...I think it has been a lot better than the Republican Party and at least the Democrats were founded by someone, for all his faults, knew that the govt could be used for special interests and corruption for the wealthiest. The Democrats still very much have that philosophy today, but they have become victims of Hamiltonian corruption themselves.
Don't get me wrong... I want the govt I live under to be abolished immediately and forever as much as Dr. Paul does... all for the good of civilization. However, I have more so realized that there is going to have to be some pain and I recently applied the Alcoholics Anonymous doctrine to it in that the most I can do is educate people (and not change them, because they have to decide on their own)... I've done a terrible job at it, but I'm regaining some confidence and I'm going to continue to try to get people thinking as much as I possibly can. I need to be more forgiving of people like George Washington even if he really did nothing good as President... when he wasn't President he did some good because he even said what JFK wanted to mean (that is, when Washington told the entitlement loving mob, "you will NOT do it" it was like ask "not what your country can do for you"; Washington, however, meant it more than JFK), even if Washington just didn't know what was best for civilization like Rothbard did. That said, Washington made a good decision to self-identify as an independent even though I like Jefferson better because I like Jefferson's policies and thought better.
Perhaps I shouldn't criticize because I could wind up being even more of a spineless idiot than I already am some day, but I can't and won't physically harm anyone (I'm going to fullfil my own prophecies)... I'm actually often fine with giving people a reason to be very annoyed with me for bitching about the welfare state/gov jobs while taking it myself (if I think the costs will very much outweigh the benefits, then I'll be glad to take more than most do). However, I can't and won't be sterilized (I'll die having self-fulfilled that prophecy also) and I can't and won't be grateful to govts or even anyone who supports the welfare state (another prophecy that I will self-fulfill forever).
All of that said, I feel like maybe even Obama can be more reasonable and I think maybe he does deserve a second chance compared to Romney... consider that Obama really didn't initially campaign on being as pro-state as Bush did. Consider that Republicans have almost always been worse than Democrats when it comes to spending and that we are suffering from Hamilton's curse... Hamilton was a Federalist Partyman, Clay was a Whig, and Lincoln was the first Republican Party President, those three men were each philosophical brothers of each other and there have been no Republican Presidents that were even known to be neutral towards nullification (I should note that Hitler was a Lincolnite, and that Hitler was very much a spirit of Lincoln). Cleveland may have been ambivalent towards nullification and Van Buren also, would not have gone as far as the Republicans did in keeping the artificial union together... it's a shame that Wilson had to hijack the "Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland" and then FDR had to permanently reinforce its hijacking towards Republican Party corruption and greed.
I do think he will go further into the war against Iran, but the majority of the subjects of the state of Israel don't want war. He would not cause a mass loss of life all on his own like Romney would and Romney would be even more fiscally liberal than Obama has been. I'd actually like to be Obama's treasury secretary more than I'd like to be Romney's because look at how the RNConvention of 2012 was totally scripted while the Democrats was not 100%... Romney has clearly made up his mind, Obama has not. Obama at least acknowledged that he wouldn't be able to get the deficit under control, but he did better than the Republicans would've done if left to their own devices... in fact, Obama built his own mistake because he should've said "if I increase the rate of public spending growth as much as Bush did, the I don't deserve to get re-elected". Obama is spineless because he has too many advisors that he didn't all ask for, while Romney must really like to surround himself with Bush era advisors (especially considering how bad his campaign has sucked). Obama is a very perceiving person and he is probably beginning to think that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature like many, many liberals are beginning to start thinking. The fact that the Republicans want govt to force inequality rather than to reduce the size of govt is what is going to kill them. The Federalists always wanted government imposed "social order" so it makes sense that their successor party has always been like that... which makes it a shame that the Austrian school of economics hadn't been thought of very much by then.
Try to discuss the above with me
Don't get me wrong... I want the govt I live under to be abolished immediately and forever as much as Dr. Paul does... all for the good of civilization. However, I have more so realized that there is going to have to be some pain and I recently applied the Alcoholics Anonymous doctrine to it in that the most I can do is educate people (and not change them, because they have to decide on their own)... I've done a terrible job at it, but I'm regaining some confidence and I'm going to continue to try to get people thinking as much as I possibly can. I need to be more forgiving of people like George Washington even if he really did nothing good as President... when he wasn't President he did some good because he even said what JFK wanted to mean (that is, when Washington told the entitlement loving mob, "you will NOT do it" it was like ask "not what your country can do for you"; Washington, however, meant it more than JFK), even if Washington just didn't know what was best for civilization like Rothbard did. That said, Washington made a good decision to self-identify as an independent even though I like Jefferson better because I like Jefferson's policies and thought better.
Perhaps I shouldn't criticize because I could wind up being even more of a spineless idiot than I already am some day, but I can't and won't physically harm anyone (I'm going to fullfil my own prophecies)... I'm actually often fine with giving people a reason to be very annoyed with me for bitching about the welfare state/gov jobs while taking it myself (if I think the costs will very much outweigh the benefits, then I'll be glad to take more than most do). However, I can't and won't be sterilized (I'll die having self-fulfilled that prophecy also) and I can't and won't be grateful to govts or even anyone who supports the welfare state (another prophecy that I will self-fulfill forever).
All of that said, I feel like maybe even Obama can be more reasonable and I think maybe he does deserve a second chance compared to Romney... consider that Obama really didn't initially campaign on being as pro-state as Bush did. Consider that Republicans have almost always been worse than Democrats when it comes to spending and that we are suffering from Hamilton's curse... Hamilton was a Federalist Partyman, Clay was a Whig, and Lincoln was the first Republican Party President, those three men were each philosophical brothers of each other and there have been no Republican Presidents that were even known to be neutral towards nullification (I should note that Hitler was a Lincolnite, and that Hitler was very much a spirit of Lincoln). Cleveland may have been ambivalent towards nullification and Van Buren also, would not have gone as far as the Republicans did in keeping the artificial union together... it's a shame that Wilson had to hijack the "Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland" and then FDR had to permanently reinforce its hijacking towards Republican Party corruption and greed.
I do think he will go further into the war against Iran, but the majority of the subjects of the state of Israel don't want war. He would not cause a mass loss of life all on his own like Romney would and Romney would be even more fiscally liberal than Obama has been. I'd actually like to be Obama's treasury secretary more than I'd like to be Romney's because look at how the RNConvention of 2012 was totally scripted while the Democrats was not 100%... Romney has clearly made up his mind, Obama has not. Obama at least acknowledged that he wouldn't be able to get the deficit under control, but he did better than the Republicans would've done if left to their own devices... in fact, Obama built his own mistake because he should've said "if I increase the rate of public spending growth as much as Bush did, the I don't deserve to get re-elected". Obama is spineless because he has too many advisors that he didn't all ask for, while Romney must really like to surround himself with Bush era advisors (especially considering how bad his campaign has sucked). Obama is a very perceiving person and he is probably beginning to think that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature like many, many liberals are beginning to start thinking. The fact that the Republicans want govt to force inequality rather than to reduce the size of govt is what is going to kill them. The Federalists always wanted government imposed "social order" so it makes sense that their successor party has always been like that... which makes it a shame that the Austrian school of economics hadn't been thought of very much by then.
Try to discuss the above with me
Facebook
Twitter