or the whims of entrenched elites but by the consent of the governed. Theirs was the vision of a striving, God-fearing, self-reliant people living in the sunlight of justice and breathing the bracing air of liberty.

We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation, crushing our ability and incentive to save, invest and produce. This must stop.

There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Our Founding Fathers devised a system of government unique in all the world – a federation of sovereign States, with as much law and decision-making authority as possible kept at the local level.

When we deprive people of what they have earned, or take away their jobs, we destroy their dignity and undermine their families.

Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer. It´s so hard for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of individuals working night and day to make their dreams come true. The fact is, bureaucracies are a problem around the world.

I think the best possible social program is a job.

The size of the Federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.

Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive, [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled.
The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself. … hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.
There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

Republicans believe the best way to assure prosperity is to generate more jobs. The Democrats believe in more welfare.

I’m convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world.

Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.

These quotes make it perfectly clear that Reagan was all about small government and that is something the Republican elites have strayed away from, including you.
Click to expand...


It's a nice list, but you can't win a specific debate with a pile of irrelevancies, no matter how high the pile. Fact is that kamikazes like you are the people who betray RWR's legacy every day. Nominating a witch for Senate in Delaware and stupid candidates in Indiana and Missouri are only the screw-ups that come immediately to mind. The political obtuseness of folks like you has kept the Senate in Dem hands. Thank you for Obamacare.:peace
 
polgara said:
I believe she stated that she wasn't interested, because she wanted to devote her time to advancing women's causes around the world. It is hard to believe, though, that one would not be interested in being President of the United States!
Click to expand...

When I watched the news during supper they were talking about Hillary and who else might be interested. The news basically said all others are waiting for her to make up her mind about running or not before they, the other decide whether to throw their hat into the ring or not.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's a nice list, but you can't win a specific debate with a pile of irrelevancies, no matter how high the pile. Fact is that kamikazes like you are the people who betray RWR's legacy every day. Nominating a witch for Senate in Delaware and stupid candidates in Indiana and Missouri are only the screw-ups that come immediately to mind. The political obtuseness of folks like you has kept the Senate in Dem hands. Thank you for Obamacare.:peace
Click to expand...
What a load of crap but not surprising considering the source. You start off with quotes, I bury you in relevance and you come back with crap like that? You have pissed away the main objectives of what was once the Republican party in the name of compromise and now you have compromised to the point you stand for absolutely nothing. Certainly nothing Reagan advocated. It wasn't a couple of Senate seats that were lost that brought us Obamacare, it was people like you who have compromised to the point that folks don't see any difference in the major parties and decide to vote for the one that promises more freebies. Maybe it is time for you to grow a few principles.
 
vesper said:
What a load of crap but not surprising considering the source. You start off with quotes, I bury you in relevance and you come back with crap like that? You have pissed away the main objectives of what was once the Republican party in the name of compromise and now you have compromised to the point you stand for absolutely nothing. Certainly nothing Reagan advocated. It wasn't a couple of Senate seats that were lost that brought us Obamacare, it was people like you who have compromised to the point that folks don't see any difference in the major parties and decide to vote for the one that promises more freebies. Maybe it is time for you to grow a few principles.
Click to expand...

You found a list of RWR quotes, admirable but not relevant to this discussion. You mistake childish, self-defeating stubbornness for principles. From Edmund Burke to Benjamin Disraeli to Ronald Reagan, not one of the great conservative leaders had anything in common with your juvenile intransigence.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
You found a list of RWR quotes, admirable but not relevant to this discussion. You mistake childish, self-defeating stubbornness for principles. From Edmund Burke to Benjamin Disraeli to Ronald Reagan, not one of the great conservative leaders had anything in common with your juvenile intransigence.:peace
Click to expand...
Well you are really good at telling people they are irrelevant or absurd etc. etc. etc. and now we can include juvenile intransigence which amounts to personal attacks of those who disagree with the great and all knowing Jack Hays. <cough> If I were to post what I really think of you at this time it would get me banned. So let me just end this little conversation by stating I am more in line in my thinking with the Founders, Classic Liberals, and current Conservative thinkers than you would ever hope to be. They stood for something and so do I. You don't. Your ideology is so watered down due to compromising basic principles that you might as well join the Democrat party and be done with it.
 
vesper said:
Well you are really good at telling people they are irrelevant or absurd etc. etc. etc. and now we can include juvenile intransigence which amounts to personal attacks of those who disagree with the great and all knowing Jack Hays. <cough> If I were to post what I really think of you at this time it would get me banned. So let me just end this little conversation by stating I am more in line in my thinking with the Founders, Classic Liberals, and current Conservative thinkers than you would ever hope to be. They stood for something and so do I. You don't. Your ideology is so watered down due to compromising basic principles that you might as well join the Democrat party and be done with it.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what are my views and certainly no grounds to declare them watered down. You also seem to be an example of the truth of the saying that a little learning is a dangerous thing. I'm not sure who you would consider to be a current Conservative thinker (Krauthammer? Will? Kristol?) or Classic Liberal (Mill? Locke? Smith?) but I suspect I know them better than you. As for the Founders, it's apparent your ignorance is nearly boundless. I recommend you study more and declaim less.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
You have no idea what are my views and certainly no grounds to declare them watered down. You also seem to be an example of the truth of the saying that a little learning is a dangerous thing. I'm not sure who you would consider to be a current Conservative thinker (Krauthammer? Will? Kristol?) or Classic Liberal (Mill? Locke? Smith?) but I suspect I know them better than you. As for the Founders, it's apparent your ignorance is nearly boundless. I recommend you study more and declaim less.:peace
Click to expand...
I've read enough of the stuff you have posted on this forum to conclude you are indeed one with watered down principles in relation to what was once considered the basic principles of the Republican party.
I have dedicated much study to those who influenced the Founders. From Nicolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington , John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill. And by no means is that a complete list! If you assume you know more than me, then that alone is a sign of a man who assumes too much. To characterize me as a "dangerous thing" because of "little learning" would be words that could only be from a very arrogant, pompous person that most likely is due to his own shortcomings. Does the shoe fit?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom