"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
They do the best they can with what they've got. Don't be so hard on them.
Depends what topic were talking about, when it comes to the job sector in particular I think they're very destructive. Obviously nobody has a problem with them regulating roads, bridges, etc. They try to exercise their power more than they should in most cases, IMO.
"It is a sad day in society when people adjust the facts to fit their beliefs, rather than adjust their beliefs to fit the facts."
I voted "No" accidentally.
"If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
> Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <
Well, I honestly do see government as the problem. I teach in a very poor mostly rural area. We've had an influx of very poor folk that are; irresponsible, mostly divorced, broken up, never married, and drug using, engaged in multiple criminal activities who rely on government checks as a base for continuing their lives. It's positively...........criminal. In my neighborhood, government is the problem.
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill
We seem to be entering a climate where all gov. regulations - be they federal or state regulations - are viewed as evil. I cannot agree with that stance. Of course, the Gov. can overstep its boundaries. Anytime it passes a law that is overkill or unnecessarily burdens a person's liberty, such a law is not proper. If the restriction on liberty is worse than the benefit the regulations provide, the law shouldn't exist. But this is basic due process analysis. Today it seems like people see due process as more of a flat prohibition on all Gov. interference with personal liberty. That's just ridiculous.
I'm in complete favor of giving individuals as much freedom as possible. But people are prone to cutting corners, and throwing others under the bus for temporary advantage, when given total freedom. I think it is more than appropriate for the Gov. to "solve" this problem through oversight and thoughtful regulations. A government that allows the majority to prey on the minority, that allows the powerful the freedom to use that power to take advantage of others, is worthless.
Last edited by Camer☑n; 02-08-11 at 06:08 PM.
This is one of those funny threads. It purports to be about "government" and if it is the problem. Without stating what the problem is. Reagan's comments were aimed at "the current crisis" but I'm not sure anyone in the thread is even aware what he was referring to. Reading through the thread and in particular at the author of the threads comments, it looks as clear as day to me that the real problem is this is just another bash Reagan thread. It certainly is not really about discussing the problems associated with government or too much of it or even government overspending. Just another anti Reagan thread trying to masquerade as an honest discussion about the topic of government. Maybe next time just be honest and label your thread what it is and engage on that topic.
Last edited by Zaserac; 02-08-11 at 06:28 PM.
Government has been more of a problem than a solution for a very long time.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.